S/O babysitters | Imamother

amother

Pansy

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:06 am

amother Ballota wrote:

This was a really helpful and informative post. Can you link the studies for babies having their cortisol rise from other babies crying? Thank you.

Sure. Babies have higher levels of cortisol from hearing other babies cry for two separate reasons- the noise level, and the nature of the crying itself. Note that the noise levels in daycare still have serious effects on babies and toddlers even when the noise is neutral, I.e. not crying noise.

Here are studies linking noise levels in daycares to serious negative effects for babies and toddlers-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/.....00037
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....8537/

Here are studies study discussing the “emotional contagion” effect in babies, which leads them to get stressed when they hear other babies who are stressed (similarly to how adults are wired to respond to a baby’s cries because it elicits a feeling of urgency and empathy in them)-
https://www.researchgate.net/p.....agion
https://www.sciencedirect.com/.....00305

There are many many more studies on this topic. I highly recommend reading this article which summarizes the science- the good the bad and the ugly - on the effects of daycare on babies and toddlers. This article provides links to every single study it cites, which makes it a very valuable resource-
https://criticalscience.medium.....2efb4

paperflowers

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:09 am

amother Ballota wrote:

Your last line isn’t backed by science. The crying and distress depending on the severity and frequency can be traumatic.
The trauma is based off how the baby feels not the moms perception.

No, the trauma is based off consistently not getting their needs met. Yes, if their needs aren't met they will experience more crying and distress. Of course, severity and frequency make a difference. Frequent severe neglect can be traumatic. We do need to respond to our kids' crying and emotions, because that teaches them that they are loved, can get their needs met, can communicate, and can experience big emotions and be okay, and this all starts at a very young age. But there is a lot of room for individual differences in a kid's temperament and parent's personality.

amother

Pansy

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:24 am

amother Oak wrote:

I'm asking because she has a holier than thou attitude. Stop mom shaming we are doing the best we can while dealing with the realities of life which includes needing to earn a living. And most babies are not being neglected just because they aren't with mom all day and may cry for a few minutes. Nobody defines neglect as crying for 5 minutes besides for the moms here. Their needs are still being met and they won't be traumatized for life.

You’re absolutely right that a baby crying for five minutes so that their mother can run to the bathroom is not neglect and won’t have long term consequences. But a babysitting group environment is very different than that, for many many reasons. See my two posts above on this topic for further explanation. I am linking an excellent summary of the available studies here. It is well worth looking it over-
https://criticalscience.medium.....2efb4

And while the poster you were responding may very well have been intentionally “mom shaming”, who knows, they also may just have been trying to spread the word on the invaluable importance of proper care during the first few years of life. Perhaps if new mothers were more educated on this topic they would make different choices that would allow some of them (not all, there will always be valid exceptions) to delay or minimize the time their babies spend at babysitters.

amother

Oak

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:28 am

amother Pansy wrote:

Most mothers are not suffering from a lack of education how to care for a baby. They have financial constraints that cause them to make the decisions they make. This mom clearly isn't bound by those financial constraints which can affect her decision making. Not everyone is so privileged. And majority of babies are not suffering from trauma from crying for a bit.

amother

Mustard

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:31 am

amother DarkGray wrote:

You can't cook dinner, bathe or dress kids, clean up a child that vomited or made an accident, do the kids hair...... with a baby in the hand. Some things just need 2 hands, Sometimes baby will have to cry while mom is tending to the other children or other duties, and that's ok.

I sure can do those things, except for cooking dinner, with the baby in my hands. Or while sitting on the floor with the baby on my lap. I do these things on a daily basis.

I bathe my kids while holding the baby, but now BH she loves the bath even when she's not sitting in it, so she stands holding onto the tub while I bathe them with 2 hands and it's much easier.

I cook easy meals, and I start early so I can break up the tasks to tend to the baby if she cries in the middle. And if it's just not working, the cooking waits until my older kids get home to help.

amother

Mustard

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:37 am

And to anyone who says I am mom shaming, you are wrong. I am simply stating what I do as a parent. The same way it's not mom shaming for a poster to say she sleep trains her kids for the entire night at 2 months old and leaves them with a babysitter at a month old, it's not mom shaming for me to say I hold my baby all day.

Now if one of us were to say the other is crazy and ruining their kids, that would be mom shaming.

And BTW, I don't think a baby is "traumatized" if they are left with a babysitter for a couple of hours a day, as long as the babysitter gives them proper attention. I don't think it's the healthiest thing for the baby, and their attachment with their mother is that much stronger if she's there for them 24 hours a day. But they will not be traumatized.

amother

Lightcyan

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:48 am

amother Mustard wrote:

This right there jumps out at me. When my kids come home, I want to be fully present for them - to hear about their day and provide nourishing food for them. I don't wait for them to come home to help me with MY chores. I want to prioritize them as well and not only the baby. I want them to feel equally loved and cherished and not that the baby is prioritized over them.

It all comes down to a juggling act when you have multiple kids. Your perspective is only really doable with an only child and there is always a tradeoff when you have multiple children. Imo, you fail to see the tradeoff it has on your older children, unless your other children are angels.

That's why parenting is a tough act. We need to juggle everyone's need and know when to prioritize what. If one child's needs gets prioritized over all else, it almost always affects the others. It's close to impossible for it not to, unless we are talking about superhumans.

amother

Pansy

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:51 am

amother Oak wrote:

I fully understand your point that many mothers who leave their babies in babysitting groups so that they can go to work, do so out of necessity and not because they don’t know how to properly care for a baby. We live in the same world, I know that it’s far from the ideal for most mothers. But my point again is, that that fact doesn’t change the fact that the daycare environment often has serious and real long term effects. Your point and my point do not contradict each other. They can both be true at once. Just because it’s uncomfortable to hear doesn’t mean it’s true.

Being honest about the realities of daycare’s effects on babies and toddlers, especially in a thread specifically opened to discuss the topic, is not “mom shaming”. In fact, in can beneficial in the sense that perhaps it will make some parents realize that there is more they can do to minimize or delay their baby’s time spent at babysitters. If a parent doesn’t realize the extent of the negative consequences, then naturally they will weigh the decision less seriously. But if they are aware of the consequences, they are more likely to try out alternatives that they would not have otherwise tried. Off the top of my head, here are some examples of what I mean:

1. A new mother works in a field where it is an option to work renotely, but she enjoys the socialization of being at work and so chooses to send her infant out to a babysitter, because “everyone else does it” so it must not be so bad. Perhaps if this mother understood the consequences of daycare she could more properly weigh the benefits of her need for socializing vs. her babies need for proper care, and she would be more willing to figure out how to work remotely while keeping her baby home with her, even for 1-2 days a week or while her baby is very young.

2. A young father who is lucky to have a wife who supports him in kollel, just had his second child. Since he can easily send his new baby to a babysitter, he doesn’t put any serious thought into changing his family’s income set up. Perhaps if he understood the consequences of daycare he would consider doing something lik tutoring in the afternoons do he can bring in some income and his wife can cut back on work hours, thus minimizing time spent at the babysitter.

I can list many more examples- A couple choosing to prioritize having a parent at home more, even if it means spending 7 years saving for a down payment instead of 5. A mother choosing to send her baby to a very low ratio babysitter instead of the higher ration one who Is cheaper and closer to her house (this is a big one). A mother not accepting a job unless it offers at least a few months of maternity leave. Etc etc etc.

I specifically said there will always be valid exceptions, but every minimization of daycare is ultimately good.

amother

Pansy

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 11:56 am

amother Oak wrote:

We’re talking about trauma from the overall babysitter environment, which is much more harmful then babies “crying for a bit”. And so I’m not sure how you make a statement like that without having anything to back you up.

If you don’t want to look at the research because it’s too painful for you, I understand. But that doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.

amother

DarkGray

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 12:00 pm

amother Pansy wrote:

While there are definitely babysitting arrangements that are sub-par, this doesn't mean that babysitter environment in general is automatically harmful & traumatic for baby. Unfortunately, home environment & baby being home with mom, may sometimes be harmful & traumatic as well.
We can't make a general statement on either way.
Most of us do our very best that all are kids are cared for & have their needs met in the best way possible.

amother

Crocus

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 12:10 pm

amother Oak wrote:

Didn't you say that if a baby cries when mom is holding him it's not as traumatic? If baby is crying he is clearly distressed and therefore may have long-lasting trauma.

Actually yes. A baby undergoing a painful procedure will be less traumatized if his mother is holding him during it. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p.....4489/

In general, children experiencing objectively traumatizing events, like natural disasters, war, etc., experience significant less trauma if they remain in the presence of their parent.

Van Der Kolk, one of the most recognized authorities on trauma, talks about how trauma is inherently isolating. People who maintain social connections during a traumatizing event experience less long-term traumatic repercussions.

amother

Mustard

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 12:13 pm

amother Lightcyan wrote:

Oh please. My 8 year old and 11 year old get home by 4. That's too early for supper, but I usually have supper ready anyway by then. The only time I need their help is when I make chicken cutlets, because breading and frying them take a long time. And my 8 year old loves breading the cutlets for me! He begs me to allow him to! And my 11 year old loves holding the baby right when he comes home because he misses her all day when he's in school. If I wake my 11 year old up in the morning and I'm not holding the baby, he asks me to get her because she loves playing on his bed with him and he loves when she comes in. They are not exactly suffering from having a baby who is held a lot.

amother

Lightcyan

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 12:28 pm

amother Mustard wrote:

So thats great that everything aligns so well for you. But you lack the understanding that not everyone's situation is as simple as yours. You don't account for multiple children arriving home at different times, or have different needs. You don't account for teenagers either, lol. Nor do you account for financial situations.

We can all speak to ideal states in life. But life was created to be full of challenges and humans were designed to work with the challenges. So, no, babies won't be traumatized if they're left to cry when mommy attends to another child. Nor will they be traumatized if mom takes due care in finding a loving and warm babysitter.

They may however be traumatized later in life if mom is unable to accept different realities and doesn't have the skills to rise to changing circumstances. So please stop your projecting your views as the only correct method. Please stop trying to guilt overworked parents who weren't blessed with the same household opportunities as you were. Please stop boasting about how it works out so well for you and passively implying that the rest of us have got it wrong.

We are doing equally right by our kids. Flexibility is what allows for good parenting. Rigidity on the other hand, not so much.

amother

DarkGray

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 12:32 pm

amother Crocus wrote:

But a baby crying, is NOT a painful procedure! It's communication, which sometimes means that they don't want to be held at the moment.
Crying in itself, isn't a trauma for a baby.

amother

Pansy

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 12:37 pm

amother DarkGray wrote:

Unfortunately, your statement is incorrect. We absolutely can make a general statement either way. Study after study shows that the babysitter environment in general IS automatically harmful for babies and toddlers, even if it may possibly be LESS harmful in the rare cases where it is classified as “high quality childcare” (a set of criteria very few frum babysitters meet).

You are correct in the sense that one of the only times childcare may scientifically be better than staying home with mom/grandma/nanny is when the home environment is truly and seriously dysfunctional, but of course that doesn’t apply to the vast vast majority of cases we are discussing. (The other exception where childcare can be beneficial if it is short hours in a high quality environment after the age of 2.5).

And yes of course “Most of us do our very best that all are kids are cared for & have their needs met in the best way possible”, but that doesn’t negate anything I said above.

amother

DarkGray

Tue, Nov 28 2023, 12:37 pm

amother Mustard wrote:

You need to realize that not everyone has the same household & circumstances as you & everyone does what's right for them. There's no 1 correct way.