http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle5321524.ece

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5321347.ece

Discuss

Farming out one's child is less than ideal. In the UK it may be necessary because the cost of housing is such that both parents must work. It would be better not to but the alternatives, such as moving to the colonies, are pretty grim in themselves. Better daycared or raised in Canada? I'm not keen to say.

We chose not to and to have a lower standard of living. It didn't seem to affect our little 'uns to any great degree, most youngsters can't tell the difference between a Beamer or a Yugo, they just know it's "red".

I could never get people to understand that the reason why the cost of housing was so much, was because everybody else was doing the same. If everyone took less of an income, the prices would have to fall as no-one would be able to afford them. After all, a house is only worth what someone is willing to pay - I always lost that argument though

I put my children in daycare (although after Christmas just one). Clearly 'I am a bad mother' and I can't be nearly as smug as you guys about it.

I have never ever driven a Beamer though.

I clearly am the spawn of the devil as my children are in daycare AND in canada.

On the other hand you could be helping your children learn how to behave in society, they could be learning more about life, the universe and everything than they could have if they had stayed at home.

That's about the daycare thing, not sure how Canada and the Devil get on. I would imagine that the Devil hates obedience and being nice to everyone so I doubt he has met many Canadians

I have just noticed that the first paragraph I typed didn't get posted for some reason. It went something like:

This debate never ceases to amaze me as, invariably, each side of the argument fails to see the other side's point of view. Each to their own. I wouldn't criticise anyone for choosing either. I just think it's an interesting debate.

Are they mutually exclusive concepts though?

Staying at home doesn't mean staying in with mum, dad, auntie etc. I thought they were allowed to go out and meet others

My experience is that, until most children are 3 or so, they play on their own and don't mix that well. It's an observation that I made when taking and picking up mine from pre-school when they reached that age. It didn't seem to matter whether the children (ie all of them, not just mine) had previously been in such an environment or not, they all played on their own.

I completely see the other point of view. I wouldn't critiise either path. Neither is a particularly easy route.............

Clearly kids benefit from full time attention from their parents when they're very young. Babies require en enormous amount of physical contact, holding and carrying so daycare is not and never will be ideal for babies unless you can afford a nanny.

Aletha Solter recommends daycare from about 2.5 years old. Our daughter hated daycare in Belgium and she was there from about 1 year old to 2.5 years old. Now at 3 years old in Canada she loves going to daycare.

I have to day it's rather good here, small class sizes (about 7 kids to one educator) really nice motivated staff - so far so good. We are in the private sector though.

Now from the family's point of view, for a good family life everyone needs to be happy. Neither my partner nor I would be happy staying at home full time with the kids - it's boring to be frank. So we need to find the right balance between the kids and ourselves. We managed to do some homeworking so could pick the kids up earlier from daycare, that kind of thing. Not ideal, but you need the right balance.

I have a foot in both camps here.

Our eldest, born in the UK, was looked after by a childminder most weekdays from the age of about 8 months to shortly before his third birthday when we left for Canada. Our youngest was born here, and has been looked after by her mother until just recently, shortly after her second birthday, when she has started attending a nursery one morning a week (she'll start 2 mornings in the New Year).

There's no doubt that "letting go" of our son and turning his care over to a childminder was more of a wrench for us than for him. However, he became well socialised from an early age, has always interacted well with other kids, learned to defend himself (and the toys he is playing with) verbally rather than physically, and is a bright, happy 5-year-old. I doubt that he would have had such opportunities if he'd been at home with either of his parents, simply because we didn't have such a wide network of friends and neighbours around during the daytime as the childminder did. In addition, it would have been difficult financially for either of us to have stopped work unless we'd moved well outside London - in which case we'd have been starting from scratch with even less of a social network. In those circumstances, and in retrospect, a childminder was the right option.

Coming to Canada with OH heavily pregnant, working was not an option for her to start with, so we planned expenditure around a single income and cut our coat according to our cloth. That has meant that OH is at home for both kids, and in part because of this she has rapidly built up a strong support network of other parents of youngsters, with whom both of ours share playdates, group outings, birthday parties etc. #2 kid is equally well socialised, well balanced and content with life. She is completely unfazed by the larger group at nursery, and has fitted in really well to that environment. And OH has definitely enjoyed being at home, though she is happy now to be starting work again part-time.

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to the question of daily childcare. So long as the parents and any other caregivers (I hate that term, but use it to include grandparents & other relatives, paid childminders, nursery staff, whoever...) spend time with the child and strike an appropriate balance between freedom and discipline, either approach works well.

I will add that I have only ever worked part-time - so I have feet in two camps too. My children went off to nursery 3 days a week at 6 1/2 months and 7 1/2 months respectively. Then there was a gap whilst we came to canada and I didn't work for 6 months. After Christmas I will go 4 short days a week which will enable me to pick my son up from school everyday. SO he won't notice any difference than if I wasn't working, apart from maybe a couple of weeks summer camp. I guess like the second article we have obsessively chosen their child care. Their UK nursery was very homely and loving- their canadian one less so - but then they are much older.

Every family needs to find their own balance that works for them. I think hopefully people don't have regrets about what they have done and then they have made the right choices. Do I suffer from middle class guilt? Yes, sometimes. But I watched my mother leave my pathologically tight father , have to do crap jobs , with no pension of her own etc and then go grovelling for a pair of shoes. She is still working aged 71 to provide for a reasonable lifestyle. I decided back then I will never put myself in a psoition where i cannot provide adequately for my own children , if ever necessary.

It also comforts me in this recession that we do have two jobs to bring money in, and therefore two jobs that have to be lost before we are in dire financial straights.

Almost canadian implies in his post that our choices are in part driven by material goals. For him as a solicitor it maybe was an easy choice to give up one income. In the UK we couldn't have survived without mine. We don't have flash belongings, no super huge tellys, no flash mobiles, no playstations, no DVD etc and never really have, our one extravagance has been a week's ski holiday and perhaps buying organic meat. Here in Canada maybe we could survive on My husband's income but mine brings me comfort of mind as well as skiing with the family and money for little car prangs etc. I have also watched a number of women become incredibly low on self-esteem from staying at home- I think that is a UK thing though, Here in Canada they value styaying at home much more and I think that is good thing.

HAving said all that I don't think I could work full-time- I just couldn't fit it in and it becomes harder as the kids get older, not easier.



Gryphea

Hi,

I'm not a mum but I am coming at this from the other side so to speak. I'm 26 and I was always in some form of childcare from a year old. My mum went back to work at that point, both my parents worked shift work and indeed my mum was the higher earner for much of my childhood.
I had my aunt look after me until the age of 2, a childminder until the age of 4 when I went to school, then another childminder to look after me in the mornings and evenings after school and another one to look after me during the school holidays.
I've had no ill effects, I don't begrudge my parents for having to put me in childcare in fact I had a whale of a time...in all cases there were other children my age for me to socialise with and given that I'm an only child I think that was probably a good thing...I was taught how to share from an early age lol Although saying that I point blank refused to go to nursery school as I thought all the other kids were stupid (it's one of my earliest memories).
I know my mum felt some guilt over having to put me into childcare but both she and my Dad managed to spend quality time with me and I never felt as though I was being 'abandoned' so to speak. In fact I feel the exact the opposite, my mum provided me with a strong female role model and a good work ethic. Kid's are tougher than you think

I agree with all that you have said, except this.

Our three children were all born before I became a solicitor, in the UK and, despite assumptions to the contrary, solicitors are not paid a huge amount. 30,000 pounds for a 5 year qualified solicitor in most towns in the UK would be the norm and is not particularly excessive. Partners, particularly at the large firms, receive high earnings.

We didn't give up an income, there was never really one there in the first place.

We decided not to chase the material things in life (we still don't) and that's a decision for us to make. I don't criticise anyone for doing so, each to their own.

I do find it amazing that in the UK lots of people complain about having to run faster and faster to keep up with the treadmill, but fail to realise that it is precisely because they do, that the treadmill keeps getting faster.

Sometimes it's the only way to cover the bills, without going for materialistic rewards.