Does SAHM make a difference during infant years?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most women wouldn't think twice about leaving an infant with a trusted grandparent who was loving and energetic, but the never-ending mom guilt makes us second-guess a qualified professional caregiver.

As long as the person is nurturing and caring, talks to them frequently (in whatever language) and gives them plenty of stimulation through the day, it doesn't matter much who takes care of your baby. Unless you're working 12-hour days, they'll still have plenty of time to bond with you.

This. The biggest benefit of not sending child to a group care situation (so home with a caregiver) for us was good naps and no childhood and daycare illnesses like RSV, Hand Foot Mouth, pink eye, and minimal colds until age 3 and preschool. But i worked and had lovely nannies that were almost like additional grandparents.

[Anonymous]

I think it really depends on the mother. I loved staying home with my DD between 0 and 3 and think we both got a lot out of it. I feel really in tune with who she is as a person and what she needs, both now and moving forward, that will help me make parenting decisions moving forward.

We also have a really great relationship and I feel confident that we've laid the groundwork for a solid parent-child relationship moving forward. She trusts me, she talks to me about what is troubling her and we've developed a good vocabulary for discussing stuff. I definitely think you could do that while working but for me, it was helpful to be together more to get to that place.

But ultimately, I stayed home because I wanted to. I was an older mom and I knew this would be my only child. I worked for 20 years before becoming a mom. I was ready for a break and wanted to soak up the baby and toddler years while I could because I'm not going to get to do it again. I think if I'd had a baby at 32, or if I'd been planning to have 2 or 3, I might have made a different choice. I don't think it benefits a baby to be home with a mother who wishes she was at work or is bored or feels isolated. And I think those feelings are valid and don't mean you are a bad mom, at all! It's not how I felt but I could see how someone might.

The point is, make the choice that makes sense for you and that's what's best for your baby. I know that sounds selfish, but the truth is that your baby needs a happy, well-adjusted mom. If that means going back to work and finding a great nanny or a great daycare, do it! If it means quitting and staying home, and that works for your finances and your career, do that. I don't think either choice is best for everyone, because everyone has a different family set up, different personality, different work situation, etc. Heck, some people don't have access to high quality childcare and that influences their choice -- if you can't find a daycare you like and you can't afford a nanny, then staying home might feel like the best option. But it's so, so person dependent.

[Anonymous]

Caregiver quality matters. A SAHM can be a crappy caregiver, as can a daycare provider. And either can also be a good caregiver. All things being equal, no one will love your infant and connect with them the way you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Apparently, it doesn’t matter at all who takes care of a baby, as long as they are fed and their diapers are changed.

So parents can just do as they choose, because pretty much anyone can take care of your baby and it will make no difference at all in the long run.

No, people are saying the opposite of that. A child needs a loving, attentive caregiver. That caregiver doesn’t need to be the mother. Generations of kids all over the world have grown up being cared for by fathers, grandmothers, and “aunties” who may or may not be related to the child. The idea that a child must be cared for exclusively by a SAHM is a modern, mostly Western, invention that has no basis in how most people in the world live and how people have lived for thousands of years.

+1. Infants need a secure attachment with a loving caregiver, but it really does not matter if that's a parent, family member, or paid person. However, it is HARD to leave your baby and especially so in this country when women go back after a few months or even less. Mothers' brains are wired not to leave their babies, but babies brains are wired to form a connection to anyone who provides care. That is sensible from an evolutionary perspective. On the other hand, bigger kids really benefit from high quality attention from parents, so I feel like if you're going to pick some years to scale back, being home when your kid gets off the bus is the way to do it.

Bigger kids just want to play with their friends. My kids never wanted my attention more than when they were toddlers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I stayed home (for myself) and hated it, to the extent that I think it would have been better for my child to have a caring, well-compensated nanny and a more balanced mother.

Side note, I wish part-time was normalized.

Same. I have two daughters and I plan to steer them toward careers that allow flexibility around work hours, the ability to leave and reenter the workforce, etc. There are plenty of careers like this, they're just not ego-driven stereotypically male careers.

[Anonymous]

I wish I could stay at home during the teen years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My kids are nearly grown, but I simply could not hand my newborn over to strangers at a daycare, who were managing my baby in addition to five or six others lined in their infant car carriers in the baby room waiting for individual attention. Just couldn't do it. That is the decision that worked best for me at the time.

Follow your gut. Looking back, I feel I did the right thing for me and my child(ren). Zero regrets. Work will always be there to go back to, but you only get one chance to raise your children. My kids are well-adjusted, calm, thoughtful young people who do me proud.

You actually literally couldn't do that now, since that's not legal in daycares, and not what happens.

[Anonymous]

New poster here - are there any thoughts or good threads someone is familiar with on the best time to transition to daycare / preschool if a baby has had a SAHM, nanny without other kids, or grandparent as a caregiver? Ours is 16 mo and I can’t decide whether to start planning the transition or wait until he’s closer to 3. Money not the primary consideration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster here - are there any thoughts or good threads someone is familiar with on the best time to transition to daycare / preschool if a baby has had a SAHM, nanny without other kids, or grandparent as a caregiver? Ours is 16 mo and I can’t decide whether to start planning the transition or wait until he’s closer to 3. Money not the primary consideration.

As someone who has worked in daycare, I'd say that 16 months is the worst possible age to transition. Babies make the transition smoothly, mainly because what htey get in good daycares is really similar. From about 2.5 and up kids are really motivated by the other kids, and make the transition well.

Between about 12 months and 2 kids who have been there do fine, but it's a really hard transition, because it's hard to teach being in a group to mobile kids who are at an age when they aren't interested in their peers and don't have the reasoning to understand what's going on. There's no benefit to them, other than a safe nurturing place.

[Anonymous]

Yes! I freelanced and worked from home part-time (with a PT nanny who took the kids on morning outings so I could work) for six years, until my youngest turned 4. It slowed down my fmy career but it was so much healthier for the kids. They are super well adjusted, emotionally connected kids. I have seen this positive outcome in so many other families that had a primary parent home most of the day. I know it is an unpopular opinion but I guarantee you it makes a difference. I got back into a full time office career in my late 30s and it all worked out fine. My kids are now in HS.

Before people flame me for saying that nannies are inferior - they are not. But the stress on the family overall and the emotional disconnect that occurs between child and parents when a kid is in paid care full time is real and it is exacerbated if infants are in daycare full time. It forces you to send the kid out when they are sick or cranky and would be much better off cuddling with a parent.

(PS I am not a hippie granola mom, I am not even particularly crazy about kids. I would have been fine just having a career but my husband wanted kids. And, I was raised by a full time career mom and I think it was very bad for my development.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The research is:

If you have enough money for the things you need without working, then children are better off with a SAHM.

If you don't have enough for those things, and being a SAHM means that you are constantly stressed about money, then kids are better off with mom working.

"Enough money" is completely subjective. It isn't about whether or not the kids have the things you want them to have. It's about whether or not they feel the stress of parents worrying about money.

Really? Where is this research, pray tell?

Also, given this framework you assert, why is it still culturally normative that the wealthiest families outsource childcare from the word go? Why all the nannies - and boarding schools - when the parents don’t even need to work on account of massive trust funds?

[Anonymous]

I just can’t imagine sending a tiny baby to daycare to be cared for by someone who is also caring for multiple other infants and toddlers.

I had a hard enough time watching my own one child and it was even harder when I had 2 under 2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: The biggest benefit of not sending child to a group care situation (so home with a caregiver) for us was good naps and no childhood and daycare illnesses like RSV, Hand Foot Mouth, pink eye, and minimal colds until age 3 and preschool. But i worked and had lovely nannies that were almost like additional grandparents.

I do hear more colds, etc. going outside of house, but ours was home and still got it all including RSV. I am with the poster who said important for them to be able to be there for kid after school. That has been my take too if had to pick between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it really depends on the mother. I loved staying home with my DD between 0 and 3 and think we both got a lot out of it. I feel really in tune with who she is as a person and what she needs, both now and moving forward, that will help me make parenting decisions moving forward.

We also have a really great relationship and I feel confident that we've laid the groundwork for a solid parent-child relationship moving forward. She trusts me, she talks to me about what is troubling her and we've developed a good vocabulary for discussing stuff. I definitely think you could do that while working but for me, it was helpful to be together more to get to that place.

But ultimately, I stayed home because I wanted to. I was an older mom and I knew this would be my only child. I worked for 20 years before becoming a mom. I was ready for a break and wanted to soak up the baby and toddler years while I could because I'm not going to get to do it again. I think if I'd had a baby at 32, or if I'd been planning to have 2 or 3, I might have made a different choice. I don't think it benefits a baby to be home with a mother who wishes she was at work or is bored or feels isolated. And I think those feelings are valid and don't mean you are a bad mom, at all! It's not how I felt but I could see how someone might.

The point is, make the choice that makes sense for you and that's what's best for your baby. I know that sounds selfish, but the truth is that your baby needs a happy, well-adjusted mom. If that means going back to work and finding a great nanny or a great daycare, do it! If it means quitting and staying home, and that works for your finances and your career, do that. I don't think either choice is best for everyone, because everyone has a different family set up, different personality, different work situation, etc. Heck, some people don't have access to high quality childcare and that influences their choice -- if you can't find a daycare you like and you can't afford a nanny, then staying home might feel like the best option. But it's so, so person dependent.

The benefits you cite are because you have an only child. I have one too and a commonality with all of parents of onlies I know is a precociousness with being about to talk about emotions, knowing your kid’s thought processes well, and having a super close relationship. It’s a thing with only kids, even those that spend 45 hours a week in daycare. Just FYI because I thought it was funny how you were describing only child-parent relationship traits, then went on to say you had an only.

[Anonymous]

We chose the “highly qualified nanny route”. I work from home so I could breastfeed pretty much on demand (pre and during covid) and always do weekday morning routine and dinner, bath, books and bed. And here’s why we chose the nanny route: nanny has a patience and skill set neither DH nor I possess. She keeps (now) both our kids engaged and constantly learning.

Narrating for a baby is about as boring as anyone could imagine. So is reading Brown Bear a hundred times. Our neighbors would tell me that nanny was always pointing things out to our older child on their walks and had infinite patience. Both my toddler and baby absolutely adore her but still very much depend and wants DH and me.

Again, the key is highly-qualified-nanny. Our nanny has a masters in ECD and taught in preschool for decades.