To choose convenience over facilities for 3 month old starting nursery?

[safetyfirst1]

FTM here and really struggling with a nursery decision for my little one who’ll be starting at 3 months. Posting here for additional traffic.

I’m self-employed so have flexibility with work schedule.

Planning 3 full days at nursery (though realistically 6 hours/day average but have to pay for the full day as the half day hours don’t suit) plus one day with grandparents weekly. The third nursery day will likely be shorter (4 hours) or sometimes skipped entirely - paying for the flexibility to get life admin sorted when needed.

Nursery 1 - The Convenient Choice

5 minutes from home, directly on route to work
£64/day
Staff seem genuinely caring with babies
Good Ofsted rating
Downsides: Converted house that needs some TLC, the nursery is also only 2 years old, limited curriculum info

Nursery 2 - The Premium Choice

Beautiful, modern facilities
Daily app updates (photos, feeding, sleep times)
Comprehensive curriculum
£85/day (affordable for us but still more expensive)
Downside: 15- 20-minute detour each way = 60 minute total extra travel daily there and back for each day he attends.

Nursery 2 is objectively better, but that’s potentially 4 hours weekly just in extra driving. We’re planning to move him to the school nursery at 2 anyway, so this is temporary.

Part of me thinks the convenience will matter more day-to-day, especially in winter, but I’m worried I’m shortchanging him by not choosing the “better” option. Then again, he’s only 3 months - does curriculum really matter at that age?

Any parents dealt with similar decisions? What would you prioritise - convenience or facilities for such a young baby?

Also, are three half days plus one day with the grandparents too much at this age?

Thanks in advance! 💙

And how would you have fed, clothed and sheltered your baby with health issues without a job?

@SErunner Yes, she did. It's in the OP.

"Also, are three half days plus one day with the grandparents too much at this age?"

Not really. That’s asking how many days are too many, not about it in principle. The main pile on has been about putting a child of that age in nursery at all.

Anyway, we’re teetering on arguing over semantics here. Hopefully OP has got enough helpful comments and can ignore the rest.

None of that would have been much use if he couldn't be fed without being hospitalised for tube feeding.

Perhaps, but if that happened and they got home they’d have needed the essentials to survive? It’s obvious that you were in an extreme situation, and if needed you would have been able to access help via state benefits as you have a child with a health issue. The OP is trying to maintain a self employed income without access to any safety net and is probably only in receipt of the most basic statutory maternity pay. Plenty of women have to work and use childcare from a young age, it isn’t a choice, it’s a necessity to feed and clothe the baby. Guilting women that they are somehow hurting their baby isn’t helpful.

Hopefully.

She took could access state benefits. It's not work or be destitute it's work or let here business suffer for a few months. Which most of us do if self employed with a baby.

For many people it is work or be destitute, Statutory maternity pay wouldn’t cover my mortgage let alone any other bills.

Probably shouldn’t have a baby then if statutory maternity is the only thing you have to survive on 🤷‍♀️

Yep, I'd have had to leave my kob

But that's not OPs situation which is what I was reacting to. It very much read like it is far from a financial necessity

Not everyone thinks so

Absolute rubbish

She was asking for advice, I was giving her mine based on my experience of using childcare at a young age.

This thread really saddens me. So much clutching pearls. So much criticism of the OP. Many people use nurseries at such an early age. My DC went fulltime - that’s 8 to 4.30 M-F from 16 weeks. It was great. And they did far more than they would have done at home. DC nearly 29. Keep your vile opinions to yourselves.

It probably wasn't great. I'm sure your DC is thriving now, but it's not in a child's best interests to be in full time nursery at 16 weeks old (unless the home environment is problematic of course). We shouldn't be afraid to acknowledge that for fear of hurting people's feelings. It's an important conversation. The vast majority of us can't provide our DC with a perfect upbringing, so there is no shame in it, but it's unhelpful to pretend that it's an ideal set up. It isn't.

Probably not in the child's interests to live In either poverty or be stuck at home with a resentful parent either.

Besides children are all people so consequently all different. Same as adults. There is no " one size fits all " scenario

I agree that some of the posts were totally inappropriate personal attacks on the OP but I do think it is okay (and not vile) for people to suggest alternatives to childcare when a baby is so young, as long as they do so whilst being mindful of the OP’s feelings.

I know hearing that as someone who either chose to do this or was forced to do this is uncomfortable, even very upsetting, but I think it is important to accept that in terms of a child’s developmental needs at that age, having one consistent primary attachment figure is the best option (unless that person is depressed or abusive). That’s an opinion based on science rather than emotion. That doesn’t mean everyone has to do it but I think in the world we currently live in, it is important to hold science above opinion, especially when it comes to the more vulnerable members of our society.

As I said, this is an incredibly emotive topic so I understand that people on both sides feel strongly about it. And my aim here is not to guilt any parents who have made those decisions or judge them for doing so - the world has made it incredibly hard to stay home for any period of time. But I do feel very strongly that child development should be understood and shouted about so maternity and paternity leave/pay and general support and celebration of parents is significantly improved and the focus isn’t on offering childcare earlier and earlier so mums can get back up work. I don’t think that’s a win for children.

Of course not and no decent parent would choose poverty or resentment for their child if they had a choice. In the same way, you shouldn't choose full-time nursery for a baby if you have the choice. If you don't have that choice then your baby has to suck it up just like the kids living in poverty or with a resentful parent do. I don't think anyone can offer their child a perfect upbringing, but we can make the best choices available to us.

Babies and children are of course all different, but basic needs like being held/fed/changed and attended to quickly by a key caregiver will be the same for all children. Any sixteen week old baby would be better off with one caregiver in a home environment (unless the home environment is problematic of course).

@NuffSaidSam- he was very happy from Day 1 thank you. And he had 2 parents who doted on him.

This is funny because the parents around where I live are all falling over themselves to get their babies into full time nursery because it is considered the best option by a country mile.

This is why it's so important that we have this conversation. For too long it's been avoided/actively shut down because of the risk of upsetting parents who HAVE to use nursery, so much so that people actually believe that their child is better of in a nursery than with them! It's a common post on the Parenting board.

All expectant parents should be offered a child development/parenting course imo. Get to grips with what is actually best, what the research supports. It's also far easier and more fun when you know a bit more about how they develop imo.

LOL.

Mumsnet is wall-to-wall anti-nursery propaganda, usually posted by the same women who later on are to be found complaining about the cost of living/being financially abused by their partner because they took a long time out of work and never managed to get back in or earn more than a minimal salary.

Where I live there is absolutely no cultural expectation that women will take a long time off work to have children. Every year the local Facebook groups are full of women who are incredibly upset about not getting a place in nursery and having to use a childminder. I was one of them a few years ago and sent my son to a childminder before he eventually did get a place in nursery. My daughter got a place in nursery straight away due to sibling priority. The nursery has been far better for their development, without a doubt.

It sounds like you've found a great solution that works for you.

That doesn't change the fact that all research clearly shows that very small children (including three month old babies) fare better with small group, home-based care.

I don't doubt that there are many people who want nursery places and are disappointed when they don't get them. Again, this doesn't change the facts. As I said there are many, many parents who don't understand child development and have been miss-sold the idea that nursery is better for children than being cared for at home/by a single caregiver. This is why parenting classes/a little bit of background into child development for all new parents would be so beneficial.

The thing is, the research doesn't show that in my country.

So there's clearly a huge cultural bias.

Nearly everything people on Mumsnet believe about child raising is based on cultural norms, not any kind of empirical research.

I expect the kind of parenting classes you'd recommend would teach the same kind of shit about parenting that the NCT pregnancy classes teach about childbirth.