# Help Define CIO



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

Ok there are varying opinions on what constitutes CIO across MDC.

I think, in the intrest of community and of course, to keep mommas from feeling TOO Judged, we should really come up with a semi solid, kinda jello-ish...well mabe doughy definitition of CIO:

Ok,

Can we all agree that:

Letting child Cry in room alone to train him/her to sleep = Bad

Putting Child down in safe spot *room alone even* to cry for 5 minutes while momma gets brain together and child HAPPENS to fall asleep = Good

Feel free to add...

We REALLY need to clear up the definition around here..


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

IMO ignoring a child's cries on purpose in an attempt to get them to go to sleep or train them to sleep is CIO.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Good thread.

Choosing to "let" them cry when you know that doing something would stop it is not okay. (letting the cry when they want to nurse instead of nursing)

-Angela


----------



## RockStarMom (Sep 11, 2005)

I'm pretty hardcore anti-CIO, so I don't even find your second situation acceptable. I consider CIO to be intentionally failing to immediately and appropriately respond to a child's cries.
I know not everyone agrees, and this is something that, even on MDC, I don't think everyone will ever agree on a definition of.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Good thread.

Choosing to "let" them cry when you know that doing something would stop it is not okay. (letting the cry when they want to nurse instead of nursing)

-Angela

ya know I agree with this too in many cases as well. (i say many cases cause I know its not always possible to prevent this, especially with more than one child, lol).


----------



## mamatoliam (Oct 31, 2005)

Letting your baby cry without doing everything you could to help them.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I see crying it out as not responding immediately to your child's cries, despite being capable, leaving a child alone in a room to train them to sleep, or any situation where you could soothe the child but are trying to force them self-soothe by letting them cry until they are too tired to make anymore noise. The term 'crying it out' to me means just that.

Letting a child cry for five minutes while you rinse the shampoo out of your hair or wipe your bum is not CIO. Letting a child cry because you want to finish a movie is or are hoping the child will stop before you feel like coming is CIO.

Putting a child down for ten minutes at night, when you're exhausted, sleep-deprived, and going out of your mind so much that you're afraid of losing your patience or temper and because you need a break to recuperate is not CIO. Putting a child down to cry so you can go to sleep or in hopes the child will cry himself to sleep is.

Sometimes, you can't come immediately. Sometimes it's better if you don't come immediately. I can't come if I'm going potty. It's not good for my son to nurse while shampoo drips into his eyes. If your child is cholicy or has been up all night, you're protecting them by taking a break to relax, regain your thoughts, and recharge. Stressed out parents are more likely to be abusive, and I'd rather see a child left alone to cry for five minutes than to be yelled at or even hit because mom has been instructed never to put down a crying baby even when she's going nuts. That's not refusing to respond immediately to a child's cries; that's doing everything you can for the child, then getting out of the room for some peice and quiet so you can come up with a new plan to handle the situation, have a few minutes to ponder what' could be wrong and what other methods could help soothe the child, and calm down so you don't lash out.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
. That's not refusing to respond immediately to a child's cries; that's doing everything you can for the child, then getting out of the room for some peice and quiet so you can come up with a new plan to handle the situation, have a few minutes to ponder what' could be wrong and what other methods could help soothe the child, and calm down so you don't lash out.

Even Dr. Sears has recommended this...and he's hardcore anti-CIO. I have had to do this....it was only for a few mins, but it was that or ds was going to get shaken or slapped if I didn't do it. As soon as I had an inkling of sanity I picked him up again and tried to figure out what was wrong. I was hormonal, sleep deprived, and in no way able to control myself at that moment. To people who say I shouldn't have done that, I ask if the alternative would have been better? That's not CIO at all.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

I do agree. Thank you very much for posting this...very eloquently said. Although now that ds is older I take him withme to the potty and let him play while I do business, then we both get to wash lol. Just what I do..I try to minimize oppertunities for crying as much as I can.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

I feel like I missed something? was there a post or something that said putting a child down so you can pee is CIO?


----------



## dukeswalker (Feb 1, 2003)

: I've nursed while sitting on the pot.....







: just so dd wouldn't have to cry all alone....


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dukeswalker*







: I've nursed while sitting on the pot.....







: just so dd wouldn't have to cry all alone....

So have I.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

I feel like I missed something? was there a post or something that said putting a child down so you can pee is CIO?
No, but there was a poster that felt letting a child cry for 5 minutes so mom can get her brain together was unacceptable. Then I stated that I felt it was fine, just like letting baby cry for five minutes to finally go pee is fine with me. I can't understand why 5 minutes of sanity would be unacceptable to someone but that same person would be ok with a 5-minute potty break, and I think the others might be feeling the same. That's all.

I've nursed while on the john before, too...but I don't get up off the john mid-urination when my son wakes up and begins to cry. 

I agree with the poster that said 'crying it out' is making the child cry the need for the parent right out of them, as in until they forget what it is they wanted, cry themselves to sleep, are just too exhausted to continue, or just acept that the need will be met. That, to me, is crying it out and is bad. Leaving a child for five minutes of peace and quiet so you can calm down and recharge, maybe have a drink of water, then come back and coninue rocking, crooning, and singing, is not CIO.


----------



## Cujobunny (Aug 16, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RockStarMom*
I'm pretty hardcore anti-CIO, so I don't even find your second situation acceptable. I consider CIO to be intentionally failing to immediately and appropriately respond to a child's cries.
I know not everyone agrees, and this is something that, even on MDC, I don't think everyone will ever agree on a definition of.

I agree. I know that there are times when a baby's cries get to you. If you have to put your dc down for a minute while you take a breather, then do it, but come right back and comfort them. If this is a daily occurence, there's a problem. I think I've had to put ds down crying maybe twice in his life because I was frustrated, and it's been for 1 or 2 minutes, not 5 or 10. That seems like a very long time for a baby to be crying alone. I've peed many times with ds on the floor, and in the middle of the night, latched on to my boob. I shower at night when dh is home and ds is asleep. I can't always do what I want to do, when I want to do it.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dukeswalker*







: I've nursed while sitting on the pot.....







: just so dd wouldn't have to cry all alone....

Throw me in here too lol...heck I still do that!


----------



## Elyra (Aug 19, 2006)

I am very defiantly against all CIO. CIO as I see it is leaving your child to cry alone to get them to sleep or longer than just a few minutes while you actively ignore them.

Having more than one small child, inevitably someone will be left crying on an occasion. I think the needs of everyone present at the time need to be assessed and sometimes that means the baby will need to cry while you bandage a cut on another child or change a diaper on someone other than them or hold a bucket while someone gets sick. It happens sometimes, and I don't think that is CIO at all. I have nursed while on the toilet or changing another's diaper, but I physically can't do it all at once every time.

My personal assessment of the baby's crying is:
1. Is the babe in a safe place?
2. Is the babe fed?
3. Is the babe clean and dry?
4. Will I only be a few minutes?

If I can answer yes, then I am OK with him crying for while (a while being <5 minutes) I tend to another child's or my own need (a need meaning something that can not wait.)

ETA: my sanity is a *need*.


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RockStarMom*
I'm pretty hardcore anti-CIO, so I don't even find your second situation acceptable. I consider CIO to be intentionally failing to immediately and appropriately respond to a child's cries.
I know not everyone agrees, and this is something that, even on MDC, I don't think everyone will ever agree on a definition of.

Sooo..are you saying that I was better off killing my child after letting her cry for 3 hours in arms...with NO Support, NO significant Other to hand her off to, NO HELP whatsoever?

Nice...


----------



## karin95 (Jun 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dukeswalker*







: I've nursed while sitting on the pot.....







: just so dd wouldn't have to cry all alone....

Sure, with a small baby that just wants to nurse, of course there's nothing wrong with peeing and nursing. But what about a 16 month old that won't just sit on your lap while you pee? she wants to crawl around the (not childproofed) bathroom and dig in the litter box for "treats". I'd much rather leave her in her room where she is safe and has toys and can hear me talking to her. If she cries, then it'll still be 5 minutes at most and I *know* she doesn't actually feel abandoned.

With our foster daughter (the aforementioned 16-month-old), we are actively teaching her to self-soothe more and fall back to sleep when she wakes up and doesn't need anything (like a bottle or a diaper change). Usually she just fusses - which is very different than a cry - so we let her go at it for 10 minutes. If she escalates or go longer, then we go in and soothe her for a few minutes and leave again. (foster parents aren't allowed to co-sleep).

If this were my forever baby, I may not choose to do this in the way, but she's going to be going to live with a family member soon and I *know* they're going to just let her CIO, so if we can teach her to sleep better through our modified CIO, then she won't have to learn through hardcore CIO.

She knows that we'll usually think to give her teething tabs when she seems to need them, we'll always change her poopy diapers, and we'll give her a bottle when she really wants one.

During the day, she's in the room with one of us almost all the time, but when we think she's up for it, we'll leave her alone to play for as long as she's willing. She needs to learn to be alone for short periods because we have no idea how often that will happen when she leaves us. We have to give her skills that, maybe, our "own" baby wouldn't need at her age.

Doing foster care and having to tread the line between what I think I'd rather do and what I know the babies will experience when they leave me has really made me think long and hard about what I truly find important.


----------



## chelsmm (Apr 10, 2005)

Quote:

I agree. I know that there are times when a baby's cries get to you. If you have to put your dc down for a minute while you take a breather, then do it, but come right back and comfort them. If this is a daily occurence, there's a problem. I think I've had to put ds down crying maybe twice in his life because I was frustrated, and it's been for 1 or 2 minutes, not 5 or 10. That seems like a very long time for a baby to be crying alone. I've peed many times with ds on the floor, and in the middle of the night, latched on to my boob. I shower at night when dh is home and ds is asleep. I can't always do what I want to do, when I want to do it.

I think it is very important for moms to know that it is OK for this to happen...In my dd's 11 months, I have had to do this once. I was sleep deprived, alone for about a week (dh was on business), and hormonal. She was crying and I couldn't take it. I knew I wouldn't physically hurt her, but I wanted to scream at her to stop crying. I'd rather walk out for 2 min and clear my head, than scare her by yelling. I put her in her crib, a safe place, and walked onto the porch to take a deep breath of fresh air. I needed to clear my head. It probably took 2 min, if that, but when I returned, I was ready to care for her in the way that she deserved. I was calm and ready to help her. This happens to even the best moms. We need to realize that this is NOT letting a baby cry it out. I didn't do this to get my baby to stop crying. I knew she'd still be crying when I came back. I did it to calm me down.

As far as showering, etc. I always had dd in the bathroom with me so I could interact with her. Now that she's mobile, she sits in the tub with me. I tried a few times to leave her in the crib with some toys, but I had to jump out of the shower before I was done because she was crying. I am not ok with leaving her to cry so I can shave my legs or wash my hair.


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pandaora114*
Can we all agree that:

Letting child Cry in room alone to train him/her to sleep = Bad

Putting Child down in safe spot *room alone even* to cry for 5 minutes while momma gets brain together and child HAPPENS to fall asleep = Good

Um. Well. I'm not entirely cool with that. It's fine to put down your child & walk away & call for help when you are at breaking pont.... Of course!!!! Let's not have any more Andrea Yates, okay?

And if you are alone & at pre-breaking point & feeling stressed, of course you can put your screaming baby down & walk away & you should not feel guilty. Five minutes is a long time tho- have you ever counted that out with a timer? That's a long time to scream with no answer, ime, unless a mama is in trouble....

................

I know.

I've been there.

.................










Talk to someone close to you. (a family-bed-friendly person, if at all possible) Pm me if you are having trouble connecting with other parents who are in the same boat..... I can be a sounding board, & I might be able to redirect you towards a temporarily more helpful org... depending on the situation of course...

hope that helps a bit anyway. Will be thinking of you...

That is my response to the OP. I'll go back & read the rest now....


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum*
Um. Well. I'm not entirely cool with that. It's fine to put down your child & walk away & call for help when you are at breaking pont.... Of course!!!! Let's not have any more Andrea Yates, okay?

And if you are alone & at pre-breaking point & feeling stressed, of course you can put your screaming baby down & walk away & you should not feel guilty. Five minutes is a long time tho- have you ever counted that out with a timer? That's a long time to scream with no answer, imo, unless a mama is in serious trouble....

................

I know.

I've been there.

.................

Talk to someone close to you. (a family-bed-friendly person, if at all possible) Pm me if you are having trouble connecting with other parents who are in the same boat..... I can be a sounding board, & I might be able to redirect you towards a different org....

HTH.

Sweetie: This was when I was a single mom. Living alone, well semi alone...for all intents and purposes I was alone...I had no support, the only family I had was my half sister who was so self centred that she thought everything revolved around her. Couldn't call her at 2am...or things would have been bad...

Now, I have a husband, I have resources....then...No...none, zip


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

This has been brought up before in poll form Here
Personally I think that intentionally leaving a child to cry without comforting them in any way for more than 2-3 minutes is CIO. Not saying I haven't done it- but I think situations come up... (ie big brother asks for help and it turns out he's thrown up all over himself and the bathroom) and I do not think it is CIO if you are soothing them in some way- "Mommy's coming baby- I love you and I'll be right there."


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karin95*
With our foster daughter (the aforementioned 16-month-old), we are actively teaching her to self-soothe more and fall back to sleep when she wakes up and doesn't need anything (like a bottle or a diaper change). Usually she just fusses - which is very different than a cry - so we let her go at it for 10 minutes. If she escalates or go longer, then we go in and soothe her for a few minutes and leave again. (foster parents aren't allowed to co-sleep).

THIS is not okay IMO. Sorry. I respect that you're trying to do what's best for this child, but IMO "fuss" it out is not ever okay either.

-Angela


----------



## Cujobunny (Aug 16, 2006)

aussiemum said:


> And if you are alone & at pre-breaking point & feeling stressed, of course you can put your screaming baby down & walk away & you should not feel guilty. Five minutes is a long time tho- have you ever counted that out with a timer? That's a long time to scream with no answer, ime, unless a mama is in trouble....quote]
> 
> That's exactly what I'm thinking. I'm wondering if people are exaggerating saying that they leave the baby for 5 or 10 minutes, because that is a very long time. IME it only literally takes 1 or 2 minutes to leave the room, take a deep breath and walk back in to your crying baby.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gem'sMama (Aug 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum*
And if you are alone & at pre-breaking point & feeling stressed, of course you can put your screaming baby down & walk away & you should not feel guilty. Five minutes is a long time tho- have you ever counted that out with a timer?

Is there actuially a time limit for a mother who feels she may physically harm her child? I'd rather the baby cry for hours than risk a mother who is capable of causing physical harm to her baby going to that child. My advice to anyone who feels they may harm baby...put the baby down somewhere safe, call your mom or a friend, whatever you need to do to calm down, and go back when you no longer feel that you are a danger to the baby.


----------



## Valian (Oct 16, 2005)

This may stir the pot but I've seen this mentioned around before.

I think that letting your baby cry while you stand there and pat their back/sit nearby in a chair/sing while holding their hand, etc. is CIO.

IMO, refusing to pick up your baby while trying to otherwise comfort them while they're crying in bed is also pat of CIO. Especially if the crying could be helped by holding, rocking, nursing, etc.


----------



## Zach'smom (Nov 5, 2004)

I have another question to throw in. Is it CIO to let your child cry in their carseat while you are driving down the interstate or stuck in a traffic jam or otherwise cannot get off the road to a safe place to pick up the child?

I have been in that situation before. I talk and coo and sing and do anything
to try to soothe baby while I am driving, but sometimes he ended up crying until I could find a safe place to stop and remove him from his carseat to nurse, cuddle or do whatever he needed to settle down.

OR

What if you have multiple babies and they are all screaming at once? Or older child is sick and you need to attend to their needs now. Before you can get to a baby it falls asleep from screaming. Is that CIO?


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Gem's mama, yes, that is what I am saying. If it all goes to hell, & you are struggling with meeting basic needs & parenting, then I think the custodial parent needs to hand over until she/he can get their sh!t together....

Time limits aren't really a part of it for me, tbh, there is no time limit for anything we do..... It all just is..

As long as you are moderatly respectful of course. Articulate helps, too......

But that still doesn't mean that is the truth....

Bed time for me!


----------



## Gem'sMama (Aug 9, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *RockStarMom*
I'm pretty hardcore anti-CIO, so I don't even find your second situation acceptable. .

You have obviously never been a situation where you felt you may harm your child then. Good for you. I hope you never are.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

I responded on another thread about my definition...

Quote:

CIO is CIO...
It is crying in order to teach something, it is crying when a need can be met but a parent chooses not to meet it...

CIO can be done alone, when the parent is on the room or even in arms... if you CAN do something and choose not to it is CIO...
I also believe that just putting baby down to compose yourself for a few minutes, or can be the time that you go to the bathroom, or even crying in the car can be CIO... the baby is going through the same emotions and it has the same negative effects but what changes are the intentions of the parents...
Sometimes, you have to choose the lesser of two evils... no parent is going to be perfect all of the time and sometimes, some parents are forced to make decisions that they wouldn't do so otherwise, but it can't become an excuse for doing it every night KWIM? Also, once it is done, then you have to deal with the negative effects that it might have and you have try to put yourself in a position that it won't happen again... not just dismiss it and say that it has no negative effects and no harm was done... (that just leads to others saying that it is fine IMO)

Anyways... that's just my opinion...
Some here may not agree... but that is fine...


----------



## poetesss (Mar 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gem'sMama*
You have obviously never been a situation where you felt you may harm your child then. Good for you. I hope you never are.

I think we all need to realize the severity of such a situation. I once read something a while ago that really made an impact on me--it was about a father who was coping with some OCD issues and was weeping as he said (paraphrased), "Sometimes I just have horrific impulses to take my child and put her in the pressure cooker." Now when someone is pushed--whether by mental illness or life circumstances--to go to the extreme where they feel like doing some physical harm to their child, it's so important that they *get away from that child* whether or not she will cry or not. It's probably hard for many of us to imagine such an extreme situation, but it happens. Whether you want to call it CIO or whatever, in that moment that parent should not be near the child for the child's own safety.


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:

it is crying when a need can be met but a parent chooses not to meet it...
And at what age does this apply? Is it CIO if my 6 yo ds thinks he "needs" a soda and I do not meet his need and he cries and cries.
As a single mama with four children I see this definition as too restrictive. I do not always jump to meet my almost 2 year olds needs since I am only one person and I have other children. Believe me I am in no danger of harming my children and I have my act together- BUT I'm curious at what age it is no longer CIO to let them cry and wait for their needs to be met?


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
Sometimes, you can't come immediately. Sometimes it's better if you don't come immediately. I can't come if I'm going potty. It's not good for my son to nurse while shampoo drips into his eyes. If your child is cholicy or has been up all night, you're protecting them by taking a break to relax, regain your thoughts, and recharge. Stressed out parents are more likely to be abusive, and I'd rather see a child left alone to cry for five minutes than to be yelled at or even hit because mom has been instructed never to put down a crying baby even when she's going nuts. That's not refusing to respond immediately to a child's cries; that's doing everything you can for the child, then getting out of the room for some peice and quiet so you can come up with a new plan to handle the situation, have a few minutes to ponder what' could be wrong and what other methods could help soothe the child, and calm down so you don't lash out.

I pretty much agree with you. When dd was colicy I had to put her down a few times for a few minutes to go in the other room and cry. She would scream/cry for HOURS no matter what i did or tried to do for her. If I didn't, dd was going to be thrown down the steps or out the window. PP hormones can us do really strange and horrible things, esp when baby is crying for hours on end and you have no help!

And... I do take time to wipe my bum and wash my hands before picking up dd if she is crying. (she can always see me the whole time) I don't want to get my nasty butt germs on her or into her mouth.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Madre Piadosa*
And at what age does this apply? Is it CIO if my 6 yo ds thinks he "needs" a soda and I do not meet his need and he cries and cries.
As a single mama with four children I see this definition as too restrictive. I do not always jump to meet my almost 2 year olds needs since I am only one person and I have other children. Believe me I am in no danger of harming my children and I have my act together- BUT I'm curious at what age it is no longer CIO to let them cry and wait for their needs to be met?

Meeting their needs doesnt always mean giving them exactly what they want. As a baby it is likely to mean that, but as they get older it may just be a matter of helping them through whatever issue is making them cry. My 5 year old will absolutely cry when I say not to the gumball machine at the store. I do my best to comfort her and help her get past it.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Madre Piadosa*
And at what age does this apply? Is it CIO if my 6 yo ds thinks he "needs" a soda and I do not meet his need and he cries and cries.
As a single mama with four children I see this definition as too restrictive. I do not always jump to meet my almost 2 year olds needs since I am only one person and I have other children. Believe me I am in no danger of harming my children and I have my act together- BUT I'm curious at what age it is no longer CIO to let them cry and wait for their needs to be met?

I think that communication skills makes a big difference and also the extent of the "need"... A 6 month old's need for nursing is not the same as a 6 yo's "need" for Soda.... for one, the 6 yo can understand why you are denying it though they may not agree with it... and also... as much as some people may think it is... Soda is not a "need"...
I would never deny my 4 yo cuddles (though I might ask him to wait a few minutes)... but I might deny Ice cream because as much as he may want it... it is not a "need"... kwim?

However, Some children do not have the same communication skills, and at 3 yo trying to teach them to sleep by making them CIO may as well be as damaging as doing it at 6 months old... it really depends on the child...

Of course some people might not believe that a 6 month old needs to nurse anymore but it doesn't mean that it is the truth... (the ped around here beleives that at 8 weeks old a baby should no longer eat at night at all)...


----------



## <<<Scarlet>>> (May 19, 2005)

I have walked out of a room after putting my crying infant down.
Sometimes they are crying for no apparent reason. They are fed, dry, warm, but something is wrong and they are still screaming. So you pace the floor, you use the rocking chair, you sing, you do everything to calm the baby down, and after a few hours YOUR nerves are shot. Your crying right along with that baby.
Some mothers then have terrible impulses to hurt these precious babes... I have had those moments (in the first 6m or so)
And walking out of the room and clearing my head, and crying and regrouping helped me NOT hurt them.
My child was hurt by the 1-5m of crying alone, but not like the pain I would inflicted If i hadn't walked away........


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

I have to object to the comment that if you have to leave the room you're doing something wrong. My 1st cryed aaaalllllll the bleep-ing time. Seriously. Like up to 5 hours total a day. Often from 11pm to 2 straight. So I'd sling, rock, nurse, walk, dance, vacuum, etc. But over the 3 months of never getting more than 2 hrs sleep at a stretch, there were a few times when I really was going to freak out. So I'd lay him down and go pee, or step out on the front step adn take deep breaths. or stick my head in a pillow and let out my own scream.

My 2nd is so different that I can now see why people don't understand colic. It's like nothing else. Maybe the OP was a bit too brief when she said "get brain together." I'm not talking about when you're a little tired and frustrated that you haven't fixed it. I'm talking about when you've had less than 6 hours sleep in 48 hours, you and babe have both been crying for the last hour, you've used up every little trick in your parenting skills bag (including peeing, showering, eating, cleaning with babe in arms; and staying home for 3 days b/c he cries as soon as his butt touches the car seat.).

Back to the OP, I think CIO to sleep, or to "teach" a babe to wait, or toavoid "spoiling" is all wrong.

A


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

I have often heard it claimed that leaving a baby alone to cry for ANY length of time is not just wrong, but incontrovertibly damaging to a child's brain, emotional development, psyche, etc. If this is true (I personally don't believe that it is), then it does not matter "why" your child is CIO. You could be in the process of stopping yourself from throwing her out the window; you could be fleeing down the highway from a murderer; you could be saving your other child from a burning building, but if that baby cries for 5 minutes unattended, from this POV, you have damaged that baby and you are an evil CIO-er.

I think this is an unreasonable conclusion to jump to, and that it can drive people mad feeling they have failed their child. I think it asks an awful lot of parents, especially those who WAH/WOH or who have many young children or who are having trouble coping for any reason. I don't know about all of you, but I have been in situations where my child was crying in a carseat and there just wasn't anything I could do about it, reasonably. (Sometimes pulling over doesn't even help--as soon as babe goes back in the carseat, bam.) I currently have only one child, but I can easily see how a babe might have to cry unattended for a few moments while I helped another child. And you can count me among those who have put the baby down and stepped out of the room to regroup. I also have allowed my DD to fuss briefly (a couple of minutes) rather than immediately rushing to her when I suspected she would resettle.

I don't think we have strong scientific evidence that *any brief period of crying alone is horribly damaging*. (And yes, I've read the stickies.) That does not mean that I think MDC should support CIO. I think it should be argued against philosophically, as a practice incompatible with AP, rather than through fear, as in "You will destroy your child's trust in you and damage her brain if she cries for 5 minutes without you." We don't believe in spanking here at MDC either, and we manage to stand firm on that and convey that moral stance without saying that anyone who spanked once has wrecked her child for life.

I think CIO should be defined as intentionally leaving a child to full-on cry alone with the express purpose of "teaching" the child to sleep.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

I have to say I am not only shocked but saddened at the mothers here who think that taking 5 minutes (YES 5 WHOLE MINUTES) to pull yourself together makes someone bad mother.
My dd (first child) as an angel. She hardly ever cried. "Prefect" baby. my ds#1 (second child) had some food allergy issues (with what I was taking in, he has since outgrown that whole mess), it took about 2 months to figure out what I was eating that made him so miserable. He would cry for HOURS and HOURS at a time EVERYDAY! EVERYDAY! And I would say probably EVERYDAY I would set him down some place save, go into the bathroom and bawl like a baby for 5 minutes. I felt helpless, frustrated and I had another child who was pretty much on her own, because I was so consumed with her brother. So yes, everyday my little boy had to cry for 5 minuts so I could gather myself together. I think it benifited both him and me. I felt like I was loosing my mind. SO if that makes me a CIOer then so be it. If I suck as a mother, I guess that is what I do. But I kept my baby safe, and myself sane.
I guess if you have never delt with that, you are blessed, and I hope you never do. BUT if someday it happens to you... well just remeber your harsh attitide to the mother here who kept their babies safe by letting them cry for a few minutes.

H


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
I have to say I am not only shocked but saddened at the mothers here who think that taking 5 minutes (YES 5 WHOLE MINUTES) to pull yourself together makes someone bad mother.

I just went over all the posts here and didn't find one that said that it makes someone a "Bad mother"... could you point it out?


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

No one said directly that someone was a bad mother for letting their baby cry for 5 minutes... but it was suggested that you don't need 5 minutes to pull yourself together, and that if you let a baby cry for a few minutes everyday something is wrong with you and that even pulling yourself together is the same as CIO for the night. I am sorry if it rubs people the wrong way, but unless you have lived it, you have no idea. NONE what so ever of what it is like to have a child scream for hours and feel as if you are a failure. And then getting angry and frustrated. So IMO if the mom needs 5 minutes EVERYDAY to pull herself together then she should take it. And she isn't a bad mom, or a CIOer. She is coping with stuff that ,hopefully, not many moms have to.

H


----------



## Pandora114 (Apr 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
No one said directly that someone was a bad mother for letting their baby cry for 5 minutes... but it was suggested that you don't need 5 minutes to pull yourself together, and that if you let a baby cry for a few minutes everyday something is wrong with you and that even pulling yourself together is the same as CIO for the night. I am sorry if it rubs people the wrong way, but unless you have lived it, you have no idea. NONE what so ever of what it is like to have a child scream for hours and feel as if you are a failure. And then getting angry and frustrated. So IMO if the mom needs 5 minutes EVERYDAY to pull herself together then she should take it. And she isn't a bad mom, or a CIOer. She is coping with stuff that ,hopefully, not many moms have to.

H









:








:


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
No one said directly that someone was a bad mother for letting their baby cry for 5 minutes... but it was suggested that you don't need 5 minutes to pull yourself together, and that if you let a baby cry for a few minutes everyday something is wrong with you and that even pulling yourself together is the same as CIO for the night. I am sorry if it rubs people the wrong way, but unless you have lived it, you have no idea. NONE what so ever of what it is like to have a child scream for hours and feel as if you are a failure. And then getting angry and frustrated. So IMO if the mom needs 5 minutes EVERYDAY to pull herself together then she should take it. And she isn't a bad mom, or a CIOer. She is coping with stuff that ,hopefully, not many moms have to.

H

First, you may not know how many moms have been in the same position and choose other ways to handle it... it really depends on the mom and the way she copes, everyone is different... it also doesn't help to downplay other peoples experiences because of the choice that you made...

Also, I stand by my definition of CIO to include those 5 min of leaving, or even in the car... I beleive that it all has the same effect on the child... however, it can happen and it doesn't mean that the person is a bad mother etc... but it doesn't mean that because the intentions are different the results may not be the same... If that magically becomes OK then why isn't CIO for sleep training the same kind of OK? I don't get it.


----------



## GooeyRN (Apr 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
No one said directly that someone was a bad mother for letting their baby cry for 5 minutes... but it was suggested that you don't need 5 minutes to pull yourself together, and that if you let a baby cry for a few minutes everyday something is wrong with you and that even pulling yourself together is the same as CIO for the night. I am sorry if it rubs people the wrong way, but unless you have lived it, you have no idea. NONE what so ever of what it is like to have a child scream for hours and feel as if you are a failure. And then getting angry and frustrated. So IMO if the mom needs 5 minutes EVERYDAY to pull herself together then she should take it. And she isn't a bad mom, or a CIOer. She is coping with stuff that ,hopefully, not many moms have to.

H









:


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

I didn't down play someone elses choice to do OR NOT do what I did. BUT I feel like that is exactly what you are doing. Why are you even trying to compair leaving a baby for hours to bawl themselves to sleep as being the same as a mom who is at a breaking point? So I guess you chose something else and it worked? Good for you. Thanks for condeming me. I appreciate that. Makes me feel great as a mama. I hope you feel superior.
I just wanted to point out that I don't feel that the definition of CIO includes mom having sanity. I have not once let any of my 4 babies cry themselves to sleep. I co-slept with everyone of them. I love sleeping with my babies. I hated needing to leave my son for 5 minutes to cry. To this day I am sad about that. But you just pour salt on a wound.

Hugs to all the mamas who felt like the only way they could keep themselves together was to let their baby cry for a few. I know how it is.
















H


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamaofthree*
Why are you even trying to compair leaving a baby for hours to bawl themselves to sleep as being the same as a mom who is at a breaking point?

I didn't say that either... CIO as sleep training is hopefully not crying for hours but often is done in small intervals...

We will not come to an agreement about this... like I said sometimes we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils... but personally I don't believe that making a "good" choice for us gets rid of the negative consequences that *may* occur because of it...

I'm done...


----------



## NYCVeg (Jan 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pandora114*
Can we all agree that:

Letting child Cry in room alone to train him/her to sleep = Bad

Putting Child down in safe spot *room alone even* to cry for 5 minutes while momma gets brain together and child HAPPENS to fall asleep = Good

Well, I don't agree that this second scenario is GOOD. But I do agree that, in extreme cases, it is sometimes necessary.

After dd was born, I had ppd and there were a few times when I had to put her down for a minute and walk away b/c I was afraid I would physically harm her. For me, this was never five whole minutes (that really is a long time!), but if five minutes is what a mom needs in order to get it together and not harm her child, I wouldn't presume to say that it was "too long".

We have also had problems in the car. If we lived in the suburbs/country, where there were places to pull over frequently, I would never let dd cry in the car. But we have been in a number of places where pulling over is simply impossible (in one of the middle lanes in a traffic jam at a toll plaza; on a one-lane city street with traffic backed up and cars parked on both sides) or simply unsafe (on a very busy interstate without an adequate shoulder). Because I don't drive, I am always in the back with dd, talking to her, singing to her, touching her, trying to soothe her. But those times when she's crying and we've not been able to pull over are devastating. OTOH, I'd like to think that because I'm there trying to comfort her, and because I try to respond to her fussing/crying immediately in all other situations, that I'm not scarring my child for life.

I think what everyone here can and does agree on is Pandora's first scenario: that purposely allowing your child to cry in an effort to "teach" him a lesson is wrong.

The "outness" of crying it out is what hurts me the most--i.e., intentionally/willfully allowing your child to cry until he or she GIVES UP.


----------



## Yodergoat (Jun 20, 2006)

I know that there are many other posts on this already, but I want to add what *I* think CIO is and is not:

*CIO is:* The _purposeful & intentional_ abandonment of your child in order to "teach" him or her that crying and even screaming will get nothing in return... no comfort, no food, no consolement, and certainly no cuddling. The child _would otherwise_ be soothed by these actions, but you purposefully do not give them although you are _available and you could_ give these things. Instead, you _choose_ not to do so, with the intended result that your child "learns" that crying=nothing in return (and thus is not "spoiled"). It is deliberate, and it is often planned... as in, *"I'm going to try CIO tonight, so the baby will learn to sleep!"* or *"I'm going to let the baby CIO, even though I know she's hungry, so I can skip her middle of the night feeding so she will learn not to beg for food at night."* And although some parents feel that it is cruel, they may still do it because they have been taught again and again by baby books and so-called experts that it must be done to teach independence, and that independence is paramount. Some parenting books imply that you are "weak-willed" to respond to your baby's cries, which they claim are manipulative. So some parents might sit outside their child's room, crying themselves, when at any moment they _could_ just go in and pick up the child and the crying would stop. They do it because they think they must, since they believe what they read or what their doctor recommends. Others do it proudly, thinking they are actually helping their child learn to "self-soothe," a.k.a. "learn that no one cares," a.k.a. "learn to despair." And anyone who has done it themselves will often encourage others to do so, because to do otherwise would imply that it was wrong to have done. It is a mindset of "not allowing the baby to run the show." It is with-holding what you could freely give, with the purpose of teach a lesson. *THAT IS CIO, AND IT IS EITHER IGNORANT AND CRUEL OR SELFISH AND CRUEL.* Either way, it is cruel.









CIO is not: Putting your crying baby down for a moment because you have an emergency... be it injury to yourself or someone else, a pot boiling over on the stove, or even explosive diarrhea.

CIO is not: Holding your inconsolable baby in arms to cry after you have tried _every other conceivable manner of soothing_ and all have failed. You are still holding him or her and letting the baby know that you have not abandoned them. Even though you can't meet their needs to stop the crying (yet have tried everything), at least they will not feel alone.

CIO is not: Putting your baby down so you can regather your composure enough so that you don't _hurt_ him or her because of frustration. You have _already tried everything_ to soothe them, nothing worked, and the crying seems like it will last forever. You feel that you might yell, or shake the baby, or worse... and you don't want to do that. So you put them somewhere safe while you breathe or scream into a pillow. You didn't _plan_ to do it, you didn't _want_ to do it, but it falls under the category of "emergency" and you return to comfort them after a moment's time. You have not left them alone for minutes or hours on end with the intention of teaching a lesson in "self-soothing," but instead it was a desperate act to prevent yourself from losing control. Sounds like an emergency to me.

That is what I think...


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
*Choosing* to "let" them cry when you know that doing something would stop it is not okay.

Bolding is mine.

I think this about sums it up. Perfectly.

Do we have to go round and round about every freaking scenario where one might HAVE to leave a child to fuss for a few minutes? Seriously. Yes, sometimes we need to pee, poop, administer attention to another child, administer first aid, or drive to the store with an unhappy baby in their carseat or else no one in the house will be eating any food that day.

And, for the love of all that's holy, can we drop the stepping-away-from-the-child-b/c-we-might-lose-our-crap argument??? Aren't we all intelligent enough to know that it's not CIO?

I'm sorry to sound so snarkilicious, but I think this gets a little silly sometimes.


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pandora114*
Sooo..are you saying that I was better off killing my child after letting her cry for 3 hours in arms...with NO Support, NO significant Other to hand her off to, NO HELP whatsoever?

Nice...









Obviously no one thinks that you would be better off killing your child. How is this p/a response in any way helpful to the discussion at hand?


----------



## Yodergoat (Jun 20, 2006)

I know that there are many other posts on this already, but I want to add what *I* think CIO is and is not:

*CIO is:* The _purposeful & intentional_ abandonment of your child in order to "teach" him or her that crying and even screaming will get nothing in return... no comfort, no food, no consolement, and certainly no cuddling. The child _would otherwise_ be soothed by these actions, but you purposefully do not give them although you are _available and you could_ give these things. Instead, you _choose_ not to do so, with the intended result that your child "learns" that crying=nothing in return (and thus is not "spoiled"). It is deliberate, and it is often planned... as in, *"I'm going to try CIO tonight, so the baby will learn to sleep!"* or *"I'm going to let the baby CIO, even though I know she's hungry, so I can skip her middle of the night feeding so she will learn not to beg for food at night."* And although some parents feel that it is cruel, they may still do it because they have been taught again and again by baby books and so-called experts that it must be done to teach independence, and that independence is paramount. Some parenting books imply that you are "weak-willed" to respond to your baby's cries, which they claim are manipulative. So some parents might sit outside their child's room, crying themselves, when at any moment they _could_ just go in and pick up the child and the crying would stop. They do it because they think they must, since they believe what they read or what their doctor recommends. Others do it proudly, thinking they are actually helping their child learn to "self-soothe," a.k.a. "learn that no one cares," a.k.a. "learn to despair." And anyone who has done it themselves will often encourage others to do so, because to do otherwise would imply that it was wrong to have done. It is a mindset of "not allowing the baby to run the show." It is with-holding what you could freely give, with the purpose of teach a lesson. *THAT IS CIO, AND IT IS EITHER IGNORANT AND CRUEL OR SELFISH AND CRUEL.* Either way, it is cruel.









CIO is not: Putting your crying baby down for a moment because you have an emergency... be it injury to yourself or someone else, a pot boiling over on the stove, or even explosive diarrhea.

CIO is not: Holding your inconsolable baby in arms to cry after you have tried _every other conceivable manner of soothing_ and all have failed. You are still holding him or her and letting the baby know that you have not abandoned them. Even though you can't meet their needs to stop the crying (yet have tried everything), at least they will not feel alone.

CIO is not: Putting your baby down so you can regather your composure enough so that you don't _hurt_ him or her because of frustration. You have _already tried everything_ to soothe them, nothing worked, and the crying seems like it will last forever. You feel that you might yell, or shake the baby, or worse... and you don't want to do that. So you put them somewhere safe while you breathe or scream into a pillow. You didn't _plan_ to do it, you didn't _want_ to do it, but it falls under the category of "emergency" and you return to comfort them after a moment's time. You have not left them alone for minutes or hours on end with the intention of teaching a lesson in "self-soothing," but instead it was a desperate act to prevent yourself from losing control. Sounds like an emergency to me.

That is what I think...


----------



## Yodergoat (Jun 20, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hoopin' Mama*

I'm sorry to sound so snarkilicious, but I think this gets a little silly sometimes.

It does get silly.

And I accidentally posted the same thing twice above. Oops!


----------



## RockStarMom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pandora114*
Sooo..are you saying that I was better off killing my child after letting her cry for 3 hours in arms...with NO Support, NO significant Other to hand her off to, NO HELP whatsoever?

Nice...









Oh goodness, of course not! If a parent is having abusive tendencies, that is a whole separate issue. And if that is the case, obviously crying is preferable to death.


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

but people are saying that it's NOT OK to leave the room for a minute or a few minutes.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Hoopin' Mama*
Do we have to go round and round about every freaking scenario where one might HAVE to leave a child to fuss for a few minutes? Seriously. Yes, sometimes we need to pee, poop, administer attention to another child, administer first aid, or drive to the store with an unhappy baby in their carseat or else no one in the house will be eating any food that day.

And, for the love of all that's holy, can we drop the stepping-away-from-the-child-b/c-we-might-lose-our-crap argument??? Aren't we all intelligent enough to know that it's not CIO?

I'm sorry to sound so snarkilicious, but I think this gets a little silly sometimes.









:

[snarkilicious...







tee hee.... boy, that's a ddddc waiting to happen....]

-Angela


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that leaving the room while your baby is crying (even if its for a few minutes) is not IDEAL for that baby. However that doesnt mean it isnt necessary or something we don't have to do on occassion, but I do not think its something we need to advocate or suggest as a good option unless absolutely necessary.

People need to stop being so easily offended. A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. What is so offensive about saying that? It doesnt automatically imply you are a bad mother. We all make decisions every day that may not be ideal for our children, but that is because we have to live as a family. So if you have a physical need to step outside for a minute or 2, then do it. Catch your breath and then come back in. Was that best for your child, no.... but it was necessary and not something to feel guilty over.

I swear the biggest issue is our own insecurities as parents. We need to stop looking for approval from other people and take ownership of the decisions we make.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama*
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that leaving the room while your baby is crying (even if its for a few minutes) is not IDEAL for that baby. However that doesnt mean it isnt necessary or something we don't have to do on occassion, but I do not think its something we need to advocate or suggest as a good option unless absolutely necessary.

People need to stop being so easily offended. A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. What is so offensive about saying that? It doesnt automatically imply you are a bad mother. We all make decisions every day that may not be ideal for our children, but that is because we have to live as a family. So if you have a physical need to step outside for a minute or 2, then do it. Catch your breath and then come back in. Was that best for your child, no.... but it was necessary and not something to feel guilty over.

I swear the biggest issue is our own insecurities as parents. We need to stop looking for approval from other people and take ownership of the decisions we make.

well said


----------



## RockStarMom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Gem'sMama*
You have obviously never been a situation where you felt you may harm your child then. Good for you. I hope you never are.

I haven't, and I was assuming that the OP was refering to non-potentially abusive parents. Most parents would never honestly abuse their child. _And if they would, by all means, I fully support leaving the child to cry while they go get help._ No one is disagreeing with that.

But we've _all_ been at that "breaking point;" I could go on and on about how I'm a single mom with no support or help, been up for multiple nights in a row, baby has been screaming for hours...we've all been there. But usually when mom is most in need of a break, baby is most in need of his/her mom. My need for a break never comes before my daughter's need for me, and I do not agree with the opinion that a little extra cortisol in the brain is harmless. Plus, I, personally, cannot relax knowing that my child is crying in the bedroom alone.

Am I saying that I'm a superior mother and those who ever let their child cry for 3 minutes are as bad as the ones who let their child cry for 3 hours? Of course not! I'm just saying that it is my opinion that avoiding leaving a child to cry is possible for most moms, and preferable. As I said, I know that not everyone is so militantly anti-CIO, and there will never be agreement with this issue.


----------



## RockStarMom (Sep 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye*
I didn't say that either... CIO as sleep training is hopefully not crying for hours but often is done in small intervals...

We will not come to an agreement about this... like I said sometimes we are forced to choose the lesser of two evils... but personally I don't believe that making a "good" choice for us gets rid of the negative consequences that *may* occur because of it...

I'm done...

Very well said, and...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama*
There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that leaving the room while your baby is crying (even if its for a few minutes) is not IDEAL for that baby. However that doesnt mean it isnt necessary or something we don't have to do on occassion, but I do not think its something we need to advocate or suggest as a good option unless absolutely necessary.

People need to stop being so easily offended. A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. What is so offensive about saying that? It doesnt automatically imply you are a bad mother. We all make decisions every day that may not be ideal for our children, but that is because we have to live as a family. So if you have a physical need to step outside for a minute or 2, then do it. Catch your breath and then come back in. Was that best for your child, no.... but it was necessary and not something to feel guilty over.

I swear the biggest issue is our own insecurities as parents. We need to stop looking for approval from other people and take ownership of the decisions we make.

also very well said!


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

When you are going nuts, and the crying is getting to you, and you're on the verge of lashing out or breaking down, one or two minutes is not enough. Walking away, taking a deep breath, and returning isn't always enough to help a mama recharge.

How can it be crying it out unless the child literally cries the need out of them? What child cries only 5 minutes until they no longer have or care about the need? Crying 5 minutes while mom finishes taking a dump or goes in the other room to lay down, stare at the cieling, count to ten, call someone for support, or just clear her head isn't the same thing as crying until you accept the fact that mom is not coming or until you're so exhausted you zonk out, which is what crying it out is generally considered to be. Letting a baby cry for a few minutes isn't the same thing as forcing them to cry it OUT because you want to teach them a lesson or are just being lazy.

I agree there is no time limit for a mother who is taking care of a fussy baby alone and is feeling like she may do harm to herself or the child. Crying for 5-10 even 15 minutes is better than being slapped because mom lost it and was afraid to go away for 5 minutes because that's considered CIO and is evil.

Most of the time, if a mom is about to lose it and goes in another room for a few minutes, obviously whatever she was doing to help such as holding, rocking, or nursing wasn't helping the screaming child anyway. Otherwise, she wouldn't be all stressed out; she'd have a baby that was happily nursing.

I think we need to just remember that everyone has different situations. There are cholicy babies, for example, that just are not comforted by anything. Parents will do all they can, even drive around the neighborhood or sit in a certain position for hours, to keep their cholicy babies calm. Some babies with cholic, however, have no option but to CIO until they are done. Parents in that situation, especially single ones, if they cannot calm down the baby and it's getting to them, definitely need to just let the baby cry for five minutes so they can calm down, clear their heads, take some advil, or try to brainstorm for more ideas. In that situation the baby probably would be crying if she was in mom's arms just the same as she is in the crib while mom grabs a glass of tea to soothe her throat that is sore from crooning and singing.

If you could comfort your child, but aren't; if you're forcing your child to scream and cry until they accept the fact that mom is coming and fall asleep from exhaustion or just lay there because their cries are ignored; if you're letting the baby scream so you can watch a TV show... that's not good. But when you're tending to your own needs, the needs of other children, or protecting your baby from your own anger by leaving for a moment, or recooperating so you can come up with a new approach to soothing the infant... that's not CIO. Crying it OUT means crying the need out of you. That doesn't usually happen in 5-10 minutes. It may be a long time to cry, but the rest of one's life is a long time to have brain damage from mom shaking you because she's freaking out.

I definitely agree that meeting their needs doesn't mean giving them everything they want. I think a lot of people confuse the two. I don't think a delayed response to a need is a good idea, but I do think a delayed response to a specific want is acceptable.

I have had the impulse, especially in the middle of the night when I'm sleep-deprived and going nuts from the crying, to strike out at my son. And to my everlasting shame, there were occasions when I did not put him down and leave the room or did not leave the room long enough. And I regret the outcome of that much more than I now regret letting him cry for ten minutes while I calm down.

Quote:

If that magically becomes OK then why isn't CIO for sleep training the same kind of OK? I don't get it.
Because there's a difference between doing something because you OPT to and because you HAVE to. Because CIO usually means leaving a child for 30 minutes, even longer, to scream--not for five mnutes while you rinse your hair or clean up another child's vomit. It's like being left out in the cold. You're a lot less likely to freeze to death being outside naked in the snow for 5 minutes than for half an hour. If you can't avoid something, there's no point in feeling guilty about it. It doesn't mean it's okay, but it does mean that it's just life, that you can't change it, and that you have to work around it.

Quote:

I beleive that it all has the same effect on the child... however, it can happen and it doesn't mean that the person is a bad mother etc... but it doesn't mean that because the intentions are different the results may not be the same
Better those results than the results of mom shaking the baby and causing brain damage because she was afraid leaving the baby for 10 minutes would cause irreversible damage. Most children are left to cry, for at least five minutes, at some point in their lives. It's unavoidable. Can you point me out the adults or older children that were left to cry for 5 minutes here and there and the ones that never, ever cried alone for a few minutes? I can't distinguish, but I can certainly tell the difference between a baby with shaken baby syndrome and a baby whose mother left the room for 5 minutes to get her head cleared. I can also tell the difference between a child/adult whose needs when young were ignored and an child/adult whose parents did everything they could to nurture their child.

Quote:

A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD.
In the situation where it's either that or be shaken by mom because of her anger... I'd say that screaming for 3, 5, 20 minutes is DEFINITELY what's best for the child. What's truly best would be for the child to stop crying and feel better, but if that's not possible, you have to do whatever AVAILABLE option is best.

Quote:

My need for a break never comes before my daughter's need for me,
Mine does in the situation where I may lash out if I don't take a break. Mom's need for a break, in some instances, can be the baby's need as well. When baby needs mom, he definitely doesn't need mom in a state of mine so negative and nerve-wracked that she may not make the best parenting choice for him or may even hurt him or herself. My needs are my baby's needs in some cases. If I haven't got a clear mind, he's not going to get the best care. If I haven't been able to eat much, his meals won't be very nutritious. If I'm thinking about how badly I have to pee, he's not going to get the best attention. Moms do have to take care of themselves, because if they don't, they won't function as well...and baby suffers a lot more from that than from crying for five minutes while mom grabs a granola bar, after not eating all day, or sits down in a quiet room to try and analyze the situation to figure out a better approach of handling it or lies down on her bed, screams, counts to ten, and then comes back feeling more calm and less likely to be abusive.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:

In the situation where it's either that or be shaken by mom because of her anger... I'd say that screaming for 3, 5, 20 minutes is DEFINITELY what's best for the child. What's truly best would be for the child to stop crying and feel better, but if that's not possible, you have to do whatever AVAILABLE option is best.
No what is best for the child is to be held and comforted by mom. There is no getting around that. But if that is not possible then you find an alternative. Obviously slapping your child would be worse than leaving the room while you gather yourselves. But neither options are what are BEST for your child or what is ideal. That is the entire point. We need to be able to accept the fact that sometimes we do things that are not best or ideal because of necessity. Maybe then we can all stop being so easily offended when someone suggests that maybe there was another way to do something in regards to parenting.

Accept your decisions that you make, realize what they are, how they affect your children, and then grow from them. Plugging your ears and saying it isnt CIO cause its justifiable doesnt lessen the effect on your children. And that isnt to say anyone is a bad mom, because I don't believe that. But seriously what is the harm in recognizing that we sometimes make decisions that do negatively effect our children because its unavoidable and calling it what it is?


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye*
Also, I stand by my definition of CIO to include those 5 min of leaving, or even in the car... I believe that it all has the same effect on the child... however, it can happen and it doesn't mean that the person is a bad mother etc... but it doesn't mean that because the intentions are different the results may not be the same... If that magically becomes OK then why isn't CIO for sleep training the same kind of OK? I don't get it.

The phrase "crying it out", to me, means that there is something to conquer. "It" being an ulterior motive, or some sort of manipulation on the baby's part. Ava was not manipulating me, and she had no ulterior motive in crying, therefore, my setting her down so that I didn't loose my freaking mind was not "crying it out". It was "crying while mommy clears her head so we don't end up jumping off the roof". The two are totally different. At least to me.

But, I'm just curious, if you think "CIO" for 5 minutes to spare your sanity is the same as the sleep training, then please explain what the "it" means to you. When I set her down so I don't shake her, _what_ is it that she's "crying out"? At least with sleep training it can be argued that the "it" that they're crying out is a need for comfort, or food, or love. But since I'm not with holding any of that, _what_ is _it_ that she's "crying out"?


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I understand what you are saying but I'm still waiting for you to tell me to how to tell from a child or adult's behavior whether or not they were left to cry for 5 minutes here or there or held the entire duration of every single whimper. I can distinguish between a person who was abused and neglected and those who's needs were met and lived in loving homes. I cannot, however, tell whether or not a person's mother left the room for 5 minutes to gather her head or held the baby every second of every scream. Please tell me what the negative effects of being left to cry for five minutes while mom finishes washing her hair are in comparison to a child left to CIO for an hour to sleep train. Are they the same, or less? What should I be looking for in my child as he matures as a result of his being let cry for five minutes so I wouldn't do him harm?

What is best for a child is to have every need fulfilled before crying even becomes an issue, but if that's not available, if you can't do that, then there's nothing else you can do but whatever is second best. Your job is not to do what is best, to achieve the impossible, etc. Your job is to chose the best AVAILABLE option, not to keep trying to do something that clearly isn't going to work when there are other options that may not be as good but would prevent other harm. I'd rather let a baby cry for five minutes than leave an older child covered in vomit while I tend to the hungry child. You have to do what is best for the family as a whole, and if you can do what is best for the child, you should but it shouldn't take away from your attention to your other children. No one should be made to feel guilty or told they are harming their child because of a differnece of five minutes.

I'd like to know what "it" is that a baby is crying "out" of them and how crying for five minutes could possibly be crying. IT. OUT.


----------



## Elyra (Aug 19, 2006)

I just had a very interesting (and disturbing) conversation about CIO with a mother whose children are grown. She was talking about a woman she knows who adopted a child from another country, Russia I believe. She was telling me how children who are left to cry become very adaptable and that was great. Of course I was appalled by her attitude. The point I am making is that the children in the place where that child was were left to CIO. There was not enough staff to take care of everyone's needs and to quote what the mother I was speaking to said "they learned very quickly that there was just no use in crying because no one would come, so they just don't cry." That to me is the meaning of CIO. Five minutes does not teach a baby that no one will come. In fact, I think most of the moms who have posted here would coming running full force after two or three minutes and that a babe would learn that when they have to wait they will be met with more comfort than usual.

So defining cry it out to me would be "they learned very quickly that there was just no use in crying because no one would come, so they just don't cry."


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

Five minutes does not teach a baby that no one will come.
EXACTLY!!!


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

just curious... how does a baby know the difference between being left to cry "it" (tho i won't use the word manipulation in regards to babies) and being left to cry because mommy needed a break. Do we really think they understand the difference and that their brain reacts to being left alone any differently? Babies do not know your intentions or what you are thinking, they only know what they feel. I imagine the baby left to cry itself to sleep in a crib doesnt feel that much different than a baby left to sit in a room for 5/10 minutes while mom gathers themselves.

I do not put those two actions on the same level at all, but it would be silly to think that they affect our children differently. I personally would feel horrible doing the first as its not a necessary action, but If I needed to do the second I would not feel guilty as it was necessary for right then. However that does not change what the action or the affect on the child.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:

Your job is not to do what is best, to achieve the impossible, etc.
We will have to disagree on this. I do believe that my job is to do the best for my children. It is not always possible and it doesnt always happen because I certainly am not perfect, but it is always on my mind and I am always aware of what the ideal situation would be.

Quote:

I'd rather let a baby cry for five minutes than leave an older child covered in vomit while I tend to the hungry child. You have to do what is best for the family as a whole, and if you can do what is best for the child, you should but it shouldn't take away from your attention to your other children.
Um that is what I have been saying all along. I agree with that. However that doesnt change the fact that one child is still left crying and that it does affect the brain and does affect them. It doesnt make anyone a bad parent, but it is still being left to cry.

Quote:

No one should be made to feel guilty or told they are harming their child because of a differnece of five minutes.
No one can MAKE anyone feel guilty. I have made choices where I had to deal with an older child and the baby had to cry. Or I got in the shower while the baby cried with daddy. I don't feel guilty about it but that doesnt mean I don't recognize it as a time where I did not meet my child's needs even tho I could have. I chose what was best for me (or another family member) in that moment, not what was best for my DD. But just because I can justify it doesnt mean that her crying for 10 minutes (even while being held by daddy) affected her brain any differently than if i had left her in the crib to cry.

ETA - my point, LOL I swear I have one. We need to stop trying to define the term CIO as something evil and talk about how our actions (whatever they may be) affect our kids. Stop the labeling and guilt, just think about what we do and come to terms with the fact we are humans and we sometimes do not always choose the best option. That doesn't make anyone a lesser parent. It also doesnt put someone who lets their child scream for an hour on the same level as someone who sets a baby down for 5/10 minutes to pee.... but ultimately they all have a negative affect on our children and its worth thinking about in that way instead of sitting here debating what is CIO and what isn't. Just because something isn't labeled CIO does it really make any mom feel better about letting their child cry for ANY amount of time? Does it really change the action because it has a different name?


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I think a baby can tell the difference between five minutes and thirty. I think a baby can tell the difference between 'mommy sure is taking her time' and 'I guess mommy isn't coming.'

I believe my job is to do what is best for my whole family. I think that IS what is best for my child. I try to focus on what the best thing that I am capable of doing is, rather than the impossible ideal.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I should be looking for in my son as negative results of being left to cry for five minutes while mom takes a dump and how he'll compare to children who were held for the entire duration of every whimper.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

I didn't say that a baby can't tell the difference between 5 and 30 did I? I said the baby can not tell the difference between left to cry to sleep and left to cry because mommy needed a break. Obviously the longer a child cries the more they are affected negatively. I was speaking in regards to some who say it is about intentions and that CIO is purposefully ignoring your child to teach them something.

Further, you seem to not be reading my posts. I have no problems with you leaving your child to cry while you take a dump. That is your choice to make. I personally have made that choice as well. But physically the same things that happen to a child left to cry to learn a lesson (and many babies do give up after 5 minutes) is happening your child.

Who knows if there are any long term negative effects of being left to cry for 5 minutes while we take a dump every day, there aren't exactly studies about that. But there is something to be said for thinking about the long term affects of our parenting AS WELL as how are our children are feeling on a daily basis. I mean my kids could probably never go to a park for the rest of their lives and be fine, but I still choose to take them to the park cause it makes them feel good.


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

If baby can't tell the difference between mom being gone 5 vs. 20+ minutes, how is crying-in-arms any better? If you have a colicky babe who spends hours on end crying *regardless* of what you try?


----------



## liawbh (Sep 29, 2004)

So, the parent of the colicky babe should just accept that their babe is all kinds of damaged from all the crying? And that they haven't done the best job because they haven't fixed the mysterious ailment?

Yeah, I know no one can MAKE anybody feel anything, but they sure do try.


----------



## loraxc (Aug 14, 2003)

Moonfirefaery:
















Quote:

But just because I can justify it doesnt mean that her crying for 10 minutes (even while being held by daddy) affected her brain any differently than if i had left her in the crib to cry.
So now we're saying that *crying in a loving father's arms* "affects their brains"?







: It's really not at all a far leap from that to "Babies who cry at any time for any reason for any length of time are being damaged by the crying."







: Too bad about those high-needs, colicky babies, huh? Brain-damaged for life. If only they had had BETTER mamas! (I'm being sarcastic here. Actually, there is research showing that colicky babies are NOT affected in later life.)


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

wow, I should just stop posting because no one is even reading what I actually said.

I am not comparing a baby crying for 5 minutes against a baby crying for 30. I am comparing a baby being left in a crib to cry to sleep train for 10 minutes versus a baby being left to cry while mom takes 10 minutes to gather herself. The physical affects on the baby for those 10 minutes of both situations theoretically are the same because a baby has no understanding of intentions. Because of that it is silly for us to sit here and debate what is CIO and what isnt. Just because one mom has better intentions than another mom doesnt make that baby feel any differently.

Nor did I say that any baby was damaged. I definately never said that "Affects their brains" = brain damaged. I simply said it affects them, it can affect them in how they are feeling in that moment or if left to cry on a continual basis studies there is an issue of stress on the baby (http://www.naturalchild.org/guest/li..._palmer2.html). I know that on days when my DD has been crying more often than usually (because I needed to work at my older daughters school or something like that) she is clingier than usual. It absolutely affects her, at least temporarily. It doesnt matter that her loving daddy is here.. she is still physically crying and it still affects her physically.

Also I never said anyone wasn't doing the best job they could. I simply said that we as parents do not always choose what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. Myself included. We choose what is best for that situation taking into all factors of what is going on.

I seriously don't understand the issue, I am saying that no one is a bad parent because they took 5 minutes to pee. No one is a bad parent because they can not figure out while their child is crying. I have never said any of that nor would I cause that has been me many times. So I don't get why everyone is up in arms over me suggesting that a baby may not be able to discern the difference between being left to cry in a crib for 10 minutes and being left to cry while mommy showers or regains herself. I just think that trying to define this term CIO just allows us to be more judgemental instead of talking about situations in terms of how babies are feeling and what the affect of them are.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama*
(tho i won't use the word manipulation in regards to babies)

I used the word manipulation because that is a common theme among sleep trainers. To "teach" a helpless infant that they do not need the loving comfort of a human being so they can sleep for 12 hours implies that a baby communicates out of manipulation. Manipulation is something that must be stopped. Tending to the needs of a baby must be encouraged. The difference between us and sleep trainers is that we feel we must tend to the needs of our baby's because they NEED us, not because they are manipulating us. I do not believe that babies are capable of manipulation, but I think many people do believe this. Sadly enough.









Quote:

Babies do not know your intentions or what you are thinking, they only know what they feel. I imagine the baby left to cry itself to sleep in a crib doesn't feel that much different than a baby left to sit in a room for 5/10 minutes while mom gathers themselves.

I do not put those two actions on the same level at all, but it would be silly to think that they affect our children differently.
I agree and I disagree with this. LOL. If that's even possible. No, they don't know our intentions, and our intentions mean little to them when they need us most. However, crying for 5 minutes does not invoke feelings of abandonment and hopelessness. I don't think. At least not in comparison to crying for 30 minutes, therefore I don't think the two can be compared (even though I realize your point was about intentions and not time frames).

A child who cries himself to sleep has given up hope. Over time this causes them to loose trust in his care givers, and as we all know, this causes a whole slough of consequences both immediately, and long term. I don't necessarily believe that 5 minutes can cause the same emotional damage. But because I don't think 5 minutes is the same as 30 does not mean I am dismissing it. I don't think 5 minutes of crying alone is what's "best", even though it may be what's best at the time.

True, they have no idea what our intentions are, and they have no comprehension of what we're doing or why we're doing it, BUT, I have yet to see my daughter give up hope and cease her crying because she feels defeated and abandoned, which I think are the most damaging side effects of "prolonged CIO".

Does that make sense?







:

Quote:

No one can MAKE anyone feel guilty.
Now this I agree with! I don't feel guilty for doing what is necessary to make me a better mother. It's not a perfect situation, it's not what's best for her over all, but it was the best I could do at that time, and I know that's all she would expect of me.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

North of 60 - yep, I agree with all of that as well. I agree there is absolutely a difference between being left to cry for 5 minutes or for 30 minutes or however long. When I first posted along those lines I was more or less just throwing out something for discussion. I was just talking in regards to if the time limit is really the same is there really a difference, kwim? I am just long winded today, LOL I obviously have too much time on my hands because my kids are actually playing together peacefully, for once


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama*
Also I never said anyone wasn't doing the best job they could. I simply said that we as parents do not always choose what is BEST FOR THE CHILD. Myself included. We choose what is best for that situation taking into all factors of what is going on.

I don't get the distinction here. If I had a child who required surgery to save his/her life, then the best thing I could do for that child is to have them get the surgery. That doesn't mean that's the hypothetical "best thing" for a child in some other situation. Doing what's best for you child _means_ doing what's best for your child in your situation...any other situation is irrelevant.

In an ideal world, I wouldn't have had a colicky baby to care for while recovering from a cesarean. In my situation, I had a wonderful dh who was fortunately not working. So, my precious dd cried in her daddy's arms every night (for four hours) when nothing else worked. In our situation, that was what was best for our child. If I could have made her feel okay by nursing her, that would have been best in _that_ situation.

How can you isolate doing what's best for your child from doing what's best for your child _in your situation_? We're all in our own situation - nobody else's.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

I am talking about general parenting ideals.

In the case of me wanting to take a shower by myself. My DD is seriously attached to me and hates for me to be out of sight. But I really wanted to take a shower by myself for once, LOL. So I gave her to dad and got in the shower. She cried the entire time... obviously what would have been best for HER is to get out and meet her needs so she would not need to cry. I obviously chose to finish my shower because I personally would benefit from me taking a shower.

Ideally (for the best health of a child) all children should be nursed til 2 years old. Obviously this is not always what is best for the family/mom/etc and it sometimes doesn't happen. That doesnt change the fact that breastmilk is nutriionally best for a child til 2 kwim? But you make the best choice you can for you.

The ideal solution for our children is sometimes not possible because we have other people to consider. That doesnt change that it is the ideal, it just makes it so we have to choose a different option. But overall as a theory on a parenting board we often set up ideals that we like to promote. We as parents sometimes have to come to terms with that fact that we are not able to follow through on those ideals. That doesnt make us a bad parent, it just is a fact of life.

ETA - sorry for all the editing and typos. My carpel tunnel is being a pain today lol.


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Brilliant posts, PatchyMama!


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

Quote:

I said the baby can not tell the difference between left to cry to sleep and left to cry because mommy needed a break
I don't think that difference would make as much of a difference as the amount of time he was left to cry. Moreover, I think he could figure it out based on how long he was left to cry. My child knows that even if it takes a few minutes I eventually come, and that's how HE knows the difference.

Quote:

But physically the same things that happen to a child left to cry to learn a lesson (and many babies do give up after 5 minutes) is happening your child
And I am still waiting for you to tell me what those things are, as well as what negative effects I should be looking for because of it in my child.

Quote:

Who knows if there are any long term negative effects of being left to cry for 5 minutes while we take a dump every day, there aren't exactly studies about that.
If there aren't any then what's the problem? Who cares how it affects their brain if those effects don't cause any negative results? There's no proof, just a bunch of theories, so why act as if it's got all these effects on the brain that might make it harmful if there's nothing solid?

I think it's more about what the child learns because of the crying than the 'effects of the crying on the brain', especially considering crying is a normal part of infancy and childhood and some experts even say babies need to cry at least a little bit, just not too much. I don't think crying for five minutes is going to have much of a negative effect on the brain. Being left alone for five minutes doesn't teach a child anything other than that mommy cannot always come immediately, whereas being left alone for longer periods of time teaches babies that their needs will not be met period because mommy is not coming at all. As another poster stated that a child who cries himself to sleep has given up hope... a child left to cry for five minutes probably has not. These are what I think are a lot more important than imaginary or presumed negative effects of crying for any period of time on the brain. It is the effects of long periods of crying that cause a child to learn his needs are not important or mommy does not care or to give up hope. If the effects of crying for any amount of time at all were harmful to the brain or changed who a person becomes, I think we'd all be pretty messed up because no one has a cry-free childhood.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Quote:

If there aren't any then what's the problem? Who cares how it affects their brain if those effects don't cause any negative results? T
I very much care how my child feels on a daily basis in addition to the long term affects of my parenting on my child.

Jennisee, I love your signature. I think that is a great goal to live/parent by


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I care as well, but I'm still waiting to hear what the long-term effects of letting my baby down to cry sadly while I take a dump are. My duty is to my whole family, putting the family first not just whoever is crying loudest or is the youngest. My job isn't to give my child shiny happy feelings all of the time to prevent him from ever feeling anything commonly perceived as negative, but to meet his needs and raise him to be a functional, happy adult. I cannot protect him from every moment of sadness, fear, or doubt, an I'm not going to let 'he might be sad for a few minutes!' prevent me from tending to the needs of my entire family. Once again if there are no negative results, and if you're doing all you can to meet your child's needs and keep his feelings in good order without neglecting the needs of others in the family, I don't see the problem.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

Again I question whether you are fully reading my posts. I agree with you that I have no problem with any of that and have done that myself. I just said that I don't think it is without its affects on the child and those are worth of considering through out the day and when discussing it on a board such as this, regardless of how minimal or long term they are. It is worth thinking about and discussing this in regards to how a child feels in both a "cry til you learn to sleep" situation and a "cry while i take a dump" situation.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I'm reading your posts, and I am asking what those effects are, more specifically what the negative ones are, that you keep talking about.

As for my child's feelings, he's not going to learn that I am not coming, give up hope, or become depressed because I took a five-minute dump, though he might if I leave him alone to cry to sleep. I'm not going to lose sleep over my son feeling sad for five minutes because I had to fulfill a need of my own in order to relieve him of that sadness. I don't think rocking a baby with diarrhea leaking out would be very sanitary.


----------



## Cujobunny (Aug 16, 2006)

Patchy Mama, I agree with you. I know that crying for 5 minutes would have an effect on my child. Not long term, brain damaging effects, but some effect nonetheless.

I also agree that, for during that 5 minutes, he would have no idea if I was coming back or not, so for him the feelings are the same, whatever my intention.

I have thought about this, and here's what I have come up with:

*The ACT of Crying It Out has a different meaning from the PRACTICE of letting your child Cry It Out for the purpose of "training" them.*

Most children, at some point or another, will have to be left to cry for a few minutes while Mama tends to something else that REQUIRES her attention. If, during those few minutes, the baby stops crying because he/she fell asleep or comforted him/herself, sorry, but your baby just Cried the need right out of him/her. No it's not great, but it was necessary and DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BAD MOTHER. It does not make you someone who practices CIO. There is no need to beat yourself up over it. If there were any feelings of abandonment by ds during that time, IMO, they would be quickly erased when he woke up, or when I went in and got him and lovingly spent the rest of the day (or my life!) trying to make up for that, and nursed him, rocked him to sleep next time. It would take more than a few times of leaving him to cry by himself to have long term feelings of abandonment or mistrust. And I say that as someone who is pretty anti-CIO, but have been fortunate to have a baby who didn't cry very much.

What do you all think of that?


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

this is a part of one of my favourite articles that was in the Globe and Mail earlier this year by Gabor Maté.

Quote:

"As a family physician, I used to advocate the Ferber technique and, as a parent, practised it myself. Since then, I have come to believe that the method is harmful to infant development and to a child's long-term emotional health."

"People cannot consciously recall what they "learned" in the first year of life, because the brain structures that store narrative memory are not yet developed. But neuropsychological research has established that human beings have a far more powerful memory system imprinted in their nervous systems called intrinsic memory. Intrinsic memory encodes the emotional aspects of early experience, mostly in the prefrontal lobe of the brain. These emotional memories may last a lifetime. Without any recall of the events that originally encoded them, they serve as a template for how we perceive the world and how we react to later occurrences."

"As psychologist and leading memory researcher Daniel Schacter has written, intrinsic memory is active "when people are influenced by past experience without any awareness that they are remembering."

The implicit message an infant receives from having her cries ignored is that the world - as represented by her caregivers - is indifferent to her feelings. That is not at all what loving parents intend.

Unfortunately, it's not parental intentions that a baby integrates into her world view, but how parents respond to her. This is why, if I could relive my life, I would do much of my parenting differently."

I won't quote more of the article because I have already quoted enough...

I do beleive that somehing actually changes in the brain when a baby is left to cry without a caregiver... and that in some circumstances this can happen wih a caregiver when denied a need.

Babies cry, sometimes they cry a lot and sometimes we try everything and baby keeps on crying... it happens.... but leaving them doesn't make it better for them, like Gabor Maté says... it is not the parents intentions but the parents actions. IMO a 6 month old baby does not know if you are coming back or not... especially if they are in the middle of a crying fit...
And please do NOT tell me that I have not been there! I have!
I just have a different way of coping with certain situations. I was abused and neglected as a child and I learned at a very young age how to retreat into myself in order to cope... I know that others may not be able to do this and that walking away is what is needed but it doesn't mean the effects that may happen will dissapear because your intentions are in the right place...
And YES, my baby has cried and I couldn't get to them right away... but I have accepted that I couldn't do anything different at that time and then I deal with it... I don't negate what hapened into saying that it didn't harm them at all because my intentions were not there...


----------



## HelloKitty (Apr 1, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *boongirl*
Maybe I am just extraordinarily literal, but I take CIO to mean crying it out. In other words, being left to cry the need for a parent out of you. Leaving a child for a few seconds or minutes when you WANT to return to them and understand that they need you but you need this time to think, pee, poop, eat, find the car keys, find the aloe vera gel or benadryl, or whatever little thing that is happening NOW that you must do NOW even though you really want to also be attending to your child IS NOT CIO. Because, this is not leaving your child to cry it out.

Extremists may dicker this point with me, but literally, I think it means leaving your child to cry their need for their parent out of them. They learn that mama is not coming and so they cry and cry and eventually the cry is out of them and they learn to just deal with being abandoned in their little cage.









:

I think "fussing it out" also qualifies.

That's why they call it "sleep training" - parents are trying to "train" their children not to cry when they go to sleep. I'm always against things that treat children like pets. I train my dog, not my child. I did CIO with my Saint Bernard. Sorry but I'm not going to co-sleep with him no matter how much I love him.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye*
I don't negate what hapened into saying that it didn't harm them at all because my intentions were not there...

And I did?







Since you didn't address anyone specifically, I'll assume you are referring everyone, myself included. Please be careful with the blanket statements.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*
And I did?







Since you didn't address anyone specifically, I'll assume you are referring everyone, myself included. Please be careful with the blanket statements.

No... I was specifying myself... as in "I"...

is that not OK in English?

how else should I have said it? (I am serious here... english is not my first language)


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

If I misunderstood you, then I appologize. It seemed to me like you were implying that others in this thread have dismissed any possible harm done because their intentions were good, while you have not.

If that was not your intention, my bad.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*
If I misunderstood you, then I appologize. It seemed to me like you were implying that others in this thread have dismissed any possible harm done because their intentions were good, while you have not.

If that was not your intention, my bad.









No prob...

I was saying exactly what I thought I was saying...
That when I have been in a situation that my children have cried and I have not been able to respond to them and fulfill a need (like in the car etc) that I don't believe that the negative consequences that may happen just disappear because my intentions were good.

Not to dig myself into a bigger hole... but I view Formula in the same way.
I believe that breast is best and that Formula can have some negative consequences on the health of a baby. I believe that CHOOSING Formula is a bad choice but also I believe that Formula is there for a reason. If a parent cannot breastfeed and does not have access to breastmilk then Formula is the answer.
They need to feed their child. However, it is not a choice, the choice has been taken away from them. They should not feel guilty about it because it is beyond their control... however...It also doesn't mean that the negative consequences that Formula may have automatically disapear... KWIM? Feeling guilty and denying it won't help....You just have to accept it and deal with it. Again... that's my opinion...


----------



## aydensmama (Jun 2, 2005)

I am curious on the car issue. I cannot wake my boys early enough to have enough time to stop every two minutes to tend to my screaming baby. I do everything I can to make sure ds is comfy, long nursing, diaper change, blankets snug around and on him, I am about to search for a great black and white blanket to hang on his carseat so he can watch, ds cooing to him while driving, one hand constantly on him/paci... He hates it. But I have to go to work, I don't have a choice, and it cannot take my over an hour to make a twenty minute drive each morning and evening. I don't want to be a bad mom for having to drive to work (no one said that, it is my own personal worry cause it breaks my heart), but what else can I do...trust me I have tried it all.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye*
They should not feel guilty about it because it is beyond their control... however...It also doesn't mean that the negative consequences that Formula may have automatically disapear... KWIM? Feeling guilty and denying it won't help....You just have to accept it and deal with it. Again... that's my opinion...

I agree. And not to dig _myself_ a new hole (LOL), but just like crying, I don't believe the negative consequences of one bottle of formula to be the same as someone who exclusively feeds formula. No formula is best. A little is better then a lot.

Same with crying. 5 minutes is not best. None is better. But it's better then 2 hours. So the difference between 5 minutes of crying and 2 hours of crying, or a few ounces of formula, or months of formula, could be the parents _intention_. It could be argued that the negative effects are minimized by the parents intentions, since good intentions may reduce harmful behavior, such as a lot of crying, or a lot of formula.

However, regardless of our intentions, our babies do not know why they are left to cry, so during that 5 minutes, yes, they experience the same emotions as a baby left to cry for 2 hours. Does it create the same long term effects? No, I don't believe so. Thankfully I have only ever felt that desperate twice, and both times were learning experiences to help me cope better next time. It's deffinitly not something I *like* doing.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*
However, regardless of our intentions, our babies do not know why they are left to cry, so during that 5 minutes, yes, they experience the same emotions as a baby left to cry for 2 hours. Does it create the same long term effects? No, I don't believe so. Thankfully I have only ever felt that desperate twice, and both times were learning experiences to help me cope better next time. It's deffinitly not something I *like* doing.

I agree... but someone on this thread talked about it being an every day thing and it was not the same because the same intentions were not the same...

That being said, I do believe that there are times that even once can have negative consequences... it depends on the situation and the child... some babies are noticably clingy for days after their needs were ignored intentionally or not...


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aydensmama*
I am curious on the car issue. I cannot wake my boys early enough to have enough time to stop every two minutes to tend to my screaming baby. I do everything I can to make sure ds is comfy, long nursing, diaper change, blankets snug around and on him, I am about to search for a great black and white blanket to hang on his carseat so he can watch, ds cooing to him while driving, one hand constantly on him/paci... He hates it. But I have to go to work, I don't have a choice, and it cannot take my over an hour to make a twenty minute drive each morning and evening. I don't want to be a bad mom for having to drive to work (no one said that, it is my own personal worry cause it breaks my heart), but what else can I do...trust me I have tried it all.

I am lucky... I am a SAHM and had a choice not to go out or to do so at certain times when I knew that my baby was going to sleep so that car rides would be easier...

A good place to post this question could be in Working moms board or Parenting board... I hope that you get some good suggestions...


----------



## aydensmama (Jun 2, 2005)

Thanks paxye..i will post over there for ideas. I am lucky in that it is part time/flexible and they come with, so I can make the crying better at the end of the trip, BUT is what I described CIO? I think I know the answer, I just hate that I do not have a choice. I do not want to teach or manipulate him to tolerate the car by crying, but it is the outcome of not pulling over every 2 minutes. Ohhhhhhh....


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *paxye*
but someone on this thread talked about it being an every day thing and it was not the same because the same intentions were not the same...

And in a way I believe that to be true. This is where we (AP parents) differ from CIO parents. In the case of someone being a single parent, or a parent to multiple children, a crying baby is inevitable. And just like the parents who _need_ formula, if you _need_ to let your baby cry to attend to another child, there is nothing to feel guilty about. You're doing the *best you can*.

A child who grows up in a home knowing that his parents did *the best they could*, even if it took 5 minutes, or even 10 minutes, is still going to be worlds better off then a child whose needs are _never_ met.

Ignoring the needs of a child for 12 hours in an attempt to teach them independence, and setting a baby down for 5 minutes because there is an inherent need to do something else are NOT the same. The two should NOT, in my opinion, both be referred to as "CIO". Attending to the immediate needs of yourself, or another family member, does not fall under the category of making a baby cry anything out.

I think we should look at the phrase itself and decipher that. "Cry it out". If we figure out what that means, then maybe we can decide what types of crying fall under the category.

"Fight it out"
"Talk it out"
"Work it out"

They all imply doing something until the need for "it" is gone. If you're in an argument with someone, you talk it out. If you have a cramp in your leg, you work it out. Etc, etc..

If people let their babies "cry it out" in an attempt to teach them not to need food for comfort at night, then the "it" in that phrase would be food or comfort. Who here, by that definition, lets their baby "cry it out"? No one.

Babies cry. But our _intentions_ in letting them cry play a HUGE roll in their mental, physical, and emotional development. Letting a baby cry so you can use the bathroom is NOT the same as letting a baby cry until their need for food or comfort is gone, which is essentially a loss of hope, since their need never really goes away. They just give up. But that's neither here nor there.

So yeah, I do think intentions have A LOT to do with how the child is effected.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

I don't think rocking a baby with diarrhea leaking out would be very sanitary.
Guilty.














:


----------



## aussiemum (Dec 20, 2001)

Yeah, this does get silly.

Diarrohea is never sanitary. Ever.

I have cared for my babies (& now they are children) when they have had the runs many times.... & then when _I_ have caught the flu, DH does the caring...

I'm sorry if I've added to the general angst on this thread with my 5 minute contribution. I agree with a lot of what Patchy Mama has said, also agreed with a lot of Yoder Goat said...

Pax.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aussiemum*
Yeah, this does get silly.

Diarrohea is never sanitary. Ever.

I too am sorry this thread went in the direction of being proud of the aforementioned toilet troubles, because I think it was a very healthy and useful discussion that was very much needed around here.

For what it's worth, I think handling a baby while you shit yourself is disgusting, and certainly not funny.

I think I'm done with this thread now.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*
.
For what it's worth, I think handling a baby while you shit yourself is disgusting, and certainly not funny.

Disgusting? Perhaps. Funny? Might be. Being a mom is often disgusting. Sometimes there's humor in what moms have to go through. Have I sat on the toilet while holding a baby? Yep. Nursing even. Have I left a baby to cry while I sat on the toilet? Yep. Which was better/worse? Beats me. Both were the best choice I could make at the time.

-Angela


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Disgusting? Perhaps. Funny? Might be. Being a mom is often disgusting. Sometimes there's humor in what moms have to go through. Have I sat on the toilet while holding a baby? Yep. Nursing even. Have I left a baby to cry while I sat on the toilet? Yep. Which was better/worse? Beats me. Both were the best choice I could make at the time.

-Angela

This is what I was talking about:

Quote:



Quote:

I don't think rocking a baby with diarrhea leaking out would be very sanitary.

Quote:

Guilty

I rock my baby in a rocking chair, and to be proud of doing that with "diarrhea leaking out", is in my never to be humble opinion, disgusting.

Have I nursed on the toilet? Yep. But I certainly won't be the first person to jump at the opportunity to tell stories about my pooping my pants all in the name of being the bestest AP'er on the planet. Sorry.

This thread has diverged from being a very interesting discussion about the definition of "CIO", to being a oneupmanship about who can do the most disgusting things in order to not leave a baby alone for 5 minutes. The one oneupmanship never ends, but this is a new one for me. Ick.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Yeah, I have been guilty of holding my baby while on the toilet. Is it my first choice? Absolutely not. I don't say "gee honey, you want mama to rock you... off to the toilet we go!" ... but if you are asking me what my choice would be between a screaming, unhappy, scared baby and sitting on the toilet rocking her.. I choose the latter.

For as sick, unsanitary, gross and whatever else it may be, my unvaxxed daughter has never been sick a day in her life ...

I am not trying to *oneup* anyone -- just stating a fact -- whether or not I think something may be *icky* comes secondary to comforting my screaming baby. Man, if I avoided everything in parenting that grossed me out, it would be a sad state around here.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I wonder about something regarding the very broad definitions of CIO are used.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PatchyMama*
A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD.

I have a daughter who Co-sleeps (still at age 5) who went through a stage at about a year or so where she would turn from the breast and belt out a cry. For a month I would try to hold her, walk with her, sling her, nurse her...and then I realized that she wanted to be left alone. Not alone, alone. She just wanted me to stop messing with her. She wanted to cry for a second.

I don't know exactly my point is. I guess it would be crying as a subject into this discussion. Unfortunately, I don't know the current opinion in infant development but my sense as a mother is that not all types of crying are such a horrible things for a child as to suggest that we can't take a pee or a mental break or just listen for a while.

I also wonder about the impact of the perspective that crying is so detrimental for that child. This is my personal thing. I wish I could have been better at saying, "You're upset. I'm trying to help you. You're going to be OK. It's OK to be upset." I realize that no one thinks this is CIO but not being able to do this...being so upset by 2 minutes of crying I think was not good for me or my child.

I say this as a parent who has put my child's needs and wants ahead of mine to the point that I need to be reminded that I should finish my sandwich before I get my 5 year old her legos.


----------



## momtoNatalee (Nov 20, 2005)

Intresting article on CIO
http://www.unhinderedliving.com/cry.html


----------



## momtoNatalee (Nov 20, 2005)

This one is good

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...2/ai_112352791

oops..I think this one is in the stickies


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Yeah, I have been guilty of holding my baby while on the toilet. Is it my first choice? Absolutely not. I don't say "gee honey, you want mama to rock you... off to the toilet we go!" ...

Ok, that made me laugh out loud. Funny how I can talk about baby poop 'till the cows come home, but one of us mentions it and my skin crawls. I guess I'm just a prude.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I have a daughter who Co-sleeps (still at age 5) who went through a stage at about a year or so where she would turn from the breast and belt out a cry. For a month I would try to hold her, walk with her, sling her, nurse her...and then I realized that she wanted to be left alone. Not alone, alone. She just wanted me to stop messing with her. She wanted to cry for a second.

I was actually going to come back and post about something, and your post is on the same track.

DD wouldn't sleep when she was a newborn. She screamed and cried and _nothing_ helped. I nursed her and sang to her and walked her and rocked her for as long as I could (not as long as I'd have liked, with the incision), then dh took over for hours. This went on every night for a couple of months. DH finally figured out what I hadn't been able to bring myself to see. What was best for my dd was to be left alone for a minute. She's very easily over-stimulated, and found even nursing or being rocked _too much_. She needed to be put down without any distractions - and she was asleep within two minutes. The first time dh put her down, he came down and told me that he'd left her in the playpen. I was horrified and raced upstairs because I just knew that my dd needed her mommy. I didn't hear any crying, and when I opened the door, dd was sound asleep. I didn't want to believe it, but it was true. As long as we held her, rocked her, etc., she wouldn't go to sleep. She'd fight sleep with every fiber of her being. As soon as the distractions (mom's breast, movement, sound, whatever) were removed...she was out.

It wasn't CIO, because she would actually stop crying as soon as we were out of her sight. I was napping once when dh brought her in. I woke up because she was crying, but she didn't notice me. DH put her in the playpen, and she stood there screaming at him. He said goodnight to her, gave her a kiss and walked out. As soon as the door closed, she sat down and stopped crying. In less than a minute, she was asleep.

I firmly believe that holding our children is best. I wonder how much damage I did dd when my attempts to do what's "best" (in an objective sense) caused her to cry for hours...


----------



## jcchirib (May 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dukeswalker*







: I've nursed while sitting on the pot.....







: just so dd wouldn't have to cry all alone....

me too--it gets easier when they can stand! (oh my, TMI, anyone?) always feel torn about it though...what's better, subjecting them to, um, my "activities" , or letting them fuss til I'm done? I suppose it's the little one's call. but I completely understand another mother wanting to have a little personal space during such moments. for me, the aural assault would be too unnerving to let her cry anyway--this may sound terrible, by my little one's cry is like nails on a chalkboard to me!









i suppose if you fail to respond to a crying child, intending that the child will "give up" crying for a response, and the outcome is that child stops crying, you have practiced or "committed" CIO. But if you are unable to respond (hot pan in hands, in the middle of going to the bathroom, etc.) immediately, intending to respond as soon as practicable, and the child happens to find a solution or starts to feel better on her own? It might not be ideal, but I would not consider it CIO. (I have a toddler, so I guess I'm assuming a toddler in this circumstance).

I think that intent and outcome are important because, even though it is pretty obvious that the outcome of CIO is bad for the child, I think that the intent underlying CIO somehow deadens or desensitizes the parent--so, bad for the parent, bad for the babe.


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

As a mom, you do what you got to do, and it does disgusting. However, I try to avoid disgusting or unsanitary conditions as often as possible. I may bring a screaming baby to the bathroom to pee, but I'm not going to worry about leaving him alone for five minutes so that I can relieve myself. I think the effects and feelings of crying for five minutes, something everyone does at some point during life, aren't as bothersome as him catching some airborn disease from bacteria flying around the bathroom. There are a lot of times when what is best for the child isn't possible or may be best in one way, but bad in another.

I'm not here to protect my child from ever feeling sad; that's just part of life. I'm here to guide and teach him, to fulfill his needs, and while his feelings are important and should be considered, they will not be dictating everything I do. No one is ever certain about anything, so a baby's uncertainty about whether or not mom is coming back is not as worrisome to me as teaching my baby that I definitely am not coming back would be. I think doubt can be better than certainty in some situations. He's going to wonder anytime I'm gone, but that doesn't mean he's never going to in his whole life be alone. As long as I do come back he will eventually learn that I am always going to come back and worry no longer, and he can't learn that if he's never left alone for me to come back to. He doesn't 'feel' happy about not being allowed to run into the street, but that doesn't mean it's not best for me to hold his hand so he can't run off despite his wishes.

I don't think the 'negative consequences' of crying for a few moments, a normal part of infancy, childhood, and even adulthood are comparable to long-term formula feeding. I think we're getting silly when we're comparing thsoe two things, just as it's silly to suggest it can be harmful to leave your child to cry for five minutes while you relieve yourself. The baby was alone in the womb for nine months, and from what I've read, they do cry in the womb. If it was harmful then they wouldn't be alone in the womb, occasionally crying, for those nine months. I think crying is a normal part of development. Crying too much is not.

Personally I don't think the whole diarrhea thing is funny either. I certainly wouldn't be proud of trying to wipe my bum while nursing.  Who wants to eat with that smell in the air and all the bacteria flying around??? Maybe after the lysol is sprayed...but this is one of many situations wher eit's better for baby to wait.

Quote:

This thread has diverged from being a very interesting discussion about the definition of "CIO", to being a oneupmanship about who can do the most disgusting things in order to not leave a baby alone for 5 minutes
I agree. It's very gross. If someone is a better supermama than me because they nurse with diarrhea... that's fine, I can accept second place for mom of the year. But letting my son smell my poop, possibly have some splash up on him, or trying to hold him as I wipe...all the while, as he's breathing in germs in the bathroom air, as he eats...that's one 'disgusting' part of motherhood that I'm going to sit out on. If you want to do it, that's fine. I'm not saying it's going to result in your child getting seriously ill. It's just not for me or my babies. I want my child to be as happy as possible as often as possible but... that's just not a hoop I'm going to jump through to avoid delaying a meal 5 or 10 minutes.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

thank you moonfirefaery for taking this thread to a whole new level of gross and completely diverting the thread from the topic at hand.







:

and with that I am officially unsubscribing from this thread.







:


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

Okay, this has been a great conversation so far. Let's keep on topic please


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't think we've diverted the thread from the topic at hand. I'm not the one who began saying that leaving a baby to cry for five minutes, to potty or tend to another child's needs, is harmful. We're discussing whether or not certain behaviors are CIO, and that is one action that I do not feel constitutes as CIO regardless of what others have to say. We were on the whole '5 minutes is bad, too!' thing long before I mentioned diarrhea to prove the point that sometimes the 5 minute wait is in everyone's best interest.

I think most of us agree that CIO is letting a child cry until they accept the fact that mom isn't coming back, using for the purposes of sleep training. There are some that think letting a child cry for any period of time, regardless of the outcome, is harmful... and I think that's ridiculous.

Sorry to see you leave the discussion, but don't pin this silliness on me.


----------



## ecoteat (Mar 3, 2006)

I'm a little late to the discussion. I just read (scanned?) this thread, and I'm ignoring the irrelevant or off-topic posts...

Babies cry. So do we. If a crying baby has a loving caregiver available to soothe them or meet their needs, then they have it about as good as it gets. I've always thought of CIO as some deliberate thing that parents inflict upon their babies in the hopes of creating a more convenient routine for themselves. NYCVeg had a good point--CIO is when babies cry *until they give up* asking for whatever it was they needed. I don't think any harm has ever been done to a well-adjusted, loved person of any age because they cried, as long as they aren't left to feel neglected or abandoned. I know how I feel if I'm upset about something and dh doesn't come to comfort me as fast as I'd like. I hope we all, as parents, don't give our children an opportunity to feel as though their cries for help are going unanswered.


----------



## SugarAndSun (Feb 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
Good thread.

Choosing to "let" them cry when you know that doing something would stop it is not okay. (letting the cry when they want to nurse instead of nursing)

-Angela

I agree... unless someone else is in danger or very hurt. For example, my toddler is running away... I will stop nursing, clench baby in sling, and run.

--------------------------------------------
Oops, just read the rest of this thread, but have no further comment.


----------



## Coconut Chronicles (Aug 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *moonfirefaery*
I think most of us agree that CIO is letting a child cry until they accept the fact that mom isn't coming back, using for the purposes of sleep training. There are some that think letting a child cry for any period of time, regardless of the outcome, is harmful... and I think that's ridiculous.









:


----------



## karin95 (Jun 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *alegna*
THIS is not okay IMO. Sorry. I respect that you're trying to do what's best for this child, but IMO "fuss" it out is not ever okay either.

-Angela

If given a choice, I would probably agree with you.

Unfortunately, this little munchkin is leaving us within a month and going to her bio-parent who will definitely parent in a mainstream manner. He *will* let her CIO, so I'd rather let her fuss a little and fall back to sleep and not expect someone to help her everytime than be used to us helping her and then go live with her parent and be totally abandoned.









I can accept fully that this could be CIO. Being a foster parent means toeing a lot of lines and we try and be as respectful of the babies as much as possible, in addition to preparing them to leave us.

Once we adopt, we will probably be cosleeping, breastfeeding and not-CIO. I can't wait for that...


----------



## Pepe (Jul 7, 2005)

Hello...
I'm of the majority opinion on this thread--that CIO means letting your DC cry themselves to sleep alone and without your support (as opposed to knowing that a crying child will cry for a few moments until you can return to the situation and take up the parenting once again).

It seems that most of us are focused on the crying around sleep (or lack thereof!). Food for thought: what about crying in the carseat in the car? crying during a phase of separation anxiety when mom leaves for work--or leaves the room? crying during the 8 minutes or so that mom is pumping her breastmilk while dad works the night shift?

I'm asking because pondering these situations thoughtfully can help us define to what extent crying (but *NOT* CIO) is, well, a part of being a small child. For me, CIO is absolutely not the same as constantly striving to avoid/silence any crying whatsoever.


----------



## BelovedK (Jun 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *karin95*
If given a choice, I would probably agree with you.

Unfortunately, this little munchkin is leaving us within a month and going to her bio-parent who will definitely parent in a mainstream manner. He *will* let her CIO, so I'd rather let her fuss a little and fall back to sleep and not expect someone to help her everytime than be used to us helping her and then go live with her parent and be totally abandoned.









I can accept fully that this could be CIO. Being a foster parent means toeing a lot of lines and we try and be as respectful of the babies as much as possible, in addition to preparing them to leave us.

Once we adopt, we will probably be cosleeping, breastfeeding and not-CIO. I can't wait for that...









I'm truly sorry that you have to deal with that heartache. IMO, it's better for the babe to have at least an experience of trust...even for a little while. The CIO is abandonment, unfortunately this babe will have to face it. Better to have a good experience registered.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I personally see the definition of CIO is one of patterns vs one time events.

If a child learns if he cries between the hours of 9pm and 7am, no one will come - he learns that from a pattern of events, not from a one time occurance of mommy not coming. Ditto letting a child cry for 5 minutes while mom attends to someone else. If mom takes 5 minutes now and then, the child still learns that mom will come, eventually.

I think it is also important to view crying in babies as a form of communication as well as an expression of emotion - one that becomes more of the latter as a child grows.

Therefore, I personally think the severity of not responding immediately to a child's cries (whether they be officially CIO or not) does lessen with age. A 6 week old is totally helpless - all she has are her cries. A 6 month old has more a tad more control, but is still pretty helpless - but a 9 month old may only cry in specific situations (hungry, tired, toy dropped, etc) and will definitely have different cries ("I'm bored" sounds very different than "I'm hurt").

A 16 month old has more options and more control, more wants and fewer needs than the infants, though her needs are still real. And a 6 year old cries should be rare events - since by age 6, most kids can both control their environment enough to meet their basic needs AND communicate with others when they can't.

I do ignore my 3 year old cries when he is tantruming that I won't give him soda or gum or some such. I do use a lot of the GD techniques to help him manage his emotions, but I also will intentionally ignore him when it is warrented.

I see the progress from infancy through babyhood to toddlerhood is one of increasing abilities and control - and crying should be diminished as the child is able to do for self more and more as well as increases his ability to communicate without crying. Obviously, there are always times when we cry - but as we grow older, our crying is more about emotional needs, and deserve to be treated differently.

I guess I am saying that my kids are not permanently harmed from crying in their carseats for 20 minutes when we are caught in traffic. Do I like it? Of course not. Would I try to prevent it if I could? Hell yeah. Am I going to convince myself I have permanently harmed by kids because of it? Nope. Because the alternatives (stopping the car in heavy traffic, removing them from a car seat) are much riskier to their health than crying, even for hours.

Perhaps it stems from the fact that I don't believe it is possible to give your kid the "best" at all times. Or that the definition of best is so damned flexible, since what works with one family and one kid won't work with another. I cannot guarentee my kids painfree existences. I cannot promise to do everything right or not regret some decision down the road.

All I can do is base my decisions on my gut and my heart. I want my kids to know that they are loved, wanted, and that I am there for them when they need me. And that if I DON'T come to them when they cry, there is a damned good reason.

My 2 cents.

Siobhan


----------



## moonfirefaery (Jul 21, 2006)

I don't think CIO for eight minutes while mom pumps is CIO or harmful. CIO is when you are trying to teach a lesson or get the child to give up, not when you are incapable of pulling the car over and have to wait a few minutes. If you are trying to soothe the child in other ways, I don't think it's CIO. If a child is crying during seperation anxiety, it's CIO if they need comfort that isn't given. If a child is crying it out because they just need to cry and want to be left alone, I don't think that's CIO. CIO, to me, is trying to teach a lesson or have the child to give up; the child cries until the want, desire, need...even their hope is gone.

CIO for a few minutes, to me, isn't as harmful as CIO for a while to teach a lesson or whatever, because the child that is left alone occasionally for a few minutes learns that mom is coming even if it takes a second but the child whose mama never comes learns that his needs are unimportant enough for mom to come. I do agree that CIO is not the same as constantly striving to avoid/silence any crying whatsoever; that's impossible.

I think it depeneds on the situation, the age of the child, why the child is crying, and why mom cannot make the child stop crying. It just depends. If you are letting your child cry because you want her to learn you're not going to do anything or because you want her to grow weary and stop eventually, that's CIO--to me.

I agree that the severity of not responding immediately lessens with age, as the child's spectrum of wants grows. I agree that five minutes teaches the lesson that mom will come, while CIO teaches the lesson that mommy will not come. I also agree with letting a tantruming child CIO. Sometimes that's all you can do. I think it's best to try and prevent tantrums than to give a bunch of attention to a raging toddler. I agree that kids won't be damaged from crying twenty minutes when caught in traffic. Sure, it hurts their feelings, but life isn't going to be free from bad feelings. I don't like that but...it is part of life. I also agree it isn't possible to give your kids the 'best' at all times, and I also don't think that it's best for kids to be in the ideal situation at all comes. It would in a sense be ideal to never fail, to never feel sad, to never be let down...but that's unrealistic, because life is not fair. I'm nto going to TRY to teach my child this...but I'm not going to try to STOP them from learning that either.


----------



## flyingspaghettimama (Dec 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BelovedK*
I'm truly sorry that you have to deal with that heartache. IMO, it's better for the babe to have at least an experience of trust...even for a little while. The CIO is abandonment, unfortunately this babe will have to face it. Better to have a good experience registered.

Yes, I think there have been many studies on this - if a child has had any positive attachment experience, they're more likely to be able to attach securely later in life (i.e. to parents, relationships, etc). But what a heartbreaking situation for the little girl!

I think that CIO should include "for the express purpose of teaching the baby how to fall asleep or creating a self-soothing association." That's the point CIO-positive people are always going on about...how they just need to hoist themselves up by their bootstraps and BE TAUGHT how to sleep. Like they're little six month old recruits conscripted into the sleep army of darkness, and _mama_ is the unwilling yet benevolent drill sargeant who knows her duty.

That's the difference. I hear women on here say that sometimes their babe will fuss for a minute or two (in arms, lying next to them, etc), and then go to sleep. But it's not like the mamas are trying to teach them to sleep via this method. They're following the babe's lead. I can't imagine anyone wanting their baby to cry. It's the most horrible sound. However, leaving a baby in a crib to cry for 5-40 minutes for the express purpose of teaching them something is quite different. They're trying to make the babe follow THEIR lead.


----------

