Would you leave you 4 month old at home, to go on a holiday of a lifetime

[sesame]

I have a dilemma. I have the opportunity to go on an all expenses paid holiday that we woudl seriosuly never ever be able to afford in our lives. The only problem is, its a work thing and the excursions etc that are compulsary are not child friendly, taking the baby is out of the question. My mom will gladly look after the baby, but am i crazy for even thinking about going????

heres me trying to justify it. we haven't been away for a couple of years and in the last 18 months have been through 2 miscarriages and 2 family deaths, which have all taken their toll on us. We really need this break but just can't afford a holiday.

what would you do????

I could never leave my children to go on a holiday. I find it hard enough overnight without them! IMO (and it is just that) once you have children, main holidays are meant to be spent together.

Do you work at all helsi or are you a SAHM? - Genuine question. Just wondering if it has a bearing....

helsi - that is how me and Dh feel about holidays, bar the odd weekend away maybe. Dh only gets a limited amount a holidays (I get more) so we like to send them together.

Only go if you think you will kick yourself for not going in a years time. Depends how much you will miss yout baby. Its early days i guess as baby is only 4 months but if you can be bold enough then do it. Baby will not suffer. know if i had gone then i would have cried too much missing baby. But if you are really dying to go then go and wishing you lots of fun and good luck. Now i would go without a thought as my kids are 5 , 15 and 17.

baby might suffer

but at 4 months he can't tell you

if you can live with that then go

Ah but Hulababy, you work! (nothing wrong with that I might add).

I felt similarly when I was a part time WOHM, but now I am a SAHM and with them every bloody minute of every bloody day god do I feel differently!

True. It could do. Just the comment wondered if there was any baring - so giving my side as well. I work PT, 3 days a week.

Then you're a F*^%ing saint, and I say that without a trace of irony!

Sesame, first off I couldn't - I left DS for 2 hours when he was 9 weeks old and I was a wreck. He's now 9 months and I still couldn't leave him overnight.

But also, DS wouldn't, just wouldn't, ever take a bottle, so it would have been impossible. That could happen with your baby, so (short of a wet nurse!) it's something you won't be able to really decide until the time comes.

I would rather have lost an arm than left ds at this age.

I do accept I was maybe a bit barking :o

I am very envious of all you barking ladies. I should add that since that time 6 years ago when I left DD for ten days, I have never spent a night apart from either of them because grandparents are on the other side of the world. I could chew off my arm for a holiday by myself.

I'm with harpsi and franny. I am stunned about the number of responses that say a baby won't notice (as opposed to an older child) that their parents have gone. Are so many babies like that? Well, not my dd. The OP cannot choose the baby she is going to have. I accept that some babies may not care who takes care of them, but there are others who will scream the place down because their beloved pair of life and love-giving breasts are not there for them. My dd would have thought she was going to die if I disappeared at 4 months.

Mine too, blueshoes

TBH I had a baby that I think would have been "OK" had I gone away for a week. As in, wouldn't have cried for the week. But that, surely, isn't the point????? Am I missing something here?
Little babies need their parents, the ones they've bonded with, not their grandparents, whom they kind of recognise, and who kind of know them. They don't know anything else - do they? And if you're breastfeeding and your son or daughter associates you with a smell, a soft breast and milk, nothing is going to substitute for that.
I'm not a hippy-dippy parent, I haven't got an attachment-parenting agenda (not that there's anything wrong with either of those things).
FWIW I think the grandmother would love it but not for all the right reasons.

tlb, we must be the lucky ones then

Crikey - is this still going on?! . Does anyone know if Sesame has made her mind up one way or t'other? The suspense is killing me!

I have tried ignoring this thread, to no avail.

Not in a million years, not to put too fine a point on it.

well Katierocket to answer your question, I don't know if the baby might be damaged or not, although that is an interesting quote from Wessexgirl.
but I don't make decisions based on whether something might "damage" my children.
If I was going to balance out a week's holiday against my baby's possible week long distress (and being several long hours away from relieving that distress), well - I don't think there is any question. Wouldn't be a holiday.

Ummm, I did leave my 5 month old (and 2.2 yr old) at the time (they are older now) to accompany dh on a trip to Rome.

In all honestly I didn't totally enjoy it; worried that they would be pining for me etc. However, no discernible ill effects in either of my children now or at the time. Also my mum, who looked after them, is brutally honest, and she didn't perceive any distress. Perhaps they were stressed to the gills by the whole thing - but if so, it wasn't obvious....

It was very important to my dh that I accompany him on this work junket (an all expenses paid 'holiday'). He was feeling marginalised and peripheral compared to the children, so I think it was the right thing to prioritise him for a change ( a rarity, I'll admit)

Point is - sometimes you have to put yourself / dh first. Only occasionally - but it's important.

In all seriousness though lockets - is it healthy that children should always get priority and never the parents?

We are probably the first generation ever who have done this....

Children always get priority? Do they? Aren't we the generation that bundle them off to nursery (myself included, on a p/t basis) so we can go and be fulfilled etc etc blah blah, while our mothers, in the main, stayed at home, and our Grannies had lives of drudgery compared to what we have. I think our generation looks after itself very nicely, thank you. I don't think we can EVER be accused of being selfless

Mine don't get bundled off to Nursery but might do soon Paolosgirl if I am to keep myself from running in front of an articulated lorry on the A36 (in front of my house) which is a daily fantasy of mine...

My mum had me at home full time - i can't fault her really since she was kind and caring, but she certainly didn't beat herself up about 'stimulating me' and entertaining me like the current generation of mothers do. I spent most of my childhood bored senseless, with the tv for company.

I'm surprised that you really can't see how much pressure is put on mums today....?