NYT article about baby who died first day of daycare

[Anonymous]

It's not relevant where I live or what I drive. I'm not the one saying I had "no other choice". That is my entire issue. This line right here

What this article is about is that my infant died in the care of a stranger, when he should have been with me. Our culture demanded it.

How does "our culture demand it"? Does it demand she live in NYC? Does it demand the spouse work freelance? Is that a demand that "our culture" puts on everyone? No, it's choices they made, not anything they were forced into. She even says had she known the outcome, she would have made a different choice.

That's all I am saying. I am not saying she deserves it, that she should have made a different choice, that she somehow caused it. I am just saying that our culture does not force mothers to leave their kids with strangers. There are a lot of people that make it work on one income.

[Anonymous]

Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

I think it's a pretty small minority of women who want to go back full time after only 12 weeks. Those who want to should be able to, and there's no disagreement that we need higher quality childcare. But my guess is that the vast vast majority of moms would take off at least 6 months if offered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

I think it's a pretty small minority of women who want to go back full time after only 12 weeks. Those who want to should be able to, and there's no disagreement that we need higher quality childcare. But my guess is that the vast vast majority of moms would take off at least 6 months if offered.

Your comment is so out of touch and judgmental-sounding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not relevant where I live or what I drive. I'm not the one saying I had "no other choice". That is my entire issue. This line right here

What this article is about is that my infant died in the care of a stranger, when he should have been with me. Our culture demanded it.

How does "our culture demand it"? Does it demand she live in NYC? Does it demand the spouse work freelance? Is that a demand that "our culture" puts on everyone? No, it's choices they made, not anything they were forced into. She even says had she known the outcome, she would have made a different choice.

That's all I am saying. I am not saying she deserves it, that she should have made a different choice, that she somehow caused it. I am just saying that our culture does not force mothers to leave their kids with strangers. There are a lot of people that make it work on one income.

Do you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

PP here. I should add, I also certainly think longer maternity leave would help too and our current system is horrible. But its seems to me childcare is way more important in the long run--and seems so obviously to be the bigger issue here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

I think it's a pretty small minority of women who want to go back full time after only 12 weeks. Those who want to should be able to, and there's no disagreement that we need higher quality childcare. But my guess is that the vast vast majority of moms would take off at least 6 months if offered.

PP here. And to your question I ask, why is that? I really believe a part of it is because childcare options are not good. I'd certainly take 6 months--of course--who wouldn't, but that is because I'd enjoy my time off. A child does not need its mother 24-7 at 4-6 months. It does need good quality care though and I think that is what women are responding to in being uncomfortable going back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

I agree with this. I left my child (ren) in daycare at 3 months. The infant room had 6 caregivers with 4 infants. The room is glass walled with an office with 3 directors across the hall. All 7 of those adults were trained in infant CPR. My babies, I genuinely believe, were at least as safe if not safer there than at home with me in my inexperienced, sleep-deprived state.

You can guess how much this childcare costs. The first thing that horrified me about this story was the description of the unlicensed daycare and how good quality childcare is the exception rather than the norm and is totally unrealistic financially for the vast majority of working parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

I agree with this. I left my child (ren) in daycare at 3 months. The infant room had 6 caregivers with 4 infants. The room is glass walled with an office with 3 directors across the hall. All 7 of those adults were trained in infant CPR. My babies, I genuinely believe, were at least as safe if not safer there than at home with me in my inexperienced, sleep-deprived state.

You can guess how much this childcare costs. The first thing that horrified me about this story was the description of the unlicensed daycare and how good quality childcare is the exception rather than the norm and is totally unrealistic financially for the vast majority of working parents.

Sorry, meant 4 caregivers with 6 infants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

PP here. I should add, I also certainly think longer maternity leave would help too and our current system is horrible. But its seems to me childcare is way more important in the long run--and seems so obviously to be the bigger issue here.

SIDS danger dramatically drops after 4 months. So no, if we are talking about protecting babies from dying at daycare, it's not about childcare only, it's about the timing of said care as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrible story and I do not blame the parents or claim to know better than them.

However, the essay really bothered me (enough to feel the need to comment on it) because I see the issue MORE as poor quality childcare over having to go back to work. This is probably informed by my own view (I'll admit) but the idea that 3 months is too soon to go back to work seem paternalistic and actually harmful to women to me. I hate that the death of her child is turned into one more notch on the mommy-wars. I recognize she feels that way, but frankly I do not.

Instead, to me the failure here was not being forced to work, but the failure of available safe childcare.

Women need better quality childcare to support their ability to go back to work, not to believe that something is wrong with leaving a child at 3 months. (Would she still feel this way had all of this horribly not happened?)

Her child died not because she went back to work, but first, because of a fluke thing (SIDs etc) and then second, if there is a reason (which there may not be) because the child was in an unlicensed center where possible the child was placed on its stomach, but as a matter of fact (from the essay) the workers did not know how to perform CPR/possibly recognize distress signs et cetera. I don't blame the parents for choosing an unlicensed center because the fact is there are too few available quality childcare options. And to me, that is the issue. Think of what it could do for women, children and our society if we had universally available high quality child care. Think of how much it would eliminate this mommy guilt. And why don't we have that? Certainly economics, but I also think it comes back to paternalism.

I think it's a pretty small minority of women who want to go back full time after only 12 weeks. Those who want to should be able to, and there's no disagreement that we need higher quality childcare. But my guess is that the vast vast majority of moms would take off at least 6 months if offered.

Your comment is so out of touch and judgmental-sounding.

Not PP, but what the hell are you on about? She said there aren't a lot of women who would want to go back after 12 weeks, but that they should be able to, and women who want to be on leave longer should be able to.

It's not only non-judgmental, it's extremely rational. I think you need to learn how to read. Or maybe how to think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's not relevant where I live or what I drive. I'm not the one saying I had "no other choice". That is my entire issue. This line right here

What this article is about is that my infant died in the care of a stranger, when he should have been with me. Our culture demanded it.

How does "our culture demand it"? Does it demand she live in NYC? Does it demand the spouse work freelance? Is that a demand that "our culture" puts on everyone? No, it's choices they made, not anything they were forced into. She even says had she known the outcome, she would have made a different choice.

That's all I am saying. I am not saying she deserves it, that she should have made a different choice, that she somehow caused it. I am just saying that our culture does not force mothers to leave their kids with strangers. There are a lot of people that make it work on one income.

What she says is far more nuanced that that. Every choice we make has both immediate and long term implications and we cannot know what those will be without a crystal ball. However, our culture does not support women who want a parent to be able to stay home with their children for the first six, eight twelve months without a significant hit to their ability to support themselves in the short term and reenter the work force in the long term. And that is not a gamble most working moms can afford to take. And jobs - for either parent - don't grow on trees. It's not a matter of just going out and getting a new one. By contrast, other countries - like Canada for example - mandate parental leave periods of up to a year out of recognition that children need their parents in that first year and parents need to be able to reenter the workforce after that. You may not agree with her choices but she is stating a true point - culturally this country does not support or encourage women (or either parent really - and I think it's even harder for men) to stay home with their children for a meaningful portion of the first year of the child's life. There is no meaningful choice here.

[Anonymous]

NP here. This is a tragic story, and as the mother of an infant, I feel incredible sorrow for this woman's situation. Having said that, I know that people go on about how other countries have paid maternity leave and how can the US be so far behind...well, the fact of the matter is that if you pay for women to have babies, they'll have more babies. If women are more expensive to employ, people will employ fewer women. Wages for women (All women, not just those with babies) will be driven downward because of discrimination. If you owned a business, would you be more likely to hire someone who gets paid benefits and leaves the office for a YEAR? Or someone statistically less likely to do so?

Look at the countries with the most generous maternity benefits. Those are the countries with the largest wage gap between men and women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not relevant where I live or what I drive. I'm not the one saying I had "no other choice". That is my entire issue. This line right here

What this article is about is that my infant died in the care of a stranger, when he should have been with me. Our culture demanded it.

How does "our culture demand it"? Does it demand she live in NYC? Does it demand the spouse work freelance? Is that a demand that "our culture" puts on everyone? No, it's choices they made, not anything they were forced into. She even says had she known the outcome, she would have made a different choice.

That's all I am saying. I am not saying she deserves it, that she should have made a different choice, that she somehow caused it. I am just saying that our culture does not force mothers to leave their kids with strangers. There are a lot of people that make it work on one income.

Do you?

Yes I do. So do most people I know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not relevant where I live or what I drive. I'm not the one saying I had "no other choice". That is my entire issue. This line right here

What this article is about is that my infant died in the care of a stranger, when he should have been with me. Our culture demanded it.

How does "our culture demand it"? Does it demand she live in NYC? Does it demand the spouse work freelance? Is that a demand that "our culture" puts on everyone? No, it's choices they made, not anything they were forced into. She even says had she known the outcome, she would have made a different choice.

That's all I am saying. I am not saying she deserves it, that she should have made a different choice, that she somehow caused it. I am just saying that our culture does not force mothers to leave their kids with strangers. There are a lot of people that make it work on one income.

What she says is far more nuanced that that. Every choice we make has both immediate and long term implications and we cannot know what those will be without a crystal ball. However, our culture does not support women who want a parent to be able to stay home with their children for the first six, eight twelve months without a significant hit to their ability to support themselves in the short term and reenter the work force in the long term. And that is not a gamble most working moms can afford to take. And jobs - for either parent - don't grow on trees. It's not a matter of just going out and getting a new one. By contrast, other countries - like Canada for example - mandate parental leave periods of up to a year out of recognition that children need their parents in that first year and parents need to be able to reenter the workforce after that. You may not agree with her choices but she is stating a true point - culturally this country does not support or encourage women (or either parent really - and I think it's even harder for men) to stay home with their children for a meaningful portion of the first year of the child's life. There is no meaningful choice here.

I also completely agree that there is a huge issue with affordable high quality child care in this country. But ultimately these issues all go hand in hand as a lack of meaningful support for families trying to both support and raise young children. This is not a one sized fits all kind of situation. But real problem is lack of support for meaningful choices.