How young is too young?daycare?

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
How young is too young?daycare?
954
Tue, 12-02-2003 - 1:00am
If you have a career and you had a baby what age would you think is apropriate to send your child to daycare/dayhome after they were born?

I have a friend that is a dayhome provider, she has 10mnth old twins and she was provinding care for a 2yr old. Mom of the 2yr old just had a baby and she was back to work when baby was 4days old, in my friends care. It is only half days now, but she is soon going to be full time, the baby is almost 5wks. Thoughts?

Be who you are and say what you feel because those  who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 9:08am

Nope.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 9:10am
Would you insist that parents of quadruplets, or parents of one or more special needs children, still refrain from using additional care, even with a SAHP?

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 9:12am

"How exactly can a child have "ample time and opportunity to become an individual" if the majority of his or her time is spent in group care? "


The same way children in a family with 4 children does. By living and growing.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

Avatar for laurenmom2boys
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 9:13am
LOL! My DS1 was speaking fairly clearly at 14 mos ("meetmoe" was oatmeal, "cacoo" was cookie, "meemo" was tomato, "hot dog" was.... figure it out! LOL!). DS2 barely said "boo" before he was 2. They were both bottle fed (DS1 from 6 weeks on, DS2 from the day he was born). Yes, people tend to forget that our children are born with personalities.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 9:18am
Yes, I agree.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /> 

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-29-2002
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 9:22am
I think you either have to have the second (or third) child or know families who have multiple children very well in order to appreciate just how much is pure personality and not under the control of the parents....


Laura

Avatar for laurenmom2boys
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 10:14am
My boys are so *completely different* it amazes me. They're both DH's and my bioligical offspring. Both boys. Both born on Tuesdays, mind you. Raised in the same house. The difference is 1) their birth order, which I believe makes a big difference, and 2) they were born with very different, distinct personalities.

Remember "The Odd Couple?" That's my two boys. DS1 is Felix, DS2 is Oscar. And Oscar will do anything to get Felix riled and it works *every time.* DS1 is a perfectionist, the consumate student, extremely social. DS2 is not a perfectionist, does not like school, and is not very adept socially. The two things they do have in common is they are both very bright and get good grades and they are both very caring, compassionate children. I'm most proud of that aspect of their personalities.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 10:33am
I never said that children need ONLY parents. Sure, they benefit from the influence of grandparents, siblings, relatives, friends, teachers, clergy members, etc. However, children do not NEED or REQUIRE the influence of substitute caregivers, in the same way that they NEED and REQUIRE relationships with people "who have a long term vested interest" in them. In other words, PARENTS are the ones who NEED the influence of substitute caregivers, NOT children.

BTW, there is a big difference between "influencing" and "caregiving". For example, my dd is quite the "social animal" and yet she has become so, without the influence of substitute caregivers. Does this mean that her father and I are the ONLY ones who have influenced her. Hardly!!! Or are you of the opinion that the only way a child can be "influenced" is through "caregiving"?

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-02-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 10:35am
No it is NOT unrealistic. The community that I lived in had one dc center. The dc ran the family dayhomes. They WERE second rate and they did not care about the children. This had nothing to do with social service clientelle. The majority of the dayhome providers had been investigated for abuse or neglect. I was privvy to that information. I was not talking about dc everywhere, but in that community. I was very well aware that most of the women providing dc services were uneducated and doing it, not because they loved children, but because they needed a job. I conducted an investigation of one dayhome where the provider was passed out on the couch while the children were playing outside. It was before noon. When we interviewed the parents, at least two of them said they knew she had been drinking when they dropped their children off. The agency did not close that home. We (CPS)shut her down for as long as we could legally, but she was up and running again within a few months. As I pointed out, one provider who was investigated more than once, was recently convicted of manslaughter of a 7 month old infant. Also as I said, I was not planning to return to work at the conclusion of my mat leave because of the low quality care. Opinion123 asserted that my child would have been better off with a second rate provider, and quite frankly I do believe that they cared more about the neighbour's dog. Keep in mind, I was referring to the options available to ME, not to working parents everywhere. I do not think blood ties are NECESSARY, but was putting forth that in MY situation, it worked out very well because of the bond btwn caregiver and infant.

Edited to add:

Oh, and yes, calling someone stupid and an idiot is considered an attack. I went to cut and paste your little rant, but I see someone else considered it an attack too since it has been deleted. Evidence enough?


Edited 12/12/2003 10:36:44 AM ET by it_is_me_again

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Fri, 12-12-2003 - 10:48am
Breastfeeding May Help Prevent Tooth Decay


Are you worried that your baby may develop tooth decay? If you're breastfeeding, that alone may help prevent cavities. A new report suggests that breastfeeding may help protect infants and toddlers from early childhood caries (often referred to as ECC).

"ECC is generally considered a significant and devastating disease in a child, and it targets the individual for decay throughout their life," Dr. Mary Hayes recently told Reuters Health. Hayes is a pediatric dentist and spokeswoman for the American Dental Association.

Researchers from the University of Athens surveyed 260 children between the ages of 3 and 5 living in Greece. The children were divided into two groups - children with multiple cavities and children with few or no cavities.

Children that were breastfed for more than 40 days were less likely to develop cavities than those who were breastfed for a shorter time, the researchers found. Because of that, the researchers suggest that breastmilk may contain antibodies that inhibit the bacteria that causes tooth decay.

The children who were at the highest risk of developing tooth decay were those who fell asleep with a bottle in their mouth.

The researchers also found some children did not develop cavities, even though they often fell asleep with a bottle, leading the researchers to suggest that there may be a genetic factor linked to the risk of tooth decay.

A separate study published in the journal "Pediatric Dentistry" in the spring of 1999 concluded that human breast milk is not cariogenic, meaning it does not cause dental caries.



http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_tooth_decay.html






Pages