Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Findings suggest baby spending overnights away from mum CAN be harmful...

190 replies

fabergeegg · 22/07/2013 21:19

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130719083611.htm

Not strictly an AIBU but relevant to many threads on this board. What a relief for so many of us to have evidence that we're not being selfish when resisting overnight custody arrangements for our tiny offspring - or even overnights with grandparents on their own for that matter.

OP posts:
KobayashiMaru · 22/07/2013 22:33

how is it a strange comparison to WOHM issues? If its detrimental to my child to stay one night a week with another parent, grandparent, etc, surely it is detrimental if I work at night? Or, indeed, since infants can't really tell the difference between night and day, if I work during the day?

not that it does mean that, since the conclusions are clearly bonkers. If (and its a big if) the children mentioned are less securely attached to their mothers (which is not easy to determine anyway) there are a hundred other reasons this may be so.

PenelopePipPop · 22/07/2013 22:37

If your evaluation of whether a journal is reputable is citation index then the Journal of Marriage and the Family has a very high citation index (1/38 for family studies, 7/137 for sociology). Personally I think citation indices are bollocks so I'd ignore that. I'm not sure how you measure whether a journal is rightwing or not but there is nothing obvious that suggests this particular one is.

The researchers of this article were trying to answer a specific question - do we know if spending overnight time away from the resident parent when a child is very young is likely to harm children's outcomes in the longer term. This is important because very young children are more likely than older children to be living in one parent households and spending time with another caregiver and both parents and sometimes the courts need to consider what arrangements will be in that childs interests. Interestingly the question has not been studied much although plenty of people hold opinions on it.

So they looked at data from a large population based dataset which looked at families with a significant incidence of relationship break-up in the US. And they found there was a small but statistically significant relationship between children under 1 spending more than 1 night a week with a non-resident parent and adjustment problems (read behaviour issues) between 3 and 5. There was also an effect when children aged between 1 and 3 spent more than 1 night a week away from home but this was much much smaller. Interestingly the effect tapered off after age 5 anyway.

Their findings have no application to children who simply do not see their mother at night because she is working or away from home for any other reason. Children who live in a two parent houshold with secure attachments to both resident parents belong to a different demographic to those whose outcomes were followed up in this study.

The kind of residence arrangement they describe is extremely rare in the UK (though common in Australia where shared residence is favoured) so it would be unusual to see children in this situation here. And I would strongly suspect that the findings might be culturally specific. Since the effect is small the best that can be said is that more research is needed.

But is is incredibly unfair on the researchers to accuse them of a rightwing, mother-bashing agenda simply because they wanted to find out what kind of residence arrangements support children's attachments to their caregivers best.

LookMaw · 22/07/2013 22:39

Ah well she already comes with me on my drug runs anyways, afterall I was cared for overnight by my ethnic minority grandparent so didn't really stand a chance!

Ironically I did my dissertation on Bowlby & Ainsworth's attachment theory. I have been so blind Sad.

MoominsYonisAreScary · 22/07/2013 22:39

Ds1 was around 8 months when he started staying weekends with his dad, poor kid teenage parents who split when he was young and away from his primary caregiver 2 nights a week. I'm surprised at 18 he has turned out to be such a happy secure loving hardworking member of society.

Ds3 was prem so in nicu for a while, then at 6 months old he had to stay with his gm while I was in hospital for nearly 2 weeks, he didn't know her very well either! Maybe I should start worrying now.

Xmasbaby11 · 22/07/2013 22:40

I never left DD overnight in the first year, even though she slept through. I didn't leave her much at all for 6 months but then I had to go back to work at 8 months. Because I was away from her so much, I didn't want to be apart from her at the weekend and certainly not overnight. I think it is an instinct to be close to them even when asleep, unless you have reason not to. But I think parents have to do what works for them as a family - eg some mothers desperately need a good night's sleep or need to work. Needs must!

WorraLiberty · 22/07/2013 22:41

Well no MalcolmTuckersMum

That'll be cos you're a scrubber...not your Mum's fault at all Grin

Sheshelob · 22/07/2013 22:44

You are a lost cause, Look.

Perhaps our children could start an international crime syndicate together? Or is that too high brow for our children? Perhaps they could just steal cables off train lines?

threefeethighandrising · 22/07/2013 22:45

"Seriously, people, is it possible to discuss something, without immediately adopting an inflexible pro- or anti- position?"

^^This

nickymanchester · 22/07/2013 22:46

Reading the link, this result only applies to babies under 12 months old that spend at least one night a week overnight with the NRP.

In reality - in this country as least - how often does that happen with children that young?

miffybun73 · 22/07/2013 22:48

Was a survey really needed, the results are hardly a surprise are they ? Confused

Salmotrutta · 22/07/2013 22:50

Well now Penelope since I can't access the full article I can't really judge the full picture.

Which was part of my point.

I never accused the researchers of being right wing I don't think?

I did suggest the journal might be - sounds very 1950s and that is my opinion. Which I am allowed to have.

attheendoftheday · 22/07/2013 22:54

OP, I think you've been quite reasonable and are getting a hard time.

The Journal of Marriage and Family was stocked in our Uni library, so I think it's a legit journal.

Penelope gives an excellent break down of the study. There's nothing in it about slating WOHM mothers, nor have I seen the OP trying to do so.

thecatfromjapan · 22/07/2013 22:55

Everyone who has said that it is impossible to discuss this without access to the original paper is absolutely correct. It is.

It is possible that this paper is only about the effect of babies under one year moving from home to home in less than ideal domestic situations: where poverty, parental animosity, domestic instability are issues.

That is a very specific set of circumstances.

Hard to extrapolate from the above to SAHM/WOHM debate.

Without the actual report to look at, absolutely impossible to say if that what the report is looking at. But reading between the lines of the article linked to by the OP, it seems that that, and only that, is what the report was looking at.

Seriously, it does us no favours to link from unstable domestic situations to stable childcare set-ups, or even stable domestic set-ups. Why people are doing this is beyond me.

froggiebabies · 22/07/2013 22:58

There are journals related to every area of study - not just science. Just because it isn't a medical journal doesn't automatically mean it is dodgy right wing stuff!

I don't know anything about the journal quoted but sociology is a genuine field of study and I imagine family and marriage are huge areas.

thecatfromjapan · 22/07/2013 23:02

Ah. I had internet problems.

Penelope has said anything I might have said a great deal better.

KobayashiMaru · 22/07/2013 23:02

you can discuss a paper from the abstract. Thats the entire point of an abstract, a short summing up of all the relevant points. You might not be able to discuss it in depth, but you can of course discuss it.

threefeethighandrising · 22/07/2013 23:02

Worra etc, seriously, do you have to?

A study has come out which may have something evidence-based to say about children's development. As a mother I'm interested.

But you write as if you think scientists sit about thinking up ways to make mothers feel guilty. You cannot be so dense as to really believe that, surely? So why the piss taking?

What do you expect them to do if they find a result which shows something may harm DCs? Not publish because it might make mums feel pressured? (That'd be a genuine conspiracy!)

AllEyeEatIsCake · 22/07/2013 23:04

Love it Spotscotch Grin

KobayashiMaru · 22/07/2013 23:05

and the OP says "what a relief to have evidence....custody and grandparents" etc.

  1. a single study is not evidence of anything
  2. it is relating to one tiny section of one very small demographic that is in no way comparitive to the likely Mn demographic
  3. OP hasn't actually read the study itself anyway.

So, yes, it warrants pointing out how bogus OP's thread is. This naturally can lead to opinions on the reporting of said study.

hobnobsaremyfavourite · 22/07/2013 23:07

well said kobayashi

thecatfromjapan · 22/07/2013 23:07

It really is interesting reading this thread, though.

There is an inference of the WOHM thing at the start, and then people start piling in, until the original point of the OP, and the article, are completely buried under the straw man.

It's kind of a classic example of it.

I know lots of people research communication on the internet, and this thread is just begging to be included as a classic example of quite a common occurrence.

All it needed was for a Poster to state: "Speaking as a someone who works professionally in the field of statistical research, I think this utterly demonises working mothers, spuriously" and it would have been a perfectly crazy thread. Grin

Flojobunny · 22/07/2013 23:08

Journal of family and marriage? Then surely its biased and is looking for proof that custody arrangements don't work?

KobayashiMaru · 22/07/2013 23:09

not necessarily, the journal covers all kinds of family, non-traditional as well, and the paper is merely published in that journal, not the product of it.

Salmotrutta · 22/07/2013 23:09

Where did anyone say that just because it wasn't medical it must be dodgy?

And I think we do know that there all areas of study have journals.

I'm just a bit Hmm about a journal that is called The Journal of Marriage and Family. It just gives a certain impression to me. I'm not speaking for anyone else.

... and I repeat, I can't access the paper so I will withhold my opinion of the results.

ThirtyLove · 22/07/2013 23:10

My DD is 6wo and hasn't spent a night with me for the past 5.5 weeks (she's in hospital ICU).
It's depressing to have it suggested that she will be emotionally damaged from this as well as all her other problems...

Swipe left for the next trending thread