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?

If you're in the forces, I don't think you should have a child that you'll have to be the primary carer for. The first responsibility of a parent is to be there and raise the child.

If there are two of you and your partner is the primary carer that's different. But if you're choosing to have a child and enjoy being its primary carer but knowing full well you will be regularly disappearing to spend long periods of time away, I think it's a bad time to have a child and a selfish choice to make.

I volunteered at a place where many of the children had parents in the forces and all I can say is, they were noticeably less fine than others. It's a huge strain for them.

I mangled that last sentence quite badly

Basically I know scores of service personnel, and almost every one of them is a parent.

Forces is a literally life or death situation though isn't it? It's not an optional luxury like 3 months studying in Asia.

Not really, no.

Lots of lovely sunny detachments to foreign climes with plenty of booze & fun!

gone the particular difficulties children of service personnel have are, I believe, down to having to move frequently, and to knowing their mum or dad maybe serving somewhere dangerous. Both of which are going to be easier on much younger ones than on older children.

Happy to be corrected on this, but it's definitely something service parents I know have taken into account when timing their careers and their families.

Or you might also be sent off to cover the fire strikes, or maybe help clear up the foot & mouth carcasses, or perhaps sent away filling sandbags and helping all those 'better' parents during floods (you know, the ones who are better parents who never, ever, ever leave their children).

More to the armed forces than war.

Absolutely, Mango

Yep, my first period of absence from DD was covering the fucking fire strikes - and not even the 'real' one, the whiney arsed 'give us back our beds' one.

Not that DD remembers it. At all.

If you were a man asking thus question - well, I doubt it would even be a question a man would ask. A chance to better your CV and improve your earning capacity and status? There's no debate.

But you are a woman and a mother, and therefore should not dare to be do selfish.

Irony button off.

GO, GO, GO

I was suggesting reasons why children with serving parents might struggle in ways unique to their situation. Not trying to have a pop at all. Hope I wasn't misunderstood.

Sorry, and it was very much in response to gone's description of her voluntary work.

jiffylemon how old was the child?

I managed to not get involved in the fire strikes Eve - iirc the biggies were around 2004 (I was pregnant then).

In my entire 20 yrs I also never went anywhere warry at all - I worked on F3s so it was the Falklands for me.

Also the Olympics - thousands drafted with zero notice to cover the security shambles.
But apparently really, really selfish & self centred judging by some of the posters on this thread....

I wouldn't... If you are the primary care giver the baby could feel abandoned. It would be different if your dp and mil were already the primary caregivers but for you to leave and not come back for three months, that's really tough on the baby to even process. Just because a baby won't remember something in the future doesn't mean that thing doesn't have a big impact on them

It's not the care of the baby that would concern me. I'm sure the baby's father and grandmother and nursery combined could all care for the baby perfectly well.

It's the absence of a primary carer for a pro-longed period that would concern me. Many are saying their DC don't remember their absence, but it will have formed their child in some way.

And I think there is a huge difference between having to leave your baby for what ever reason, and knowing they are being well cared for and leaving them through choice becuase it might give you a career edge.

But only the OP can decide if it will be worth it or not. I reckon if she's posting about it, she already knows she can, and therefor most probably will do it.

Also, my personal opinion is that babies tend to need their mothers more than their fathers, but older children need parents equally. I know if my 13yo had to choose which parent went away for three months, he would want DH to stay at home, and would find it very difficult no to have him around for three months. He probably couldn't care less about no seeing me for three months. But at 10 months old it would have been a very different matter as he slept with me every night and BF every 2 hours at that age.

Actually, it's not a female 'issue', I'd say the same for a dad.

I think it's about who has been the baby's main carer up until now. Whether it's the mum or the dad there should ideally be continuity.

I agree, it's not a mum issue, it's a who's been the main caregiver issue.

Not having his/her primary attachment figure around for 3 months is going to upset the baby (at least initially, and perhaps long term) a lot more than not going to Asia is going to upset the mother.

Personally, I couldn't do it.

They change and develop so much at this time - walking, talking etc - I've also realised that between 12 and 18 months is actually harder work than when they are younger - especially the teeth that come through - it's a rough time to leave your child (and your partner to look after your child) when your child is used to you perhaps being the main caregiver.

I however was lucky, I spent nearly 15 years building up my career before having children, so once having children I didn't have that burning desire to further my career - I wanted to be a mum (and wife) first and foremost - I had got that career urge out of my system.

If you really do want to do it, and think you can all manage, then go for it - it could open up so many opportunities for you.

I ask again, can there really be only one 'primary care giver' in a child's life?

IMO op needs to weigh up the potential benefits to her and her family that this absence might bring, against the strain. It may or may not be worth it.

I didn't mean to diminish the value of the Armed Forces - the heroism, sacrifice or anything else. My experience of worked with the children of soldiers is limited and anecdotal, I know - I don't know how much of the strain is simply caused by the separation (although that was the part I heard talked about, but again, anecdotal) or other factors.

However unless a pregnancy is unplanned we all have to consider the child's experience before our own desire to be parents. Not everyone is in the right career to have a child, or at least, to have a child while they're in the thick of it. A very dangerous job in which you don't come home for long periods of time doesn't mesh with meeting a child's emotional needs. I'm genuinely deeply grateful that soldiers make sacrifices but I don't feel they should ask children to also make sacrifices, simply because they don't want to miss out on being parents. Perhaps that's not 'fair' on primary carers in the armed forces but sometimes there isn't a solution that's fair to everyone and children should come first. That said, there are plenty of life circumstances that I would personally not feel meshed well with parenthood and no doubt somehow those children survive and even thrive!

I'd be concerned that mil and baby would become mother and daughter tbh.
Not something I'd be prepared to do for any job or course.

It isn't compulsory and OP hopes it will increase her prospects.
It isn't even a given.

I can see her on here when she comes back complaining that mil has taken over and she doesn't feel like the childs parent any longer.

I agree with posters saying it's not a male/female issue. I have a close friend who is a single dad to a toddler and would feel exactly the same if he was considering this. It's about that specific child, not the parent.

I'm surprised by how many posters thought it was significant that the child wouldn't remember the separation, as if that meant any trauma they experienced wouldn't be significant because they wouldn't know it had happened to them. I'd thought young children's emotions were better understood.

If my DH asked if he could 'possibly' enhance his career by spending 3months elsewhere, I know what I'd say to him. Once I'd stopped laughing.

No, 3 months is too long IMO.

I agree. Mine are 13 & 9, so not babies, but even they don't like DH going away for 2 weeks stints. Funnily enough when he was away recently it coincided with a couple of major events in their young lives, which couldn't have been predicted, but he missed them. 3 months in a babies life is quite significant and they reach so many milestones in that time. If I had the choice I wouldn't do it, find a way to take them with you if its that crucial.