Nurseries for 12 week-old babies - ok or not?

[weatherthestorm]

Inspired by the current boarding school thread ... Now that there is widespread awareness of 'boarding school syndrome', are we not, as a society, in danger of sleepwalking into raising a generation whose mental well-being is going to be impacted by even earlier separation into a form of institutional care? Will the next generation be defined by 'childcare syndrome', alongside and exacerbating the mental health epidemic that is already emerging through unlimited access to social media content? Will we look back in disbelief that we ever thought it was ok to put babies, as young as 12 weeks into long days in nurseries, where they spend most of their waking lives before they even have any concept of themselves as a whole, separate being? AIBU that we need to lose the taboo / discomfort around engaging with this important issue, before it's too late?

I agree in that I personally can't ever imagine ever using childcare for a 12 week old - but I understand I'm v privileged to be able to say that and many can't through necessity.

But surely a mentally well mother is so important for a child's wellbeing, especially a twelve week old where sleep can be severely lacking for both baby and mother? My sister returned to work after nine months because of money and she said it makes her a better mother having a break from her pretty chaotic home life. I can see this myself. (BTW, I'm a SAHM so certainly not biased towards this, and I will be until DC start preschool because being able to do this was important to me.) I know nine months is not really comparable to twelve weeks but I recall feeling really quite emotionally fragile in those early days. It wasn't so much the nights but the days were relentless with my baby, and family are abroad on both sides. I was so lonely and I was constantly concerned I was about to develop postpartum psychosis. Maybe a break at work (which is how my sister describes work) would have done me good and therefore my baby if it meant it prevented my mental health from deteriorating.

I wish my mum had had the opportunity to do the same.

I was aware from too young an age that she had sacrificed her whole self to parenting. She loved us, but she resented that loss.

A few hours a week? How many is a few?

Sorry I missed your post. That is a HUGE difference than 9 hours a day every day like a lot of the babies mentioned in the thread are in for.

You do know that 30 years ago is 1994? You think there were hardly any nurseries in 1994?

I really don't want to get into personal attacks on mums or this kind of thing. It's more about taking a step back and asking what we want as a society and what do we want to prioritise in 2024. Because it seems to me that most families these days only have the 'illusion' of choice. The COL crisis means that families are having to make difficult choices and increasingly 'the norm' now is children in full-time nurseries from a young age until school. Then, school starts and they're still doing long days because they're in for 'breakfast clubs' and after- school / 'wraparound' care. It suits the economy and employers, sure. Meanwhile parents are wracked with guilt, rushing in traffic to make pick up times, permanently exhausted and dealing with equally exhausted kids in the evening hours. They think they're lucky if they have the 'flexibility' to attend the odd assembly or sports day! No wonder mental health issues, adult and children, are reportedly at epidemic levels. This is life in 2024. It's not 'having it all', more like some dystopian nightmare, in far too many cases.

It’s often about a more senior role offering more flexibility for parents. I have had one promotion in between my two maternity leaves and another since. My current role is less rigid than the one I had when expecting my first. I no longer have to be in the office as often and I have more choice what hours I work. This facilitates me picking up at 3:15 and spending time with my kids. In my old role I was obliged to work 8:30-4:30 in the office so I wouldn’t have been able to do that. I’d also have had to take vacation to cover sick days, school plays, sports days etc. in my new role I can really fit in my work any time between 5am & 10pm and can work from home flexibly. It also leaves my holidays for school vacations. Between us we can be off with kids 8 weeks including a couple as family vacation.

None of the above is really anything to do with money but on a money front the additional salary in our case buys us unpaid leave most years so we are now able to cover majority of school holidays, can afford to let kids pick holiday clubs they like vs having to choose the most affordable option and can cover any school clubs they want to pursue. So even the money is about our family life long term.

the issue of childcare is a steaming hellish pile of shite.

I live in NI - we have way less government support than the rest of the UK.

All of these issues ARE being spoken about, people either are just being obtuse or ignorant. there's a lot of lobbying groups out there trying to address the gaps.

I completely agree with this.

It should be that all workplaces let a parent go to their child's concert and sports day.

It should be that women don't feel they'll scupper their chances of career advancement if they take a year off for maternity - if they WANT to, of course.

It should be that career advancement is just as common in the forties as they early thirties and that we don't become more and more invisible as we get older.

When are you talking about? My daughter was born in the early 90s and IIRC there were two statutory entitlements.

1. Maternity leave, i.e. the right to take time off work without losing your job, which was something like 28 weeks total. You could start your leave anything up to 6 or 8 weeks before the due date if you wanted.
2. Maternity pay. Statutory maternity pay was 90% of salary for six weeks, I think, and then a much lower flat rate for the remainder of the maternity leave.

Even in the early 90s some employers offered more than the statutory minimum pay and/or leave, usually with the proviso that if you didn't go back you had to repay your enhanced benefits.

Most women I knew back then took several months off and coped with the financial hit by drawing on savings and just generally cutting back. The majority went back part-time when they did return. That might have just been the people I knew, though. I left my job and was a SAHM for several years so the women working full-time were not as likely to cross paths with me. There were far fewer nursery places back then, so most childcarers were nannies or childminders.

You can go to concerts and sports day - you book a half day off work. An employer isn’t going to give it automatically - that’s what annual leave is for and what would be given to those without children?

I also think harking back to times when children were brought up in extended family set-ups is fudging the issue because life now is not the same as it was in 1824 or whenever. We need to look honestly at the reality of life now. I think many women, in particular, feel as if they have to cope with everything. You read on here about married couples who have separate money, so no wonder some women think they can only take minimum maternity because even their own husband won't support them and they think asking for anything more is 'anti-feminist'. Women can't do it all and babies shouldn't have to take the brunt either. Dads need to take more paternity, mums should be under far less pressure to rush back to work before they are ready and flexible working needs to be the norm - because having babies is 'the norm' and shouldn't be treated as an 'inconvenience'.

@weatherthestorm you should become a politician. I’d support you. Aspirationally I agree with a lot of what you have posted but I don’t know how much would be achievable in the political landscape, mores the pity.

I completely agree with all these points, it is a feminist issue and it’s really predictable and disappointing that the thread has descending into shaming women for the parenting choices they make, rather than the reasons for which they have to make them.

I had my eldest in the late 90s and got the legal minimum from the small/medium business that employed me - 14 weeks, which could start early, yes. 6 weeks at 90% pay, 8 weeks at SMP which was around £90 at the time.

There was no requirement to hold a job past the end of maternity leave nor to accommodate part time returns. It was “come back full time or don’t come back at all,” if that’s what a company wanted to do.

Friends in the NHS and Finance had decent maternity packages but they were well beyond what was legally required for employers.

(Could have been worse, it was £35 in 1990 when my cousin had her first baby)

I'm not denying that some people feel like that. I don't. I feel like both DH and I working (we both work four days a week) is much better for both our mental health, our marriage and ultimately our family than a scenario where he does all the paid work and I do all the domestic work (or indeed vice versa). I think I'm a better mother for not being a full-time one, and I think it's good for my two (male) children to experience that both their father and I have work commitments and both their father and I care for them and the home. I am really confident about this because I grew up with a working mother who went back to work after 14 weeks, as was the norm then, sent me to a nursery (yes, she managed to find one in 1987...) and so have been the child in that scenario - and am grateful that I was. I'm not wracked with guilt and resent the implication that I should be when no one expects the same of DH.

You might feel like it's an illusion of choice now; I think the idea that people in the past had more is almost as insulting as the idea that it isn't historically normal for mothers to work.

Like lots of adults in my 30s, I know a lot of people with mental health issues. I have had my own. I see absolutely no correlation, let alone causation, between whether or not they went to nursery and the incidence of these.

Completely agree with this - it’s the middle that struggle. The mums I see that are staying off with kids are either not working & on benefits or are very wealthy. My husband and I earn £35k & £55k, we are on good wages, but incomes do not match costs.

My mum stayed at home till her kids went to school, I can’t afford to be off more than 12 months, although I really don’t want my son in nursery this young. I’ve worked hard and paid tax my whole adult life, I’ve never been entitled to any government support.

If we lived very carefully we could cope for another year if SMP was extended to 2 years instead of 9 months, even if this worked a bit like a loan scheme, as this would cover 1/2 our mortgage. I would much prefer to put a toddler in nursery than a baby who can’t walk yet.

Would you be ok paying significantly more in taxes to fund the higher level of benefit? Some of the other countries (Nordic) with better benefits pay much higher taxes?

I'm really not trying to argue a direct link between mental health issues in adulthood and childcare. It's more about people being at least open to considering the potential impact of very early institutional care for babies. It's a difficult discussion, but one thing is for sure, it's a discussion that governments and must employers are never going to have because it doesn't serve their interests.

The reason I started this thread is because my husband, aged 55, has recently had therapy following a near-breakdown related to childhood separation trauma which he was not even aware of until now. In his case, it was being sent to boarding school at 7. The boarding school thread got me thinking, as I said. Of course he 'turned out fine' - he's been very successful in life, in fact. Of course the boarding school would never have wanted focus on potential future trauma. Nor did the families who used the school. It was all 'If you feel lonely, do more sports. Look at all the wonderful facilities. See you at Xmas.' And he just went with this because this was his norm and he knows nothing else. And he's been fine - until he wasn't. Again, I'm not claiming institutional childcare for tiny babies will necessarily lead to trauma in later life. In most cases it won't, obviously, and how do you identify a clear link anyway. But I do think it's something that we should be prepared to consider the potential repercussions of, inconvenient though this may be and despite the fact it's an emotive subject because we all want to feel we are doing the best we can for babies..

I fail to agree that boarding school is very much like babies going to nursery at a young age.

I also think this thread is unnecessarily judgemental - if you don’t agree with it don’t do it yourself but other people come to different conclusions.

Sorry, I'm in teaching so we can't book time off unless it's a medical appointment or funeral etc. so had that in mind. I know many teachers who have been declined time off for the things I mentioned.

I couldn’t agree more. I don’t relate to that description of working parents at all, I’m certainly not wracked with guilt or permanently exhausted.

@weatherthestorm Boarding schools have their own unique brand of trauma! There is a world of difference between sending your child to nursery a few times a week, and deciding to outsource your child’s formative years. The attachment disruption and impact on a persons belief system is far greater in the latter. Not to mention all the abuse that can happen hidden behind the layers of privilege and elitism. I hope your husband heals.

I feel strongly about women having actual choice in their childcare decisions - rather than being forced back to work after 8 weeks because they cannot afford to stay home with their baby. It is a social and government issue. There needs to be far less judgement and more understanding, particularly of maternal mental health. There needs to be more support for new mothers, and not waiting until crisis stage. I do not believe nurseries are inherently bad for young babies. But I know that poor maternal health, domestic violence, poverty and intergenerational trauma is and these are the key indirect issues that need addressing I think.

DH is a GP - he missed numerous school events as he would have had to cancel surgery appointments in order to attend - nature of certain jobs.

Yes I would as long as the standard of services met the additional tax burden, at the moment there is so much wastage.