to wonder who Oliver James is? working mothers look away!

[Chulita]

Here Sorry if there's a thread on it already, I just read this and was a bit

more fatal accidents in a childminder not a nursery, sorry

mrsbean, I wanted to say something about childminders, but I didn't want to worry people who have their kids in childminders.
I was put in a child-minder as a child and, well, I can't really talk about what happened to me there, but I agree with you that a daycare is better than a childminder. Daycares are more regulated AFAIK and they are not in private: there are lots of staff there who regulate each other's behaviour. There's no way of regulating what goes on behind closed doors. Also, childminders care for kids in their home and are therefore more worried about breakages and spillages, which adds extra stress to the kids. In a daycare setting the staff don't really care about the floor and furniture and can just go and get a mop.
Anyway, I think that OJ makes a good point about mothering being important to kids, whoever carries it out, and that people who work should pay for the best child-care they can possibly afford, ideally a nanny. For those who can't afford good childcare, seriously re-consider working and beging lobbying for more state investment in this area so that staff to child ratios are higher.

cory, the reason its the mothers responsibility more than the fathers is that the mother always sticks around for the children. SOme women do abandon their kids but its rare, so rare that she's considered to be mentally ill if she does (not saying she is, just comparing people's attitude towards a mother and a father who abandon the family home)
Well done you if you managed to get a man who is nurturing and takes on his responsibility for the childcare, but lots of men run off in the baby's first year. WHat if you're a single mother? What if the father was a holiday fling and you've no way of knowing where he is? There was a woman on mumsnet whose H ran off to Thailand when the babe was a few months old, never to return. COuldn'T handle the responsibility. Far less women do this, even though women already shoulder most of the child-care responsibilities. Why are men so keen and ready to run away from their kids? I don't know. Not all are and OJ's point is that you should try and nab one of these, if you can. BUt responsibilities for children are always going to lie more on women than on men. But men do need to take up the slack more that's for sure.

Sorry to hear that Sakura.

Mine is not quite so serious a situation as yours but I do think my prejudice re: childminders stems from personal experience. I was taken care of in my early years by my most amazing grandmother who lived with us for some years after the breakdown of her marriage. When I went on to school, she went to work as a childminder for another family and went to this not-so-little-now girl's wedding last year and she still visits her because my grandmother was - and is - brilliant.

My sister was taken care of by a childminder down the road. I used to go there on days that I was ill etc or if my mother had a meeting/training day at school and couldn't bring me home herself. I remember it being quite cold and distant - we were parked in front of the TV with the CM doing housework in the kitchen and her husband (frequently drunk) looking over us. I remember the childminder's kids being quite bullying and one in his teens being sexually inappropriate.

I know that there are a great many truly wonderful, loving childminders - like my grandmother was to her charge after me - but I don't like the fact that, as you say, you can't see behind closed doors. Although my own experience was quite mild and just seems like a dusty, slightly odd memory, I still wouldn't want my kids to feel out of place and as if they didn't belong while in a CM's home... and how would I know, seriously?

Nurseries are not ideal, CM's are not ideal, nannies are not ideal.. but while parents do not have the option to provide full-time care for their children for reasons of financial stability, it's about weighing up the pros and cons as they strike you personally and fit with your own priorities and just taking that leap of faith. Trusting your gut instinct is good, too. My mother told me in later years that she was never happy with my sister's CM but at the time she was very young and as she was a neighbour she was worried what the community would think if she terminated the contract.

Nooka - Forever is right, he does say that a nanny/childminder/grandmother is the best option if Mum or Dad can't look after children full time (from his book They F You Up).

Some of his more recent comments are sounding a little questionable from the articles, but I have found all of his books to be pretty research based and interesting providing you ignore his 'summing up' at the end, where the blanket statements come into play.

However he is not blaming working mothers, Dads come in for stick too, the Guardian article states: "The real solution is going to be men starting to feel ? every bit as much as women ? that it is up to them how the baby is cared for."

I think he genuinely wants society/legislation/parental leave to change (to something a bit more like Denmark) but controversial statements sell more papers.

The denial thing is a bit Freudian isn't it - didn't Freud say that if you didn't agree with his ideas that you were just in denial

Mrsbean - I always put quality over quantity unless the hours were very short.

I am lucky in that I can work fairly short days (doing the rest at home) and nursery is 5 minutes from work. So typically even though they are in 'full time' this equates to less than 40 hours a week. They still get 4 hours a day with me.

How does it work out financially if you put them in mornings only for example. In our nursery we pay something like £25 for a half day and £35 for a full day - a big difference over the course of the month and year.

Every day for a shorter period sounds lovely...but how does that balance against having whole days at home - lazy ish mornings, free days to go places etc. I found it easier to do 3 long days at first because if they were ill there was more chance of it being on a day 'off' and therefore didnt impact on work. Also colleagues saw me working full days and seemed to think this was more than the equivalent half days . I got more done on the full days and did get that time to myself which is important (and does have an impact on my DC's too). Also when my DS got older he wanted to be there all day as they would do activities in the afternoon which he missed

My problem with OJ is that he is not doing the research and publishing his findings in academic journals. He is cherry picking and writing for media and profit - being objective is not going to sell books as the conclusion would be 'depends on the child, the parent, the caregiver and really we are not that sure'.

Peppapig, again - going with the individual circumstances here - our work is sessional anyway e.g. if I do three days, mornings will be in one setting and afternoons in another spread over three settings.. and I am the sole practitioner in all but one of these settings, so pretty isolated from colleagues! Re: the illness, I'm going to pay for a full week at £150 as it then gives me flexibility (as the nature of my work means that I could just swap sessions around and make up missed time over a few weeks if necessary).

I love the idea of whole days off but I just don't know that this isn't for my needs vs ds's e.g. the calm and quiet of that lazy morning and day trips away vs the same ol' groundhog day of picking up, heading home, maybe stopping off in the park on a fine day and then back to the slog of getting dinner ready etc.. I think it's potentially more 'groundhog day' like to do it this way and I would probably change it when he got a bit older (but thinking I will prob have moved on by then/have a new baby.. and then renegotiate again!)

Are some of you seriously suggesting we need 'research based evidence' to establish beyond doubt that a young child, especially a young child under the age of 3, is going to benefit more from spending the vast majority of its time with a 'loving and attentive' parent than from any other scenario?

This seems to me to be OJ's main contention, and it's little more than common sense, IMHO. I do understand that this may be unsettling for some, but to dispute it does indeed smack of denial, IMHO.

Sounds like the best solution then . I think its fab you can pay for the full week as that flexibility will be invaluable.

cornflowers I think the need for the research base, in this case, is to improve options re: flexible working for parents (women and men). A great many people do contend that 'high quality' childcare is similar to maternal care and this influences policy. I think the Belsky research about poorer outcomes for the under-1's in childcare probably influenced the extension of mat leave so I don't think it's a fruitless endeavour.

There is also a need for research to establish, definitively, what the 'next best' is, where parents are unable and/or uninclined to have one parent stay home.

Fair enough, mrsbean, and I do take your point. However isn't that essentially what OJ himself is saying? Meanwhile this thread as a whole is riddled with some pretty fatuous & dismissive posts, with several people calling James a twonk (or whatever) for daring to suggest that parental care is the first best option.

I just find it odd.

Cornflowers - I come at it from the opposite direction. Of course parental care is probably best in most cases - but is non parental care harmful? That's what we don't really know. If it is harmful, then what is the level of risk - so we can work to reduce this. Unfortunately the ideal of mum at home for years on end is impossible for many.

Also, this idea of one on one maternal care where mum is there and focused on the child is really only a relatively recent idea.

Never explain,never complain, lest he mistakenly thinks we working Mums, to mis-quote Rhett "Frankly, My dear, I don't give a damn"...

Oh come on, it's hard enough being a working parent - give us a break. People should only have kids if they can afford a mortgage on one salary?! Ridiculous.

Every parent would be happier if their very young children spent 24 hours a day with the people who love them. The majority of people I know use childcare of some type, be it nurseries, nannies, childminders and, without exception, each parent has made this decision based on a lot of soul searching and research. No-one abandons their child to the care of others without very careful consideration. Personally I wanted my child in one place all day instead of being dragged from one nursery/school pick-up to another which was what was on offer from CMs in my area.

Personally, I am very happy to have my small (21 month) dd in nursery where she has been since 9 months. In an ideal world, my partner and I would be able to manage to look after her between us, but we would have to pitch a tent in Princes St Gardens on order to do that! This may help with her emotional development, but I expect other aspects of her development would suffer!

The nursery workers, although mostly young women between 16 and 20ish are so enthusiastic and loving towards my daughter and their jobs. The manager in the nursery rules it with a rod of iron too, which helps when managing such a young workforce - she has achieved low staff turnover and an atmosphere of respect for the parents, where the staff take great care to abide by the wishes of the parents.

MrsBean - I work 5 mornings and totally agree with your thoughts. I feel more comfortable about having the DCs in nursery for a half day only, and find that the routine is great for them. I get less time for myself (no formal lunchtime, more travelling, more ironing of work clothes !) but I feel happier with it. I can recommend it.

I do 3 long days a week, which leaves 4 days at home and this works too imo. Partner does pick up, I drop off and she's in nursery from 8.30 until 4.30. with the same meal and nap times as at home. This fits better with older dd and means everything is easier all round which is what childcare is all about.

cornflowers if find all this self flagellation a bit odd too.

As far as I can see OJ's argument is just that a child under 3 needs some one to one time with his/her main carer. Its parents are obv the first choice, and both parents should be able to be allowed to provide that care.

I have never interpreted his writing as 'mother bashing' in fact quite the opposite

I, not if

There is a bit of difference between what might be of most benefit for a child and what might actually cause harm. So many factors in a child's life contribute to the whole, and whilst I think that probably being at home with me would have been ideal from the DCs pov, having me as a mother (albeit a wohm) has arguably been a net-gain situation and the fact that they were in good quality childcare fo 3 days a week has not caused any bad or harmful effects, on balance. And you do have to look at a situation overall. Also, if you are a perceptive, sensitive parent, you know what is going on with your children - my 3 yo was unhappy in his nursery, I took notice, sat in for a few days and understood why - and moved him. To a nursery he was happy in and even now looks back on as having been a happy place which he enjoyed.

You can't legislate for the type of humans who have babies - we all have to parent well in the way that we parent well, and builds on our overall strengths as a family - for the best overall benefit to the child we can manage in our circumstances.

Hi Peppapighastakenovrmylife - the professionals I have contact with across the board in terms of education, health and social care, so social workers, psychologists, teachers, nurses etc. Now many of them use nurseries fir babies, but the feel for young children is anti.

I would choose an excellent nursery over a less excellent childminder, but like my colleagues would prefer the same person providing consistency and continuity of care as far as possible.

I am also interested in people's reasons ( and I mean preferences in an ideal situation where availabilty and cost aren't factors). Lots of people ( but absolutely not all )who prefer the nursery option seem to rate safety of their childs care as a main reason-thinking there's safety in numbers of carers. I'm not dismissing that at all, but it's not the
main reason given by people choosing other forms of care in my completely non scientific study!

Sak, more men run off because women don't allow them to bond. They did a survey in Norway I think it was. Fathers who had been with the baby from birth as sole carer had the same concerns as mothers. Fathers who had not had so much time with the children were most interseted ni just practical issues such as will the child fall out of an open window rather than psychological ones.

I certainly wouldn't use safety as a main issue about care as most children are pretty safe everywhere. Anyway for us a daily nanny who stayed 10 years worked very well

I think if you just read the Guardian piece on childcare then you'd think nothing much of it, because it's written in a fairly uncontentious way. But the piece in the Times is much more irritating, and some of his other work is really fairly appalling. Like his contention that ADHD is caused by maternal stress, or that all you have to do with Alzheimer's patients is agree with them. Articles backed up by research which on further examination do not say what they purport to say, and where Mr James has handily written another book to plug whatever therapy he is suggesting is just the job.

So no, saying that consistent loving care is best for babies is not contentious. There are a whole load of other reasons why Mr James should not be taken seriously. Parents wanting to look at the evidence (such as it is) should look at the original research not the writing of someone with an agenda (or not in isolation in any case).

Personally I found that my mental health did a whole lot better if I didn't read any gurus at all, but chose as far as I could based on our family circumstances from the options available to us, knowing the needs and wants of my family. We've had a nanny, nanny-with-a-baby, nursery, SAHD, SAHM and childminder over the years. They all had their pluses and minuses, mainly based on the personalities and work ethics involved.

My bugbear with a lot of this stuff is with the overemphasis on the first few years. In my experience it has been as the children got older that they have needed our support more, and juggling primary school with work was way harder than when they were younger, and yet this seems to be totally overlooked, so there is idea that you give up work until your children go to school and then pick up your career then (ho ho). I think that parents need to look at the long term. It's not just the first five years that are important.

Xenia Soooo I did my son a great service by getting my husband & Mum to look after DS while I was on shifts. Wow! I did that without looking in a book! (But I did love Baby whisperer.) Ops! I'm ignoring my ds now so I better play boats with him now in the bath!

Hi - are there any mums on here who have kids of about 10 or 12 who had them in daycare when they were little? What is your opinion? I'm about to put my dc2 in nursery and am seriously considering other options because of what this man is saying.