the dreaded MB jealousy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay, the crazy side debate about primary caregivers aside, OP, this is a pretty normal developmental phase for kids, but there are right and wrong ways to deal with with. When I was home with my older DC, he had a total mommy phase where he wouldn't go to DH at all and cried when DH did anything with him, and then maybe two weeks later decided Daddy was the center of the universe and was fine with me all day until DH was home from work and then it was like I didn't exist. It doesn't ever feel great as a parent but it's very normal and it's very much just a phase - kids always know who their parents are. However, I can see an MB being annoyed if she perceived you were encouraging that sort of hurtful behavior. DH and I (and our nanny when I finally went back to work), would always handle situations where DC was demanding one person and rejecting another by saying "of course! I want to give you a kiss too. But mommy is leaving for work now so let's go say goodbye to her together and give her a special kiss to help her get through the day missing you, and then I'll give you a special kiss too before we head to the park." Or whatever. Our nanny also always made a point of having DC FaceTime us at work or just calling us so we could "talk" to DC (before he was talking) whenever he missed us during the day to remind him that we were also thinking about him. This doesn't have to be about MB jealousy or what makes someone a primary caregiver or the stability of kids whose parents WOH - it's about how the adults in a child's life should be working together to reassure the child that he or she is surrounded by a circle of loving caregivers.

I like your support of parents and nannies functioning as partners on some level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

The seeds of mental illness are often (not always) sown during the formative years, early in life. When caregivers are unstable, unloving, or incompetent, of course there are consequences.


How could you think otherwise?

My "office job" is working as a child psychiatrist. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Winnicott? He really doesn't say that if you read it.

What would you say are the probable consequences of unstable, unloving, or incompetent primary caregivers during the formative years? A primary caregiver is whoever provides most of the care during the child's waking hours.

Most physicians I know, tend to believe most mental illness is caused by bad luck genes, rather than by environment (especially early environment.)

Still hoping to hear the opinion of the pediatric psychiatrist.....

So, I will respond. Most psychiatrists think that a kid can withstand a pretty good amount of trauma if a) he is blessed with good genes (of course), and b) he has a consistent caregiver who is looking out for his best interests. It doesn't have to be the person who spends the most time with him. Sometimes a grandma or an adult that is a good friend of the child will do. So will the child's parents, even if they both work, and he spends most of his time with the nanny.
If the parents are good and they handle transitions appropriately, recognize the child's needs and help him verbalize them (if appropriate), and deal with various traumas in a child's life with patience and understanding, then something like changing nannies is unlikely to have long term consequences on a child's mental health.

I want to wholeheartedly endorse this, not as a pediatric psychiatrist but as a trained professional who works with severely traumatized kids and kids who have been victimized in a way that ends up in legal involvement.

One stable, loving, caregiver can be the anchor in a child's world. If that caregiver is a family member (immediate or close extended) the value and impact of that relationship strengthens the extent to which the child can weather trauma.

In the circumstances dealt with almost all of the time on these boards, the child(ren) in question have one or more stable parent overseeing their care from the day they were born. Barring abuse by a caregiver, special needs of a child, or other extraordinary circumstances, children will not be significantly harmed by changes in care providers.

Sounds like you're both trying to say the stability of an infant's/toddler's primary caregiver isn't really all that critical.

Please clarify if this is not what you mean to say.

Not PP but that is not at all what it sounds like the PP is saying. It sounds like she is saying as long as the child has a stable primary caregiver in the PARENT or PARENTS, other caregiver changes are not harmful. The parent does not need to be home with the child 24 hours a day to be the primary caregiver.

No one stays home 24/7, so let's not be silly. The primary caregiver is the person who provides the majority of care. Hence the word "primary".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

The seeds of mental illness are often (not always) sown during the formative years, early in life. When caregivers are unstable, unloving, or incompetent, of course there are consequences.


How could you think otherwise?

My "office job" is working as a child psychiatrist. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Winnicott? He really doesn't say that if you read it.

What would you say are the probable consequences of unstable, unloving, or incompetent primary caregivers during the formative years? A primary caregiver is whoever provides most of the care during the child's waking hours.

Most physicians I know, tend to believe most mental illness is caused by bad luck genes, rather than by environment (especially early environment.)

Still hoping to hear the opinion of the pediatric psychiatrist.....

So, I will respond. Most psychiatrists think that a kid can withstand a pretty good amount of trauma if a) he is blessed with good genes (of course), and b) he has a consistent caregiver who is looking out for his best interests. It doesn't have to be the person who spends the most time with him. Sometimes a grandma or an adult that is a good friend of the child will do. So will the child's parents, even if they both work, and he spends most of his time with the nanny.
If the parents are good and they handle transitions appropriately, recognize the child's needs and help him verbalize them (if appropriate), and deal with various traumas in a child's life with patience and understanding, then something like changing nannies is unlikely to have long term consequences on a child's mental health.

I want to wholeheartedly endorse this, not as a pediatric psychiatrist but as a trained professional who works with severely traumatized kids and kids who have been victimized in a way that ends up in legal involvement.

One stable, loving, caregiver can be the anchor in a child's world. If that caregiver is a family member (immediate or close extended) the value and impact of that relationship strengthens the extent to which the child can weather trauma.

In the circumstances dealt with almost all of the time on these boards, the child(ren) in question have one or more stable parent overseeing their care from the day they were born. Barring abuse by a caregiver, special needs of a child, or other extraordinary circumstances, children will not be significantly harmed by changes in care providers.

Sounds like you're both trying to say the stability of an infant's/toddler's primary caregiver isn't really all that critical.

Please clarify if this is not what you mean to say.

Not PP but that is not at all what it sounds like the PP is saying. It sounds like she is saying as long as the child has a stable primary caregiver in the PARENT or PARENTS, other caregiver changes are not harmful. The parent does not need to be home with the child 24 hours a day to be the primary caregiver.

No one stays home 24/7, so let's not be silly. The primary caregiver is the person who provides the majority of care. Hence the word "primary".

Even when parents work, they provide the majority of care in most instances. They make the decisions, care the most about their children's interests and are the ones who are there unconditionally when needed. Even if you want to make this about physical awake time with the child, I have a nanny 50 hours a week and at minimum I get pretty much as much awake time as she does (1.5 hours in the morning, 2 in the evening and 11 per day on the weekends for a total of 39.5 vs. 40 hours a week with nanny (DC takes a 2 hour nap). This doesn't count, of course, vacations, holidays, sick days, middle of the night wake ups, days I take time off or days I work from home. But more importantly, why is there this mean-spirited debate that attempts to minimize the parent's role in a child's life? Is it your position that any child with full time working parents and changing caregivers will be severely damaged? So basically every kid in daycare is screwed? Sorry, but that's not really how it works, as a number of child development experts on this board have pointed out. Stability in home life can absolutely come from working parents (and it can absolutely ALSO come from nannies - they don't need to be mutually exclusive here).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

The seeds of mental illness are often (not always) sown during the formative years, early in life. When caregivers are unstable, unloving, or incompetent, of course there are consequences.


How could you think otherwise?

My "office job" is working as a child psychiatrist. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Winnicott? He really doesn't say that if you read it.

What would you say are the probable consequences of unstable, unloving, or incompetent primary caregivers during the formative years? A primary caregiver is whoever provides most of the care during the child's waking hours.

Most physicians I know, tend to believe most mental illness is caused by bad luck genes, rather than by environment (especially early environment.)

Still hoping to hear the opinion of the pediatric psychiatrist.....

So, I will respond. Most psychiatrists think that a kid can withstand a pretty good amount of trauma if a) he is blessed with good genes (of course), and b) he has a consistent caregiver who is looking out for his best interests. It doesn't have to be the person who spends the most time with him. Sometimes a grandma or an adult that is a good friend of the child will do. So will the child's parents, even if they both work, and he spends most of his time with the nanny.
If the parents are good and they handle transitions appropriately, recognize the child's needs and help him verbalize them (if appropriate), and deal with various traumas in a child's life with patience and understanding, then something like changing nannies is unlikely to have long term consequences on a child's mental health.

I want to wholeheartedly endorse this, not as a pediatric psychiatrist but as a trained professional who works with severely traumatized kids and kids who have been victimized in a way that ends up in legal involvement.

One stable, loving, caregiver can be the anchor in a child's world. If that caregiver is a family member (immediate or close extended) the value and impact of that relationship strengthens the extent to which the child can weather trauma.

In the circumstances dealt with almost all of the time on these boards, the child(ren) in question have one or more stable parent overseeing their care from the day they were born. Barring abuse by a caregiver, special needs of a child, or other extraordinary circumstances, children will not be significantly harmed by changes in care providers.

Sounds like you're both trying to say the stability of an infant's/toddler's primary caregiver isn't really all that critical.

Please clarify if this is not what you mean to say.

Not PP but that is not at all what it sounds like the PP is saying. It sounds like she is saying as long as the child has a stable primary caregiver in the PARENT or PARENTS, other caregiver changes are not harmful. The parent does not need to be home with the child 24 hours a day to be the primary caregiver.

No one stays home 24/7, so let's not be silly. The primary caregiver is the person who provides the majority of care. Hence the word "primary".

Even when parents work, they provide the majority of care in most instances. They make the decisions, care the most about their children's interests and are the ones who are there unconditionally when needed. Even if you want to make this about physical awake time with the child, I have a nanny 50 hours a week and at minimum I get pretty much as much awake time as she does (1.5 hours in the morning, 2 in the evening and 11 per day on the weekends for a total of 39.5 vs. 40 hours a week with nanny (DC takes a 2 hour nap). This doesn't count, of course, vacations, holidays, sick days, middle of the night wake ups, days I take time off or days I work from home. But more importantly, why is there this mean-spirited debate that attempts to minimize the parent's role in a child's life? Is it your position that any child with full time working parents and changing caregivers will be severely damaged? So basically every kid in daycare is screwed? Sorry, but that's not really how it works, as a number of child development experts on this board have pointed out. Stability in home life can absolutely come from working parents (and it can absolutely ALSO come from nannies - they don't need to be mutually exclusive here).

Someone here is afraid of an honest dialog, seeing that certain posts are being deleted. New DCUM standard: thou shall not offend certain individuals? Ok. No more dialog on this subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Even when parents work, they provide the majority of care in most instances. They make the decisions, care the most about their children's interests and are the ones who are there unconditionally when needed. Even if you want to make this about physical awake time with the child, I have a nanny 50 hours a week and at minimum I get pretty much as much awake time as she does (1.5 hours in the morning, 2 in the evening and 11 per day on the weekends for a total of 39.5 vs. 40 hours a week with nanny (DC takes a 2 hour nap). This doesn't count, of course, vacations, holidays, sick days, middle of the night wake ups, days I take time off or days I work from home. But more importantly, why is there this mean-spirited debate that attempts to minimize the parent's role in a child's life? Is it your position that any child with full time working parents and changing caregivers will be severely damaged? So basically every kid in daycare is screwed? Sorry, but that's not really how it works, as a number of child development experts on this board have pointed out. Stability in home life can absolutely come from working parents (and it can absolutely ALSO come from nannies - they don't need to be mutually exclusive here).[/quote

Hey - whoever you are, I'd buy you a cup of coffee (or glass of wine!)

We would get along. I bet our nannies and kids would also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

Nobody would argue that consistent childcare is ideal. Even substandard consist childcare is better than excellent inconsistent CCPs, but your last post about mental illness? I can't help, but think you are attempting to mock nannies. Am I missing the parody here?

I wonder what you might expect if a child has, let's say 6 nannies from the age of 4 weeks to her third birthday, for 50 hours a week? One nanny stayed 10 months, another one 5 weeks, the others were something in between.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

Nobody would argue that consistent childcare is ideal. Even substandard consist childcare is better than excellent inconsistent CCPs, but your last post about mental illness? I can't help, but think you are attempting to mock nannies. Am I missing the parody here?

I wonder what you might expect if a child has, let's say 6 nannies from the age of 4 weeks to her third birthday, for 50 hours a week? One nanny stayed 10 months, another one 5 weeks, the others were something in between.

I would Ask why are we talking about rare exceptions? Pointless.

we have money. Many of our friends have money. i don't know ANYONE who has had multiple nannies like you describe.we had one for 7 years and are now on APs since we don't need 40rs a week any longer. I have a friend who has had the same nanny foe her 4 children for 15years. Her oldest child is 15 and her youngest 4. I can't think of one person who has had more than 2 nannies.

Furthermore, I know a few families who have had APs so they have had quite the turn of CCPs and so far none of them have open fired with a handgun in a Kindergarten or threatened to jump off key bridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

The seeds of mental illness are often (not always) sown during the formative years, early in life. When caregivers are unstable, unloving, or incompetent, of course there are consequences.

How could you think otherwise?

My "office job" is working as a child psychiatrist. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Winnicott? He really doesn't say that if you read it.

What would you say are the probable consequences of unstable, unloving, or incompetent primary caregivers during the formative years? A primary caregiver is whoever provides most of the care during the child's waking hours.

Most physicians I know, tend to believe most mental illness is caused by bad luck genes, rather than by environment (especially early environment.)

Still hoping to hear the opinion of the pediatric psychiatrist.....

So, I will respond. Most psychiatrists think that a kid can withstand a pretty good amount of trauma if a) he is blessed with good genes (of course), and b) he has a consistent caregiver who is looking out for his best interests. It doesn't have to be the person who spends the most time with him. Sometimes a grandma or an adult that is a good friend of the child will do. So will the child's parents, even if they both work, and he spends most of his time with the nanny.
If the parents are good and they handle transitions appropriately, recognize the child's needs and help him verbalize them (if appropriate), and deal with various traumas in a child's life with patience and understanding, then something like changing nannies is unlikely to have long term consequences on a child's mental health.

I want to wholeheartedly endorse this, not as a pediatric psychiatrist but as a trained professional who works with severely traumatized kids and kids who have been victimized in a way that ends up in legal involvement.

One stable, loving, caregiver can be the anchor in a child's world. If that caregiver is a family member (immediate or close extended) the value and impact of that relationship strengthens the extent to which the child can weather trauma.

In the circumstances dealt with almost all of the time on these boards, the child(ren) in question have one or more stable parent overseeing their care from the day they were born. Barring abuse by a caregiver, special needs of a child, or other extraordinary circumstances, children will not be significantly harmed by changes in care providers.

Sounds like you're both trying to say the stability of an infant's/toddler's primary caregiver isn't really all that critical.

Please clarify if this is not what you mean to say.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying! Are you really going to continue to beat this dead horse when many people, who are professionally qualified to do so, have refuted your asinine argument? Give it a rest!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

The seeds of mental illness are often (not always) sown during the formative years, early in life. When caregivers are unstable, unloving, or incompetent, of course there are consequences.

How could you think otherwise?

My "office job" is working as a child psychiatrist. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Winnicott? He really doesn't say that if you read it.

What would you say are the probable consequences of unstable, unloving, or incompetent primary caregivers during the formative years? A primary caregiver is whoever provides most of the care during the child's waking hours.

Most physicians I know, tend to believe most mental illness is caused by bad luck genes, rather than by environment (especially early environment.)

Still hoping to hear the opinion of the pediatric psychiatrist.....

So, I will respond. Most psychiatrists think that a kid can withstand a pretty good amount of trauma if a) he is blessed with good genes (of course), and b) he has a consistent caregiver who is looking out for his best interests. It doesn't have to be the person who spends the most time with him. Sometimes a grandma or an adult that is a good friend of the child will do. So will the child's parents, even if they both work, and he spends most of his time with the nanny.
If the parents are good and they handle transitions appropriately, recognize the child's needs and help him verbalize them (if appropriate), and deal with various traumas in a child's life with patience and understanding, then something like changing nannies is unlikely to have long term consequences on a child's mental health.

I want to wholeheartedly endorse this, not as a pediatric psychiatrist but as a trained professional who works with severely traumatized kids and kids who have been victimized in a way that ends up in legal involvement.

One stable, loving, caregiver can be the anchor in a child's world. If that caregiver is a family member (immediate or close extended) the value and impact of that relationship strengthens the extent to which the child can weather trauma.

In the circumstances dealt with almost all of the time on these boards, the child(ren) in question have one or more stable parent overseeing their care from the day they were born. Barring abuse by a caregiver, special needs of a child, or other extraordinary circumstances, children will not be significantly harmed by changes in care providers.

Sounds like you're both trying to say the stability of an infant's/toddler's primary caregiver isn't really all that critical.

Please clarify if this is not what you mean to say.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying! Are you really going to continue to beat this dead horse when many people, who are professionally qualified to do so, have refuted your asinine argument? Give it a rest!!

Check your excitement and perhaps allow them to speak for themselves, if they care to, as the question was directed to those two posters, not you. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

The seeds of mental illness are often (not always) sown during the formative years, early in life. When caregivers are unstable, unloving, or incompetent, of course there are consequences.

How could you think otherwise?

My "office job" is working as a child psychiatrist. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Winnicott? He really doesn't say that if you read it.

What would you say are the probable consequences of unstable, unloving, or incompetent primary caregivers during the formative years? A primary caregiver is whoever provides most of the care during the child's waking hours.

Most physicians I know, tend to believe most mental illness is caused by bad luck genes, rather than by environment (especially early environment.)

Still hoping to hear the opinion of the pediatric psychiatrist.....

So, I will respond. Most psychiatrists think that a kid can withstand a pretty good amount of trauma if a) he is blessed with good genes (of course), and b) he has a consistent caregiver who is looking out for his best interests. It doesn't have to be the person who spends the most time with him. Sometimes a grandma or an adult that is a good friend of the child will do. So will the child's parents, even if they both work, and he spends most of his time with the nanny.
If the parents are good and they handle transitions appropriately, recognize the child's needs and help him verbalize them (if appropriate), and deal with various traumas in a child's life with patience and understanding, then something like changing nannies is unlikely to have long term consequences on a child's mental health.

I want to wholeheartedly endorse this, not as a pediatric psychiatrist but as a trained professional who works with severely traumatized kids and kids who have been victimized in a way that ends up in legal involvement.

One stable, loving, caregiver can be the anchor in a child's world. If that caregiver is a family member (immediate or close extended) the value and impact of that relationship strengthens the extent to which the child can weather trauma.

In the circumstances dealt with almost all of the time on these boards, the child(ren) in question have one or more stable parent overseeing their care from the day they were born. Barring abuse by a caregiver, special needs of a child, or other extraordinary circumstances, children will not be significantly harmed by changes in care providers.

Sounds like you're both trying to say the stability of an infant's/toddler's primary caregiver isn't really all that critical.

Please clarify if this is not what you mean to say.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying! Are you really going to continue to beat this dead horse when many people, who are professionally qualified to do so, have refuted your asinine argument? Give it a rest!!

Check your excitement and perhaps allow them to speak for themselves, if they care to, as the question was directed to those two posters, not you. Thanks.

This is a community forum and anyone is free to speak to whatever they wish. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, go away. You are a bore anyways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

The seeds of mental illness are often (not always) sown during the formative years, early in life. When caregivers are unstable, unloving, or incompetent, of course there are consequences.

How could you think otherwise?

My "office job" is working as a child psychiatrist. I have no idea where you are getting this from. Winnicott? He really doesn't say that if you read it.

What would you say are the probable consequences of unstable, unloving, or incompetent primary caregivers during the formative years? A primary caregiver is whoever provides most of the care during the child's waking hours.

Most physicians I know, tend to believe most mental illness is caused by bad luck genes, rather than by environment (especially early environment.)

Still hoping to hear the opinion of the pediatric psychiatrist.....

So, I will respond. Most psychiatrists think that a kid can withstand a pretty good amount of trauma if a) he is blessed with good genes (of course), and b) he has a consistent caregiver who is looking out for his best interests. It doesn't have to be the person who spends the most time with him. Sometimes a grandma or an adult that is a good friend of the child will do. So will the child's parents, even if they both work, and he spends most of his time with the nanny.
If the parents are good and they handle transitions appropriately, recognize the child's needs and help him verbalize them (if appropriate), and deal with various traumas in a child's life with patience and understanding, then something like changing nannies is unlikely to have long term consequences on a child's mental health.

I want to wholeheartedly endorse this, not as a pediatric psychiatrist but as a trained professional who works with severely traumatized kids and kids who have been victimized in a way that ends up in legal involvement.

One stable, loving, caregiver can be the anchor in a child's world. If that caregiver is a family member (immediate or close extended) the value and impact of that relationship strengthens the extent to which the child can weather trauma.

In the circumstances dealt with almost all of the time on these boards, the child(ren) in question have one or more stable parent overseeing their care from the day they were born. Barring abuse by a caregiver, special needs of a child, or other extraordinary circumstances, children will not be significantly harmed by changes in care providers.

Sounds like you're both trying to say the stability of an infant's/toddler's primary caregiver isn't really all that critical.

Please clarify if this is not what you mean to say.

That is EXACTLY what they are saying! Are you really going to continue to beat this dead horse when many people, who are professionally qualified to do so, have refuted your asinine argument? Give it a rest!!

Check your excitement and perhaps allow them to speak for themselves, if they care to, as the question was directed to those two posters, not you. Thanks.

This is a community forum and anyone is free to speak to whatever they wish. If you can't handle people disagreeing with you, go away. You are a bore anyways.

Yes, community is good. And so is a little decorum on your part. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Even when parents work, they provide the majority of care in most instances. They make the decisions, care the most about their children's interests and are the ones who are there unconditionally when needed. Even if you want to make this about physical awake time with the child, I have a nanny 50 hours a week and at minimum I get pretty much as much awake time as she does (1.5 hours in the morning, 2 in the evening and 11 per day on the weekends for a total of 39.5 vs. 40 hours a week with nanny (DC takes a 2 hour nap). This doesn't count, of course, vacations, holidays, sick days, middle of the night wake ups, days I take time off or days I work from home. But more importantly, why is there this mean-spirited debate that attempts to minimize the parent's role in a child's life? Is it your position that any child with full time working parents and changing caregivers will be severely damaged? So basically every kid in daycare is screwed? Sorry, but that's not really how it works, as a number of child development experts on this board have pointed out. Stability in home life can absolutely come from working parents (and it can absolutely ALSO come from nannies - they don't need to be mutually exclusive here).

Excellent post and very true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

Nobody would argue that consistent childcare is ideal. Even substandard consist childcare is better than excellent inconsistent CCPs, but your last post about mental illness? I can't help, but think you are attempting to mock nannies. Am I missing the parody here?

I wonder what you might expect if a child has, let's say 6 nannies from the age of 4 weeks to her third birthday, for 50 hours a week? One nanny stayed 10 months, another one 5 weeks, the others were something in between.

I WISH my employers care about my charges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

Nobody would argue that consistent childcare is ideal. Even substandard consist childcare is better than excellent inconsistent CCPs, but your last post about mental illness? I can't help, but think you are attempting to mock nannies. Am I missing the parody here?

I wonder what you might expect if a child has, let's say 6 nannies from the age of 4 weeks to her third birthday, for 50 hours a week? One nanny stayed 10 months, another one 5 weeks, the others were something in between.

I WISH my employers care about my charges.

I always feel sorry for the poor children. Bless you, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of you office 'ladies' may want invest a little time in educating yourselves about early childhood development, bonding and attachment, in particular.

If your children have already suffered multiple primary caregiver severed attachments, all we can do is feel sorry for them.

*to invest

To further inform you... repercussions are likely to suddenly appear as "genetic mental illness" down the road. Of course people will say, "but the parents are so nice."

Think about it ladies, before getting defensive again. You owe it to your children, to do the very best you can with whatever you have available to you.

Nobody would argue that consistent childcare is ideal. Even substandard consist childcare is better than excellent inconsistent CCPs, but your last post about mental illness? I can't help, but think you are attempting to mock nannies. Am I missing the parody here?

I wonder what you might expect if a child has, let's say 6 nannies from the age of 4 weeks to her third birthday, for 50 hours a week? One nanny stayed 10 months, another one 5 weeks, the others were something in between.

I WISH my employers care about my charges.

They cared about them enough to hire you. The hypocrisy of nannies who consider it perfectly fine to collect a paycheck and badmouth their employers at the same time...