Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My daughter moved on from dropping the morning nap (at nine months unfortunately for us all) to ideally needing to sleep about 11am for a couple of hours (sometimes not possible because it clashed with a playgroup which hence meant lots of melt downs). She often however found it hard to make it to bedtime and often got very cranky around 5pm (fell asleep in her highchair once while having her dinner!!). I think (this was three years ago) that I started to put her to bed earlier for a while - 6ish, until I could get her to nap around 12.30 - 1pm, after lunch. I think it all naturally takes a bit of time and adjustment.

My 10 month old sleeps for three hours in the morning and an hour in the afternoon. She goes down at 7 and gets up at 7. I'm not sure how I got it so good but I'm sure it will change as time goes on. I do know that we are very active when she is awake. We go to the park, swimming, soft play and she is an early (nearly) walker. They are all different I suppose.


I agree with the falling asleep thing. My girl goes down at 9am and if she doesn't, I find her asleep on the floor.

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

    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
    • My view is that any party that welcomes a self-declared Marxist would merit a negative point. 
    • Isabelle Capitain on 7 Upland Road will be able to do that for you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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