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

Ok. I'm just going to quote this back at you re: 'independent thinker'

Its nice to see someone else affirm what I very quickly realised when I had my child.

Independent thinking does not mean considering proven facts equal to trusting uninformed opinion FYI.

I'm going to stop engaging with you now.

Lweji I choose what to base my own beliefs on as do we all. They don't need to be worth anything to anyone other than me, just as your beliefs are meaningless to me. We all walk our own path.

OK Mookatron 😉

I choose what to base my own beliefs on as do we all.

No we don't all.

Beliefs then evidence is the realm of religion. Not science.

So you choose science then 😁

Yes... because it gives a more realistic view of the word. Not a fantasy view.

@motherofdinosaurs if you genuinely believe that your friends children woke up in the night because they went back to work then not only do you not understand biology, you don't understand child development either.

That has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. My child started sleeping better when I returned to work full time.

Your beliefs are just that. You can stand by them if you want. But unless you base them in actual evidence and not your perception and interpretation of your surroundings, then they’re worth nothing.

Quoted for truth, as the saying goes. Individual beliefs and “gut feelings” (much beloved on MN) are fine as far as they go. But the problem is that they don’t actually go very far and certainly shouldn’t be used to guide other people’s actions or (God forbid) public policy. In this age of alternative facts, vague beliefs seem to have trumped (ha!) reason and evidence.

Lweji yes of course it does. I also choose to believe in science along with my own feelings and observations. Science features in the elements that go towards making up my beliefs, for example higher levels of cortisol shown to be present in small children in nursery all day.

Can you present me with some scientific facts regarding it not being better for babies to be with their mothers?

There is some evidence to suggest that the higher levels of cortisol were caused by stimulation not necessarily stress. There is very little, if any, evidence that higher levels of cortisol in children is dangerous or has lasting effects. They extrapolated evidence from adult tests. All of that research should be taken in context...there is evidence that high quality childcare is beneficial.

The biggest issues are with poor childcare settings....again context is key. Children in poor childcare settings often have additional issues in their lives which can cause stress, delayed development and attachment issues.

for example higher levels of cortisol shown to be present in small children in nursery all day.

Yes, but what are they caused by? And what effects do they have?

Can you present me with some scientific facts regarding it not being better for babies to be with their mothers?

You're the one claiming that babies should be with their mothers because it's so much better for them. So, let's see it.

There is so much research that is quoted where it is clear that those reading it are forming conclusions that the research itself does not state.

Lweji nope. I have very clearly stated that my beliefs are not solely based on the evidence of scientific studies. You're the one being pushy with evidence. Back yourself up 😉

abacucat My first reaction= Bollocks!

Next reaction; what is he (presumably his name is Mr R Sole) basing this conclusion upon? Has he some reliable research to support his theory? If so what?

I am very sceptical of all the claims made about "attachment theory" and the research quoted to support those claims.

Remember Freud was a charlatan, a drug addict and abused women.

Having spent a large part of my work involved in Psychology research, I know that people quote some very dubious things and call them "research".

It does not help any parent to be confronted by these sweeping statements about child care. What good can it do? There are no two babies the same and no two sets of parents the same. We all do our best according to our circumstances. Nannies do a wonderful job and mothers with professions contribute amazingly to our society. I do not think, obviously just my opinion, that a mother with a profession, has an adverse effect on her child's upbringing because she returns to work when he is under 3 years old. It could be worse if she felt obliged to stay with the child for that time. Similarly the mother whose finances dictate the need to work gives a better start to her child by being at work.

There is no one-size-fits-all answer. I deplore people who try to say there is. It is harmful to everybody.

It is time to support parents and support their choices and respect them!!

Ellyess yes this man is talking bollocks and there is no research to support what he says.

I have very clearly stated that my beliefs are not solely based on the evidence of scientific studies.

Actually, you said your beliefs were based on observation around you.

Anyway, I haven't looked at the actual study (and one study is worth what is worth):
www.theguardian.com/society/2005/oct/02/childrensservices.familyandrelationships

It's interesting that it's pointed out the influence of the child care provided and that
"not all babies and toddlers do well at home. Children of mothers suffering depression or having other priorities than motherhood fared better with childminders and nurseries. 'Mummy care isn't necessarily the gold standard,' said Leach."

I really should be doing other type of research ATM, but, for inspection...
Positive effects of other care:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1348/026151010X533229

"The most striking (and reassuring) finding from this study is perhaps that children who experience early non‐maternal care are not necessarily at a disadvantage, as good quality child‐care and the experience of early nursery care appear to facilitate children's development. In line with NICHD ECCRN (2002a), findings from the USA and the EPPE study in England (Sylva et al., 2004), the outcomes of child‐care are modestly related to its quality."

The author of this statement, George Wootan, who must be 82, does not fill me with confidence. For example, in his record one can find;

Dr Wootan, who has 10 children of his own, was suspended from medical practice in 1981, aged 45,".... because he was doing home births and there were "11 alleged deficiencies'' in his practice. He was an advocate of home birth and it formed a lucrative part of his practice. The report says,

"However, none of the 11 allegations, summaries of which were provided by the State Department of Health, referred specifically to home birthing; they accused Dr. Wootan of ''failure to properly diagnose and treat'' a number of conditions, including postpartum hemorrhage."

As I would have died of PPH, had my first delivery been at home or apparently with Dr Wootan, I do not have any confidence in any medical theory he wants to promote.

The newspaper also reports; "Among other ''deficiencies in medical practice'' in the last year, (1981)Dr. Wootan was charged with contributing to the deaths of an unborn fetus and a three-day-old infant."

Why are we discussing this man's comments?

Sorry I forgot to give a citation. you'll find the above on;

www.nytimes.com/1981/12/02/nyregion/battle-is-joined-over-home-home-birthing.html

I posted the link upthread Ellyess but I couldn't be arsed to quote from it - hopefully your post will have more effect as you took the time to do it!

abacucat Thanks. I thought there was no research to support him. The factors that would have to be taken into account and all the variables are so enormous, not to mention the confusion of individual differences which I doubt if you could factor out...
people like this arrogant old man make me sick! He's on a par with Freud, who, having left a swab in a female patient's (forgot who, possibly 'Anna O')sinus, so that it became infected, said her nose-bleeds were due to her overwhelming desire to have sexual intercourse with him and prescribed coles tid, i.e. penis three times a day.

Good effort with Google Lewji 😉

Actually that's an interesting point re mothers with depression.

On brief reflection it doesn't alter my view that on the whole infants are happier with their mothers, but it's certainly a point to consider.

Dr Wootan does indeed sound like a bit of a charlatan, but of course his deficiencies don't undermine my own beliefs, just because we happen to agree on one point.

Mookatron Cheers! Apologies for not realising you published the link! I just had a bit of time while wondering what to make for tea!

@MotherofDinosaurs

Did you read the second link? An actual paper, and more recent?

Here's another:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22928988

"The strongest and most consistent influences on behaviour and emotional problems were derived from the home, including lower socio-demographic status, poorer maternal caregiving, parental stress/maternal mental health problems, as well as child gender (being a boy). Non-parental childcare had small effects on child outcome. One finding that did emerge was that children who spent more time in group care, mainly nursery care, were more likely to have behavioural problems, particularly hyperactivity." (not sure they looked for cause and effect on this last one)