to be unhappy about DH taking our baby abroad?

[SummerForever]

Have name changed here.

AIBU to be unhappy & uncertain about allowing DH to take our 3 month old baby abroad without me?

He’s a fantastic father and there is no issue there.

Trip would be to see his family/my PILs. Short haul flight of 2hrs.

Also his grandmother is going to have her 90th birthday, she has been in poor health for a number of years now so he is concerned that it will be the last time he will get to see her and spend time with her etc.

Also he would like to introduce DS2 to her as it might be last chance. Lots of extended family would like to meet the baby, DH is one of 3 brothers and he has many aunties & uncles.

PILs obviously very keen to see baby again (they came to stay for 1 month when DS2 was a week old).

DH has some leave left and so would like to use it, I’m still on maternity leave so I could technically go as well.

The issue is that the trip would be later this month and so DS1 (aged 6) is in school and would need to be taken out for this.

We have already booked a holiday for next Easter and he will miss 10 days of the school year (long haul trip to USA).

My parents live 4 hours drive away and they both still work so would not be able to come down to look after DS1. More importantly, I would not feel comfortable leaving him here while the 3 of us go off abroad.

AIBU to be telling DH that I just don’t feel comfortable or happy with him taking DS2?

DH is quite upset that I feel this way- I am shocked that he has reacted like this and he is disappointed with my decision etc.

But for me, I think it’s just too soon for the baby to go away without me.

Am I being too clingy? or should I just let him go with DS2?
My gut tells me no but his reaction is making me question my judgement.
DS2 was an IVF baby after a number of years of TTC & miscarriages- I think I might be more over protective of him as a consequence.

What do others think, especially those with a similar aged baby?
I can’t see the wood for the trees!

The difference is whether the mum wants that break, or if its being forced on her by a dad who thinks his wants trump those of the baby and the baby's mum.

Realistically if he's never done it on his own for more than a day then he is going to struggle. The fact there will be family there means he'd have a bit of support, but it's unrealistic to think a 14 week old baby would be absolutely fine without their mum! It's not a point that needs to be proved, it's not something he should be able to stamp his feet about and guilt her into doing. This is his child, he should be thinking about how to make it as easy as possible on the baby and instead he's thinking about showing off to family like the baby is a possession to show off when he feels like it.

Just because he can cope with a week away on business, does not mean he should expect you to cope without your tiny baby for a week. It's absolutely not the same thing and bloody hell, the women saying it's his right as the father, seriously?! It's a tiny baby, there are other options and the mum does not want it to happen!

It’s not about breastfeeding or dads rights. A baby that small should not be deprived of its primary caregiver (studies show that where primary caregiver is a dad babies form the same attachment as the usual one to a mother). In this case the mother is te primary caregiver and the baby shouldn’t have to wonder where those warm arms and nice smell is for a week. As a caring husband he should understand also that just because he finds separation easy is irrelevant for how his wife feels. I’d get in ahead of he’s not reasonable - Skype pil and say dh suggested bringing baby but i feel teary and shaky just at the idea of leaving me behind.
I don’t think attending the 90th is a good reason for reasons stated above, but you should prioritise going back and meeting his nan soon.

People are really missing the point here and it almost feels deliberate...

The baby will be attached it it’s primary care giver (mum here in this instance) and so WILL experience a week long separation as a trauma. It is NOT the same as being separated from its secondary care giver (Dad in this instance) and it is obviously not the same as mum popping out for an hour or going to have a shower (ffs )

This is a tiny little baby being separated unnecessarily from its primary care giver (who yes, should be the mum for little babies, nature has designed it that way. It’s not a popular view in western society obsessed with “equal rights” but infant evolution doesn’t really care about what’s popular or PC and human evolution has designed us as carrying mammals the same way that great apes carry and care for their young for a protracted period of infancy and the primary carer is always the mother even in family groups).

Absolutely take the 6 year old out of school. It’s really no big deal at that age (unless he is struggling) as they repeat lessons. Ask the teacher for work if you are worried. My school did not want me to take children out for 2 weeks at Christmas when they were 6 as family really far away. I did extra work when away and they went up two reading levels when they got back.

Tessabelle there are very few 3 month old babies of single fathers thankfully - where there are it's because the entire family has gone through a massive trauma due to the mother's death or extreme PND or other mental or physical health crisis. It is vanishingly rare for a father to be a genuinely lone parent to such a tiny baby unless something fairly awful has happened.

blueskiesandforests so that means all other Dad's can't be seen as primary care givers then? My husband is an active a parent as me, he's as capable as me and my kids are as happy with him as with me. Those saying only Mum's make babies secure either don't have fathers in the picture or are so controlling they won't let Dad do anything with baby

No a baby can have multiple attachment figures/carers but in the eyes of the baby one primary care giver. Nature has designed this with newborn and young babies that this is the mother.

Babies show a preference for their mothers voice, smell, face etc, her heartbeat and breathing helps to regulate the baby’s. Skin to skin helps to regulate temperature. Breastfeeding causes oxytocin to flow between mother and baby. Mother and baby respond to each other’s breathing and rouse at the same time if BF/cosleeping. Baby passes signals to mother via mouth/saliva and nipple which passes into mothers body and her immune system makes tailored made antibodies which she then gives back to her baby via BF.

The baby who has been living inside the mother for 9 months doesn’t recognise that they are a separate entity to their mother. To the infant they experience the world as one.

All of this is designed by nature to synchronise their bodies into an emotional, physical and hormonal diad in a way that father-infant pairs are not.

It’s science

Theres a world of difference between active parent and primary care giver.

Putting it into lifespan perspective its the equivalent of allowing a 12 month old to go away for a month, a 3 year old 3 months, a 6 year old 6 months or a 12 year old a full year!

Seriously how many people would be happy with not seeing their child for that lenght of time.

Incidentally the only single father I've come across of an infant so young was because of mothers abuse of older sibling.

@Absofrigginlootly

Wow that's really beautifully summed up.

My gut instinct is telling me something and your post has broken it down to help me understand the processes going on...and go someway to help explain the way I currently feel!

@Absofrigginlootly

And also the distinction between primary care giver and active parent/career.

I will be using this to help explain things further to DH, whatever we agree on in the end, I truly want him to understand exactly where I am coming from/what my feelings are based on.

Tessabelle1 I was directly answering your 08:06 post with its whataboutery

Tessabelle1 read Absofrigginlutely 's post. If your children are 3 months old then no, your DH cannot be their primary care giver unless you have been removed from the equation for some traumatic reason. Occasionally it can't be helped - a mother dies or has to be hospitalised without the baby or very rarely at that age leaves. The baby won't be unaffected though, no. It's a situation nobody sensible with the baby's interests at heart would choose to put a baby in unless there was no choice.

If your children are no longer babies it's totally different. Infants gradually become aware that they are separate from their mothers, and develop an awareness that things and people still exist when they leave, and that their mothers come back.

Not at 3 months old though.

You probably would get the fine as you can only get away with 5 days unauthorised in a 6 month period, so you'd be likely to get a £60 fine per parent.
Do you have any close parenting friends that you would trust to have DS1 for a few days? Or just bite the bullet and do it.

My dh is a great dad and could cope fine but I couldn't stand to be away from my baby for that long. I've only been away from my 3 year old for 1 night!

Hell would freeze over before I allowed my 3 month old to be taken away for a week. It doesn't matter if you say your DH is the best father in the world, he is being completely selfish as he is putting his wants above his DC's needs. Your DC is a breastfeeding infant and needs you, the mum, close by. In fact, I actually think your DH is being a really terrible father if he thinks it is ok to pressurise a breastfeeding mum to be parted from their baby like this. If he wants granny to see your DC, then you all go. At this age, you and your baby are a unit, not separate entities.

Firstly, the amount of people on this thread who are questioning whether a father could cope with caring for his own child is ridiculous. It's sexist.

Secondly, I think YABU to pull your son out of school for a fun holiday, but not a few days to see his dying grandma. Why don't all four of you go Thursday night and return Monday so your son is only skipping school Friday and Monday? That's 4 nights to spend with family.

Also, your son is 6 so 2 days off school isn't going to affect his education. It would be different if he was 10/11 doing his year 6 SATS or a teenager doing his GCSEs.

There is no way I'd let my baby out of my sight for a week at three months. Nope.

Also, if you're combi feeding you do risk losing/ reducing supply (even with pumping) if baby is away for a week.

@coconutpie Ridiculous and hysterical. The baby is a person in their own right, not merely an extension of the mother, FFS.

Fathers need close physical proximity to their babies (i.e. holding them) in order to stimulate the oxytocin release that drives pair-bonding. The same is not true for mothers, who obviously experience autonomous production of oxytocin as it's the principal hormone of birth.

I don't necessarily agree that taking a young baby overseas away from one of its primary care-givers is the best idea, but this stuff about a mother and baby being an inseparable 'unit' is damaging nonsense.

Op how are you getting on in discussions with DH?

I have a capable DH who's dealing with things at home with DC1 while I'm in hospital with DC2. I'm missing DC1 but at this moment he understands whats going on, DC2 at times will only settle in my arms.

If he were my baby, I would also be concerned about breaking the bond I had formed with my baby. That is what gets us through the sleepness nights and lack of freedom being a mother implies.

@DeltaG No it's not hysterical. Her baby is breastfed. A week is a massive amount of time for a 3 month old to be separated from their mother. A week long separation may sabotage breastfeeding altogether. That is what is damaging here.

No, her baby is mixed fed, as she said herself.

It's a no brainsr, you take the other child out of school and you go together as a family.

Forget about actual feeding methods nature intended for small babies to stay with their mothers.

In dog terms its the probably the equivalent of a 2 week old puppy - you'd be reported for removing a pup for no good reason.