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!

I wouldn't hold up the monarchy as an example of undamaged people. The ones who seem to have come out best are the ones whose parents were hands on.

I think it is important that very small children are looked after by people who love them and view their wellbeing and happiness as their absolute priority. I think you are more likely to provide this level of nurture if you are a parent/grandparent. So honestly speaking I do think this is better than nursery.

20, as others have said, there is a large body of research to support attachment theory and its ramifications.

Lallypop - as I said in my OP, I wanted to ask people's opinions on this subject. I'm sorry if it's making anyone feel bad; that was not my intention, but I also don't agree with limiting discussion and debate on important subjects because of the possibility of hurt feelings.

I agree with posters calling for a review of our society's attitudes to early years parenting and childhood. We live in a very UN-family-friendly era, and it seems to be getting worse rather than better, with the whole idea of 'family life' being eroded and distorted out of all recognition (IMO).

What's this nonsense about 'tiny rooms'? My DDs' nursery was nothing like that, the baby room was large and airy, babies could move about and crawl, they had outdoor time and meals were communal. And babies that cried, got cuddled.

I did visit another nursery when DD1 was small, before I went back to work, and that was definitely a childcare factory. They do exist. But not all nurseries are like that. Emotive language on this topic doesn't help.

Some children do well in nursery, some don't. It's up to parents to recognise what their child is like and adjust accordingly.

I don’t think a nursery can provide the ideal kind of care and love that a parent can
And if you can’t have a parent next best thing would be a grandparent
Or other relative and if you can’t have that then I thhnjba great childminder would be far superior than a nursery

I think all the research would demonstrate that babies need firm attachments to their primary carer when very young. A low paid, poorly qualified nursery assistant, however nice, cannot replicate the care by a loving parent.
That said, most mothers have no choice in today’s economic climate.

Were all very confident that all parents can providr ideal love and care arent we?

Because all parents make sure their child is socialised, do educational activities, make nutritious food and stick to a good routine.

You canr make blanket statements like parents care is best and nursery cant match it.

PlugIn so would that female professor say that to a man who has children and works full time??

For most people it is more or less impossible to have a decent standard of living on one wage, especially in the SE. So they have to use childcare. Plus many women don't want to be SAHMs and nobody seems to expect men to step up and be SAHDs.

It might not be the absolute best but it's probably not going to cause irreparable harm to a child to be cared for someone else, as long as their needs are met. Also, that is presuming that the parent provides a good level of care. There are SAHPs who neglect their children and don't meet their needs. We shouldn't presume that being a biological mother automatically qualifies someone as being a good carer. Complete arseholes have children too and you only need to look at the Stately Homes thread to see the damage that does.

Oh and this topic has been done to death ninety million times and its sole purpose seems to be to tell working mums that they are selfish for continuing to work. Nice.

A low paid, poorly qualified nursery assistant, however nice, cannot replicate the care by a loving parent

Poorly qualified?

A transition period to child care is often traumatic but it won't scar kids forever. Particularly if the caregivers are warm and responsive. If staff are stressed/cold/couldnt give a shit then it's not great no. But for plenty of children nursery and childminders are a better environment for them than their own homes. It's not as simple as your question.

I do think it makes a difference. I'm working on the assumption that the baby has a loving, nurturing home and isn't neglected in any way at home.

Make a simple comparison....

A baby being at home and cared for by their parent or grandparent, probably on a 1-1 or maybe with one other child is definitely going to receive more attentive care than a nursery environment where there are lots of other babies and childminders, even if the ratio of child to minder is low.

It is personal choice. I have a really good career but couldn't bring myself to put either of my two in a nursery when they were babies. But I know some people have to and I don't think they should feel guilty about it.

Pengggwyn - by 'advocating for their child', I mean parents prioritising their child's needs, even if sometimes at the expense of their own.

A very unfashionable view, I know, but I really hate the trope of 'happy mum, happy baby', and 'do what's right for you, they'll be fine'. Life is not like that! It doesn't make me happy to wake up in the night to feed/tend an upset baby, but sometimes often as parents we are called on to put our children's needs ahead of our own desires.

Have you seen newborn babies staring intently at their mothers? Of course they notice who is taking care of them!

Honsstly, all my newborns have stared intently at windows more than anything else! I don't disagree with attatchment theory, but frothy romantic statements like this aren't helpful. My 10 week old smiles at table lamps, for goodness sake!

I personally think having a parent/grandparent looking after a child is more ideal as they are given the unconditional love no care providers will give. That said I do think other childcare has a place in providing social experience and giving other environments where they are not no1.

As a former nanny and teacher I provided care to the best of my ability but I did not love the children, very fond of but not love.

That said care provided by a parent or grandparent that is not happy to do so would be worse, which is where it becomes personal preference.

I would not put ds in nursery full timebefore age 3. One day a week may be ok but I looked at some nursery’s on mat leave and did not like what I saw. Lots of very young inexperienced staff, not all highly qualified. I imagine because of this a high staff turnover. Seems to me is a way to make money it’s a business. Cheap staff more profit. The Small children were looking sad. As it was I managed to condense my hours and drop some so didn’t have to with use of my mum and mil who kindly provide childcare. I realise not everyone is so lucky. Some people might not think a grandparent is ideal for regular care but my son loves going to my mum/mil and I know they like me have his best interests at heart it isn’t a job for them.
If I’d had to I think I would have quit work and been poor or had a childminder for that continuity of care.

From 2.5 - 3 the kids looks as though they were having a great time. So I think 3 is a good age for nursery.

Were all very confident that all parents can providr ideal love and care arent we?

Yes, I was thinking this. There are an awful lot of children who receive sub-standard care at home. And given the obsession with one-on-one care here, presumably parents must not only stay home, but also ensure they have at least a five year gap between children.

I would love one of these people who insist that it makes a huge difference to go into, say, a classroom of 11 year olds and identify which ones did and didn't go to nursery. They can't, of course. Because it's one factor among the thousands that shape the child's personality and outlook.

Our nursery is going to start using slings in the baby room soon.

This is such an emotive topic it's difficult for people to talk about objectively. No one wants to believe they haven't done the best for their child so we all have an inbuilt need to believe the option we chose - or had to choose - was the best for our child.

FWIW the child psychologist Oliver James says there is a hierarchy of care: parent, grandparent, friend or neighbour, nanny, childminder and then nursery. The best care comes from the people who love the child and the care, love and attention naturally diminish as as carers have less of a personal connection with the child. One-to-one care in the child's own home and familiar surroundings make the child more secure than a childminders house, but the home style setting with less children is better than a nursery with lots of children competing for attention. It does make sense. The cooing and gazing into a child's eyes and constant talking and smiling that a parent or grandparent does is not going to replicated by a person on a 9-5 job even if they grow a bond with that child.

Were all very confident that all parents can providr ideal love and care arent we?

It's sort of self-selecting (to an extent).

Some people have no choice. They either can't afford to stay home or they can't afford to use childcare.

But of the rest, parents who know they can't do ideal care for babies and toddlers will make other arrangements (which is good). Very responsive, hyper-empaths will want to be hands on (also good), hopefully from what's left, lots of parents will at least read about attachment and bear that in mind when choosing between lots of options.

by 'advocating for their child', I mean parents prioritising their child's needs, even if sometimes at the expense of their own.

Gosh, you really are horrible, aren't you? Making a thread just to tell women who use nurseries that they put themselves before their children. I wonder if there are any studies on what it does to a child if its main carer is the kind of person who enjoys making other people feel guilty?

Penggg, I do have a view (not an agenda) - in the same way that you do. I have held back from bluntly stating it as I wanted to have a discussion about the theoretical underpinnings of the different views on this subject, rather than me stating an opinion that I know a lot of people will take as a personal attack.

by 'advocating for their child', I mean parents prioritising their child's needs, even if sometimes at the expense of their own

So you don't think that going out to earn money so that your children can have a decent upbringing and live in a decent area with decent schools etc is putting the child's needs first? You think that the parent should give up work, potentially lose the roof over their head and become dependent on the state? Do you not understand that everyone does not have a partner who earns 6 figures and that being SAHP is just really not an option?