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.

How bizarre this was reported in the "journal of marraige and family" agenda anyone?

No RhondaJean, no agenda. As has been explained several times it is a well respected academic journal for the study, not the promotion, of marriage and family.

And all the people saying, 'well my kids did it and they're fine. Yes, that entirely anecdotal information coincidentally fits with the study, which finds no negative association after the age of five.

I love the defensiveness etc. why not accept that sometimes parents make choices that are not always best for baby, sometimes through no fault of their own? I know I have and I would prefer to be aware of them, not to beat myself up, but to think about whether I'd do it with a subsequent child.

If we poo - pooed research which basically said what we'd done was wrong, we'd still be weaning babies at 6 weeks old, leaving them to scream hungrily between 4 hourly feeds etc.

What creature said.

You can't all possibly agree that all the decisions you make have been best for your child surely? I know mine haven't always been. I don't think o have done anything so terrible that dc will end up series killers but I know I could have made some better choices had circumstances allowed. I don't feel guilty at all about this.

Has anyone noticed at the bottom of the abstract, that they observed problems between 3 to 5 year olds who had spent one night aaway from eir mothers but found no lasting 'issues' in older ones. So doesn't this mean that the 'problem' rights itself and no lasting damage is being done? Therefore, this small study should not be used to guilt trip mothers who may spend one night away from their infants.

Of course people are defensive about it.

It'd be the same had someone posted a link to an article once again going over how breastfeeding is better for babies than formula feeding, as if we still didn't get it.

Going back to work or letting a NRP take your baby overnight is difficult enough as it is without people reinforcing that what you're doing could potentially be detrimental to your child's development.

It makes some people feel like shitty parents, why is that surprising?

I have a recollection there were similar studies done in the kibbutz in Israel. At the time the children were all looked after communally including by different adults every night. There were fewer 'securely' attached children (as measured by the strange situation). On the other hand, children who grew up in the kibbutz did better as adults than their peers in a number of measures. In general, attachment theory might be the predominant psychological theory of child psychology but there are still things that might not fit well. Only about 2/3 of children have a secure attachment pattern anyway. If you go down the line of stating attachment is all then one could argue the other third would be better having nights away from their primary carer with a different adult to see if they could form a secure attachment to someone else.

I see what Pipparivers is saying and I am sure there are many instances where we have not been able to put our DCs interests first but I am not convinced that this could be considered absolutely NOT best for your child either. I also believe that what is best for one child is not best for another, it is all very individual to your situation.

Who is to say that a child spending a night a week with a relative who loves them is actually detrimental to them, certainly not a study of a small cohort of people. From my experience I have not found this is not the case so I have no need to feel guilty or be defensive as I am comfortable with the majority of my choices and those I am not comfortable with I will aim to address where possible.

How annoying that you have to read through pages of uninformed defensive rubbish before other posters are allowed to actually discuss an interesting topic. "I dont like it, so i'm not listening" isnt exactly a helpful contribution. If we stopped researching subjects that might upset parents then we would be leaving children massively at risk. Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to research a medication that parents have had no choice but to use on their child? Surely it's more important to properly research than worry about upsetting the parents if negative consequences of that drug are found? What about if those effects are non existent by 5 years old, should we just ignore them?

From the summary, obviously more research is needed into this subject, but this has thrown up questions that need to be answered. I would want to see a much wider range of families and circumstances to see whether there is a correlation. Personally I feel there are a few very different situations that need to be studied. Is there a difference between leaving the child in their own environment but without the mother, to say taking the child away from home and mother to stay with a NRP. What about other relatives at the child's home environment or away from home?

I really didn't like the vibe of the loud posters at the beginning of this thread. Just because some research doesn't fit your choices, doesn't mean it should be mocked to the point where it makes it difficult for others to even have a say.

Journal of Marriage and Family? Hmm, reminds me of the time a historian colleague found a journal in the theology section of the university library entitled "the Journal of Critical Hagiography". As someone said upthread, not a journal I'd expect to see high in the citations rankings.

OP - I thought you were posting that in a sense of irony, apparently not! hilarious. 'resisting' indeed, my nefarious parents are always trying to get their mitts on my PFB.

If we didn't listen to research that could be seen as critical of our parenting choices, then we'd still think these were OK:

Cola for babies the ad says "For a better start in life, start cola earlier ...Babies who start drinking soda during that early formative period have a much higher chance of gaining acceptance and "fitting in" during those awkward pre-teen and teen years"."

7 Up for Babies

Cocaine Toothache Drops

Get a grip people! IMO it's likely that most of us are unwittingly doing things which harm our DCs; every generation before has. Why wouldn't you want to know what those things are? Scientists don't have a hidden agenda to make us feel guilty, what warped thinking!

Threefeet - those are ads.I'm pretty sure there were plenty of parents who disnt give thier babies soda to drink. Those KRAVE ads we have now are really convincing - all that wholegrain goodness under acres of chocolate coating - but i wont be giving my child Krave or Cocopops or sodding 'fruit' shoots anytime sooN

Yes of course they're ads

Do I really have to spell it out? OK, here goes ...

Those ads would not be acceptable now. They seem ridiculous because we now know that fizzy drinks and cocaine are not the healthy tonics people once thought. Opinions have changed over time, and science has played a large part in that.

(Can't quite believe I'm having to explain this).

I think I'm the only person who has actually read it, but notwithstanding that:

The study measures a very very small group of infants who spent overnights with the nrp (something like 26 from a sample of 5000).
It used the mothers interpretation of the infants attachment to her (using a measurement she is not qualified to use)
It fails to point out that a child spending regular time with the nrp is likely to have TWO secure attachments, to the RP and nRP both.

They are comparing children who have regular contact with their fathers negatively to those who have none or very little, and failing to point out that the benefits of that contact have very positive indicators of their own.

The study has many flaws, and is not in the slightest way representational of anyone here.
Does that help?

threefeet unfortunately, there are plenty of scientists with agendas, as much as we might hate to admit it. And there are a lot whose research is sponsered by companies with agendas.
Pure science has no bias, but lets face it, a lot of what abounds is not pure science.

I agree absolutely KobayashiMaru, and nice one for actually reading the study and letting know about it (sounds like bad science).

Sorry if my post made it sound as if I was saying that scientists don't ever have agendas but are only in pursuit of the truth (if only!).

What I'm objecting to is the notion that we shouldn't discuss anything that can be seen to be critical of parenting choices, or that scientists do studies motivated by a desire to make parents feel guilty about parenting choices!

I don't think there shouldn't be studies or discussions on anything that seems critical of parenting choices but as soon as something like this is produced people seem to come out of the woodwork saying 'See I am right to never let PFB leave my side till they are 18 and you are all bad parents and affecting them for life if you do'.

I think that is what many people are objecting to, it is good to have evidence of these things so parents can make informed choices but something like this is very objective and really depends on so many other factors in a childs life.

I was thinking about my niece and how when her dad left my SIL she was looked after my lots of different people, staying overnight at various places but never regularly enough for it to feel routine for her. I don't think the fact she was staying out overnight was necessarily detrimental but more that it was all over the place for her. She was 2 and it was very confusing. Once a better routine was established she was so much better.

three are you sure those first 2 ads are not spoofs?

It starts by focussing on a group who are disadvantaged to start with, and seems to conclude that its only a problem for preschoolers.

Also how is a the parent who has 70% of overnights the nonresident parent?

KobayashiMaru Tue 23-Jul-13 11:17:02

everyone should read this post ^

"It used the mothers interpretation of the infants attachment to her (using a measurement she is not qualified to use)"

Feminine the ads come from this Vintage Ads That Should Have Been Banned

How reliable likes.com is as a source, I have no idea (never heard of it before) but I have no reason to believe these are faked, do you?

Drinks like Cola certainly did used to be sold as tonics.