How much time with your kid is enough?

There's a fascinating discussion going on at the Wall Street Journal blog The Juggle about how much time working parents can and/or should spend with their kids. Is one hour per day enough? Two? I've been reading the comments, many of which reflect people's own experiences as children, compared and/or contrasted to how they've chosen to raise their own children. So enlightening. I was heartened to see several people use the acronym SAHP: stay-at-home parent. Also, one quote I had to pull out, by a commenter named Dorothy Parker:

As always with raising children, there is no right or wrong, only consequences.

Tags: Parenting, Working parents

Comments

[Patricia]

The blogger wonders if the ONE HOUR a day she spends with her child is enough. Wow.

I like the Dorothy Parker quote you pulled, but the first part of the posting was even more powerful, I thought: "Teachable moments pop up randomly in kids’ lives. It’s impossible to schedule them or script your responses–if you’re not there, you’ve ceded the moment, and the lesson, to whoever is caring for your kids. If you’ve chosen wisely, a wonderful nanny or teacher will give advice or share values, but they won’t be yours. As always with raising children, there is no right or wrong, only consequences."

[rachel Hackett]

FYI - you can access those wall street journal for free with a netpass from: http://news.congoo.com

[Stu Mark]

First, I'm a SAHP, although this is the first time I'm hearing this acronym. I like the androgyny of it, but I'm also a guy who is comfortable telling people I'm a housewife.

Second, My wife works for a big corporation, putting in 50 hour weeks during the slow part of the year. When it gets busy, she'll amp up to weeks where she averages about 60-70. This, coupled with the fact that we share custody means that my kids get an hour or two with Mom every other evening. That's not bad, but I still wish it were more. But I wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to my wife. We want her around because she's awesome.

My point here is that I understand people who think that one hour a day is not enough. But as the SAHH of a wife who brings home real bacon, I understand a certain reality of our lives. I have often suggested to my wife that maybe she quits and we split time with the kids, so they can see her more. But she doesn't want to, because it would change our financial situation (ie- the kids would have smaller rooms in a smaller house). So what am I to do? What am I to think?

[Patricia]

Your kids may have only an hour or so with their mom, but they presumably get LOADS of time with you, the SAHP. That's wonderful. I just think it's sad when NEITHER parent can put in more than one or two hours with their kids (as was the case with the WSJ blogger). I understand the financial reality but it's so sad for the kids. Most kids would rather have a smaller house, or live in a different neighborhood, than never see their parents. It's the parents who want the *stuff*.

[Serena]

As the child of two working parents I remember my aunt talking in front of me when I was about 14. She was saying how her infant son would be so well adjusted and smarter because she was staying home with him. I was VERY offended and hurt. My parents did everything possible to keep us happy and healthy and well fed. They went to extra lengths to get more time with us, like come home for dinner even though they had to go back to work again afterwards, that were very important. They always made us know that we were the most important thing in their lives but work was important in a different way. I think my sister and I turned out pretty darn well - and we both thought my mom's working mother guilt was silly - and now as a working mom myself, I treasure my son but I am a happier and better mom because I work outside the home. There was a point when his bedtime was earlier that I only spent about an hour with him in the evenings (but of course depending on what time he got up in the morning I would also spend 1-3 hours with him then).
Anyway, the real reason I wanted to post was as the child of working parents - who also worked weekends, actually. And if anything that has made me more self-reliant and closer with my sister, without taking away the love and care I always felt and had from my parents.

[STL Mom]

As a child, I didn't mind that my mom worked. I only minded that she came home cranky. I felt like she used up all her patience and niceness with her clients, and we got the worst side of her. On the other hand, I appreciated that our middle-class lifestyle wouldn't exist without her paycheck. As an adult, I also understand the stress of the "2nd shift" she worked after she got home.
I've been both a working parent and a stay-at-home parent. I'm home with my kids many more hours now, but I'm not sure that the time I spend interacting with them has really increased that much. This is partly because they are older and they can play by themselves or with each other more, but also I feel the need to put up some boundaries so that I am not constantly being barraged by the kids. Sometimes I can be as cranky as I remember my mother being, and it's my own kids who have used up all my patience and kindness!
The comment on the WSJ forum that amused me was the one that stated that you can never have enough time with your children, because you love them. Really? I love my husband, but I would go crazy if we were together every minute of the day. I feel the same way about my kids. If they never go away, how will I ever miss them?

[Ben]

Two observations:

1) I ditto what Patricia says about Stu Mark's situation: the kids probably don't care about the size of their rooms or their house -- and if they do, they probably shouldn't. When they grow up, I doubt they'll say "I wish I'd had a bigger room as a kid". They might say "I wish I'd spent more time with mom."

2) When it comes to kid/parent facetime, I'm a huge proponent of the idea that's it's quantity, not quality. So what if every second you're together isn't 100% enriching? At least you're together. Your kids learn from you constantly, even when you're not the best most perfect version of yourself.

[Stu Mark]

Let me be clear: We've talked to our kids about the work situation. As we run the home (for the most part) as a collective, we gave them a vote. They voted for keeping the house/school system/etc and having Mom keep her job. Yeah, they miss her, but as long as one of the parents works hard enough to give them a decent-sized room (and my fourteen year-old boy's room is just about 9'x9', so we're not living in a mansion or anything), my kids prefer our current model of one SAHP.

Sure, back when I was writing full-time, and the kids were in daycare, it sucked. No question. That was the only reason I quit my job. We actually had a bigger house back then. But the kids were so sad, and were being raised by strangers/non-family. So we voted, and the vote (6 years ago) was unanimous. We all agreed that I should quit my job, we should sell our big house, move to a smaller house in a less-tony neighborhood, and have a full-time parent. Our kids are happy, and they get two hours of Mom-time (at least) on the days when we have the kids. So it's not that bad. But that's just my opinion, y'all may see things differently.

[Family Man]

This is an interesting discussion, and I think it's important to remember every family's balance is different. Parker's statement is obviously loaded, with one approach that is far from the only one that works. I'm also not convinced the WSJ blogger's life is sad, particularly since I don't know how her family achieves balance. My wife and I both work, and spend lots of time with our kids, and everyone is doing well.

[Ethel]

I do think having a SAHP (and a SAHM during the first months with a baby specifically) isn't valued highly enough by many families in our society and needs to be celebrated and acknowledged more. Too much value seems to be placed on looking good and having "stuff" in the area where I live, rather than intangibles like family time. However, judging individual cases seems risky, since we rarely know the full situation.

I don't think we should buy into the myth that quality time is all that matters, but quantity time isn't enough, either. You need to strike a balance between them both, and that exact balance will change depending on financial circumstances, family structure, temperments of both parents and children, and the family's creativity. The answer to "How much time is enough" will be different for each family.

This "How much time" argument has the potential to become a variation on the Mommy Wars. While the debate can be good, we need to avoid (a) personal attacks (b) sweeping generalizations and (c) thinking everyone else's family has the same desires and needs that ours does. Otherwise, it's just guilt-inducing bickering rather than a sincere attempt to consider what is important when choosing family lifestyles.

[hedra]

Brava, Ethel!

I agree that quality and quantity need to be balanced, and balanced individually for each child, to boot. We've done almost every variation - DH has been home, I've been home, we've both worked at once, used daycare (home-based, center-based), had a nanny, you name it. Every one of the options has up sides and down sides. Every child has a unique pattern of needs, some need more individual time, some need more quantity time, some need more group/family time, and the patterns change over time. Those needs can be met in almost any variation we've tried, with a little creativity and flexibility.

We're back to both parents working, everyone in school/preschool (kids are 9, 5, and 2-yr-old twins), but with one of us having very flexible hours (me). That's working for everyone so far as we can tell (and the reports from teachers, friends, family, and strangers are pretty encouraging... though 99% of the results are just who our kids are, meanwhile 99% of our effort goes into not breaking who they already are...)

Handling whatever issues the kids *have* is one of our goals. If the issue is that they miss you and this causes problems for them (behavior, school, signs of un-heard unhappiness, etc.), then you handle that. Just "How" can vary wildly. And that might not be their issue at any given time, regardless how much time you actually spend. The goal isn't 'parent spends more time with kids, total numbers' but 'parent spends ENOUGH time with kids for each of their needs'.

One caution with getting the kids opinions on things like 'more time with mom' vs 'smaller house/room'... kids aren't experienced enough to be able to determine the benefits of a different space than the one they know. An intangible benefit (time with mom) is hard to measure against a tangible one (room size). Asking if they'd like to give up their current (and likely loved and comfortable) space for more time with mom is kind of like saying 'would you like us to get divorced, or not?' - it is a question out of their league. Assess whether there are currently problems that need to be handled, and find ways to handle them. If you cannot find ways to handle them that do not involve change of job, then find a solution that changes the job and also handles the other issues that are brought up by that change as effectively as possible. There's no 100% solution, though - there will always be new and interesting problems to handle no matter what you do.

Last note: Keep your own issues out of it. It can be hard to determine which things are problems for the kids, and which things would just be problems for you if you were in your child's shoes... one of my big parenting challenges is not just avoiding the things that bothered me as a child, or repeating the things I liked, because I am not the child here, and my kids are unique - some things I needed they need, other things are wildly different. Solving their actual problem, not the perception of the problem, is far more effective for us. Which means not just putting myself in their shoes, but sitting back, observing, listening, having interesting conversations about dreams and hopes, collecting a picture of their happiness and their longings, and then finding ways to support the happinesses and feed their hearts and souls (even if the longings remain, and some IMHO are likely healthy).

Having done all the routes, there are more answers to these questions than we tend to think unless we've been there. And more answers than we tend to think when we've been in one situation for a while, too. Which is why I come here! :)

[K]

This has to be a balance. I have three young sons and work out of the home.

My SIL has given me a clear message that I am not as good a parent because I didn't stay home with young ones. This, from the family that went away for a week from their bottlefeeding 10 week old, and from the couple that hires a babysitter at least twice a week!

Our attachment parenting, co-sleeping (until at least 12 months old), extended breastfeeding lifestyle where we get a babysitter twice a year or so, spend all weekends and evenings in family activities and eating all of our meals as a family is one way that I think we can do it right.

So, we have given up television until the kids are in bed, my house is a DISASTER, our handyman stuff goes undone, and the kids' clean clothes are in a heap... I spend more time and definitely more quality time with my children than many a SAHP that I know.

The parenting wars need to stop and we need to talk about what all of us can do - within the confines of our adult and complicated lives - to improve the conditions for our children.

K