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.

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.

I wasn't aware that had been proven conclusively, but even if it has it has to wieghed against other factors where the PC is availble round the clock, and suffers the consequences of that. Poverty being a known kicker for children.

Everything is relative. We cannot as individuals create prefection for our children. Becuase we are flawed humans leading lives plagued with issues beyond our control. All we can do is minimise the worst possible outcomes where we can, which sometimes means picking the lesser of 2 evils.

Precious few of us will ever be in a postiion to select "absolute best" for everything. Life doesn't allow for that. That doesn't mean high quality studies that point to better putcones are useless and to be avoided, becuase within the results we ooght to be able to do extention work to determine which specific facotors mitigate risk and evaluate on balance how much importance ought to be awared to them. For example, if a NR parent does not have overnight visits does this decimate the chances of the adult forming an attachment, does this impact the longevity and durability of the child/NR parent relationship, and if so what are the measurable downsides for that on both an indiviudal and population sized basis ?

Ditto the implcations for both women and children where women being placed at an econmic disadvantage by non working during early childhood creating a dependance and a power imbablace with their working co-parent.

If not placed in the context of the range of connected issues it is pretty meaningless and is reduced to a stick to hit people with because somebody feels they are right and wants to have a bit of a cherry pick in order to score points.

Like Hobnobs I too worked night shift. I had to return to work 3 nights a week when ds's 1&2 were 14 weeks. I worked night shift so I could be at home with them during the day when they were, ummmm, awake. I'm not convinced that they were aware of my absence whilst they were sleeping.

At 17 and almost 16 they still seem to be quite well attached to me. (Perhaps this is the problem and they should be champing at the bit to leave home).

Ds3 is screwed. He spent his first week in SCBU. At least with the changes in maternity leave I was able to take 10 months off! I have always thought 2 years paid maternity leave would better.

I very much doubt this personally. Its dowb to parebting whether a child is confident and secure.

I too left my 4 and 5 month old bf babies with their Dad overnight to work. I don't think that is what this study is looking at. They were in their own cot, in a familiar environment with a resident parent. I fail to see how that is equivalent to a shared custody arrangement with a nrp.

As for babies need to be with their mummies, well if you make sure that that is their only secure attachment then yes. But humans are adaptable and babies are capable offforming multiple secure attachment s as long as they are cared for by one of them, I think the evidence is they do fine.

OP Why do you need evidence to support your position that you are not being selfish by preventing your baby/young DC from receiving primary care from both parents?

If you believe that is the case, then your conscience will be clear, no matter what others say, won't it?

This is a very interesting debate with some great points made. I am hopefully not repeating what others have said with a couple of observations:

1, Researchers always face a lambasting when they publish a paper on a contentious subject, they will always offend some sector of society, that is the nature of their role. They dont do it deliberately, they do it to contribute in some small way to the bank of human knowledge.

2, i beg to differ with the poster who says that "this study doesnt say anything". Yes it does! The whole point is that all research invites further research, it contributes a tiny morsel, in the grand scheme but it does say something. peer review ensures it has academic merit. There is invariably a section in academic papers which addresses limitations, future work, gaps. Research is all about the point of entry and departure so that other academics can pick up the batton. So Ainsworth's Strange Situation had the same lambasting in the 70s as MNner are giving these researchers, "its prejudicial, it vilifies mothers, it is culturally biased!! Etc". So what happened next? Yup other researchers picked up the batton and raplicated the Strange situation study in Germany, Japan, Sweden and got different results - that is what researchers do, they spend their lives proving, disproving etc. it doesnt make the research Rubbish!!!

1. Why do people have to blame research on making themselves feel bad?? If you are doing your best for your child, it should not matter what research says, your child will feel loved, cared about and will grow up secure and confident. That makes you a wonderful mother, not a crap one! Why did John Bowlby create his theory of Attachment? Yup he had an axe to grind, he had a crap childhood with no maternal love! So one could argue his results were biased, he was just trying to prove his own hypothesis that babies need maternal love. But far from being discredited, his theory has endured for decades. Yes, researchers with the opposing viewpoint to Bowlby slagged him off but that is academic research. The issues of "socially sensitive research" will always stir up a hornets nest, but the papers are still needed.

1. Anyone who has done research will know how bloody difficult it is to get participants, it takes bllod sweat and tears. This means that for a research effort to get of the ground, you have to narrow your focus to very tiny (relatively speaking) sectors of society, publish your research, probably get a right bollocking for being too narrow, then another research team will replicate your study on a different sector, use other participants, and so on, ad nauseam ubtil you have a huge body of knowledge.... Maybe in 10,000 years we will have a fuller picture, but for now its all we have!

I love MNers, some very keen and talented minds out there!

I think I would actually go further and say that to form an exclusive mutually dependent bond with your dcs does them no favours what so ever.

IME the dcs which are used to being left with a limited range of caring adults are more resilient and able to cope with change. If only mummy will do WTF happens when inevitability Mummy has to be somewhere else. I think in these situations the birth of a second child can become unnecessarily traumatic for all concerned.

Knowing that I would return to work I actively sought out opportunities to leave Ds for short periods whilst on maternity leave, so we could both get used to it. Nothing magically happens to these dcs at 12m or 2 or 4 which means having never been left they suddenly are able to cope with it.

I have a friend who SAH her dcs are 3&6 she still can't leave them, even with her dp ! I do not consider that we'll adjusted.

Ahhh another big stick to beat women with. Lovely.
Clearly we should all quit work before getting pregnant, never ever work, or in fact leave the house alone again until all our children hit 18.
Because, obviously, dads or grandparents are just not capable of keeping out precious offspring from turning into damaged depraved serial killers....

Great, as if I wasn't feeling guilty enough about not seeing my DD for two night a week, thanks for that.

I love the fact that one of the chief objections on this thread to this research is that the findings might hurt the feelings of adult caregivers.

As if the feelings of adult caregivers should be of prime consideration when assessing the value of research into the health and development of babies and children.

I don't believe this at all, I just cannot see how anyone can actually prove these findings!

My DCs have not slept away a night a week but did sleep out reguarly from a few months old and actually are probably 2 of the most well adjusted, secure children in our group of friends. Obviously they were not shipped off at a week old or anything but generally from 4 months. I also stayed at GPs house 2 nights a week and anyone who knows me would never consider it has done me any harm.

The children who are the most insecure appear to be those who have never spent any time away from their primary care giver from my experiences. I have friends who cannot go on a night out until after the DCs are in bed (age approx 9 yrs) as they will not even settle in bed for the dads. This is surely not healthy and normal?

This sort of thing makes me so cross, I can't stand hearing all the smugness around topics like this!

Presumably, if this research supports a separated mothers right to withhold overnight contact, it would also support the fathers right to prevent that mother leaving their DC in the regular overnight care of another family member?

Oh yes, I also forgot how DS1 spent a week in neonatal and I was only allowed to pick him up to be fed but he actually seems fine amazingly

Oh come on, everyone. It's obvious that the OP wasn't thinking anything but "Yippee- here's a weapon in the constant war to keep MILs in their place"!

I agree that it is down to parenting regarding how secure the children are.

I have seen it in the nursery I worked out - mums actually saying to children, well aren't you going to cry then mummy is going is not actually going to help a child, those who say a cheery goodbye with a kiss tend to have more secure children who settle much quicker - it is not actually rocket science!

curlew Well then OP is pretty naive because it's obvious this would upset mothers who have no choice but to spend nights away from their babies.

I expect that whoever did this research knew their stuff, and that whatever conclusions were reached are at least worth considering.

However. I also feel that anybody having a baby in Western Europe today is raising the most privileged and lucky demographic of all time. Every little detail that causes controversy on here (bf, nursery, attachment, weaning etc) is just that - tiny detail. We all have very lucky children, and everything else is window dressing.

By definition, we are loving and caring parents on here, and that's 99% of the parenting equation.

Of course we all want the very best for our precious offspring, but I think we can gain a lot by stepping back and looking at the big picture. My dad is a smashing, loving, clever and artistic man. He grew up with outdoor plumbing, and didn't taste an orange until he was eleven.

of course for a balanced view, you would also have to look at how overnight contact with the NRP throughout a child's life benefited the child.

but a study like that would not make the news.

its not the scientists who are the problem. its the newspapers.....

Oh Christine - just as this thread was taking a turn for the rational .

Absolutely, AnormalOne. But she didn't think that far.

I don't think them 'knowing their stuff' is what is in question, it is a very narrow study IMO and actually if was carried out the other way round I think it would show similar findings.

Just to add - the point made about having to leave a child if you are going into hospital is very different, it should be obvious that this could cause upset/unsettled feelings as it would be a one off or adhoc. I don't think it is relevant to the study. I took this as being about regular overnight visits. I would say that the more regular/routine for a baby/child makes it easier for them to adjust, the out of routine adhoc things are what make my children more unsettled which I have always thought was normal.

Thirtylove im sorry your baby isnt well, wishing her a speedy recovery and don't worry about her being alone she will be using all her energy to sleep and get strong again ready to come home x

My two DC spent a month in SCBU. I don't see this study as a personal attack on me.

What a load of twaddle