Reply to: kids should stay at home with their mothers

[mudskipper]

I really don't think there's anything like the one and only right way.

Exactly. We all do what's best for our own circumstances, and beating ourselves up about what we could have done differently is pointless.

[formant]

Well if the children are around the mother non-stop for 9 months, I'm not surprised that both the mother and the child find sudden separation distressing.

I really don't think there's anything like the one and only right way. There are wrong ways, but various right ways. Children adapt to all sorts of arrangements.

Mine spends very little time away from us at the childminders. Mostly she's either with her dad or me or both of us. We just fit work in around that.

[Old Hack]

I do wonder what I've deprived my child of by, rather than say running the household or being busy with other children (as 'normal' mothers would), I decided to sit at my desk in the living room part-time fixing speech recognition systems for money instead.

I'd have taken more time off if I had a full-time office-based job.

He had 6 weeks off (oh the joys of permiedom in academia...)

My wife had 12 months off for the first and second, then quit at the third. She is/was a contractor.

We recognised they would be well off at nursery, as they learn to share, learn to socially interact, so all of them have been at nursery at short periods of time, but we believe they benefit from my wife just 'being there', to assist with homework, to speak to them, to shuffle them about; it's the continuity of them having someone. We didn't want the kids to have a childminder, as they can get close to them.

I don't know Formant, maybe you have the right way and us the wrong way. I don't think so, but who knows. One thing I do know, is that as parents, you find the way that suits you best, and you run with it, but you do have to live with it if the crows come home to roost. I wish you good luck, but the 2 weeks only thing has shocked me. I had to prise the children from my wifes grip to get her to have a day off after 9 months, and she wept for about 4 hours whilst shopping and come running home, for our first child. Same for the others too. So maybe it's what I am used to that's shocked me.

Good luck regardless.

[formant]

2 weeks? Wow.

Well, I am pretty bloody happy we didn't go down that route. We all make decisions in life, that will come back to us later in life as either good ones, or bad ones. Sorry, but I can't see good in any way shape or form here. 2 weeks? I am genuinely, genuinely shocked.

I do wonder what I've deprived my child of by, rather than say running the household or being busy with other children (as 'normal' mothers would), I decided to sit at my desk in the living room part-time fixing speech recognition systems for money instead.

I'd have taken more time off if I had a full-time office-based job.

He had 6 weeks off (oh the joys of permiedom in academia...)

[formant]

So formant and OH - given your diametrically opposed views...

Would you both accept that, in the event of a relationship breakdown, your partner would be the best person to have custody of the kid(s)?

We have a trust deed in place that gives us 50/50 shared residence.

However, if this wasn't an option, I think she'd be better off with him. She's his third, he was the main caregiver for the first two, he is much more of a natural at this whole childrearing thing. He also has the more permanently flexible job (we currently earn the same, but he's on track to be promoted to professor in the next 2 years, so that's likely to change soon).

Not to say that giving up custody wouldn't be excruciatingly painful. Hence our shared residence trust deed.

[Old Hack]

So formant and OH - given your diametrically opposed views...

Would you both accept that, in the event of a relationship breakdown, your partner would be the best person to have custody of the kid(s)?

I have utterly no doubt in my mind, that our kids would be better off with their mother, were we ever to split up. We bring very different things to the parenting table, naturally, but I know, from watching them all close hand, that their long term future would be better served, with them being with their mother. If I were to say otherwise, I'd be doing it to spite her, and that would be against the best interests of the kids, and, well, it's a self fulfilling prophecy scenario. However, 20 years down the track, I don't think it will happen (famous last words).

[mudskipper]

So formant and OH - given your diametrically opposed views...

Would you both accept that, in the event of a relationship breakdown, your partner would be the best person to have custody of the kid(s)?

[Old Hack]

Last time I checked all the research with regards to this sort of thing (Attachment Theory) is very non-specific with regards to the gender of the primary attachment figure.

It's all about time spent actively engaging with the child.

And I do consider myself lucky that I'm in the position to 'have it all'.

I'm not absent in my child's life. I went back to work after the statutory minimum leave of 2 weeks, but I work from home and only part time on this pretty long-term, very much IR35-caught contract that's likely to see me go perm at the end of it. Most of the time I'm close by, even though he's the one looking after her while I work. We do have a childminder, but only for a couple of hours a week at the moment.

My poor 'damaged' baby...

2 weeks? Wow.

Well, I am pretty bloody happy we didn't go down that route. We all make decisions in life, that will come back to us later in life as either good ones, or bad ones. Sorry, but I can't see good in any way shape or form here. 2 weeks? I am genuinely, genuinely shocked.

[formant]

Last time I checked all the research with regards to this sort of thing (Attachment Theory) is very non-specific with regards to the gender of the primary attachment figure.

It's all about time spent actively engaging with the child.

And I do consider myself lucky that I'm in the position to 'have it all'.

I'm not absent in my child's life. I went back to work after the statutory minimum leave of 2 weeks, but I work from home and only part time on this pretty long-term, very much IR35-caught contract that's likely to see me go perm at the end of it. Most of the time I'm close by, even though he's the one looking after her while I work. We do have a childminder, but only for a couple of hours a week at the moment.

My poor 'damaged' baby...

[Old Hack]

It's called "can't possibly let Mammy have a wee in peace" syndrome.

There's more Latin in it I think, but I wouldn't argue that not being a direct translation of it

[Gibbon]

I turned down a career as a deep sea diver just so that I could share the task of bringing up my kids.

You could really regret that.

[DodgyAgent]

Why would it not be beneficial to have both parents equally involved in the children's upbringing?

I don't understand fathers who don't want to be in it 100%. Nor do I understand mothers content to do it all whilst allowing their life/career to be parked. I do however understand that most couples don't have the luxury of choice in this, which is sad.

My other half took the baby to work today - work today being just a supervision meeting with one of his PhD students. Means I get to work from home without distraction (my work, when busy, doesn't mix well with babies).

I turned down a career as a deep sea diver just so that I could share the task of bringing up my kids.

[cailin maith]

It's a known reaction, the name of which escapes me.

It's called "can't possibly let Mammy have a wee in peace" syndrome.

[Old Hack]

Once breastfeeding is done, the man could just as easily be the stay-at-home one. It's less common but we're talking the scientific angle here... though their may of course already be attachment issues after all the breastfeeding so you'd probably need some cross-over while the man is presented as a stable carer first, not a sudden switch-over.

There's more attachment issues than just breastfeeding d000hg, and once you have children, you'd realise this. As I said, I have looked after my kids as young babies, and they're mainly happy once they've melted down about the mum leaving them. If I leave the room, they deal with it. However, when the wife is home, if she leaves the room, the kids go mental, fearing she's off and will not return. They grow out of it, but it happens. It's a known reaction, the name of which escapes me.

[Old Hack]

Why would it not be beneficial to have both parents equally involved in the children's upbringing?

I don't understand fathers who don't want to be in it 100%. Nor do I understand mothers content to do it all whilst allowing their life/career to be parked. I do however understand that most couples don't have the luxury of choice in this, which is sad.

My other half took the baby to work today - work today being just a supervision meeting with one of his PhD students. Means I get to work from home without distraction (my work, when busy, doesn't mix well with babies).

I am about as 100% as I could be. I just understand that there's an important bit the mother does, which I cannot, and this is all I am saying. Not matter how you dress it up, that's about the long and the short of it. I think the kids need to be with the mother more than the father in the early days. I have spent days looking after the kids as babies on my own, and if I leave the room, they deal with it. However, if my wife is looking after them, when she leaves the room, they, up to a certain age, go mental. This isn't learned behaviour, it's because they fear their mother is leaving and is a known natural reaction to the mother not being there. Me, I could leave and come back 30 mins later and they wouldn't know. The wife leaves, and it's bedlam.

Not being with your kid in the early days, as the mother, damages them. I can see how that works.