Child day care centres

As a working parent (mother), I felt I must reply to Fr Anton Gouder's well-referenced article (The Sunday Times, September 5).

The document to which Fr Gouder was referring, which is currently open to public comment till the end of September, entitled "A guide to the principles, standards and regulations" for the setting up of child day care centres are undeniably a step forward to regularise this service - for the benefit of the children.

Without such regulations, any person (even if not qualified) could open a centre anywhere - even in a cellar! These day care centres are particularly important for families who have little or no support from their relatives. The aim of this document was to legalise a business which has long been in existence and is nowadays on the increase due to changes in parents' working patterns.

Fr Gouder is clearly trying to prove that a child will be disadvantaged if the mother goes to work while the children are under three years of age - thus putting full responsibility on the mother.

Unfortunately, emphasis was placed on the "mother" rather than the "parent" - the dad, I believe, can be just as capable of bringing up a child, especially if this taboo is shed.

Throughout the article, he seems to emphasize that "quantity" time is more important than "quality" time with regard to the mother-child relationship.

In my opinion, both are important. I found Fr Gouder's synonym of a ball to a mother with reference to Jean Piaget's theory on the child's developmental psychology, quite unsighted, coming from him.

How can one equate an inanimate object to all the emotional and physical bonds which develop between a parent and the child? If the child is properly nurtured (physically and emotionally) then he/she will never erase the parent from his/her mind while being kept at a nursery.

On the other hand, what does he say with respect to all those mums who remain at home but become obsessed with cleaning and going about the daily home chores to the extent that their young children are emotionally abandoned in their own home?

Mothers opt to go to work for various reasons, the most significant one being for financial reasons. With today's soaring property prices and cost of living it is difficult for today's families to cope financially with just one pay, unless the dad works overtime (at the expense of not seeing his family), or the family has some other financial aid.

Another reason why they return to work is to fulfil certain needs: namely that of relating to an adult world other than to pots and pans and nappies, which, on a daily and yearly basis, can become quite depressing.

This is especially so when the mother would have acquired certain skills, or had a professional job (teacher/nurse/doctor, etc.).

Speaking from my experience, I returned to work after my son's first birthday. I entrusted him to two very capable and caring child minders and he clearly benefited rather than lost from such an arrangement.

For a start, he could relate to other children of his own age at the nursery, rather than to adults alone, since he was the only child from both sides of the family.

This stated, however, I do believe that a child must, as much as possible, remain with either parent until he/she is about a year old.

In conclusion, I believe that both parents are important for their child's emotional development, and a child must spend good quality time with either parent at any one time.

On the other hand, employers (especially those in private industry) must concede the importance of either parent and indeed be encouraged by government, by allowing flexible hours or reduced working hours such that either parent will have adequate time to spend with their children.

It shouldn't be all doom and gloom if the mother - for whatever reason - decides to go back to work: not if both the parents have an equal share in bringing up their children. The role of the father should never be undermined.