Leaving babies to cry can result in "Shutdown Syndrome"

[morningpaper]

I read this on Dr. Sears and thought it was very interesting.
----------
THE SHUTDOWN SYNDROME
Throughout our 30 years of working with parents and babies, we have grown to appreciate the correlation between how well children thrive (emotionally and physically) and the style of parenting they receive.

"You're spoiling that baby!" First-time parents Linda and Norm brought their four-month-old high-need baby, Heather, into my office for consultation because Heather had stopped growing. Heather had previously been a happy baby, thriving on a full dose of attachment parenting. She was carried many hours a day in a baby sling, her cries were given a prompt and nurturant response, she was breastfed on cue, and she was literally in physical touch with one of her parents most of the day. The whole family was thriving and this style of parenting was working for them. Well-meaning friends convinced these parents that they were spoiling their baby, that she was manipulating them, and that Heather would grow up to be a clingy, dependent child.

Parents lost trust. Like many first-time parents, Norm and Linda lost confidence in what they were doing and yielded to the peer pressure of adopting a more restrained and distant style of parenting. They let Heather cry herself to sleep, scheduled her feedings, and for fear of spoiling, they didn't carry her as much. Over the next two months Heather went from being happy and interactive to sad and withdrawn. Her weight leveled off, and she went from the top of the growth chart to the bottom. Heather was no longer thriving, and neither were her parents.

Baby lost trust. After two months of no growth, Heather was labeled by her doctor "failure to thrive" and was about to undergo an extensive medical exam. When the parents consulted me, I diagnosed the shutdown syndrome. I explained that Heather had been thriving because of their responsive style of parenting. Because of their parenting, Heather had trusted that her needs would be met and her overall physiology had been organized. In thinking they were doing the best for their infant, these parents let themselves be persuaded into another style of parenting. They unknowingly pulled the attachment plug on Heather, and the connection that had caused her to thrive was gone. A sort of baby depression resulted, and her physiologic systems slowed down. I advised the parents to return to their previous high-touch, attachment style of parenting?to carry her a lot, breastfeed on cue, and respond sensitively to her cries by day and night. Within a month Heather was again thriving.

Babies thrive when nurtured. We believe every baby has a critical level of need for touch and nurturing in order to thrive. (Thriving means not just getting bigger, but growing to one's potential, physically and emotionally.) We believe that babies have the ability to teach their parents what level of parenting they need. It's up to the parents to listen, and it's up to professionals to support the parents' confidence and not undermine it by advising a more distant style of parenting, such as "let your baby cry-it-out" or "you've got to put him down more." Only the baby knows his or her level of need; and the parents are the ones that are best able to read their baby's language.

Babies who are "trained" not to express their needs may appear to be docile, compliant, or "good" babies. Yet, these babies could be depressed babies who are shutting down the expression of their needs. They may become children who don't speak up to get their needs met and eventually become the highest-need adults.
----------

Oh it does make me laugh when people with one child bang on about how great their parenting method is and how their child has thrived, is advanced for their age, etc, etc. I was exactly the same with my first, thought I had this parenting lark down pat and knew it all as I'd obviously done it all right because ds1 was so easy; slept well, fell asleeep in his cot by himself , piled on weight, was totally unclingy, talked early, blah blah blah. We did the odd bit of CC with him, he was in a very predictable routine but we didn't co sleep, or use a sling because it wasn't how we wanted to parent.

When Dd came along, same parenting style, same result, she was also very easy, walked at 10mo, fell asleep by herself in her cot and all the rest of those things that make you a 'good' parent. Naturally I thought my parenting was fantastic as I'd raised two such easy, bright, good babies.

Then we had ds2.

Considering he comes from the same gene pool as the other two it's hard to believe they are related. His temperament is so different from the other two's. I realised very early on that there was no way I could parent him in the same way as I had them as babies. If I tried to put him to sleep in his cot he would scream and scream and scream, there was no chance he would fall asleep by himself, he hated being put down and just wanted to be close to me all the time. To start with I did try to treat him the same as the other two but it made both of us stressed and miserable. So I bought a hippychick, carried him as much as he needed, co slept for six months and just did what he needed to make him happy. He's now 9mo, has been crawling since 6mo, stood unaided at 8mo, still doesn't sleep very well but is a smily, cheeky little chap in the day and it obviously isn't affecting his development.

I don't think you can say your parenting style is the 'right' way or someone else's is 'wrong' until you've had more than one child. It's so easy to look at other parents whose children aren't as good at sleeping, eating or developing as quickly as your own and say 'well, obviously my way is far better because my child has done x,y,z and theirs hasn't'. Your way may not have the same results with a different baby.

To my mind, the best parenting is one that responds to each individual child. Parenting isn't a 'one size fits all' technique. Every baby is different and what works for one parent and baby combination won't for another. It's not about 'right' or 'wrong', it's about responding to the baby and giving it what it needs. If the parents in that Dr Sears case study had followed their baby then they would have been fine. There's just so much pressure these days from family, friends, other mums, so called 'experts' to do things a particular way when really we need to trust ourselves a bit more and follow our babies' lead.

tori32 - If you had chosen my method (which I did not choose so much as just accepted the natural course of my childs needs) you would most probably not have been able to go for a weekend away. I have not been out of the house past 8pm since his birth. I dont mind though, thats the key. I simply love my little life and can happily devote it to my husband and children, seeing friends in daylight hours and fitting round him. When I have another child, I'll adapt my style to suit both of them, sharing myself out as best as I can. As long as I am trying my best to keep my family happy (this makes me happy) then I am sure I am a great mum and sure that my parenting style is best for my situation (not that it would work for everyone, because it simply would not!) I just could not bring myself to leave my child to cry so that I could either sleep/go out etc.

I agree with Olihan.

It wasn't the techniques in themselves that stopped the little girl thriving but the fact that the parents lost faith in their own abilities and adopted an approach that didn't really work for them or their child. Every child is different, as is every parent. It's a question of tapping into and trusting your instincts. The best piece of advice I ever received was from a friend with 3 kids who said 'Listen to all the advice, then ignore it'

oh thank the pumpkin for olihan

All children are different. Often (not always), I dont feel I can take seriously the word of a parent with only one, relatively young, child.

Your DS2 sounds just like my DS. BOY was that a shock......

Sorry - but its true.

Well said Olihan.

A lot of 'techniques' are designed to cater for babies fitting around modern life and as far as I am concerned there is no progress (particularly for women, remember feminism before it went out of fashion, ladies?) until modern life allows children to become true priorities. I suspect we are a very long way off.

Lol Olihan....isn't it funny how different children are....with us it is ys aswell that is sooooooooooo different (obviously he was send to us to ensure that we would never have more then 3 children - I do love him, really)

oh egg...whilst I am, by no means an advocate of CC....I must admit we got to a point where I used it with my ms....
Basically we had no problems with his sleeping, happily co-slept/roomshared, etc...I had no problem doing nightfeeds...he was a quick feeder, etc...well, he got to 6 month and stupid HV person pressurised me into stopping nightfeeding, ala, they don't need it...and well...I gave that a whirl..offered bottled water instead of the boob....from that night on we lived a nightmare...the child that would go to sleep nicely on the breast, and would stay asleep when put into the cot and would sleep a good stretch, etc. was gone and for month on end we tried all sorts, like Elisabeth Pantley method, PUPD and whatever it took, and of course from then on all he got was breast when he woke, etc...and he became completely sleep deprived and miserable (he was a real happy chappy usually), and in the end (he was 10/11m old by then), we did do CC, because he fought sleep etc., we did a very mild version, i.e. starting with 1 minute intervals between checking going up to 5 minute intervals and 2. night something like 10 minute intervals, and luckily it worked within 2 nights...he still woke in teh night for a feed but would then go straight back to sleep as he used, too...and he returned to being a happy go lucky little boy...

I suppose sometimes it is horses for causes...I don't think though that CC should be the 2. method of choice, etc...I thik there are many other ways, that are kinder and gentler and often will work...but if someone has tried everything else, then I think it is worth giving this method a try...but that is just my personal opinion of course....

Hmmm.. haven't read all the posts, but DS1 was left to cry once we recognised the crying down of a tired baby. If it was the high pitched pain, hunger, scared cry, then he was always attended to.

He settles himself to sleep, and has always been a dream. He is happy, attached, trusting. he knows when his sleep times are, and he sleeps, he is threfore awake and alert at sensible times.

he also had a routine of feeding, and knew when it was mealtime, and TRUSTED that he would be fed, he didn't have to cry for food, or lok for it.

DD is now 7 weeks od, and having started off feeding on demand and sleeping very erractically, leaving her over tired, and over hungry, and unable to settle, she is now in a gentle routine, which enables her tummy to digest her food, and gives her good sleep during the day. She wakes at night and is fed on demand at night. I have no doubt that she will be as much of a delight as her beautiful brother.

People seem to think that leaving a baby to cry is the same as controlled crying and they are SOOOO different. Leaving a baby to cry is not mean if they can settle themselves and I would never leave either child to scream as it is a clear indicator of being unable to self settle.

Sorry. Rant. this B*dy programme has led to all those who condone CC to being black marked again, when the theories are totally different.

At the ned of the day it is each parents choice. They may live to regret their choices. We don't

Message withdrawn

Agree with Olihan - but I think that applies to all parenting methods, Dr Seers' method as much as any other prescribed method.

I personally find the "your baby will have lifelong depression if you sometimes let him cry" just as distasteful as the "you are making a rod for your own back if you ever smile at your child" arguments.

Oh and I really think we are all being strung along by CV. I saw that prog on TV earlier this week - hadn't seen it before. It is sooooo obviously just done for TV - what a load of nonsense. Of course anyone who advocates not looking at a baby while feeding it is a stark staring lunatic. But it sets up a nice antagonism between the attachment parenters and the routine parenters because each route is presented in such extreme terms.

Whereas what we actually all do is probably a bit of everything and it all works out ok in the end.

LOL QV and 3andnogore, I think ds2 was ordered by my mother to ensure I didn't have a 4th dc. He's certainly put me off that idea .

Ikwym

However, as the memories become more distant, it's difficult to stamp on those broody feelings when you see a tiny, sleeping/feeding newborn.......

I know. My dsis is pg with her first and I'm so jealous of the pg, the early newborn days to come that a little part of me thinks 'maybe I could have another'............

then ds2 starts his nighttime shenanigans and I know that, actually, a 4th is a Very Bad Idea .

LOL at 3andmore she won't be an only dd for much longer as I am due in march! So I will call you back and let you know if my method is working again! Shall we meet same time next year?

shrinkingsagpuss I am so glad of another voice of reason.

Pitchounette I do agree that some babies need more cuddles than others (or want which I don't think is the same thing.) My dd never enjoyed being cuddled much except when tired and is the same now. Even whenshe was 2-3 mths old I remember people trying to hold her lying down and her screaming until she was put upright.

QV I may only have one dd, but I have had plenty experience of looking after children and babies. From a CM perspective you can tell how a child has been parented, the ones who tend to be more settled are the ones who haven't been used to being carried around with mum most of the time. In my experience the baby becomes more stressed because this is just not practical in a childcare setting. No nursery or CM could carry a baby around all day if they went there at 6 mths, so IME they feel abandoned then, instead of when they are tiny. It isn't fair on the child and is a complete culture shock.

tori - I've been back and re read posts... oh yes, sounds sooo familiar.

We had a holiday from hell with DD as she screamed for hours in the evening thorugh over tiredness. 2 days of being carried ina sling to get her to sleep at sensible times (then put down towake up) and she is now sorted.

Tongiht I put her in her cot at 7.45, wide awake. She made one feeble squeak, then went of to sleep. FAB

DS can go and stay with anyone, at any time, as he self settles, and was staying overnight with my friends when he was less than a year old he was so easy. He knew what was expected of him.

Not your children or babies though.

It does make a difference. I think, and you'll only know this when you have your 2nd, that it is far more about a baby's personality than it is the parenting style.

I think that there has to have been some really strong influences on a child for them to be clingy completely by conditioning.

please please be very very careful here. very.

Attachment disorder comes out of long term consistent attachment styles. this is not about controlled crying over a few days.

the Sears example sounds laughable....previously loving parents turn into nazis based on teasing from friends....really????

failure to thrive goes back to Spitz's hospital observations and is extreme....it is usually present in babies that have had NO interaction other than perfunctory feeding/changing...think romanian orphanages.

BE CAREFUL.

Are you saying that CC isnt a problem or that attachment parenting is? I'm a bit confused

I'm saying that anyone on a parenting website should be EXTREMELY CAREFUL about using the title: 'leaving babies to cry can cause shutdown syndrome.'

find another stick with which to beat another sector of the parenting population please. or know what you are talking about.

oh i see...

Come and help a poster define the term bully on the swap thread soph

I'm pro attachment parenting. i'm pro controlled crying. there is ABSOLUTELY NO CONTRADICTION IN THAT to my mind given my belief that different babies and circumstances and different parents need different things.

my main gripe with attachment parenting is that we do not live in the tribal/extended family circumstance which provides the context for that style.

my main gripe with controlled crying is that it is not always appropriate, and certainly depends on the speed with which it works and the benefits for the mother and child (i.e. if the mother is heading into depression due to lack of sleep a coupe of nights of CC v appropriate.. in contrast if a mother thinks that babies should sleep through the night from dot and tries to use CC that is insane).

any clearer?

That makes perfect sense to me, sophable.

I absolutely agree sophable. Although CC has to be done without the child feeling/being abandoned.

The thing that jumps out at me is how our confidence is shaken by others. When DS was tiny he had severe eczema - infected oozing. we were told if his cheeks didn't heal he would have to be taken into hosp and have oral steroids etc...

He scratched and scratched with mitts and without. In the end I took him into our bed and he selept in the crook of my arm so that I could physically stop him scratching. It worked. I got bugger all sleep and the outcome was that not only did ne need to sleep in our bed he had to sleep on top of me. This went on for 18mths or so. I did what I had to do yet I felt ashamed and didn't tell everyone e.g MIL cos everyone has something to say.

In the end I loved having him in bed with us and loved waking up and seeing his little face. DD on the other hand didn't want to sleep with us and whilst this has it's benifits I would have enjoyed the closeness had she slepth with us.

Point I am trying to make is I wish people felt they could do what in their heart they know is right even if the majority disapproves.

I found (after 5 kids) that close physical nurturing means a more independant child - they don't cry when left with someone else cos they have such a 'bank' of 'mummy contact' built up - they're secure in themselves.
Intuitive close baby parenting also stays consistent even if you lose everything - your income, house etc - as it doesn't rely on cots and routines.EG When I was homeless, my kids stayed secure becuse they still had me and our relationship.
Maybe people get jealous of the intimacy or feel 'short changed' with the baby an extension of parents instead of an additional 'product'to deposit their goodwill on! But if you truly want to give to a baby, surely you give to the parents? What d'you think..