To be thinking of putting my 4 week old upstairs to bed?

[m4rdybum]

Asking here because I'd like a wider range
of views, other than the group of Mumsnet posters who only go by exact guidelines and have no room for manoeuvre. Also because I'm open to being called unreasonable if it means I'm more successful in raising my DD.

DD is 3 weeks old. DH goes back to work just after she turns 4 weeks.

We've started toying with the idea of getting her used to being upstairs for "bedtime" (starting when DH goes back to work), which at the minute would be around her 8/9pm bottle. I also totally get that a routine probably won't stick with her for a while - but we're quite lucky that she already has her own predictable feeding routine on the go (for now) - it's more for us at the minute.

Me and DH usually go to bed around 10pm. She currently sleeps in her Moses basket in the living room and gets taken upstairs with us.

I know of the recommendation for babies up to 6 months to sleep in the same room as parents day and night, to help reduce the risk of SIDS and want to stress that of course I'm hyper aware of this and don't want it to happen. DD sleeps next to our bed and will do so until 6 months.

But I'm curious as to who follows this to the rule when it comes to start thinking about a bedtime? There's a lot of kids in my family and most have started going up to bed between 1 & 2 months old.

We, of course, have a baby monitor and also would check on her regularly until we went up to bed. It would just be nice to not have to worry so much about being quiet with her in the room.

Has anyone else done this? Any recommendations? Warnings?

Thanks for sharing Fenella. You are totally right. How scary that must have been.

This whole thread is so bizarre.

I live in a flat so there is no upstairs, but I have put my baby to sleep in a cot (in our bedroom) from when she came home from hospital. And she had a bedtime and a bedtime routine from when she was a few weeks old or so. I thought this was normal, to be honest. She gets lots of cuddles throughout the day, and I can assure you I'd lay down my life for her.

I have some friends who are heavily into attachment parenting and all that stuff, and I have to say that most of them have kids who wake them up all night long for years. They come across as knackered and full of resentment. I'm not tempted to do this.

What a horrible thread.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I followed the guidelines with my DD. Apparently according to many on this thread that makes me ridiculous or a hippy but I know I would not have been able to live with myself had a tragedy occurred. Watching a bit of tv just wasn't a good enough reason for me, I suppose for some it is.

Hilarious that it's always the same posters cluttering up these threads with their expert opinions and justifying their own actions when they have only been parents for about 5 minutes

Leaving a baby to sleep in a separate room for a couple hours in the early part of the evening is not barbaric or cruel or uncaring or whatever nonsense has been spouted on here.
In the unit I work in it is forbidden for parents to co sleep but parents are allowed to leave their babies sleeping in a separate room for naps and the early evening. This is a unit headed by paediatricians, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and child psychotherapists. It has never once been raised as a concern. Parents are actually praised for establishing routines.

3wild - what kind of 'unit' is that? It seems to go very much against 'nature' which seems unnecessary really especially for a baby still within the '4th trimester'.

A mother and baby unit.
The 4th trimester isn’t a scientific thing.
Babies need to be held and nurtured and need responsive attuned care but they don’t need to be held every moment of the day. This would usually be regarded as intrusive parenting.

This attachment parenting is all well and good for a first time mother with no other commitments but I imagine it just makes anyone who isn't able to hold their baby every minute of the day feel guilty.

That's a sad baby unit. It is recognised that human babies are born more 'premature' than other animals/mammals due to the way we have evolved (standing up/narrow pelvis/big heads). Parenting cannot be 'intrusive'. It can be natural. This is not to say that babies have to be held all the time of course but there is nothing wrong with it either. After all we have survived many generations with co-sleeping/baby wearing constantly pretty much and I would expect this is still the norm around the world. Our western societies are the exception rather than the norm. But an exception which isn't proven to be 'betters' and at times can carry risks (SIDS). Of course there are a lot of other things we do 'better' in terms of hygiene, medication etc but it's a shame to leave behind some positive practices just because they are unnecessarily labeled as 'intrusive'.

Presumably the unit exists because of vulnerable mothers’ needs, rather than their babies?

There is no research that says that babies who are not co slept with have less secure attachments. You might think that the unit is sad and that co sleeping is right but attachment theory is not about co sleeping.

Many parents who put their baby to sleep in their own room aren’t necessarily doing it to ‘watch tv’ or ‘get their evenings back’ (although there is nothing wrong with that). It is often because they believe, and it has worked for their other children, that having a strict bed time and bedroom guarantees a better sleep routine for the baby.

There are countless threads on here about children who can’t or won’t sleep on their own or sleep through the night and parents being utterly exhausted about the situation.

I am sure everyone of us reads the guidelines and makes the best decision for our own family & snide comments about ‘hippy attitudes’ or ‘not bonding with your child are unkind and unnecessary.

3wild - I've never suggested anything about less secure attachment or attachment parenting. I parent in a way that makes sense to me and makes my life easy. In practice it involves co-sleeping, BLW and baby wearing. Because it's easy really more than anything. It seems unnecessary to ban co-sleeping when it can make life easier for some. It seems unnecessary to label what appears to be natural practices as intrusive. Again not saying it is required to Co sleep or hold baby all the time. Only that neither of those things are problematic and can make life easier for all instead.

PoutySprout the welfare of the child is always paramount, in line with the children’s act. Yes the mothers are vulnerable but our focus is always on the welfare of the child. We are different to lots of units as there is a lot of therapeutic input and parenting support with the aim to establish secure attachments. Our unit is led in direction by psychologists and child psychotherapists. We do lots of parenting interventions to encourage responsive attuned parenting. It is also accepted that parents are able to offer the best care when they are well rested which is why we also encourage establishing routines. This obviously doesn’t mean leaving small babies to cry but putting them down to sleep does help.

Oblada a number of posters have mentioned attachment parenting, not you.

Attachment parenting is a new thing, and came about, from what I can ascertain, from a study into the issues suffered by babies who had been abandoned, neglected or abused. This was then turned around 100% to demonstrate that babies needed constant attention to be rounded human beings. The theory, for obvious reasons, is flawed.

Even attempting to establish a routine at this point is utterly pointless given the changes and regressions your baby will experience in their first year. You’ll speak to those who swear up and down that a routine made their babies sleep better - you just won’t hear from the majority for whom it made bugger all difference.

OlderThanAverage
Attachment Theory doesn’t say anything about babies needing constant attention or co sleeping or any of the other things that people on this thread. Some people have twisted attachment theory and come up with these conclusions. Attachment theory is also based on a lot more than a few studies on children in orphanages. It is a well regarded theory in child psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy. I’ve studied attachment theory and the unit I work on is led by attachment theory. We do not tell mothers that they need to hold their babies all of the time and be in the same room as their babies every moment. Routines are encouraged.

*Many parents who put their baby to sleep in their own room aren’t necessarily doing it to ‘watch tv’ or ‘get their evenings back’ (although there is nothing wrong with that). It is often because they believe, and it has worked for their other children, that having a strict bed time and bedroom guarantees a better sleep routine for the baby.

There are countless threads on here about children who can’t or won’t sleep on their own or sleep through the night and parents being utterly exhausted about the situation.*

Agree with this poster. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a baby into a routine where they self settle and sleep well. I find it bizarre that people don't aim for this. Surely sleepless nights are horrible? The people I know who rocked a baby to sleep were still having to settle their children when they were school age. Mine both self settled and seem happy enough. We spend quite a lot of time with them so I don't think they feel abandoned!

Well done those of you who made a new Mum feel really guilty for wanting to establish a bit of a routine.

Is this something new. My children are in their late 20s and went to bed in their own rooms from about six weeks and slept through the night. Yes, we had a monitor and would always look in on them. Daytime sleep was also taken in their own rooms. So does this mean a baby shares a room with you until six months and never sleeps there alone? I didn't realise this was current thinking.

It is not 'pointless' trying to establish a routine for a baby while they are under 1, and it works for many people. As someone who sufferes from epilepsy triggered by excessive tiredness gettinf my baby into a routine was paramount to both of our well-being and safety. My son was put down for the night in his own room from 6 weeks onwards. And for obvious saftey reasons i could not co sleep. I'd hate to think what state I'd be in mentally and physically had I not done all this. Not so I could watch a few extra hours of TV on my own.. Threads like this are horrible, trying to make a parent feel like they don't want, or won't have, a close attatchment with their child because they choose not to co sleep in the same room for the first year is disgusting.

So does this mean a baby shares a room with you until six months and never sleeps there alone? I didn't realise this was current thinking.

The guidance is at least 12 years old.

www.basisonline.org.uk/room-sharing/

Threads like this never go well.

I dont subscribe to attachment parenting or anything else. But my baby doesn't self settle and wont sleep in his crib. Some people have intimated that my baby doesn't sleep because I haven't left him alone in a room. Actually that would just mean he cries to himself.

So thanks for making me feel just a bit more shit. Its laughable that people think we choose to have sleepless nights.

There is nothing wrong with trying to get a baby into a routine where they self settle and sleep well. I find it bizarre that people don't aim for this. Surely sleepless nights are horrible? The people I know who rocked a baby to sleep were still having to settle their children when they were school age.

Why would you assume that it’s all or nothing? Babies can’t be taught to self settle (ever tried getting an adult to calm down by telling them to calm down?). They do it when they’re ready. And rigid routines don’t work for everyone.

I did whatever got us the most sleep. DD’s sleep needs changed as she got active, got older and her lifestyle changed (eg starting school). We flexed with it. Now, aged 8, DD takes herself off to bed independently with no issues. I miss watching/stroking her face as she gives in to her dreams.

Some people have intimated that my baby doesn't sleep because I haven't left him alone in a room

That's just bollocks. Please don't let comments like that get to you Mississippilessly.

I think our culture tells us we have to put our DC to sleep in a certain way, and a lot of people spend a lot of time and effort trying to train the babies who don't suit that. Then they're horrified to hear others aren't doing the same, as they put so much effort into it. I suspect they'd rather not admit it was all a waste of time, so try to make you conform instead!

(Not saying it's a waste of time for everyone, but it is for those babies who just won't settle on their own at a young age, no matter what you do,).

PoutySprout most babies can be taught to self settle. Putting babies down drowsy but awake often works with younger babies. Gradual retreat is great with older babies.