A little worried regarding a friends 13 month child,advice if possible please

GracieP

Peter333 wrote: »

I think it benefits them (sometimes) to not walk too soon. I know one lad who walked at 9 months as his nana 'forced' him. He had bandy legs then, and actually had to have minor surgery to correct the problem. when he was about 6 or 7.

Sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense. And dangerous nonsense to boot. "Bandy legs" is as a result of a vitamin D deficiency and nothing whatsoever to do with the age a child walks at. It's also not even remotely possible to force a child to walk before they are capable. Someone's grandmother is owed a bloody massive apology if she's been made to feel guilty for harming her grandson.

meritaten

I bet she is 'biding her time' then hit the ground running. either that or there is some 'problem' mum knows all about it but isn't going to explain to others.
I honestly wouldn't worry at 13 months. come back in a year and we will share your worry. because THEN it would be highly suspicious.

Lily-Rose_3

Air_Cooled_75 wrote: »

I did see something a year or so ago on the Beeb, I think it was narrated by Robert Winston. They were looking at babies in an African country. I can't remember the ins and outs but the gist of it was that the babies there walked VERY early and this was due to family input, I *think* they were always putting them on their feet and encouraging them to walk. I will try to find a link.

Thanks I remember this too. Maybe certain posters like GracieP above ^^^ should find out more facts before jumping in and calling what people have said 'utter nonsense.' Like I said, my neighbour's mother did what you said, and it distressed the baby, and it's more than likely it stunted her progression.

Are you actually seriously condoning what these people have been doing Gracie? Virtually forcing babies to walk before they're ready, and then denying it could have done them harm? Good grief!

Spendless

GracieP wrote: »

Sorry but this is complete and utter nonsense. And dangerous nonsense to boot. "Bandy legs" is as a result of a vitamin D deficiency and nothing whatsoever to do with the age a child walks at. It's also not even remotely possible to force a child to walk before they are capable. Someone's grandmother is owed a bloody massive apology if she's been made to feel guilty for harming her grandson.

A friend at the time told my sis in law that I'd 'made' my baby walk at 9 months by bouncing him on my knee and son always landing on his feet flatly. Sis in law told her it was all baloney. I wouldn't thank anyone for another earlier walker, into everything cos they're mobile and people treat them a lot older than they are and expect more of them. When son was 9 years we discovered he had flat feet, which may or may not have been connected to the way he landed on his feet when bounced as a baby. I mean why he landed that way - not caused the flat feet. That turned out to be hereditary.

My niece didn't walk until she was 17 months, which was a few months later than her twin brother.

Carmina-Piranha_2

olgadapolga wrote: »

My oldest and third children didn't walk until 18 months - my third child didn't stand alone until well past 14 months of age. My second walked at 11 months and my fourth at 10 months. Huge range of development ages but I wasn't worried about any of them at any point.

If you take a look at page 65 of the link below it shows a chart of "normal" development: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/@ps/@sta/@perf/documents/digitalasset/dh_117167.pdf

Some children develop later because of problems; my friend's son didn't walk until he was over the age of two due to prematurity. I can remember going to his first birthday party and he couldn't sit unaided.

The only thing I would say about your friend's child is that baby-walkers really are a bad idea. They don't help with walking at all as the child does not learn to support their own weight properly and they also encourage the legs to be positioned incorrectly for walking. They are also the leading cause of accidents in infants. If I had my way they would be banned.

As others have said, crawling isn't a milestone as such, and some babies don't crawl at all while others do it for a long time.

It says in that chart to speak to the health visitor if a baby isn't walking by 18 months, but even then it isn't rare for a baby to not be walking but be healthy.

My cousin's baby was assessed when she was almost 2 because she had no interest in either crawling or walking, but it turned out that there wasn't a problem, and she walked soon afterwards.

It's worth getting advice, but it sounds as if the mum has no concerns, so perhaps she's already spoken to a health visitor when getting the baby weighed or going for jabs, etc.

I remember getting worried after seeing one of those development charts because my baby didn't smile 'on time' :rotfl: He was also a late clapper and never rolled.

Billie-S

My two (14 months apart, both girls,) walked at 16 months and 15 months repectively. Rarely have I know a baby walk before a year old. So a baby not walking at 13 months is probably no reason to worry.

Carmina-Piranha_2

Billie-S wrote: »

My two (14 months apart, both girls,) walked at 16 months and 15 months repectively. Rarely have I know a baby walk before a year old. So a baby not walking at 13 months is probably no reason to worry.

I think we tend to worry more about what our babies aren't doing, and don't notice so much if ours does something before others. A friend I made while we were pregnant was worrying because on our babies' birthdays not only was mine walking and hers not, but mine had a dozen teeth and hers didn't have any. When they were nursery age we used to laugh about it because teeth are such a daft thing to worry about I worried that hers was eating baby food a long time before mine was - again, things turned out out okay but at the time I was fretting that lack of chewing was going to delay his speech.

Then again there are always 'those' mums who make snide comments about isn't yours walking yet, while looking proudly at their own child. I bet OP's friend is sick of those comments, even though OP isn't being snide.

smileypigface

Just to add as well, that the mother might already have spoken to her Health Visitor or Doctor or other professional about this - but doesn't want to go into that with other people. It's her private business.


In my case my mother and grandmother used to relish raking over, in great detail, between themselves or to anyone else who would listen, any medical/personal health issues experienced by friends and family - speculating, giving unwanted/unhelpful/upsetting criticism which they liked to call 'friendly advice'. My way of dealing with it, having had my own personal gynaecological problems broadcast to all and sundry by them, was to avoid telling them anything of that nature at all - and used to answer in a similar way to the mother here, when they questioned me about the development of my children etc, simply because I didn't want to discuss the details with them.


I am not saying, for one moment, that the OP has, or would ever consider, doing what my mum and grandmother did - but maybe someone else in that mother's life does broadcast/criticise and it's just easier for her to answer everyone in the same way, that there simply isn't a problem - even if she is already concerned about it herself and taking action to getting it checked out.


FWIW I agree with the posters who have pointed out the vast range of ages for achieving the developmental milestones - my 4 children have all reached the milestones at vastly different ages and not necessarily in the same order.

Lily-Rose_3

Carmina-Piranha wrote: »

I think we tend to worry more about what our babies aren't doing, and don't notice so much if ours does something before others. A friend I made while we were pregnant was worrying because on our babies' birthdays not only was mine walking and hers not, but mine had a dozen teeth and hers didn't have any. When they were nursery age we used to laugh about it because teeth are such a daft thing to worry about I worried that hers was eating baby food a long time before mine was - again, things turned out out okay but at the time I was fretting that lack of chewing was going to delay his speech.

Then again there are always 'those' mums who make snide comments about isn't yours walking yet, while looking proudly at their own child. I bet OP's friend is sick of those comments, even though OP isn't being snide.

My daughter (now 19,) had 4 teeth coming through at 2 months old! (Top 2 at the front and bottom 2 at the front.) It made breastfeeding very precarious!

Oddly, no more came through for another 4 or 5 months.

If I haven't mentioned it yet, she started walking at about 16-17 months I think. I know she was quite late.

JIL

My eldest didn't crawl til 10 months. He didnt walk til 14 months.
He runs marathons now.