[randlet]

At two years old most children will have a stronger bond with the mother than the father because generally the bulk of care, including breastfeeding, has been administered by the mother up until this point in their life. There are likely genetic/chemical/evolutionary forces at play here too.

Even at three years old, my daughter would unquestionably choose to spend three months with my wife rather than me (I'm not hurt or offended by this!).

edit:

"but the kid probably won't notice that much"

The kid will definitely notice :)

Being separated from a kid for three months would also be much harder emotionally on my wife than it would for me.

[rayiner]

My wife and I are equally busy, and I operate better on less sleep than my wife. So with our daughter I did a lot of the "mom" things the first two years. She woke up like clockwork for a feeding every three hours for more than a year. Now, at two and a half, if she wakes up in the middle of the night she'll cry for "daddy" not "mommy."

[sarah2079]

In my experience this is not true when the father is also doing a lot of the care, so I am skeptical of the importance of "genetic/chemical/evolutionary forces."

[randlet]

Yes, that is somewhat speculative on my part although the "chemistry" part behind the bond created by breastfeeding is very well established.

[zasz]

I really doubt there's any chemical forces. My brother is a stay-at-home dad and his daughter far prefers him to her mother.

[Kluny]

I was thinking that since kids mostly don't remember anything from before age 2-3, it wouldn't matter. But then again, it probably would matter to the parents, who wouldn't want to distress their kid regardless of whether he remembers.

[tudorw]

Will not remember is not the same as will not affect, core emotional and psychological growth happens prior to 3, just because a child has poor recall does not mean they are not the sum of their experiences up to that point in time.

[rayiner]

[citation needed]

The kid will definitely realize mom and dad are gone at two, they're not vegetables, but whether that has any impact on them later is not something that's been established by evidence. The idea that kids are the "sum of their experiences up to that point in time" is an old wives' tale.

[scott_s]

I thought there was some evidence related to stress hormones, and the toll of being in a constant state of arousal due to stress. But that may be on older children.

[tudorw]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_childhood_stress_and_neu...

[randlet]

It probably doesn't matter too much in the long-term, but you can't use childhood amnesia to justify ignoring the way a toddler feels right now!

[ssharp]

The trauma still happened to the kid, whether he remembers it or not. If there are clinical studies that show psychological trauma at age 2 or 3 does not matter because of memory, I'll gladly be wrong, but I don't want to inflict distress in my kids. Not to mention seeing your kids being miserable crushes your spirits as well.

[drzaiusapelord]

We dont fully understand childhood memory. The "skeptic" community is often fast to quote that kids remember nothing and be very reductionist but these hasty conclusions aren't justified by the evidence. Children do have early memories, the question is what quality are these memories and how do they affect them. There's no magical amnesia that happens or some pathways that light up on your third birthday that lets memory work. Its all a long and gradual process.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2012/04/children_s...

Far from having no memories at all, very young children remember a lot like adults. In early infancy, the neural structures crucial for memory are coming online: the hippocampus, which is, very roughly, in charge of storing new memories; and the prefrontal cortex, which is, very roughly, in charge of retrieving those memories.

But these neural regions and their connecting pathways are still developing. And they capture only part of the present as it flows by.