She's just got to get used to it.(32 Posts)
My niece is just six months old.
My brother and his wife are nice, intelligent, we get on etc.
They had problems bfing at first but now it's ok. SIL was gutted she couldn't exclusively bf but seems happy with mixed feeding situation. Plus the baby has started baby rice last week.
My brother told me tonight that his daughter screams for 90 mins every night at bedtime because she wants breast feeding. Apparently she's just got to get used to the fact that SIL isn't going to feed her at bedtime. I asked why and he said because that's what they want.
Eh? I don't get it. Why not just bf her, get her to sleep, bit of quiet and peace for everyone and happy baby? 90 minutes of screaming is an awful lot for a baby or am I being over sensitive? It sounds stressful for all involved.
SIL goes back to work at the end of November so it's hardly like they're training her to get of the breast now, is it?
I'm just perplexed. Anyone cast any light on this rationale?
No idea why they would make life so difficult for themselves. why not just BF and be done with it? Are they aware that the more she BFs, the more her supply with increase? Perhaps her HV has not explained all this properly.
nope, can't shed any light at all. poor baby.
90 mins is a LONG time for anyone to be crying, let alone a 6 month old
Oh, and yes... 90 mins of screaming sounds horrendous for the poor child... well for the whole family.
90 mins is a long time, do you think that was a one off? Poor thing if it isn't though.
I think you need to let you SiL know that MN is a wonderful place
It's been going on a week, my brother said.
I just don't want to tread on any toes but I just don't get it. I think it sounds like hard work for all involved.
Why does she have to get used to not being breastfed at bedtime? I just wanted to ask why over and over when he said she'll just have to get used to.
maybe they don't want her to be in the habbit of needing to bf to sleep. While I agree that 90 minutes of screaming is a long time, I don't necessarily think there's anything wrong with the notion of not wanting your baby to only be able to fall asleep on the breast. Presumably she has a bottle before bed? Or even a bf some time before she is actually put down to sleep?
I wasn't able to bf, but presumably if you have a baby who can only fall asleep on the breast it can make things difficult? ie not being able to go out etc because if you are bf then you are the only one who can settle the baby for instance. Maybe they want to get away from that particular patern - in principle I can't see anything wrong with that.
She's been crying for 90 mins for a week? Damn, that is one determined child! They usually give up after a few days as they know no-one will come.
Poor little baby, in this heat too. Nothing short of dangerous IMO.
wannaBe - there are much better ways of "breaking" a nurse to sleep association than leaving a baby to cry for 90 minutes!! We found the No Cry Sleep Solution fairly effective.
There are much much gentler ways of stopping a baby feeding to sleep, if that's what they want to do. 90 minutes is pretty brutal, I think. Poor little soul.
You are right, it's very strange, but people all react to their babies differently. I was one of those who was sad when my toddler stopped bf whereas my friend was delighted to get her 3 week old dd onto bottles so I could babysit while she went to the theatre!
She loves her dd but admits that she didn't have the fierce, all-consuming protective thing where you want to be with them all the time at the beginning.
There's a big difference between not wishing to be with your babies 24/7 (i didn't have this either) and letting them cry for an hour and a half every night, which is crazy madness IMO.
gina ford remember? may be they have been reading her ?
I don't think even GF would recommend leaving a baby to cry for 90 mins??? surely not?
Yes, I think they bought the GF book. But does GF recommend just letting a baby cry and cry?
Isn't bfing about comfort too?
I guess that parents can be poles apart in their approaches.
I do wonder why he told me that they leave her for 90 mins though when he knows I'm very much a feed on request kind of gal.
I feel upset for my niece. Not my child, not my decision and there are far worse things that happens to babies, I know, I know. I just wanted to understand their logic.
I know I'm going to get slated for this, but it's possible that your SiL is a bit like me.
I was absolutely determined to BF DS for at least 6 months and I hated absolutely every bloody second of it. I even had a diary counting down the no. of days I had to go until I could stop.
Unfortunately at the time I felt as if I would be seen as a failure if I didn't BF and I would damage DS.
gf and her techniques did help me with dd. it took four days of her crying and crying aged 6.5 months, before she realised i would only feed her every four hours. she was refusing to start solids, and i NEEDED her to stop feeding twenty times a day. however, she was dc3, and i never did anything of the sort with older dc when they were babies.
ask your sil what exactly they are doing. there must be more to it than what your brother is saying.
but if she wanted to stop breastfeeding then why not offer a bottle instead?
it isn't just about the food.
it's about withdrawing any form of comfort.
for an hour and a half???? seriously?
how can anyone think that is even remotely ok?
She gets a bottle with dad instead then i take it?
Perhaps your brother told you because he thought you might voice your objections - and validate his own concerns? I bf my ds1 for over a year and towards the end I felt a bit 'OMG he is NEVER going to stop breastfeeding!' And I did find that with the other two that I didn't BF for so long it was easier to get into a four hr (or whatever - so long!) routine - perhaps the mixed feeding has confused your SIL in that respect and she isn't sure what to do for the best?
Bottle with dad instead - good idea and good for dad!
ok have reread the op and tbh I do think people are jumping to conclusions a bit here.
Op said that dn was screaming for 90 mins every night. But nowhere does it say that she's being left to scream, if we talk about babies crying all night for eg then it doesn't mean they cry non stop usually does it? Usually it means that they have cried and we have tried to settle them by whatever means we see fit at the time, and they may calm for a bit and then start crying again and so on, but the gaps in between the crying aren't really relevant when you're up all night - so if you put a baby to bed and it takes 90 minutes before that baby settles then I would imagine that to the parent that would amount to 90 minutes of sccreaming.
op's db/sil might be taking it in turns to soothe/cuddle/reassure this baby, it might not be non-stop screaming for 90 minutes - it might just take 90 minutes for her to settle without the breast.
Maybe sil has valid reasons for not wanting to bf her baby to sleep every night. Maybe she has bf up until six months and maybe she's hated it and now wants to stop. Just because she isn't going back to work until November doesn't mean she can't choose to stop bf if that's what she wants.
"SIL goes back to work at the end of November so it's hardly like they're training her to get of the breast now, is it?" but maybe they are. People give up bf for lots more reasons than just going back to work. Or maybe she wants to do it in plenty of time so that she's not training baby to get off the breast at the same time as potentially putting her into a new childcare situation.
I think people are being incredibly judgemental based on a very limited amount of information. Baby is left to cry for 90 minutes and is denied the breast. When in actual fact we don't know that that is exactly what happens. And we don't know that the baby isn't given a bottle before being put down to sleep so to suggest that they are endangering the baby by not giving her the breast is ve harsh IMO.
Join the discussion
Please login first.