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

[fabergeegg]

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.

Kobayashi - yes, you're right. I haven't seen the abstract, though. But you would still be right if you were talking about the article, to be honest.

Provided that we bore in mind we had an imperfect account of the research, discussing is completely OK. More than OK. It's depressing to think that a. discussion is banned and b. some kinds of research should not be discussed.

I'm leaving this thread, now. Personally, for me, it went just wrong when posters started angrily interrogating edam as to her "Agenda".

Ffs, edam has been here so long, and anyone who has ever encountered her will know her "agenda" is to being inquisitive, interested, and humane.

I was, and still am, depressed that that is, apparently, impermissible on mn these days.

Well said, Penelope.

All this outrage because some researchers did some research. And massive jumping to conclusions by the outraged.

Someone asked what 'my agenda' is. I don't have one. I just saw a report of the research and thought, ooh, that sounds interesting, esp. in the light of threads I've seen on here about non-resident parents or grandparents wanting overnight visits with babies.

And yeah, it was Pubmed I was thinking of - heat really is doing my head in.

The Journal of Marriage and Family has been around since the 1930s, the title is old fashioned. Doesn't mean there's a problem with the journal.

Worra etc, seriously, do you have to?

No, I just actually want to

And that's because imo (which the last time I checked, I'm allowed to have) I think it's a pile of bollocks.

HTH

That was to froggiebabies btw.

Just a point Kobayashi - I was taught by my supervisor never to cite or pontificate on papers - even if I'd read the abstract - without reading the whole paper. I know obviously abstracts give the summary but if the methodology or data handling is debatable then you can only pick that up by reading the whole thing.

ThirtyLove It doesn't appear to say that. Merely that the child is more likely to have ''attachment issues'' - whatever they are. Although the majority of children in this situation that were studied did not suffer from these issues.

Hope in five pages I have not missed something and you are now arguing about pink blancmange. I have not read the whole thread...will do so now...

Having not read the study I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't say "if you spend one single night away your baby will be DOOMED, DOOMED you hear!" Babies are resilient things and of course can survive and thrive even when they do spend time away, studies like this are just trying to figure out the ideal, what is "best" (all other things considered).

I don't think the OP was trying to beat people who do have to/choose to leave their babies, I think she was saying "look, if you don't want to do this, you now have something to wave at the MIL/Aunt Milly" science has your back in other words.

They really need to change that title then attheendoftheday!

I've managed to get the full paper, reading it now.

Salmo - that is in a specific context, though, isn't it?

Expand that into a wider context and suddenly you have an axiom that is essentially a little undemocratic: only those who have the training, and the access, to read the original data and analysis have the right to discuss something.

I would argue that that can't be enforce rigidly and needs an awareness of time and space: what sort of discussion, taking place when and where. "Discussion", the rules obtaining to it; and even its relations to truth (for example how much truthful information is available in some discussions - it is plausible that some discussions will be truth-quests: oriented towards truthful information, but necessarily possessing less than those obtaining elsewhere), change in different places, and amongst different people.

"I think it's a pile of bollocks."

Really? Based on what exactly? Have you read it? What's the problem with the evidence they present?

I think it's important and needs further research to back it up/refute it.

I also think, from what little I know about it, that it's going to depend very much on individual circumstances. Just as one child can be in a variety of settings, with a variety of caregivers, and have strong, healthy attachments to all of them, another child could have one primary carer only with whom they have a very poor attachment.

I think it's very relevant in cases of separating parents where abuse is involved. Due to the nature of abuse, the victim's attachment to a child can sometimes be actively prevented or just inadvertently damaged. To then forcibly remove the child for an extra night or two a week could really compound things at a time when the primary carer should be repairing the bond with the child as much as possible.

In cases where separating parents both have a strong bond with their child, I couldn't see it being a problem, nor could I see it being a problem when parents work and a child is in childcare, provided that the attachment with parents and childcare providers is strong.

I really am going.

(Salmotrutta - I posted that purely because I think it's interesting. I've noticed people often talk about discussion and censorship as though talk, discussion, etc. are the same thing, everywhere, and it has occurred to me over the years that, actually, different rules - and even words - obtain to discussion - amongst different people; at different times; in different locations. eg. gossip, conversation, chat, discussion. There seem to be different rules governing these, but a degree of blurring, too.

Obviously, I think of it a lot at the moment given that people are now being prosecuted for things they "chat" about on the internet .

I wonder how this applies to my DSS? His mother left with OM when he was 2 months old. Should DH have refused her overnights with DSS until he was 2?

I'm not saying no one can ever discuss findings thecat , I just don't like pontificating on supposed findings unless I feel I have had access to the whole picture.

Or as much of the picture as possible - I hate to think of parents getting guilt-ridden by yet another study that someone has helpfully highlighted (without having read it).

Ridiculous to dismiss the article based on the name of the journal (which refers to the study, rather than the endorsement, of marriage and family) and some unfounded suggestions that the research is shit. The abstract states that there is no measurable difference after age five anyway, which is hardly giving women a reason to feel bad. It's basically saying, don't worry too much, by the time they're five you won't be able to tell whether they spent nights away or not.

there is a lot not to like in it, methodologically speaking. not least they are using, as a measure of attachment, a scale designed to be administered by trained professionals, but giving it to mothers to use themselves, while stating that the only 2.6% of these mothers have a college degree, the largest section of them having no formal qualifications of any kind.
Also the numbers are large for the study as a whole but the subgroups used for the conclusions are tiny.
I'm not impressed. It's well written, but I can't see the value in some of the conclusions drawn, and there is evidence of non reported bias in the summing up.

When you get a quote for motor insurance you answer various questions about age, area, use, profession. Each answer has a value +4 points for being 26 yrs old, - 3 points for having a garage +20 points for having a sports car etc.

The journey between zygote and fully-formed adult is a bit like that but 1 gazillion times more complicated.

Even if overnight stays away from the primary caregiver of weekly or more often are a -2 then other options available might be -5 and there will be other gains and losses in other areas whatever your parenting arrangement is.

thats all true, but it doesn't mean you can't analyse correlations statistically to make sense of all those confounding factors.

That link witters on about 'attachment' but doesn't define it or say how it was measured. One parent's 'attachment' could be another's 'clingy'.

It doesn't say, but implies the children lived with mum and had overnight stays at dad's place. So it could be the wallpaper at mums that they like better, nothing to do with being with mum.

The Journal of Marriage and Family (where the paper quoted in the report was actually published) sounds like some right wing religious journal funded by bible thumpers.

They are basically The National Council For Family Relations, which came down heavily in favour of marriage for gay couples becuase it favoured the outcomes of the children of a gay union, and produced a fact sheet to the same end. (I can only find quoted extracts, think it was published in the early naughties) So not sure it can be assumed they are a right wing religious bunch of bible thumpers. They might be. But then again, their editor in chief is at the uni. of Austin in Texas, Austin having a rep. as a liberal oasis in the bible belt.

The study may well be deeply flawed, hard to tell when all you have is the abstract, but the assumed inherant religious bias may not be well founded.

How depressing that so many of you can't even trust your husband/partner to look after your own child. :( That must be very difficult for you.

The problem is, people are so defensive in here that they refuse to see that the best thing for a baby is to be with their mummy - not left overnight elsewhere. This applies to being in nursery. However much some people want to protest, nursery for hours upon end a day is not the right place for a baby.

That link is just a report about the research paper - and The Journal of Marriage and Family? Seriously? I wonder how high that scores on the citation index

Family Relations is abstracted and indexed in, among others, EBSCO databases.[3] According to the Journal Citation Reports, the journal has a 2010 impact factor of 1.216, ranking it 18th of 40 in the category "Family Studies"[4] and 8th of 39 in the category of "Social Work".[5]

How do they score ? I can't tell not being in the know. Is that good or bad ?