Help Define CIO - Page 4

[RockStarMom]

Originally Posted by Gem'sMama

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

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

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

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

[RockStarMom]

Originally Posted by paxye

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

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

I'm done...

Very well said, and...

Originally Posted by PatchyMama

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

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

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

also very well said!

[moonfirefaery]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If that magically becomes OK then why isn't CIO for sleep training the same kind of OK? I don't get it.

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

I beleive that it all has the same effect on the child... however, it can happen and it doesn't mean that the person is a bad mother etc... but it doesn't mean that because the intentions are different the results may not be the same

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

A child screaming for 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 20 minutes is never what is BEST FOR THE CHILD.

In the situation where it's either that or be shaken by mom because of her anger... I'd say that screaming for 3, 5, 20 minutes is DEFINITELY what's best for the child. What's truly best would be for the child to stop crying and feel better, but if that's not possible, you have to do whatever AVAILABLE option is best.

My need for a break never comes before my daughter's need for me,

Mine does in the situation where I may lash out if I don't take a break. Mom's need for a break, in some instances, can be the baby's need as well. When baby needs mom, he definitely doesn't need mom in a state of mine so negative and nerve-wracked that she may not make the best parenting choice for him or may even hurt him or herself. My needs are my baby's needs in some cases. If I haven't got a clear mind, he's not going to get the best care. If I haven't been able to eat much, his meals won't be very nutritious. If I'm thinking about how badly I have to pee, he's not going to get the best attention. Moms do have to take care of themselves, because if they don't, they won't function as well...and baby suffers a lot more from that than from crying for five minutes while mom grabs a granola bar, after not eating all day, or sits down in a quiet room to try and analyze the situation to figure out a better approach of handling it or lies down on her bed, screams, counts to ten, and then comes back feeling more calm and less likely to be abusive.

[PatchyMama]

In the situation where it's either that or be shaken by mom because of her anger... I'd say that screaming for 3, 5, 20 minutes is DEFINITELY what's best for the child. What's truly best would be for the child to stop crying and feel better, but if that's not possible, you have to do whatever AVAILABLE option is best.

No what is best for the child is to be held and comforted by mom. There is no getting around that. But if that is not possible then you find an alternative. Obviously slapping your child would be worse than leaving the room while you gather yourselves. But neither options are what are BEST for your child or what is ideal. That is the entire point. We need to be able to accept the fact that sometimes we do things that are not best or ideal because of necessity. Maybe then we can all stop being so easily offended when someone suggests that maybe there was another way to do something in regards to parenting.

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

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by paxye

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

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

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

[moonfirefaery]

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

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

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

[Elyra]

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

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

[moonfirefaery]

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

EXACTLY!!!

[PatchyMama]

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

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

[PatchyMama]

Your job is not to do what is best, to achieve the impossible, etc.

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

I'd rather let a baby cry for five minutes than leave an older child covered in vomit while I tend to the hungry child. You have to do what is best for the family as a whole, and if you can do what is best for the child, you should but it shouldn't take away from your attention to your other children.

Um that is what I have been saying all along. I agree with that. However that doesnt change the fact that one child is still left crying and that it does affect the brain and does affect them. It doesnt make anyone a bad parent, but it is still being left to cry.

No one should be made to feel guilty or told they are harming their child because of a differnece of five minutes.

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



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

[moonfirefaery]

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

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

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

[PatchyMama]

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

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

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

[liawbh]

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

[liawbh]

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


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

[loraxc]

Moonfirefaery:

But just because I can justify it doesnt mean that her crying for 10 minutes (even while being held by daddy) affected her brain any differently than if i had left her in the crib to cry.

So now we're saying that crying in a loving father's arms "affects their brains"? : It's really not at all a far leap from that to "Babies who cry at any time for any reason for any length of time are being damaged by the crying." : Too bad about those high-needs, colicky babies, huh? Brain-damaged for life. If only they had had BETTER mamas! (I'm being sarcastic here. Actually, there is research showing that colicky babies are NOT affected in later life.)

[PatchyMama]

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

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

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

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

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

[North_Of_60]

Originally Posted by PatchyMama

(tho i won't use the word manipulation in regards to babies)

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

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

I do not put those two actions on the same level at all, but it would be silly to think that they affect our children differently.

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

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

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

Does that make sense? :

No one can MAKE anyone feel guilty.

Now this I agree with! I don't feel guilty for doing what is necessary to make me a better mother. It's not a perfect situation, it's not what's best for her over all, but it was the best I could do at that time, and I know that's all she would expect of me.

[PatchyMama]

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

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by PatchyMama

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

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

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

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

[PatchyMama]

I am talking about general parenting ideals.

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

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

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

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