Aibu to think that attachment/ gentle/ natural parents minimise how dangerous sleep deprivation is

[ScrumpyBetty]

I have thought about writing this post for a while, and I want to write it in a respectful way, this is in no way about 'bashing' anyone for the parenting choices that they identify with or choose to make,

If you are an AP and you co- sleep, breastfeed on demand, choose gentle sleep training- I think brilliant! You are very lucky and well done for making it work for you.

When I was an anxious new mother, I identified very much with some of the things I read on AP websites and wanted to AP.
However after 18 months of waking up every night 6 or more times, I was at breaking point. Seriously sleep deprived, crying every day, anxious, depressed- I could go on. I reached out to the AP community for help and advice and was told to continue to use gentle sleep training methods such as the No Cry Sleep Solution, continue to Wait It Out, and definitely not to do controlled crying or CIO. But by this point we had been using the NO Cry Sleep Solution for months, gentle methods were not working!
I read loads of stuff on AP blogs and was given advice such as: let the housework slide and sleep when your baby sleeps! Try yoga or meditation to relax a bit more! Etc. loads of articles warned me about the perils of sleep training.

Eventually we did do controlled crying, and it wasn't that brutal, it was 3 nights of leaving DS to cry for no more than 5 mins at a time. He was 18 months and it was the best thing we ever did. I cannot stress how much of a better mum I am now that I am getting regular sleep!

I know I will be told I was silly to listen to AP advice when it quite clearly wasn't working for me, but I know loads of new mums who do AP and who do treat it like gospel, and who think that controlled crying is abhorrent.
I think that sleep deprivation is abhorrent, and if I hadn't done CC I may well have had a nervous breakdown, so what good would all that gentle parenting do then?
AIBu to think that AP/ natural parenting etc websites minimise the dangers of sleep deprivation- which are depression, mood swings, memory loss, a whole host of health problems? I agree that sleep training methods such as CC should be a last resort but if they need to be used then they need to be used surely?

But it might be communicating a need for sleep - and they most easily be able to achieve sleep by being left alone. My DS was not at all like that, my DD very much so.

My point is just that it is overly emotive to compare leaving an adult to cry and a baby.

As an example, if either of my DC's cry, my DM's instinct is to gee them up by trying to distract, make them laugh etc. Sometimes the kindest thing to do is to ignore them, they are really tired and the best thing for them is to just fall asleep which they can't do if someone is trying to 'make them happy'.

I was unable to comment again last night as whenever I clicked in the 'enter comment' box I was taken to an advertising site- did anyone else have this?!

Manatee, I'm confused by your statement that the only thing relevant in a child's developing attachment style is the parents' own attachment style. Where are you getting this from? The reading I have done (on academic websites, not AP blogs!) has stated that a child's attachment style is created by how they are responded to and patented. Obviously the parent's own attachment style will be a large predictor as it will affect how they interact with their baby. But surely a parent with an insecure attachment who consciously parents their child in a responsive, loving way, is not inevitably going to raise a child with an insecure attachment?

I have never read anything to suggest that a child who is generally loved and responded to will grow up insecurely attached due to a few occasions of crying or having unmet needs btw- it is the overall parenting that matters. This is what the articles I have read describe- children developing insecure attachment due to consistently distant parenting fir example example, or a child's needs consistently being ignored, certainly not a loving parent staging a sleep intervention at 18 months when their child understands that mum is next door. Unfortunately some Very AP parents get so caught up in it that they fear their child ever crying or having a briefly unmet need/ want. I don't think this is sensible application of Attachment Theory. However I don't think the baby should be thrown out with the bath water.

Several pp have said that their baby needed a few mins alone to wind down to sleep, rather than being cuddled. In that case you are being a responsive parent by recognising this and doing this. Responsive parenting doesn't mean smothering your child with cuddles when it overwhelms them! It means recognising what your child is communicating and needs and, where possible, doing this.

I totally agree with you, OP.

When I hear about people who are spending their days in a fog of sleep deprivation, I wonder about the safety of them getting behind the wheel of a car with their child in the back set.

My elder child is almost 16 and there were plenty of child rearing books and theories about then (also based mostly on the opinions of not particlulary well informed advocates). In fact I remember my sister reading about co-sleeping and demand led feeding etc when her eldest was born, which was more than 20 years ago. No internet of course, but still baby groups and plenty of opinions thrown at mothers.

AP concerns me because of it's misuse of the science around attachment theory, making parents believe that they are doing serious harm to their children. You only have to spend some time on the adoption threads to discover what real attachment issues are and it results from significant neglect or abuse. I think it is very unhelpful to conflate a few minutes crying with neglect.

If AP was right then the majority of my generation would be seriously damaged from widespread practices like being left in the garden in prams for afternoon naps despite or even because of the opportunity for 'a good cry'. I'm not advocating that particularly but there seems to be a huge amount of hyperbole associated with AP, and that is problematic if people believe it.

We all need to be careful about talking about what worked for us as if it should work for everyone else. Most of us realise this when we have baby number two! For me for example co-sleeping meant no-sleeping. Feeding in bed meant milk all over the bed. This was consistently true for both children as it was to do with me. On the other hand with ds self settling meant he was asleep in minutes (sometimes involving a bit of crying) from a few months, whereas dd had to be jiggled to sleep for many months. ds is independent, dd is very people orientated and their characters made a difference from day one. Plus of course I was different and parenting a baby with a toddler around is different too.

It's not just babies who are different. I didn't sleep as deeply when I co-slept but I was half or three quarters asleep all night and I much preferred this to being woken from a deep sleep by my baby crying - that was what nearly tipped me over the edge.

I guess everyone is different - who knew!

Incidentally, he's 16 now and no he's not still wanting to come in with us! I consider myself lucky when he sits on the settee with me.

Fortunately there were books to advise us on safety issues but no chat forums to tell us what a dreadful mistake we were making. Let people be.

I was a Continuum Concept parent myself. Shows how old I am!

Nooka YY to the mis use of words like neglect, abuse and attachment. I actually feel people who misuse these without understanding, to bully others online, are doing something slightly immoral.

And I'm a Co sleeping, carrying, breastfeeding yoga type mum.

But I've worked with real neglect. Controlled crying ain't that! I just prefer not to do cc with my child. I won't add spurious claims or guilt for others to that.

I ended up co-sleeping out of sheer desperation, because I was so sleep deprived, not in spite of it. DD was a terrible sleeper - she would wake up and cry hourly, or sometimes as often as every 20 minutes. My mental health was definitely starting to suffer, as was my marriage, and I got to the point where I wouldn't drive during the day as I didn't trust myself to do it safely - pretty isolating if you live in a rural area as we then did. However, I knew that I definitely wouldn't do controlled crying because I believe that it is potentially damaging to the child - I'm not criticising anyone else who does it, as I understand how people are pushed to it, but I wouldn't have wanted it for my child, and I don't think it would have worked on her anyway.

Co-sleeping was the only thing that actually helped in the end, and I'm so glad that I did it. Just wish I'd done it sooner!

Co sleeping is generally quite safe except when you are very very exhausted and at risk of a dead sleep. On mn people seem to say mums have a 6th sense and this doesn't happen.

I'm a Co sleeper and long term insomniac. I use a sleepyhead on the bed (I kind of curl round it) when extremely tired.

I find it odd that people think it's always risky or always safe.

Totally agree, OP.

Good for anyone who wants to be up 6 times a night so their baby doesn't cry. Not for me. I was getting depressed and anxious and a horrible mother during the day.

At 10 months I did sleep training but over a two week period so it was gentle but he did have to cry for a little bit. He's 2 now and has slept well ever since.

I think PP points about some babies having a cry/whinge as they settle to sleep and recognising that as something they will do and that they settle best that way are true. I still mainly feed 8 month old DS to sleep or rock after ges finished his milk, but some nights he will still cry until I pop him in the cot, where he instantly flings his arms out and sleeps, as if to say 'thank god you've stopped bothering me!' Also my DS cries as he goes to sleep for every nap and that's being held/rocked/sleeping on me. That's his way. But I used to get him terribly overtired as I assumed by trying to get him to sleep and him being 'so distressed' (now I look back and it wasn't dangerous distress, just some pre nap bellowing) I was being horrible to him. But it was worse to not do it. now he's better but he always has a minute or so of kicking and shouting before sleep. Regardless of whether he's being snuggled by his living parents or in his cot. The first time he had a full on, tears streaming, red faced sobbing cry at the fact he's dropped his blue cube in the floor from the highchair was when I finally became comfortable with the fact that babies will cry, and the volume/length of it does not equate to the level of distress! I used to be terrified of him crying, now I recognise communication cry 'I want that' and emotion cry 'oh my god, blue cube is gone' and just unavoidable cry 'I'm so sleepy but look at that light there oh my god I'm so sleepy'. Any parenting method that says that any crying is abuse or will cause major trauma is only going to create terribly stressed parents because babies cry. Full stop. And accepting your child cries for a few minutes falling asleep is not the same as leaving them in genuine distress.

Haha 'loving parents' not 'living parents'! We are his only parents!

Surely the point is different babies like different parenting.
DD hated being rocked and was happy to be put in her cot, she did a little happy sigh and dozed off.
DS 1 and 2 liked being held and so co sleeping worked - I didn't get up at all once let alone 6 times !( this was when co sleeping was deemed safer)

Parents need to follow their instincts not apply a parenting style and try to mould their baby into it.

Really OTheHugeManatee - the parent's attachment style is the only thing that effects the child, no other factors?

It's possible that other things might affect a child's attachment style. But I'm talking about what the evidence shows rather than what Dr Sears asserts. The evidence shows that in something like 60% of cases the child's attachment style is predicted by that of its primary caregiver as determined by the Adult Attachment Interview.

( Magenta have a Google around this if you're interested in adult attachment styles. But in brief there is some evidence that an adult with an insecure attachment style can develop a more secure one via psychotherapy. But in answer to your question being introverted has bog all to do with attachment style, which is - crudely speaking - a measure of the extent to which an individual trusts that interactions with other humans will be friendly and positive. And again infant attachment style is a fairly good predictor of adult attachment style but not an absolute determinant as so many other factors come into play.)

The people who go on about how not following certain prescribed rules will automatically condemn a child to a lifetime of insecurity are mistaken on several fronts: 1) that attachment can be significantly affected by a caregiver's conscious behaviour (there is no evidence for this) 2) that attachment is deterministic and set for life during infancy (it's strongly affected by it but there are many other factors that can contribute and 3) that insecure attachment is even that bad.

This last one also doesn't get emphasised nearly enough. Insecure attachment styles as described by Bowlby are still well within the normal distribution of functioning human interaction. They're what a shrink might call 'averagely neurotic'. Around half the population has an insecure attachment style and most function perfectly fine. The studies on infant neglect refer not to insecure attachment but to disorganised (chaotic) attachment, which is severe disturbance resulting from frightened or frightening caregiving. Abuse, neglect etc. But the popular version of attachment conflates insecure (neurotic but adaptive and functioning) attachment with the disorganised result of severe abuse, and then misapplies these conclusions to frighten mothers into thinking that transmitting normal levels of neurosis (something parents inevitably do to their children) will result in severe disturbance and a chronically screwed-up child.

This is then used as a stick to beat mothers, and for all the talk of attachment parenting in practice all this really does seem to be mostly aimed at mothers. I think it's no coincidence that it's grown more prevalent as increasing numbers of mothers go out to work. But that's probably another thread

I seriously need to keep off sleep threads, but I'm inextricably drawn to them.

There are two pervading assumptions on this thread that SHIT me.

1. Controlled crying is fail safe.

I also used CC and, yes, CIO, on DS1 more than once after all gentle options had been completely, completely exhausted. I used them consistently. I used them rigidly. They did not work in three nights. They did not work in one week. They did not work in three weeks. They did not work at all. In fact, I ended up with a clingier, worse sleeper than I ever had before, who wouldn't even go into his room. So I had to co-sleep and deal with 10+ wake-ups a night until he was almost two. I was nearly suicidal when DS2 turned out exactly the same way. I'm working with the same sleep consultant as Fraturcula upthread. He's gone from 10 wake-ups a night to about six (he's eight months old, so still a phenomenally shit sleeper by anyone's standards). My children are just not programmed to sleep.

1. People who have children who wake multiple times in the night 'don't mind' and 'can cope', like they have a choice in the matter.

I mind. I really, really fucking mind that I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've had more than three hours of unbroken sleep in three years. I'm mentally and physically shot. I have to work full time and do a 90 minute daily commute on this. But I have no choice. I can't afford to reduce hours or take a longer maternity leave. Whether my children sleep is not a parenting choice. Some may have it. I do not.

I haven't read the whole thread so apologies if I'm repeating.

I have dabbled with some AP aspects of parenting, as I have various other 'practices', and did a fair bit of reading around the subject. What seems to have got lost, IMO, is that AP parenting is about a whole community and not just mum and/or dad. Somehow it seems to me that it has slowly been transformed into a being attached to mum 24/7.

For us, it was about establishing strong bonds with us parents and wider relatives so that we could get a break from parenting when we needed/wanted it. And, yes, sometimes we needed a break. Thankfully we had my PILs, a couple of good friends, my sister and my mother who could do that for us and we could leave them with someone we were confident would provide them with the love and care they deserved. Sometimes it was the opportunity for an afternoon nap to catch up on sleep, sometimes it was an overnight stay or longer. In their younger days we mostly used it to catch up on sleep as, like you OP, we recognised that we were not functioning at our best but we didn't have to put ourselves, nor our children, through it.

So, overall I don't think the advice per say is wrong but that the interpretation has become skewered and puts an enormous amount of pressure on 1-2 people when that net could be cast wider.

Gatehouse YY to this! I have wanted my DS to have a strong bond with his grandparents since birth so they have had the opportunity to look after him on many occasions. He's part of a wider family and also he has two parents who should take as equal a share in his care as is possible. Which to me means DH can do an overnight with him (he's still in our room) while I sleep in the spare room. Or when grandparents visit they have him for the day and we pop out for a meal and some couple time. He's happy and loved by many, we are happier and rested parents, grandparents feel included and have a bond that comes from caring for him as a baby. He's attached to all of us.

Manatee, I'm confused by your statement that the only thing relevant in a child's developing attachment style is the parents' own attachment style. Where are you getting this from? The reading I have done (on academic websites, not AP blogs!) has stated that a child's attachment style is created by how they are responded to and patented. Obviously the parent's own attachment style will be a large predictor as it will affect how they interact with their baby. But surely a parent with an insecure attachment who consciously parents their child in a responsive, loving way, is not inevitably going to raise a child with an insecure attachment?

It's probably overstating matters to say the ONLY thing that affects a child's attachment style is that of its parents. But there is evidence to show that a child's attachment style is strongly predicted by that of its parents. The fact that it's predictive rather than deterministic shows that there could be innumerable other factors involved. So I'm not saying it's impossible that, say, an avoidant parent could raise a secure child. But I'm saying there is no evidence (that I am aware of - if you know of some please pass it on as I'm very interested in the topic) that a parent's conscious intention WRT attachment has any impact on the child's resulting attachment style.

I emphasise the child:parent attachment transmission, and the fact that this is unconscious, and based on billions of micro-interactions throughout the relationship, because I think part of what's going on in this discussion is that parents vastly overestimate their ability consciously to influence how their child turns out. So much of what's transmitted happens unthinkingly. This is a pretty obvious point but I think doesn't get stated enough, again: it's not just what you do when you're making an effort to be a 'good parent' that counts, it's also the interactions you have with your child when you're at the end of your tether and just doing what needs to be done for everyone to survive. Those count too, and arguably contain more attachment-related micro-lessons for a child than the behaviour of a parent when they are consciously in control of their own behaviour.

So people hugely overestimate the extent to which they can exert conscious control over their own behaviour and hence over their child's development in relation to that behaviour. This is true in all kinds of contexts, not just AP. But I think when it comes to AP it can have particularly pernicious effects, as it threatens such dire emotional damage and asks for such extreme maternal self-sacrifice in order to ward off this peril. The OP is a perfect example of how this narrative can be heard and the damage it can do to mothers. And again, I think it's no coincidence that this discourse has emerged at exactly the point when increasing numbers of mothers work outside the home.

Gate yes I've been given the side eye before for saying "attachment PARENTING Not mummy ing". Part of me then does wonder how child centred it is, as sometimes it can become almost possessive.
My dh is down with wearing baby, feeding on demand etc etc. Mini Squizita isn't bothered if I'm out as she's getting all that from a parent still.

Earlier on the thread someone mentioned it setting back feminism. Actually, I see it as a cry out to men to change the work culture. In a perfect world we might have a culture where instead of 1 parent working all hours, both worked part time - children have shared parental care ... shared role models. Will that ever happen? I don't know. I know some parents who do it.

That also puts pay to the "clingy" stereotype (which is often banded about incorrectly). Even with just mum babies are not more likely to be clingy... but baby who has had hands approaches from mum, dad, grandparents and friends will grow in confidence.

Oh, and our eldest didn't regularly sleep through the night until he was 10.5 years old!

We, honestly, tried everything.
Co-sleeping with different combinations.
CC.
No Cry Sleep Solution.
Jiggling daytime naps.
Jiggling bedtimes.
Changing food habits.
Offering a drink, not offering a drink.
Etc...

As a baby/young child we had issues with asthma, eczema, night terrors and nightmares. Sorted out the asthma/eczema for the most part, however, we couldn't do much about the night terrors/mares. We gave him scenarios at bedtime to think about - ideal holiday, him as a superhero, etc. to help him but it really came down to him being old enough to have more control over his thoughts. He just couldn't switch his brain off (DH is similar and also has problems at times). In the end we just had to wait till he was ready and he was half way through Y6.

I don't believe it had anything to do with our parenting style but more to do with the way his brain is wired. He is an exceptionally able child and I think the two are not mutually exclusive..

It's not a choice of either co-sleeping or controlled crying - there is a lot of space in between.

In my experience the seventh tool of attachment parenting as described on the Ask Dr Sears site, balance is often neglected. It says ' In your zeal to give so much to your baby it is easy to neglect the needs of yourself and your marriage.'

I think this is true for a lot of parents whether following a particular style of parenting or not. There is IMO no shame in putting yourself first sometimes.
I've seen some truly bizarre behaviour in the name of AP, and seen it making the parents and the children miserable.
I've also met parents trying to follow more routine based theory who also do bizarre things and are equally miserable because it doesn't suit their child.
Parenting isn't supposed to be like that. If everyone is struggling it's surely a sign that something needs to change.

I think it's fine to say AP didn't work for you, but calling it dangerous is a bit OTT. You were sleep deprived and depressed from the sounds of things. I'm glad that you're better now but pinning the blame on to some strangers in an Internet forum isn't really fair. They advocate a certain way of doing things and it sounds like you basically wanted their approval to try other methods, but they didnt have experience in those methods so why would they? You don't have to follow a 'style' to the letter, just do what works for you.

Remember all these guides are based on someone else's experience. They are guides, not rules. You don't have to follow everything they say - you won't get kicked out the club for not obeying orders.

I've purposely tried to avoid attaching a label to my raising of dd. She is 8 months old and is bf on demand, partially co-sleeps, pushed in a pram, she eats a mixture of puréed food and proper solid foods. She's recently moved bedtimes from 11pm to 8pm, (hooray!) we tried a load of methods to get her there as I needed some alone time. I'm a parent not a parenting style. Do what works for you and let others do what works for them. Take advice and guides as what they are, and have a bit more confidence in your self.

Had never heard of AP etc when DD1 was a baby...
I had to go back to work FT when she was 3 months old - she was a difficult baby (now diagnosed as ADHD), she didn't sleep.
I tried to get up and sit and feed her etc in the night - ended up falling asleep in the chair (lucky she didn't roll off my knee). So I started co-sleeping, she helped herself breastfeeding whilst I slept. We both got some decent sleep. I was told I was making a rod for my own back etc.
She did end up on formula in the day cos I was a bit rubbish at expressing...but she still bf in the evening/night. She stopped bf altogether when she was 18mths.

DD2 arriving when she was 6 was the only thing that stopped her coming into our bed nearly every night. But then I'm lucky -it didn't disturb me or DP. (And I know this isn't true for all parents.)

For DD2 (then I was SAH) I read that cosleeping was dangerous - I battled trying to get her to sleep in her cot/off me...it made my (and her) life miserable. I gave up, we coslept (she stopped bf at 2 yo) and now at 8 she will come and sneak into our bed most nights ...but I'm sure she won't be doing it at 25 !!!
I think the long and short of it is just do what works for you and your family in your circumstances, forget the labels, try different things -just do the best you can - that's all you can do.