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!

Or you could just mind your own business? Unless a parent is abusing/neglecting their child in anyway then it's nothing, that you or anyone else needs to judge them on. Why a parent is/isn't working also isn't any of your damn business

I can't speak for my babies, but I felt it was crucially important.

My babies were only looked after by me or OH.

WildBluebells - Love your username, but I really take issue with this:

"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."

This thread isn't actually about WOHPs, believe it or not.

@confusedlittleone I think OP was just posting out of interest, your post indicates that you’re quite defensive over your choices whichever way it is? The whole SAHM, part time, full time debate will always happen and will always be divisive.
I battle with my choice monthly, what I find interesting is that DH has never once felt the same guilt.

Same here, nameChanger. My parents were actually strictly anti-childcare as they believed that no nursery or childcarer could offer the superior parenting they could. Unfortunately they were a pair of narcissists (explaining their solid belief that their parenting was exemplary). This also extended to openly and expressly judging other parents (and children of those parents) who did not follow their beliefs and in the process alienating themselves from most normal people. I did not have any friends or socialise until I started school, which was hugely difficult for me.

If you had asked my parents, they were the perfect parents. I had no sugar, no TV, no commercialised toys- the list went on (and sadly included no vaccinations). It was a horrible childhood and I wish that there had been compulsory state childcare at a much earlier age to save me from that shit. There are lots of batshit people like my parents out there- it's not a hugely extreme case. But the point is that both my parents were also hugely into attachment theory and would have sworn blind that putting kids in nursery was tantamount to abuse.

I’m a nanny so my honest opinion is that you have to be prepared to pay for good quality childcare. I treat my charge like I would want my own toddler treating.

I think she’s a very happy little girl, she understand she’s with Nanny while Mum and daddy are at work and we have a lovely time together.

I have worked in nursery and it was fine too, but it’s not my preferred method of childcare. I would prefer a childminder or Nanny over nursery.

I think it's safe to say most mums would prefer to be with their children when they are small. But we need money. Or SAH parenting doesn't suit our nature and emotional needs and isn't good for our mental health. I'm in category 1, I know a good few ladies in category 2. And as someone who is currently extremely concerned about my own mum's collapsing financial situation, disastrous marriage and failing mental health, I do genuinely believe it is in my child's long term interest that I am financially secure and mentally well, even if that means we have to be apart sooner and longer than either of us would like.

One could argue I should have waited until I had savings to support a longer time away from earning/developing professionally/contributing to my pension, but then it might have been too late to have her at all. Plus before I had her I honestly had no idea how incredibly hard it would be to leave her with someone else at only 1. People tell you, but I really don't think you know until you have children. Certainly if I do it again I'm going to consider more carefully if and how I could be there for longer next time.

I hope she'll be fine, and that if I can shower her with love when we are together, she'll grow up secure in that love, and that in time she'll understand why I did things the best I could, and not perfectly.

I'm breaking my heart about this daily as the time approaches. I really could do without this kind of post. But hey, free country.

Yes Chester but the way you framed your first post meant that was the first direction it was always going to take. You just invited women to shred each other’s life choices on AIBU. That was never going to end well.

This thread isn't actually about WOHPs, believe it or not

Indirectly it is though. Because it's WOHPs who have to let their children be cared for by non-parent carers. Therefore, if the babies are unhappy in childcare, the WOHPs are choosing to put them in an unhappy environment in order to go to work.

OP, you've asked for individual opinions so I haven't RTFT, as I can guess that debates are underway!

My opinion is that it depends on two things.

First, on how many hours the child is with the professional. I'm sure most babies don't need LOVING care 24/7, and it's enough for them to have loving care part of the time and competent basic care the rest of the time. I don't know where I would draw the line and how many hours is "too many" to be away from someone who really loves them.

Second, it depends on how emotionally involved the professional is. Some professionals are genuinely deeply fond of their young charges and others are not. However, this could be a Catch-22. I'd want my child to have a close bond with their carer. But carers don't stay for life, and it's bound to be painful for the child to be parted from a carer they have come to love.

OP hasn't made a women's issue Daily. She's not the misogynist, you are. (And that was a vicious personal attack to boot.)

This is exactly why childcare costs never make it onto the mainstream political agenda. Women claim the guilt, claim the responsibility and we never move much further towards equal parenting.

I've worked in quite a few nurseries. Some are better than others and I think it's the quality of care that counts.

I personally chose not use childcare whilst my dc were under 2. I wanted them to be looked after by somebody who loves them.

My issue with nurseries is they tend to have a high turnover of staff due to the low wages. The better nurseries are the ones that have higher levels of staff retention.

I don't like the idea that a childminder is unaccountable to anyone on a day to day basis. I'm sure there are lots of good childminders out there I know a few who are amazing but many more that I wouldn't want to leave my child with.

I don't think it makes a difference to the child long term. Both have their pros and cons.

For me it was important to be home with them and whilst I'm regularly told how lucky I am, we have made sacrifices to make it happen.

I think most parents are doing their best for their child and family, I really don't see the need to start bitchy threads like this to put each other down.

I live in a country where the norm is to send your children to a nursery setting at one year old. I have lived here for five years and never met a native SAHM, there are no classes or playgroups to take your kids to in the week (bar expat ones) because the expectation is that all the mums go back to work and the kids go into the nursery setting.

I mention it because threads like this remind me how much cultural bias there is to these topics, I do not live in a country full of emotionally damaged adults, the nursery is not filled with sad children and the first year of school Is not spent trying to placate nervous, aggressive children. It’s much the same as I imagine it is in cultures where 99% of mums are SAH and the idea of going back to work is the exception - a mixed bag.

Different doesn’t mean wrong.

"This thread isn't actually about WOHPs, believe it or not

Indirectly it is though. Because it's WOHPs who have to let their children be cared for by non-parent carers. Therefore, if the babies are unhappy in childcare, the WOHPs are choosing to put them in an unhappy environment in order to go to work."

I would say that there is not as much choice in the matter as I (and surely all of us) would like, actually.

When I spoke about 'theoretical underpinnings, Pengggwyn, I meant the assumptions that governmental policy and societal norms are based up. Currently, govt policy assumes that it is A Good Thing for both parents to go out to work; presumably, they therefore also need to argue that there is no qualitative difference for the babies/toddlers/children/teenagers involved, between care provided by their families, and professional child-care in a variety of settings.

I'm starting this thread, my aim was to examine whether all the many underlying assumptions of 21st century life in Britain are, in fact, correct. And if not, what can be done about them.

Under 3s should be cared by a parent rather than institutional care if possible. Large-scale studies have shown that children, especially boys, in early care have increased anxiety (measured using stress hormone tests), weakened bonds with their parents and are more likely to have aggressive and disobedient behaviour.

Have a look at ‘Raising Boys’ by Steve Biddulph.

I’m not having a go at anyone. It is very hard to be a SAHP and some cannot afford to have one. The world today is truly geared towards double income families. But I think it is hard to deny that a young child would benefit more from spending all day with an interested and loving parent rather than a key worker with whom they could hope, at best, to form a fond attachment.

So crumbs you don’t think nursery staff are qualified for looking after children but housekeepers are okay then.

My child goes to nursery, he had a child minder from 4 months but started nursery at 13 months - i went back to uni 4 weeks after giving birth whilst my mum took time off to mind my son.

It was in my child’s best interest for me to return to uni and finish my degree instead of being at home everyone is different.

But if anyone thinks a housekeeper is better equipt to look after their child than nursery staff they’re deluded

I think the OPs question is specularly unimportant, given that most parents have to work and have no choice except to use childcare.

@ChesterBelloc

"When I spoke about 'theoretical underpinnings, Pengggwyn, I meant the assumptions that governmental policy and societal norms are based up. Currently, govt policy assumes that it is A Good Thing for both parents to go out to work; presumably, they therefore also need to argue that there is no qualitative difference for the babies/toddlers/children/teenagers involved, between care provided by their families, and professional child-care in a variety of settings.

."
This. A hundred times over.

Furthermore, the government and companies are not offering enough part time work. Some, if not many parents, could look after their own baby if part-time work became the norm. This should be the ideal scenariou not baby being full time in nursery. The problem is the people who make the policies generally can afford nanny's (who give one-to-one childcare), and therefore haven't actually experienced nurseries.

Bloody hell - is this argument STILL going on??? You'd think in this day and age people would have got over this shit. Parents do what's best at the time, what they can afford, what keeps their lives/careers going. Both my parents worked: in fact my mum was the main breadwinner - I am too. My children were in childcare from 8 months to aged 11 - they are now 12 and 14 and they are fabulous, grounded, happy children. No scars there. I've just asked them if they ever resented or still resent the fact I work and my daughter has replied: "why wouldn't you work?" Both want careers doing something that they will love and know they need to work hard to get that. I think that's a valuable life lesson right there.

No one asks my husband if he misses his kids, or feels guilty that he's working, or if his babies would have preferred to be at home with him. No one asks him about his work life balance or how he juggles everything. Yet I'm the main earner and have the more irregular hours with travel. It's always the mothers that get judged. Not only judged, but patronised too.

The real problem is that decent, affordable and flexible childcare is hard to find. And that too many employers STILL haven't got to grips with flexible working. This is a national scandal . Where I work, job shares, part time working and working from home is really rare. And forget any idea of a nursery on site. If we changed the culture around working for everyone it would make such a difference.

I'm starting this thread, my aim was to examine whether all the many underlying assumptions of 21st century life in Britain are, in fact, correct. And if not, what can be done about them

I think there are better ways to examine that, than asking randoms on the internet. How on earth would that prove assumptions are correct? It cant can it because all our opinions are anecdotal or from our own personal experience.

If you REALLY wanted to "examine" it youd be studying it on a professional level, not asking on mumsnet.

I have absolutely no doubt that my 2 boys would have been happier in my care. I feel guilty about my oldest in particular, I tried to get him one to one care but were v unlucky with childminders and his care changed more than I would like 🙁 Then he hated nursery when he went in at 2.5 until he was moved to the preschool at 3.5...my friend whose children have been in the same nursery from 6 months then after school so same friends, surroundings (they're now 5 and 7) undoubtedly were better off. At the same time, financially I had to work - dh wasn't earning much at the time - and I would go bonkers at home long term, I did love going back to work. Now 4 years on, the security of my salary allowed dh to go self employed and he is now much happier as well as a high earner (I never believed he would be!) I changed jobs and got promoted, so on higher salary with less family unfriendly hours, and potential to maybe drop hours in a year or two (v little part-time, flexible work where I live) and generally life is better. You need to look at these things in the round. In the short term, as baby/toddlers my sons might prefer me at home, in the medium- long term definitely better for the family as a whole.

This will always be a dfficult discussion because despite the evidence that it can be damaging for young children to be in nurseries, there is also a government agenda to get both parents working wherever possible and there is also a large proportion of families who feel financially they do not have a choice. This means the evidence is not published widely.
Whilst I think there is clear evidence that up until 18m/2 years, a baby does better at home I do think that also depends on individual circumstances. They will obviously do well with a happy parent who wants to be at home looking after them, but if they are at home with a parent who does not enjoy that role, they would probably thrive more with a constant care giver other than the parent, who has gone into childcare because they love doing it.
I so often see threads where it is stated that nurseries are good for kids to increase their socialisation skills and prepare them for school. I have a friend with 14 kids and none of them ever went to a pre-school and they all stayed at home until their 5th birthday but not one of them had any difficulty with starting school (prob because they had several siblings already there!)

WHat Daily Maui said x1000000

You can’t start a dialogue about anything by creating factions and being overly emotive about the subject.

Employers should offer more flexible working. The price and quality of child care is a scandal. But we won’t fix that with ‘won’t somebody think of the children’ style handwringing and COD philosophy.

Government policy should be based on wide research and many focus groups. I’m not sure what you thing you’ll get out of the anecdotal evidence on here. Other then the usual interested groups and catty posters.

I have been a SAHM for 17 years to 5 children. I believe I have done the best thing for them and for me emotionally. Mainly me if I'm honest. I would have hated leaving them with anyone else and I feel very lucky to have spent so much time with them.

I think they are turning out very well but I think they would have turned out just as well if they had been cared for by someone else for some of the time too. I would have suffered emotionally but I have suffered in other ways instead. I am completely financially dependant on my DH.

Something I find very interesting is that nearly all the people who judge WOHM for sending their dc to childcare seem to have no problem with sending their dc to school for 6 hours a day at 4 years old. Lots of children would prefer to be with their parents at this age too but it causes nowhere near this level of debate.

I home ed and I guess I could judge them for sending their precious dc to be educated by someone else. You know, the quality of teachers varies massively and if they didn't want to educate them themselves why did they even have children in the first place? I mean they could be spending an extra 6 hours a day with them and they farm them off to school!

Children need to be looked after by someone who is competent and interested in that child's wellbeing. They need to know that they are loved. I think if a parent wants to look after their dc full time then we should try, as a society, to enable that. If a parent wants to work then we should make sure that there is high-quality affordable childcare available. All parents should have access to support with raising their children, whether that be baby groups or parenting classes.

My eldest son has a great group of friends. I have no idea which ones were cared for mainly by their Mother or by professional childcarers. I do know which kids were raised by alcoholics, or drug addicts or abusive parents. These are the kids we should be worrying about.