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!

Hahaha, I have seen so many parents who spend every waking hour playing with their kids to the extent that their kids cannot play on their own as a result. There are people on here who think its neglect to leave your child to play on their own in their room. I have heard people say that they cannot possibly do any housework while looking after a toddler because their entire time is spent 'interacting' with said toddler.

Well obviously the same thing is to avoid tiger mothers as if they were lepers.

Of course it's a 'thing'. If it was still socially acceptable to stick your kids in the garden and crack on with things, people wouldn't have a problem with nurseries at all. The reason they do is that they believe that young children need constant interaction with the primary carer.

Wow lots of bouncing between extremes going on

My point was that people will choose what to see and how to interpret it as part of confirmation bias. If you think women should be forced to stay at home by being shamed by society at large then of course you’ll conflate a child’s issues with being sent to nursery.

But it says more about you than the mother of that child.

Also I have a bagload of emotional problems and my Mum was a SAHM. School was my first escape from a troubled home!

(I'll catch up in a bit - need to unload the dishwasher.)

Battleax but how do you expect such a family to finance their lives? Is there some magic way that money just appears in your bank account to pay the rent and the mortgage and stuff, meaning that you don't have to work? I would have thought earning a wage is as much part of raising children and being responsible for them as reading books to them

I don't expect anyone to do anything.

I did crazy financial self harm doing what I thought we needed (in not sure I'll ever have a decent pension).

Other families do other things according to their juggle.

But if you read back later, you'll see how quickly you particularly put the boot into SAHMs in your indignation at OP's posts.

It doesn't help to attack other mothers.

None of the choices are "wrong".

I work as a nanny and have also worked in a nursery in the past.
The nursery i worked in was definitely not the right environment for a baby. Sadly, i believe, it is the same for most private nurseries. Of course there are some brilliant ones but all of my nanny friends did nursery work in the past and they almost all have the same stories to tell. Constant changes of staff, low morale, way too much paperwork and the worst one- being chronically short staffed. I worked in a baby- toddler room that took up to 12 children, so with a 1to 3 ratio we had 4 members of staff... in theory.. reality was very different. We couldnt give the kind of care babies needed unfortunately. They were safe, they were fed, and never ignored when they cried but couldnt hold them and spend 1 on 1 time with them to create a proper bond. I dont know who dreamed up the 1 to 3 ratio but i dont agree with it.
Having said that, i grew up in a big family with a lot of siblings, with a stay at home mum. We had farm animals and the only source of water was a tap in the garden- no running water in the house. My mum spent a lot of time tending to the animals, handwashing clothes, carrying in water, watering the plants ( we grew all fruit and veg) , chopping firewood. ( My father worked full time.) So to keep us safe when we were babies/toddlers she would leave us in a cot with a few toys... and she had to do that a fair bit. We went to nursery once we turned 3, pretty standard in my home country.

And honestly - I think babies and small children are best with their primary caregivers and DH and I have juggled our careers and both work part time to facilitate this. Our mortgage is covered by one salary deliberately.

I agree babies can recognise their mother (or primary caregiver who they've formed an attachment with) and would prefer to be with them. I've also read the research of the preferred hierarchy of parent/grandparent/nanny/nursery.

I would feel extremely unhappy leaving an under 1 in full time child care. But that's my opinion and my feelings and both of my DC have been velcro babies and not very laid back at all about being left with other people. I know other children who would adjust a lot more easily.

I'd rather have the unhappy 4 year old who you can reason with about being left, than the unhappy 4 month old who just feels abandoned.

But if you read back later, you'll see how quickly you particularly put the boot into SAHMs in your indignation at OP's posts.

No, if people want to be SAHMs, they can. I did not put the boot in- I suggested that the OP was resentful of her choice and I do think that is often the case with people who start threads slagging off other people's choices. For many, it is very fulfilling. For others, it is their personal idea of hell. However, you don't tend to get threads started by WOHMs saying that SAHMs are this that and the other. WOHMs are constantly made to feel guilty. If it truly was a case of each family chooses what is best for them, then why start a thread implying it's bad for babies to be in nursery? If it's not your baby, why is it your concern?

I think OP is interested in attachment theory.

And clearly less interested in mortgages and pensions.

There is a lot of material to be found about the attachment theory. She could study it and become qualified in child psychology if she so pleased.

Asking strangers on the internet what they think babies think is not going to help her at all if thats what she wants information on.

I think OP is interested in attachment theory

And clearly less interested in mortgages and pensions

Fair enough. I suggest she reads about attachment theory then. The people who are uninterested in mortgages and pensions tend to be the ones who have enough money not to have to worry about them. For the average 30 something, it is unlikely that there will be a state pension when we retire. Some people would never want to put their kids into a position where they have to provide financial support because the parent has made no financial provision themselves. Half of all marriages break down and courts don't really order long term maintenance anymore. It is equally valid to think about your child's longer term life rather than just the first 18 months or so. e.g. how would your child fare if your DH left and you had very little money to raise them?

Where is the discussion about fathers’ parenting responsibilities in this thread?

Aaaand you're not bring goady. Not you.🙄

We don't live in a perfect world. If we did, there'd be lots of options for part time and flexible working, we'd be able to take mortgage holidays to raise our children, there would be no problem at all re-entering the work force after a break.

So given this, let's stop pretending there's any such thing as a perfect choice. There are advantages and significant disadvantages to both staying at home and using childcare. These conversations get so defensive and emotional because we struggle to be totally secure in our choices - and so put others down in an attempt to feel better.

There are no perfect choices, only best fix ones for your individual circumstances. What's best for you depends on your child, your finances, your temperament, your partner, your support, I could go on and on.

We need to all have more confidence in the choices we make - and that will help us avoid the nasty judgemental tone on threads like this.

Where is the discussion about fathers’ parenting responsibilities in this thread?

I wish it was only ever discussed as a joint thing (where second parents are about). It's archaic to think one half of a couple is responsible.

Mine were in full time child care (nursery) from 5 months old. I think they were better looked after in this situation, I found babies very hard and being at home very boring and depressing. Both my children who are now adults are healthy, happy, sociable, degree educated, generous, kind individuals.

....with absolutely no memory of nursery at all other than the odd sports day or nativity event.

Where is the discussion about fathers’ parenting responsibilities in this thread?

You misunderstand. It's only bad for the baby if the MUM is not there, you see. If the dad does want to be a SAHD he is some sort of hero. He will never be expected to be a SAHD. Imagine if a guy from work told you that his wife was expecting a baby. As if you would ever get people asking questions like 'so, will you be giving up work then?' or 'are you going to go part-time and see how it goes?' Yet those are the sorts of questions immediately asked of women. Or if you went to a conference and met a male attendee who mentioned his 3 kids. Would you think 'wow, pretty selfish swanning off to conferences- don't have kids if you don't want to raise them'? Anyone pretending that they treat men and women equally in this regard is being disingenuous.

Most people have to go to work. It's not nice to make them feel guilty about that. Women have to walk a very narrow path as it is, all this judgment does nobody any good.

I think its good for babies and young children get out of the house and socialise with other people. Good quality child care is no worse than being at home.

My mum was a SAHM and I did not have a good childhood. I don't even speak to my parents now.

I have nannied for children who had very little bond with their parents. They had day nannies, night nannies and weekend nannies. I have also nannied for children whose parents really couldnt wait to get out of the house in the morning. Their work was a sanctuary for them, away from temperamental, unpredictable toddlers. A pair of uni lecturers who admitted that they had no clue , they werent consistent with discipline but way to rigid about certain silly things- 'this toy was intented for this kind of play, you are doing it wrong darling'.
I think the children who thrive in childcare the most are the ones who already have safe, secure attachments with their parents. But some will never have that at home and the only secure-ish attachment they will have is with a childcare worker.
In an ideal world children should be cared for by a parent until at least the age of 18 months... but in an ideal world all parents would have the means and willingness and attitude to create strong bonds.

bluebelles exactly. A lot of people were shocked when i went back part time, then visibly horrified when i not only went back full time but took on a more senior role.

The colleague i worked with before i went on maternity leave frequently questioned me about why i wouldn't miss my child horribly.

Nobody asked dp that when he went back to work full time when ds was 2 weeks old, like so many men do.

I’ve questioned myself a lot about our childcare decisions, but I’m comfortable we’re doing the best thing for DD.

I took 7 months maternity leave - I own a business, I couldn’t afford to leave it for the full 12 months.

DH took 5 month SPL, it was fucking awful leaving DD at 6.5 months old, but they had a wonderful time and I can honestly say DH and I share parenting 50:50, which works for us.

At 11 months DD started nursery 4 days a week (I take Fridays off to be with her). Nursery offers her things I would find more difficult, the company of so many other children, messy play, cooking, she’s learning so much every day. And she’s happy.

Her settling in period at nursery was fine, there were three days that she had a little cry as I left, other than that, and since, she’s been happy and confident and is excited to arrive each day. She’s also sleeping much better as nursery really tires her out.

In an ideal world, where we didn’t live in London, and our outgoings (not including nursery or treats) were almost £4K per month. I’d prefer to work less and be with her more. But I work because I have to, and I choose this type of job because I want to offer her as much as I can in terms of comfort and opportunities.

If she was unhappy we’d change, whether that be working less, hiring a nanny, etc. but for us, this works.

Ironically, I think I would get out to groups a lot more if I was a SAHM! As it is, in weeks where I only have one day at home, I prefer not to be in a schedule and I think our DS (2) likes to relax and play at home after two busy days at the childminder's.

We've been very lucky in that we have flexible employers and family help, so our DS is at a childminder's for two days each week, then at home with either a parent or grandparent the rest of the week. For us, and him, I think he has a good balance of outings (park and generally out on errands), play time at home and time with other children, as well as occasional soft play, etc. It is much, much easier for me to leave him now and he's more confident about me coming back, but that could be an age thing as well.

In our case, the childminder offers things I don't/can't - playmates of the same age and older, more elaborate and messy craft activities than we do at home, and trips to the forest (we don't have a car). But that is specific to us, and our situation, and isn't the same for everyone. The above is simply the balance we've found which we feel works well overall for everyone, including our child. Ultimately, we wanted him to spend more time at home with family than in childcare, but we are very lucky to be able to make that choice.

Oh, and DS's fussy eating improved immeasurably at the childminder's - with some knock-on effect at home still waiting for the full effect though