DP wants to shift goalposts on childcare and put 6wk old into ft nursery

[Jackieharris]

I'm pregnant. Planned 3rd DC. I earn more than DP and hated mat leave last time so we agreed before pregnancy he'd be the sahp and I'd go back to work early with this one.

I'm in the process of changing jobs so won't get smp so have to go back after 6 weeks, no option. If DP hadn't been willing to be sahp I would have waited to ttc until I'd bulit up maternity entitlements again and taken maybe 3-6 months off instead.

Atm DP earns £200pwk (self employed). But he has now heard about an opportunity to earn £400pwk and is applying for it. (Didn't consult me first)

Now if this had been before the pregnancy I'd be so happy for him. But I feel like he has totally moved the goalposts for me. He seems to think instead of him being a sahp we can just put newborn into ft nursery at 6 weeks.

I'm not against nursery. Other DCs went, but not until 11 months old.

I've looked up the cost of the local one (he didn't bother to do this) and it costs £200 pwk. So he'll be bringing home exactly the same as now! (Prob more work/more hours/more responsibility too)

He's planning on doing this without actually asking my opinion or doing any research on how it will work out re: tax credits, logistics of nursery runs (he doesn't drive, I do), who will be off when baby is sick etc.

I felt able to go back to work so quickly because I was relying on having a sahp and the convenience that brings in terms of sick days, no having to get a newborn up and out early etc.

I'm really annoyed. 1) that he didn't discuss this with me 2) it isn't what I agreed to when we ttc

He doesn't seem to see a problem and I feel like a bitch for not being 100% happy that he's had this opportunity.

AIBU?

Can you afford a nanny?

I agree you should look into maternity allowance. It allows for gaps. You don't need to have worked solidly to get it - sort of the point.

YANBU at all. Not a tiny bit. He's being outrageously selfish.

If it does come to pass, then I agree a CM would be light years better for a newborn baby than a nursery. Attachment would be healthy and close with you and the CM and no harm done. A nursery can't give a newborn or young infant what they need. Just not possible in that setup IMO. But babies can bond with a few people, as long as they are consistently there and responsively loving, so I don't see any problem with a good childminder, who hasn't got too many mindees.

Jendot2, that's exactly what I mean. You sound lovely - a home environment with a loving carer is what little babies need. Not an institution with several people who will probably come and go over the months and years.

I don't have words for how angry I'd be about this. YANBU, not one tiny bit.

"Tiny but utterly crucial. So many studies on necessity of brain function and general development, in every single way from baby and and its mother in first years of life."

Yes, but I don't see how "she didn't feel she could be there all the time but the child's other parent said they could do it" means that she shouldn't have bothered having another child. Unless you think babies can only develop well in this crucial period when solely looked after by their biological mother, not their father or other loving caregiver/relative, which I suspect to be bollocks (and I speak as someone who took a year off both times myself).

If I had to, with no choice, then i'd go child-minder rather than nursery. At the very least until they'd had their first immunisations. And I'd cut off my arm before I'd leave a 6 seeker in nursery in the winter - too many viruses that are unpleasant in older babies, but frankly dangerous in young babies. Seriously, if you're going to need to look at childcare at this age, child-minder is probably better for their emotional development, and at least there are fewer other kids to risk giving your baby something nasty.

I went back to work full time at six weeks and my baby went to a childminder. Not a big deal. Baby very happy. Me very happy. Husband very happy. Nights, hormones, etc all fine. Baby developing beautifully, is one of the smiliest babies anyone knows. Nights and weekends lovely family time, daytime lovely working time.

Opposition to this is, as others have said, purely cultural. Plenty of modern and traditional societies have people who are not the mother looking after the children very early on for part of the day. (Grandmothers, in particular.)

YANBU. I too would be upset if my Dh changed his plans without warning or discussion like that. Also, OP please try and ignore all the working mother haters in here.

Lots of working mothers using childcare here though with real
Concerns around nursery vs other single loving care providers

Hi, just catching up with this now.

Had a big talk with DP. He has said that the nature of this potential new contract would mean that by the time dc3 is born he shouldn't have to be 'on site' apart from the occasional meeting. News to me! DP is a poor communicator and it has caused problems before but this does take the biscuit a bit, telling me about a job opportunity but omitting to tell me it's some cushy number that doesn't actually require his day to day presence! I don't understand self employment at all.

He said he hadn't discussed it in detail because there's only a slim chance he'll get it, fair enough.

He then did say that he was planning to go back to his current job after taking 6 months (unpaid) off. So basically still not the 'him being a sahp' we'd planned. I'd count that as pat leave, not being a sahp. I explained that the logistics of this, whilst a great improvement on 6 weeks, will still be difficult & costly. I said if this is his plan he will have to book childcare (pref cm) several months in advance, calculate tax credits and work out timings of school/nursery runs. He hadn't seemed to have thought of any of this.

(I'd said nursery above as when we moved here there were only 3 childminders but several nurseries so places in them were more abundant. If I had the choice for an

Another vote for a nanny. It will make going back to work much easier, mornings will be much more relaxed as nanny can get children dressed, fed, etc..

I hired a nanny when DD2 was about 8 weeks (and DD1 was 24 months). She was absolutely lovely with both children, but especially the baby. I had such peace of mind knowing my DDs were in great hands.

When mine were babies, I actually didn't want a childminder or nanny, because I didn't want someone else to have that relationship with my baby. Nursery was fine- they were relaxed happy babies, they slept well, had no separation issues, and I have never had any doubt that they knew I was their mum and I loved them. They are all 3 confident happy independent thinking children. Just because some of you can't imagine leaving your baby, don't apply your opinions to everyone. There isn't always the choice

Surely you'll get maternity allowance, which is the same as smp?

I agree wholeheartedly with BeyondRepair

I couldn't give a toot about what other countries do - 6 weeks old is FAR to young :( I would very upset that my husband could be so laid back about putting a baby in care at that age and goimg back on his word.

This is really messed up. Why bother having ANY children if you have to cobble together care for them like this? What's the point? Sort it out WAY before you actually even think about having a child(ren). Either you can afford to have a child, or you can't...forget about THREE! Completely backwards .

There are some really judgemental twats out tonight. What is all this crap about 'don't bother having kids if you can't afford to stay home with them.' Is it really so difficult to understand that some people don't have that choice financially or would simply go insane staying at home during the incredibly tedious and stressful baby / toddler stage? Is it really so difficult to imagine that other people might not make the same choices as you but that doesn't make them bad parents?

Christ, I despair of MN when I read threads like this. OP I'm glad things are slightly better than you feared but you are NBU to be annoyed with the goalpost moving. Hopefully a few more good conversations will sort things.

If the rest of the human race thought like you do, Oscar, it would have died out long ago. Mothers have largely always worked, as have fathers, and care has almost always been cobbled together one way or another. And believe it or not, children have, by and large, always grown up to be fully functioning members of society.

YY, Clockwise.

This has been a particularly judgy thread and it has not made for pleasant reading. OP - you are justified in feeling annoyed about your situation but I'm sure you'll work it out and whatever choice you make, your child(ren) will grow up happy and knowing they are extremely loved.

yanbu, op. I would be really cross with your DP. It's like what you agreed had no value when push came to shove.

A 6 week old baby would not have had any routine vax and would be in a germ-laden aymosphere if in a nursery. But it sounds as though either way you won't be placing the baby that young.

Two working parents arranging for paid childcare is hardly 'cobbling' something together

I still don't understand why not a nanny, just because your older dc are in school. Surely they have some childcare requirements.

The issue in this thread is not whether nursery is the right place for this baby. The issue is two parents had a deal and one is now going back on that with seemingly no appreciation of the consequences

This.

Why do people bother having children if they won't look after them themselves? Seriously, what is the point. Utter selfishness.

If you've worked for 26 weeks out of the 66 weeks leading up to the due date, you'll get maternity allowance of c. £140 pw

Round here nurseries don't take babies under 12 weeks