Help Define CIO - Page 3

[loraxc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[alegna]

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]

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]

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