Sorry for going MIA

As you can imagine, moving a family of size is quite a challenge and very often the physical act of "moving" is only the tip of the iceberg. R likes to quote his favourite "80:20" rule, where 80% of the work takes 20% of the time and the remaining 20% the remaining 80% of the time! I have come to realise (yet again!) how apt this is.

We were all unpacked and ostensibly settled within a week, but the slow process of establishing local health, education and social links is taking a while. Having all four children under various consultants is a nightmare to say the least and unfortunately the most conveniently located GP practice has proved to be possibly the least sympathetic and helpful in the town! They have lost clinic letters, made errors on repeat prescription and "accidentally" sent referral letters to the wrong places.... I knew it wasn't going to be easy but establishing adequate local healthcare has been as arduous as wading through waist-high treacle in a snowsuit. I think.

I've always tried to write about topical subjects, or at least topics in which I am interested in or can relate to, and this is partially the reason for a lack of posts in recent months. Having neither the time to "think" outside the family box has prohibited any ponderings beyond the essential and urgent! I've also felt rather lost and uneasy because although we have struggled with the twins' medical issues since birth, the reflux everyone has in the family and H's issues I did at least think I understood them. Maybe not where we were going but at least where we came from and where we are now! However, we now have a diagnosis for all the gut issues, which makes an earth shattering amount of sense and would seem to be the missing and most elusive piece of the complex jigsaw which is our family. I should be jumping for joy you may think, and indeed I would like to shout from the rooftops that I am NOT a neurotic mother and there is a very real disease affecting our family with which we have to cope day in, day out. However there is no cure, it isn't going to go away and there is no no hope of a magic wand.

The twins have been diagnosed with EGID - Eosinophilic Gastro-Intestinal Disease. It is an autoimmune allergic response which leaves the gut damaged by white blood cells called eosinophils which attack it. The only ways of treating it are by strict dietary restrictions (so now we are off dairy soya AND wheat again...) and anti allergy meds, and maybe steroids. (No we are NOT going there...) We have such a strong family history of allergies, gastrointestinal problems and autoimmune disease it shouldn't be a surprise. I have suffered mildly all my life with gastro problems and more so with allergies, reflux as an adult and have autoimmune thyroid disease so I should be well informed, strong and understanding enough to deal with this. But I take a little white pill to artificially do what my self-destroyed thyroid cannot, there is no such "fix" for EGID.  In older children it presents as further gastro issues but also with joint pain and problems, and hypermobility and hypermobile joints too - all four children are now under Podiatry and we are hoping it will help J's back pain too.

We are lucky, it's rare and many with it are totally enterally (tube) fed since they are allergic to all foods and my kids are essentially fit and well. However, the reflux goes from bad to worse, the bloating, the constipation - it doesn't go away. Imagine it being the highlight of the WEEK if your child successfully empties his bowels? Or you sleep right through because no one wakes choking on reflux, or sweats so much they need their sheets changing?

Right now I'm feeling a little adrift... relieved, yet bereaved that virtually all hope of the elusive magic wand has now gone. If I'm honest I'm angry too, I didn't "sign up" for this and neither did the children. I'm in denial at times too, it comes in waves! I'm turning the anger, frustration, sadness and denial into some positive energy and am now helping found a Parent Network for families with gastrointestinal disease with GOSH. Extremely worthwhile and a good distraction too.

FABED - Families affected by Eosinophilic Disorders a fantastic site with a discussion forum. useful inof if anyone is interested in finding out more!

The genetics of ADHD - my views on the study debated today

 I have listened to this debate all day and quite frankly am totally mystified as to how two so called "experts" feel mudslinging is going to assist in the worthwhile investigation into the causes of ADHD. Jeremy Vine on BBC2 was in his element egging on the Ritalin-bashing extremists, allowing clinical psychologist Oliver James free rein to get on his soap box - which he leapt on and duly blamed all parents of children with ADHD as being dysfunctional with poor parenting skills.

Frankly I take offence at that and invite Oliver James to come and visit our family and a few others I know who are equally furious at his assertions. 

So what is all the fuss about? Well, apparently the "first direct evidence of a genetic link to attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder has been found, a study says." Scientists from Cardiff University, writing in The Lancet, said the disorder was a brain problem like autism - not due to bad parenting. They analysed stretches of DNA from 366 children who had been diagnosed with the disorder.But other experts argued ADHD was caused by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors. (Oliver James the most vehement critic.)

Unfortunately, the PR team given the task of publicising said study took a leaf out of Alistair Campbell's book and produced a report the King of Spin himself would have been proud of, neglecting to focus on the key point the research did demonstrate. Whilst there are bound to be crossovers with so many other co-morbid conditions the fact remains that a genetic link appears to be there, at least in some children with ADHD. Given that there are also several types of ADHD (ask my son, he'll list them for you) I do think this is significant, and it's a start. Not an end point and yes there are flaws but a valuable contribution to ADHD research. I don't think anyone is saying ADHD is only ever genetically caused but let's give the study credit where due and give parents a break.

Any parent with a child with an ADHD diagnosis, particularly if they have other non-ADHD children, is likely to tell you it is a combination of nurture and nature. To my mind there is absolutely no doubting the genetic link, ADHD runs in multi-class, fully functional families I know and pursuing accusations of bad parenting do an incredible disservice to the hard work of bringing up a child with ADHD. Imagine a child waking screaming and shouting every morning at 6am, threatening siblings, running away, self-harming, and frequently excluded from school - the parent of that child has to work 24/7 parenting and protecting the rest of the family in extreme circumstances. Apportioning blame is disrespectful and insulting. If you haven't been there you have NO idea.

Oh, and my other three exhibit no such behaviours, all parented the same way, and actually the child with ADHD had the calmest pregnancy of the lot. Without Ritalin he would have been permanently excluded by the age of 6 and would be uncontrollable. More importantly he LIKES taking it as he can concentrate, learn at school and feels better about himself as a result. He is happy, manageable and has friends. No parent likes giving their child medication and in all cases you have to weigh up the pros and cons but persisting in stigmatising children with ADHD and their families helps no-one. Time to stop Ritalin-bashing, support parents and fund decent research.

Indigo Children - a reality or ASD/ADHD or just bad parenting?!

This post is on a subject I have recently given considerable thought to.

I've struggled with son number 2 for most of his 8 years. He does have a variety of diagnoses to his name including Autism and ADHD and I invariably notice similar traits all too easily in others, and in my other children also. That is not to say any of the other three would deserve similar diagnoses but since the Autism Spectrum is just that - a spectrum -  many of us share some of the aspects which combine to warrant a full blown diagnosis in those more profoundly affected.

What I also notice in my younger two in particular is how sensitive, aware and opinionated they are. They are old for their years in so many ways, bright and able yet certainly less socially adept than my eldest was at 4. They are intuitive and impatient with those less so, have their own agenda and can be alarmingly vocal about it. This is not an immaturity  typical of a child two years younger, exhibiting tantrums borne of communication difficulties. And unlike the child on the Autism Spectrum, who shares many characteristics with the so called "Indigo Children" my twins can tell you exactly what they need and want, communicate their feelings in great detail and are acutely aware of others' feelings also. They are far more self assured than I was at their age for sure, yet I have parented them in the same way as their older siblings!

I read The Indigo Children recently having been kindly sent a copy. To be perfectly honest, I'm more a science-based kind of girl, preferring Dawkins and Schrodinger to crystals and New Age theories. I prefer to view the world in all its complexity through the concepts of science rather and have absolutely no time for auras, the paranormal or synesthesia  which is how Wikipedia prefers to classify the Indigo concept. But the books I have read on Indigo Children are slightly unsettling - because the certainly do describe familiar traits which I see in my children. 

Many children labelled indigo by their parents are diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and Tober and Carroll's book The Indigo Children linked the concept with diagnosis of ADHD. Their book makes the case that the children are a new stage of evolution rather than children with a medical diagnosis, and that they require special treatment rather than medications. This I can understand, some prefer to consider a "problem" as a desirable variant of "normal" . Certainly the number of children receiving a diagnosis of ADHD and/or Autism is on the increase and discussion of this generally accepted fact is frequently in the news and professionals are keen to determine whether this is better recognition of both conditions or an increase in their manifestation/occurrence which would be somewhat disturbing. Advocates of the concept of the "Indigo" child would respond that this is due to a surge of "old souls" (old before their time - self assured, confident, opinionated, not reincarnated) born since the 1970s who are misunderstood and misdiagnosed.

But I don't see ADHD in my younger two, some ASD traits yes but none more than your average 4 year old with a brother on the spectrum and I really don't feel comfortable with the "Indigo" label. Which leaves little else other than parenting style. As an historian with a keen interest in social history and in particular the social history of children I know the place of children in society has been revolutionised. From the early modern idea of children as essential, unavoidable and lower status providers to the family economy to the Victorian opinion that well-off children should be "seen and not heard" and poorer children were an economic resource or an inconvenience the lot of the child in history has - on the whole - been secondary to that of their parents and other adults. Many children never saw their first birthday, let alone their fifth and whilst loved and cherished by their mothers rarely attracted the fawning over we see today.

I see it everywhere, through the advertising of children's toys and luxuries, the play schemes and activities and in the attitude of many parents who live their lives through and for their children. I'm as guilty as the next in becoming caught up in the desire to give my children a good start, hoping for if not the best certainly a desirable close second in the many choices we make for them. I've resisted the rooms full of toys though, the luxury parties and excessive wardrobes of clothes but my four don't do badly! But I do expect respect and good behaviour from them and will not tolerate demands and tantrums. Yet despite our attitude at home the rapid elevation in society of children to a status far above that of their parents (at times) is infectious and has to have contributed in some way to the behaviour issues so many of us see so often today. The way we are encouraged to leap on every little issue, meet every single need at every level and don't even get me started on the concept of "safeguarding" which has legitimised society-wide interference which further devalues parents. 

The pendulum seems to have swung too far the other way, precipitating a child-dominant culture which has nurtured and encouraged the Indigo type. I actually think the Indigo personality is a reality (I suspect I have two borderline Indigos here!) but I honestly believe this is a product of the social changes we have seen since our economic circumstances have enabled a radical remodelling of our children's role in society. Parents have been under fire for too long, for ignoring their child's needs at their own expense when a little balance would satisfy everyone's basic needs. Indigos are only here to stay if we perpetuate the necessary environment for them to flourish in. There is a HUGE difference between a smart, opinionated kid with an advanced awareness of their place in society and a child with ADHD and/or ASD and confusing the two does a huge disservice to the latter group. Indigos are a product of the social changes in recent decades in my opinion and different (rather than bad (or good)) parenting and a clear reminder of the direction we find the world heading in.

Facebook v Twitter?

My eldest son recently joined the ranks of Facebook users and has alarmed us with the speed in which he became addicted to it. This was in fact a completely harmless addiction to the application "Farmville" (rather than the immediate embracing of virtual human interaction to our great relief) but nonetheless got me thinking.

I have used Facebook for years- before that I frequented a couple of parenting forums which I still occasionally use now. Before our second child was born I had barely discovered the internet but post-natal depression, a complicated baby and a move to a new area left me isolated and lonely. I craved interaction of any kind but had little confidence to break in to the local parenting circuits.

Even once better integrated I felt drawn to online communication, a "fast-food" and "safe" alternative to making the effort to go out and socialize. Somehow with less on offer ( no visibility for a start, make-up, clothes etc don't matter online!) there was less to lose but surprisingly a lot to gain. Over the past 8 years I have made many online friends, several of whom I have gone on to meet up with, some on a regular basis. I found the opportunity to gradually get to know others in this way helped me meet people I have a lot in common with but whom I might never have met in real life.

Of course online forums facilitate the meeting of like minds- and in my case provided me with much-needed support when dealing with severe reflux with our twins. So valuable have I found such sites that I went on to support others myself. One site in particular has achieved what a non-virtual organization could not- worldwide membership, sponsorship and funding through rapid promotion and campaigning. The power of social networking online is phenomenal. My friend and her s Facebook campaign at Christmas got "Rage at the Machine" to No.1 and raised £100 000 for Shelter.

But back to the question posed in the title. Facebook or Twitter? For me, the former held great appeal as a "one stop shop" online. Keep up with everyone in one place. Quickly. An even quicker fix for socializing..... and yet that is precisely the problem. We don't all live in one big community where everyone knows one another. Our daily lives involve many groups of people, some overlap, but even when they do it is likely to be in the manner of a Venn Diagram rather an a complete overlay. We rarely say te same things, share the same information, same mannerisms etc with everyone we know. A status update on Facebook though, unless you take time and effort to change preferences, each time will go to everyone on your friend list every time. And that's not all. The popularity and ubiquitous nature of Facebook in youth culture is redefining not only the WAY our children interact but WHOM they interact with. Children as young as 8 are using Facebook and I wonder how many parents realize that through "friends of friends" their children have a window into the world of much, much older children- and adults. We try and protect out children from so much and yet it is all so "innocently" available online. 

For me, Facebook has become too intrusive, too open, too all-encompassing. It's a fantastic platform through which to keep in touch with friends from all walks of life- but that's how I think I want my life to stay - partitioned, at least to an extent. One of my friends today pointed out it was scary having her dad on Facebook - how many want their parents of any age having that level of knowledge of our personal lives? Actually though, i think having your children on there focusses the mind far far more!!

There is a lot to be said for a little anonymity, and less can definitely be more. I for one forget too easily the wide audience a simple status update has which can precipitate confusion and upset all too easily! I like the brief, simple concept of Twitter, and find myself drawn to it more and more. Maybe it is a comment on my life now more than anything, the fact that there is less need for in-depth online interaction than in the past but I firmly believe that our social lives whether based on age, life stage or location are there for a reason and the potential consequences of forgetting, or ignoring that alarm me.

"Blundell-gate". My views on THAT editorial.

There has been much furore this week over the Guardian article Breastfeeding is creepy, says parenting magazine in it's discussion of Kathryn Blundell's editorial in (of all places) Mother and Baby Magazine entitled I Formula Fed - So What? Not least because in an age where health professionals and hospitals are striving to win "Breastfeeding Friendly" accreditation this personal rant comes in a respected magazine aimed at the mass mothering market, and in Breastfeeding Awareness Week for maximum impact.

As discussed eloquently here my gripe is that once again the myths surrounding breastfeeding are clouding the real issue here and precipitating the age old breast v bottle debate. Breastfeeding does NOT make your breasts sag, pregnancy does and even if it did surely that is the reason women have them in the first place? Whilst we persist to deliberate over the either/or decision we lose sight of the salient fact, that breastfeeding is what nature intended, what is without any doubt is best for all babies unless there are other issues present which alter this.

Now before everyone jumps down my throat, I'm not a "breastfeeding nazi", and I recognise the role formula feeding has in modern society. I only breastfed my eldest for six weeks due to poor advice and his severe reflux and the prospect of returning to full-time work after a mere twelve weeks post delivery. (The latter was a statutory requirement then.) It was the right decision for us then, I challenge anyone to say otherwise. I did have several friends in the NCT then who would indeed qualify for the above status. I actually wrote an article "When Breast Isn't Best" for their magazine - which to their credit they published.

But (and this is the key point in my eyes) I assumed breastfeeding was the norm, what I intended to do and gave it my best shot. With better advice and in different circumstances I might have succeeded too. Never did I assume I would bottle feed my baby and no threats of sagging breasts of lack of alcohol would have persuaded me otherwise.

Over the years I have known many mothers who needed to bottle feed - due to maternal medication, ill health both physical and mental, ridiculous working hours, and infant health issues like the dreaded Reflux which all my children have suffered with. Formula feeding when appropriate should then be embraced as a modern miracle, a way of safely feeding a precious baby who centuries ago in some of these circumstances would have perished.

But as a first choice with no major influencing factors?

The myths are bad enough - when our twins were tiny and failing to thrive the number of doctors who genuinely believed that formula feeding was the way to go concerned me, not least because they were ignorant of the possible benefits and were therefore unable to make a balanced decision. (They were more concerned with measuring formula and weighing babies like those who recommended a family friend express then bottle feed her premature baby to ensure she received enough milk. I mean, seriously, can you not tell when a baby is or is not thriving? The sad fact with our twins and many others with reflux is that it is all too often exacerbated or even caused by food allergies and intolerances, and a diet of only breastmilk until six months of age as recommended by the World Health Organisation is one of the very best ways to try and reduce the chances of a baby developing such issues. My youngest son was fed a top-up of formula in hospital and that single exposure precipitated a severe dairy allergy which might have been avoided. Yet despite being armed with as much factual information as possible I was still viewed as extremist and eccentric by the health professionals caring for my babies!

What I am trying to get across here is that viewing what nature intended, what is best in every way for a baby in normal circumstances and is supported by the international health community as eccentric really should shock! We as a nation would never accept removing all newborn puppies from their mother and choosing to bottle feed them cat milk as an equal option to their mother's milk and neither should we have this view for humans!

Until we in the UK start embracing breastfeeding as the norm rather than one of two equal choices, with totally acceptable alternatives when the need really does arise which are respected and supported then we are still going to have some of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. The language of breastfeeding of breastfeeding needs to change.

Kathryn Blundell's rant in Mother and Baby magazine endorses myth and misunderstanding, playing into the hands of the "have it all" brigade. It marginalises the campaign to promote breastfeeding as a ram-it-down-your-throat propaganda attempt (no pun intended!) rather than a drive to inform and promote understanding.

The most Amazing Feeling.

Today my son became an asset. Not a problem to be fixed, overcome or ignored but a positive and beneficial contributor. How good does that feel? Even better to him than it does to me, and that's saying something!

H's new school would so far appear to be one of the very best things to happen to him in his life so far. (I only hope this continues!) It started with the Holiday Club and Wraparound Care (Breakfast Club) telling me additional support really wasn't required and Harry was welcome to attend as many sessions as we (or he) wanted. Not only were they completely "unfazed" by meltdowns and tantrums, insecurities and possible running away attempts, they actually think Harry is good fun, has a wicked sense of humour and barely noteworthy in the challenge stakes!

Now we *know* this is not always the case, given a different environment, different staff with less experience etc it would likely be a very different scenario. As a family with two adults we struggle on outings at the best of times and until recently rarely attempted them. Snide remarks from ignorant members of the public do eventually grind you down! But how completely liberating to be told your child is "one of many" and "not a problem", I just cannot describe how good that makes me feel.

Today H had the first of four short visits to his new school. They met him at the Office, welcomed him, had a visual welcome book ready and an allocated SEN supporter for him. He clung to Richard, overwhelmed despite a previous visit until he spotted a friend from their Holiday Club we had sent him to in Half Term for this very reason. And the school KNEW this and put him in the SAME CLASS as this friend to help him settle in! After one short hour, Richard collected him, a happy grinning child who LOVES the new school and cannot wait for September. Even better, the school are so impressed with HIM and he's going in with a "gifted" label rather than a "problem" one.

I'm grinning all over my face as I type. His current school have been really supportive, this is not written in condemnation because they have faced a steep learning curve over the past 4 years - and so have we. That mountainous curve has been a hard climb but we must be somewhere near the summit if only in terms of understanding his current needs having picked and fought for his new school.

My son. Wanted, welcomed and viewed for his positive attributes whilst supported in his additional needs. Love it.

The "Science" of Childcare - the scourge of modern society.

As the coalition attempts to get to grips with tackling this country's enormous deficit, inevitably Welfare and Education are among the front runners for intense scrutiny.

I doubt many of us would question a general spending overhaul in all government departments, the growth of management level employees over the past 10 or more years has been exponential and excessive. But what I as a parent, former teacher and Registered Childminder would most like to see is an admission that the patchwork that is the Children's Plan has stupendously failed to improve opportunities for children from less well-off families (Jill Kirby Telegraph 11th June), and that "learning outcomes" for children are no better with the blinkered focus on quantifying and measuring learning and achievement using the six learning areas and 69 goals every child should achieve by the age of five.

For me, it has always been obvious that children learn best when they are valued, loved, happy, interested and encouraged. Giving them opportunities and supporting their curiosity is of paramount importance, not photographing and recording their every action as evidence of progress and attainment. I’ve seen teachers carrying around digital cameras and post-it notes constantly so as not to miss anything they need to record rather than focussing on their vocational task in hand and found it quite distasteful. It is degrading for teacher’s to justify their professional recordings in this way, akin to a GP having to photograph each patient and add a note of conversations and discussions to support each prescription. Or the surgeon having to stop mid- operation to photograph each step and justify his action and the patient's progress! Totally absurd but a product of the gradual attrition of the professional qualifications of all who teach and care for children. Is it any wonder there is a national shortage of suitably qualified teachers and the job has become so much more about recording and pen pushing than actual teaching that those with the best teaching qualities are no longer attracted to the profession? And childminders are apparently quitting at the rate of 12 per day, small wonder perhaps when a trip to the park becomes another day of box- ticking and self-justification?

What is it with our obsession with making all that should be intuitive and spontaneous into a science? 

A friend with a premature baby was recently told she should keep expressing all her daughter's feeds so she could record exactly how much milk the child drank. What on earth FOR? If the child is thriving and producing plenty of wet nappies then intake is irrelevant and expressing potentially damaging since it fails to stimulate milk supply like a baby feeding. A different issue but another good example with our obsession with quantifying, measuring and recording!

What we are losing at an alarming rate in this country is the ability to trust our human instinct and intuition, as mothers, carers and professionals. 

The money wasted on this is shocking. There is no evidence that Every Child Matters has done more than generate a phenomenal amount of training, paperwork and stress for professionals whilst they are distracted from interacting , caring and nurturing those in their care. Records matter, but professionals should be able to write them without focussing on collecting evidence every second of the day.

In our drive for efficiency and frugality in the cuts ahead let's take this golden opportunity to reassess and reevaluate what really matters to our children. This requires far less financial input and reinstates the professionalism of those working with children. It would recognise the all-important ingredients for happy, thriving individuals in all arenas and form the building blocks of happy successful adults.

As human beings we need to be loved, nurtured and respected. Children should have opportunities to succeed and progress but no amount of tick boxes and performance indicators can guarantee this. Unless there is good reason for greater scrutiny on an individual basis attempting to mechanise a child's development is costly and superficial at best, at worst it undermines professionals and prevents them from doing what they do best- caring for our children.