To think that what's best for the children gets left out of the free childcare conversation

[Ilikepinacoladass]

I'm all for parents being able to get back to work if they want to, woman's career's not being put on hold, the economy doing well etc..

But I find it quite worrying that what's best for the children seems to not be mentioned at all in the reporting around the govt introducing more and more free childcare hours, or considered in the policy making to begin with..?

I thought the reason it was 15 free hrs originally, and term time only (as is still the case) was because the original aim was to ensure children have access to early education? So they are not turning up at school aged 5 having had no preschool etc as their parents couldn't afford it?

Not to enable parents to get back to work as soon as possible leaving their children in childcare?

@Nicecow

You hope.

Well there is actually alot of research into how important a child's first 1000 days are and how important their primary caregiver is. That's a disingenuous comment there's no way a very young child would benefit for full time nursery, ignoring the research, common sense and basic human nature would tell you this

There is far from a definitive consensus that nursery is bad for children as old as 3. There's research out there to support a lot of different approaches.

People are not disingenuous if they disagree with you on something that is subjective.

@PurpleWisteria1 I notice you still haven't responded to my question from earlier but I won't hold my breath!

People know this really. But lots of justification goes on to convince themselves that a young baby is better off in a nursery all week.
You are right it does ignore research and basic common sense.
Wait for the justifications in the posts below 👇

@PurpleWisteria1

I don't disagree with research that shows babies need stable and secure attachments.

I just disagree that it's relevant to nurseries

No one needs to justify using a nursery.

It has its pros and cons like any other parenting choice.

Seems to me its you who is trying desperately hard to justify their choice

Why do insecure?

Sigh. I'll ask once again

@PurpleWisteria1 my adult dd was in childcare from 3 months old. She's a happy well adjusted adult with a great partner and job. We have a very good bond.

How has she suffered?

What a nonscicle way of looking at it!

You are totally avoiding the question of who pays. I guess the scheme starts at 9 months as maternity pay covers many people until then, at least partially. Or maybe that’s when most women go back to work. I don’t know, and it’s irrelevant - when do you think it should start?

The initiative is to help returners to work - as you say, it can be too expensive not to, so it is something that many mothers do whether they want to or not. Just as many non-parents work because they have to. Becoming a parent doesn’t get you a free pass to be subsidised by everyone else - who do you think should pay to let them stay at home?

Maternity leave/pay is so that mothers can recover from birth, can bond with their babies and can more easily breastfeed if they choose. It’s not about paying able bodied people not to work for years on end. It’s disingenuous to link the two things, particularly in a way that suggests that if you don’t think that subsidies to stay at home should continue for years you mustn’t approve of Mat leave - that’s ridiculous.

I was trying to find it as I only had a quote to go on from another poster.
I haven’t wanted to answer because what I would have to say isn’t fair to those mums who have no choice but to go back to work with a small baby.
And that’s a lot of mums because thee is so little spent on helping mums stay at home with their babies for a longer period of time.

how can it NOT be in a baby's best interests to be with their mum

It may be great for the baby at that particular time, but our choices have consequences and babies grow up. Staying home for several years will undoubtedly damage your earning potential. In my career particularly, you would pretty much need to start from the bottom, as things move so fast taht nobody cares about yout experience, if it's from 10 years ago. Growing up in poverty is clearly not in any child's best interest.

Or some of us choose to have children with men with integrity that won't screw us over?

Speaking as a former divorce lawyer, aww you sweet summer child...
Do you really think all people who have been screwed over did not think they made the same decision?

@PurpleWisteria1

There's loads of help.

Mat leave. UC. Cb.

What more do you want to fund a lifestyle choice with no definitive benefits and at least 1 definitive disadvantage?

I’m not really justifying anything except what a baby needs which is one parent as a primary caregiver for it’s formative months / years. That it. I’m sorry that doesn’t align with a parents need and want to work but that’s not the child’s fault. Adults have created that situation and set up but it’s the baby who is the one not getting what they most need.

@PurpleWisteria1

Surely if the suffering is that great those mums would do everything in their power to stay home?

And if they don't then why should you care if they are upset by your view?

The damage to the child is the same regardless?

No definitive benefits? What to you? Because there is certainly plenty of benefits to a baby having its parent to provide care for most of the working week rather than strangers.

@PurpleWisteria1

You can achieve that with both parents working.

Don't need a sahm to have a child cared for by its parent

Yes you would think wouldn’t you.
Except many parents are not given that choice because lift is set up to need both parents in work and this is being encouraged more and more via a Tory government only interested in making money.
We are all sold a lie that having ‘stuff’ makes us happy. Weather you face it or not most of us fall into that trap one way or another. And so we believe that earning more and more is the way to happiness. But I most cases it isn’t and actually can be the opposite.
No baby needs ‘stuff’ or both parents who work all week, or a mum who isn’t a ‘housewife’ and builds a career. They just need a stable parent to care for them all week. Someone who has been in their life since day 1 and will be until they are an adult.

When people start claiming a child who goes to nursery doesn’t have a primary caregiver it’s your sign to just tune it.

It’s totally disingenuous and just shows a pretty poor grip on reality or the world outside of their tiny bubble.

*tune out

Right, so I honestly don't think that making lots of women vulnerable is in kids' best interests either. And women are very vulnerable if they have no earning potential. My grandmother was in an abusive relationship she had no capacity to leave and my mum still bears the scars. Also, what is the point of even encouraging women to be doctors (£250k cost to train) if the assumption is that they will need to spend many years exclusively at home to satisfy social ideals?

In an ideal world, women would have the right to maternity leave paid for a year, then would have the right to return to work 6 hours per day capped whilst baby is young, as in Scandinavia. Working, say, 9-3pm or 7-1pm (so dad can do drop off) would be a great compromise for so many women and frankly lots of employers could be a lot more thoughtful about how they structure jobs.

7-7 in nursery is a long day. I'm not sure it is in babies' best interests.

By cared for I mean actually present in the company of your child for most of the way, every day.
Unless you are Holly Willoughby taking your baby into the set of This Morning I doubt you are working with your child present.

I totally agree with you there. So many more options and possibilities that what’s currently available if the babies interests were put first.

@PurpleWisteria1

Dont need to be Holly Willoughby either.

In this vision of yours though, is any time apart from the baby allowed?

A day off at all?

Up to what age do mums need to be present all day for their children?

Do you know what primary caregiver actually means?

@bigbabycooker

Do dads not need or deserve flexibility too?

In an ideal world, women would have the right to maternity leave paid for a year, then would have the right to return to work 6 hours per day capped whilst baby is young, as in Scandinavia

In my ideal world, as pp also wrote above, some part of the leave would be use it or lose it for dads, and it would be just as normal and expected that dads work part time and take time off, just like in Scandinavia. I work a lot with Swedes and have a several male colleageus on paternity leave for months and months, not a measly couple of days or weeks.