not to have a plan about baby crying..

[stella1w]

He's seven months.. cries a bit before naps, but goes off quite quickly. At night, another story.. down at 7.30pm, forty mins later awake, I settle him, down for 30 mins, awake.. He's been crying now for about forty mins. Not loudly, just kind of grizzling, but it doesn't sound like he's getting any sleepier.. Usually I would just go in and lie down with him to get him to go back to sleep but if I do that now, I won't get up again for the evening and I am fed up with going to be so early with the house in chaos. I'm not in favour of cry it out, but at a practical level, I don't think I can carry on like this every evening.

"I dont get the whole give your kid calpol for every darn thing because simply they dont need it."

But to turn that around, why not give a kid calpol when in pain - do they need pain, either? And FWIW the more pain people feel, the more sensitised they are to it. You aren't toughening someone up by exposure, you're actually doing the opposite. So why? I agree calpol for comfort is daft. It's not a placebo. But for pain... that's what it's for, no? Why allow needless pain for small kids when you can alleviate it - to what purpose? Do you stoically endure headaches/cold showers yourself? Because personally, I'm not a big fan of discomfort without a purpose.

And Seeker sorry, but you are taking attachment parenting as a religion, not a method. A baby grumbling and grizzling for 40 mins is not a baby sobbing. No, I'd not leave them either, but plenty do unless the child is distressed, and I can't say that's wrong as the ones I know with that approach are excellent, loving parents. And as this mother has asked for help and clearly stated she doesn't usually do this in her OP, it's plain she is exhausted and fed up. That being so, can you dial the judgeyness down to a dull roar? Please? I promise you, being left on a couple of occasions to grumble crossly is not going to make a baby assume nobody in this universe loves them, nor that they don't matter. And if you want to persuade people of your perspective, perhaps less obviously overblown claims and a little empathy might help? As it is, you seem incredibly aggressive and unsympathetic to parental struggles, and therefore not the best person to be preaching the values of responsive warmth and empathy.

And I can't see much daylight between your melodramatic claims and coraltoes' straw man "you'll spoil them and ruin your marriage!" arguments. Both of you seem to have had a common sense bypass, and you do in fact sound remarkably similar in your aggressive inability to accept that good parenting may vary.

perfectstorm I agree with the pain relief. If they are in pain/discomfort, it will help, if not then it won't hurt - give it, it is kind, its not as though they can go and get their own. They are entirely dependant on us, I think its mean not to give them pain relief if it is available.

Calpol won't have a placebo effect on a 7 month old.

Rosie So you wouldn't actually say discomfort is good in itself? I wondered if I was missing something.

The OP doesnt say the child is in pain, the child is meerly grizzly. If the child is in alot of pain and feverish then sure give them calpol. But the OP isnt saying her child isnt sleeping due to teething. I personally dont think children need it for every thing.

And no if i have a headache i dont grab for the painkillers. For me they are always a last resort.

Leaving a 7mo for 40 minutes seems excessive to me but only the OP actually knows if the child is in pain and in need. Its very hard on a forum to establish what is actually happening and all people can do is give opinions.

My opinion is unless OP child is in pain and needs calpol then its not a good method of getting rid of a child that is grizzly.

OP I totally feel your pain, DS has gone through some really really bad sleeping stages. I bought the "No Cry Sleep Solution" and found it really useful as it gave lots of different ideas and techniques that you can use to help the baby sleep, rather than a one size fits all do this and your baby will sleep approach. I read it formulated a plan of action and although things didn't get better over night they definitely improved fairly quickly.

Regarding the grizzingly, you know best whether it was a "Mummy I need you come here" or a "I'm a bit uncontent and I'm going to have a moan" noise. In my experience if DS wants something he lets me know in no uncertain terms. So whilst I could never let DS CIO, I do let him "whimper it out", which is when he half wakes up, has a little whinge and then eventually resettles, when he was younger these are the kind of noises I would have immediately jumped to but now going to him does more harm than good, as he ends up waking up properly and then taking an hour or so to resettle.

OP, if I am not sure, I pick them up and give them a cuddle, if the crying stops, it is unlikely to be pain/discomfort.

Sorry if this sounds obvious, just trying to help because it is hard to think straight when you are stressed out

"Calpol won't have a placebo effect on a 7 month old."

But the parental belief that they are helping the child, and subsequent relaxation, may, no?

rosie1977 I wouldn't call alleviating pain "getting rid of" a child, I would call it addressing their needs.

perfectstorm

No, because if it has no effect, there will be no relaxation for the parent.

But the child may pick up on the parent's relaxing due to an expectation that they've helped the child. The treatments for colic don't work either, nor does homeopathy in animals, yet colicky babies can sometimes improve when dosed (I would imagine because their parents' expectation of that improvement makes them relax after dosing) and I understand that animals and homeopathy works similarly. Though of course reversion to the mean may be responsible, but still. It's a theory I've heard advanced before now.

Or more simply, a baby in distress will pick up on the misery and irritation of a tired and overwhelmed parent, and if the parent relaxes after dosing their child with something, the child may then too.

err......na !

If a baby is in pain, it isn't going to improve because the parent looks a bit smug. It will improve if the pain goes away.

I personally would not relax until the baby appeared comfort, and the source of its distress had gone.

*comfortable

I have made no melodramatic claims. And I am not alone in my view that it is actually wrong to leave q 7 month old baby to cry for 45 minutes. Not par ting style, not a mqttmof opinion- just plain wrong.

Depends on the degree of pain, surely? I kiss my son's slight bumps better and he's instantly convinced they're all gone. In labour, people faffing around me (just bustling about, not touching me) made the contractions rocket in intensity, because I got agitated. I don't agree that nothing non-physical has any effect, tbh, though I also totally agree that a baby in any true degree of pain will only respond to analgesia.

Seeker, you may want to google "straw man" because I've not said a baby should be left to cry for 40 mins, and nor has anyone else. Light grizzling, stopping and starting over that length of time is not "crying for 40 mins". You're phrasing it as if it were sustained sobs. If you continually need to recast the question in order to plausibly sustain your position, perhaps you need to reconsider your position? What's been described is light grumbling off and on over that timeframe, and while I'd respond at once because I'm a paid-up Why Love Matters type mum, I'm also aware that this is not the One True Way to parent. We none of us have all the answers, and anyone who thinks they do is deluded.

"What sort of message is that sending him about his place in the world, his value and how people feel qbout him?" Utter hyperbole in the context of this thread. Being allowed to grumble on and off for that time is unlikely to seed deep-rooted hopelessness in a generally very well loved and responded to child. If it did, there would be a huge number of deeply damaged kids wandering around in otherwise happy households. I ain't seeing 'em. I think all types of parents tend to screw up, but the kind who worry enough to post on places like this in the way this mother has aren't ones I would personally be angsting about.

J'know what? Why don't we just parent our DC in the way we see fit and let others do the same? I mean, really why not? The folk who are happy to lay with their DC until they sleep - fine. Those who leave their DC to grizzle or even cry - fine. No one is abusing their child here, we just have different methods is all.

Anyhoo, carry on your bunfight, don't mind me...............

I notice the OP hasn't been back. OP, if you're still reading, I hope you and DD are okay.

"J'know what? Why don't we just parent our DC in the way we see fit and let others do the same? I mean, really why not? The folk who are happy to lay with their DC until they sleep - fine. Those who leave their DC to grizzle or even cry - fine. No one is abusing their child here, we just have different methods is all."

You know that's blasphemy, right? ;)

perfect O'course I do. The voice of reason on a CC v hippyparenting is rarely welcome. Do you know how much harm you can do leaving you child to be unhappy for one minute can do? I personally have returned them to the uterus until they are old enough to decide not to cry. Tis a bit crowded with a 2 and 6 yo I can tell thee

No, it's okay, as long as you're still bf them at 9 and NEVER ALLOWED A DROP OF PUREE PAST THEIR LIPS they'll recover eventually.* (Though you may need to remortgage to fund the cranial osteopathy.)

• All bets off if you had an elective section, natch.

actually I had two VB's. Mind you I did FF from 4 weeks, do CC and generally beat them, so............

Oh and I am still feeding the whole family on my Annabel Carmel puree's. DH isn't so keen, but if I leave him to cry for a few hours, tis fine

Well, he does need to learn that the whole family doesn't revolve around his needs. And there is NO EVIDENCE that ff isn't as good as bf. And people bf their babies after 6 months are only doing it for themselves, anyway. (Though feeding solids earlier than 6 months mean your child will instantly explode, leaving debris all over the carpet. Studies prove it.)

(I think I'll avoid Armageddon mention of nursery care for the under-ones.)

To quote the op "he's been crying now for 40 minutes"