to want to accept amazing job opportunity without being judged for "deserting" my three children.

[Shreddiez]

I have three children aged 8, 5 and 1. I have always worked a 3 or 4 day week since having them. DH works full time and travels quite a bit. We have no family help but we do have a live-in nanny.

I have been offered an amazing job. An opportunity like this will never come-up again: fascinating work, good money, chance to make a real difference.

The new job would mean a lot of travel and when home I'd hardly see the kids Mon-Thurs, by hardly I mean maybe 20 mins in the morn. But I'd usually be home all day Fridays and I would get nine whole weeks leave a year that I could take over school holidays.

I intend to accept the job but am shocked by people's reactions. A friend referred to me deserting my kids, my MiL (who NEVER helps with the kids) keeps making veiled references to how sad it all is, even the nanny keeps joking how the one year old will think she is the mother.

Is it normal to suffer such passive aggression for wanting to work? Is it so bad to be out of the house 4 days out of 7 if you know you can be fully present and involved for the other three days? Doesn't nine weeks leave actual mean I will see the kids as much as someone who works three days if averaged over a year? And why do I have to justify this? Why can't people celebrate my efforts to do well at work and at motherhood? I feel so judged and its making me second guess myself and my choices.

Shreddiez if you look back at the last 18 pages you have had FAR more support than negativity so try not to be discouraged by some of the naysayers.

As someone else said no-one can possibly judge as the scenario hasn't even happened yet and things in life change all the time. Your husband's role could change and he might find himself working from home or being more local - who knows what tomorrow will bring. For today just accept the job as it is right for you for now and see what the future brings.

Personally I would put the "relocation" idea on the back burner for now and just see what happens in the next six months.

Good luck and well done!

Relocation would be a massive upheaval for you all, especially if your nanny would!'t accompany you. It's probably for the best that DH's job will need to stay based where it is - that would be a monumental decision.

You've decided to go for it. Good for you. The worst that can happen (imo) is that you realise that it doesn't work as you had hoped and you hand in your resignation.

Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

CaptainSinker - did you read my earlier post (10.40.26)?

Yes I did.

I think it is unusual for a nanny to love a child exactly the same way as they do their own children. To make no distinction between their own child and a child they are paid to raise. However if that works for all of you and you can stay in the childrens' lives for ever then fair enough.

Have you read what Bowlby said about nannies. The concern is that children may form an attachment to a nanny who has to leave, causing irreparable emotional damage.

Haven't read the whole thread but think it's a bit sad that you're going to only see your children for twenty minutes on four days of the week... I would say the same about a man too actually. I don't get what the point of having children you barely see for days is.

I'm not a SAHM either...

Bowlby's primary caregiver was his nanny with little interaction from his mother, this was probably normal for the wealthy in the 1900's when Bowlby was born.

The OP and her DH both work less than full time and have days when the nanny doesn't work. I doubt Bowlby's issues will happen to the OP's Dcs.

I know lots of people with 'big' jobs and everyone of them works long hours, longer than contracted. Some get up very early to do extra work, some take a break in the evening for family time, then work for a few more hours.

Doing this extra work is 'normal' for them, it's not just for the odd day.

Anyway, I wish you and your family well.

I am not suggesting that the ops children are about to develop RAD. Referencing the stuff about attachment theory on the issue of whether or not the relationship with a nanny is equal to that of a parent, and the problems inherent in a paid caregiver being the primary attachment figure.

Bowlby actually identified that the old fashioned nanny model, there all the time, for life, as primary carer could work. The problem is that nannies can leave (already an increasing issue when he was writing) and that you cannot cram a nanny and two parents into the primary attachment figure role. It just doesn't work like that.

If the op and her husband are going to have minimal contact with their one year old for most of the week, then have sole care of him while nanny is off that has the potential to cause problems. To suggest not is just silly. I am not saying this insurmountable, just that, as the op has asked for opinions on why she is facing family criticism, it is worth pointing out that criticism may come from genuine concern.

The concern is that children may form an attachment to a nanny who has to leave, causing irreparable emotional damage.

That kinda presupposes that the children haven't already formed a strong attachment to both parents.

Some of us have children who were adopted where attachment disorders are a significant part of our day to day life. The idea that having a Nanny 4 days a week as a carer, having already attached to loving caring parents who remain present in your life as anything approaching the kind attachment disorder that causes "irreparable emotional damage" is laughable.

I'm sure if there was an indication of it not working for the children, OP and her husband would rethink things as many of us do from time to time over the years.

I hate seeing attachment disorder bandied around like its a common problem in middle class family with high earning parents. Working class families who need to work long hours to pay the bills and the children are looked after by an Aunt/Granny/pseudo Aunt don't have attachment problems muttered at them. Really its not very common in day to day life in the absence of adoption, drugs alcohol etc

Didn't Bowlby also observe (from memory I cant be arsed to look it up) that children very readily switched from attaching from one carer to another?

I am not suggesting that the ops children will develop attachment disorders. I work every day with young people with attachment disorders so know how they get there. Not through the route the op is following.

However suboptimal early relationships can cause difficulties without causing disorders. There is a reason courts don't allow babies to be split fifty-fifty between parents. Early consistency and a safe base is important. This will be difficult, not impossible, in the set up op is describing.

Is it taboo to say children having no meaningful contact with their parents for most of the week has the potential to be damaging? I am not attacking the op. She has asked for opinions.

Infants under two months are minimally discriminating in terms of attachment. Caregiver preference then emerges in stages as the attachment relationship develops.

Older infants/toddlers who have caregivers switched may internalise distress while outwardly appearing comfortable with the new primary carer.

Captain - what about children who have the same nanny from birth. Surely they then just have 3 primary attacent figures, 3 people they trust etc rather than the typical 2 parents. In most families a nanny does stay from birth until no longer needed (5/10/15 years). It's only on mumsnet that people seem to get through hundreds of nannies in 5 years

I am not an expert on abuse. I find it easier to comment on abuse etc. so just my understanding/view...

In early childhood children need a primary attachment figure, usually the mother. Less research has been done on where the father takes an equal parenting role as this was uncommon when attachment theory developed. However from research it appears that a child will always havea. Or I army attachment figure but the attachment formed with an active second parent can also be of Greta strength and significance, and an acceptable substitute for the primary figure when not available.

Additional careers such as. Nursery nurses and childminders are important but secondary figures.

The traditional nanny raising the kids from birth through childhood can be the primary attachment figure instead of a parent. However children don't have an unlimited capacity to form primary attachments... Attaching to multiple adults at the same level is not developmentally normal, not how we are physiologically designed. So I would suggest that you can't have a child attaching equally to parents plus nanny. Whether mother, nanny or someone else is primary figure comes down to the amount of exposure and the nature and quality of the relationship.

That should say i am not an expert on nannies.

Should say that attachment is about more than trust. It is about connection, closeness, comfort, desire for proximity. So can't be shared out continually.

'In most families a nanny does stay from birth until no longer needed (5/10/15 years)'

I can't believe Peaches may have died as result of taking heroin.

I thought she was doing so well. She seemed to have found her way and seemed to be leading a great life. She was so successful in many areas, fashion, journalism, motherhood, etc.

So sad.

I've been a nanny for 28 years and looked after 23 children, not a single one of them has been irreparably damaged when I left, including the two children I looked after for 4 years after their mother had died, they are now late '20's, well balanced, happy, amazing parents themselves and have no emotional damage what so ever.

The other children are all doing well also. There is nothing wrong with any of them.

I love them all to pieces, would do anything for them, would kill or be killed to protect them but I know that I do not love them the way their mothers (and fathers) love them. I am very lucky that I am still in contact with all of my charges, godmother to some of their children, I have an amazing connection with them all and look forward to seeing them as often as possible (2 this weekend, I'm proxy parenting for them Friday night until Sunday night, one the following Sunday, hopefully my 20 year old ex-charge will be able to fit me into her busy student life on the Saturday and one I will be watching on tv at every opportunity!

Children are so adaptable, they know who love and care for them, they know who their parents are and always will be. My parents had their own business for most of my life, while I was at school (6-16) they worked very long hours (dad up to 16 hours a day) 6-7 days a week. I had an amazing childhood. I love my parents unconditionally and I know that everything they did, they did for me (and my siblings) to make my life as easy and comfortable as they could and I do not begrudge them a moment.

wrong thread Jill

Callaird, may I hire you please?

Artfine Unfortunately (for you, not me!) I have an amazing job with charge number 23 that I am not planning to leave anytime soon.

But I'll bear you in mind if anything changes! (I am very expensive!)

They are jealous jealous jealous. Fuck them all. Take the job, be a badass. GODSPEED, OP!

Not jealous. Not double standards. Not a problem if either mother or father was around more, but 4 days where a one year old does not really see either parent. No sorry, I don't like it.

I returned to work as a nurse when my DS was 18months and did 3 12 hour shifts a week so didn't see DS at all on those days. He was looked after by my mum and dad or brother and sister-in-law. It doesn't seem to have done any damage to any of us. Go for it OP. You won't know if it will work for you unless you give it a go. Best of luck.