To be horrified with my friend and not really want to see her any more?

[Rosesarenotalwaysred]

My 'friend' is actually the wife of one of my dh's golf buddies and while we usually get on ok, we don't really have a lot in common and I find her a tad spoilt and selfish.

She has never been particularly hands on with her kids, opting to put her son in full time child care from an early age despite her not working because she didnt want to give up going to the gym etc, which i don't have a problem with, it's her life after all.

However she recently has a 'much wanted' second child and booked a holiday abroad for the four of them plus her PILs for a couple of months after the baby was born. When it came time for the holiday she decided it would be too much hassle to take an 8 wk old baby abroad and decided instead to leave him at home with her parents and went away for 2 weeks! I know it really is none of my business but I can't help but be utterly disgusted with her for caring so little about this poor little baby, I could understand if her and her hubby wanted a night away to themselves but to go on holiday and leave the baby for 2 whole weeks seems beyond the pale.

Rooney If you're going to quote articles and discuss attachment theory using scare tactics of "damaging the baby", it would help if you understood it a bit better. Bowlby's idea that a baby needs a mother has been discredited. A baby needs a caregiver and can make more than one attachment. In the article you quoted, it was discussing babies taken into foster care ergo babies who had suffered abuse or neglect and thus, had not formed secure attachments to begin with. If you have any peer reviewed studies of babies being separated for a short while from their primary caregiver than states their attachment has changed because of the short separation, I'd be interested to read it.

Not intended to be scare tactics. I am sorry if it came across that way. Will have a look for other sources.

this seems almost word for word the bit I quoted from the other source thus seeming to indicate I was right that it was about infants in general, not the ones the people that was aimed at. (badly treated possibly)

Interesting that this one mentioned 'after 5 or 6 months' though - I wonder if babies younger than that don't discriminate so easily and thus don't get so upset?

apple My mum suffered a bereavement several weeks before my birth, had a high risk pregnancy and thus, was in hospital and unable to go to her own father's funeral. She nearly died in childbirth and I was born with a serious condition and she was severely depressed. She went on holiday for 2 weeks when I was 4 months old. I stayed with my grandparents. I have a loving relationship with my mum and with my grandparents. She was at breaking point and wanted to walk out and leave everything behind and never come back. She said that holiday saved her. Therefore, it saved me because I had a mother in my life who was still severely depressed but had been given some time out of life for a short whole. She recovered from her depression and has been the most amazing mum to me. I will never look back and judge her for that decision.

study I don't have time to read it all so see what you think. sorry typing with one finger as ds3 on lap

crashdoll neither would I.

Roony I think you are very much misjudging what you have read and through lack of knowledge discrediting what you have yet to read. Attachment is not fixed and children can form many attachments so long as they ate stable, leaving such a small baby for two weeks will certainly not lead to attachment problems.

Attachment is complex and in a constant state of flux and flow between child and mother or mother figures. It is a nonsense to say the need for mother has been discredited. Of course children can and do thrive with a mother figure or even several mother figure. However, there is no substitute for mother. The first year is pivotal in the development of an attachment style for life and the first relationship with mother defines that, whether she is there or not. A small baby does not know she will come back and will grieve simple. There are cases where a baby can thrive better with a mother figure if mother is too sick to care for baby's emotional needs. There is a world of difference between this and a mother who buggers off on a nice holiday.

I totally agree appletarts, two weeks in such a small baby to be without its mother is not ideal, but I don't think any lasting difficulties would occur as a result.

I didn't say it would Mrs Sham. I said that there will probably be damage to the relationship, which may or may not be temporary. IMO of course.

anyway what is stable about going away for two weeks when the child is 8 weeks old?

Consistency is really important is it not? Whoever the attachment figure is and I didn't say it had to be the mother, though I am sure that helps as child is so familiar with her.

This thread really has descended into a bit of nonsense. A baby's first attachment is to its mother, whether she is there or not, it does have to be the mother unless of course baby is grown in a jam jar!! If mother is not there then baby will attach to whoever is, this doesn't ever replace the attachment with the mother it becomes a place where the attachment and loss of the mother can be worked through, sometimes successfully (baby goes onto form secure attachments as an adult) or not successfully (baby goes onto have disorganised attachments as an adult), usually pitched somewhere between the two. There is no substitute for a mother and there is no relationship like it. Surely we all agree with that by virtue of having our own kids.

No, I'd say whoever had the baby from birth and loved and looked after it, is the primary carer - it doesn't have to be the mother and I'm assuming your talking birth mother here. Yes, the child might have issues later on coming to terms with the absence of a mother but as a baby as long as they have a constant loving person caring for them the it shouldn't matter.

I was reading up on this while looking into adoption. I can't remember much but it said that the prospective adoptive parents would spend as much time with the baby as possible during the weeks leading up to the handover. So that the baby wasn't being given to people it didn't already have a small attachment to.

I'd just like to say, to those of you who have been nice to me- thankyou, and I will enjoy my break. To those of you who have not- as I stated in my first post, this holiday is not being taken on a whim. Dh and I have had endless discussions over whether we can leave dd2 behind (and bearing in mind she will be 5 months old, not 8 weeks and I never said I would leave her that young since I wouldn't) and are still a little unsure (note- both of us, I don't see how I am a "terrible" mother and he is not mentioned?) but we NEED this break. Ds (5) is autistic, and looking after him alone is exhausting, not counting the girls. I also have significant health issues that cause exhaustion and pain, and having some sunshine and a bit of respite will improve my children's lives, as they will come home to a well rested mummy. I am not going for a jaunt getting pissed all the time, I am going to meet my husband's foreign family and get some well needed rest. I may have the odd glass of wine while away of course, but tell me some of you don't do that at home? I spend every waking minute looking after my children, I am a devoted parent, but having a child with additional needs is not a bloody picnic. I would love for my boy to have a normal life and not need 24 hour care. I would love for him to be able to go to parties, and play at the park with other children without having a meltdown because there are too many people. You say I shouldn't have kids because I need a bloody break? Fuck off. I would give ANYTHING for my children. I don't go out, I don't get to have coffees with friends, I don't get to the gym, I don't do anything without them. They (the older 2) go to their grannie's house for a night about once a month so that I can catch up with household stuff. But if I don't get away from them for a short while soon I will crack, because I am fucking exhausted and this holiday is a chance for me to chill out before I end up depressed and in hospital because my health gets the better of me. So excuse me if I am being a shit mum because I am taking some time off. Maybe you'd like my disabled child and my health issues then so I can stay home, because believe me if I didn't need a break, I wouldn't be leaving my baby for a holiday. The difference is, I wouldn't be a judgemental gobshite about someone who did.

KFC maybe you could look at getting more support on a regular basis so you don't get to the point where it is run for the hills or burnout and I mean that in the kindest sense. I'm not commenting on your situation.

kentucky
Your situation is totally different to the Ops friend.

1. Her baby is 8 weeks old - virtually brand new.
2. She has a history of palming of her older Dc off in full time childcare so that she can go to the gym.
3. There will be 4 adults on the holiday so even if she took the baby she could still have a rest/babysitters.

I would say that most of us who have been vocal in our disapproval have said that she is being unreasonable given the circumstances that we have been told about.

You sound completely different. You NEED this break as opposed to WANTING it. Two completely different cases. Your baby will benefit from you having a break. There is no way it can be good for the friends baby unless there is a lot more to the story that we don't know about.

Enjoy your holiday

Hiya, KFC. I hadn't seen your posts - I was commenting in a general sense.

But I can see exactly why you NEED to go away. I am behind you on it.

IIRC the OP's friend didn't - as far as she knew - have any of those sorts of issues going on. That to me makes a heck of a big difference.

Hope I've not said anythign to make you feel you're wrongt o go, as I think you're perfectly justified.

I do have plenty support in the from of friends and family, thankyou Sadly the professional help that is available is shockingly bad, and nowhere near enough. The services for autistic children in my area are limited, but my healthcare is at its optimum. My point is that I did not ask to be ill, my son is not disabled because we want him to be. I became ill after having my second child, and my third was a surprise since after dd1 I was told I was very unlikely to conceive again, and so she is precious and I was never going to terminate. My husband works very hard, has 2 jobs and does his share at home too, he is incredible. We both need a break. I didn't mean to come across as so angry, but telling me I'm a terrible person for needing a holiday is fucking horrible. I didn't see your comments, they were deleted before I could get the chance, but I can guess from other's reactions that you were not exactly kind. I would love to take her with me, but the point is to have a rest and we wouldn't get much rest with a baby there in a hot country. We are going away because if I stay at home while the children are at my ils, I will find it hard not to spend all my time catching up on housework etc, when really I need to rest. My middle child will be starting school soon and so in a few months I will be able to get more time to breathe, and dh is looking into selling up and getting a 9-5 so he can be around in a more regular sense, but for now a holiday will do us the world of good

Appletarts - did you not comment on KFC's issues the other day, the one that got deleted?

I don't believe my comment was deleted. I pointed out that her baby woudln't be having a good time while she was away having a good time. KFCs initial post didn't even allude to her full situation and was read as supporting ops friend in a similar situation. Turns out KFCs situation is not similar. However Begonia I'm not getting drawn in on this one, sounds like KFC is vulnerable.

Bollocks apple yoy made a horrible comment that i and numerous others commented on and it was perfectly clear from kfc post that she needed the break. She shouldnt have to come back on here and feel the need to explain and defend herself.

kfc as i said before have a lovely time and i hope it does you the world of good xxx

appletarts You are wrong about the baby's first attachment to its mother. It has been widely discredited. Read Schofield and Beek or David Howe's work on attachment theory. Unless you have peer reviewed academia to prove your point, I will continue to disagree with you because you are categorically wrong. Did you study attachment theory at degree level by any chance or have any direct talks from attachment theory specialists?

This is what happens when people appoint themselves the experts to judge and decide how others should parent, according to their own methods. They make assumptions, get it way wrong, and cause heartache.

Unless you are actively asked for your opinion, or there is suspected neglect or abuse at play...stay the fuck out of it, please!

I looked after my 3week old niece for 2 weeks while her mother went overseas. My brother working long hours though he did night feed.
I loved it. She was utterly gorgeous and I remember it as a very special time. She is now 18, a super-achiever in every measurable way. Family relationships v good. I don't recall anyone being horrified or disgusted, I think we had higher calibre friends.