to think that babies grow up automatically..

[seeker]

...and many parents waste huge amounts of time, energy, tears and stress and make themselves very unhappy trying to teach them to do things that they will do naturally because that's what they are programmed to do?

A huge industry has set itself up around making mothers feel inadequate in their abilities with their children. Gina Ford will give you guidelines for just about everything you do. It's great to have something to grab an idea or to make an informed choice, but at the end of the day, no one knows their child like their mother, or whoever the primary carer is. It's the Nature and Nurture thing. What works for one, won't always work for another. Most of motherhood is about trial and error to a degree. No one will ever get it 'right', because every child is different. Just so long as the child is brought up with love and care, most people do a bloody good job.

socialhandgrenade - i'm potty traing at the moment. It's hellish... Been dreading it since he was born, and I was right to!

I think there is a big difference between neglecting vs talking/playing with them which I think does make a very obvious difference to a child's development (barring SN, development delay, physical problems e.g. with speech), and being at home doing normal stuff vs lots of music/gym/french classes which I doubt makes much difference at all.

Having said that, with DS I took him to Gymboree (the only 'class' we did) and all of his major developmental firsts apart from walking took place there - rolling, sitting, standing, crawling. It wasn't that he wouldn't have learned without Gymboree - it would be crazy to think so - it's just that the particular 'challenges' provided to him by the class at that time encouraged him to do the physical thing his brain was working on at that moment. Heaven help DD who gets none of this - she's probably not going to be able to roll, sit, stand, crawl until at least 2 or 3 weeks after she could have if she'd gone to Gymboree :o

Yabu

While you are right that babies don't need fancy 'stimulating' toys to grow up they do need stimulation from their parents. This is as simple as cuddling and talking to babies, but without this studies have shown thsat both their physical and mental development is stunted.

Agree that there is no point stressing over these things. However, one poster said

"You need to talk to them, read to them, sing nursery rhymes etc, the type of thing that you would do naturally."

Unfortunately not all parents do this. I spoke to one young mum last week who says she feels embarassed talking to her baby when he can't talk back. And in other families I work with, the tv is on all the time, which makes it more difficult for children to learn to talk.

So much of what we do with our babies is based on how we were brought up. So some things that seem instinctive to us, are alien to others. I talked to my 3 as babies almost constantly - not a concious decision, this just seemed natural to me. And speaking to my mum, she did the same.

I agree there is too much stress around even minor decisions. However every baby will benefit from a healthy diet (see Sunday Times story yesterday on how many children are basically in a state of malnutrition from filling up on empty foods like crisps and chips) for brain development, and from a steady stream of dialogue and explaination about the world around them. Plus loads of cuddles and general safeguarding.
My son is 2.5 and asking constant questions about everything he sees or hears. I think he'd be learning a heck of a lot less if he were being shushed or not answered.

Megonthemoon - if it's hell - stop!

If the child is ready, it will be easy. I promise!

Ds1 and Ds2 are and were not neglected. I played with both of them, talked to them, read to them, sang to them. And of course I still do all of that. I presumed with both of them that they would develop typically.
They didn't.
Both of them are autistic.
Ds2 is severely autistic.
He has severe learning difficulties and is almost non verbal.
So I'm sorry, but reading threads like this that insinuate that only those children who have been neglected will have difficulties is not something that's going to put me in a good mood.

bullet A number of posters have said that of course you can do all that and if children have a SEN they will not develop. I really don't think anyone is implying that your children's autism or leraning difficulties are your fault. Of course they're not.

bullet234, sen & diagnosed asc are not what people are talking about here.

I do quite a lot of structured activities/baby groups with DS (5mo) but tbh they're really about me rather than him - i.e. get out of the house, do something a bit different, meet some people, get a coffee afterwards. It did give me a few ideas for things I could do to keep him entertained.

Is it just me or are some days with a 5mo old very long days? . After 10 mins "tummy time" and rejection of all toys it's still 3 hours till bedtime. Damn.

My son has a speech delay, and using this logic I would have left him to it and he might still be mute. Also sever dietry problems and illness, which also needed intervention, all of which also led to sleep issues.

Most babies will learn to walk and talk and sleep and eat on their own, but not all of them, and sometimes its hard to tell the difference. So no, I dont think they need baby makaton or japenese signing or whatever, but the simple things don't always just happen.

As ever, agree with cory. Most parents have the luxury of fretting about their child's development being a waste of time. But not all. And many if not the vast majority of cases of language impairment are nothing to do with parents perceived faults. Sometimes language impairment is clearly attributable to autism or other physical/developmental difficulties, sometimes there is no clear cause

One of my dc had very good early speech. She's probably the one we talked to less, my neglected middle child. Certainly she didn't get more caring, loving parental focus than my others who weren't particularly early to speak.

You can, we discovered the long way, be a bit too laid back in parenting. It took us a long time to work out that a dd had UTIs. And when another dd was quiet and a bit slow to talk and read, we did just assume she was a bit slow and on the placid side, it turned out she was deaf. I rather wish we'd realised that earlier. though she caught up more or less, it would have helped in preschool and reception.

Lady - maybe your heart sinks because it's an oversimplification but clearly children do have better language skills when they are read to, spoken to, etc. It's not exactly a controversial claim.

Chandellina - by making that statement, you are insinuating that those with children who have speech delay are not talking to their children, or reading to them enough. What a hugely simplistic and offensive viewpoint.

Whether its controversial or not depends on whether the implication is that diagnosed language impairment is largely attributable to not talking or reading to your child ......

megonthemoon - agree with seeker about the potty training - my nephew wasn't potty-trained at all.
he refused to do it, and when he was 3, he went straight to the toilet.
he was still in nighttime nappies for a while, but he didn't have any daytime accidents.

QUOTE
But to give them "language skills" you just have to talk to them!

Utter rubbish.

I totally agree that you shouldnt get worked up in that "my neighbours child is doing better than mine"

Interaction and stimulation with your baby is one the best ways for your child to move forward. And early years are the most important for child development. If a baby is left to his own devices of "what comes naturally" then you are not helping your child.

ALSO you have a huge risk then of not spotting any signs that something could well be wrong with their developement and miss the chance of early intervention to help your childs future needs.

I have 3 DCs and each one was brought up the same and learnt through play. Two have grown up into well established children with no issues. The 3rd my DS is being assessed for an autism disorder. If I had not helped him with his learning to progress as a baby then I would have failed him in not noticing his developemental issues. Also run the risk of behaviour issues and social interaction issues due to the poor childs frustrations as they get older.

You dont just "talk" to children and hey ho full language skills just happen.

For children who don't have developmental issues, you do indeed "just talk to children and hey ho full language skills just happen." If you neglect them or envelop them in an environment where you don't talk to them much then there will be problems (most, though not all, of which will be overcome when they move into an environment in which they do get enough exposure to language).

The issue with distinguishing between a true developmental issue and a child who's just late on the curve is a tricky one. But being aware of common milestones in order to get a professional assessment if late and following "experts'" general parenting methods are two different things.

I don't think for one moment that all children have language delays/speech issues because they haven't been spoken to much.

However, it is true that if you rarely speak and interact and use complex phrases with your baby, then any potential delay will be made worse and normal development will be compromised.

The most extreme example of this is where children are very neglected, not spoken to, treated like dogs, given no affection whatsoever, at the extreme end of neglect. These children do not develop normally at all, rarely attaining speech and do not develop normal interaction either. It is as if the speech trigger has not gone off.

So it's not utter bollocks to link poverty of interaction with poor development, speech or otherwise, but it's also true that many children who have excellent interaction also go on to have difficulties. It's a bit more subtle than a simple link.

I work for a specialist children's team, have 5 children and have fostered and adopted - so this is a particular interest of mine.

OP YANBU.

The stuff we have thrown at us is based on sound research (bar the woo stuff) but it is usually based on children who have been neglected and/or traumatized.

So we end up with 'if children kept in concentrations camps develop in this abnormal way we have to do the polar opposite ++++++ and our children will be brilliant'

It doesnt work that way. Children are little sponges and soak up what goes on around them if they do not have SNs. They will gain just as much from gazing at your bright jumper from a 40 quid mobile. They prefer to listen to your 'mothereeze (sp?) than to that 'developmental toy'.

When babies are tiny they need touch and eye-contact and nurturing or thier little synapses do not make connections. Trauma/fear can also arrest these connections. This is why many children in care have global delay.

The simple act of gazing at your newborn, stroking his arm and telling him how utterly beautiful he is, is more important than just about anything else.

Babies with inadequate food can survive and even thrive. Babies with inadequate love do not and can even die.