Bay 3 months chucked into FULL time nursery

Pollycat

Over-emotive first post;

Bay 3 months chucked into FULL time nursery

trevorsminted wrote: »

Ok as the title I do wonder what the hell is the point of having a new born baby and throwing it into full time nursery, and I mean 08-00am - 6pm (once a week 7pm) what is the point of actually having the poor child!?

The "We cant afford not to doesn't cut" sorry downsize, why have a child to let a stranger look after it that amount of time!>!

I doubt the parents 'chucked' or 'threw' the baby anywhere. :cool:

lostinrates

valk_scot wrote: »

I was a SAHM and I used to put #1 into nursery a couple of mornings a week once he was two, I used the FA money. It gave me time with #2 alone when he arrived and when he got to be two they both went together and I got the chance to do some adult only things like DIY and sewing. The kids loved it, they were lively kids that liked company and doing new things and the nursery was very laid back, lots of exciting fun stuff going on there. I took them to playgroup and all the rest too, but they never suffered from being "chucked" into nursery two mornings a week even though it wasn't really necessary.

My friends toddler was in just this situation ( with a sahm ) but during his parents separation has been withdrawn from nursery. The most notable point of impact on his behaviour has been the withdrawal from nursery, I am very much hoping for his sake he gets put back soon.

Nada666

trevorsminted wrote: »

BABY - before anyone pulls me up for spelling :rotfl:

If you "Go Advanced" when editing you should be able to correct the subject title.

j.e.j.

Many years ago the cost round here of having your child looked after used to be £33 per child per day. You'd have to be in a high-paying job to make it worth your while, especially if you have more than one child.

Far better, I would have thought, to cut back on your spending, learn to budget, and look after the baby yourself.

DevilsAdvocate1

julie2710 wrote: »

DevilsAdvocate1 I'm just pointing out that not everyone is the same. Some people who stay at home with their children are great at giving them time and some aren't. Some parents who work are great at spending quality time with their children others aren't.

We do cooking at weekends, they could both put the washing machine on at 3 years of age, sort clothes into colours, make their own beds and tidy their rooms.

Some people don't have the choice. It doesn't make them bad parents because their children spend time in childcare. In fact they quite often over compensate both at home and at work because they feel they need to make it up to the children for not not being able to be around more often. Then as working mums they feel they have to prove they can do the job as well as those without children. Discrimination in the workplace is unfortunately far from dead. Then they get more criticism for apparently "dumping their children in childcare" but if they stay at home on benefits they are scroungers! Seems we live in a world where you just can't win and everyone is there to judge.

Oh and the school DS1 goes to and DS2 will go to soon doesn't make them go back over everything they have already learned. Maybe that's because the preschool is linked to the school?

I didn't mention childcare at all in my post, that wasn't the point of it at all. My point is, that stay at home mums are always compared negatively against those who go to childcare. The comment is always along the lines of the stay at home mum who sticks her children in front of the telly all day and is obviously providing a worse environment than those who send their children to nursery.

If you have toddlers I would expect that you would know that sitting them in front of the telly all day is unlikely. They follow you around - you can't even go to the toilet in peace. You sit there, on the throne, and suddenly find your one year old has crawled in after you and is pulling himself up on your legs :rotfl: Or you're in the kitchen making a cuppa, turn around and trip over your toddler who has crawled in and is sitting behind you. So sitting all day in front of the telly is very unlikely unless you tie them up :eek:

I actually worked full time myself from my oldest being 7 months until he was 2 years 7 months. He went to a childminder as I did not like the nursery environment and wanted him to have the type of upbringing I would have given him had I been at home.

Since I gave up work when my middle son was born, I have come across a fair bit of hostility. I have been told I must be controlling. I have been told that I am holding my children back and that they will struggle at school. I was even told that my children would refuse to start school as they weren't used to going to nursery. All completely unfounded. None of these things happened. They all go to school without any problems and they are all doing really well. They are also very sociable, but then I am too.

I agree with you that we are all different. We should all learn to live and let live and that includes those who work and feel that they can run down the stay at home parents.

MetalMuggle

Assuming the child is cared for appropriately and receives the love and devotion from their parents that they deserve around their parents working hours, I don't think it's a big deal!

It tends to be, due to the financial climate, one of two options available to new parents.

1. Work, earn money, have a comfortable life and live with the guilt of your child being in someone else's care so that you can provide them with a more secure and financially comfortable future.

2. Don't work, spend lots of time with your child, be unable (in some cases) to be able to support them comfortably as they grow older.

Something's got to give and it's all personal choice.

I would personally choose for my child to see me working hard or what we had, rather then getting a bus down to the job centre every two weeks just so we can survive but spend time together. It's all about balance and what sort of role model you want to be!

atrixblue.-MFR-.

trevorsminted wrote: »

Atrixblue - I refer to the 'child' in question as IT as no one is aware of the s*x of the child so to suggest it is a boy or a girl would be slightly presumptious don't you think but between you and me I reckon it will be a boy or a girl :rotfl:

you refure to a child as an IT i call an unknown child of pre toddler and unknown s*x as a baby.

i dont share you judgemental mindset.

Bluemeanie_2

I earn a decent wage for the area we live in (£30851 PA, I net £1815 with student loan), benefit from a 6.5% pension, 29 days a year hols plus bank hols, essential car user allowance, flexi-time, Computershare childcare (think widely known as Busy Bees) scheme etc.
I'm currently 29 weeks pregnant. If I was to quit my above job to avoid "chucking my baby into nursey", I feel I would find it very hard to get back to the level management I am, combined with the benefits provided by my employer. I feel I am essentially condemning my life to one on minimum wage or a bloody hard slog all over again to get where I am. Why should I do that. Just because I've chosen to have a child I give up everything I've ever worked hard for and become a slave to the child?
I'm lucky that Mother can provide 2 days free childcare and Husband can have the baby for a weekday, so we are only going to have 2 days nursery a week. But even with paying for a full time childcare place (circa £750 a month) I feel that "clearing" a £1000 it is still worth me working full time (because of my Husband's income we do not qualify for TC and still wouldn't even with full time place).
I find your attitude judgmental and very narrow minded. I'll go part time on a NMW job to avoid doing what you condemn as so wrong. But then I'll be relying on TC etc to top up our income, until the child leaves school in all probability. I don't think that's right.
I've already decided that rather than mediocre look after the child when I'm not working, I will try my hardest to spend quality time and a lot of effort with my child when I can. Rather than have them 7 days a week and resent them for being stuck in the house with no money. And use a Wii or an Xbox it to entertain them.

I think maybe you could benefit from looking at the bigger picture of people's career aspirations etc.

I'm also questioning, while I feel so intent on defending this position, but my husband wouldn't bat an eyelid. There's still so much sexism where children and domestic matters are concerned.

katrina001

I haven't read the whole thread, but how about because like almost every other couple in the world they wanted a baby and it is NOTHING to do with you.

Without going into the ins and outs of my personal circumstances, I have no choice but to work (oh unless I want to be that single mum of 3 on benefits, who would no doubt be judged for that decision too!). I drop my children off by 8 and pick them up at 5.30. They are not traumatised children because I am not with them every waking hour.

DevilsAdvocate1

Bluemeanie wrote: »

I find your attitude judgmental and very narrow minded. I'll go part time on a NMW job to avoid doing what you condemn as so wrong. But then I'll be relying on TC etc to top up our income, until the child leaves school in all probability. I don't think that's right.
I've already decided that rather than mediocre look after the child when I'm not working, I will try my hardest to spend quality time and a lot of effort with my child when I can. Rather than have them 7 days a week and resent them for being stuck in the house with no money. And use a Wii or an Xbox it to entertain them.

I don't think its as clear cut as this. I was in a similar position to you, good job, decent wage etc. In fact, I earnt exactly the same as my husband. I went back to work full time when my eldest was 7 months.

When my second child was born I knew I didn't want to go back, but I arranged everything as though I was going to return. I was used to having my own money and the thought of relying solely on my husband's income worried me. Also, my husband worried about the responsibility of being the sole wage earner. The company I worked for decided to make 200 people redundant while I was on maternity leave and this was the push I needed. I took voluntary redundancy.

I had a plan to return to work when my youngest started school. I decided that I would go back to university and do a masters degree in IT (I was a computer programmer before). I would use the masters to demonstrate to potential employers that my skills were up to date.

In the event, I have ended up forming a whole new career. I am now self employed and work around the school hours. For me, giving up work has helped me find a whole new career which I love. I earn a lot more than I did in my last permanent full time role and I currently only work term time.

I have many friends who went part-time and then as their children have got older they have returned to full-time and continued up the career ladder. It doesn't have to be full-time and career versus part-time and minimum wage.

The worrying thing I now see is that lots of my friends are being made redundant. We are now in our mid 40s with teenagers. A shame the companies they work for are repaying their dedication by getting rid of them. So again, just because you continue with your career there is no guarantee that you will continue to climb the ladder.