Shake

Well, seeing as how a) I just found this thread, and b) it seems to have strayed from the o.p. a bit (I only skimmed through the first and last pages, though), I will address the o.p. in QoS style, sans sarcasm.
That's too bad. My wife narrowly missed maternity leave having started a new job, but she took her allotted family leave time anyway.
This hard to say. I'd say if at all possible, spend at least a few weeks getting used to your child's habits, etc. before handing them off to a stranger. Otherwise you'll be embarrassed when they ask you questions about your child that you have no answer for.


Again, this is too bad, but perhaps they should have given having children some more thought. Children require much more effort than a pet. If this was an unplanned pregnancy, then I'm sorry.

To answer the actual question here, I'd say yes, a bit. But there's all the time when the child is not at daycare that can be used as bonding time. Also, if it's possible for a parent to visit the daycare during the day, perhaps take the child out for lunch, that would help. We lucked out and didn't need any sort of daycare for several months after my son was born. I was working 3rd shift (11:30pm-7:30am, M-F), so I was home during the days, and my wife worked 4, 10-hour days, F-M, so Fridays and Mondays were really rough on me, but I got good sleep on Tues-Thurs. Eventually, both our hours changed and we had a close friend watch him for about 3-4 hours a day during the overlap time.

As I said above, there is after work time and weekends to learn about your baby. No, it's not ideal, but you'll still pick things up. It's not more responsible if you're sacrificing paying your bills (by not working) and potentially causing worse hardships for the entire family. Ideally, IMHO, at least one parent should be around all the time. I was about to argue for daycare providing the child with good social skills, but my son, and maybe he's an exception, despite having little interaction with other kids during his whole first year, now handles himself quite well among other kids. He's 2.5, and not at all intimidated by the bigger kids ... it also helps that he's the size of most 3-4 year-olds (about 3' tall, and 37 lbs).

I would hope your friend has analyzed the situation and is doing what she feels is best. My wife and I have taken some flak over some of our arrangements over the last 18 months, but it's what works best for us right now. We know it's not ideal, but the ideal situation is either not present or not affordable for us right now.

Don't be afraid to offer suggestions - we parents can get a little frazzled at times and might not have given consideration to all available options. But don't be surprised if they get turned down, either. Once you've had one of your own, you realize there's a lot more to think of than you might have realized.

I wish your friend good luck and hope that her husband is helpful.

brighid

I can understand that point of view, but I believe that sort of judgment should be made on a case by case basis. For instance, as a child raised in an abusive home I felt this sort of treatment was normal. In some sense of the word I "adjusted", but not in a healthy way. I certainly didn't function effectively and I developed behaviors and responses according to my environment.

Separation anxiety is different. It IS a normal part of the mental development of child. As a child matures, becomes more confident of his/her surroundings, developes a stronger trust in his/her parent(s), and eventually develops a concept of time the child "adjusts" to the situation in a normal, healthy, functional way. A child that does not adjust to separation and it continues to be problematic may be experiencing dysfunctional, or traumatic things elsewhere in his/her life and this failure to adjust becomes unhealthy ... a disorder in some cases.

Brighid

fatherphil

brig, is there an age where the child is just too young to deal with seperation in a normal, healthy way? perhaps this thread is an attempt to ask what the norm age that is. if a consensus can be reached that infants are never mature enough to handle this type of trauma in a healty way, we would be making progress here.

yguy

I'm not implying anything whatsoever.

Or because the child learns that the tantrum doesn't produce the desired result. Kids have only so much energy reserved for emotional outbursts, and generally they are smart enough to know when they aren't having the desired effect.

I don't know how old this kid is, but maybe mom has allowed the bonding which was normal at infancy to continue past the point where it is beneficial, and to the point where it is detrimental. As a child is eventually weaned from breast feeding, it must also be weaned from the need for mom's affection.

The only way a child can manipulate a parent is if the parent has more concern for what the child thinks of him/her than for the welfare of the child.

yguy

So if a toddler doesn't protest the first time mom leaves it with strangers, you really think it possible that nothing is wrong?

Roland98

Now, this is what I love about the Christian double-standard. I guess you didn't read my first post--my daughter was conceived while I was on OC. Would you prefer that I 1) abort, or 2) quit my job and go on public assistance? Because that's basically the 2 other options we had. Or perhaps you think all married couples should abstain from sexual relations until they're "financially well off"?

I think it's an employer's responsibility to provide for their employees. If men were the ones having babies, there would have been mandatory daycare at work long, long ago.

And while I'm on that tangent...

[rant] Why was "bonding" and all this not such a problem when it's the man who's working 40 hours a week? Due to their time on the job and away from home, why isn't it assumed that every working father has a lack of bonding with their child? Is it just expected that the kiddies don't need to bond with dad, or that their bond will be less than that with mom? My career is much more demanding and high-stress than my husband's, and there have been times when he's picked up the slack for me at home. He is every bit a capable, loving father, who also has no bonding problems with our kids. Why is the father working outside of the home a non-issue? [/rant]

The purpose of my statement was to show that just by virtue of being a SAH mom doesn't make one a better parent than a mom who works outside of the home.

I'm saying that my kids are both to the point where they know that if mommy and daddy leave, they're coming back and not leaving forever. They don't throw tantrums; we give and get lots of kisses and hugs and then they go play. But I'm no shrink. This site (the first one I googled) shows different behaviors at different ages; and my kids haven't exhibited any that they say are warning signs.

I also hope this wasn't in reference to my post:

because if you notice in my first post, we have the same daycare provider we've had since my daughter was a month old, and when we use evening babysitters, we always have them come over several times and play with and get to know the children before they are left alone with them (kind of a "trial run.") That way they get to learn where we keep all the essentials in our home, our kids get to know and trust them, and we get to watch the babysitter interact with the kids (and if we don't like how they act, we know this before they are left with the kids.

I also notice you didn't comment at all on the last part of my post--or have you dropped that rationalization?

yguy

Then I don't guess you qualify as the kind of person I'm talking about, so I don't know what you're objecting to.

Guess that means your employer ought to provide your food and housing as well. Right?

If men were the ones having babies, they'd be women, wouldn't they?

Because a dad's love isn't that important for the first few years of a kid's life compared to the mom's.

That was unnecessary. It's a truism.

My opinion hasn't changed, I just don't see the discussion going anywhere.

Roland98

Have to head out, but care to explain this comment further?

You are kidding me, right???

yguy

Hardly. Moms are the proper source of the "unconditional love" which infants need. That's why their physiology complements that sort of love. Dads are better for tough love, if they're worth their salt.

Roland98

Can you tell me what you base this on?