to honestley wonder, why have children if you WANT to work fulltime and are not prepared to make ANY sacrifices?

[milkgoddessmakesthefinestmilk]

i don't mean parents that HAVE to work to provide.

i mean the ones that choose to for no other reason, other than they enjoy their job so much.
if you enjoy your job so much, thats great.
but what i really do not understand is why have children?
no one makes any of these parents have children, you can go though life without having children.

this is 100% genuine question, i just do not get it.

I am alternately agreeing and disagreeing with the variuos povs on here. I didn't understand all of OBM's post but I think she made some v interesting points.

ANd for the record!, my mum worked full-time and part-time from when I was a baby. I loved it when she was at home for a while when my younger sibling were born - I still remember how I felt even though it was nearly 40 years ago. But I also remember my 2 childminders with affection.

Thankfully I realise that CristinatheastonishingBut it is something that puzzles me.Fab name by the way

i hope you are all happy with your choices, because i am happy with mine. adieu lassies

Thanks, Dooby. It's from a Nick Cave song.

That's it scottishmummy.If we are happy with our choices that is what matters.I am[could do with abit more cash though!]

i agree, marina. it's either damaging or it's not.

and that's why this debate is worth having franca. because if children's emotional development suffers (to varying degrees) through not having consistent one on one care for about the first 3 years. something which i do believe to be true. and if in the main parents, or close relatives are the people who can best fulfill this role, whilst recognising that good loving paid childcarers can also do so. WTF is society and governments doing to support parents in making decisions that best fulfill those needs. reserve vitriol and powerful energy for that fight. that is the fight worth having: making discrimination against parents who take time out during their children's early years illegal. giving parents financial incentives to do so. making flexible working for parents a legal right. raising the status of all those who care for pre-schoolers. changing a long hours culture.

and before anyone jumps down my throat and says that that is totally unrealistic, they said the same about basic workers rights. and the vote.

marina with respect to the effect on children, it is irrelevant you are right.

sahms who get stroppy about wohms who actually ENJOY their job makes me laugh. Why not enjoy being a sahm instead?

childminders are not more expensive then daycare are they?

"A direct question to everyone on this thread. Do you think it is acceptable for a 6 week old baby to be in childcare for 10 hours or more a day, at least 5 days a week?"

I went back to work at 2 weeks I think it was 5 times, earlier with thetwins but I was based at home by then so breastfed when the nanny brought them to me. So I am well placed to answer that direct question and the answer from the oracle, is yes. Very acceptable and indeed can be better for the child. The reasons are many but they are about bonding mostly. If a child has in its life a loving full time working mother who breasts it 2 or 3 hourly when she is home (and unfortunately most the night with my lot) and a proper 2008 version involved father plus a nanny it is bonding from week1 or 2 with those 3 loving adults who remain consistently in its life. Babies adore routines and patterns. Therefore the sooner hte pattern of mummy nad daddy going to work at 8am and then a day with their nanny and then parents back mummy to breastfeed at 6.30 or whateer I did is just perfect for them and worked well for us. At age 23 I see only a very happy student elder daughter. I don't see one wracked with mental problems and separation anxiety. I see one who is doing stuff she would never have done if I hadn't worked. She's been ton oe of the best schools in the country. She was ridingour horse today. She rides. She is graduating debt free, she has a lovely first job from next year. She sails, she skis. She only does those things because I worked. In addition she is very happy at home and bonded with the rest of the family.

I don't personally like nurseries that much and I never used them but if there there are consistently the same adults around the baby will be fine. In deed many children do better with 2 parents working full time, something housewives need to consider very carefully. Give up work because it suits you and pleases you but don't do it as a martry because it's better for baby - it isn't.

CMs are not more expensive than nursery, but not everyone wants a CM over a nursery.

There are lots of groups of children brought up in settings which researchers have shown to reduce outcomes - children of parents on benefits, children of single parents, over parented children.

Are we really saying that unless you can provide a roses around the door upbringing, that people should not (or at least, are wrong to) have children?

What an absurd proposition.

cristina there is compelling evidence that under 3 year olds need consistency and one on one relationship. daycare is less suitable to meet this need than a childminder or nanny, although if luck would have it that a keyworker sticks around for 3 years then, yes that is equivalent.

and yes of course there are bad childminders and crap parents etc etc. which doesn't detract from the consistent one on one caregiving argument.

I wanted children, I wanted a career so I do both and I will never apologise for either. I'm a full time mother who also happens to work part time (as I will not have anyone tell me I'm only a part time mother simply because I have chosen to return to my day job in a part time capacity). We utilise a nursery and our lucky to have willing grandparents and ds1 loves both (and I'm sure ds2 will also love). Even if financially I didn't have to work, I still would - as that's my CHOICE. There are far worse things could happen to a child than there parent being at work - not that I'm denying it too can have its effect. I'm more bothered about the people out there who have kids but spend all day off their heads on drink & drugs, who have kids but just beat them up or sexually abuse them. Why are there never threads with that screaming headline and belive me there are plenty of those people out there in the world??

I would hazard a guess that when people start these threads they are not so much about the individuals they are having a go at but more the insecurities of their own they struggle with. Which is fine - but I'd rather they bugger off and sort that out on their own than keep beating those of us up who choose to work whilst having children for daring to do just that!!!

Italy is not doing anything to encourage Italians to have children. The only good thing we had (and only in northern Italy, where a higher number of working women is concentrated) were the nurseries (fantastic level of care), which are now suffering from financial cuts (is this the right word???) and the introduction of flexible working for its staff (ie: short term contracts )

The OP on the thread which spurned this one - used a day care setting that had a ratio of 3 carers to 7 babies. This is a significantly better ratio than a childminding setting provides.

I think working from home, with a nanny to bring the child to you for breastfeeding, sounds great, but it is a hugely different way than MOST mothers experience going back to work FT when they have babies. I don't think it's representative of the experience many babies would have if in 'childcare' ten hours a day 5 days a week.

Christina - you ask 'Then back to the question what is the opimum amount of hours a week and till what age?'

Here's a summary of the Joseph Rowntree research linked to earlier (which Monkeybird described as 'gold standard'):

'There was strong evidence of a trade-off for mothers who were employed full-time when their children were under five. Although full-time work increased family income, [it]tended to reduce children's later educational attainments (the analysis controlled for family income).
Longer periods of full-time employment by mothers when their children were aged one to five tended to:

• reduce the child's chances of obtaining A-level qualifications or their equivalent;
• increase the child's risk of unemployment and other economic inactivity in early adulthood;
• increase the child's risk of experiencing psychological distress as a young adult;
• reduce the chances of daughters giving birth before the age of 21...

...Part-time employment by mothers appeared to have few adverse effects on children as young adults... The effects of fathers' employment on the outcomes studied were generally less important than those of mothers' paid work...

...Unless an early return to full-time employment can be shown to produce substantial longer-term gains in family income, it might be better for policy-makers to encourage part-time employment by one parent during a child's pre-school years.'

soapbox like i say. of course this is one factor (a crucial one) of course there are variables and many many other important factors. but this is a factor that is under our control as intelligent caring parents (which i am certain almost all posters on mn are tbh). ignoring the evidence because other factors are important makes no sense to me.

But why is this one seen as a priority to resolve (at least as far as MN is concerned) when the outcome for these children is better than the outcome for a child brought up in a family on benefits and a single parent household?

i would speculate that fathers occupation made no difference to outcomes not because it has to be the mother at home, but because a child needs one steady loving person that is with them for most of the time. it doesn't really matter who that person is tbh.

soapbox, yes the ratio is fine IF that baby has the same person everday over the whole period that they are at the daycare centre, and ideally that person will be around beyond that, which is why parents or close relatives, or a nanny or childminder who will remain around until the child is well into school is the ideal. and when did obstacles to ideals stop us asking questions and making decisions based on what we understand as best for our children?

Interesting that, PW, but doesn't answer the question of how many hours a week and until what age. Exactly 5? Also, what circumstances? To have followed up till they were 21, that's a long time, has nothing changed meanwhile?

The nursery DS attended still has some of the same staff as 7 years ago. I know because I meet them in town and saw them when looking for a nursery for DD1.

Yes, but has the study taken into considerations other factors? I mean life is not just the first 5 yrs. I had an idyllic early childhood, but crap happened later.

ah yes, policy, but I wouldn't want it to be used to beat my own argument round the head! I was responding to PosieParker who cited some general research. i'm not an expert on childcare research but I was trying also to say that this is one report based on one study. I am not as convinced as sophable for example that there is compelling evidence for emotional damage. Or at least I'd really like to read that research before making my mind up.

Most of what I do know about research on early years development suggests a BIG confounding influence of social class, education and income (as you might expect) so in other words, the outcomes of putting a child in care settings will also depend on how well off, and what type of employment, the parents are/have. In other words, outcomes are not solely caused by putting a child in nursery/CM or not...

i'd genuinely be interested to read of other studies people know about