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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.