to allow my baby to hurt herself?

[ThroughTheRoundWindow]

Now, before you all start phoning social services I'm not sitting her at the top of the stairs with a pile of razor blades and letting her do what she will! All I mean is that occasionally I let her play with things (under supervision) which aren't strictly toys and allow her to find out what it can do.

For example yesterday she found an elastic band on the floor. She chewed it and pulled at it happily for 10 minutes before the inevitable happened and it twanged back and hit her in the face. It hurt, she cried, I gave her a hug and less than a minute later she was fine again. She never let go of the elastic band and as soon as I put her down again she started playing with it again. She didn't twang herself in the face again though.

To me this seems ok but I go to a baby group where the Mum's go through the treasure baskets and take out anything they consider might pose a risk (keys too sharp, stick too pointy, pine cone too fragile) and only let the baby touch the really smooth, really boring objects. Always one to doubt myself I do see this and sometimes wonder if I am a bit lassez-faire with my child's safety? And I dread to think what these women would do if they saw my baby at home allowed to eat small food items and chew toys that aren't 100% clean.

To me it is important to let her explore freely, but even more it is important that I trust her to explore. If I can't let her chew and elastic band now, how on earth am I going to let her ride a bike or walk to the shops on her own or any of the 1,000,000 more risky things she needs to do in order to grow up?

Is this reasonable or should I be taking more care?

I used it as shorthand unaware of terminology.

I didn't realise it would cause so much upset and if anyone has misread my comments as condescending of parents of children with special needs I am truly sorry.

I tried to explain this, but apparently that wasn;t good enough. I feel my comments have been taken out of context, however if I had realised how much upset the word "unspecialneedsy" would cause I would not have used it. It wasn't meant to be disparaging at all.

Stabilisers by the way are rather counterproductive, balance bikes make the transition to real bikes much easier.

Surely nearly everyone starts off on a bike with stabilisers, don't they? In what way is that being over protective?

Also, whether you are supervising or not surely it's best to teach babies that plyaing with elastic bands/plastic bags/door jambs etc is not a good idea.

Can I admit to being a mum who has indeed removed an item from a treasure basket at our children's centre - it was a fir cone that was so chewed it had loads of little bits hanging off it, so I put it out of reach of ds, who does have a tendency to choke.

WidowWadman Fri 09-Sep-11 18:52:26
"I'm a bit puzzled by the thing with the SN only having become apparent later in life - surely that means that until then you have regarded your child as not having special needs, and accordingly would have treated it like a child with no apparent special needs."

This won't necessarily be the case. Many parents will be in the same situation as myself- desperately trying to treat our dcs in a non-SN way and wondering why it doesn't work, and getting judged by friends and family when we adapted our parenting to what we knew our dcs were actually capable of. It took dd 8 years to be diagnosed. That was 8 years for me to feel guilty over my over-protective parenting- but I still couldn't get away with treating dd like any other child (she had a tendency to end up in hospital when I tried it).

I can remember two other sets of parents who seemed to me to be parenting in an oddly protective way- the dcs of both sets later were diagnosed autistic. The parents hadn't known- but they still had to adapt the parenting to the dc they actually had.

I learned to cycle in the eighties and never had them. Balance bikes weren't available then, but are becoming more and more popular these days - with these kids learn to balance while building up speed through walking. Once they mastered that and reached a height tall enough for a pedal bike they don't need stabilisers, and in fact they would make it more difficult for them, especially round corners.

cory - thanks for the clarification. That makes sense.

I learnt to ride my bike in the 70s and everyone I knew had them. Dd1 took hers off a few months ago, and was riding her bike (and trying to do stunt jumps off ramps!) by the end of the day.

I read a thread on here where someone suggested unscrewing the pedals so the same principle I suppose but my point remains the same - safety for kids is a progression - if you start out with stabilisers/a balance bike you won't have stabilisers/a balance bike when you're 14. Equally keeping choking hazards away from young babies who don't understand the danger of putting them in their mouth alongside having more of a tendency to mouth everything isn't going to stunt them in any way - it's just sensible imo.

There are neurological and genetic disorders where children can progress through all their developmental stages like walking, talking only to later start regressing, so loose the ability to walk or talk or sometime both. Other children develope to a certain level but then fail to progress

Someone else might be able to explain it better than me

I am not a fan of overprotectiveness (or helicoptering in general), but I do think you need to carefully judge when you are trying to be laize fair (sp) or a bit daft.

Personally I think letting a baby chew an elastic band (or a balloon as another person said) is a possible choking hazard and best avoided.

You will find that as she grows she will want to do things and you will need to say no or you are setting yourself up for a hard time.

You are say she is 'exploring' I say she has wanted to play with something and you have gone 'ok then'. DCs need to learn boundaries.

Also I think it is not always about whether it is safe or not but whether you want to baby/child thinking that object is a plaything eg keys, rubber bands etc (unless you want a toddler demanding to 'play' with your keys in a few months).

Lastly you simply CANNOT 'Trust' a baby to explore, they no nothing of the world and the dangers that certain items may present.

But don't worry if you are fairly laid back then your child will have plenty of opportunity to explore and learn, but don't rush it.

Just to clarify, I didn't let DD play with the elastic band in a sadistic "it'll hurt and that'll learn you" kind of way. She was just so fascinated by it, twiddling it between her fingers and feeling the way it behaved that I didn't want to take it away. She has masses of baby-safe, baby-specific toys but it is always the real life objects that fascinate her the most.

A while back we were staying with friends in the country and I gave her an ear of wheat to look at. City-slicker that she is she had never seen such a thing and it captured her for ages. She didn't put it in her mouth though - one go and she realised that it was a bit pointy and not nice - but she spent the longest time separating all the individual grains of wheat from the chaff. (And no, I don't consider those choking hazards as v small and as BLW can deal with similar things in her mouth at meal times.)

Compare that to her v-tech Little Singing Alfie "educational" toy which interests her for maybe 2 minutes at a time. I don't know what she was learning from the wheat (or the laccy band) but her face said that she was learning something!

doitnicelyplease - good advice about not wanting child to think all your things are play things all the time, but I don't do this. There are a hundred examples of times where she has wanted to play with something inappropriate and I've said no. She often has a mini-strop on these occassions but that is no reason to give it back. The point is that sometimes you say no, but not all the time or you end up a miserable "put it back, don't touch that, stand over hear, be careful!" kind of Mum.

Which is a point - how many of us (as children and adults) have been given very sensible advice "don't do that it will hurt" and we still went ahead and did it anyway because we wanted to find out for ourselves?

When I say I "trust" her to explore, I don't mean I trust her to explore within sensible boundries of safety on her own. That is ridiculous - she is a baby. I mean I trust her to be robust enough to withstand the tiny mishaps of life like a laccy band in the face (or getting wet in the rain, or falling over).

But FFS that doesn't mean I'm going to let her to run with scissors. Jeeze, some people!

MABS - I haven't said anything about children with SN as that isn't something I have any personal experience of. I think you are confusing me with someone else. Perhaps you could apologise for hoping that I am strangled?

mmm... see, I would have let her have the rubber band to fiddle with but under supervision, so she didn't chew it up or ping it in her face.

I'm pretty relaxed about risk, I let 3.5yo DS climb up into his bike seat for instance (so scaling a bicycle is fine), but I'm right there to catch him if he slips. I was even blase about him cutting most his hair off with scissors the other day. But he's 3yo and they use scissors at nursery (Montessori). I agree that OP's DD is simply too young to really learn any risks yet.

Something about the "My child won't choke because she's used to BLW" comment makes you sound quite smug and inexperienced, OP.

I think the trouble is that you make it sound a bit all or nothing. Just because I would take the approach that an elastic band is not a good thing to play with because of the choking risk (whether I am supervising or not, I would want to teach dcs that they are not great things to play with, until they are older and not shoving everything in their mouth), does not mmean I don't let them explore objects from the natural world,or let them ride their bikes now they are older.

I can't remember whether you said it elsewhere, but how old is your dd?

OP, YANBU
You are following the experiential learning school of thought.
It's how we learn- by doing.

OP I have let my DD play with a rubber band under close supervision. She tried to put it in her mouth, I said no, she tried again, realised it didn't taste very nice and didn't try to chew it again. If she had I would have taken it away.

I am shocked at all the inferences of 'stealth smugness' from the OP. She was just asking a question. Why do people have to read so much more into things than what is there?

Anyway YANBU OP.

Thanks.

Funny, I thought it wasn't a fight club.

Hey ho!

With regards to the stabilisers on a bike, they should be adjusted so they don't both touch the ground at the same time, so at most there are 3 wheels on the ground not 4! Having seen many children start young with stabilisers on the ground and struggle to progress to balancing, this doesn't seem to help the child.

I 100% agree with OP, she sounds totally reasonable in what she let her child explore and what is not allowed. As someone else pointed out, children learn by doing. Why do you think play groups put the pinecones in the treasure basket in the first place?

We go to a group called sensory explorers which is run by surestart and they really encourage babies/children to learn by playing with things like that. They also use coloured sand, shredded paper, alcohol free foam and all sorts of things. I cant see any harm in anything like this as long as there is close supervision of said child. It's one of the best forms of learning for any age.

OP you are not BU and I cant see any smugness in your posts either. You sound very sensible :)

Balance bike/ bike with stabilizers? Seems like it's a case of chicken and egg to me. All kids learn to ride eventually and both are a means to an end and both seem to have different advantages. You can go much faster with stabilizers and keep up with older siblings to some extent and are learning to pedal and use the breaks as well. With a balance bike you can learn to balance first. It depends on the child's age as well- we got a bike with stabilizers for dd when she was 4 as she already could pedal with a trike and if we had bought a balance bike at this age she wouldn't have found it half as much fun whizzing round the park, and we would have had to buy a new bike within a few months with pedals (although I suppose we could have taken the pedals off her bike- but she would have been very unhappy with this).

I don't think this was being over-protective. She could ride without the sabilizers within a year.

As above- fine line, has o be constantly " risk asessed" at every age. Sometime you need to hurt yourself a bit to learn what happens.

The rubber band and a baby that puts things in her mouth- totally no no I'm afraid- not cos they ping but choking hazard. Same baby waving and banging metal cutlery for instance- I'd let them have a spoon - yes they might bang themselves and it'd hurt but mostly it can be mouthed etc ( if cho,ping I'd swap it for a plastic one maybe) but generally ok and interesting to explore/ use. Fork- no way- too easy o poke self in eye/ mouth and do damage that matter.

Re the lady with a 5 yr old walking/ playing behind her on the way home from school- please please don't!!
Not because I feel you are wrong about wall walking etc- fall risk/ challenging self is entirely appropriate at 5 BUT as driver it makes me terrified- I dont know how road reliable your child is and they won't see a mate or a cat ir just dash into the road anyway. Carry on as you are but with him in front please!!

( I also hate kids scooting way behind/ in front of parent by the side of the road- like unguided missiles )

Balance bike you can start at around 2 - as soon as they get tall enough and they can go freakishly fast. Getting the first one at 4 would be very late - a child would have progressed to a normal stabiliser-free bike by then already But that's another thread, right about the means to an end thing though.

I think the BLW comment by the way hits the nail on the head and has nothing to do with smugness. Parents not used to BLW have often a very different perception of what is a choking hazard/how choking and gagging works. This is not to say that I would let chew my children on coins, I wouldn't.

However I'm aware that in an upright sitting baby the risk of it choking on a piece of grain (or a rubberband) is very very remote as it probably would trigger the gag reflex before it got anywhere near her windpipe. Obviously there still must be an adult supervising this so they can help if needs be.

Bunny...... actually my 2 year old can go much faster on his balance bike than either dd on her big bike without stabilisers or ds2 on his stabilisers. He zooms along with his feet up and swerves like a pro. dd only had her stabilisers off at 6 as she couldn't manage it any of the times we tried before then and it was a torturous process involving stitches to the head and a concussion. ds2 is 5 and manages to fall over on his bike with stabilisers

I just wish I'd gotten balance bikes for all of them.

As for the BLW comment.... having seen the pure terror on people's faces watching the boys much on solid food as babies I think a lot of people really don't give young babies enough credit for having the awareness to properly judge what can be swallowed and what can't. BLW babies don't choke, they gag and bring stuff back up but they do have very good awareness of food and small edible things like wheat grains would pose no threat.

As for the earlier hysteria.... I have two SN kids and didn't read the 'unspecialneedsy' comment as intentional nastiness, just as someone struggling to find the right word. If I didn't use MN so much I wouldn't be aware of the term NT either. Some of the following dialogue both from SN parents and others was very uncomfortable reading though.