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!

Oh I don't sound like a scientist, so I can't be then? What was someone just saying about logic?

I'm a biological chemist. Protein structural studies (GPCRs) for rational drug design. Not in academia.

With all due respect Delta people can, and do, say they are or have or do whatever they fancy on here - who's to know. People frequently claim to be a teacher/ social worker/ nurse/ lawyer/ nanny/ have 6 kids and 14 grandkids thinking that will shut down anyone who disagrees with them, but there's no way of knowing whether they're what they say they are. Being "a scientist" is obviously a very broad category anyway and being specialised in one area doesn't mean you know more than the office cleaner about this topic.

And shockingly, the same doubts can exist over you blueskiesandforests

Yes absolutely Sloth

I'm not sure I've trotted out any trust me I'm a scientist or I'm indisputably right because I have such and such personal experience type lines on this thread, but yes on other threads I share personal experience and it could be made up for all anyone reading knows, obviously!

Trying to insist you (generic, including me obviously - I'm just more words on a screen) know better because you are a scientist/ mother of 10/ experienced nanny/ neonatal intensive care nurse should carry no weight at all - some weight of you write posts which sound very knowledgeable of course, but "Shut up you barefoot and pregnant breastfeeding warriors I'm a scientist, gavel" is as devoid of meaning as "well I did xyz and my kids are fine, gavel".

Ha! But I've not done that either. Someone told me to go and do some research and I replied that I do, it's part of my job as a scientist.

At no point did I say that me being a scientist gives my POV additional credibility over others.

And I certainly haven't described myself as any kind of 'elite' 'specialist'.

exclusively bonded to ONLY the mother, until they are 6 months old? And that separation causes trauma to the infant?

I think you’re being deliberately obtuse.... Nono e said babies are ONLY bonded to mothers to the exclusion of anyone else... but they are primarily bonded to the mother as a primary attachment figure if nature is allowed to run its course.

I have linked to various writings and academic research upthread which discusses how separation from primary care giver is traumatic for infants. Please feel free to read them.

And I also have studied psychology and developmental cognitive neuroscience and worked as a qualified HCP in research. If we are listing our CVs

Aside from BF, there is no reason why the mother and not the father needs to be the primary care-giver. It's convenient for the patriarchy, though, that's for sure.

The other way of looking at it is that it’s bloody wonderful from a woman’s perspective that society gives mothers more opportunity to parent than fathers. It depends on whether you view being primary care giver as a positive not.

Here, I’ve put the links into one post for you

www.psychologicalscience.org/publications/observer/obsonline/how-mother-child-separation-causes-neurobiological-vulnerability-into-adulthood.html

www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/health/HealthyLiving/trauma-and-children-newborns-to-two-years#

www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2012/sep/12/secure-early-bonding-essential-babies

www.peterhaiman.com/articles/effectsOfSeparationOnYoungChildren.shtml

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3115616/

Sorry but none of those links demonstrate that that a father sharing a primary caregiving role, is detrimental to the child.

They were in relation to the question of whether separation from the primary care giver causes trauma in the infant.

Not to address whether a primary care giver can be the father. Of course they can.... nature has designed it to be the mother - we are MAMMALS after all(!) (would you go up to an orangutan and accuse her of being precious and anti feminist?! ) but in ge absence of the mother as the primary attachment figure a father can provide this role

Whether that is optimum for the infant though I disagree

Conclusion

Op doesn't her baby to leave her.

A dozen or so links to scientific research into explain exactly WHY she doesn't want her baby to be taken.

And a handful of folk saying ignore your feelings and ignore the evidence. I don't actually think anybody whos said let LO go on holiday without you has actually said I / LO holidayed seperately before 6mths.

Op Just say NO!
If he argues give him ALL the links in an email and tell him he's a bumhole!

Errr way to go to arrive at the wrong conclusion!

Delta G how is whether or not a father being the primary caregiver is detrimental relevant to this situation at all?
OP has said she's on maternity leave and hasn't said that her DH is unemployed so with the information we have her DH isn't the baby in questions primary caregiver.

I was responding to some of the later posts that said it is detrimental to babies if their primary caregiver is not the mother.

The father isn’t the primary caregiver.

The mother AND father can BOTH be the primary caregiver. Stop being sexist.

For example, both of my parents raised me but I have always been closer to my dad. My mum had severe PND and we just didn't bond. Never have. Just because my mother breast fed me doesn't mean that we had a close bond. All you extreme feminists need to calm down and accept that fathers are just as capable of parenting.

OP is on maternity leave.
Her husband is working and currently away for work.
Of course she is the primary fucking caregiver.

Yes the father COULD be the primary caregiver if he was on parental leave and the mother was dead or ill or absent or working long hours and/or away.

BUT HE’S NOT.

The parents could be equal caregivers if they literally split everything down the middle, equal time looking after baby, equal split of night wakings, etc.

BUT THEY’RE NOT.

All this stupid arguing is derailing the thread.

OP, I totally understand why you wouldn’t feel comfortable with this but like others, I cannot understand why an extra few days out of school is such a big deal for your elder son.

Absofrigginlootley I read the last link to the study you posted. I’ve yet to have a chance to look at the others but I will. Have you read it in depth? It is a study of mothers who are considered from disadvantaged backgrounds, therefore the children are, unfortunately, starting off with other life stressors. I understand why a mother wouldn’t want to be separated but there is no consensus on attachments to the mother. Bowlby’s theory was grown to show children can have multiple attachments and remain secure. That piece is easy to critique and wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny based on the type of subjects they chose to research.

they were just a few links I found in google. I don’t currently work on research and am not a student at university so I don’t have full access to scientific journals behind the paywall. I never claimed these links were the pinnacle of research on the subject.

I also never said that babies only ever have one attachment figure.

I have read widely on attachment theory, cognitive psychology, developmental and evolutionary psychology and developmental neuroscience. As anyone who works in or has studied science know, there is no “one study” or theory or text book that neatly and entirely demonstrates a single point or proves a theory. It is a culmination of reading many different types of research/theories/expert opinions before drawing a conclusion based on all the evidence available.

From everything I have read I feel strongly that human babies, as mammals, are designed to bond with the mother as a primary attachment figure and father and extended family/kinship group as multiple secondary attachment figures. I feel that separation from the primary attachment figure in the first 2 years is detrimental to the infant and can cause disruption to the secure attachment/bond which has repercussions for the infants neurological and emotional development.

This is backed up not only be academic research, but by real life examples: where you see children removed from parents due to abuse/adoption, war, neglected in orphanages or through policy like the current Trump administration where children usually suffer long term psychological problems.

It’s why the don’t remove infants from mothers in prison. It’s why foster parents and adopters are encouraged to use “attachment parenting” to try and help children whose primary attachment bonds have been severed. Children experience these separations as a trauma and as a bereavement.

Just because I have neither the access to or the time to find the perfect studies to link here and “prove” it to you doesn’t mean it’s not true.

If you are interested in this topic I invite and encourage you to read around the subject

I don’t need to read about it, thank you. It formulated part of my degree and I use it in my professional practice, although not always directly. I’m far from an expert but I have a fair understanding of how to critique research and how to use studies and articles to prove or disprove a theory.

You also missed my point which was don’t post links without reading them, especially when it didn’t even prove your point! This is only a forum, people - of course - don’t need to provide any evidence. I am just surprised when people post evidence when it’s absolutely fine to say “hey, this is my opinion” on a forum. FWIW, there’s no way on earth I’d agree to my baby going away for a week but that’s based on my feelings, experience and gut instinct. It’s not as if I disagree with the gist of what you’re sharing.

I did read it. I said they controlled for family circumstances etc

Multiple regression models revealed that, controlling for baseline family and maternal characteristics and indicators of family instability, the occurrence of a mother-child separation of a week or longer within the first two years of life was related to higher levels of child negativity (at age 3) and aggression (at ages 3 and 5). The effect of separation on child aggression at age 5 was mediated by aggression at age 3, suggesting that the effects of separation on children’s aggressive behavior are early and persistent.

*it said

I've read widely too and can get behind the paywalls. I feel that the research demonstrates that any dedicated, capable and consistent adult can be a baby's primary caregiver. It doesn't need to be the biological mother.

The other links you posted were an extrapolation of a study in rodents and a newspaper article by a conservative MP. Not exactly experimental and certainly not objective.