Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the very best thing for a baby under 6 months or so is definitely one-on-one care. It is also reality that that is completely impractical for many-many families. So we are left with hiring one's own personal nanny or doing a nanny share or an in-home daycare or a center.

Nannies in general are a luxury. A great nanny is going to be expensive. So if you can't afford a great nanny, you can either opt for one of the other care solutions or you can go with a less-than great nanny. You might get someone who doesn't know much about child development and will have the tv on all day but is otherwise loving and nurturing and involved, or you might get someone who will neglect basic safety habits (preparing bottles incorrectly, letting baby sleep in an unsafe environment, not noticing when your child begins to choke), or you could end up with someone truly dangerous or neglectful.

I say, better to have an awesome, experienced nanny in a share for $12 an hour than a $12 an hour individual nanny who may or may not be a good or safe care provider. Those first six months go by fast and by then the nanny will have everyone on a good schedule and they will begin to actually benefit from another child to interact and bond with.

Do you, or anyone on this thread for that matter, have a verifiable, valid source for this claim other than anecdotally or your own experience? I am so sick of nannies shaming parents who opt for other forms of care besides one nanny to one child. What about second, third, heck even fourth children? Is their upbringing lacking because they had to share their parent(s)? How about the myriad children who attend daycare? Can you show me a deficit in their school performance down the line?

There is a huge difference between saying that one-on-one care is best (and, again, I specified that this is really only true for babies under 6 months) and saying that having more than one child in care will cause lifelong problems. Breastmilk is best for infants, but formula is also just fine. Having zero screen time before age two is best, but occasional tv or ipad time isn't a big deal. Eating no proccessed food is best for toddlers, but stopping for burgers and fries twice a month isn't going to send your kid to the hospital.

My point was not in any way to shame those who choose daycare. Rather the opposite, to point out that the "ideal" of one-on-one care is only valid for a short period of time. As for the validity of the statement, a young infant's needs include on-demand feeding and napping for the first few months. All sleep experts will agree that naps should be in a crib as much as possible and the AAP actively recommends against napping in car seats, strollers, or carriers. They also need a lot of time being held and getting close physical affection from their caregiver, balanced with tummy time. All of these things are most easily provided by a dedicated caregiver.

If you have ever cared for more than one child you know that you won't get the ideal at all times. Babies are left to cry for a minute while a twin's diaper is changed. A share child is locked into a schedule that works reasonabky well for both babies rather than perfectly for one baby. A daycare baby is exposed to cold viruses from 6 households instead of just one. These are not dealbreakers, but are less than perfect. Pretending that's not the case serves no one. Acknowledging reality and making the best choice for your family is how we have to navigate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the very best thing for a baby under 6 months or so is definitely one-on-one care. It is also reality that that is completely impractical for many-many families. So we are left with hiring one's own personal nanny or doing a nanny share or an in-home daycare or a center.

Nannies in general are a luxury. A great nanny is going to be expensive. So if you can't afford a great nanny, you can either opt for one of the other care solutions or you can go with a less-than great nanny. You might get someone who doesn't know much about child development and will have the tv on all day but is otherwise loving and nurturing and involved, or you might get someone who will neglect basic safety habits (preparing bottles incorrectly, letting baby sleep in an unsafe environment, not noticing when your child begins to choke), or you could end up with someone truly dangerous or neglectful.

I say, better to have an awesome, experienced nanny in a share for $12 an hour than a $12 an hour individual nanny who may or may not be a good or safe care provider. Those first six months go by fast and by then the nanny will have everyone on a good schedule and they will begin to actually benefit from another child to interact and bond with.

Do you, or anyone on this thread for that matter, have a verifiable, valid source for this claim other than anecdotally or your own experience? I am so sick of nannies shaming parents who opt for other forms of care besides one nanny to one child. What about second, third, heck even fourth children? Is their upbringing lacking because they had to share their parent(s)? How about the myriad children who attend daycare? Can you show me a deficit in their school performance down the line?

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that the very best thing for a baby under 6 months or so is definitely one-on-one care. It is also reality that that is completely impractical for many-many families. So we are left with hiring one's own personal nanny or doing a nanny share or an in-home daycare or a center.

Nannies in general are a luxury. A great nanny is going to be expensive. So if you can't afford a great nanny, you can either opt for one of the other care solutions or you can go with a less-than great nanny. You might get someone who doesn't know much about child development and will have the tv on all day but is otherwise loving and nurturing and involved, or you might get someone who will neglect basic safety habits (preparing bottles incorrectly, letting baby sleep in an unsafe environment, not noticing when your child begins to choke), or you could end up with someone truly dangerous or neglectful.

I say, better to have an awesome, experienced nanny in a share for $12 an hour than a $12 an hour individual nanny who may or may not be a good or safe care provider. Those first six months go by fast and by then the nanny will have everyone on a good schedule and they will begin to actually benefit from another child to interact and bond with.

Anonymous wrote:"It's doable" is code for "you do the best you can, under the circumstances."

No parent of twins says "I don't need someone to help me." They do say, "If I could afford to have an assistant, I would."

Op is right.