Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Original poster

In thinking it's not that great an idea to leave a newborn to cry for long periods?

101 replies

bomberosa · 18/05/2011 17:07

Friend has just had a baby (3-4 weeks old) and has decided that she is just going to leave her to cry until she goes to sleep as she is just being "fussy".

I was quite at this TBH as I always thought you were only meant to leave a newborn to cry for a few minutes.

Or is this ok?

Feel so sorry for the poor little thing, she just wants a cuddle!

OP posts:

porpoisefull · 18/05/2011 17:41

It's one thing leaving a tiny baby for a bit for your own sanity if they're one of the colicky screaming ones, another to deliberately not meet their need for comfort. Poor little thing.

valiumredhead · 18/05/2011 17:41

You definitely AREN'T the only one kw!

MoldovanHardHatporn · 18/05/2011 17:44

Ok, yes, 45 mins is unacceptable if she is just plain ignoring that child. Thats really not on and I agree thats not something to be condoned.

I would hope she was over exaggerating things for the sake of some strange boast.

springbokscantjump · 18/05/2011 17:47

Aggh shame poor little one. I think everyone understands leaving limpet baby while you either pee or hide in another room getting it together. But 45 mins?? At such a young age that's.. I don't know... just mean.

SlightlyScrambled · 18/05/2011 18:08

kw you're definitely not the only one. I couldn't leave a baby cry and I think Id be very distressed if I was visiting somebody who was taking that approach.

TeaMakesItBetter · 18/05/2011 18:21

I don't know, I worked out pretty quicly that my baby often wanted to be left alone to "fuss" himself to sleep, often having me close by made it much worse. I also think it's really important for him to know how to settle himself. That said, I never left him alone properly screaming for long periods but I don't go to him straight away if I know the usuals are ok - food, temperature, wet/dirty etc. Right now he is having a right old sob and I have been hugging him the whole time. Probably if I had left him he would have dropped off to sleep. Reading threads like this where psychological damage is mentioned really scares me and makes me question everything I've done to date. But (apart from right now obv,) I have a very happy healthy little boy.

sailorsgal · 18/05/2011 18:30

TeaMakesItBetter Sounds like you are very intuitive to your little boy so do not worry. My ds was a fussy baby too, still is a big whinger at 4

sausagesandmarmelade · 18/05/2011 18:42

Newborns need lots of cuddles...and to feel content and secure. They don't know how to be 'fussy'.

Seems cruel to let them cry themselves to sleep...at that age (as someone said) they only cry for a reason.

Goldenbear · 18/05/2011 18:43

That's dreadful. I agree with others how could anyone even contemplate this? I have a 7 week old and feel wrong/uneasy When i have to leave her to deal with my 3 year old. They are supposed to be attached to you at that age and it is very odd IMO not to accept that behaviour and embrace it!

megapixels · 18/05/2011 18:51

YANBU. DD1 cried continuously as a small baby, it was pretty much non-stop. People need to accept that some babies are hard. There are no short-cuts, you just have to deal with it.

bronze · 18/05/2011 19:04

This thread as made me feel all funny and upset

SnuffleTurtle153 · 18/05/2011 19:19

I'm obviously on my own here but I don't think this is anyone's business but the baby's parents. She'll be seeing a midwife/health visitor and if there were any concerns about the baby's health they'd be aware of it. So many mothers go on about how they spent the first 5 months with their baby permanatly attached to them as though they want some kind of medal for martyred motherhood. Well, balls frankly - IMO all you're doing is making a giant rod and shoving it on your back. Babies cry. Sometimes they cry for no reason. A mother can tell by the sound of a cry whether their baby is hurting - if they're cross and whingy just leaving them for a little while is sometimes the best thing. Why the hell do you think some parents shake their babies?! Because they didn't walk away and give themselves a break and time to calm down. I did see some comment on here about this particular baby crying and being ignored for 45 minutes... That is far too long but frankly I don't believe a word of it. However: has it occurred to you that perhaps this mum was at the end of her bloody tether and the best thing to do was to put her baby in a safe place and take a break?!

RitaMorgan · 18/05/2011 19:29

Actually I don't feel like I need a medal or am a martyr for having my baby close to me because I liked it - it's a good thing! I loved breastfeeding/co-sleeping/cuddling my baby and no rod was made.

And I think the idea that a tiny baby can be cross is just ridiculous. Oh yes he's just angry that you aren't bending to his will, the manipulative little tyrant...

mrsscoob · 18/05/2011 19:39

I am shocked that anyone can describe a 3 week old baby as a clinging limpet.

YANBU OP I think that is shocking.

SnuffleTurtle153 · 18/05/2011 19:41

Of course babies can be cross, they're not some kind of sub-species

Snowsquonk · 18/05/2011 19:54

Little babies lack a brain chemical (glutamate) which means they are pretty much unable to "think" about anything, so the idea that soothing a little baby will result in them learning to manipulate a parent is wrong - Margot Sunderland's book on child development is really interesting on this.

Salmotrutta · 18/05/2011 20:00

snuffleturtle - very young babies only get "cross" in the sense that they are uncomfortable for some reason. Hence the crying which we are programmed to respond to.
I totally disagree with your posting about young babies crying for no reason - I think that's balls as you so eloquently put it.

And well said RitaMorgan!!

GrownUpNow · 18/05/2011 20:04

I would never intentionally leave my young baby to cry for that long, simply because I would find it far more stressful to listen to the crying than to deal with it, whether it be for comfort or not.

I found the baby I picked up more and had more contact with from birth (breastfed, co-slept, skin to skin, kept in a sling, demand and comfort feeding) has become more independent and confident, than my first whom I was much less bonded with due to health reasons and thus interacted with less and responded to more slowly initially.

I even tried controlled crying with my first, it was an awful experience all round. I was just much less tuned in to his needs and putting adult thinking capacity onto a tiny newborn only led to more conflict, resentment of what I considered 'bad behaviour' and less happiness for both me and baby. Whereas 'spoiling' my second resulted in a much happier experience for me and I am hoping for her too.

SnuffleTurtle153 · 18/05/2011 20:06

Fair enough. If everyone felt the same about parenting then forums like this wouldn't exist. But I think it's of enormous importance that a mother/carer be allowed space away from a constantly crying baby in order to recuperate and be able to take care of them properly, without other people sticking their noses up and declaring them to be a bad parent or making sympathy noises about the baby. It's hardly helpful.

SnuffleTurtle153 · 18/05/2011 20:07

Sorry GrownUp, cross posted

pointythings · 18/05/2011 20:15

45 minutes would be far too long if true, and when mine were that age I pretty much wore them in a sling all the time - in the house too, especially during those long evening colic sessions. Yes, we had tough times when they were very little, but they both learned to self settle from about 4 months, and I didn't begrudge the time or the effort. They're now two very secure, confident, non-clingy girls who have good relationships with the world around them. A few extra cuddles in the early months feel like a very worthwhile investment in future mental health to me...

FabbyChic · 18/05/2011 20:19

I couldn't stand by and listen to the ballshit from this woman and would go out of my way to find evidence that would prove what they are doing is damaging to the baby.

The child will grow up with issues, and they will be to blame.

leftblank · 18/05/2011 20:20

Oh poor baby :(

northerngirl41 · 18/05/2011 20:21

Gotta agree with SnuffleTurtle153 - I had a baby that cried for no reason (the other one was an angel so not quite sure what happened there!) and it was truly awful - there was nothing I could do to get her to calm down and go to sleep and me being in the room actually prolonged it. There was nothing wrong with her, and it was truly horrible to listen to - very upsetting and relentless. I can honestly say that if we didn't have enough space for me to leave her to cry without hearing that noise, I'd have done something terrible to her. I'm quite serious about that.

So yup - all for trying something different if what you're doing isn't working. Isn't the definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

If something works for you, that's great but when it comes to children there are no universal rules, what works for one kid won't work for another. And I'm sure that is why there are such heated debates about it - everyone is trying to defend their way is the "right" way!!

GotArt · 18/05/2011 20:28

After 45 minutes of crying, the LO is probably hungry again.

Studies show that there is significant psychological and physical harm done to a baby when left to cry on its own. It will also affect the parent/child relationship later on in life.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5

Swipe left for the next trending thread