# Define Cry It Out (Spinoff from working mamas)



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

I've always been a firm advocate against Cry It Out. I did a google search and could find no definitions. I always thought that Cry It Out was allowing an infant to cry themselves to sleep- with NO attention from anyone- basically walking away from a baby usually in a crib or other containment device as they scream for as long as it takes to go to sleep.
I was told on another thread that CIO is much more then what I think it is. One poster insinuated that any person who does not co-sleep is using CIO, another stated that not holding a sleeping child was CIO, several others thought that patting a child on the back while they were fussing to sleep was for sure CIO.
WTH??????
Am I the minority here? Does everyone else define CIO this broad? I'm not asking whether it is better to hold your sleeping child, I'm asking if not holding them is considered CIO by most?
Dana


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

CIO to me is not doing your best to comfort and meet the needs of a crying child. So patting a back when you know the child would like to be held is modified CIO to me.

I don't understand how not co-sleeping is CIO? Is the child in the situation crying? To me, if the child is crying and the parent is not responding as well as they can, it is CIO.


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

Actually in my mind- the patting was of a child who was 90% asleep and fussing. Not screaming to be held. Maybe that's where the differnce in the opinions on the other thread were- in what patting the back looked like.
(my kids were all strong bruisers- if they wanted to be held there would've been no way to pat their back without physically holding them down- something I would never ever even think about)


----------



## Kathryn (Oct 19, 2004)

If you are letting a child cry when you know they would stop by picking them up, that is CIO. Doesn't matter if you leave the room, talk to them without touching, or pat them on the back. You are still going against their needs to reach a goal.

ETA: There is no difference to me in "fussing" or "screaming" for CIO. That's like saying spanking is ok if you call it a "pop" instead of a "hit".


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

For me it's not about the sleep method, or the sleeping arrangements, or whether the child is being held during the nap, etc.

It is about 1) is the child crying, and 2) is the parent doing everything possible to comfort the child?

If the answer to #1 is yes, and #2 is no, it is CIO. Simple as that.


----------



## ashleep (Jul 20, 2004)

:

nak


----------



## JamieCatheryn (Dec 31, 2005)

Well, if you're not co-sleeping then the child could end up crying uncomforted for much longer than he or she would being next to you. But I'd say CIO is refusing to hold, touch, comfort nurse, or whatever the baby is crying for beyond the bare basics anybody would give them (food, right temperature, clean diaper). Incidentally if a parent doesn't even give those things I'd not call it CIO I'd call it plain child abuse. I'm against CIO simply because I see no reason to put yourself or your child through that. It's way more stressful to *not* attend to a crying baby than to spend all the time it takes to calm them.


----------



## momtoTnT (Dec 15, 2004)

I agree with thismama.

IMO, CIO is leaving the child alone (wherever they sleep-bed,crib,bassinett,swing, whatever) to cry him/herself to sleep, no matter how long that takes, 5 minutes or 5 hours.

I do not think not-co-sleeping is CIO. My ds didn't co-sleep with us until recently. We never ever let him cio. He was a very mellow baby who we could lay down awake and he would just go to sleep.

I also don't think that patting a fussy baby on the back is necessarily CIO. I think there is a distinct difference in fussing to sleep and crying to sleep. My dd, if she's not nursing to sleep (I WOH part time, so nursing to sleep isn't always an option) will kind of "complain" to sleep. She makes it known that she's going to go to sleep, but if she can't nurse first, she's not entirely happy about it.


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

What thismama said.


----------



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

The fourth choice in the poll annoys me. My DD (now almost 20 months) cannot abide being held or touched at all when she's trying to sleep; she wants me nearby, but she wants to be left alone. She has made this abundantly clear since she was very small. When I put her down to sleep, she talks or sings to herself for a few minutes, and then drifts off to sleep. No crying involved. And yet by option 4 in the poll, what I do would be defined as CIO. What the heck?


----------



## JamesMama (Jun 1, 2005)

What ThisMama said.

Llyra, IMO, if you were to force your DD to be rocked to sleep and she cried, IMO, that would be CIO. You are molding your parenting style to fit the needs of your child, she needs her own space to sleep well. You give her that, in a loving and respectful way. Just my opinion...

My DS needs me when he is getting ready to sleep, he has moments where he doesn't even want DH in the room. He wants me and me alone. If I were to ask DH to put him to sleep, or allow DH in the bedroom when James was trying to fall asleep (when he's in his Daddy GET OUT! mood) then I believe that would be CIO, no matter how cuddly and loving DH is with DS. We are not meeting his needs. JMHO


----------



## MammaKoz (Dec 9, 2003)

Quote:

For me it's not about the sleep method, or the sleeping arrangements, or whether the child is being held during the nap, etc.

It is about 1) is the child crying, and 2) is the parent doing everything possible to comfort the child?

If the answer to #1 is yes, and #2 is no, it is CIO. Simple as that.








:


----------



## simonsmama (Oct 7, 2005)

I think CIO is just letting the baby cry when you know what's wrong, and you are able to fix it.

For example, the baby is hungry, or wants to be held, and you just let it cry....that is CIO.

I don't necessarily agree with other people's definition of CIO. I don't think co-sleeping really has anything to do with CIO. My son whines when trying to fall alseep, and he always falls asleep in our bed or in my arms. So, then am I letting him CIO?

Also, sometimes, things come to a point when you have tried everything, and nothing is soothing your baby and you are at the end of your rope. You set the baby down in a crib (or somewhere safe), and walk away until you can come back and calmly try to soothe the baby again. I don't think that should be included in CIO (Unless the parent is gone for an long time). I have to do this sometimes, but my son never cries for more than 2-3 minutes. But sometimes I just need him to be away from my ear, or I will lose it.

I also think there is a difference in fussing to sleep and crying to sleep. Crying to sleep = just leaving them alone and letting them literally cry themselves to sleep or exhaustion. Fussing to sleep, some babies just have a hard time transistioning to the sleep state. My son is like that. I can hold him, rock him, feed him, do whatever, he will still fuss to sleep. I don't think that is CIO

but that's just my .02


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

I'd never heard of CIO until I came here. But, to me, CIO means ignoring your child's need for you in order to "sleep train". I can't pin it down any more than that, because so many things depend on the baby in question.

For example:

DS1 fell asleep on me every single night. We co-slept until he was about one, then he moved into his own room (both doors open, so I could hear him if he started to fuss/cry - rarely happened). But, he fell asleep on my chest on the couch every night, then my ex moved him to his crib. That was what he liked, so that's what we did.

DD - totally different. She absolutely _could not_ fall asleep with us. Holding her just made her angry - any attempt to interact (rocking, singing, whatever) made her angry - she needed to have _no_ distractions of any kind, including our presence, or she couldn't fall asleep. We finally had to leave her alone when she got tired. We'd go back to check on her in five minutes - if she was still awake and crying, we'd pick her up, because she wasn't ready to sleep yet. But, if she was ready, she'd be crashed. DD was the hardest for me, because leaving her alone when she cried went against everything in my gut...but it was the only way she'd fall asleep. We did the same at bedtime, then got into bed with her.

DS2 - no problem. Hold him, nurse him, sing to him...he settles in with us and drops right off. When he falls asleep at the breast during the day, I transfer him to the couch, and he sort of fusses in his sleep for a second, so I pat his back a couple of times, and he drops right back off.

All three of them have been totally different, and I've had to adapt to what each child needs to get to sleep when they're tired. If I don't do that, I'm doing a form of CIO, imo.


----------



## rmzbm (Jul 8, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kathryn*
If you are letting a child cry when you know they would stop by picking them up, that is CIO. Doesn't matter if you leave the room, talk to them without touching, or pat them on the back. You are still going against their needs to reach a goal.

NAK
Yup, that.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Thank you for posting this question - I actually was thinking of starting a similar thread.

what is or isn't CIO is so hard. I mean, we all agree that putting a screaming baby down in a crib and walking away is not good. But what about when baby's needs and mama's needs are in conflict - for example, my first child would invariably wake up and start screaming when I was in the shower - was is CIO that I didn;t leap out of the shower (wet and soapy) to tend to him but rather finished my shower first? Or when I am making dinner and really cannot be interrupted (nor safely hold my son), if my son starts to cry in his highchair, is that CIO if I wait until it is safe?

I ask myself these questions all the time and with my second I have had to come to the conclusion that waiting a few minutes won't kill them - otherwise I end up really frustrated and panicky.

Thoughts??


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
But what about when baby's needs and mama's needs are in conflict - for example, my first child would invariably wake up and start screaming when I was in the shower - was is CIO that I didn;t leap out of the shower (wet and soapy) to tend to him but rather finished my shower first? Or when I am making dinner and really cannot be interrupted (nor safely hold my son), if my son starts to cry in his highchair, is that CIO if I wait until it is safe?

I ask myself these questions all the time and with my second I have had to come to the conclusion that waiting a few minutes won't kill them - otherwise I end up really frustrated and panicky.

Thoughts??

My thoughts really depend on the age of the child- under 6 months I would probably take the view that whatever you can do to soothe that child - ie take a shower when daddy is home, order take out etc is the best bet.
But over 12 months I think that they do begin to learn a little little bit that there are times mama cannot meet their needs. So I would reassure the child as much as possible- keep them in view etc etc.
Between 6 and 12 months is grey area for me- I tend to err on the side of responding physically, but the more children you have the more difficult that becomes- ie toddler is climbing on something dangerous baby is crying....


----------



## kate~mom (Jul 21, 2003)

i voted option 1 - no attempt to soothe a crying baby to sleep.

i used to be more rigid in my "definitions" of ap, cio, and "good" parenting - until i met my son. he is a very different bird than my daughter is - and while many tools that i found worked wonderfully with dd (nursing to sleep, cosleeping, slinging to sleep) simply don't work for him. once in a blue moon (maybe once a week), he will fall asleep nursing and stay asleep as i transition him to my bed or the pack and play. otherwise, after nursing, the only way to get him to sleep is to pat his butt while he grumbles, fusses, whimpers, or cries (and yes, all of these are distinctly different noises and associated emotions - i cannot believe the failure to separate these). most of the time, if he is nursing or being held or slung, he is AWAKE - and will eventually start crying in arms and trying to fling himself to the floor when he gets overtired. either way, there will be some level of unhappiness - but one that is distinctly different from an i-have-been-abandoned scream.

it was much easier to be black and white about this issue when i had a baby with a more mellow temperament.


----------



## treemom2 (Oct 1, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kate~mom*
i used to be more rigid in my "definitions" of ap, cio, and "good" parenting - until i met my son. he is a very different bird than my daughter is - and while many tools that i found worked wonderfully with dd (nursing to sleep, cosleeping, slinging to sleep) simply don't work for him. once in a blue moon (maybe once a week), he will fall asleep nursing and stay asleep as i transition him to my bed or the pack and play. otherwise, after nursing, the only way to get him to sleep is to pat his butt while he grumbles, fusses, whimpers, or cries (and yes, all of these are distinctly different noises and associated emotions - i cannot believe the failure to separate these). most of the time, if he is nursing or being held or slung, he is AWAKE - and will eventually start crying in arms and trying to fling himself to the floor when he gets overtired. either way, there will be some level of unhappiness - but one that is distinctly different from an i-have-been-abandoned scream.

it was much easier to be black and white about this issue when i had a baby with a more mellow temperament.

I read your post with great interest since my children are in the same boat. DD would nurse to sleep and could sleep through anything. DS can nurse to sleep, but will not transition into bed--wakes up immediately and cries. He also wakes several times a night and cries (he's a very light sleeper and wakes when he doesn't have enough room to roll, whenever my DH rolls over, when he's cold, when DD talks in her sleep, etc. . .). I try to nurse him back to sleep but sometimes that just doesn't work and I end up patting his lower back until he falls back to sleep. I really don't feel in this situation I am CIO because I am doing whatever I can to attend to his needs and most of the time when he wakes he really is only partially awake--KWIM? However, if he was really upset, and you all know what that sounds like as moms, I would definately not hesitate to get up with him and try to calm him!!!!!

I think CIO is when a parent hears their children crying and chooses not to do anything about it to help their child.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Madre Piadosa*
My thoughts really depend on the age of the child- under 6 months I would probably take the view that whatever you can do to soothe that child - ie take a shower when daddy is home, order take out etc is the best bet.

Well, sure, but the idea of ordering takeout doesn't help me when I am in the middle of dinner and the baby starts to cry, YKWIM (not to mention the fact that we can't afford it for 12 months!).

Or when my toddler starts climbing into the oven the same time my 5 month old starts fussing to nurse. Or even more common - I am stuck in rush hour traffic and my baby starts crying, despite the fact that he was nursed or sleeping or whatever when we got in the car.

I sorta feel the judgement of "you must attend to your baby immediately at all times when s/he cries or you are being abusive" makes for some VERY frustrating and upsetting times for mamas (okay, me) when there are reasons why they can't attend to the baby at that precise moment.

I mean, if I don't pull the car over on the freeway to nurse my baby for 45 minutes but rather let him cry until I get home 10 minutes later (all the while singing and talking to him), is that going to psychologically damage him for the rest of his life? God, I hope not, since I have had to do that more than once.

Staying home all day, every day for the first 12 months so that I can respond to my baby immediately is just not an option for me, nor for most people, I think. So I need to know what is okay (i.e. less harmful) in these situations.

I hate hearing my kids cry - it physically hurts me - so not responding is very hard. But I am trying to sort out *what* it is about CIO that hurts kids, you know? So I can make better judgements about prioritization. I know that if my baby is choking in the car, yes, pulling over on the freeway is the best response. Is pulling over on a busy freeway the best response if he is hungry, and I will be home in less than 10 minute? I don't know.

Are we judging CIO on intention? I intend to meet my kids needs but sometimes can't, so it is okay for them to cry a bit sometimes?

But the kids don't get intention - they don't know that I want to pick them up but can't - they just know that their needs are being met. So from the standpoint that CIO damages a kid's trust for the parents, ANY time a parent/caregiver doesn't meet the kid's needs, regardless of intention, s/he is damaging the kid.

Is it age or time limits? it is okay after age 12 months but not before? Okay for under 15 minutes, but not for more? is it okay if I talk to them but can't pick them up?

Obviously, avoiding the situation is the best for all concerned, but sometimes things cannot be avoided.

I cannot tell you the amount of guilt and pain I went through during DS1's infancy about this issue of what to do when I cannot meet his needs right then and there (especially as he was a moderately high needs child). I still wrestle with it, though I am a lot more relaxed because I see that my ds is very attached and secure little guy even if I finished my shower a few times while he cried as a baby.

Luckily ds2 is pretty calm and easy going.

Siobhan

Edited to add: Please note that I do not think that *anyone* is suggesting I am abusing my kids or that you are judging me. This thread has been very useful for me to articulate what goes on in MY head whenever faced with this situation. I would love to know y'all's responses, thoughts, decision making approaches, etc.


----------



## Lissybug (Oct 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
I sorta feel the judgement of "you must attend to your baby immediately at all times when s/he cries or you are being abusive" makes for some VERY frustrating and upsetting times for mamas (okay, me) when there are reasons why they can't attend to the baby at that precise moment........

Obviously, avoiding the situation is the best for all concerned, but sometimes things cannot be avoided.

nak
I agree with these these statements (not that I feel judged here, just the overall statement) I think when we have unrealistic expectations of ourselves it sets us up for guilt and depression.

For me- I try to plan ahead as best i can to avoid melt downs. But they happen- I'm not perfect, and sometimes one or the other of us is just having a hard day. We have to be forgiving on ourselves as parents

Example: The other night it is 8:30pm I have tried everything to get ds to sleep, I'm getting angry, he's crying, finally I get out of bed shov ds into dh's arms and say (very grouchily) I'm just going to make dinner, I'm starving. Well- once dinner is made we give a bit to ds and he wants more. lots more. he's very hungry. After we all eat ds falls asleep peacefully in 10 minutes.







Oops! With transitioning from nursing to solids i didn't realize the poor kid was hungry for solid food. Sometimes we are trying to meet kids needs but we don't understand them, we're always learning too, and i think this story demonstrates that we need to remember to meet our own needs as well so we're not too tired/grumpy/hungry to think straight.


----------



## nextcommercial (Nov 8, 2005)

OMG!! I seriously didn't think that this many people thought it means to walk away from baby while in a baby containment device. LOL

I have always been taught (in college btw) that to "cry it out" with an infant means to help sooth a baby to sleep and teach him or her self soothing methods. It is basically patting a childs back (I went to school in the 80s when babies slept on their tummies) or bum. Leave, and go back in three minutes repeat the patting thing. Leave and go back in five minutes. You keep doing this until you reach 10-15 minutes. If the baby is still crying, you have just wasted the last hour of your life.....pick the baby up. Try again later. (or tomorrow)

With my own baby, I couldn't do it. For some reason the cry of your own child is too strong. But the cry of another's child doesn't pull the same heart strings.

I have only done this with three babies. This last one was hard....,his parents really wanted me to help him learn to sleep. They were at the ends of their rope. But, he was tough. He likes to sleep.....he just sees no reason to sleep when there are so many other things better going on.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I think cio is intentionally NOT doing what baby wants, and is crying for. If he wants to be held and you refuse, or he wants to nurse or rock or cuddle and you won't. You don't have to leave baby alone for it to be cio. If you know what he wants and you won't do it, or you don't know and you don't try to figure it out, its cio.
This applies to babies under 6 mos to a year or so. Obviously, a toddler crying because he wants candy, and you won't give it, is not cio. lol

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
I mean, if I don't pull the car over on the freeway to nurse my baby for 45 minutes but rather let him cry until I get home 10 minutes later (all the while singing and talking to him), is that going to psychologically damage him for the rest of his life? God, I hope not, since I have had to do that more than once.

I had that problem too. I could pull over, nurse him forever, and he'd STILL cry when I put him back in his seat, no matter how long I waited, no matter what I did. So if we only had 5 minutes left, I had to decide which would really be less bad for him. It always depended on how upset he sounded, etc. And I'd talk to him, or sing, or whatever. That was hard- we tried to go in the car as little as possible.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I fit in. I definitely think there is a difference between fussing and crying though. I usually pick up my babies if they do either, but ds2 will sometimes fuss next to me for about 60 seconds (the whole "eh eh eh" thing), and then roll over and go to sleep. Not picking him up while he fusses for that one minute is not CIO, IMO. I've never left him crying next to me without picking him up.

I'm not sure that I agree with "if you're not doing whatever it takes to meet their needs then it's CIO." I mean, I haven't slept through the night in almost 5 years because I do everything I can to meet the needs of my children, even at 2am. But there have been moments when I have had raging eczema on my breasts, the 16 month old baby has nursed 3 times in the last 2 hours, and I'm just sitting in bed holding him while he cries when I know he wants to nurse again. Or times when I nursed ds1 back to sleep 6 times in the past 3 hours, and now dh is walking him up and down the hallway while he is crying. We both know he wants to stay latched onto the nipple and sleep that way for the next 3 hours, but there's only so much I can take.

Anyway, I guess some could consider it CIO. I think CIO is abandoning a baby to cry alone. I'm not a fan of just rubbing a baby's back when they obviously want to nurse, but I know that every mom has their breaking point, and if the worst thing that happens to that child is that they are lovingly caressed rather than nursed (we're talking about older than an infant), then I can deal with that.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I also think there are degrees to cio. I think there is a huge difference between people letting their kid cry for shorter periods (fussing, not wailing) when they're desperate, have tried better methods, or have other kids to eal with--and following the weissbluth method and not going to a very young baby all night long and not even trying other methods. It's always so black and white around here. I know people who let their kids cry 15 mintues and still go to them after or later in the night, and people who begin the weissbluth sleeptraining at 4 months with their first child and don't enter the room all night. It just makes me sad that some moms around here are nearly dying of exhaustion and they feel too guilty to let their comforted, overtired baby cry for five minutes. Because I've been there.


----------



## malibusunny (Jul 29, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
For me it's not about the sleep method, or the sleeping arrangements, or whether the child is being held during the nap, etc.

It is about 1) is the child crying, and 2) is the parent doing everything possible to comfort the child?

If the answer to #1 is yes, and #2 is no, it is CIO. Simple as that.

Yep.
Age makes a difference here, too, because my new baby fussing was just pre-crying, but my toddler fussing might be changing positions, adjusting blankets, etc and not need anything from me.


----------



## oceanbaby (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:

For me it's not about the sleep method, or the sleeping arrangements, or whether the child is being held during the nap, etc.

It is about 1) is the child crying, and 2) is the parent doing everything possible to comfort the child?

If the answer to #1 is yes, and #2 is no, it is CIO. Simple as that.
I guess I don't entirely agree with number 2. I would rephrase it to say that the parent is doing the best they can to comfort the child. Is it possible that I could have nursed ds2 for the 4th time that night on my cracked, eczema ridden bleeding nipples and stopped his crying? Yes, it's possible. But I just didn't have it in me. The best I could do was hold him while he cried in my arms. Like one of the pp said, I have been in situations where I am about to pass out from exhaustion or pain and feel guilty for not doing everything possible to comfort the child, feel guilty that "all" I did was hold them. (Although, if he had been 4 months old or so I would have nursed him no matter the pain, so age is definitely a factor for me.)


----------



## Jennisee (Nov 15, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Kathryn*
If you are letting a child cry when you know they would stop by picking them up, that is CIO. Doesn't matter if you leave the room, talk to them without touching, or pat them on the back. You are still going against their needs to reach a goal.

ETA: There is no difference to me in "fussing" or "screaming" for CIO. That's like saying spanking is ok if you call it a "pop" instead of a "hit".


Quote:


Originally Posted by *thismama*
For me it's not about the sleep method, or the sleeping arrangements, or whether the child is being held during the nap, etc.

It is about 1) is the child crying, and 2) is the parent doing everything possible to comfort the child?

If the answer to #1 is yes, and #2 is no, it is CIO. Simple as that.

Ditto.

I also agree with the person who said that there are different degrees of CIO, and that CIO can look different for different ages, and this is where some of the disagreement lies. People will say, "Well, I'm not using the Weissbluth method, so I'm not doing CIO," but I think it may just not be as extreme a degree of CIO. I also think it is absolutely possible to use CIO for the toddler who is crying over candy if the parent is making no attempt to comfort the crying child, is ignoring the child's cries to "teach them a lesson," etc. I remember crying for my mother in a crib near the age of 3, and I don't think it was any less traumatic just because I wasn't an infant.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

If you're patting the baby's back, then you're WITH the child, and that's not CIO IMO. If you can't hold the baby because you're already tending to another baby, but the crying baby can see/hear/smell you, that's not CIO either- that's doing all you can to soothe 2 or more babies at once.

I don't think it's possible to stop ALL crying, at least not past the newborn stage.


----------



## Hazelnut (Sep 14, 2005)

I agree. I voted walking away from a child. The extreme definitions bother me when cio is considered very pejorative and a mom is doing everything she can to avoid it. And I think there is a difference between fussing and crying. It's not always just a linguistic twisting to make it sound better. I've heard people say things like, oh the baby doesn't know the difference as to why the mom is doing it, they only know that they're crying. But I disagree. I think a baby is going to feel different effects if they are left to cry alone all night vs. crying for a few minutes while mom regroups or goes to the other baby, or whatever. It's never ideal, of course. But as this forum regularly shows, it can get complicated, and isn't always ideal.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Definitely 1, 2 depends on the child and is definitely not CIO if the rubbing's happening while the baby lies next to you in bed/cosleeper, 3 isn't, 4's nice but some babies don't like sleeping in slings* (which is why 2 depends on the child).

So I'm going with 1 since that's the only one that I feel is always CIO.

*







: that I end up with a child who loves to nap in a sling.


----------



## Lazyhead (Mar 27, 2006)

nextcommercial said:


> OMG!! I seriously didn't think that this many people thought it means to walk away from baby while in a baby containment device. LOL
> 
> I have always been taught (in college btw) that to "cry it out" with an infant means to help sooth a baby to sleep and teach him or her self soothing methods. It is basically patting a childs back (I went to school in the 80s when babies slept on their tummies) or bum. Leave, and go back in three minutes repeat the patting thing. Leave and go back in five minutes. You keep doing this until you reach 10-15 minutes. If the baby is still crying, you have just wasted the last hour of your life.....pick the baby up. Try again later. (or tomorrow)=QUOTE]
> 
> i guess i don't see the difference between these 2 things.


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I think cio is intentionally NOT doing what baby wants, and is crying for.

ITA. BUT, I think that this also means that a baby who likes to be left alone and would cry an hour in arms, but would fuss for 2 minutes and then drop off to sleep if just set down, should be set down. I just can't be convinced that crying hard for an hour in mom's arms is better than grumping for a couple minutes and then being soundly, peacefully asleep. I do see a distinct difference between fussing and crying. You can hear it and even feel it. I don't think my job is to shield my child from any negative emotions whatsoever, but to not purposely look for situations that make them experience negative emotions, or refuse to comfort them when they do have negative emotions.

I think it's about listening to YOUR child, and doing what is best for THEM, which may not necessarily be what you are "supposed" to do. My own DS went through a stage where he was loads happier in his crib....so instead of pushign the co-sleeping and making us all miserable, I put him in his crib. Then, he wanted to be back with us.

I think the danger is getting stuck into one mindset and that there is a one-size-fits-all approach, and not being responsive to your child, even if their needs seem to be different than the norm.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

I couldn't really respond in the poll as I think it's less to do with what you are doing with child and more with how they are acting while you are doing it.

Also, you can't really do much else if you are holding the child and they are still crying (well, other than offer the boob







). My DD was colicky (for lack of a better word) and would cry every night from 6-10pm. I held her the whole time, nursing her when I could, and tried to do what I could to soothe her. She still cried. But that is not CIO.

CIO is a child being left to cry by themselves, wherever that may be. I would only consider patting on the back okay if the child is older than 15-18 months or so and only if they were very mildly fussing. And by this age, I think moms have a better knowledge of their child's personality and whether they are truly upset or really just about to fall asleep. I am not saying it is necessary to even do this, just I think it's acceptable if that is what is working for mom and child. I don't think this is going to be good for every child and I think it needs to be on a case-by-case basis.

As far as co-sleeping is concerned, I think it's necessary for baby to be in close proximity to mom at least in the first year of life. Simply, not co-sleeping is not CIO, but not being able to respond to your child's needs promptly at all times is under the same umbrella as CIO.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I think the key element we are getting at is "being responsive to your baby's needs". If your baby needs to be held, then you hold her. If your baby needs to NOT be held, but instead patted or soothed in other ways, then you do what needs to be done. I can even see a few exceptional experiences where leaving a baby to cry alone *is* being responsive (say a massively overstimulated baby who is so overtired that any contact makes things worse and really just needs to be left alone to calm down - very very rare circumstance and something I would only do if nothing else seemed to help).

And sometimes we cannot respond to their needs - either the need is beyond our control (baby needs to be fed, but mom is driving the car - or baby is gassy and needs to let out the gas, but mom can't control that - she can only try to help) or the need directly conflicts with other needs (baby is hungry but big brother just fell down the stairs and needs first aid).

A friend of mine recently said something which rang true - it isn't about what you do one single time, it is about the pattern - if you are dedicated to meeting your kid's needs, and do it 90% of the time, that is what matters. I think intention does matter because it manifests itself in many unconscious ways that kids definitely sense.

Siobhan


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Question: what do we do about the extreme sleep deprevation some moms go through? For us, co-sleeping helped a lot, but I know that for some of my friends, co-sleeping isn't an option (they can't sleep, baby doesn't like it, dh doesn't like it). And for some co-sleeping moms, they still have to deal with massive sleep deprivation when baby (or toddler) is up every hour.

This topic is so important since losing too much sleep can lead to psychosis in extreme circumstances, and we know in normal circumstances leads to irritability, bad decision making, etc, which I know in my personal experience makes me a much worse mom. The times when I have been tempted to hit or yell are usually related to lack of sleep.

CIO is attractive to moms for this very reason. What do we have to offer as an alternative?

Siobhan


----------



## rachelmarie (Mar 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
I think cio is intentionally NOT doing what baby wants, and is crying for. If he wants to be held and you refuse, or he wants to nurse or rock or cuddle and you won't. You don't have to leave baby alone for it to be cio. If you know what he wants and you won't do it, or you don't know and you don't try to figure it out, its cio.

I agree with this. CIO includes more than just leaving a baby or child completely alone to cry to sleep in a crib. That is the most extreme, but there are other less extreme situations I would consider to be CIO. For example, any method used in order to "teach" a baby/child to sleep all night that causes them to cry for the comfort they need (even if one parent is there).

When a baby/young child cries they are in need of *something* and they should be responded to. When they are not responded to they learn their feelings, wants, or needs are not important enough to warrant the parent's attention. Obviously, there are some situations in which responding in the best way isn't always possible, like in the car when it would be better to just get home as fast as you can and stopping several times would just prolong the misery.

The main thing is doing what is the absolute best for your child and giving them what they NEED (and at a young age there are no wants, only needs) even if it means not getting dinner cooked right away or not getting to sleep all night like you used to pre-baby.


----------



## mommy2evan05 (Mar 13, 2006)

okay, so would rocking, patting butt and shushing my ds, who gets very fussy when he is ready to sleep and is finished nursing, be CIO? and laying him down after he falls asleep so that i can make a sandwich would be CIO (he will NOT sleep in the sling at home)? i'm confused


----------



## la mamita (Apr 10, 2005)

.


----------



## MoonJelly (Sep 10, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
I think the key element we are getting at is "being responsive to your baby's needs". If your baby needs to be held, then you hold her. If your baby needs to NOT be held, but instead patted or soothed in other ways, then you do what needs to be done. I can even see a few exceptional experiences where leaving a baby to cry alone *is* being responsive (say a massively overstimulated baby who is so overtired that any contact makes things worse and really just needs to be left alone to calm down - very very rare circumstance and something I would only do if nothing else seemed to help).

And sometimes we cannot respond to their needs - either the need is beyond our control (baby needs to be fed, but mom is driving the car - or baby is gassy and needs to let out the gas, but mom can't control that - she can only try to help) or the need directly conflicts with other needs (baby is hungry but big brother just fell down the stairs and needs first aid).

A friend of mine recently said something which rang true - it isn't about what you do one single time, it is about the pattern - if you are dedicated to meeting your kid's needs, and do it 90% of the time, that is what matters. I think intention does matter because it manifests itself in many unconscious ways that kids definitely sense.

Siobhan

Yeah that!







That's more what I was trying to say.


----------



## JoyfulBirther (Mar 29, 2006)

IMO
1. You dont ever walk away from a crying baby.
3. Crying in arms is not CIO (as stated by Dr. Sears) whether you have a colicky baby or whether mom needs a break and dad is comforting - the love and comfort is there.
2. Age matters - a newborn crying every hour to nurse, needs to nurse as does a 3 month old, 6month old, 12month old... but after that I support patting, holding, walking and offering alternative comfort measures (dads!) when mamas need a night-time break.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

Anyone see Dr Phil today? I couldn't stop myself from screaming at the TV. In addition to the guy on the roof (what a jerk) there was a couple who used Kim West (aka the sleep lady) to train their baby to sleep through the night.

More later, my toddler is up to no good in the next room.

Siobhan


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

ha! I'm sorry if you think I'm CIO b/c my baby sleeps in her cosleeper, or in her carseat, or on a blanket on the floor, you're being ridiculous. She's an extremely happy, attached baby, and she's never ever ever CIO. There are times she doesn't want to be put down, and I respect those times. There are other times she WANTS to be put down because she is more comfortable - especially at night- and she's already asleep or just about asleep 99.9% of the time she's put down for a nap or for the night.

I do think a crying infant should know their caregiver is there near them. As long as the caregiver is doing the best they can and not leaving the baby alone until they are asleep, it's not CIO. I don't agree with putting a wide awake baby down in a crib, saying "Naptime!" and walking out, whether they're crying or not. I think they should definitely know someone is there until they fall asleep, and preferably have someone be right there when they wake up.


----------



## emma_goldman (May 18, 2005)

I just realized that most kids probably have a CIO experience when their mamma is driving them somewhere (and can't be in the backseat nursing while in the car seat as someone else drives). Mine fusses and cries (lightly) when he is about to fall asleep in the car, whereas he doesn't cry when he's falling asleep at my breast...

Now that my babe is older he doesn't cry hard in the car when he's tired. But when he was young, I always sat in the backseat with him on cartrips or we would only go somewhere RIGHT after a nap (which was still not very pleasant) or go on public transport.


----------



## illinoismommy (Apr 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Madre Piadosa*
I always thought that Cry It Out was allowing an infant to cry themselves to sleep- with NO attention from anyone- basically walking away from a baby usually in a crib or other containment device as they scream for as long as it takes to go to sleep.
I was told on another thread that CIO is much more then what I think it is. One poster insinuated that any person who does not co-sleep is using CIO, another stated that not holding a sleeping child was CIO, several others thought that patting a child on the back while they were fussing to sleep was for sure CIO.

That is how I define cry it out as well.... just leaving a baby.

Before I say the rest I just want to say that I didn't read any of the posts so I am not speaking to anyone directly. People who say things like "anyone who does not cosleep is doing CIO" speak either in ignorance or condemnation and I like neither. We do not cosleep, but we have reasons for that. I love my son very much and we are attached to each other, he is very well bonded with me(and his daddy). Because of my experiences with this matter I do not believe that it is impossible to forge an AP bond without cosleeping-- I have done it. People who have done nothing but cosleep just assume it is not possible.

I think you need to do what is best for your family. Maybe next time we will cosleep, maybe not. Between myself, my husband and the next baby we will figure that out together. And if at that point David wants to come in and make it a full family bed-- I am okay with that too. But for now I am absolutely certain he is happiest when he sleeps alone.... maybe its his personality, I don't know. (there are some adults this way too you know)


----------



## illinoismommy (Apr 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Llyra*
The fourth choice in the poll annoys me. My DD (now almost 20 months) cannot abide being held or touched at all when she's trying to sleep; she wants me nearby, but she wants to be left alone. She has made this abundantly clear since she was very small. When I put her down to sleep, she talks or sings to herself for a few minutes, and then drifts off to sleep. No crying involved. And yet by option 4 in the poll, what I do would be defined as CIO. What the heck?

You are not alone.


----------



## illinoismommy (Apr 14, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Lissybug*
nak
I think when we have unrealistic expectations of ourselves it sets us up for guilt and depression.

I agree


----------



## mom2booman (May 3, 2006)

Well when my son is fed changed and all ok, and still crying i let him cry, 5 minute incriments. I dont care who says what about me. I know so many are against it, but when he is crying he wants to be alone. i try and hug him or rock him and he just pushes away, so i sit him down in his bed and after 10 minutes he works it out himself.
i try everything to get him to stop too....i dont want to list all that i try but nothing works...and this does...


----------



## malibusunny (Jul 29, 2003)

I voted for number one for lack of a better option. I just couldn't vote for the longest time because none of the options worked for me. Number one is obviously CIO, but I don't think it's the ONLY CIO. But none of the others were always CIO so yeah, I just voted to stop having to think about voting.

Carry on.


----------



## saritabeth (Jun 25, 2004)

I have to say I am impressed with this thread.

I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't really care much for the choices. There are several mama's who posted that I really agree with. I was in the camp of feeling guilty all the time when my dd would cry. Babies do cry....sometimes when all of their needs are met.

I think the age of the child and the intent of the walking away has a lot to do with it all. Like everyone said, you meet your babies needs. Sometimes an older baby does do better fussing for a few minutes to sleep vs. two hours of screaming in mama's arms....only that babes mama is gonna know in her heart what to do.
My motto is that I do my mommy best. Has my dd cried for a few minutes while I showered? Yep....but if me getting a 5 minute shower is going to make the difference in how I am able to mother for the day and the child has a full tummy, a clean diaper, and has spent the other 23 hours and 55 minutes on me in some way, I have a hard time thinking that the shower is what will send her into therapy as an adult. I think most of the time dd was in the bathroom with me, and there probably were times I bolted out with soapy hair....but you just need to do your best.

I think it is all a matter of balance and intuition. Too many mama's think they have to adhere to a check list of what makes them 'good'. I think intentionally meeting your child's needs and striving to do your best is good enough.

I would be interested to hear from mom's of multiples.


----------



## julia_anne (May 1, 2006)

WELL... I think you should look at the poll results







I speak from experience with my son only. Basically we co-slep until he was 6 mo. then he started sleeping badly with us, kicking me, waking every hour etc. . . So he's now nine mo. and STILL waking 8-9 times a night.SOOO.... out of NEEDING to get some sleep or falling apart, we have started to use the baby whisperers method of "Pick Up/ Put Down" and she says to pick him up when he's crying then lay him RIGHT back down as soon as he stops and do this until he falls asleep. So far 4 nights the longest it's taken him is 40 minutes, and has only woken up 4 times (way better than 9)... SO for him to learn to sleep good, and for him to be healthy I feel it's necessary...


----------



## Aeress (Jan 25, 2005)

I am glad to see some more potst...I was starting to wonder if I had done my 19month old hram becuase she doesn't want to be held when she is over tired. she will let you rub her back, never liked sleeping with me or hubby past being two days old. the first few days all she wanted was to snuggle, then she seemed to trust us, and started to get mad when she would cry due to being tired and we tried to hold her. we soon learned her sleepy cues and she did very well sleeping in the crib next to the bed, with us. I always pick her up when she cries ( well now i ask and she can tell me what she wants). My youngest dd is not unaffectionate but more of a cuddler, hugger for a moment and then she is off to play. she shows her needs in other ways. if you go to get her when she is crying during the night she will actually get madder, so we go watch her and wait to see what she needs. Now my oldest dd, was a co-sleeper and even now, she likes to sleep right next to her sister. in utero, she would curl up, knees bent, on my left side. she still does that.


----------



## minkajane (Jun 5, 2005)

IMO, leaving a crying child alone for more than a moment is CIO. I mean, we've all had moments where we've let our DC cry so we could pee and I don't consider this CIO. My DS is often a big fusser, too. I've learned that if I sit next to him and pat his back, even if he fusses, he goes to sleep faster than if I pick him up. Picking him up wakes him up more with the movement and usually he ends up just crawling all over me and getting even more worked up. I don't consider sitting next to him and patting his back CIO even though he'd stop fussing if I picked him up because he knows that I'm there and if he cries (not fusses), I'll pick him up and snuggle him immediately. He's in a big fighting-sleep phase and I think eventually even the fussing to sleep will stop.


----------



## sarathan (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saritabeth*
I have to say I am impressed with this thread.

I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't really care much for the choices. There are several mama's who posted that I really agree with. I was in the camp of feeling guilty all the time when my dd would cry. Babies do cry....sometimes when all of their needs are met.

I think the age of the child and the intent of the walking away has a lot to do with it all. Like everyone said, you meet your babies needs. Sometimes an older baby does do better fussing for a few minutes to sleep vs. two hours of screaming in mama's arms....only that babes mama is gonna know in her heart what to do.
My motto is that I do my mommy best. Has my dd cried for a few minutes while I showered? Yep....but if me getting a 5 minute shower is going to make the difference in how I am able to mother for the day and the child has a full tummy, a clean diaper, and has spent the other 23 hours and 55 minutes on me in some way, I have a hard time thinking that the shower is what will send her into therapy as an adult. I think most of the time dd was in the bathroom with me, and there probably were times I bolted out with soapy hair....but you just need to do your best.

I think it is all a matter of balance and intuition. Too many mama's think they have to adhere to a check list of what makes them 'good'. I think intentionally meeting your child's needs and striving to do your best is good enough.

I would be interested to hear from mom's of multiples.

I couldn't have said it any better.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nextcommercial*
OMG!! I seriously didn't think that this many people thought it means to walk away from baby while in a baby containment device. LOL

I have always been taught (in college btw) that to "cry it out" with an infant means to help sooth a baby to sleep and teach him or her self soothing methods. It is basically patting a childs back (I went to school in the 80s when babies slept on their tummies) or bum. Leave, and go back in three minutes repeat the patting thing. Leave and go back in five minutes. You keep doing this until you reach 10-15 minutes. If the baby is still crying, you have just wasted the last hour of your life.....pick the baby up. Try again later. (or tomorrow)

What you just described is the first option. A crib is a baby containment device, and leaving the baby for a few minutes is walking away. Going back after 3, 5 or 10 minutes doesn't matter. What you have described is not "helping sooth a baby to sleep and teaching him or her self soothing methods". Crying isn't soothing, ergo leaving a crying baby alone for 5 minutes, in the hope that he will fall asleep before you come back is not teaching him to soothe himself. It's disgusting the way people package it up to try to make it sound nice. (Not you - whoever taught you the class.)


----------



## cjuniverse (Sep 22, 2005)

Overtired, overstressed, overworked, undernourished, underassisted people make crappy parents.

Women are human. Having children does not magically transform them into pillars of perfection. They cannot be everywhere at once or fix every problem or right every wrong. They can only do the best they can. Expecting them to be superhuman, endlessly nurturing, and acutely attuned to everyone else's needs but their own 24 hours a day is totally absurd, and very cruel.

Few have such high standards for fathers. But when talking about mothers, everyone's got a reason they don't measure up, aren't doing enough, are doing too much, are doing everything wrong, aren't doing enough wrong, whatever. Anyone else read Perfect Madness, Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety? If you haven't, perhaps you should. It aroused more than a little sympathy and shame in me for mothers and my past harsh judgement of some, including my own.

Small children cry because they cannot communicate their needs in any other way. Not because they're being traumatized (unless something truly untoward is taking place). They're just trying to tell us something. If we're paying attention (and capable of doing so adequately because _our needs are being met as well_), we can accurately dechipher their requests and fulfill them. When possible.

We all know there are times when it is simply not possible to either fully understand the source of the crying, or to respond to it promptly. There are errands to be done, other children to be cared for, other adults to be cared for, clothes to wash, phones to answer, term papers to write, bills to be paid, food to be eaten, showers to be taken, sleep to be slept...in other words, life to be lived.

Life is not always pleasant, convenient, or conducive to immediate gratification of the wants and needs of others or ourselves. Sometimes we are sick, sometimes we are sad, sometimes we are frustrated, sometimes we are irritable, sometimes we are absolutely completely thoroughly utterly worn out and need 20 stinkin' minutes to regroup and resume. This is human. Women are human. Children are human. We are all human.

I for one do not think it is unreasonable for a child to cry for a few moments. Nor do I think it damaging. It's simply life. Sometimes parents have to put their needs/wants on standby, sometimes children do, sometimes we must compromise.

I'm rambling because I'M overtired, but I hope I'm getting my point across. Please everyone stop with the judgements and harshness. It's much of what makes being a parent, particularly being a mother, so hard. The unrelenting and uncompassionate opinions/insults of others constantly torturing our consciences and making us feel like failures benefits no one, LEAST of all our children. We should all do our best to help and encourage one another, not shame and condemn. If a mom's choice is to either get up for the 19th time in 2 hours to futilely attempt to comfort a screaming infant when she herself hasn't slept, ate, or bathed in weeks or to try and get some desperately needed rest and attend to the baby when she is physically, mentally, and emotionally able to do so effectively, I vote the latter, every time. The baby will be distressed, but as it's needs have largely been met, the priority in the situation goes to the mother (or father, or both). We have needs too, and if they aren't being met, all involved will eventually suffer.

A little more understanding, a little less condemnation.


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

I chose the first option. Crying It Out is different from crying. If you are trying to comfort and interact with the child and you modify these interactions as you realize they aren't working, that isn't cio. CIO is when you leave the child alone and the child eventually stops crying because he's cried himself out. Meaning shut down, gotten to the point where he realizes crying is not accomplishing anything, or is so exhausted he falls asleep.

I think it is a disservice to both parents and children suggest that not picking up your child, or finding other ways to soothe your child when she is crying means you practice CIO. If for no other reason than so inclusive or weak a definition will keep CIO from being regarded as negatively as it should in the mainstream. On the other hand, you don't necessarily need to stop your child from crying, so if it seems like the needs are being met and the baby is still crying, crying in arms can be beneficial, according to some. Here is a blurb from an article that appeared in _Mothering_

Quote:

The Recognition of Stress-Release Crying
While the attachment parenting approach is a healthy trend in the right direction, it is possible that, in an effort to counteract the harm caused by the cry-it-out approach, parents may overlook an important function of crying. In our eagerness to persist in soothing and hushing our babies, we may be missing opportunities to help them release stress and heal from trauma. Although it is stressful for babies to cry alone, there is no evidence that crying in a parent's arms is harmful, once all immediate needs are met. On the contrary, crying in arms can be beneficial for babies who have an accumulation of stress.
http://www.mothering.com/articles/ne...onnection.html

So the being picked up thing might really, really be important, but at the same time there are times when children are crying in arms and stop when you put them down, and that might be meeting a different need.

I used to really beat myself up mentally because my baby would cry while I was holding her and trying to soothe her.


----------



## Justmee (Jun 6, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *saritabeth*
I would be interested to hear from mom's of multiples.

M.O.M. here (Mom of Multiples). I will say first my twins didn't read the book that says you should nurse 1 when the other wakes, etc.







Often I had a situation where their needs were mutually exclusive, and it was a matter of who needed me more at the moment, or who could be taken care of faster. FE, quite common when they were infants Rena liked to comfort nurse. If Nechama was sleeping, she would often wake up screaming because she had reflux and had just spit up all over herself and woke up scared and in pain. Sorry, but Miss Comfort Nurser has to be put down for a second. Yeah, she usually cried about it but what could I do? (she would have cried in the sling too, BTW). So I put her somewhere safe either to sleep or with interesting toys depending on her mood, told her I would be right back, and tended to N. as quickly as possible. It may seem like forever, but it rarely took more than 1minute to pick up N, grab a diaper and change of clothes, and bring her back in the room with R. and feed them together.

With 17 month old twins and an infant, it often became whos needs could I meet faster. If the girls woke up at the same time as the baby I would usually get them up quickly and give them a drink which would make them happy in 30 seconds or less, then tend to the baby for 20 minutes or more (nursing, etc). So the baby cried for 30 seconds extra, but then she got undivided attention for 20 minutes until she was happy, ready to be put down, and I could tend more to the girls (food, diaper, whatever). I wasn't going to leave two 17 month olds in their cribs for 20 minutes becasue the baby "needed" me more. I am sorry she had to wait, it really sucks, but such is life sometimes









I will also say (gosh this is getting long, sorry!) that Rivka was never a comfort nurser. She must nurse before sleep, but she hasn't nursed TO sleep since she is about 6 weeks old. She will rarely co-sleep. I nurse her, she comes off, I nurse again, she comes off, I put her down she goes to sleep in her crib. In the middle of the night we bring her to bed with us, but instead of drifting off with me she will pop on and off, or just pop off and start being super happy (LA LA LA DA DA DA was my wake up call becuase I drifted off and she didn't







). If someone gets up to put her in the crib she goes straight to sleep. If not she will roll around happy. So I guess she is tired because she doesn't cry in the crib, but maybe overstimulated with us? Anyway it works without crying so that is good enough for me


----------



## Viola (Feb 1, 2002)

BTW, 19 people voted that any method of putting a child to sleep that doesn't involve holding, snuggling or slinging is crying it out? That's just wrong! I mean, my goodness, an essential part of crying it out is crying. You could argue that it isn't attachment parenting to not hold your child all the time, but to call it crying it out is just not reasonable.

I do tend to think of CIO as a sleep training method just because for years that was how the term was used. I've also heard attachment parenting described as never letting your baby's feet touch the ground, wearing them in a sling or backpack wherever possible. Usually you hear CIO vs co-sleeping. It sounds like some extend CIO to mean if you let your child make noises of discomfort and don't attend him.

It's interesting because even with my 7 year old, I often find myself hearing her cry or scream or otherwise voice her displeasure, and I immediately say, "What's wrong?" And usually I want to both help her out and make her shut up, truth be told. But sometimes she doesn't want my help, she is feeling frustrated, she gets even more pissed and wants to do it herself, and she wants to make noise while she's doing it. And then she does, and she accomplishes what she wanted to do. I've been working with her for years to express herself in ways that are not as rude to others. So if I walk away from her when she is screeching, and she resolves it on her own, there are some who would say it is CIO. Probably there are some who would say just by practicing any kind of coercive parenting I am not truly an attachment parenting parent, or that this is a form of CIO. This is way beyond how I would define it though, and I would want to know how others are defining it if I were having a discussion about the topic.

My first daughter usually cried for awhile before going to sleep, even though we co-slept and I nursed her to sleep. My second daughter will often fall asleep on her own after being nursed, but sometimes just because she's tired and wants to sleep.


----------



## KayasMama04 (Feb 4, 2006)

I think CIO is when you just leave the baby there and you do not make sure all the needs are met. DD could have a clean diaper, just been fed, cuddled and she will fuss to sleep nothing could be done to make her stop fussing till she went to sleep. Now I put her down in her crib and she talks, sings, etc herself to sleep that is not crying it out she perfers to be alone. I don't "get" option four not all babies want to be held while theya re going to sleep so what I am CIO because I wont hold my 27lbs toddler who hits when shes held too much?


----------



## sarathan (Jun 28, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjuniverse*
Overtired, overstressed, overworked, undernourished, underassisted people make crappy parents.

Women are human. Having children does not magically transform them into pillars of perfection. They cannot be everywhere at once or fix every problem or right every wrong. They can only do the best they can. Expecting them to be superhuman, endlessly nurturing, and acutely attuned to everyone else's needs but their own 24 hours a day is totally absurd, and very cruel.

Few have such high standards for fathers. But when talking about mothers, everyone's got a reason they don't measure up, aren't doing enough, are doing too much, are doing everything wrong, aren't doing enough wrong, whatever. Anyone else read Perfect Madness, Motherhood in the Age of Anxiety? If you haven't, perhaps you should. It aroused more than a little sympathy and shame in me for mothers and my past harsh judgement of some, including my own.

Small children cry because they cannot communicate their needs in any other way. Not because they're being traumatized (unless something truly untoward is taking place). They're just trying to tell us something. If we're paying attention (and capable of doing so adequately because _our needs are being met as well_), we can accurately dechipher their requests and fulfill them. When possible.

We all know there are times when it is simply not possible to either fully understand the source of the crying, or to respond to it promptly. There are errands to be done, other children to be cared for, other adults to be cared for, clothes to wash, phones to answer, term papers to write, bills to be paid, food to be eaten, showers to be taken, sleep to be slept...in other words, life to be lived.

Life is not always pleasant, convenient, or conducive to immediate gratification of the wants and needs of others or ourselves. Sometimes we are sick, sometimes we are sad, sometimes we are frustrated, sometimes we are irritable, sometimes we are absolutely completely thoroughly utterly worn out and need 20 stinkin' minutes to regroup and resume. This is human. Women are human. Children are human. We are all human.

I for one do not think it is unreasonable for a child to cry for a few moments. Nor do I think it damaging. It's simply life. Sometimes parents have to put their needs/wants on standby, sometimes children do, sometimes we must compromise.

I'm rambling because I'M overtired, but I hope I'm getting my point across. Please everyone stop with the judgements and harshness. It's much of what makes being a parent, particularly being a mother, so hard. The unrelenting and uncompassionate opinions/insults of others constantly torturing our consciences and making us feel like failures benefits no one, LEAST of all our children. We should all do our best to help and encourage one another, not shame and condemn. If a mom's choice is to either get up for the 19th time in 2 hours to futilely attempt to comfort a screaming infant when she herself hasn't slept, ate, or bathed in weeks or to try and get some desperately needed rest and attend to the baby when she is physically, mentally, and emotionally able to do so effectively, I vote the latter, every time. The baby will be distressed, but as it's needs have largely been met, the priority in the situation goes to the mother (or father, or both). We have needs too, and if they aren't being met, all involved will eventually suffer.

A little more understanding, a little less condemnation.

Again, another great post! Well said!

To me, CIO is an attempt to teach a baby to soothe him/herself to sleep by letting baby cry. It involves very little, if any, soothing or comforting on the parent's part.

Okay, I'm probably going to get flamed for this one, but unlike some other posters here, I DO see a difference between crying and fussing. I DO think it's okay to let a baby fuss for a bit and then fall asleep. I truly think some babies fuss simply because they're tired, not because they want to be picked up, nursed, etc. Since when did it become CIO to pat a fussing/crying baby on the back in an attempt to soothe him/her? That's totally ridiculous.

Just me 0.2


----------



## sparkprincess (Sep 10, 2004)

I picked option 1.

I used to be dead set against any crying...at all...ever. But, that eventually changed. Now I'm more in the Dr. Sears camp - a baby's wants are a baby's needs for the first year.

I guess, for me, I believe that we just have to do the best we can. Search out all the options and do our best and then take it from there. I think that no crying is the _best_ but that we have to take our own needs into consideration at some point too.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I think of CIO as not comforting a crying baby with the purpose of making them go to sleep in mind.


----------



## BusyMommy (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

To me, CIO is an attempt to teach a baby to soothe him/herself to sleep by letting baby cry. It involves very little, if any, soothing or comforting on the parent's part.








: very simply put

I think the only exception I would make is if the parent is in danger of losing control.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cjuniverse*
Overtired, overstressed, overworked, undernourished, underassisted people make crappy parents.

Women are human. Having children does not magically transform them into pillars of perfection. They cannot be everywhere at once or fix every problem or right every wrong. They can only do the best they can. Expecting them to be superhuman, endlessly nurturing, and acutely attuned to everyone else's needs but their own 24 hours a day is totally absurd, and very cruel.


*Applause*

I wish someone had said this to me when Corbin was two weeks old and still losing weight, and waking up every hour and a half around the clock to nurse and still not getting enough, and I was starting to find myself thinking that if he died, at least I'd finally get some sleep, and I finally gave in and started supplementing with formula, and some of the "crunchy" moms I knew online said things like "if you had just tried harder ..."

Thank you, thank you, thank you.


----------



## ~*SugarMama*~ (Jul 20, 2005)

IMO, CIO is not responding to the needs of your child when they are *supposed* to be sleeping. IE...Ferberizing. I don't think that you can *teach* your child to sleep on command but I do think that they can get the message very nicely that when they are placed inside their crib (bassinet, toddler bed, room, etc) that all their needs will be ignored.


----------



## Mommy Piadosa (Jul 4, 2005)

OT
Hi Brit!!! I saw your screen name and said is that the same sugarmama on xanga- read your sig line and it was.


----------



## KeanusMomma (Apr 29, 2006)

I would say CIO is anytime a child is crying and you don't do whatever you can to meet his/her needs or console her. That said, I also think there are certain situations in which a little bit of CIO is acceptable, like when toddler is doing something dangerous while little one is crying to be changed, or the just fed/nursed/changed child is crying in the car and you know he will go to sleep within seconds (or you will arrive and be able to console very soon). Sometimes you just have to pick the lesser of two evils.


----------



## ACsMom (Apr 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *siobhang*
I mean, if I don't pull the car over on the freeway to nurse my baby for 45 minutes but rather let him cry until I get home 10 minutes later (all the while singing and talking to him), is that going to psychologically damage him for the rest of his life? God, I hope not, since I have had to do that more than once.

I hate hearing my kids cry - it physically hurts me - so not responding is very hard. But I am trying to sort out *what* it is about CIO that hurts kids, you know? Are we judging CIO on intention? I intend to meet my kids needs but sometimes can't, so it is okay for them to cry a bit sometimes?

But the kids don't get intention - they don't know that I want to pick them up but can't - they just know that their needs are being met. So from the standpoint that CIO damages a kid's trust for the parents, ANY time a parent/caregiver doesn't meet the kid's needs, regardless of intention, s/he is damaging the kid.

Is it age or time limits? it is okay after age 12 months but not before? Okay for under 15 minutes, but not for more? is it okay if I talk to them but can't pick them up?

Obviously, avoiding the situation is the best for all concerned, but sometimes things cannot be avoided.

I cannot tell you the amount of guilt and pain I went through during DS1's infancy about this issue of what to do when I cannot meet his needs right then and there (especially as he was a moderately high needs child). I still wrestle with it, though I am a lot more relaxed because I see that my ds is very attached and secure little guy even if I finished my shower a few times while he cried as a baby.

I have a lot of the same thoughts, over here. Being a kid therapist, I read the developmental lit, and I've come to believe that it's what USUALLY happens that guides a child's assumptions about the world, barring highly acute, traumatic experiences. So I don't feel that my child will be harmed in any lasting way if she cries for a couple minutes b/c I had to put her down to pee. I tend to wait to take my shower until she's well rested and fed and in a good mood - then she'll sit happily in her bouncy seat and I not only get to take a shower but dry my hair, too. What bothers me is the car - the one place where I feel out of control, b/c I CAN'T soothe her. Sure I talk to her, sing, reach back and touch her head, etc. but this doesn't stop her from crying, so this is the closest I get to CIO and I hate it that there's no way for her to understand that I would be holding her if I could, or that it will be over soon.

There are also the times, although rare, when it seems like she's crying for a little stress relief, kind of the way anybody does when they're super tired and it's been an awful day. At these times I feel like she just needs to be held and soothed while she cries. This is after we've been through all the usual suspects and nothing's hitting the spot for her. I don't believe this is CIO, because I'm holding her, letting her know she's not alone. It's important to me that she knows it's okay to cry when she's sad or upset. I think most people here will probably go, "Well, YEAH." I think we all agree on this more than we think we do.


----------



## siobhang (Oct 23, 2005)

I have been thinking a lot about the OP's question - and I have a few thoughts. Perhaps it isn't when a child should cry or what a parent does or doesn't do. Perhaps it is really a question about approaches to sleep.

My basic issue with mainstream approaches to sleep is that it doesn't bear any relation to the research on how most infants sleep best - i.e. close proximity to a caregiver, multiple wakings, soothing methods, etc. There is a one size fits all approach to sleep.

If your child doesn't fit the pattern, you are a "bad mother" and your baby is a "bad baby". Therefore, you both need to be trained! And the basic way of training is force - baby WILL sleep and will not be "rewarded" with attention for being bad. Mom needs to be "strong" and harden her heart, etc .

The AP approach to sleep is based in both research and in gut instinct. It isn't another one size fits all approach (despite the fact that some folks think it is) - it instead says "most babies need to sleep near a parent and nurse through the night. Most babies don't sleep through the night and need to be comforted when they wake. Most babies need to be soothed to sleep for the first couple of years. However, HOW they are soothed, and other circumstances depends on the baby and the family. The AP way is to RESPOND to the child's needs as interpreted and defined by the people who know him/her best - the parents."

It always strikes me as odd how most people (esp. new parents) focus so much on the "rules" of sleep - i.e. my 4 month old MUST go to bed at 7pm, he MUST sleep for at least 14 hours a day, he MUST sleep 5 hours straight on his own - or there is a problem that must be fixed.

I just wish most people understood that a. most problems are not problems, they are just variations of normal, and b. if there is a problem with sleep, if they are creative and responsive, they can probably come up with a solution which works for their family.

Siobhan


----------



## wannabe (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm with the OP - patting or soothing a child you're not holding isn't CIO.

It *could* be CIO - for example, my daughter screams if she is sleepy and not being held or fed - you couldn't pat her on the back and have it NOT be CIO, but for many children this is not the case. I've patted many babies and small kids to sleep with a very minimal amount of groaning or fussing (more sleepy sounds than fussing, really).


----------



## KayasMama04 (Feb 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *~*SugarMama*~*
IMO, CIO is not responding to the needs of your child when they are *supposed* to be sleeping. IE...Ferberizing. I don't think that you can *teach* your child to sleep on command but I do think that they can get the message very nicely that when they are placed inside their crib (bassinet, toddler bed, room, etc) that all their needs will be ignored.

I don't get this, are you saying by putting them not in your bed is ignoring them?


----------



## malibusunny (Jul 29, 2003)

No, she's saying that if every time you put them in a specific place, you promptly begin to disregard them, they quickly come to learn that this is the place where they are left to be disregarded.


----------



## ~*SugarMama*~ (Jul 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *KayasMama04*
I don't get this, are you saying by putting them not in your bed is ignoring them?

No, putting them in their own room, whether it be in their bassinet, crib, toddler bed, etc and letting them cry themselves to sleep is CIO.


----------



## ~*SugarMama*~ (Jul 20, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *malibusunny*
No, she's saying that if every time you put them in a specific place, you promptly begin to disregard them, they quickly come to learn that this is the place where they are left to be disregarded.

Yes! Thank you.


----------



## josh&davesmomme (Feb 24, 2006)

to me cry it out is allowing a child to cry instead of attend to their needs - everychild is different some's needs may just be hearing moms voice or a pat on the back others may need more- each individual child is unique! But the key is to help you child if you know that the child really _needs_ to be picked up to calm them yet you just pat their back then i think it's cio


----------



## jadzia's_mommy (Jun 9, 2005)

I voted for #1 as well. I think that is the one which is always CIO; 2-4 may or may not be, depending on the age of the child and the child him/herself. My DD went through a phase (when she was under a year) where she didn't want to be held to sleep. I could put her in the Amby and swing her with my hand on her chest and she might cry for a couple minutes, or I could hold her or put her in the sling or other carrier and she'd be much more miserable and cry for much longer. At some point I figured out that if I put her in the Amby, said goodnight, and left her awake, she'd go to sleep without a peep. That's just where she was at that point. Eventually, that changed again, and we started co-sleeping full time again because that became what she needed.

I feel like the key to AP is not to rigidly decide that a certain way of doing things is always going to work. If you are attached to your child, you can figure out what their wants/needs are, and they may not be what you expect but you can be responsive to them. To say that soothing a child by rubbing his or her back is always going to be CIO is unrealistic and unreasonable. It may be, but it may not be.

I also do believe there can be a difference between fussing and crying. My DD at 18 months will sometimes wake up and make a complaining noise, stop, make it again, then roll over and go back to sleep. If it doesn't escalate beyond that, I know she's fine and she doesn't need me. If it turns into a cry, then I know it and I go comfort her. There is a distinct difference between the first noise and the second. I don't even think she's awake most of the time when she's making the first noise.


----------



## Victorian (Jan 2, 2003)

IMO the answer lays in the intent. If you are "training" your child to do something and that includes letting them child instead of doing something to sooth them, then it is CIO. IMO that includes straight CIO in a crib, the ten minute at a time torture or handing them to dad to walk around all night screaming so that you can nightwean.

On the other hand, being in the shower when they wake up or being in the car while they are upset is not CIO because IF you could sooth them, you would.

Also, something that I haven't read it in this thread is that there are physical consequences to CIO, not just emotional.

V.


----------

