Thread: What is Child Led?

Originally Posted by Elle

I'm not sure it works as a universal truth if it's open to interpretation, though. I don't think there is such a thing, anyway, but I wouldn't consider what you outlined as being child led.

I'm no expert and could be completely wrong but I just don't think it gets more child led than unfooding and observational restrictions should be limited purely to safety and universal dangers if we're wanting to be truly child led - the rest is all open to speculation. There are too many variables to consider.

I'm not saying being child led is the answer here, that could be the wrong thing if it's causing anxiety and would only make matters worse, but I don't agree with your interpretation of child led at all. Plenty of people say their children are happier in the day and more rested after they tried CIO and while that might be true, is that even close to being child led? It's fixed a problem but it comes at a price (potentially. I, personally, believe that controlling diet at all comes at a price (potentially) too.

Again, I'm not saying that to force the issue. It's about balancing the outcomes here and the potential for harm is greater with anxiety than without unfooding.

What isn't child led about what I said? If Abi preferred her breakfast at the big table and is now refusing it at the little table then by keeping on with the little table, she would be making a parenting choice based on what she read/others opinions and not following Abi's cues. If Abi doesn't react well with high artificial sugars/chemicals, Abi cant know that by eating that, she is going to be cranky, so by altering the options available, she is making a decision based on Abi and her reactions to the food.

A child cant make all their own decisions and I dont believe for a second that allowing them to make all decisions is child led... The child is taking over the situation, not leading the adult in the situation. And with babies/toddlers that don't talk fully, being lead is the only way you can go. They simply arent equipped to make educated decisions on their own in so many cases so their reactions to things tell us how best to handle each case.... therefore leading us.

I will give an example from my own life about my ethics and knowledge needing to be set aside for Hunter's happiness... Hunter was being very very unsettled at nights for quite some time. He kept wanting his nappy changed 2-3 times per night when it was only slightly wet. I was fine to keep on changing him in the night but it got to a point that he stopped waking and asking for the nappy change and just being terribly unsettled all night. I knew the answer would be disposables at night... I had tried EVERYTHING ELSE... but the very first night he was in a disposable, the restlessness stopped and he slept better. If he had the choice, he would pick cloth I am sure. That is what a nappy is to him, it's all he knows. But I had to be lead by him, swallow my hatred for disposables, resist the feeling of inadequacy by being a "part time" cloth user and just do what made him happy. It has only been a few nights but the change was instant

ILML I'm not suggesting that it isn't sometimes right to make a decision for a child but what you just described isn't being child led, that's the parent making the decision. Whether it's in the child's best interests or not is irrelevant. As I think Elle said before, you could use that logic to say that CIO can be child led. It can't. Sometimes being 100% child led will lead to them making 'bad' decisions but there is only one way to be child led and that's to let them decide. I don't agree that you should *always* be child led, I doubt many people actually are although they try to be, but I'm not going to say I'm 100% child led because I don't think it is child led if you are taking decisions based on what you know is best rather than letting LO decide. As you said, Hunter would choose a cloth nappy and that would be the child led decision. You chose otherwise but that's parent led because you believe his needs (to sleep) are more important than his wants (a familiar cloth nappy). But it's definitely not child led. Unless, of course, you mean 'child led' in only a physical sense? But I think that's different to the way the phrase is generally used.

Firstly, ILML, that is basically saying you don't agree with unfooding at all. Which is fine, but that's the whole point... not "you can be free until you make a bad choice". In fact, that is very anti all things child-led IMO.

Bad choice or good, it is theirs to make. That's not letting them take over... I'm not saying she can make my choices for me or that there is never balance in a household whereby we need to go out and Molly can't just stay home. But what does Abi's eating have to do with balance within the family? That's removing choice because you feel she is incapable and that she cannot lead herself in the way that you believe she should be. I feel the need to mention again, there is no science behind sugar highs and assosciated irritability.

As Rach said, there's a difference between making the choice you believe to be best and being child-led. I know that by making Molly go into town with us when she doesn't want to isn't child-led but not going just isn't an option sometimes so we accommodate her wants and needs and feelings as much as we can in the process and explain as we go. I believe in learning to live together as much as I believe in being child led, but I am not seeing either in your example for Abi.

Ok then, when i made the choice to demand feed, i wasnt child lead. Im sorry, i have misunderstood child lead this whole time, i had no idea that a parent couldnt make the decision based on the childs desires. Wtf isnt child led about me putting my child in a disposable so he would be comfortable enough to rest? He was not happy in the cloth at night, he lead that choice. Wtf is child lead then? I have heard people on here talk about child lead when a baby is unhappy being worn and is happy in a pushchair and front facing. The parent made the choice to try the pushchair that way, not the baby. All the baby did was show they werent happy. So, if one is BL and the other isnt, explain what baby/child led is please...

That was irt rach as i cross posted with elle. And, ive stated already i disagree with unfooding fully for a child that doesnt communicate, to me its still the parents choosing to offer what they want to offer which is no different to what we all do, just the choices are different

Originally Posted by ILoveMyLamb

Ok then, when i made the choice to demand feed, i wasnt child lead. Im sorry, i have misunderstood child lead this whole time, i had no idea that a parent couldnt make the decision based on the childs desires. Wtf isnt child led about me putting my child in a disposable so he would be comfortable enough to rest? He was not happy in the cloth at night, he lead that choice. Wtf is child lead then? I have heard people on here talk about child lead when a baby is unhappy being worn and is happy in a pushchair and front facing. The parent made the choice to try the pushchair that way, not the baby. All the baby did was show they werent happy. So, if one is BL and the other isnt, explain what baby/child led is please...

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Demand feeding IS being baby led (because baby could choose to be fed every 3 hours on the dot or it could be every 20 mins, then 1.5 hours etc), scheduled feeding is parent led. Yes you make the choice to be parent led or baby led, but that's as far as the parent side of being baby led goes. You say "I'm going to be baby led" and then you do it. I'm not sure how to articulate this properly! When a child is able to make a choice, even if you think it is the wrong one, and you go with what you think is best rather than what they want, that's parent led because it's you saying "I know better". As I said before, I think we should "know better" sometimes so I'm not saying that's wrong, I think it is probably wrong to be 100% baby led all of the time, but you can't say it's all baby led if you're making a "better" decision. So if you were 100% baby led with nappies and you asked Hunter a question he was capable of answering, even if you don't think he understands the consequences properly, if he says cloth, you go with cloth if you're 100% baby led. I agree with you that that is not the "correct" decision for him physically and I would also make the same parent led decision you did, but I wouldn't call it baby led. I don't think it's a negative thing to make decisions for a child, but it's not baby led.

Anyway let's not derail a thread where help was being offered. We can discuss this elsewhere if we want

Originally Posted by Rach

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick. Demand feeding IS being baby led (because baby could choose to be fed every 3 hours on the dot or it could be every 20 mins, then 1.5 hours etc), scheduled feeding is parent led. Yes you make the choice to be parent led or baby led, but that's as far as the parent side of being baby led goes. You say "I'm going to be baby led" and then you do it. I'm not sure how to articulate this properly! When a child is able to make a choice, even if you think it is the wrong one, and you go with what you think is best rather than what they want, that's parent led because it's you saying "I know better". As I said before, I think we should "know better" sometimes so I'm not saying that's wrong, I think it is probably wrong to be 100% baby led all of the time, but you can't say it's all baby led if you're making a "better" decision. So if you were 100% baby led with nappies and you asked Hunter a question he was capable of answering, even if you don't think he understands the consequences properly, if he says cloth, you go with cloth if you're 100% baby led. I agree with you that that is not the "correct" decision for him physically and I would also make the same parent led decision you did, but I wouldn't call it baby led. I don't think it's a negative thing to make decisions for a child, but it's not baby led.

I only meant he would choose cloth because if I say we are gonna change his nappy he goes and gets a cloth one, he doesn't know the disposables are nappies at all. He simply doesnt have the experience to know that. To him, a nappy is a cloth one on the shelf, not a paper one in a bag. It wouldnt really be a choice he made, just that he would choose a "nappy" and to him nappy=cloth. He chose to sleep better in the disposable. I just provided him with that option. Even though I think sposies are crap, I gave him the physical choice and he chose to sleep in a crappy chemical filled disposable ... unnappying if you will... haha.

I think in Abi's case, she has made the decision that she doesnt like eating breakfast at the little table. And just because she hasnt told her mum that or took her bowl to the big table, doesnt mean she isnt showing her dislike by not eating the food at the little table. And OK the other example may be up for debate about child lead but I truly do feel that leading a child in the way that makes them happier , truly happier (CANNOT be used in CIO!!) is child lead. But OK fair enough, that example can be argued.

So, for example, is it not child led to drop nap time if they arent settling at night and are fine in the day without one? Or starting to potty train when they show the signs of it? I just dont get when the decision is child led and when it isnt? These examples are not the child making the decision, but the parent deciding based on their cues/behaviour... but it is child centered. Is child centered and child led 2 different things? If so, then that may be where the confusion lies.

And also, I felt I had to give in to the disposables as I had been parent led for far far too long and my selfish reasons for trying to keep cloth up at nights were making him miserable.

Originally Posted by Rach

Anyway let's not derail a thread where help was being offered. We can discuss this elsewhere if we want

I don't think it has derailed... a point was made on topic and then argued and is now being clarified. I am sure without this clarification, many would be just as confused as me!!

Originally Posted by TheRev'sFamily

I'm finding the clarification useful. Actually this whole discussion is useful to articulate to me exactly what I found unsettling about unfooding and why, and which bits do make sense to me.

And the example of Hunter's nappies is helpful as a comparison too. How can he choose something he doesn't know about? Similarly, how can Abi really choose what her body needs until she has tried it and her body has actually had a go at digesting it?! It's like a catch 22, chicken/egg thing AFAICT.

I think that's why you try to offer a balanced mix of things so that they can choose what they need. I tend to think of it in broader terms so 'carbohydrates' rather than 'potatoes', 'rice' and 'protein' rather than 'chicken', 'Quorn' etc. So for me, it's not about offering Leyla every kind of carbohydrate in existence so that she can choose among them, it's about offering some carbohydrates each day so that if she needs carbs she can have them. I know different foods all have slightly different mixes of stuff in them but if you give a good mix Abi should be able to get what she needs eventually by mixing and matching. So there might be a food that contains X and Y but it's a weird food that you'd never think to buy. In that case, Leyla might choose a food containing X and a food containing Y, because she doesn't know they exist together in the weird food. Molly, who as far as I can gather has parents who work hard to offer more unusual stuff, might know about this weird food and get both things in one, but as long as both Leyla and Molly get what they need, I think that's ok. They've both had choice, although Leyla's isn't as wide a choice as Molly's. It's not the same as removing choice entirely and me sitting there with a nutrition plan deciding what she must eat.