Help Define CIO - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Thread Tools
#121 of 124 Old 09-16-2006, 11:32 PM
BelovedK's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: wandering around.... with an aim.
Posts: 16,736
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Originally Posted by karin95
If given a choice, I would probably agree with you.

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

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

Once we adopt, we will probably be cosleeping, breastfeeding and not-CIO. I can't wait for that...
I'm truly sorry that you have to deal with that heartache. IMO, it's better for the babe to have at least an experience of trust...even for a little while. The CIO is abandonment, unfortunately this babe will have to face it. Better to have a good experience registered.

                                Whatever will be, already is...
BelovedK is offline  
Sponsored Links
#122 of 124 Old 09-17-2006, 12:29 AM
siobhang's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Annandale, VA
Posts: 2,407
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I personally see the definition of CIO is one of patterns vs one time events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My 2 cents.


You know the attributes for a great adult? Initiative, creativity, intellectual curiosity? They make for a helluva kid...
siobhang is offline  
#123 of 124 Old 09-17-2006, 12:47 AM
moonfirefaery's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 2,993
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think CIO for eight minutes while mom pumps is CIO or harmful. CIO is when you are trying to teach a lesson or get the child to give up, not when you are incapable of pulling the car over and have to wait a few minutes. If you are trying to soothe the child in other ways, I don't think it's CIO. If a child is crying during seperation anxiety, it's CIO if they need comfort that isn't given. If a child is crying it out because they just need to cry and want to be left alone, I don't think that's CIO. CIO, to me, is trying to teach a lesson or have the child to give up; the child cries until the want, desire, need...even their hope is gone.

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

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

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

fambedsingle2.gif Heather, 25, single mom to Corbin, 5, and Orin, 3  uc.jpg  delayedvax.gif  nocirc.gif
Oh how I miss the days of femalesling.GIF  nak.gifcd.gif  
moonfirefaery is offline  
#124 of 124 Old 09-17-2006, 01:21 AM
flyingspaghettimama's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,486
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Originally Posted by BelovedK
I'm truly sorry that you have to deal with that heartache. IMO, it's better for the babe to have at least an experience of trust...even for a little while. The CIO is abandonment, unfortunately this babe will have to face it. Better to have a good experience registered.
Yes, I think there have been many studies on this - if a child has had any positive attachment experience, they're more likely to be able to attach securely later in life (i.e. to parents, relationships, etc). But what a heartbreaking situation for the little girl!

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

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

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Online Users: 8,333

8 members and 8,325 guests
alenamiy , Concejoaitana , legitd , NaturallyKait , rhutes , sciencemum , Winny , zebra15
Most users ever online was 449,755, 06-25-2014 at 12:21 PM.