Annabelle is a pretty high needs baby, according to Dr. Sears. I googled "high needs baby" when someone told me she was a high needs baby, and sure enough, she fit the bill. Though I don't like labeling her, it does give me sort of a blanket explanation whenever someone acts surprised at how often she nurses, why we rarely leave in her in the care of anyone else, and why she sleeps relatively horribly.
While we've been working on sleep training, I've had a good amount of time to sit contemplating attachment parenting, mainstream parenting, and high needs babies. I've come to a conclusion based entirely off of anecdotal evidence, zero peer-reviewed studies, and no scientific data whatsoever. Ready?
Attachment parenting creates high needs babies.
I'm not saying this is BAD, and I'm not saying this is GOOD. I'm just saying, that in my relatively short time as a mom, and observing my friends and their kids, it seems to be truthful a lot of the time.
Before we had Annabelle, we knew we wanted to breastfeed, and also that we wanted her to sleep in our room but not in our bed. Breastfeeding was my number 1 priority (aside from the obvious keeping her healthy and whatnot). Breastfeeding was not going great for us at the beginning, so I did everything I could to make breastfeeding work--including stay up all night long, feed her whenever she wanted, and sleep with her in bed with me.
In turn, Annabelle learned that she could nurse all night long, eat whenever she wanted, and sleep in bed with me.
When she didn't get those things, she cried. When I wasn't there to offer those things, she cried. I then responded by giving her what she wanted, which was nursing all the time, all night long, and sleeping in bed with me. Thus, high needs baby "created."
Of my friends who have "high needs babies," I know that many of them practicing AP principles. They wanted to from the start. They wear their babies all the time (as do I), co-sleep, breastfeed on demand, limit crying, rarely leave them, etc etc etc. All the things we wanted to do, and did do, with Annabelle. By doing those things, our babies get used to them, and then they earn the label "high needs baby." It's as if "high needs baby" is synonymous with "giving your baby what s/he needs instead of making them do what you want them to do." It's lame, quite frankly. But, I call Annabelle a high needs baby, because she is--based on the way most of society parents. Based on the way of Attachment Parenting kids, Annabelle is totally normal. She's used to getting her needs met when she voices that she has them. I don't think that makes her high-needs, I think that makes her normal, and me a responsive parent. Yet, I still use the label and the term to make excuses for her behavior and my response.
Why do I do that? Why can't I just say, "she's not high needs at all. She's a baby. And when she has a need, I respond to it, rather than making her needs wait until they are convenient for me." and leave it at that? I don't know.
/end of ramble.
Sleep training is on hold. Something happened. I'm not sure what. But, progress went backwards very, very quickly, and it's as if Annabelle is now terrified to go to sleep, even in our arms sometimes. We talked with our sleep consultant, and she encouraged us to go back to square one and start over, because sometimes babies just aren't ready to move forward as quickly as their parents are. Well, we are exhausted. And quite frankly, not ready to go back to square one just yet. So, we're on hold. Annabelle nurses until she's almost fully asleep, and then I put her down and rub her back until she goes to sleep all the way. This works. She's been staying asleep for 2-3 hours at a time now, which IS improvement over the 45 min. to an hour that she was doing before. When she wakes up, we try encouraging her to go back to sleep without picking her up, but if she starts protesting, we pick her up. If she protests more, I nurse her. I'm nursing her about 3 times a night now, instead of 5-8, so that's great. We bring her to bed with us around 3 or 4. There have been a lot fewer tears the last few nights without trying to force her to go to sleep and back to sleep on her own.
Maybe we'll try again. Not for awhile. We all need some rest and relaxing nights.
Attachment Parenting and High Needs Babies
3 comments:
I know you're against it, but... CIO was a good thing for our babies. I know you want to be there for her every second, but the truth is that as parents, we can't be there every second. If she never has to deal with anything by herself, she'll never learn to cope with things by herself. Unfortunately for you, I think it's too late even for CIO as your little angel seems to have dug her cute little heels in. :) I feel for you because parenting is so hard and it's a lot harder with no sleep.
Hang in there and I'm sure it will get better.
Jill, 3 things:
1) Huge hugs to you! I think breathing and relaxing are perfect remedies. Can I grab a coffee for you sometime this week? ;)
2) I totally hear ya on the "she's just a baby" issue. I remember when some friends (who had not yet had children) would say, "Is she hungry again? She nurses alot, huh?" and I would simply say something to the effect of "Yeah, she/he is a baby!"
3)I will refute your theory that AP creates high needs baby b/c based on my own anecdotal evidence, there are in fact some very laid back babies who have AP parents. BUT it took us 4 kiddos to get one this "easy"! ;) Cecilia, after the first week of her life, really did do the nursing every 2 hours thing (which was a HUGE difference from some of her siblings who nursed every 30-60 min thing). She has even fallen asleep, laying on a bed, by herself while I *was getting dressed*. NO joke!
Annabelle is who she is and she is perfect. God knows what He is about when he is designing our families and giving us the children, in the order He does. Sometimes, I think my children's personalities, trials, temperaments, etc. are more so for *my* benefit and growth as a person than their own. Will pray for you all!
Also as en entire aside, I realize CIO works for many but I would disagree with the premise of the above comment. It is NOT about being there for our child every second, but it is about responding to them when they are in need. I don't think anyone believes they can be there in every moment for their child. Also, there is a HUGE difference in a baby (for me, "baby" is anywhere in those first 2 years...) learning to cope by herself and an older child. We learn new skills and change drastically as we grow and develop, so what we cannot handle under one year of age may be quite attainable by 2 or 3 years of age. It's a spectrum, IMO. Again, I realize CIO works for many but I am not under the false belief that it works for everyone all the time, or that it is a blanket solution. JMO.
Post a Comment