Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I tried controlled crying when mine was little and as a result she slept really well and self-settled when she did wake. That lasted a few months, however like all babies and like everyone has said, there are lots of reasons why she now doesn't sleep and needs more help with it. I think even if you try all the ways to get them to sleep better you will still come up against periods when they don't. Mine is 14 months and 3 nights of the week she sleeps alright, 3 nights she wakes a few times and needs some settling, then we have 1 dreadful night and she can be up for a couple of hours. She is never fed in the night and hasn't been for at least 8 months. She wakes because she needs a cuddle or she has teething pain or she gets trapped the wrong way in the cot, or sheis thirsty, or she is standing up in the cot and won't lie down (as per little saff) or she has a horrid cough and cold. When she started nursery she had bad sleep and her clinginess is definitely a factor.


What i realised is that even the babies who are taught to self settle still need help at random times so the sooner I realised that you have good days and bad days, the sooner I felt less dread about the night. I am grateful for good nights and I feel rubbish the day after a bad night, but I go to bed early to make up for it! I totally understand that it can be really depressing and gloomy when you are sleep deprived, but like everyone else says...it will change eventually and in the meantime your body clock will adjust, it took mine months to get used to less sleep/broken sleep. Is really hard! Sure you're doing a brilliant job.

I go to bed so early these days!! 8 o'clock is when I start thinking about sneaking off!

I read this book called 'What Mothers Do - when it seems they are doing nothing' (my partner thought this title was hilarious) and it said that the most important part of becoming a mum is learning to let go of your old life and accept that a new life has begun for you. I think that this is easier in some areas than others and it is hard for me to accept feeling unhealthy and tired every day as a norm. I guess I will adjust, but I am having some teething problems (so is Joe, ha ha!)

Thanks for the reminder about that funny thread. Our 5 month old started going in his own cot last Monday, after cosleeping since 10 wks. Other half is on leave for 2 wks so we are sharing duties. We are taking it as it comes and I think he's getting the idea of the. Cot as his bed, although he doesn't particularly like it. Anyway, I'm at that almost no sleep for the last week stage, bone tired, tearful and occasionally manic. One such very hysterically funny occasion was this lunch time. Having forgotten the nappy bag, left very late for our b holiday activity (as I didn't have the usual energy to chivvy everyone out) and with much loving help to prepare from my dear mum, (who is so willing but has physical restrictions of her own) we ended up eating a picnic in the car in Asda car park. In back Mum, and me hardly holding it together with maniacal laughter as 3 yr old enjoys smearing yogjurt around and (of course) daddy and grandpa blissfully unaware as they read their newspapers in the front.

Anyway, I am missing out on valuable sleep here. i wish you all some sleep tonight

IT GETS BETTER, I PROMISE! Not necessarily their sleeping, my three year old hasn't slept through a whole night once in his entire life, but we just don't worry about it and as we always co-slept he just pops in with us and off he goes again to the land of nod. Ignore the smug sleeper mothers, their children probably do vile things when they are awake, or they're simply lying.

Fi from West Dulwich


> Ignore the smug sleeper mothers,

> their children probably do vile things when they

> are awake, or they're simply lying.


I'm sorry, but this is bordering on ridiculous. At no point have the "smug sleeper mothers" criticised those of you posting on this thread so why the attitude? Are those of us with children who sleep somehow at fault?


My children sleep, they don't do vile things and I'm not lying. Not all children sleep well, I know that, but I take offence to the tone this thread is taking.

I agree Fi's comment was, shall we say, badly worded, but let's not tar the whole thread and all it's posters with the same brush :( .


Up to now, this was a lovely, interesting, diverse, and supportive thread! :) I hope one errant comment does't spoil the whole discussion.

sunbob Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for the reminder about that funny thread.

> Our 5 month old started going in his own cot last

> Monday, after cosleeping since 10 wks. Other half

> is on leave for 2 wks so we are sharing duties. We

> are taking it as it comes and I think he's getting

> the idea of the. Cot as his bed, although he

> doesn't particularly like it. Anyway, I'm at that

> almost no sleep for the last week stage, bone

> tired, tearful and occasionally manic. One such

> very hysterically funny occasion was this lunch

> time. Having forgotten the nappy bag, left very

> late for our b holiday activity (as I didn't have

> the usual energy to chivvy everyone out) and with

> much loving help to prepare from my dear mum, (who

> is so willing but has physical restrictions of her

> own) we ended up eating a picnic in the car in

> Asda car park. In back Mum, and me hardly holding

> it together with maniacal laughter as 3 yr old

> enjoys smearing yogjurt around and (of course)

> daddy and grandpa blissfully unaware as they read

> their newspapers in the front.

> Anyway, I am missing out on valuable sleep here. i

> wish you all some sleep tonight


That's a great story about the carpark picnic. Humour really does help disolve the despair of sleepless nights. xx

Fi from West Dulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ignore the smug sleeper mothers,

> their children probably do vile things when they

> are awake, or they're simply lying.



hmmm.. agree Pickle..always peculiar when someone tries to turn a helpful and supportive thread into something totally different that pits mums against other mums.

my 14 month old has been a good sleeper so far but I am well aware that these things can change overnight for any number of reasons, and that even if she stays a good sleeper, a future baby may wake up every hour, on the hour, until he/she is 15, so smugness doesn't factor. Plus, my daughter has had a shedload of feeding dramas, while many of my friends with difficult sleepers have sprogs who wolf down everything they're offered with gusto, but this difference doesn't make me feel they're being smug, even when I look a bit longingly at their little one scarfing a lasagne! Babies are all different, and the chances of having one who is at once a great sleeper / eater / socialiser are quite slim it seems!

Hope everyone gets some sleep tonight..

well said hellosailor. And just to be clear I was v much joking with my suggestion that mums of good sleepers should lie! I didn't have any of the nice EDF mums in mind when I said that...more thinking of the types you get on e.g. Babycentre, posting about sleep 'problems' and then it turns out their baby is suddenly 'only' sleeping 11 hours a night having previously slept 13...gah!


As you say Hellosailor, it is never static. My eldest slept well from 3-9 months, then terribly from 9-16 months, and has had his moments off and on since then. And lordy, he has always been challenging in his waking hours, so yes I think it all balances out. Agree with Saffron this has been a nice & diverse thread. GillandJoe I hope you get some sleep...

I think the most helpful thing I read about dealing with the tough times was in "buddhism for mothers" - that everything is transient, i.e. it will change (of course, lots of people had told me this but reading it in the book I finally got it... kinda).


hellosailor Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Hope everyone gets some sleep tonight..

Hear, hear - wishing all of us best of luck :)

I did wonder afterwards whether my flippant, typed in haste post would be misconstrued - I didn't mean the mothers of those who sleep are all inherently smug, I meant that SOME mothers I have encountered were, I hate to say it, rather smug about it but that the reality was often rather different - case in point, the friend who replied to my email about how exhausting it was with a newborn to say that she was getting more sleep than before her baby's birth. This left me feeling dreadful, completely alone and unsupported and yet a conversation two years later revealed the truth, that she had regularly sobbed on her husband's shoulder when he returned from work saying that it was all overwhelming and that she was on her knees. Those sorts of competitive mothers do little for maternal solidarity in my view but of course I don't think that those with babies who sleep are all smug, I just think they are lucky and good luck to them. And as for their children doing vile things, I simply meant to show, again probably rather too flippantly, that all children do wonderful and tiresome things at different stages, if a baby is a great sleeper they might give their parent's a rough ride when they are two or a teenager, and the baby who never sleeps might be the sunniest soul in the world when awake; motherhood is swings and roundabouts in my experience. I would hate for this post, meant to raise a smile from a sleep-deprived mother, to turn into an EDF battle and it was absolutely not my intention to cause any offence. I'm off to have my cold scrambled eggs and to stop ignoring my three year old whilst I type.



Pickle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Fi from West Dulwich

>

> > Ignore the smug sleeper mothers,

> > their children probably do vile things when

> they

> > are awake, or they're simply lying.

>

> I'm sorry, but this is bordering on ridiculous.

> At no point have the "smug sleeper mothers"

> criticised those of you posting on this thread so

> why the attitude? Are those of us with children

> who sleep somehow at fault?

>

> My children sleep, they don't do vile things and

> I'm not lying. Not all children sleep well, I

> know that, but I take offence to the tone this

> thread is taking.

I took Fi's comment as a humorous message of support to parents of non-sleepers, and also not in any way attacking people on this thread or forum - as Belle said there are mums on babycentre, mumsnet and in real life who don't think before they speak about their marvellous sleepers, eaters, walkers, cuddlers, readers without a moment's thought for those whose children don't do things quite as easily or as well. Think another case of written word being interpreted differently and causing offence where none was intended.


On my birth board on babycentre there was an interesting post where a mum was boasting about her child's precociously good speech (and really boasting, no misinterpreted language here). A very dignified mum wrote back that it was hard to read as she had a very disabled son of the same age and it made her feel awful. Sleep is not on the same scale by any means as this but it demonstrates how one person's excitement and pleasure (often totally understandable and merited) can really grate on another.


No one on this thread reads as smug about sleep, but can any of you say you've never met a smug mum or dad even if unintentional? I'm sure I've even been guilty of it myself - as the mum of an early walker but a not so early talker I can now imagine that my excitement about my little one's mobility may have been irritating to others who were waiting for (literally) the next step in their child's development.


Back to sleep, think understanding the transience is key and like Mima08 I love the Buddhism for Mothers book, it really gives you perspective and is a calming and lovely read.

Fi from West Dulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I did wonder afterwards whether my flippant, typed

> in haste post would be misconstrued - I didn't

> mean the mothers of those who sleep are all

> inherently smug.


I was rather hoping that was the case. Sometimes dark humour gets a little lost in translation. Obviously not all parents of those who sleep well are inherently smug about it. xx

Fi from West Dulwich Wrote:


>Those sorts of competitive mothers do little for maternal solidarity in my view but of course I don't think that >those with babies who sleep are all smug, I just think they are lucky and good luck to them.


Sorry, but I worked damn hard to help my daughter to be a good sleeper! I sometimes get a bit miffed that some people think you must be lucky if you have a good sleeper; not luck on our part, just a lot of consistency and hard work! And no, I'm not smug, just happy that my little girl is well rested.

Thanks everyone - I do actually feel better about it knowing that so many of you are experiencing similar things and I think that Fi's comment was obviously a light-hearted joke and not meant to offend! Thanks also, Saffron, for that thread about our senses of humour! Thought I was the only one that had lost it post-natally! Although, i do still laugh often but it is usually about poo/pee/fart noises/raspberries!


Sorry, but I worked damn hard to help my daughter to be a good sleeper! I sometimes get a bit miffed that some people think you must be lucky if you have a good sleeper; not luck on our part, just a lot of consistency and hard work! And no, I'm not smug, just happy that my little girl is well rested.


I think all mums are working hard - its hard work being a mum! Not all babies or parents respond well to training...

Also, I will definitely give the Buddhism for Mothers book a go - sounds great. Just as long as it doesn't make me feel I should be meditating every day (inevitably i won't and will just add it to my list of things to feel guilty about not doing - the same list with baby yoga and dieting on!)
I have a three year old and a 19 month old and we probably get 1 night a week when they both sleep through. At the moment it is the older one usually waking. She normally can be settled very quickly but being woken for some random reason has become a normal expected part of our life and is completely manageable. It is very different from the extreme wakings and periods of being awake for hours that we used to get when they were younger. We always feel amazing when we get one of the dream nights though! Good luck x

Its also worth remembering that the definition of sleeping through is sleeping for five hours and not from 7-7 or whatever the baby trainers have decided that week. BabyT's sleep is all over the place, sometimes brilliant, sometimes awful. He defined the 18 month sleep regression and would stand in his cot shouting 'no no no no' for an hour at a time before starting to cry. We decided to bring his cot into our room and side-car it (our bed is too small for three of us), and now one or both of us lies down with him until he falls asleep. At the moment this is working well, but who knows when it might change again :)


I second the recommendation of etta above, especially the No Cry Sleep Solution.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...