To go away for 3 months and leave DC with dad

[Littleworrier1]

I's a student and need to graduate by end of the year. As part of my studies I have the option of doing a research in Asia for three months. Me and DP were planning to go together and bring DC (10 months old) with us but we won't make it for financial reasons. The research is not compulsory but will look good on my CV, hence increase my chances of finding a job (at least I hope so). DP thinks I should go. He wants to put DC to nursery for few hours a day and MIL would have DC the rest of the time while he comes back from work.

I'm not sure whether to leave DC for three whole months and miss her dearly, or go do something that might help us in future. I know DP will look after DC ok but I doubt he will be as dedicated as me - like I always cook fresh food, use water rather than wet wipes when changing nappies, bath every night, etc.

Would you say someone is a bad mother if they go away for three months if they had the chance not to?

I'm not spelling it out for you, maggie; it was a nasty comment. Obviously it was.

Why is it nasty, it's just an opinion.
If I wrote that I thought you're a twat, would you find it nasty, or just an opinion?

It's hideous that you even thought about baby P in the context of leaving a child being cared by their dad for 3 months, FFS.

Lweji, not that I disagree about the Baby P thing but I was talking about Maggie's 'whose needs are greater' comment.

Ups, sorry.

No probs!

I'm entitled to my opinion. I do think the OP has to seriously consider whose needs are paramount in this situation. That doesn't make me nasty. Honest, maybe.

And the Baby P thing is nothing to do with it. I was asked if I thought she was a bad mother. I said 'well it's not like baby P' so clearly i DONT think it the same as baby P. Please don't twist my words.

YABU (and I'm a baby wipe-using mother). If you have been the primary caregiver until now, to then vanish for so long that your child won't know who you are when you return seems like it has substantial potential to affect him/her negatively. It's optional, and you don't sound certain that it will even help your CV that much.

If it's that crucial, surely you would have really planned it and factored it in when TTC? (And I say this as someone who knows TTC is not always straightforward.)

No, maggie, the point being made was why on earth would someone even THINK to talk about Baby P in this discussion? The implications of what it says about your thinking are deeply unpleasant.

I was saying it is NOT like baby P as in, on the 'not so great mothering scale' it is the other end of the spectrum. So to be told I am comparing it to baby P is completely twisting it!

maggie, I don't know if you're genuinely not getting it or are being deliberately obtuse.

It's not even ON the same spectrum as Baby P. Fuck's sake. It's very sick indeed to even think of the latter in this scenario. THAT'S what I'm saying, whether you get it or not.

definite and significant trauma for your baby

I think what it boils down to is whose needs the OP thinks are more important in this situation - her's or her baby's.

Nasty.

It's not sick to mention Baby P - that's ridiculous. Are you saying that any poster on mumsnet who mentions Baby P is sick in the head? That's really offensive, especially to people with MH issues.

You must be being deliberately obtuse, maggie. I CBA having this conversation with you any more.

Anyway, I fail to see why pointing out to the OP that she's maybe being a teeny little bit selfish in putting her own needs before that of her child's is nasty. Unless it's because it's a tiny bit true?

Are you saying that any poster on mumsnet who mentions Baby P is sick in the head? That's really offensive, especially to people with MH issues.

Nobody apart from you said that Maggie.
You just made it up, then linked it tenuously to offending people with mental health issues.

No, Sapphire said it was 'very sick indeed' of me to say such a thing.

Exactly.

It was you who said that she accused you of being 'sick in the head'.

She just said it was 'sick' to link the two scenarios.

At no point did anyone mention 'sick in the head' until you did.

ANYWAY back to the point of the thread. Is the OP being selfish in thinking of going away for three months when she has a ten month old baby. Discuss.

No, she is not.

HTH

What if the child is affected by it, Mango?

As I mentioned earlier in the thread I have 2 kids, now 11 & 14.

I went away numerous times with work when they were small.

They are fine.

What about the longer term needs of the whole family maggie? It's feasible to make a calculated short term sacrifice that is about more than just a woman's own needs or wants. We are financially in a much better place now to welcome another child into the world than we were prior to ds's birth precisely because I successfully navigated both motherhood and a career.

She is not being selfish at all. She has a supportive DH and MIL who will take care of baby. She is not leaving her DC forever and wil be back soon enough.
It would be a no-brainer for me, I would absolutely go if it might benefit the family in the long run (and even if it doesn't it's a fantastic experience to have).