quote:

Originally posted by Ying-ley Ling:
I have a 21 week old baby and a 23 month old toddler and they slept through the night (7pm-7am) from 8 weeks and 10 weeks old and are in healthy routines. They are v happy in their routines and all of this was achieved without distress, leaving them in the garden or carrying them around all the time. These mentors are all "mental" - bonkers- never come across anything like it.
Just get my maternity nurse Alison Scott Wright, and she can get any baby sorted in a few days with cuddles and no tears! They dont call her the Sleep Fairy for nothing!

No Im afraid I disagree, the other two methods may not be everyones cup of tea but at least they werent neglectful or abusive like Claire Verity. What is everyones rush to have a baby sleep through the night????My son is always sleeps in my arms, breastfeeding past 6months,baby led weaned, and he is the happiest baby. He crawled and stood up before 6months old.Plays happily with out me at playgroup...I THINK THE MORE CUDDLES THE BETTER!!

I would like to comment on a couple of minnie's points. If she would only have been bothered to read the posts which contain references to state-of-the-art research and knowledge ...

> why disturbe a child who is sleeping just to satisfiy your need of a cuddle

Do you really think that more affectionate parents wake up their children in the middle of the night (perhaps even every hour) to give them a cuddle? I have never met any of those parents.

> in the 1st 3 months of a child life there main priority is to grow and develop

How do you know? Are you an expert in pediatric psychology? That's just a silly statement without any foundation. Again: have you noticed the references to state-of-the-art research in child development?

> mia was well fed and very raily cried for food

She rarely cried for food because she had been strongly conditioned from day one that crying does not help at all.

> vicky and matt had llots of contact with her through feeding changing bath times

To how much time does this amount a day? One hour, two hours?

> and mia is now a very happy baby who is developing at amazing rates

What does it mean to develop "at amazing rates"? All parents will say this of their children. This again is just blabla without any foundation.

> and she still loves noting more than being outside

Well, she hardly knows anything else ...

> as vicky is a very capable childminder all her children have time outside in the fresh air

Is having time outside the only criterion to be met to be a very capable childminder? I, like many others in this forum, wouldn't be very happy to have her as a childminder.

> what would you prefer a childminder who has had no sleep and cant consentrate properly to look after your child or a childminder who has had a full nites sleep and is refreshed and able to care for you child properly

I know straight away that I will always go for the first option if that means that the childminder is an affectionate person who trusts her instincts much more than giving in to such antiquated and dangerous opinions.

> just give the series a chance

Just give the newborn babies a chance to be raised in an affectionate and warm-hearted environment!


P.S. Please feel free to use punctuation and capital letters to make your post more readable!

quote:

Originally posted by ThoKo:
I would like to comment on a couple of minnie's points. If she would only have been bothered to read the posts which contain references to state-of-the-art research and knowledge ...

> why disturbe a child who is sleeping just to satisfiy your need of a cuddle

Do you really think that more affectionate parents wake up their children in the middle of the night (perhaps even every hour) to give them a cuddle? I have never met any of those parents.

> in the 1st 3 months of a child life there main priority is to grow and develop

How do you know? Are you an expert in pediatric psychology? That's just a silly statement without any foundation. Again: have you noticed the references to state-of-the-art research in child development?

> mia was well fed and very raily cried for food

She rarely cried for food because she had been strongly conditioned from day one that crying does not help at all.

> vicky and matt had llots of contact with her through feeding changing bath times

To how much time does this amount a day? One hour, two hours?

> and mia is now a very happy baby who is developing at amazing rates

What does it mean to develop "at amazing rates"? All parents will say this of their children. This again is just blabla without any foundation.

> and she still loves noting more than being outside

Well, she hardly knows anything else ...

> as vicky is a very capable childminder all her children have time outside in the fresh air

Is having time outside the only criterion to be met to be a very capable childminder? I, like many others in this forum, wouldn't be very happy to have her as a childminder.

> what would you prefer a childminder who has had no sleep and cant consentrate properly to look after your child or a childminder who has had a full nites sleep and is refreshed and able to care for you child properly

I know straight away that I will always go for the first option if that means that the childminder is an affectionate person who trusts her instincts much more than giving in to such antiquated and dangerous opinions.

> just give the series a chance

Just give the newborn babies a chance to be raised in an affectionate and warm-hearted environment!


P.S. Please feel free to use punctuation and capital letters to make your post more readable!

WELL SAID!!

I am so distressed that Channel4 have used innocent babies as foder for TV ratings - Claire Verity should be prosecuted for her torturous neglect of these newborns. The parents should also be ashamed of themsleves - even if they had agreed to take part in this "show", once the exetent of this woman's abuse became clear they should have asked for the filming to stop.

The only good to come out of this hopefully, will be that Claire Verity will never again work as a maternity nurse.

Hello all those fellow cuddlers out there,
thought i would just have a quick look what this forum was like today, BLOODY NORA , WHAT A BACKLASH! glad to see we are all of the same way of thinking that cuddling is good. my little monkey, who normally retires at 6pm decided he would stay up till 8pm today, ok i wanted to read my magazines but hey ho, babies are unpredictable. so off he went at 8.15. Before I had reef me and my partner had a super life and a good social life, we didnt plan to have kids and were very nervous when I got pregnant. Am over the moon to say he is the best thing to have ever happened to us. Gone are our afternoon naps and leisurely lie ins but in came gummy smiles, cuddles and an endless sense of wonder at every little thing he does!wouldnt change it for the world!
Gill x

Hi - I agree with everything people have said. But I reckhon that Minnie who said she was a friend of the parents is actually the 10 year old older sister of baby Mia - that would explain the punctuation and spellings plus it reads very much like how a child would write so don't be too hard on her!

If we did an analogy to a programme on how best to treat people with mental health problems and we had a show where two people with mental health problems where subjected to treatment carried out around the turn of the century, I think there would be an uproar as there rightly should be. (then again, since Channel 4 have completely dumbed down and accept any old rubbish as long as it is sensational a show like this will probably appear on the telly soon!)
But because it's 'just' babies and 'just' parenting it's ok - yet as many people have said, there is enough evidence that shows that babies need social interaction in order for their brains to develop.

I remember a basic science show last year (hosted by Winston?) about the body which showed that babies look into people's eyes partly to get the synapes in the brain working and developing. As many people have said, the when babies are deprived of this, they don't develop.

one of my posts has gone missing. ha ha. maybe i was a little bit too over the top in my views on clare veritys 1950s method of childcare (if thats what you can cal it!) she shouldnt be allowed near kids. my health visitor told me that you shouldnt use controlled crying because studies have showed that children can grow up with real insecurities because of it.instead she said reassure your baby that you are there for them.
my 6 month old sleeps from 7pm till 6am and has done since she was four months which is fine by me. we adore our baby and cuddle,kiss and play with her all the time.
the program really upset and angered me and i am going to complain to channnel 4.

Just to add my ha'p'nyworth (and I've posted it in a second topic as well, so apologies if you've already read it)

The 50s solution is correct in that children do appear to need limits -- however, what people often forget is that the 60s and 70s methods don't prohibit setting of limits and showing who's boss! I myself was brought up strictly according to the 50s method, and I do conform to the stereotype of emotionally-distant individual with deep-down anger/hurt. (I don't believe it was just the 50s method that was the problem, but it didn't help.)

I believe the 70s method is the best, since it is demonstrably what humans have been doing throughout their evolution from apes. (I thought that comment about the 50s method being the oldest because it dated from the 1800s was utterly ridiculous and factually incorrect!) It is a shame that the 70s advocate confused her excellent statement to this effect with some rubbish about inherited wisdom -- there is no need to start bringing in mystical stuff when a simple explanation that our brains have been hard-wired by evolution to behave in certain ways works just as well.

Unfortunately -- and this is the big "but" -- whilst the 70s method is ideally suited to humans, since it was part of our evolution, it does have one big drawback -- it is designed to operate in an extended family group (which we in the West have long abandoned). Without the extended family, the 70s method does put enormous pressures on the parents to an extent to which we were not designed to cope.

Thus, using the 70s method, but throwing in some 60s realism, seems to be the best solution so far. And the important thing is to remember that your situation is unique from everyone else's, so don't be afraid to use all advice given as a guide, rather than a recipe!

By the way, in the run up to our first kid, we looked at a few books, and the thing that most impressed me about Deborah Jackson's "Three in a bed" (she's a 70s devotee with some 60s realism, in effect) was that she frequently quoted scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals, backed by organisations such as the WHO and NCT. This is important, because most other books (in all categories) often seem to rely on the "trust me and my years of experience" argument. As a practising scientist, that is just not good enough. Give me proper evidence, not the opinions of a single person, no matter how well intentioned! (Want a similar example? Everyone I know in the medical community reacted with horror at what Dr Atkins espoused in his diet -- because it was a seriously flawed observation dressed up as science and given weight because the man had "Dr" in front of his name).

So here endeth the sermon -- but please remember one thing: seek out proper evidence for the statements being made in whatever book you choose to follow.

I'm relieved to see the amount of posts speaking out for these babies. If they could speak i wonder what they would be saying...

Trauma impacts the verbal functioning part of the brain (Broca's area). The overwhelming neglect advocated at such an early age amounts to trauma... i wonder why they don't cry?!

The terror, isolation, panic, loneliness, overwhelming sadness and grief at the loss of a potential loved one.

Its so sad and painful...

I found it hard to watch Bringing up Baby for a number of reasons.

Firstly, for the cruelty for a newborn baby who so clearly needs her parents. As an attachment
parent, closely following the Continuum Concept (the 70s method) and adapted for modern day by Drs

Sears and Sears, I believe that following our instincts from the very start gives the best start to babies in their long term mental development (and so future mental health wellbeing - such as abilities to bond later in life, to feel valued and connected etc). Babies are special people, very capable, and deserving of so much!

Secondly, I also found it very hard to watch for the parents who followed the 50s method. We are all so conditioned to ignoring our instincts. New parents often have no formal idea of what is best, and are not prepared to trust themselves. Clare Verity subverted their own inbuilt guidance - like the old adage of a person placing a stumbling block in front of a blind person - and they followed her.

As a father, I found it particularly hard to watch the father in this case who so clearly knew what he should be doing but did not want to undermine his wife.

And as a parent, I found it hard to watch loving mothers be misled into a course of behaviour which was so obviously cruel, but which they were led to believe was for the best. Again as a father, I think it is often natural for men to follow and support a mother's strong parenting instinct. I

believe that a mother will often have to take a strong stance and that fathers recognise the importance of supporting what the mother feels is best. But when the mother is herself subverted, there is a danger that the differences in opinion, away from each following their inbuilt direction on child raising, can harm the relationship between father and mother.

Jean Liedloff believes that we are all able to recognise babies of any species, and we naturally

desire to nurture and protect them. Every person is capable of looking after babies. Modern nannied culture has, perhaps, taken that away from us. The aim that the Continuum Concept strives for is a well developed human being. A happy child does not necessarily mean well developed: if you starve a child and then feed them a minimum staple amount, they may be happy to receive that. It does not mean you have done the right thing. The same goes for emotional development.

Many posts have attacked Clare Verity for mentoring even though she herself has no. However it should be noted that Jean Liedloff - the author of the The Continuum Concept also had no children when she wrote the book.

I would attack Clare Verity for her lack of knowledge, demonstrated by her comment that her method goes back to the 1800s. The Continuum Concept is based on age old, instinctive behavior, thousands of years old. If she was really an experienced mentor, she would be aware of the reasons for what she was doing and why other methods should not (in her opinion) be followed. She clearly has no idea of the wider picture. She is clearly unaware of research demonstrating that her approach is wrong. Studies have shown it not to be good for development. I felt that she was poorly informed.

I have one caveat: I wonder how accurately her behaviour was portrayed, and whether the producers asked her to step-up her behaviour for TV. (We know, for example, how clever editing in Big Brother changes our perception of the housemates).

I think there is no doubt that each parent was trying hard to do the right thing, and hope that their loving and nurturing instincts shine through.

I would entirely agree with the previous post.

I have recently read Sears & Sears and found it to be a refreshing antidote to the prescriptive parenting advice all too often filling the shelves.

I, like many, found it incredibly upsetting to watch the programme, perhaps as I had my own 9 week baby in my arms!

Claire Verity is clearly unaware of the knowledge we now have regarding neurological development of infants and the long term impact of strong attachment. As mentioned on so many posts, knowledge in many areas has advanced since the 1950's which is why it is no longer followed!

I would suggest that the poor parents who chose to follow her regime were also ill informed and put their trust in a self proclaimed 'expert' and channel 4 who surely would not allow any harm to their baby??

I also hope that their nurturing instincts shine through.

I have no problem with adults allowing themselves to be part of any TV show, but if newborns can be part of a social experiment in the name of entertainment, then I am glad that so many people feel strongly enough to speak out and complain to channel 4.

My two were in their rooms from the day they came back from hospital. They are now 11 months and 2 3/4 and are in bed, at 7 every night and asleep soon after until next morning. Eldest was out of a cot, into a proper bed at 18 months and only ever leaves it after 7 to take herself to the toilet. Can't see the need to have them in your room; both parents and babies get disturbed.

Anyway, is there a repeat of this episode going to happen?

who is tht woman???? as a new mother myself i found the 1950,s approach extremley uncomfatable to watch, cold and cruel!!!! How can the parents even consider tht as a routine, obviously not cut out for parenthood. I see it as a kind of abuse its neglect, get in social services!!!!! What mother sits down stairs drinking wine on the 1st day your new baby is hme??? To even think about leaving my baby outside in the cold ALONE makes me feel ill.
A baby should be shown love so they can love back. My baby is 8wk old and is shown much love and cuddles in return i get rewarded with cuddles back smiles and loads of eye contact. If iwas to meet tht claire id tell her to shove it were the sun dont shine, what does she know?? experienced mother of none!! i think NOT, its just wrong wrong wrong!!

Try this petition to the government...

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to take urgent action to protect infants and their parents from television programmes that promote outdated and discredited parenting theories.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/#detail

quote:

Originally posted by sylvg:
Try this petition to the government...

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to take urgent action to protect infants and their parents from television programmes that promote outdated and discredited parenting theories.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/parentingshows/#detail

wow that is great! keep signing people!

I find it irresponsible even to suggest leaving a baby outside alone like that, there are all sorts of people out there these days (paedophiles, drunks, out of control teenagers, ect), not to mention wildlife (foxes, birds, dogs and cats) that could harm a baby, it just isnt worth taking the risk.

---------------------------------------------
I would like to ask Holz1986 where all those out of control teenagers come from. Yes, the method you are all complaining about is extreme - wouldn't be worth watching otherwise - yet who's to say it is wrong. Since the 60s we have cuddled and mollycoddled our children and guess what? Crime is higher than it has ever been, shootings and gang warfare are a growing problem and every corner shop has groups of thuggish children hanging around outside.

Now I am by no means saying that all children grow up this way but perhaps by giving them attention when they demand it and making them the centre of attention we are advocating a society where selflessness, respect for other people's needs and patience are of no importance at all.

It is parent's who give in to their children's demands who should be accused of abuse and reported to SS - they are the ones who ruin their children.

Those teenagers whom you speak of Furious Moo are in gangs mainly due to the areas they grow up in and nothing to do with being cuddled as a newborn! Neglecting our babies so that they are forced to be content is not the answer to todays gun crime! how can you mollycudle a newborn??? this discussion is about the neglect of a NEWBORN and that it is WRONG.

quote:

Originally posted by Furious Moo:
I find it irresponsible even to suggest leaving a baby outside alone like that, there are all sorts of people out there these days (paedophiles, drunks, out of control teenagers, ect), not to mention wildlife (foxes, birds, dogs and cats) that could harm a baby, it just isnt worth taking the risk.

---------------------------------------------
I would like to ask Holz1986 where all those out of control teenagers come from. Yes, the method you are all complaining about is extreme - wouldn't be worth watching otherwise - yet who's to say it is wrong. Since the 60s we have cuddled and mollycoddled our children and guess what? Crime is higher than it has ever been, shootings and gang warfare are a growing problem and every corner shop has groups of thuggish children hanging around outside.

Now I am by no means saying that all children grow up this way but perhaps by giving them attention when they demand it and making them the centre of attention we are advocating a society where selflessness, respect for other people's needs and patience are of no importance at all.

It is parent's who give in to their children's demands who should be accused of abuse and reported to SS - they are the ones who ruin their children.

Honestly....You can't spoil a newborn. That is what the show is about: the first 3 months of their lives. Of course can spoil an older child but that is a whole other show!

@Furious Moo:

what a simplistic argumentation!
So now we know what the root of the problems of the gangland crime yobs in Liverpool is: they have been over-cuddled!

Seriously: if all society problems could be described (and consequently being solved) in such a simple way, we would be pretty close to paradise.

O'no, Ive spent the first 6months of my sons life cuddling him every second I could-crawled at 5months-stood at 6-hes so advanced he'll be holding a gun at 5!! LOL-NOT..well yes to the crawling,standing&climbing...clever boy...
if you wana talk about gun crime Moo make another discussion...and I'll give you my thoughts on that.

quote:

Originally posted by peachy knitter:
Like oh so many others I am a newbie to this forum business and have registered on here today just to have somewhere to vent my feelings about this woman who in my opinion - or rather the method she is advocating - is pure evil. I missed the first 20 mins, (as my life involves 'Bringing up teenagers' who you have to wait to get out of work an hour late before you can get home to watch tv!) but I was completely traumatised by that evil woman, or her views/opinions on the 1950s child rearing, aka, "don't pick up baby or cuddle baby".
This woman is pure evil! -ok the ideas she is so passionate about are just CRUEL!
Now don't misunderstand me, a routine if that's what you want is fine - but this is extreme!
When exactly are you 'allowed' to touch your baby? When they are 5 and you send them off to boarding school with a handshake??!
Even when feeding she said don't hold them against your body…
And then when talking to the other two 'experts' said something like 'why would you want to pick up your baby?' in the voice of someone who's talking about picking up dog-poo!
My teenage step-daughter even she said she thought it was unethical to perform such 'experiments' on babies, which is something other people have raised.
And then finally you had the mother of that baby crying saying "it's really hard (to listen to your baby cry for several hours 'cos you're not allowed to go and pick it up between the 4 hourly feeds) but I know it's best for Mia" (baby), NO, I don't think so! It's best for you, or parents like you, (and the purposes of making tv!!) The irony was that this mum wanted to get back to work a.s.a.p. so wanted her baby in a routine, and what was the woman's job?
Yes, she's a child minder! OMG! I wouldn't leave this woman in charge of my child!
I have seen there is a friend of this couple postuing on this site and all I can say is that is as a womans hormones are all over the place after giving birth that perhaps she'll look back on this and accept some of the criticism about this method, but seriously having seen how she would willingly subject her own child to such a regime, I would not want her taking care of my child.
And as for the expect saying she's paid £1000 a day by people to get their baby into a routine - 'people who don't want a baby to interfere with their lives', why exactly did they have a baby???!!!!

God had to get that rant off my chest!

Peachy Knitter..."OMG"...Where do i start...
Vicky and Matt chose to take part in this programme and yes they have allowed scope for critisism. I'm not going to defend Claires methods as i feel, although soundly based, they are too extreemist. I would like to point out that this programme is rightly or wrongly an experiment into the best ways to raise children from infancy. It clearly showed during the programme that there are problems with the different approaches and i vividly remember Matt (during one of his more subtle moments) stating that it was "bollox" when refering to the feeding regime.
I do however wish to address the comment you made about Vicky being a childminder and want to know how you dare (after 10 minutes of seeing edited clips on the television) feel you are justified in your opinion.
I am a parent of a child that Vicky looks after and also a close friend. We all know how difficult it is to leave your children when you have to go to work however i can leave my son with Vicky and go to work completley guilt free.
She has been an invaluable sourse of advise and cares for my son as she does her own children. She literally goes above and beyond for all the children she cares for and i know when i tell other friends and collegues about my childminder they cant believe the activities she does, the food she prepares for them, the time she spends preparing the following day to make it the best possible for the kids. She really is one in a million and i know how lucky i am to have her.
It is completly beyond me that you feel you have the right to judge Vicky and, by all accounts, me as a mother after watching a tiny bit of a TV programme. Keep the daft opinions to yourself, thank you.