Babywise & Adoption???

[WildOlive]

I just read an article in my Adoptive Families magazine about infants and sleep. It seemed great, they quoted Dr. Sears, advocated the co-sleeper, etc., then in a little inset box they have a list of baby care books, and Babywise is one of them. :scratch:mad

I would like to write a letter to the editor about how Babywise is the opposite of attachment, but the problem is I have never read Babywise. All I know about it is what I have learned here. Is this something I should try to write anyway? I don't want to write a letter that is inaccurate.

[katiekind]

It IS the opposite of attachment and in my opinion should not be used by adoptive parents. Yes, Babywise is very much against co-sleeping, and really makes it sound like babies shouldn't be held tooooo much, letting them cry unattended is ok, etc. I would think that these practices would be counter to an adoptive parent's goals.

[blessedwithboys]

I think submitting a letter is a good idea. :yes

[WildOlive]

Thanks for the help. I just feel sort of weird writing a letter criticizing a book I've never read, you know?

One of the other books listed was the Baby Whisperer... what is that one like?

The others were The Attachment Parenting Book, No Cry Sleep Solution, and the Baby Sleep Book by Sears, which I know are all good.

[katiekind]

Baby whisperer is marginally better than babywise. And it is written from a woman's voice so there is a softer feel to it. For breastfeeding it is equally bad, but an adoptive parent wouldn't be breastfeeding -- usually. (I realize some do.)

What are the common concerns and goals of someone who is adopting a baby in the age range Babywise addresses?

[Earthylady]

I would absolutely write a letter! I've never read the book either, but I submitted a letter to the church counselor a couple of years ago when I saw his teaching guide for Raising Kids Gods Way. :sick Apparently, it was old and they used to teach it, but because of all the controversy they stopped, however, I think he still encouraged and believed in it's usefullness. :( Also, when I wrote, I made sure to add the link for the ezzo.info site among others.

[Autumn]

Oh yuck. :sick Definitely write a letter. I'm glad you saw it and are calling attention to it. Ick.

[Maggirayne]

It's the *only* baby/parenting book ever to have a warning against it by the American Academy of Pediatrics. To me, that speaks volumes. It has caused Failure to Thrive in numerous babies.

[yellowheart]

I haven't read all of the replies....but, a couple (John & Jane Doe ;)) at my church met Gary Ezzo at one of the GKGW conferences...specifically asked questions regarding foster children and adopted children...and Gary Ezzo himself said "we do not deal with foster/adopted children" that the materials B-Wise/P4P through Childwise/GKGW were essentially meant for biological families only and were NOT meant to be applied to foster/adopted children. :shrug3

[Synesthesia]

No, just NO! they should not use those methods for any child. It really can cause RAD if you use that sort of strict scheduled feeding CIO nonsense.

They need to use books that make moms and dads get all marsupial.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

What are the common concerns and goals of someone who is adopting a baby in the age range Babywise addresses?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking? Adoptive parents have the same goals as biological parents.

Babywise interferes with attachment. This is more pronounced with adopted children who have already lost their biological bond. I would start writing a letter with that, and then back it up with sources. There are resources on both the attachment issues associated with babywise, as well as attachment in adoption. There are also resources out there on attachment with infants adopted from birth to six months.

[blessedwithboys]

I *think* the AAP has recently come out with a statement against Babywise, so if nothing else, the fact that the method is deemed dangerous to all children should keep them from recommending it for adopted children. :doh

[katiekind]

Hmmm....I haven't heard of anything like that, Karen, so if you find it, please let us all know, and I'll make sure it gets up on Ezzo.info too.

The AAP statement that I know about was provoked by a spate of media stories connecting poor outcomes with Babywise back in the late 90's. The AAP stopped short of naming Babywise in the statement, presumably so that their concern would apply to all such advice, and so they wouldn't be seen as picking on one author.

http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/aapmediaalert.pdf

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking? Adoptive parents have the same goals as biological parents.Didn't mean to be offensive.

I was simply wondering if adoptive parents, in the beginning, might tend to rank bonding and attachment as a higher goal for the early weeks and months with their baby, over getting the baby to sleep through the night at as young an age as possible--which is what Babywise's stock in trade is.

[Can'tTurnLeft]

I was simply wondering if adoptive parents, in the beginning, might tend to rank bonding and attachment as a higher goal for the early weeks and months with their baby, over getting the baby to sleep through the night at as young an age as possible--which is what Babywise's stock in trade is.

It depends on what agency is being used IME. Secular agencies tend to really educate parents on attachment far better than many Christian agencies do. Christian agencies tend to focus more on God building families rather than addressing the very real issues that are there in regards to attachment.

[Zooey]

No, just NO! they should not use those methods for any child. It really can cause RAD if you use that sort of strict scheduled feeding CIO nonsense.

They need to use books that make moms and dads get all marsupial.:rockon:rockon

[blessedwithboys]

Hmmm....I haven't heard of anything like that, Karen, so if you find it, please let us all know, and I'll make sure it gets up on Ezzo.info too.


:bag I guess it isn't recent. I just had a friend recently post it on facebook, so I assumed it was newer. http://www.ezzo.info/Aney/aneyaap.htm

[CelticJourney]

As an adoptive mother, I would be more than glad to co-author a letter with you! Just send me a PM if so.

One of my more precious memories is of my ds's first morning home. He woke up, pushed himself up on his little arms, looked right at dh, looked left at me, then smiled and kicked so hard with excitement that he did a joyful faceplant.

[katiekind]

Karen, just so you (or anyone else) can characterize this properly, the AAP News article is a good and informative article, but it isn't the same as the AAP making a statement against Babywise. In fact, Dr. Bucknam, the "co-author" of Babywise (I put in scare quotes because he apparently only contributed the book's foreword) obtained permission to have a rebuttal piece -- authored by himself -- published in the same magazine after Aney's article came out.

As I recall, the owner of Ezzo.info tried to get permission to post Bucknam's article on Ezzo.info so people could compare the merits of the arguments, but permission was not given.

But it's been a long time so I may have that detail wrong.

[Maggirayne]

:heart :melting Elizabeth