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?

OK, here is what I think is a pretty good link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115616/

Note that the analysis controlled for baseline family and maternal characteristics and indicators of family instability. The abstract only refers to child aggression and negativity as the dependent variable, but it seems like a reasonable assumption that this could be one of the expressions of trauma. The article itself references further sources.

I would, in return, be interested in the evidence behind the claims further upthread that many mothers in Asia leave their children for longer periods without any harmful effect on the child (obviously not contesting that many do work away from their children).

I already sent that late late night Peregrane.

Some people in Asia may have the grandmother heavily or entirely involved all day everyday from birth. In that case the grandmother is the primary care giver so it is different and it would be fine to leave the child with her grandmother if that were the case.

Otherwise, the baby will feel bereaved inside in some way when OP mummy goes away for the 3 months; then get attached to MIL in this case, then just when she is used to her (MIL) lose her again when mummy returns.

Peregrane, taken from page 6 of your link:

According to attachment theory, a secure attachment is derived from the child’s appraisal of his/her mother’s (or other attachment figure’s) availability

So that would mean the father, any siblings, extended family, keyworkers etc, as well as the mother then?

As OP said, the child will be with its father and in its usual secure, stable environment.

Reading further into the link it says that even normative separations such as childcare are disruptive, and that parental separation causes all manner of problems too.

Why then the scaremongering about a parent leaving an otherwise secure, safe, happy, loving, attentive household - but not divorced parents & working parents?

I was going to come on the thread and say it depends on the age of your child. I was wondering if they might be under 10. Or under 5.

I really wasn't expecting the child to still be a baby. I don't know how you can even contemplate it, to be honest. There is no tiny, tiny part of me that could or would ever do this. Not for any job and certainly not for a bit of research to look good on my CV.

I haven't had time to read it properly, but one of the problems of such studies is that they don't inform much particular cases. Even a significant increase in undesirable outcomes doesn't mean that all are affected. It just means that the risk increases. I'm not sure it showed cause and effect, even though potential confounding seems to have been accounted for.
Finally, mothers tend to be the most significant carer, which is likely to account for an effect. Is there any info regarding how preparing for separation may or may not have an impact? Say, if the father takes on a much bigger role than the mother?

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

Nursery would be a big change for her in and of itself, and that setting would not be one to one enough, or give her the security of someone she is familiar with, and she will not be able to understand what is happening to her.

Then it depends for the rest of her day on if she has already spent lots and lots of time with MIL from birth (as much as with her mother).

Meanwhile, Where is Mummy? she might be feeling in an un-articulated way.

Could MIL go too? That would be fun.

Both nursery and granny care should be introduced well ahead of the mother leaving.

The study then goes onto say that:

A scenario in which a child stays at home and is cared for by a father or grandparent who already coresides with the child is qualitatively different from one in which the child is brought to an unfamiliar caregiver.

So still no credence to the 'definite & significant trauma' that you warned the OP of.

Could MIL go too? That would be fun

Oh no, no what about the poor poor baby who will suffer terrible awful after effects from being separated from her daddy for 3 months. How absolutely terrible to suggest such a thing. She'll be thinking where is my daddy in an un-articulated way.

😂😂😂

Won't SOMEBODY think of the daddies....??!!

Page 89 from the link that is apparently proving that OP is setting up her child for a lifetime of psychological suffering:

A maternal separation is quite likely not as distressing to an infant if he/she is left in the care of another attachment figure to whom he/she is securely attached.

What was the point in having the kid in the first place?

What is the point of having any kids, for anyone?

Mango I am sorry if you find research findings that you consider to be unpalatable the same as "scaremongering".

The article is pretty clear that disruptions in caregiving, of the type where the hitherto primary caregiver physically disappears for an extended period and another takes over, even if the new caregiver provides what most would consider better care, impacts the child negatively.

I don't have the time now to go into the discussions about nursery care etc but that is in any case so not comparable to what OP is contemplating. The continuing, meaningful presence of the primary caregiver in a baby's life, in addition to the the chance to form a secondary (tertiary...) but also secure attachment to a key worker etc, is an entirely different kettle of fish to mum ups sticks for three months.

Also not sure why you are dragging divorce here. Yes divorce vs a happy home is bad for kids. While divorce vs an unhappy home with constant feuding is probably better for kids. If OP's choice was long term starvation or this research trip, obviously you are trading the very negative impact of the research trip against the even more negative impact of long term starvation. But that is clearly not the case here, OP is going to graduate anyway.

10 months is too young to understand that you'll be coming back.
No.

Oh no, no what about the poor poor baby who will suffer terrible awful after effects from being separated from her daddy for 3 months. How absolutely terrible to suggest such a thing. She'll be thinking where is my daddy in an un-articulated way

It's difficult to make it right for everyone isn't it? But if the baby feels most attached to a particular person, who ever that is, she will miss that person most if she is separated from them. Babies feel they are as one being with that particular person. The OP might have mentioned if that main person was her husband or MIL if that were the case here.

The baby would miss the other parent/non-main-care giver too, but a little less.

The best thing ideally would be for both parents to go or both parents to stay.

I was removed from my parents by SS when I was around 10/11 months old and I spent around 4 months in hospital. I was told this when I was in my 20's I have no recollection of this happening and if I wasn't told then I never would have known!

I am not traumatised or psychologically damaged in any way.

Peregrane, as I cut & pasted from the conclusion of that link:

A maternal separation is quite likely not as distressing to an infant if he/she is left in the care of another attachment figure to whom he/she is securely attached.

It is not at all unpalatable for me to read that.
In fact, it pretty much clarifies that OPs child is likely to be unscathed.

I certainly do not remember it.

Has the father or MIL been the primary caregiver from birth? No probs then. But that is not the case here.

And trust me I am all for equal parenting!

Mango I am really not sure why you are picking out those sentences.. I trust we both understand that if something reads "scenario X is not as bad as scenario Y", that does not equal to saying that "scenario X is not bad". And one line picked from a study which does not speak of ill effects does not illustrate that the study does not show ill effects - just read the abstract if you are in doubt of the main argument...

Not AS distressing does not mean the same thing as not distressing, is that clear?

But, again, it doesn't say that any ill effects are inevitable or for all children. Like on your statement.

Which was exactly my point Lweji.

'definite & significant trauma' is what Peregrane foretold.