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?

poster Chippednailvarnish Sat 07-Mar-15 14:01:52
Another wonderfully judgemental thread where any woman who dares to step away from their children and go to work before they turn 25 is a terrible parent.

It's like reading the DM.

Oh give over, you do exaggerate! Op herself strongly doesn't want her 6 week old to be in nursery full-time. If she wasn't bothered she wouldn't have posted about it. No one is having a go at working parents (or ok maybe one or two nutters) are, but generally people can see exactly why op is angry and most people are agreeing with her and supporting her!

It doesn't read anything like the Daily Mail to me.

There are 202 posts on this thread, I reckon less than 5% are a bit on the judgey side.

But yet suddenly the thread is "full of frothers" and Daily Mail readers. Its a bit of an insult to the vast majority who have posted intelligently on here.

namechange that's nice you have dh. lots of mothers don't so the dc's have to go to nursery.

For those who didn't catch my other update DP is now saying he wouldn't need to be 'on site' for this potential new job so we wouldn't need childcare from 6weeks as I'd previously thought.

So the 6 week thing isn't an issue anymore.

There are still issues over what is 'being a sahp' vs him taking 6 months off but I suppose that's another thread.

There are some horrific daily fail-isms on this thread. Dc1&2 are a fair age now and are showing no signs of being 'damaged' by childcare from 11 & 4 months, respectively. In fact ime DCs I know who did have ft sahms till school & beyond 1) have poorer social skills 2) have sexist attitudes towards women. Neither of which is what I'd want for my DCs.

Tbh this is all water off a ducks back. I got so much stick for working ft when dc1 was little. I was even made redundant coincidently? after being told by my employer that they didn't think mothers of under 5s should work.

Some women and men just aren't suited to sahping. I'm not. My mental health deteriorated so badly on my last mat leave I ended up self harming. That isn't good for my DCs. But should it mean that women who get pnd or similar should be banned from having DCs? How is that different from women who physically struggle having DCs (eg infertility, physical chronic health problems, childbirth difficulties). Should we ban all women who aren't perfect at every aspect of mothering from reproducing? It's an absolutely ridiculous thing to say.

But should it mean that women who get pnd or similar should be banned from having DCs?

Of course not. But surely its common sense and only human to think a new born should be with its mother? Only as a truly last resort would anyone put new borns into nursery?
I can think of loads of situations where it might happen but only as a .......LAST RESORT.

I just find it odd that some posters have been very blaise about choosing to have dc, and as very young week old babies think nothing about putting them in nursery.

If this was a thread saying " I want to get a puppy but cant be with it all day, but I have to work to feed it" people would be in out cry saying its cruel and mean and do not get the puppy.

Good to know that the six weeks thing have been sorted out op. Still there is a lot of things you need to discuss between you and your dp, take care.

The Guardian

www.theguardian.com/society/2005/oct/02/childrensservices.familyandrelationships

Official: babies do best with mother

One of the longest and most detailed studies of UK childcare has concluded that young children who are looked after by their mothers do significantly better in developmental tests than those cared for in nurseries, by childminders or relatives

The study on children from birth to three will reignite the controversy over the best way to bring up young children. It found babies and toddlers fared worst when they were given group nursery care. Those cared for by friends or grandparents or other relatives did a little better while those looked after by nannies or childminders were rated second only to those cared for by mothers

According to Penelope Leach, a leading British childcare expert and one of the study's authors, the social and emotional development of children cared for by someone other than their mother 'is definitely less good

Leach will outline details of the study's findings tomorrow at a conference organised by the National Childminding Association, of which she is president. 'The study does not mean every child in a large nursery will become a monster,' she said. 'Nevertheless, it shows a small but significant difference in a large group of children

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3337272/My-warning-to-parents-is-simple-one-in-five-children-put-into-nursery-early-will-develop-mental-health-problems.htm

beyondrepair

Quoted from the newspaper article you referenced above

"Leach said the study indicates that not all babies and toddlers do well at home. Children of mothers suffering depression or having other priorities than motherhood fared better with childminders and nurseries. 'Mummy care isn't necessarily the gold standard,' said Leach."

Studies on child outcomes are not scientifically valid. The groups are not randomly assigned so are not equal to start with. Even the authors concede that there are significant differences between the groups that choose the different set ups.

It would be crazy to base such an important decision on such shoddy 'evidence'.

Excellent replay jackie! Your move beyond.

(Upthread someone said that no one was questioning op's desicion to work except maybe one or two nutters. Well, i think one of them has been identified)

You don't have to justify how you feel to anyone OP.

I'm someone else who is wondering why anyone would plan to have 3 children if they do not enjoy being with the child on maternity leave and put them in ft nursery at the first opportunity? (As opposed to having to work but wanting to be with the child).

I can completely understand with the 1st as you never know how you'll feel after the child is born - but 3! It makes no sense to me.

Jackieharris
Studies on child outcomes are not scientifically valid. The groups are not randomly assigned so are not equal to start with. Even the authors concede that there are significant differences between the groups that choose the different set ups.

Anyone who has studied science knows that though the 'gold standard' may be the randomised controlled trial, there are often situations where that is not possible. Evidence can and is obtained validly from other types of study though investigators must be aware of potential sources of bias and skewed results and account for these when interpreting the results.

I think it is interesting how some are arguing strongly against an argument that no-one has made. No-one has said children or even babies should be with their mothers 24/7. But full-time childcare can be a strain even for an older more independent child. Why would anyone want to subject a planned baby to that?

A new planned baby I meant to say.

"(As opposed to having to work but wanting to be with the child)"

Ah, so it's ok to be a WOHM as long as you're flagellating yourself about it?

Honestly. I took my full maternity leave but had no intention of becoming a SAHM beyond that. I did it twice. My mother did it four times with me and my siblings - she had thought she wanted to be a SAHM before I was born (the eldest) and realized 9 months in that she actually wanted to go back to work, and did so. We are all absolutely fine, as far as I can tell.

Also quite a lot of women don't particularly enjoy the tiny baby stage (I didn't first time round, enjoyed it a bit more second time) but really love the preschool years, or interacting with their older kids - I don't see how not particularly liking maternity leave automatically means you hate children and shouldn't have them.

Frothing, indeed. I'm absolutely a-boggle at some of the attitudes here. It's like the time I was listening to a podcast of Woman's Hour with Oliver James while out for a walk and ended up actually shaking my fist and muttering to myself like a crazy person.

OP, I too am glad the six week thing seems to be a non-goer, but still frustrated on your behalf at your DH.

I'm glad baby is not going into nursery at 6 weeks. Part time working works well IME for a good family balance.

I didn't enjoy maternity leave and was happy to go back to work at 6 months (at which point DH took over). Despite this I really really want to be pregnant again and would like at least 3 children (not likely, but I can hope). I don't think you can equate not wanting to endure 24/7 the (IMO) drudgery of childcare of babies/toddlers with not loving or wanting children.

Jackieharris, responding to your last post (including the bit about daily fail-isms) I do truly believe that women have fought for centuries for independence, status, choice, and long may that last. However, in our society both sahp and wohp are valid childcare choices, and when you say:

"There are some horrific daily fail-isms on this thread. Dc1&2 are a fair age now and are showing no signs of being 'damaged' by childcare from 11 & 4 months, respectively. In fact ime DCs I know who did have ft sahms till school & beyond 1) have poorer social skills 2) have sexist attitudes towards women. Neither of which is what I'd want for my DCs"

it is somewhat ironic as the last 2 sentences would be seen as a bit of a daily fail-ism, would they not?

The expert opinion is that it is better for children under the age of 3 to stay full time with their primary care giver - that is objective info based on current thinking - but it is acknowledged that not everyone can or wants to follow that and there are valid childcare choices for them too. Appreciated you didn't ask for advice on child care on here and some of the posts have been OTT but you shouldn't be knocking the sahms either.

"The expert opinion is that it is better for children under the age of 3 to stay full time with their primary care giver - that is objective info based on current thinking"

This is Oliver James again, isn't it? "Objective info". "Undeniable facts". Hmmm.

blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2010/05/10/does-oliver-james-damage-the-brain/#.VPtMw7CsVUU

No, Leedy, not just Oliver James.... really, honestly, not just Oliver James : )

Genuinely, though, what other "expert" is saying it as "current thinking" and "objective info"? Or that can't be traced back to the same slightly dubious (as per that article) research?

The 'long days' comment always makes me a bit... So babies have 'long days' in nursery, huh? As opposed to those much shorter days they would have if they were somewhere else?

Babies exist in about one square metre. Whether that square metre is here or there matters not a jot.

Leedy - google it. Not one single expert is saying that nurseries/child care are better.

What some have said is that if properly managed nurseries and child care aren't going to be damaging either. Wohm is a valid choice.

In fact one of my friend's sister who works as a social worker specialising in early years training has confirmed that what I said is the ideal position according to her training also.

This is why sahms get the rage when they are asked several hundred times by random strangers why their children aren't in nursery....

Rafterplease, what are your sources, then?!