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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most, not all, mothers are jealous of the nanny-child attachment. Some go so far as to keep switching nannies, just to avoid it. They tend to be insecure with their choice to not be the primary caregiver. Little do they realize the severe permanent damage (unstable caregivers) causes a little child.

Why the heck are people so rude here? This poster is correct. It doesn't take a genius to know that kids need a stable environment to be most healthy.

Thank you. Temper tantrum mom got my other posts deleted. I guess I touched a nerve, 'cause sometimes the truth is painful and therefore unwelcome.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Right. When a child has a stable home with stable parents, that child can pretty easily withstand a transition from one nanny to another.

The flip side is also true. A good, stable nanny can help a child withstand a parent's divorce or death.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Most, not all, mothers are jealous of the nanny-child attachment. Some go so far as to keep switching nannies, just to avoid it. They tend to be insecure with their choice to not be the primary caregiver. Little do they realize the severe permanent damage (unstable caregivers) causes a little child.

Why the heck are people so rude here? This poster is correct. It doesn't take a genius to know that kids need a stable environment to be most healthy.

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.

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.

Back on topic.. I agree with the PP who suggested "talking up the mom" more with the kid. Encourage the kid to draw some pictures for Mommy and then give them to her when she comes home. Make a special treat for Mommy together (like muffins or something you know she likes) and talk about how much Mommy will like them.

Even if MB doesn't love what's going on, if she sees that you are trying to encourage the kid to think about her during the day and to do nice things for her, she'll appreciate it and will feel closer to the kid and less jealous of you. Don't be too overt about it or overboard -- like she "needs" it -- but just do little things like this periodically, particularly if the kid didn't want to kiss her on the way out the door that morning. It's only going to make everyone happier -- no reason not to!

As for the raging debate about lasting harm to kids... I think the PP erred by not making it totally clear that the issue was multiple inconsistent caregivers at an early age, NOT the fact that the mom was working. The discussion really devolved after that, but there is real truth based on all the research I've seen that inconsistent caregivers at an early age is not healthy for development. That means having multiple nannies over a period of a year when the kid is still an infant or toddler -- NOT having a nanny and a working mom and dad.

What "multiple" and "inconsistent" mean might vary by situation -- what the child can deal with based on innate personality, how the changes are handled and for what reasons, etc.

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.....

The response was spectacularly ignorant on my levels. Why would she engage with the village idiot any further?

Yes dear, you are ignorant 'on your levels.' GL to you, nevertheless.

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.....

The response was spectacularly ignorant on my levels. Why would she engage with the village idiot any further?

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.....

Anonymous wrote:Children go through these phases. My DS went through a phase when he didn't care for me at all but was all smiles and giggles for DH. It doesn't feel good but it's a phase. What can you do. As for the nanny, the mom should be happy the child and the nanny share such a nice attachment, certainly, I would encourage it. The nanny, for her part, could talk up the mom a little if it seems the kid needs it. Let's draw this for mommy! Yay! mommy's home!

I don't think the kids are ever confused about who's the mommy and who's the nanny. This is why I never felt threatened by the bond between my son and his nanny. That's the job, it would be weird if they weren't attached to one another.

Yes, this.

Anonymous wrote:What does she expect? All of her waking hours are with the nanny. If she prefers nanny to mother, then the mother needs to spend a lot more time with her child.

Seems like common sense.

Children go through these phases. My DS went through a phase when he didn't care for me at all but was all smiles and giggles for DH. It doesn't feel good but it's a phase. What can you do. As for the nanny, the mom should be happy the child and the nanny share such a nice attachment, certainly, I would encourage it. The nanny, for her part, could talk up the mom a little if it seems the kid needs it. Let's draw this for mommy! Yay! mommy's home!

I don't think the kids are ever confused about who's the mommy and who's the nanny. This is why I never felt threatened by the bond between my son and his nanny. That's the job, it would be weird if they weren't attached to one another.