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?

Do you agree with the tax payer paying for childcare outside of the home?

So you weren't a bad mother.

The OP is asking a valid question and acknowledging that some have no choice. And if that's the case, what would be an ideal situation if something could be done?

I also think it's sad that people want to shut the discussion down by claiming that those who don't have a choice will feel bad. It reminds me of the objections people have to "breast is best."

Yes. Women shouldn’t be forced out of work due to financial reasons and I would also improve maternity leave so that every woman is given the opportunity to take the full leave without feeling forced to go back due to financial reasons.

But if someone wants to be a SAHM? I don’t believe the government should fund it.

Two years maternity leave would kill a women’s career and equality in the workplace which has been hard fought for. If a woman wants an extended period of time at home, that is her decision but it shouldn’t be funded.

The conversation needs shutting down because it's such a non issue, come on how many children do we really think are going from 12 weeks?

Not to mention how difficult it would be for women who do wish to have careers. Are they going to hire a man who will be back to work after 2 weeks or a woman who would potentially be off of work for 2 whole years? It’s going to be the man almost every time.

I have seen so much money invested in keeping seriously mentally ill or addicted mothers and babies together in residential units, even though the reality is that when the support ends, mothers will often go back to drugs or violent partners or other horrendous situations anyway, meaning that the baby is eventually adopted.

But where is the recognition of the importance of the early years and the financial support for mums and / or dads who would be more than happy to be with their children if finances allowed?

it doesn't really matter what may or may not have happened in the past. Nobody can change that, but we can shift focus to a more child-centred approach going into the future.

Yes better SMP will cost the taxpayer, and companies will resist initiatives towards more family-friendly working practices, but change will have to happen.

@weatherthestorm what ages are your kids op? Do you have any?

Why would employers keep a role open for two years extended maternity leave - it’s difficult enough for nine months?

Nurseries aren't really comparable to boarding schools though because the kids don't sleep there. The parent has the morning and all night with their baby, they're just outsourcing 8 hours or so of the day. That gives the parent loads of primary parent and bonding time when they are together for the other 16 hours. In historic times the baby would have been passed around to lots of other care givers, not just spending the day with one person. I can't see the problem with nurseries tbh surely it's the same as having a "village", you're just paying for it.

@Parker231 - there are a lot of things employers have to do now that might have seemed unthinkable years ago - sustainability ratings, equal opportunities targets to name but a few.

More flexible working patterns are already happening in many industries. We can't imagine how things will be in another 20 years. Why shouldn't child-centred policies take priority and companies structure accordingly? It's in everyone's interests.

My kids are older now @Nowherehere1 , but I can see there are more pressures on families these days, even compared to the early 2000s, and it's babies and women bearing the brunt.

It’s not in the interest of the employer who is looking at profit margins. It would be a huge step backwards where men get the more senior roles as they aren’t going to be away from the business for an extended period (shared parental leave is still not common and this wouldn’t help).

Flexible working is one thing but limiting a woman’s career and opportunities is a big no.

Interestingly, most mothers (if you look at surveys) want to spend some part of the working week looking after their own children (ie they want to be at home full or part time). In terms of childcare for very small children, nannies, childminders and family members are probably best because of the consistency and attention they provide.

And yet our childcare system discourages or disincentivises the forms of care (parents, families, childminders) that are best for mothers and children. Imo this is because of a combination of a need for more workers to create economic growth and the fact that policy is made by men and upper middle class/professional women, who are less likely to understand/care about the needs of non-professional women, and children.

It isn’t the same as boarding school, but it is comparable, because although the time spent away from parents is less, the need in the very early years is much greater.

Im a big supporter of the ‘village’ helping to raise the child but the reality of the baby room in a nursing is nothing like a traditional village. The babies are not being constantly held for example.

It isn’t the same as boarding school, but it is comparable, because although the time spent away from parents is less, the need for attention and bonding in the very early years is much greater.

Im a big supporter of the ‘village’ helping to raise the child but the reality of the baby room in a nursing is nothing like a traditional village. The babies are not being constantly held for example.

It isn’t the same as boarding school, but it is comparable, because although the time spent away from parents is less, the need in the very early years is much greater.

Im a big supporter of the ‘village’ helping to raise the child but the reality of the baby room in a nursery is nothing like a traditional village. The babies are not being constantly held for example.

Sorry thought I was editing but just reposted a million times!

I'm sure many people who have chosen to have no children feel aggrieved that working parents are "choosing" to have children knowing they can not afford childcare and expecting the tax payer to subsidise it.

For many parents becoming a stay at home parent is less of a choice than you might think.

Perhaps there should be a universal allowance for all parents who earn under a certain amount to choose the kind of childcare they would prefer for their family - nursery, child minder, or stay at home parent. That would provide real choice to women.

There already is - weekly child benefit and funded childcare for different pre school age groups.

Funded child care only pays for out of the home childcare. My argument is that it should also pay for in the home childcare.

@Silvan But parenting at home even by SAHMs does not involve being held all the time, and this was true of generations past too. People used to stick their kids in the pram outside for hours on end for the "fresh air". Nurseries are dedicated spaces with trained professional early years carers. The same can't be said of traditional methods of child rearing. Some babies were literally handed at birth to their elder sisters, still children themselves, and given to them to raise as their own.

Absolutely no! This would mean giving extra money to well off families who do not need it.

Both the childcare and the breastfeeding topics are impossible to discuss because they are so emotive. Obviously breastmilk and one main caregiver for young babies are the best options for the baby but people get very defensive when you say this because for whatever reason these are not options for them. I think it’s really important to be able to say these things are best, how can we as a society make them the norm rather than judging people/feeling judged when there are currently many reasons why it is impossible for some (most?) families to do them