Mothers should always be with their children until they are 3 years old

[abacucat]

This is what one parenting "expert" is recommending in the name of attachment parenting. And he does mean mothers, not fathers. AIBU to think this is a load of rubbish? Babies and toddlers are not damaged as is alleged, from spending time apart from their mother.

www.drmomma.org/2010/07/mother-toddler-separation.html

I would have loved to have had 3 years off with my children, but unfortunately, we have bills to pay and a large mortgage. I think children ARE (or would be) better off staying home with their mums. Undoubtedly. I would absolutely love to be a SAHM.
I'm a teacher and come across SO MANY mental health problems in the children I teach. I honestly believe this is caused by the fact so many kids don't spend enough time with their parents on a day to day basis. E. G. When they get up in the morning, parents are already out at work, when they get in from school parents are at work, no family dinner round the table, once parents do event get in they are too stressed/tired to spend quality time with their child. This is sad but true. I used to go to school back in the day where mums stayed at home, and there were definitely far less obvious mental health/behavioural problems in class.

Working aside what happens to older children who need their mothers? Hospital stays meant I had to leave my youngest plus a Uni move for my eldest very far away that ended up me leaving the youngest for a couple of days. My fathers death another reason.

Hmm. MrsPworkingmummy do you really mean that children are better off with their mums, or do you mean parent?

You're talking about a very specific situation where parents (mum and dad) really aren't around at all. That's not what the article in the OP was talking about - it's saying that children should stay specifically with their mother until at least 3. Do you really agree with that?

I’m a teacher and I see no correlation between the increased diagnosis of mental health problems in young people and having parents who work.

It is actually widely known that children have strong attachments in particular until three it comes from amongst others Bulbys attachment theory. However parents( both very often simply have to work to pay bills.So of course ideally up until three a child should be with mum but if this isnt possible it is important that a child under three can form attachments to a carer so its more ideal to have perhaps a nanny or childminder as normally these people will remain with the child for a longer period of time than a nursery where they may not always) have different staff or an age change around going into another room with different staff once theyve gone past baby stage.But this may not suit but its just something to be aware of.Of course the ideal is that a mother could choose to stay at home during this time and be paid during this time but we done live in an ideal world and in as ny case many mums enjoy going out to work and feel more fulfilled .

Just re posting for the evening crowd
www.developmentalscience.com/blog/2017/3/31/what-is-a-secure-attachmentand-why-doesnt-attachment-parenting-get-you-there

Helping children become secure, emotionally resilient and 'happy' is not about staying at home/ not staying at home nor is it actually about any particular parental behavior extended breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing etc in and of itself. Its about an attitude towards your child- being emotionally attuned and responsive, holding them in mind ..... Helping them when they need you and backing off when they don't, scaffolding play, not being intrusive in how you interact, being responsive to where they are developmentally......Helping them learn to regulate their emotions. You can do the ABC's of attachment parenting without doing any of the above... Or you can do both (or neither).... Just don't think that 'attachment parenting' is some kind of panacea....

I used to go to school back in the day where mums stayed at home, and there were definitely far less obvious mental health/behavioural problems in class.

Quite a leap to link the two factors given how much else has changed in that time...?

Maternity leave here in France is on average 3 months, most mothers adhere and the young children I work with seem the least needy and most happy and independent I have encountered (1-11 year olds.). I disagree that mothers shoud be "guilted" into staying attached to their children until 3 years of age.

busy Bowlby had a theory about attachment and it wasn't that children have strong attachments until three. His theory was that babies and young children have a pre-programmed need to form strong attachment to care givers because of self survival (human infants would die without the input of a care-giver). He also developed the idea that these attachment relationships are the vehicle by which we interpret the world and that we form so called 'internal working models' about how the world is and how others react to us based on these experiences. Is the world safe, will my needs be met, do others treat me well, am I lovable (because others love me) etc. In attachment theory these 'internal working models' are thought to be very important for how we then grow up and make sense of the world and interact with it. An attachment figure can be anyone- mum, dad, nanny.....They have an important role to play in the first three years because how they respond to the baby/infant dictates the 'internal working model' and it was generally thought that this becomes fairly stable by around 18 months... More recently we can see that attachment styles can change and can differ (which for example is why many looked after children interventions have a focus on attachment based interventions)

DD was in childcare from 8 months, two days a week, with DH two days and me the remainder. She's very outgoing with no attachment problems.

a waste of time. useless info. Not nearly the truth

"To be fair I don't get why people have kids just to stick them with a childminder or other family members. Your not the one bring up your kid everyone else is."

Sweet baby Jesus - some people are too stupid to function.

I agree with Strokethefurrywall ppl who have kids and cant look after them and use them for state benefits should be arrested and put in jail for wasting public funds and not being able to look after their own kids. Dont have kids if you cant handle them.

YANBU I think I’d rather rely on concrete evidence and research than an ‘experts’ point of view.
Isn’t that the whole point of a key worker and detachment theories? The fact it is good that our children can build a relationship and a bond with another person rather than just their mother.
I am happy that my children are and were confident and independent enough to build a good relationship with their key worker. When they are sad they seek comfort from their key worker. When they were hungry and needed the toilet they asked their key worker.

Ah @lauramay you have no idea. Children have always been brought up by an extended family. Having one parent stay at home and dedicate that time solely to a child/ren is actually a relatively new concept.
Parenthood and career are not mutually exclusive.

My children spend/spent roughly 7 hours a day at nursery and 7 with me.
They adore their key worker and I trust that person.

Why should it only be one person they seek for help or reassurance?

Totally utter claptrap. I was working when I had DD1 and retuned to work when she was around 9 months part time and DD1 spent time with my mum and aunt who cared for her together as they are retired. Their dad worked shifts so he looked after her some days on his own when I was at work. I was then made redundant and was doing temporary agency work when I had DD2. I spent longer with her as I struggled to get back into work and agency work wasn’t happening much. My children’s dad then announced he was moving out when DD2 was only 2 years old. So from 2 and 5 years both my children regularly stayed with their dad 2-3 nights per week. DD2 also got free hours and nursery whilst I got a bit more work in. I eventually got my current job when she was 3. It’s part time. They have stayed with their dad as near to 50:50 as possibly. Probably more 70-30 in the early days but definitely more 50:50 now. DD 2
Doesn’t even remember us living together. It’s normal for her. She is a more clingy child but is also a very happy and adjusted child.

I have an acquaintance who is really into these ideas - taken to extreme. Her DD had never been apart from her until she was five. She's now 7 (and still rarely apart from her for more than the odd hour each week) and is not at all confident, very very clingy and doesn't seem to have a relationship with anyone else other than her mother, and, to a lesser extent, her father. The parenting style seems to have stopped her being able to form attachments to others.

I really don’t understand why you have children if you don’t want to raise them yourself

This is the sort of naive, black and white thinking you'd expect to hear from a childless teenager

Surely if you've had children you would understand that no one can predict how they'll feel about being a mother until they've actually gone and become one?

I'm a SAHM, I planned it this way. I always wanted children. I have a very affectionate, loving mother whose life revolved around her children - so I assumed I'd be the same way. Turns out I was very, very wrong!

I love my DDs but I'm cracking up being at home every day. I really wanted to be a SAHM until they reached school age but I'm just not going to be able to do it. I'm so bored and lonely some days I could cry and it's not fair on them as I'm irritable and unhappy a lot of the time. I try insanely hard to keep my patience with them all day which inevitably means come evening I'll blow my top with DP over something minor or shout at the poor dog.

I want to "raise them" myself as you put it, but mentally I'm not suited to this SAH life. I've known this very early on but I've been plodding along trying to be some sort of martyr for over two years now. I think it's time to accept that, while having a mother who is happy to be at home is great for most children, being a miserable SAHM isn't ideal for anyone in the family.

Selfish? Perhaps... but I think it will ultimately benefit everyone if I go back to work. Shades of grey Cherry, shades of grey.

Another expert with no experience. I went back to college when DS1 was 9 months old. DS2 was 8 month old, DS3 was 6 months old and DS4 was 7 months old when I went back to work. I had no choice but to work. Ex DH1 couldn't work but refused any help and Ex DH earned minimum wage! If i hadn't we would have been starving and homeless. My DSs are now 23, 18, 16 and 7 and they are no worse off for not having me 24/7 until the age of 3.

I worked with my first two, and have been at home with second two. No help as live in different country to families and no paid help due to finances.

First two are 8&9. Second two are 5&3. So far, everyone is happy.

So my gut instinct is that this is crap.
But also that I am in the position to conduct my own social experiment...

Why do people listen to parenting experts
The only parenting experts are mothers to their own kids.

in an ideal world mums would jump at chance to stay at home raising their kids, but bills have to be paid and children to be fed and clothed. Esp if it’s a 2 parent family.

in an ideal world mums would jump at chance to stay at home raising their kids, but bills have to be paid and children to be fed and clothed. Esp if it’s a 2 parent family.

Err, no, not necessarily. I wouldn't. It would have driven me mad. I love my DCs (who are all lovely, well adjusted kids thank you very much), but I also love my work.

in an ideal world mums would jump at chance to stay at home raising their kids

Erm... not really.

I didn't get a PhD to stay at home raising kids, thank you very much. TBH, if I had to choose between the two, I'd have kept my career and never have children, as much as I love DS and as much as I've decided that he takes priority over work in general.

I don't really understand the "why have children if you're not prepared to raise them yourself" thing. A 5-18 year-old takes just as much raising as a younger child - I'd argue more, in some ways - but none of the smug mummies who've said that to me have been home-educating their school-age kids. Taking their stance to the logical conclusion, why did they have kids if they were going to let a teacher "raise" them from the age of 4 or 5?