When Kathleen Mitchell-Askar was pregnant with her first child, she wrote in her journal nearly every day about what she felt and the changes she was experiencing. Once a week, she went to a prenatal yoga class and she listened to special meditations to connect with her baby. If she wasn’t at work or caring for the home, she used to just lie down and feel her baby sweep her elbows and knees across her belly. Pregnancy with her second child brought an entirely different experience on The Attached Family online magazine at http://theattachedfamily.com/membersonly/?p=2951

Learning neuroscience isn’t something every parent has time for, so Dr. Dan Siegel and Mary Hartzell, authors of Parenting from the Inside Out, developed a simple and surprisingly accurate model of the brain that parents can make with their own hands, which helps us understand what goes on in there. When we know what’s going on in our children’s brains (and in our own), we are better able to respond sensitively and appropriately when emotions run strong. Read more on The Attached Family online magazine at http://theattachedfamily.com/membersonly/?p=2942

My first had always been a good sleeper. We co-slept through about 18 months or so, and when we moved, Little Man jumped right into his big-boy bed and that’s where he wanted to sleep.

After I had my second child, we went through a phase where Little Man would wander into my bed in the middle of the night. Which was fine for a while. Hey, if he needed some extra security or mommy time or whatever it was, I was happy to oblige. After all, he was adapting to a pretty big change.

After a few months, he would wander into the bedroom in the middle of the night, where the other 3 of us were sleeping, and start asking for trains. Or cookies. Or to go to Zia’s (his aunt’s) house. And when we would say no, a full-throttle tantrum ensued. So, the 3 of us would have to wake fully, get Little Man settled, then try to settle ourselves and the baby to sleep.

He did this every night for about a month. It had gone on long enough that we were all becoming tired, cranky zombies.

I have no problem waking with him for nightmares, for monsters in the closet, or if he’s not feeling well. But to burst in at 2:00 a.m. every night, getting everyone all fired up? It affected everyone, every day. And I didn’t want to start feeling resentful.

Okay, I was already feeling a little resentful.

At a loss, I did something about it. One night, when he came into our room, he made his usual request for something he could be sure we would shoot down. As soon he showed the first signs of tantrum, I picked him up and put him in his bed. I told him he could come back in and talk to us or sleep with us if he could do it quietly, without waking the baby.

Of course, this made him wail. When he came back in, I took him back to his bed, and repeated what I had just said. By the third time, I had almost given up. I felt like I was doing a form of cry-it-out for almost-three-year-olds. But because I was inviting him into our bed and the alternative (sleepy, crabby family) wasn’t good for anyone, I decided to stick to my guns this time.

After one more round, he started to calm down. I asked him, “can you come into the big bed quietly?”

“Yes,” he whispered.

I tucked us all in.

“You okay?” I asked.

“Get trains,” he said.

“No, it’s dark down there and we won’t be able to see them.”

“Okay.” He rolled over and went to sleep.

That was the first and last time I had to do anything like that at night. Now, when he wanders in, he sneaks in quietly and nobody knows until morning. We can all wake refreshed and happy. He has his nighttime security, we have our rest.

Still, as with every parenting move I make, I can’t help but wonder if I did the right thing.

Ricki was in trouble again with her first-grade substitute teacher, this time for accidentally spilling water on her desk. She missed her regular teacher who was on a four-month leave of absence after giving birth. Every since the new teacher came, Ricki hated school. She was sure the teacher didn’t like her — for forgetting her homework one day, for not paying attention another day, and now for spilling water on the desk. She returned home each day, filled with foul frustration, which erupted in attacking her younger brother, taunting her older sister, and talking back to her parents. Israeli parenting educator Shoshana Hayman continues…

As the parent of a young toddler, the idea of “flirting” has been on my mind for a while. Whenever we’re at a restaurant, my daughter – like many other young children – enjoys catching the eye of new people, and making them smile. Our society likes to call this “flirting.”

Our perceptions of babies tend to be skewed by the cultural beliefs we’ve inherited, and then reinforced by the language we’ve been taught to use, as well. This is why I’m calling out a seemingly innocent – yet omnipresent – word like “flirting.”

Google turned up the following definitions of the verb FLIRT:

1. Behave as though attracted to or trying to attract someone, but without serious intentions: “it amused him to flirt with her”.
2. Experiment with or show a superficial interest in (an idea, activity, or movement) without committing oneself to it seriously.

I have several qualms with the “innocent” idea that babies are flirting.

First, flirting implies a romantic overture. Clearly, this is out of the realm of babies’ developmentally capabilities or interests.

Second, flirting is defined as creating a superficial interest or connection.

Adults know plenty about superficial connections. We’ve been taught to erect walls, and strategically vary the way we present ourselves to increase the likelihood of getting what we want. Some like to say babies are manipulative, but in fact, by the time we’ve reached adulthood, most adults are master manipulators.

Babies, on the other hand, are beautifully untainted. By learning from them, we can regain some of our innocence, some of our original beauty.

When babies create a connection with another person, it is intentional and inspirational. They open themselves entirely to the interaction, smiling widely to elicit joy and establish a connection with the other person. Any one of us can attest – when we’re engaged by a smiling baby, we’re flooded with appreciation and love.

Babies are our teachers. They can help us let go of the superficial layers we’ve collected in the long years of our lives. They can show us how to open up and show the love that lies at our very core. One of the ways they teach this vital lesson is by reaching out and grabbing our hearts with a dazzling smile.

I’d argue that what babies do in restaurants has nothing to do with flirting. It is an intentional act, and it reflects a sincere interest in connecting with the truest self of the person they’ve engaged.

I’d also like to propose that we rename this beautiful act that babies do. Ascribing a more accurate name is another step to reclaim babies’ value in public perception. Some of my thoughts: Connecting. Engaging. Shining. Dazzling.

Please share your thoughts and ideas!

As your body changes during pregnancy, the activities you used to enjoy may be off limits. You may not be able to drink your morning coffee, have sushi for lunch, or indulge in a glass of wine with dinner. And a pregnant woman can forget about roller coasters, riding a bicycle, or skiing, Yet, while it may be difficult to give up favorite activities and food, you can find fun in different and new ways. Pregnancy Editor Kathleen Mitchell-Askar explains…

I’ve been exploring the topic of attachment parenting and fathering as part of launching my new Go Fatherhood site and bumped into a thought-provoking article on a mom blog that claims attachment parenting requires the mom to be a supporter of feminism.

I don’t buy it.

The author’s point is that “traditional” attachment parenting is based around the baby being with the mother 24×7 for the first year or two, and it’s easy to then assume the woman’s role is as mother and that anything outside of mothering is irrelevant and should be eschewed. Author “Blue Milk” specifically states:

Attachment parenting needs feminism because without feminism women’s lives have a tendency to be decontextualised and devalued, and that isn’t good for mothering.

I’m torn on this, because on one hand I think that in modern culture a successful woman needs to be able to speak up for herself and establish her own identity outside of her roles as mother and partner. I’m just not sure that the identity requires everything that comes along with the loaded, hard to define concept of feminism. More to the point, are women who don’t care whether there’s true gender equality but follow the tenets of attachment parenting not actually attachment parenting mothers? I certainly don’t think so.

I’m also very conscious that the author hasn’t acknowledged the role and importance of fathers in this situation. I’ve always supported gender equality as a baseline from which men and women can make their own decisions about who they want to be and how they want to live their lives, but that’s not really feminism as I understand it: Feminism is about women not just having the opportunity to be equal but taking the opportunity, not deciding that they are perfectly content with a possibly less equal role both in a relationship and in parenting.

When we had our babies (now 8, 11 and 15) and decided to travel the path of attachment parenting, my now-ex and I also decided together that she’d stay home and nurture them for the first year or two while I worked and brought in what income I could. Was that a feminist-inspired decision, were we unwittingly decontextualizing and devaluing Mom’s role?

I don’t think so, but that’s just me. What do you think, API Speaks reader?

A couple of friends asked me lately how to avoid running low on, or running out of, milk when breastfeeding. My answer is: Quit scheduling. Easy as pie. Yet, why is it so hard for us? A breastfeeding mother, Ashley Franz, explains on The Attached Family Online…

A few of my parent friends have pointed out that as much as their kids enjoy watching the PBS show “Curious George”, George always gets into trouble (makes a mess, does something wrong, doesn’t stay where he’s supposed to, etc…) and nothing ever happens to him for it.  He never gets punished or has a privilege taken away or a consequence imposed for his actions. This may bother some parents about “Curious George,” saying that the show is not setting a good example for kids about what what should happen in the face of misbehavior, but I happen to think it’s a great example for parents.

Curious George does exactly what he’s supposed to do for his age and development (and species)!  By nature and by name, he is curious.  He explores his world fully and completely. This is his job as a young, continually developing little person, er, monkey. This is why my kids love the show–they relate so well to George’s genuinely curious nature and all of the honest mistakes that ensue. But, as a parent, what I find most refreshing about “Curious George” is The Man in the Yellow Hat.

The Man in the Yellow Hat never punishes George for his mistakes. He is more concerned with solving the problem. The man helps George put things away, fix things that broke, apologize to people who were involved in any indiscretions, and generally restore order.

The Man in the Yellow Hat doesn’t force George to apologize. Of course, George can’t talk, so maybe that’s why! But George’s body language and expression, along with his cooperation in fixing the problem, is more meaningful than a forced “Sor-ry,” anyway. People can see his remorse and feel his desire to set things right again. George’s inability to speak provides an unwitting platform for making genuine apologies.

The Man in the Yellow Hat will give a heartfelt apology on George’s behalf.  And when he does, the apologizee says it’s not necessary. The mistake has been fixed, and they enjoyed George’s authenticity–his curious nature–and appreciated his spirit. The characters in this show are understanding of George’s developmental capabilities.

The Man in the Yellow Hat doesn’t put fear into George. George is never afraid of what The Man will do or say to him when he finds out  what happened while he was gone. George is able to present his problem to The Man and know that he will get help in return.

Now, if only The Man in the Yellow Hat would learn not to leave George unsupervised as often as he does…

API’s response to the Milwaukee Anti-Bedsharing Campaign and the report aired today on NBC’s The Today Show and on ABC news:

Our hearts are broken at the loss of precious lives in Wisconsin. API is moved by and shares this passion to definitively halt similar ongoing sleep-related tragedies. We also agree and support information that would discourage bedsharing for those who are not healthy/safe candidates. Still, to say that no parent should ever have the baby in bed is as detrimental as saying that all babies should be in bed with their parents. While the Milwaukee anti-bedsharing campaign has generated a lot of controversy and interest, we persist in calling for facts that accurately describe the reality and continue to insist that when safe alternatives are dismissed, greater tragedy may result.

API is concerned that parents will be afraid to talk about bedsharing; professionals are and will be afraid to talk about it. Nonetheless, a mother’s basic need for feeding and responding to her infant’s needs will continue to be met. Parents and professionals must be fully informed with accessible information and free to ask questions and dialogue about safe strategies. We seek to avoid situations where efforts to comply with rules result in more unsafe situations.

Parents’ reasons for bedsharing are varied; in a popular poll more than 45% of American parents report that they have had their infant sleep with them at some point. A provocative ad and the gift of a playpen are solutions that are highly unlikely to affect parental decisions that deny strong biological, intellectual, and empathic responses to their infants. Those of us who raise our children in the culture of breastfeeding and safe bedsharing we cannot imagine this basic human instinct as taboo. It is a basic, human biological right for a baby and a healthy mother to be in close proximity.

As the campaign has already become news, we hope the momentum of this controversy will have the positive benefit of a meaningful discussion and response to much needed information, support, and resources.

What is urgently needed:

• Education about safe sleep environments;
• Better and clear data, analysis, and transparency in information;
• Communication and conversation for viable solutions based on good data as well as parent and infant behavior; and
• Broad participation, not action based on decisions of a few.

Safe Sleep Environment

Without a doubt, an unsafe sleep environment is not appropriate for an infant. API educational material guidelines clearly state that mothers who are bedsharing are advised to breastfeed, not smoke or take other drugs or alcohol (or sleep with a partner who does these things), or be obese. Creating a safe sleep environment includes firm mattresses, the space free of any potential entrapment. A firm futon or mattress on the floor, or a side-car sleeper are safe sleeping arrangements that breastfeeding mothers have used for centuries.

The current argument against educating about creating a safe sleep environment is that parents cannot learn; a paternalistic approach that ignores a variety of motivations for engaging in bedsharing. We believe in and support parents. We encourage a response to safe sleep that educates and empowers parents.

Looking at Data

In the 2010 City of Milwaukee Fetal Infant Mortality Review (FIMR) Report, bedsharing is identified as a risk factor in the same category as true causes of death by overlay and suffocation. If these bedsharing situations followed safe guidelines, should not the infant deaths be logically attributed to SIDS, just as they would if the infant were in a crib?

Page 17 shows that of 90 SIDS, overlay, asphyxiation deaths, 85 involved multiple risk factors. Bedsharing, indicated as a risk factor and being prevalent in 70% of the 90 deaths, was not the only identifiable risk factor. Five deaths for which there was only one risk factor are indicative of relatively “clear,” isolated causes of death. Even ifwe assume that bedsharing were the only risk factor in these five deaths, as this report does not identify accompanying risk factors such as obesity, other people in the bed, siblings in the bed, or bed structure, no one can be sure that these five deaths would have occurred in “safe” bedsharing conditions based on the API Safe Infant Sleep guidelines.

Assume we accepted that bedsharing was the single risk factor in the five deaths attributable to a single risk factor. Deaths attributed solely to bedsharing may then be reported at 0.05% – the lowest of all sleep-related risks. Technically, these deaths might be attributed to SIDS-bedsharing barring any additional and previously unidentified risk factors.

API agrees with an objective to strive for no infant or child deaths, certainly preventable ones. Zero tolerance is noble and we should aim for it, but when we break it all down, it must be analyzed on par with other sleep conditions and environments, knowing there is an uncontrolled element to SIDS that eludes all. When we look clear-eyed at the data, bedsharing may not be the boogeyman after all. In missing critical data and clear analysis, we are less able to achieve our common goals of keeping children alive, safe and thriving within their families.

More risk factors must be identified. Cause of death and risk factors need to be isolated for full information. Bedsharing does not equate to overlaying and it does not equate to SIDS.

Communicating with Parents

The frightening image used in the Milwaukee campaign against bedsharing perfectly illustrates a fear-based campaign, a campaign that does not help parents know what to do, just what not to do. (In this case what not to do may be interpreted widely). It is a simple and shocking picture and suitably controversial to grab attention. Dr. Kathleen Kendall-Tackett, who has conducted research on the harm of these kinds of anti-bedsharing campaigns, reports that they potentially create dangerous situations with a message that terrifies rather than educates parents. She found even though mothers hear the message to not bedshare, they misinterpret what they hear:

The findings indicate that almost 60% of mothers bedshare and that this occurs throughout the first year. These findings also indicate that 25% of mothers are falling asleep with their infants in dangerous sleep locations, such as chairs, sofas or recliners. Journal of Clinical Lactation Vol. 1, Fall 2010

Most of the mothers in Dr. Kendall-Tackett’s survey were breastfeeding mothers, and they found that at some point in the night, the mothers feel asleep with their babies. Along with current safe sleep strategies she strongly recommends:

Safe–sleep campaigns should include information on safe bedsharing. In absence of this information, parents are likely to continue bedsharing, but may do so in unsafe ways….

Consequences and Alternatives

The Milwaukee campaign uses a simplistic approach that ignores human nature and variation and sets parents up for overwhelming challenges in safely meeting their baby’s needs in the middle of the night. Parents feel forced to go against their instincts, turning to practices also known to harm infants. Confining their infant to the crib, letting their baby “cry it out,” and engaging in sleep training methods create stress in the baby. Even worse, parents become confused, irritated and so exhausted ultimately desensitizing the parent to the child’s need for loving responsiveness. The baby is deprived of emotional and physical support and at risk for harm. The history of parenting has shown that sometimes we move to a so-called strategy, only to find that we have created the potential for something worse, perhaps in this case, the potential for more SIDS deaths. We need to move forward with certain knowledge, being very careful before issuing blanket edicts with unknown outcomes that go against a natural, instinctual, and beneficial human behavior practiced for thousands of years.

API understands the great disparity in bedsharing among Milwaukee communities and yes, there are cases were families should not be bedsharing. In every case, however, parents can be educated and empowered in their love for their children, to make their own decisions. Milwaukee and other health departments can better spend their dollars to reduce infant deaths on good prenatal care, breastfeeding promotion, nutrition counseling and good parenting education instead of frightening messages that only confuse parents. Eliminating smoking, breastfeeding, roomsharing are all known practices that significantly decrease the chances of SIDS.

Sensible Response

The encouraging news is that so many of the comments coming from parents in blogs, Facebook, and on the ABC website show that they are seeing through this message and questioning its validity. We hope those involved with the campaign messaging will take this feedback to heart.

We encourage all parents to write to their local TV stations, newspapers, facebook pages, and other media to question these campaigns and advocate for safe, complete messages based on sound research. Come to this task full of compassion for the campaign directors, as they too have the infant’s best interests at heart. As compassionate parents ourselves, we have the tools to engage effectively. We continue patiently and persistently on our course of best action as we do in our daily parenting.

For its part, API is actively advocating for complete data collection on infant mortality rates, having a standard for death certificate questionnaires that ask the right questions, and delineate types of deaths, be they SIDS, suffocations, overlay, complications of prematurity, etc. The results should clearly indicate how this information compares to infant deaths that continue to take place in cribs.

Your continued support is vital to this effort. The factors involved in this bedsharing debate are greater than a well-intentioned public health effort. Strong financial interests, conflicts of interest, and lack of data transparency and clarity must not be a part of the processes that effect public health decisions, especially to the prospect of greater harm.

Only a grassroots, empowered public will make a difference in saving lives, empowering parents to take back their rights to raise their children in a loving, connected and healthy environment.

You are invited to review and use these valuable resources:

Jim McKenna, PhD: cosleeping.nd.edu
Dr. Bill Sears: askdrsears.com/news/latest-news/dr-sears-addresses-recent-co-sleeping-concerns
API 2010 Appeal for Support: attachmentparenting.org/news/2010appealforsupport.php
API Safe Sleep Resources, Free Downloadable Brochures, Position Paper, Letters, and Principle: attachmentparenting.org/infantsleepsafety/

API resources are available for your use and we invite you to share your concerns with:

Bevan Baker, Commissioner of Health
Milwaukee Health Department
Frank P. Zeidler Municipal Building
841 North Broadway, 3rd Floor
Milwaukee, WI 53202-3653
No email available

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Letters to the Editor
200 word limit
Write: Letters to the editor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel,
P.O. Box 371, Milwaukee, WI 53201-0371
Fax: (414)-223-5444
E-mail: jsedit@journalsentinel.com

JS Online response: http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/milwaukee-cosleeping-ad-stirs-nationwide-debate-4m33572-133987863.html

ABC: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/lifestyle/2011/11/milwaukee-hopes-babies-and-butcher-knives-wake-parents-up-to-dangers-of-co-sleeping/

Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/co-sleeping-ad-baby-knife-dangers_n_1097170.html

Other major outlets

Your local newspaper

Petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/milwaukee-remove-the-fear-mongering-co-sleeping-ads

Consider donating to API’s efforts in support of parents at: Give today to help keep babies safe! or mail to: API, P.O. Box 4615, Alpharetta, GA 30023. Questions? 800-850-8320

Thank you.

Attachment Parenting International