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!

Just to answer the point that if state funded childcare was available would everyone take it up to the detriment of society and their children.

I am in Norway, if I chose to not send my children to the state subsidized childcare that is readily available and affordable then the state would PAY ME to educate my children at home. It is an actual subsidy that I would be entitled to if I was a SAHM. It is labeled as a ‘SAHM wage’ paid by the government which I obviously cannot claim if I use the nursery.

I have still as in my previous post not met anyone in my 5 years who is a native SAHM. I will say that the nursery system is different here culturally in addition my working hours are less, I or my DH are legally entitled as parents to be granted an 80 % working week if we request it and I have far more holiday in addition to specific ‘children’s leave’ to be used if the kids are ill. So I also agree with PP who said it is difficult to compare two different countries. FT nursery care here looks very different to FT nursery care in the UK.

"Better" is a relative term so it obviously depends on what the other options are. I think a baby in childcare is better than at home with a parent who has given up their job and can't afford food/heat. A parent choosing to go back to work early to meet their child's needs would be putting their baby first. I even think it is better than being with a parent that is bored out their mind looking after them but is happy to see them when they pick them up.

Not everyone has an ideal set of circumstances to pick from a range of ideological choices. Most people are doing their best given the life they lead.

For God's sake Brabenot, what possible motivation could SS have for taking perfectly safe and well cared for children from excellent parents? It costs them money and time they are sorely lacking to do so. What are they supposedly gaining from deliberately breaking up functioning families?

lovesmycake, how does ft childcare look, by comparison in Norway? In what ways is it different to here? Do you have nurseries, nannies and cms as the main childcare options?

lelapaletute no-one knows, do they? Because the family courts are closed. Maybe spero the family court lawyer will come on and advise. She wrote around January time this year something like, the emphasis is on removal rather than support.

lelapaletute no-one knows, do they? Because the family courts are closed. Maybe spero the family court lawyer will come on and advise. She wrote around January time this year something like, the emphasis is on removal rather than support

They aren't 'closed'- the press has access to the family court but understandably certain hearings are held in private and judgments are anonymised (because otherwise we would be splashing names of vulnerable children about in the press). There are literally thousands of family court judgments available online. The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby is heavily in favour of opening access. Ironically, the press always complains about closed courts while commenting on a case where they have been in court to hear the judgment.

So totally false to say nobody knows. Courts will only order removal of children from their families where it has been shown that they have suffered or are at risk of suffering serious harm attributable to the parenting given to them. There may be the odd case where an over-zealous social worker pushes for removal, but this is scrutinised in court- the SW does not decide- the judge does. In fact what we should be more worried about are the cases where the state has not intervened and children have died as a result of the abuse suffered at the hands of their parents. For example- Ellie Butler who was removed from the safety of her grandparents and returned to her sadistic father who killed her and her enabling mother who turned a blind eye.

People who allege that SS have a 'quota' for adoption and are intent on taking people's children are seriously crackpots. Nothing could be further from the truth. However, it is very difficult for a parent who is causing their child harm to accept that they are doing this. Easier to just blame the authorities.

the emphasis is on removal rather than support

I doubt a family lawyer wrote that. There is no policy like that (I am a family lawyer too btw). But maybe she meant that by the time SS get involved (due to lack of funding to enable support at an earlier stage), removal is the only realistic option. I mean what else can you do if the parent has injured or sexually abused the child for instance?

I doubt a family lawyer wrote that. There is no policy like that (I am a family lawyer too btw). But maybe she meant that by the time SS get involved (due to lack of funding to enable support at an earlier stage), removal is the only realistic option. I mean what else can you do if the parent has injured or sexually abused the child for instance?

Please don't invent things speculatively about a post you didn't see.

I do vaguely remember that thread bunfight and spero did say something of that ilk in the context of seesawing historical trends in CP and where we currently are in the cycle of removal or support being more favoured. Something along those lines.

Battleax thanks for that, I'm glad someone else remembered and you explained it much better than myself. When a family court lawyer (in fact, I think spero may be a barrister) talks about the emphasis being on removal rather than support, it's very important and should be shared. Not to scare families but to show why some parents flee or leave the mainland as with the gentleman discussed upthread.

My sd went to a (good) nursery from 3 months old full time right up to going to school. She's lovely, happy, knows we love her, she talks fondly of nursery and developed amazing bonds with the staff there over the years.

Yes brabe it stuck in the mind for all of those reasons and because it was spero saying it.

Gerry this is going to be controversial but I simply couldn’t stand ds having such good bonds with anyone other than me/immediate family especially at three months old. It wouldn’t feel right to me.
Babies simply aren’t supposed to be away from their mothers/caregiver at this age for long periods.
Although I’m sure you’re sd is a lovely girl.

Obviously once he’s older he will have attachments to other adults outside of the family, teachers etc. Just not as a tiny tiny baby.

Even if we agree young children prefer and are happier being looked after by their mum, for me the more interesting question is what long term outcome does that have on the child. We frequently make choices that go against a child's preference and make them momentarily less happy because we look at the bigger picture, ie sending them to school, not giving them free reign of the house, teaching them manners, encouraging them to sleep in their own bed etc. If you make all decisions based on maximising child happiness you could well end up with a spoilt, self centred, over-attached child. So yeah, I don't think the question really ends there, it's more about whether children do better or are significantly happier in the long run being looked after at home by a parent. And how far do you take that, until what age? How much of a difference does it really make? I suspect it's very difficult to quantify or measure.

"Over-attached child"? Never met one of those. Bowlby might be a good starting point OP if you genuinely want to understand the difference between loving primary care givers vs key workers meeting needs.

Well I don't know if over-attached is an actual term, but I was specifically thinking of a girl I grew up with who slept in her parents bedroom until the end of primary, couldnt bear being away from her mother and from my perspective as a child had her mum wrapped around her little finger - not in a manipulative way, but her mum would and did do anything for her to an extent which seemed incredible to me. They have a very dysfunctional and sad relationship now as adults.

Haven’t read whole thread so this point may have been made, but didn’t see it.

From my experience of having two children under 1 at a small nursery / childminder’s (part-time, going up to four days a week at 1), it doesn’t seem to make a lot of difference under 18 months. Both very smiley, placid, affectionate babies who seemed to love being with me but also to love being at nursery.

Over 18 months, and especially over 2, a whole different story, leading me to hiring a nanny instead and also to reducing my own hours. I’m not sure that it even makes sense to talk of a six-month old baby being “attached” to someone, because that implies the possibility of being detached or capable of missing someone, and I just don’t think they can in a normal sense (because no real sense of memory or time). Attachment is a much more vexed question for toddlers than babies.

Bowlby's Theory of Attachment is the way to go here. Basically its about babies needing a secure attachment with his/her primary caregiver (usually mother). Once that secure attachment is made the child is able to receive care from other caregivers without their primary attachment being sabotaged.

The strength of the primary attachment determines how well the child will do within various care settings, without affecting his/her emotional needs.

New Zealand has a useful in-between option that fits between nursery and home: Playcentres. You go with your child, so they get the socialization and group experiences, but also the 1:1 care as needed, and secure attachment. Children can go from ages 0-6 though typically it's about 1 to 4, as kids start school on 5th birthday and might do kindy first. When confident enough, over 2.5 year olds can be left for some (not all) sessions if there are enough other adults to help care for them.

Because the centres are parent-run and they only employ one or two educators who teach kids but also teach parents, it is very affordable - about 10 quid per 9-12 session per term. Parents can also get early years qualifications through Playcentres.

It's a bloody brilliant system. I stumbled on it after not being able to get a nursery place and thus having to turn down a job. I am now hoping no suitable jobs come up before DS goes to school in 2022...

DarlesChickens yes. If primary attachment is a mess then nursery may actually improve matters. And it is a mess in a larger number of cases than society cares to acknowledge...

They have separation anxiety until age 2 so yes big difference

It's a tricky question. Both my LO's went to nursery at 11 months and spent 2 days there a week plus a day with GP. It is very difficult to say whether this is the correct choice, however the nursery is absolutely lovely and the team are genuinely nice (I see many of them out of nursery too). Also when it came to preschool my children were so used to being dropped off they practically skipped in, so I think it has helped with their confidence.

I'm finding this a bit of a difficult read.

My daughter is 3 and she has been in nursery three days a week since she was 8 months old and I went back to work. Whilst of course o would have preferred to have been the one caring for her in this time, I must say she has thrived in the nursery. The staff are warm, responsive and committed. They seem to genuinely love and care about the children in their care. My newborn will be starting there in a few months and I desperately hope she will be as happy there as her sister has been.

It will be a wrench to leave her. But you know, I work so that we can live in this lovely town, with its good schools and seaside views and low crime rate. My girls can have their own bedroom, a playroom, a garden, space to play. Overall, whilst I wish I could stay at home, I believe working is in the best interests of my girls overall.

The reason I chose the nursery setting? Well for one we couldn't afford a nanny. My view on the childminders in this town is not positive. I regularly see them grouped together in soft play or playgroups or whatever, chatting over coffee while babies crawl around the floor and are largely ignored. I'm not for one single minute saying all childminders are like this but this is a small town and they are a conspicuous group. They just don't seem to give much of a damn from an outsiders perspective anyway

You do realise that babies can't talk right?

It’s not a black and white issue, of course. Like so much debated on here there is a best case scenario (baby at home with one consistent caregiver ie mother/mother substitute until 2.5) and a worst case scenario (baby horribly neglected) and all sorts of shades in between. Note this isn’t, or shouldn’t be, a gender issue - mother or MOTHER SUBSTITUTE.

The reason the question of “what is best for little children?” is important is because the answer is used to justify social policy. Let’s say studies find nursery is great for children right from the get go. Both parents straight back into work paying lots of tax, chzthxbai. Or how about only mothers are good enough carers for little children? Well then - stop demanding equal treatment at work all you working mothers. We know you should be at home with your children.

Personally I think the ideal situation would be: free quality childcare for all, with those who choose to stay at home with their children paid a wage by the state to recognise their contribution and ensure that it was a real choice for all parents.