Babies in Childcare - Honest Opinions Please

[ChesterBelloc]

I've read several threads recently in which people stated that so long as a baby is competently cared for in a suitable environment, it makes no difference to the child whether the adult(s) in question are the baby's parent(s) or childcare professionals.

Do you believe this?

(I'm not asking for yet another debate about the extent to which 'stay-at-home parenting' may be detrimental to women's quest for equality/career progression/intellectual stimulation etc etc. There's enough on these boards already about that.)

I'm asking whether people genuinely believe that babies have/should have no stake in the discussion; whether they think that it makes no difference to the babies themselves whether they are with their parents all day or with a nursery/childminder - and if there is a qualitative difference, which is the better option, from the child's perspective.

I'm genuinely curious to hear people's views, not trying to be goady (though fully expect to be flamed for even raising this question, due to the possible implications and inferences that could be extrapolated from it). Thank you for reading thus far!

Studies, not blogs or newspaper articles. Actual studies. Or don’t bother.

God, I think the OP has really revealed where she's coming from with those last 2 links. "Conservative woman"?! 😄

I think the children are capable of making multiple attachments and having a strong primary attachment makes it easier for children to make those other attachments in nurseries
The children that struggle in nurseries maybe don't have those staring primary attachments in the first place so they are predisposed to have problems in later life

Ideally, babies should be with a parent IMO. 'Oh he loves to socialise and plays with the others' is a (understandable) lie parents tell themselves about their babies and young toddlers.

They don't need peer interaction as babies, nor is it beneficial to be made to 'get used' to others...the best thing for them would be to remain with their one or two main caregivers at all times.

Personally, I wouldn't use a nursery. I prefer a childminder as I see it as closer to the 'ideal' of remaining with the main caregiver(s) only...I don't want a long list of employees who may be looking after them.

I agree that 4 is too young for full time school. I home ed my eldest two for a while and would have liked to have done the same for my younger two but I was a single parent from when my youngest was a toddler and it’s pretty much impossible as you’re made to work from when children are 5yrs. When my older two were small Income support was until the youngest was 12 yrs which would have allowed me to at least have the choice.

I’ve read both links. I think state childcare should be rolled out.
I wouldn’t choose to use it but then I’m in a position of having the choice. Many people are finding themselves in the position of having to stay at home as childcare is more than they could afford.
Basically I’m pro choice.
Plus if you’re miserable being a SAHM how can you possibly do a good job of it?

Nanny, as you (should) well know, such studies would need to deliberately deprive infants of their parents' presence for 8-10 hours at a time, so they can't be done, because that would be unethical.

The fact that you demand scientific studies before you'll even concede that in principle, infants are better off with their parents than in childcare says it all, really, about the current state of affairs.

Reviewing this thread, a few people have said that it makes no difference (to the child, which is what this thread was about) who is looking after it, as long as they're competent; the majority have gone along with the idea of a hierarchy of care-givers, with mother/father at the top and nursery at the bottom.

Many have also pointed out the lack of meaningful choice when it comes to flexible working patterns, part-time hours, work-life balance, compounded by ridiculous house prices, pension deficits, etc. This is what I think we, as a society, need to be working towards, so that no-one - not fathers, or mothers, least of all babies and children - needs to be disadvantaged in order to have a roof over their head and food on the table.

But Wanda, don't you think that, if state childcare was rolled out, we'd find ourselves in a position where the choice NOT to work whilst one's children were young would essentially disappear? If affordable childcare was universally available, wouldn't everyone then be expected to make use of it?

Nanny, as you (should) well know, such studies would need to deliberately deprive infants of their parents' presence for 8-10 hours at a time, so they can't be done, because that would be unethical

OP, are you trying to say that there are NO studies whatsoever on children who were in full time child care in infancy? (Hint- there ARE studies of this nature so maybe go back to the psychology books). What Nanny and others were saying is that the opinions of the Conservative Woman and Jonas Himmelstrand are not credible evidence of childcare being bad for children. The CW has a strong agenda (btw they do NOT agree with stay at home dads- it must be mums). JH clearly also has some sort of agenda and does not have a credible academic research background.

But Wanda, don't you think that, if state childcare was rolled out, we'd find ourselves in a position where the choice NOT to work whilst one's children were young would essentially disappear? If affordable childcare was universally available, wouldn't everyone then be expected to make use of it?

I really don't understand this. I don't believe working is compulsory in any country. If you want to give up work, go for it. The point is that now it is sometimes not a real choice- parents either are forced to be SAHPs because of childcare costs or they have to work longer hours to cover childcare costs. How can it possibly be a bad thing to give everyone the choice to have good, low-cost childcare so that they can go back to work if they wish?

Himmelstrand's agenda can be seen here as well:

Himmelstrand, who is a fervent advocate of home schooling, has moved his family to Åland, a Finnish island a three-hour ferry ride from Stockholm, because he fears that the "trigger-happy" Swedish social services might take his children into care

He really cannot be seen as unbiased.

Attachment theory is just that........"a theory".

I wasn't saying it would be a bad thing to have it available; I was questioning whether that availability would then lead to the expectation, and perhaps further down the line, the pressure for everyone to use it, without any evidence that it would be in the child's best interests.

If you return to my OP, you might notice that my focus was on what was best for the baby, not what would be most convenient for working parents. It's an angle that's not often discussed on MN, and when anyone tries, the thread suffers a hostile takeover by the WOHP V SAHP issue.

So, bluebells, he's biased because he home-schools? Or because he has children? Do you have children? Do you work outside the home? Do you use childcare? Whether your answers to those questions are Yes or No, by your rationale you are biased also. I really dislike the way you label anyone who disagrees with your opinions as having 'an agenda'. I don't have an agenda, I just have a different opinion to you.

If you return to my OP, you might notice that my focus was on what was best for the baby, not what would be most convenient for working parents

What is best for the baby of parents who work and do not want to/are not able to stop working is good, safe, affordable and reliable care. What we have at the moment is care that varies in quality and is often extortionate. It is not best for the baby to have a parent who does not want to be a SAHP and who is forced to give up work because there is no other option.

I really can't see how giving everyone the choice is a bad thing. You are clear that you know what is best for children so surely you would make the same choices whether or not other people had access to affordable childcare?

So, bluebells, he's biased because he home-schools? Or because he has children?

No, he is mainly biased because he sounds paranoid. What kind of a parent lives in constant fear of social services taking their children off them? To the extent that they refuse to live on the mainland. Plus, yes, a fervent supporter of home-schooling (ie the idea that all forms of state care are bad, even at a later age) with no formal academic research training, is not someone who presents a balanced view.

The main reason his credibility is shot though is that he does not have the qualifications or background to be in any position to make the claims that he does. That should be the end of it. I don't take medical advice from my plumber and nor would I take advice on the suitability of childcare from this guy.

I really dislike the way you label anyone who disagrees with your opinions as having 'an agenda'

You presented those 2 articles as evidence of why your view was correct. I said they are not unbiased- both have an agenda and cannot be relied on. I did not say YOU had an agenda or anyone else who has opinions on this topic.

Analogy: I say I think smoking is safe. Everyone tells me I am wrong. I produce an article written by Benson and Hedges saying that smoking is safe. Someone tells me that is not reliable because they have an agenda (selling cigarettes). I do not have an agenda- I simply have a belief. However, the tobacco company does because they want to push a particular way of thinking on people. That is how I used agenda in this context.

What a silly question "what kind of a parent lives in constant fear of social services taking their children off them" Duh, a parent who has reason to believe this is the case. In their damning reports SS often use "attachment theory", it means and proves nothing-- it is a theory.

What a silly question "what kind of a parent lives in constant fear of social services taking their children off them" Duh, a parent who has reason to believe this is the case

The state removes children where they are not being parented properly. There is a high threshold of proof needed (and this is the same in Scandinavia and every other country who is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights). It's not only due to drug abuse or physical abuse that children are removed. It can be because the parents hold deep-rooted beliefs that actually have harmful effects on the children. Being taken out of school CAN have harmful effects if the children are not being educated to a proper standard.

However, home education by itself does not lead to SS involvement at all. It really doesn't. Most parents who home school do not move to a remote island (away from scrutiny) because they are paranoid SS will take their kids. I do not find that normal behaviour and I would be suspicious of listening to the advice of someone who feels it necessary to run away from the authorities. Clearly you feel differently though.

If you return to my OP, you might notice that my focus was on what was best for thebaby, not what would be most convenient for working parents.

How can we possibly know that for certain when there is no conclusive scientific proof and there are so many variables (quality of home care, bonding, mental health, quality of childcare, number of hours worked) including the kind of baby you have and how old they are. Given a choice, at present, my 1yo dd would choose me over anybody else. I have no doubt she must miss me sometimes. But she's going through a perfectly normal development phase and having some separation anxiety. Even if I just leave the room she complains. But next week she'll be onto another phase where she craves interaction with others and is bored of me. At times, being with me is what she wants (e.g. when she's ill) and is therefore best for her. But her needs and therefore what is best for her changes as she grows. It would not be best for her if I felt trapped, wanted to work and my mental health suffered. Or if we were struggling financially. A child's welfare depends so much on the lives of those surrounding them. You cannot separate the two.

In my experience the state does sometimes try and sometimes succeeds in removing children who are being parented properly. A favourite cliche in their reports is attachment problems, family court judges accept this yet it is only a theory. Yes I would flee if I believed SS were trying to remove my children with their inaccurate reports and I personally have seen many of these reports.

OK, brabenot we are on very different pages on this then. I too have worked a lot with social services and while sometimes there are human errors made, social services on the whole are not out to 'get' parents who parent their children appropriately. However, the parents may well think they are parenting appropriately, but the reality is that they are not. The family court does not accept evidence that is not provided by an expert who has experience of child development. Children are not removed without a lengthy legal procedure where parents are entitled to full legal representation on legal aid. In the vast majority of cases where parents go on the run to escape the authorities, there are very good reasons for the authorities having concerns.

You said it bluebelles, "in the vast majority of cases". In some cases there are inaccurate, even false reports made simply with the agenda of removing children from innocent parents.

You've got to think longer term as well. Having a baby in nursery under a year may not be ideal, but in the longer term there are big disadvantages in coming out of the workforce, impacting your own financial security, the opportunities you can afford to give your DC, your ability to end an unhappy marriage and the example you set your DDs in particular (though working mothers are also a good example for DSs).

To paint working mothers as selfish is shitty. I can't fault anyone for wanted to contribute to a financially secure upbringing for their child.

Hmmm, OP. I am really starting to doubt your credibility and intentions. The fact you seem to be unaware that this topic has been researched by credible experts (I.e- their own peer reviewed research) is certainly puzzling considering your self declared intentions. You seem to either willfully misinterpret posts or only cherry pick odd bits. I call GF.

Thanks to Wild for pointing out the massive holes in the OPs argument.