To think that have dc1 in daycare for 30 hours a week is too much if you are at home on parental leave with dc2?

[froken]

The country where I live gives very subsidised full time childcare (about 25 pounds for 60 hours childcare a month food included) for children from 1 year. This is all great and lovely.

Previously all children who were over one but too young for school who had parents on parental leave (paid by the state) with a baby sibling were entitled to 15 hours a week subsidised childcare (a % of the 25 pounds, so it would work out around 6/7 pounds per week.)

I think it is nice to give parents the time to take the new baby to baby swimming and singing classes and also good for dc1 to still have their friends at daycare to play with.

Now the rules have changed and a child who's parents are on parental leave are entitled to 30 hours subsidised childcare.

I was talking to MIL who had 4 children at home at the same time with no extra help, for once me and MIL seemed to agree that 30 hours is excessive?

AIBU to think that is you are at home anyway (for 18 months!) your dc 1 does not need 30 hours a week of subsidised childcare?

I only have 1 dc at the moment so I am wondering if I am underestimating the amount of support you need with 2/3/4 dc?

I got a free place for DD1 then 3 when DD2 was 6 weeks old and it was fantastic. It was about 9-3 roughly 30 hours a week. It was difficult to entertain a 3 year old with a baby in tow and the nursery had a fantastic garden and facilities. I would have gone mad otherwise.

I guess its up to everyone. But I assume the point of subsidised childcare is so that people can work so if the parent is at home then for allocation of funds to be fair I think it should be assumed the child would mainly be at home with his parents.
For me personally everyday DS is in childcare makes me sad, so when DC2 arrives I'll be very pleased to have him back home!

Negatives of Sweden? It's not Norway for a start! Norway has even better arrangements for families than Sweden does . Currently on 49 week mat leave with full pay, child care in nurseries has a maximum charge of £263 a month for 47 hours, from 1 years old. Negatives for Norway... People are lovely but naive (not had recession here so think pre-recession housing boom nativity "it won't happen here" kind of thing), a beer is £9 and you apply for a mortgage with the bill for a pizza!

Okay, being more serious and answering the OP, IMO an older child 3-5/6 should be in childcare for 30 hours, younger could spend more time at home on an ad hoc basis - which is what I think most mothers do when on leave regardless of their child's age. Less they have a child in school, as I do, of course.

I object mostly because I feel that they offer the 30 hours to keep the 1st child used to being in daycare, there is a huge huge social preasure to send your children to daycare young, we have saved parental leave so that ds will start full time daycare at 2, this is really rare, I have never met a child over 2 not in daycare. It feels a little institutionalised, like they don't trust the parents once the child is over 18 months.

The people who work at the daycare centers have degrees in early education. There seems to be a fear of just letting people muddle along and do their best.

You also get 30 hours a week free daycare if you are unemployed with I feel even more about!

Mamapants - why does it make you sad that your DS is in nursery? Don't you like your particular set up? Don't you think he benefits from social / play / stimulation / friends?

Presumably you don't have to use it all every week if you don't need/want it, but maybe for some people on parental leave it will be a godsend, say if they have medical problems after the birth. Or even if they choose for any reason. The option is there and that is a good thing.

30 hours outside the home from age 4 or so sounds about right.

I typed up a looooong reply, but to sum it up, there is no "one size fits all" where childcare is concerned, every family has different circumstances.

More importantly, the heavily subbed childcare is not just so both parents can work, it's also to give every child an equal opportunity.

Childcare here is a subjective right, so even if both parents are at home for whatever reason, the children can still go to daycare... And really, as they say: "SAHParenting can be the best thing, or the worst thing, for the child."

DC2 is currently 15 weeks old. DC1 continued in nursery for 30 hours a week for the first 2 months, and then dropped to 20 hours (one full and two half days) - and only dropped because I can't afford to pay for the full 3 days he was in before.

My reasons are 1) I was having a C section, I didn't know how physically able I'd be to look after him, as it was, I was in a pretty good shape within 3 weeks, but I might have struggled (DH had also lined up to be able to work from home on the 2 days DS wasn't at nursery if I was really bad). 2) It kept DS with his friends, and as it's also a pre-school, he is getting education too, 3) it kept some continuity, his life was changing dramatically with a new sister arriving, this avoided another change, 4) it holds his place open - they have a waiting list for places, if I take him out I might not get a place when I need it for return to work and 5) he's at the age to go to preschool anyway, this actually works out at 4 half day sessions, most of his little friends who's SAHMs have used the 'free 15 hours' for pre-school that works out at 5 half sessions a week, it just looks a lot more for DS because they do breakfast and lunch there on his half days, and all 3 meals on his one full day.

But yes OP, Sweden does seem to be very institutionalised with regard to full time childcare from a young age, it does seem like DCs are handed over to people "who know better" than the parents from a young age for very long hours. Good for woman's careers, but I don't think that great for their DCs.

Dontmind - I did the same, only more, three full days a week of childcare for my DD1 for the whole of my mat leave with DD2. Worked brilliantly for us.

I was lucky that synchronised napping in the afternoon worked for ds's 1&2 because ds2 didn't sleep well at night and ds1 was a very active little boy. I would have been exhausted without my afternoon nap. I would have taken 30 hours childcare if it had been offered.

I'd be delighted if this was introduced here as I think Thr outcomes for a great many of our children would be improved.

I'm off to google stats on Sweden for educational attainment employment rates etc.

I had a feeling it was Sweden.

What I don't understand is why people have a second or third child if they only want to have one at home with them at a time?

ODFOD elismom

handmini it makes me sad that he isn't with me or his dad on those days. I'm not at all unhappy with the arrangements with the childminder who is a trusted friend. I know he enjoys himself and is stimulated. But I think in an ideal world he would be with me/ DP.

I waited til DS would be 3 and at nursery exactly so I would only have one at home at a time!

What I don't understand is why people have a second or third child if they only want to have one at home with them at a time?.

To give the new baby some one on one time.

To allow older children a more fun, stimulated day at a nursery rather than stuck with breastfeeding mum.

To ensure toddler gets ready socially and emotionally for school.

Because they fancy an easier day of drinking tea and bouncing new baby and can afford for the older child to go to a good childcare provider.

Because its right for them and their family

Because they're not tied to the notion that the only way their small child can have a happy day is in the company of its parents.

I need to move to Sweden.

We kept DS1 in nursery for his usual 2 days per week when I was on mat leave with DS2. It was mainly to ensure he didn't lose his place (we had to have his name down from when I was a few months pregnant to get the place initially) and he enjoyed some time away from the baby too. In the first weeks it was important for me to get at least some rest, which wouldn't have been possible if DS1 had been at home.

All in all I think it's a good idea to keep the older child's routine, although if it was a full-time arrangement I suspect I would have reduced the hours whilst I was off work.

elismom in addition to what HandMini said - they don't "only want to have one at home with them at a time". They're not sending DC1 to a boarding school or putting them up for adoption. They only choose to have one at home for a few hours of the day.

Some people get their mother or mother-in-law, or sister, or friend or someone, to stay with them, or to pop over regularly - to do the laundry, help out with the cleaning, take the baby for a walk, take the toddler to the park... whatever... so that they can get a break, to cuddle the baby, to do some admin, clean the house or even sleep. You don't hear people judging that much, do you? It's just what happens.

Well, not everyone has the option rely on family or friends, they're doing the best they can, for the family as a whole.

Sometimes I really, really regret the fact my great-grandfather left Sweden, bequeathing me only a nice umlauted surname and a taste for pickled herrings...