To think you can't tell an 11 month old off?

[moita]

Longtime lurker, first time poster. More than happy to be told YABU as tiredness may have tipped me over the edge.

My just turned 11 month old is a happy, sociable boy but he has a habit of shouting/screaming: mostly this is when he's overtired and needs a nap.

He started doing this over Christmas dinner. I knew it was from overstimulation/excitment. I've tried to keep to his routine over Christmas but things like having lunch later and having people over/new toys have thrown him out.

FIL objected to his shouting - leaned over the table to DS and started calling him a bad baby and bad DS's name. MIL objected but he argued he needs to learn.

I was a bit and tried to explain that DS has no other way to communicate, hence his frustration.

I ended up putting DS down for a nap and he was back to his normal cheerful self after that.

I haven't spoken to DH about it yet but AIBU to think FIL was wrong? I blame myself for not napping DS quicker rather than my baby for being tired!

Greenshoots theories weather backed up by actual brainscans and scientific studies sound a bit extreme. Surely by your theory you are basically saying that an 18mo who has not been cared for in the 'correct' manner is a complete sociopathic write off and you may as well either not bother or what? What do you do with an child that hasn't developed properly?
In answer to Op, yanbu fil is a tit and needs to butt out. I would suggest limited contact until child is old enough not to be emotionally damaged by his clumsy attempts at 'discipline'. Also maybe get dh to have a word?

Greenshoots ‘information’ is totally useless. Attachment issues are completely irrelevant here and there is no 18 month window for knowing right and wrong. Obviously

Silver horn - limited contact? Emotionally damaged?
Are you actually serious?

They are fundamentally incapable of 'naughty' behaviour.

Ba ha ha ha.

Just to clarify why I'm laughing. You don't have to know you're being naughty for it to qualify as naughty or undesirable behaviour. But that doesn't mean you don't correct it! If you don't correct it, how will they ever know they're being naughty.

Itschristmoose, it will cause emotional damage apparently
We are doing our children no favours at all.

See, that's just a definition issue. I think you do have to know you're being naughty for it to qualify as naughty.

I am sure you are highly trained. As are the consultant neurologists who have carried out my son's cranial ultrasounds and MRIs and whom I see regularly.
You do realise that a parent saying 'no' is arbitrary. It does not teach right from wrong. Let's say I said a stern 'no' everytime the baby picked up toy A and praised for toy B. That might 'teach' baby to stay away from ToyA but has no bearing on right/wrong/morality.
Had you said the more sensible- children need a framework of guidance set in place early on, that is much more sensible than saying by 18 months they need to know right from wrong.
On paediatric wards there are babies who have never left hospital for the first 18 months of their life. It is hard to 'discipline' such children. Their sensory input in that environment is minimal so what would count as disruptive behaviour in a more 'normal' child is fine for them. Does that mean they are doomed for ever?!

But most importantly, since you are so highly trained where's the EVIDENCE?! In the field that I am an expert on (for what it's worth- refugee movements in the Global South after the Cold War) I wouldn't dare make public assertions without evidence. Just loudly asserting that you are an 'expert' doesn't make you one.

It's perfectly possible to be a fairly stern mum, which I am, with a low bullshit threshold, and still not believe in the stuff you are spouting sans EVIDENCE.

Depends on what you call 'naughty'. So as I said uothread one of the key questions I was asked at our last consultant meeting was a) how's his comprehension? Can he follow simple commands? (Yes he can). b) then on the basis of that when you say 'no' does he momentarily pause and then, for a few weeks they will pause. The next order of development and this is a necessary one is that they will pause at the 'no' and then, while looking at you carry on doing what they were doing.
This is really vital from a neurodevelopment point of view. It shows a depth of reasoning and cognition. (And in our case is obviously reassuring).

Now do you consider the 'pauses while hearing 'no' and carries on doing it' as naughty or as a typical development pattern? They are meant to do it and if it is behaviour you want to discourage you are meant to keep saying 'no', gently and firmly while removing them.
But 'disobedience' or 'naughtiness' is actually in and of itself an important part of brain development.

Luchi - even without being an ‘expert’ you seem to have rightly picked up on the fact that neuro and emotional development are complex areas and we are really only in the foothills of understanding the nuances - brain scans are part of the developing evidence base but they do not provide conclusive answers- even when not interpreted as crudely as they have been on this thread. If you are interested in child development from neurodevelopmental and clinical emotional perspectives I do recommend the book I mentioned above.
I’m sorry to hear about your dc’s experience.
Your dc and you have had a difficult time and this may make them more vulnerable in some ways- but that is not surprising and certaintly doesn’t mean they are past the point of learning or even experiencing. Learning empathy comes predominantly from experiencing it- not from being told about it. Boundaries are obviously important too but going back to op it sounds like fil was struggling as much as ds was- neither were very able to use the thinking parts of their brains and were reactively responding based on emotion. Oh and for what it’s worth I think you handled it well.

Thanks for the recommendation. No I know they are not past the point of learning or empathy (actually he's developmentally bang on track if not ahead so no concerns at present and we might be discharged by his neuro team in the new year) which was my point. That the brain is complex and elastic. And it isn't as if things are set in store by 18 months or whatever. I think I was agreeing with you! (And asking Greenshoots for evidence of her claims which I thought made no sense).

I thought you were agreeing too!
Glad he’s doing so well. And I know this is way off the op but I was also trying to say that little ones who have had complex medical histories can also be traumatised and more at risk of some later difficulties. I’m not saying that to scare you and certainly not saying it’s set in stone! But I do think that there is not enough awareness of this and knowing that doesn’t mean parents have to worry but can help them to be a little bit more understanding of their children and themselves if for example their children are a bit more clingy or anxious etc Not saying he will be!

Yes yes I know. I watch him like a hawk! And DH is a medic as well so I force him to read up on stuff. The long term studies on micro preemies like him are skewed by the fact that till the early 2000s most would have spent a long time on a ventilator whereas he wasn't ever ventilated despite his size (under 1 kg) and gestation. And was given mag sulphate which protects against cerebral palsy. So the newer studies are only just emerging. And some of them suggest that babies like him do catch up by 2/2.5 and then once they are in school and concentration and fine motor skills become key, there is another gap that opens up. Not to say they can't be helped with these but just something to bear in mind etc.
Mine though is the very opposite of anxious and clingy. He's a force of nature and his NICU nurses all remember him as being 'full of life' which was their way of saying he was an utter pain in the neck.

"we are taught that unless a child has an inate sense of right and wrong by 18 months, they have missed the boat and will never have a git feeling for it ever."

I studied behaviour and development at university and have never heard of this, and if this is what the people who work with our children are taught to believe then it it worrying.

By this your saying that if at 18 months the child has no sense of wrong and right and never will????? By that logic, there's no point trying to teach after that age, if it's set in stone. Don't believe it for a second.

Our whole judiciary system is based on rehabilitation and the ability for people to change.

I think with the right approach children and adults at any age can learn.

Luchi- he sounds gorgeous and lucky to have you.

Laura it is worrying but this is just the thoughts of one foster carer...

FarFrom, that's true, worrying there could be more than one though :)

You teach the child to communicate. I think your FIL was BU, but children learn from you.

At that age my DD would have just about got shushing and no. My tow DS's not a fucking chance. My 3 and 5 year olds still scream and look blank when you tell them to be quiet. My 14mo DD does what she's told and responds really well. No rhyme or reason to it really, we've parented them all exactly the same.

I wouldn't care if someone said 'be quiet' or 'shush' or 'NO!' sharply to any of mine, but if some leant into their face and told them they were bad, i'd say we don't say that. As i have done with my parents. No drama tho.

I don't know how old your FIL is but a lot of men in older generations weren't that involved in the day to day work of childcare and were raised that children were seen and not heard. The current thinking of not calling the child bad but the behaviour etc probably doesn't even register for him. I wouldn't take it personally. FIL probably thought he was helping.

As for just uttering a stern 'no' to your tired baby and they instantly comply, hilarious! Lesson learned, keep fed, watered and napped.

Green - it's Christmas dinner, not running out into the road!

If I wasted my 'immediate obedience' tone of voice on a kid getting over excited at Christmas dinner, it would be useless when I actually needed it.

I might use my 'firm, disapproving voice' though - but that's next to useless at 11 months, need to be more like 2-3 for that. At a year, they weren't really expected to participate - we did the suggestion on the first page (timed it so they slept through), or just let them get down when they got bored, and came back for pudding.

That way the adults get to enjoy, the kids get to enjoy, and it's just much nicer all round. We're all supposed to be having fun, why on earth force the kids to sit and participate with stuff of absolutely no interest to them.

Why do people always have to consider extremes in such situation, ie. do nothing because it's perfectly acceptable, or discipline in punishing way (which saying to a baby that he is bad is).

How about just learning? At 11 months, a baby has already done a lot of learning as we all know. They have learn through observing, and some natural instinct (walking). Their brain is wired to do just that learn.

I am personally tired with this new generation of parents (well, previous one really) who associate teaching a child something with punishing them.

At 11 months, when (not if because most kids do scream at that age), I just told them not to. However, I did it in a way that wasn't making them feel horrible, just showing them that it was unpleasant for others. Someone mention communicating with a baby who can't speak, but I believe something like more than 70% of communication is non verbal. I bet it's not what the FIL said that would have spooked the kid, but his facial expression. Putting a finger in front of your mouth, with a gentle shush and a smile, repeated each time the child scream is teaching them in a kind way that it is not acceptable.

I am tired of hearing 3/4 yo, or even older kids scream and shout so loudly that it hurts my head because their parents failed to teach them that it isn't acceptable behaviour and find it much harder to do so at that age then if they'd started when the screaming did.

This thread has really enlightened me on why some children behave the way they do. FIL definitely didn't handle the situation properly, an 11 month old can't be naughty and definitely not 'bad'. But you shouldn't have let DC scream either, it's not surprising he intervened when you didn't. Babies understand a hell of a lot more than people think from a young age. Don't forget, they've been hearing language since before they were born. The age of verbal communication comes quite a long time after they are able to understand a significant proportion of what you are saying. Laying the groundwork early on is very important imo, and the majority of typically developing children understand the word 'no' at least a few months before they turn 1 in my experience. So yanbu for being upset with fil, yabu for not dealing with your screaming DC sooner.

I think you should go easy on FIL. DF is similarly clueless - he means well, but wasn’t involved in the nitty gritty of baby rearing himself plus it was forty plus years ago so a distant memory.

He says stuff like this thinking he’s helping. A gently “He’s not bad, he’s just learning” would have got your point across. No need to overreact. And as many others have advised, next time deal with the situation instead of just ignoring the screaming.

No you can't tell them off, it's pointless and saying words like that especially to a baby that small is wrong.

But, you can manage the situation appropriately and take the baby away to calm down. Eating a meal with a screeching baby is very annoying.

My baby did it during Christmas dinner and I took him away and rocked him to sleep then warmed my dinner up.

Screaming in a baby who has no other form of communication has nothing to do with screaming in older children who have.
My son didn't shout or scream to communicate at that age because he didn't understand that he could influence others to get his needs met. I was pleased when aged 2 he learnt how to do that.