I disagree with leaving children to cry especially at night

[serena]

I have been making comments to this effect and feel that I am alone on this site in not following Gina Ford routines etc. I really wanted to know if there are others out there who might agree with me .

I agree with Bells2's POV re GF/CLBB. It isn't so much the idea of a routine, as most babies have some sort of routine, that I dislike as the hectoring tone and the rigid assumption that all babies need the same amount of sleep and same amount of food at the same time every day. It seems to go against nature and instinct and I find her book confrontational, as though caring for your baby is a power struggle that you must at all costs win. Babies aren't automatons, they're individuals, just as adults are.

Whatever some Mumsnetters experiences, GF routines can be BF unfriendly, due to the restricted feeding schedules and she assumes that a mother can afford a pump and bottles and sterilising equipment. Certainly GF is a bugbear to my nearest BFC because she gets so many calls with GF related problems.

I think GF takes away confidence from some mothers. I've no doubt that for those parents/babies for whom the CLBB works it's a positive thing but we have seen a number of times here on Mumsnet the worry caused when a baby won't conform to GF or the fear that if a routine is altered for some reason the baby will never go back to that routine. Simple things like changing the clocks in Spring, taking 2oz instead of 5oz at a feed, waking at 6am instead of 7am. Women unable to socialise because the baby is asleep when baby clubs are on; a holiday spoilt because of the routines imposed on others. Experienced GF mums will say that there is no need to stick so rigidly to the rules but when a person has become so dependent on rules it becomes a frightening step to move away even a fraction. So, in effect, for some women, all GF has done is replace one kind of anxiety with another and a chance of self-discovery has been lost in the process.

I followed GF but I completely agree with the last paragraph of Suedonim's comments. Well put!

Applause for Suedonim!!! I completely agree with you. I have to admit I'm sometimes completely non-plussed at posts on here from (usually new) Mums following Gina Ford routines. To be fair, balanced views from more experienced people using the routines usually follow and I suppose any advice that is followed slavishly and uncritically is likely to backfire, whether it is of a "never put your baby down" variety or a rigid routine type...

Couldn't agree more about 'colic' often being tiredness. I absolutely hate leaving my baby to cry (which is probably why he wakes so often at night..) - but know if he's arching his back and grizzle-crying, he wants to be put down somewhere dark and peaceful, with his dummy to suck on. Like so many of us, when he was tiny I used to jiggle him about all night, and wondered why he was still howling! Now evangelical about telling friends with tiny babies to try leaving them for a few minutes when they start to grizzle to see if they wind down or wind up - but only a few minutes. I wish someone had told me! I was always amazed when experienced mums could tell at a glance when he was tired, when I was wondering why he was crying.

One more thing to add to this never-leaving-your-baby-crying-discussion. It all gets far more complicated, IME, when you have two or more children. Obviously a baby is more vulnerable than a child and needs extra special attention, but there are times when it's not just your baby who is crying and in need of comfort - you have your other children to consider as well.

Suedonim, well put. Being a slave to any baby theory, as you say, seems to me to be a missed opportunity of self discovery. Like you and scummymummy, I am saddened to read of the guilt and upset some new mothers experience when trying to follow Gina Ford routines to the letter - or any other routines. And amazed to hear of the success stories. So there you go - these set routines must work for some babies

Pupuce, I'm sure Gina Ford has lots of valid insights. If I read the book, I'm sure I would find some of her suggestions really useful. Like your friend, I just don't like the idea of following a routine set by a stranger.

But as Lizzer pointed out (and others have to)... hey it's the same routine as what my daughter does - the point being... the GF routine is what MOST children do naturally and she is the first one to admit it.
Some of you assume that everyone knows how much babies need to eat and sleep when they are born... well not everyone does and some babies are for many reasons too sleepy or too resteless to give you confidence and the right cues. It is FAR easier when you are at baby number 2...

GF does not pretend to have invented gold here... let's keep things into perspective please.

What I'd be interested to know is how many people have tried GF routines and liked it (and would recommend it - not force it) and how many people felt it was not right for them (presumably after having read the book in its entierity not just the routine and having had a go for more than 3 days !!!)

My first dd did not sleep through the night until she was 3.5. She has never had a nap in her cot or learnt to fall asleep on her own. My 2nd dd however was a GF baby from day one and I'm pleased to say fitted in to the routine well, had 2 hour naps (still does aged 20mths) and goes to bed happily AWAKE until 7am. I cannot praise GF highly enough - she is my Saviour!

For once this thread is sounding reasonabe and there seems to be a real meeting of minds. I think even the most avid 'GF or whatever expert' follower would agree that it is a tool to use to make them more comfortable and confident about parenting.

First time around I had quite a ridgid routine as far as time went as I had it imposed on me (my DD was in hospital for 13 weeks due to prematurity), and if I didn't feed her 4 hourly, she wouldn't eat or cry for food. She also needed a set amount. This routine actually gave me confidence as I mapped out my day around feeding, I didn't worry about nap times, she took those wherever.

Second time around I wasn't sure what to expect so I read GF and it made sence. For someone like me (even though I was having No 2) I didn't know how much food she might need, and how much sleep she might want. Here was one book that spelled it out.

I didn't follow her routine, or timings as they didn't fit my life. However I was confident that my baby was getting enough food and sleep, albiet at differnt times. Like Pupuce said it is actually not Rocket Science. She is writing down a guide that the majority of babies would do naturally, but suggesting to parents this is a good way to go about it from scratch.

All I can say is no one opinion is right since no one child/parent/situation is the same. I find these books useful, but then i am confident to make my own choices.

I know this thread was about leaving a child to cry, but I think we all agree Controlled Crying is not something that we do with young babies, any 'expert' book will say it shouldn't be done before 6 months at the outside. Before then, leaving a child to cry is a personal choice, and like others on this thread I could tell the difference between real crying and p*ed off over tiredness.

But for me that?s the real point, Pupuce- NO ONE knows how much babies need to eat and sleep when they are born because babies are not a uniform product? they come in different shapes, sizes, temperaments, states of health, even by different modes of delivery. One manual may not fit all, surely?
I think that you?ve hit the important nail on the head by saying that you?re confident to make your own choices, Crunchie. I know that applies to you too, Pupuce but it doesn?t always seem to apply to some of the people who post here with GF related problems. It seems like they ARE sometimes afraid to trust their own instincts in the face of problems with the routine. I know all parents go through sticky patches and cast about for advice- I certainly do- but I think the mumsnet examples Suedonim mentioned are apt nonetheless. It?s as if a small minority of GF readers assume that their baby is not working right when it isn?t doing what GF says it should be doing. I completely accept that the same could happen with many other baby books as well. That?s why I think it?s essential for parents to realise eventually that THEY are the experts on their own child- not GF or Steve Biddulph or Christopher Green or Jan Parker or the horse/dog/baby whisperer or that horrid American couple who recommend whippings from 18 months. Any or all- apart from the last, I?d think!- of these experts may have wonderful helpful suggestions on many aspects of raising a child, as may family and friends, health visitors, GPs etc but none of them really know what?s right for YOUR child as you do. I accept it?s hard to believe this in the beginning but maybe finding it out is part of the joy of being a parent, at the end of the day?

Well, Pupuce, I think GF does think she has invented gold - it must be pouring into her bank balance, to judge by the number of GF followers on here!

Whilst new parents might need some sort of guidleline (although how you measure how much breast milk a child gets, without expressing, I don't know) I think GF's assumption that each and every baby needs exactly the same amount of food and sleep is erroneous; in fact, I know so, from experience with my own children.

Crunchie, I don't regard GF as 'suggesting' ideas. She lays down in no uncertain terms what her rules are. One only has to look at the language she uses - "you should; do not; baby must; he is not allowed;". In one case history she talks about a 4 week old baby 'going berserk' as though it is something the baby is doing deliberately. She says that a baby must only be cuddled when he needs it, not 'when you need it'. Why ever not?? If that is not a denial of a two-way intercourse between mother and baby, I don't know what is. Instantly, she's made a woman feel guilty for hugging that gorgeous squashy bundle out of hours. Yet, the rest of the time she advocates making the baby fit the parents needs and her own routines. Bizarre!

The assertion of CLBB being a tool to help mothers feel more comfortable and confident with parenting seems at odds with the many messages we see on mumsnet from women whose baby won't do as Gina says. 'Guilt', 'a failure' and 'what am I doing wrong?' appear at depressingly regular intervals. And that's my quibble. Not the routines so much, because babies do tend to fall into routines, but the unhappiness that such rigidity engenders.

And just to end, I also noted a small passage which makes me wonder about her success with 300 babies. Relating to a case history she says that "James' mother asked me to stay on for a further week........I was none too keen as he was such a demanding baby." Could that be an admission that she bottles out of the really diffiuclt babies and moves on until she finds a more amenable one??

Suedonim, you have put the case extraordinarily well!. Agree with you completely.

spot on Suedonim. Just to add a little weight on the other side of the routines thing, my babies positively did not want routines when they were small - instant gratification or scream the place down was more their thing. Of course, as toddlers/small children, they love routines now! I don't think it's worth a moment's unhappiness trying to fit into a routine that your baby doesn't do naturally.

suedonim - I also noticed her quote about James. Although I thought 'how refreshing and honest'. At her age and after having looked after hundreds of children you need to set yourself boundaries. Most mums are in their twenties and thirties, not fourties or even fifties? (don't know how old she is exactly, i think 40's), have a maternal attachment to the child as well as the excitment of a new baby. GF is a professional, who, lets not forget, does this for a living, not of out the kindness of her heart. It is entirely right and proper that she should set herself professional aims and boudaries. After all, you wouldn't stay all night for a week at work because the boss needed you without thinking carefully about it yourself, and probably asking for overtime, would you? I certainly wouldn't! The fact that she obviously likes babies has brought her to this job, but it's not a blooming 'calling', it is a job! That's what makes me huff and puff, actually, when people make comments like someone did the other day to the effect that because she hadn't set up her website when she said she was going to she doesn't really care about babies or mums following her routines! How unfair, we don't know her motives at all, and with a growing business such as hers, certain projects sometimes need rethinking or they just fall behind. That's what happens when you're running a small business. I have used her as a phone consultant in the past, and she has been extremely helpful, and more flexible with individual babies than she can be in the book. In fact, she called me yesterday because she hadn't heard from us for a month to see how ds was getting on. As I assured her - the reason I hadn't called is that he's cruising along, so I had nothing to ask her. And she called at 9.30pm at night, and had been working all day. So you could say she really is quite dedicated in her own way, couldn't you? If I was her age and with her experience I would far rather stay at home and write and do phone consultancy that be up all night, yet again, with crying baby number 301

Seems to me that Suedonim wasn't questioning Gina Ford's professionalism rather that the quote suggests that in some cases she doesn't want to persevere with difficult babies who don't fit into her routines.

Isn't it time mumsnet asked Gina Ford if she could fit in another live question and answer session here?

There's so much on this thread questioning her personal motives - not to mention her theories, I for one would like to hear more from her again.

What do you think, everyone?

All for it !

I thik we should start a game where we make up GF's ideal personality components! I love her stuff, but to me she is still Mary Poppins / The Child Catcher / MA Larkin!

It's a small point but GF does NOT say all babies need the same amount of food.

Glad to see the "GF love her or hate debate" still continues. Maybe I haven't missed that much!
Just for the record serena I am mother of 4 and dont follow miss fords routines or anybody elses for that matter.

Sorry SueDonim, I have to confess I only read the second book once, and therefore took not a blind bit of notice of the 'must, must not' language. I used the little I picked up as a useful reference and perhaps if my baby hadn't quickly settled into a good routine, I might have gone back and re-read.

The point I was trying to make , albeit badly, is that these expert books can be used as a guide, but in support of a parent, not against them. Perhaps thats where things seem to break down. I am all for reading various ideas, but I dismiss the ones I don't agree with.

Pupuce - just spotted my name on the 1st line of your msg, was actually going to avoid the whole thread but you tempted me into it, you hussy!

But really I couldn't put anything quite as eloquently as Suedonim and totally agree with your posting

Tigermoth - definitely agree with wanting to hear more from the woman herself. If she's up to it of course

Message withdrawn

There are so many things I'd like to say on this thread, and I appreciate everyone's thoughtful responses.

Pupuce, does your nickname mean "papoose" by the way? Isn't that a word for a baby held in a sling, close to its mother? And is it also you that says GF advocates 20 minutes screaming and calls this a little bit? Is this meant to be ironic? And forgive me if it sound as if I'm having a go, but it sounds arbitrary in the extreme that you take the authority of your osteopath when he/she says crying is good for babies because of their "canals".

Why do mothers cry downstairs when their babies need them? Most people feel instinctively that it is wrong whatever the age of a child, to leave them to cry. People do it because there is something stronger than their instincts, which I think is peer pressure. And hence people accept these ideas about children trying it on.

I did discover with my 1st child that he needed stillness, so I agree with the not jiggling thing but I didn't leave him in isolation. I didn't always follow my instincts, for those who are interested and was experiencing some extreme outside events, bereavement and other major life events so I wouldn't like to give anyone advice based on my unusual experiences.

Babies thrive on closeness and most civilisations accept this without debate. Being kept close to their providers is how they experience love- it is life to them.If they are separated, denied access to that care at certain times, this gives them negative messages about life, to say the least.

I think so many of us have been subjected to this sort of deprivation as babies (it was the fashion in hospitals when I was born 40 years ago) that our natural instincts are damaged. The bigger problem is that because it is the norm everyone thinks its ok, not cruel or unnatural. But then, people used to think physical punishment was ok.