TV/DVDs and under-2s
Juliet Kemp
I've read some about the advantages of not restricting TV/DVD use in
older kids, and plan to take that approach once Leon, my 8 mth old, is
older.
Is there any advantage, though, to putting on TV or DVDs for under-2s?
My understanding of the AAP publication on the matter is that children
under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV. If the TV isn't on
anyway (we're not much a TV watching household and not at all while
Leon is awake), and the child isn't asking, is it worth turning it on
for him, in the same way I have been reading books to him since he was
too young to get much out of them?
My feeling is that certainly at this stage, Leon prefers physically
exploring things wherever possible, and he just wouldn't get much out of
TV/DVDs (with books he's really into turning the pages himself, stroking
them, trying to pick things off, etc, and I encourage him to play with
them like that rather than imposing "being read to"). But I'm wondering
whether this is in part about my own attitude to TV, and trying to get
to the bottom of that. So would appreciate hearing about others'
experiences, or suggestions about other questions to ask myself.
Juliet
older kids, and plan to take that approach once Leon, my 8 mth old, is
older.
Is there any advantage, though, to putting on TV or DVDs for under-2s?
My understanding of the AAP publication on the matter is that children
under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV. If the TV isn't on
anyway (we're not much a TV watching household and not at all while
Leon is awake), and the child isn't asking, is it worth turning it on
for him, in the same way I have been reading books to him since he was
too young to get much out of them?
My feeling is that certainly at this stage, Leon prefers physically
exploring things wherever possible, and he just wouldn't get much out of
TV/DVDs (with books he's really into turning the pages himself, stroking
them, trying to pick things off, etc, and I encourage him to play with
them like that rather than imposing "being read to"). But I'm wondering
whether this is in part about my own attitude to TV, and trying to get
to the bottom of that. So would appreciate hearing about others'
experiences, or suggestions about other questions to ask myself.
Juliet
Sandra Dodd
-=-My understanding of the AAP publication on the matter is that children
under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV.-=-
Do you want us to challenge or defend a position put out by a medical association in one country? There are over a dozen different countries represented here.
We're talking about the benefits of having a good relationship with a child, and of how natural learning works. That has nothing to do with any one country, does it?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV.-=-
Do you want us to challenge or defend a position put out by a medical association in one country? There are over a dozen different countries represented here.
We're talking about the benefits of having a good relationship with a child, and of how natural learning works. That has nothing to do with any one country, does it?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Oct 31, 2012, at 10:53 AM, Juliet Kemp wrote:
A general answer is that at 8 mos. old your child's best toy is you :-)
There's a massive amount of learning your child has done in just 8 months that's invisible. When Kat was 12 mos. I wondered out loud where her hat was. And she pointed right at it. She not only remembered where I'd casually placed it, but understood what I'd said even though she wasn't speaking yet. There was some complex learning that was behind that. It wasn't just one thing but loads of little and big things that were important to her. But not important to some test giver ;-)
There's way too much focus on do x and child will learn x. Natural learning doesn't work like that. It's a little bit of x. It's a little bit of y. It's a lot of z. It's an "aha!" moment inside the child that sees a connection between all 3 that makes x more understandable.
I think it is at 2 (or 3? maybe someone can confirm) that many kids go through a stage of wanting to see the same thing over and over and over. With Kat is was 101 Dalmations. There's definite learning going on there to be that fascinated! :-)
Your child's engagement will be the best indication of whether your child is learning or not, not a bunch of experts -- not even us! -- who have never met your child.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Is there any advantage, though, to putting on TV or DVDs for under-2s?The unschooling approach would be to try different activities, one of which might be a program with little kid appeal, to see if your child likes them. :-) That will be your best answer.
A general answer is that at 8 mos. old your child's best toy is you :-)
> My understanding of the AAP publication on the matter is that childrenHow are they judging learning? Learning ABCs?
> under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV.
There's a massive amount of learning your child has done in just 8 months that's invisible. When Kat was 12 mos. I wondered out loud where her hat was. And she pointed right at it. She not only remembered where I'd casually placed it, but understood what I'd said even though she wasn't speaking yet. There was some complex learning that was behind that. It wasn't just one thing but loads of little and big things that were important to her. But not important to some test giver ;-)
There's way too much focus on do x and child will learn x. Natural learning doesn't work like that. It's a little bit of x. It's a little bit of y. It's a lot of z. It's an "aha!" moment inside the child that sees a connection between all 3 that makes x more understandable.
I think it is at 2 (or 3? maybe someone can confirm) that many kids go through a stage of wanting to see the same thing over and over and over. With Kat is was 101 Dalmations. There's definite learning going on there to be that fascinated! :-)
Your child's engagement will be the best indication of whether your child is learning or not, not a bunch of experts -- not even us! -- who have never met your child.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
I never restricted TV when my kids were little. My son had absolutely zero interest in it until he was closer to 2. My daughter was closer to 3 when she started watching a little bit here and there.|
I do not fear TV at all.
If the young child is not interested in it he will not watch. Mine did not but I did not restrict it and they lived in an environment full of other things to do , love, peace and me there to play with them. Maybe if TV is the best think in little child's life they will sit and watch even if they do not like that much. If mom is unavailable all the time and they have nothing more interesting?
I do not know.
I have met a couple kids that did enjoy cartoons early on in life even before they were one. They were no limited and they are doing just fine now as much older children. They also do not watch any more TV than my kids!
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I do not fear TV at all.
If the young child is not interested in it he will not watch. Mine did not but I did not restrict it and they lived in an environment full of other things to do , love, peace and me there to play with them. Maybe if TV is the best think in little child's life they will sit and watch even if they do not like that much. If mom is unavailable all the time and they have nothing more interesting?
I do not know.
I have met a couple kids that did enjoy cartoons early on in life even before they were one. They were no limited and they are doing just fine now as much older children. They also do not watch any more TV than my kids!
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
My kids learned songs and little dances from videos when they were little. Because no songs or little dances "count" in school's testing, then they are deemed "nothing."
If you're not turning the television on because your child is content doing other things, I see no problem.
If you're making sure your child is content doing other things because you're afraid of the television, that's a problem for your own deschooling and your understanding of how learning works in the absence of school and the school-related pressures and propaganda so prevalent around us.
Sandra
If you're not turning the television on because your child is content doing other things, I see no problem.
If you're making sure your child is content doing other things because you're afraid of the television, that's a problem for your own deschooling and your understanding of how learning works in the absence of school and the school-related pressures and propaganda so prevalent around us.
Sandra
Pam Sorooshian
>>>children under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV.-=->>>To make that claim, they have to have done studies. To do studies, they
have to have defined what they mean by "learn." My guess would be they
define it to mean things like learn the alphabet or learn to count. Maybe
they mean learn new vocabulary.
The truthful way to make that statement:
"Children under about 2 just don't learn the kinds of things we thought of
to measure from TV."
They are not inside the heads of those under-2 year olds. They don't know -
they have very very very little understanding, in fact, of what under-2
year olds are learning and how that learning takes place.
What is a 2 year old learning when she wants to watch something on tv and
mom turns off the tv and says no?
What is a 2 year old learning when she cuddles up with mom and watches
something on tv?
What is a 2 year old learning when watching ANYTHING? What is a 2 year old
learning when doing anything?
Those same people who think watching tv is so worthless, think reading to
your 2 year old or playing/singing music is great. Did it not occur to them
that tv has narrative and music, too? (And those are combined with colorful
interesting moving visuals, so even better!)
I think 2 year olds have a lot of physical needs - to handle things and
experiment - big and small movement type of stuff. That seems obvious. But
that doesn't mean they should never have times when they are sitting still.
It doesn't mean they should never have times to watch and listen, that they
should be physically active every minute. Also, many kids are very
physically active while watching and listening to tv.
By "TV" I'm assuming we include videos, recorded shows, anything that can
be watched on a tv. I've noticed sometimes people say "TV" and mean only
over-the-air broadcast shows watched in real time with commercials. So they
state, "My child doesn't watch tv," but later in the conversation I'll find
out their child watches a lot of videos and even recorded tv or things on
Netflix, etc.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
<<<What is a 2 year old learning when she cuddles up with mom and watches
something on tv?>>>||
I have wonderful memories of sitting all cuddled up with my son watching Bob the Builder and Thomas the Tank Engine with him.
Sweet memories of smelling his hair and having him laugh on my lap!
He is now 10 and does not sit on my lap anymore to watch TV. Enjoy those moments :)
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
something on tv?>>>||
I have wonderful memories of sitting all cuddled up with my son watching Bob the Builder and Thomas the Tank Engine with him.
Sweet memories of smelling his hair and having him laugh on my lap!
He is now 10 and does not sit on my lap anymore to watch TV. Enjoy those moments :)
Alex Polikowsky
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gen
The 'No TV under 2' supposed rule from the AAP is a media sound bite versus a research backed position. It's been a while since I read the actual release from the AAP, but if I remember correctly it states that for children under age 2 there is no benefit to watching 'educational' shows instead of interacting with other people.
On Oct 31, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
> >>>children under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV.-=->>>
>
> To make that claim, they have to have done studies. To do studies, they
> have to have defined what they mean by "learn." My guess would be they
> define it to mean things like learn the alphabet or learn to count. Maybe
> they mean learn new vocabulary.
>
> The truthful way to make that statement:
>
> "Children under about 2 just don't learn the kinds of things we thought of
> to measure from TV."
>
> They are not inside the heads of those under-2 year olds. They don't know -
> they have very very very little understanding, in fact, of what under-2
> year olds are learning and how that learning takes place.
>
> What is a 2 year old learning when she wants to watch something on tv and
> mom turns off the tv and says no?
>
> What is a 2 year old learning when she cuddles up with mom and watches
> something on tv?
>
> What is a 2 year old learning when watching ANYTHING? What is a 2 year old
> learning when doing anything?
>
> Those same people who think watching tv is so worthless, think reading to
> your 2 year old or playing/singing music is great. Did it not occur to them
> that tv has narrative and music, too? (And those are combined with colorful
> interesting moving visuals, so even better!)
>
> I think 2 year olds have a lot of physical needs - to handle things and
> experiment - big and small movement type of stuff. That seems obvious. But
> that doesn't mean they should never have times when they are sitting still.
> It doesn't mean they should never have times to watch and listen, that they
> should be physically active every minute. Also, many kids are very
> physically active while watching and listening to tv.
>
> By "TV" I'm assuming we include videos, recorded shows, anything that can
> be watched on a tv. I've noticed sometimes people say "TV" and mean only
> over-the-air broadcast shows watched in real time with commercials. So they
> state, "My child doesn't watch tv," but later in the conversation I'll find
> out their child watches a lot of videos and even recorded tv or things on
> Netflix, etc.
>
> -pam
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Meredith
Juliet Kemp <juliet@...> wrote:
What kind of advantage are you thinking of? If you're looking for a way to help your kid settle down to sleep, or give you a little break in the middle of the afternoon to catch your breath, those are pretty significant advantages in terms of day to day life.
---Meredith
>> Is there any advantage, though, to putting on TV or DVDs for under-2s?**************
What kind of advantage are you thinking of? If you're looking for a way to help your kid settle down to sleep, or give you a little break in the middle of the afternoon to catch your breath, those are pretty significant advantages in terms of day to day life.
---Meredith
Pam Sorooshian
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Meredith <plaidpanties666@...>wrote:
restaurant.
They can be great for transitions - if you have a kid who has trouble with
making transitions from doing one thing to doing another then you'll know
what I mean.
-pam
> >> Is there any advantage, though, to putting on TV or DVDs for under-2s?They can be great for traveling, waiting in doctor's offices or in a
>
restaurant.
They can be great for transitions - if you have a kid who has trouble with
making transitions from doing one thing to doing another then you'll know
what I mean.
-pam
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On Oct 31, 2012, at 1:43 PM, Gen wrote:
http://www.pbs.org/parents/childrenandmedia/article-faq.html
There's a link there to the full report.
"Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for children under the age of 2 years. Although certain television programs may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant caregivers (eg, child care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Therefore, exposing such young children to television programs should be discouraged."
The problem with the statement is that it assumes that interaction with people and TV watching can't both exist in a child's life. For unschoolers there should be both. And often both at the same time :-)
As is often the case with these general statements, they're trying to get a clear message to those who are on the low end of the attentive parenting scale. They're speaking to parents who are attentive and responsive to their kids and to parents who stick their kids in playpens while they watch adult TV programs.
It would be a whole lot clearer to say little kids need lots of positive and joyful interaction with with parents to grow up whole. But then they'd feel the need to put some number of hours on it for the parents who would interpret it as 60 seconds being enough.
Here's one of the statements from the page:
Are they watching kids programs with their parents?
PBS does ask the question whether the kids are watching more TV because they can't go outside.
My husband runs programs for blind kids which draws from very poor areas of Springfield MA. He's been in several of their homes to pick up the kids and he says, despite their poverty, they have really nice TVs and computers. For one thing, these are caring parents who made the effort to contact the blind program for their kids. The second thing is that the media is to keep the kids home and off the not so nice streets they live on.
That's why what unschoolers find with their kids is more meaningful than general statements about "all" kids. "TV" among radical unschoolers means TV that the kids enjoy with parents who are attentive to their kids' needs.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> but if I remember correctly it states that for children under age 2 there is noI lifted this from a page at PBS about children and media where there are several issues brought up.
> benefit to watching 'educational' shows instead of interacting with other people.
http://www.pbs.org/parents/childrenandmedia/article-faq.html
There's a link there to the full report.
"Pediatricians should urge parents to avoid television viewing for children under the age of 2 years. Although certain television programs may be promoted to this age group, research on early brain development shows that babies and toddlers have a critical need for direct interactions with parents and other significant caregivers (eg, child care providers) for healthy brain growth and the development of appropriate social, emotional, and cognitive skills. Therefore, exposing such young children to television programs should be discouraged."
The problem with the statement is that it assumes that interaction with people and TV watching can't both exist in a child's life. For unschoolers there should be both. And often both at the same time :-)
As is often the case with these general statements, they're trying to get a clear message to those who are on the low end of the attentive parenting scale. They're speaking to parents who are attentive and responsive to their kids and to parents who stick their kids in playpens while they watch adult TV programs.
It would be a whole lot clearer to say little kids need lots of positive and joyful interaction with with parents to grow up whole. But then they'd feel the need to put some number of hours on it for the parents who would interpret it as 60 seconds being enough.
Here's one of the statements from the page:
> "Although several studies suggest age-appropriate programs can help preschoolers learn language"So the studies focus very narrowly on language. What can be studied will end up seeming more important than what can't be studied. But natural learning is *very* hard to pin down. If a study can only judge how well a child is assembling a jigsaw puzzle by how many edge pieces they put together, the study ends up dismissing the center pieces that support and make the edges meaningful.
> Heavy viewers in this age group [4-6 yos] spend an average of 30 minutes less per day playing outside and eight minutes less per day reading than children who are not heavy TV watchers.What are they watching? Kids programs? Or is "watching" being in front of the TV while parents watch?
Are they watching kids programs with their parents?
PBS does ask the question whether the kids are watching more TV because they can't go outside.
My husband runs programs for blind kids which draws from very poor areas of Springfield MA. He's been in several of their homes to pick up the kids and he says, despite their poverty, they have really nice TVs and computers. For one thing, these are caring parents who made the effort to contact the blind program for their kids. The second thing is that the media is to keep the kids home and off the not so nice streets they live on.
> Programs that are well designed and take into consideration children's developmental stages are more likely to have educational merit than shows not geared toward their healthy growth.This statement is both a "duh" and speaks to the fact that some kids are growing up in homes where the TV is on adult programming all day and to homes where adults use kids programs to keep their kids entertained and homes where TV is chosen based on the child's interests. Can any general and meaningful conclusion be drawn about the effect of TV when what constitutes TV and the relationship between parents and kids is so broad?
That's why what unschoolers find with their kids is more meaningful than general statements about "all" kids. "TV" among radical unschoolers means TV that the kids enjoy with parents who are attentive to their kids' needs.
> According to a recent study conducted by a group of scholars andAnd the findings will be different depending on the relationship between child and parent. But that won't make it into the study. It will be about factors that numbers can be applied to. And those factors that can't be measured -- like closeness, attentiveness, warmth -- won't make it into the study.
> published in American Behavioral Scientist, the television is on
> approximately six hours a day on average in American homes.
> Yet little is known about the impact of growing up in the near
> constant presence of television.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stacia
I'm speaking out of my own experience - we are a digital media family. My husband works for a cell phone company, codes and develops smart phone apps, films and edits video, and has played video games his whole life. One of the big things we had in common was our love of the film industry. We own close to 1,000 movies and TV shows and have always had the TV on as background noise, which didn't change much once we had our daughter. We *want* her to be exposed to lots of different types of media, TV and film included.
So, if we're home, our TV is usually on. We don't have cable, but we have Netflix, Hulu, and a hard drive full of content, plus all our hard copies. Our daughter didn't pay any attention until about 8 months, and even then, she was far more interested in books until just after she turned 1. She still LOVES books. She also loves music. Sometimes we switch the TV over to Pandora and dance. She loves titles to TV shows (the intros that play the music or theme song). No matter where she is in the house, she will run in to dance just to that part, and then go back to whatever she was doing. We don't use the TV as a babysitter - we are watching it with her and usually playing, reading, doing puzzles, stacking blocks, doing crafts...you name it.
Great for long car trips too - we have a few movies loaded onto the tablet that she can watch. But guess what? Sometimes she'll say no to the tablet and ask to listen to music instead (her current favorite is dubstep). Yesterday, she just wanted silence.
The biggest arguments that I heard from friends regarding the AAP recommendation were that TV programs were over-stimulating for their developing brains, and that a child who watched TV before 2, especially as babies, had a smaller vocabulary than those who didn't. Problem is, my daughter has a LARGER vocabulary than most of her peers. And she understands far more than what she can speak. I don't know if I can credit digital media for that, but it certainly didn't hurt it. I do know that she's picked up on certain actions or skills by watching them on the TV. She's learned dances too - several times she's busted out a dance move that I recognized from Yo Gabba Gabba.
Right now she's really into the Tinker Bell movies, and since watching she's pointed out birds and leaves and all sorts of nature things by name when we're outside.
So, that's a glimpse into our household. There's a lot of stuff that my child has learned from what plays on the television. And just like all of the writing here and on Sandra and Joyce's sites say, when it isn't limited, it's just one more activity to do. We felt that the "no limit" rule should be applied from the start.
Stacia
Mom to 18 month old Ellie
So, if we're home, our TV is usually on. We don't have cable, but we have Netflix, Hulu, and a hard drive full of content, plus all our hard copies. Our daughter didn't pay any attention until about 8 months, and even then, she was far more interested in books until just after she turned 1. She still LOVES books. She also loves music. Sometimes we switch the TV over to Pandora and dance. She loves titles to TV shows (the intros that play the music or theme song). No matter where she is in the house, she will run in to dance just to that part, and then go back to whatever she was doing. We don't use the TV as a babysitter - we are watching it with her and usually playing, reading, doing puzzles, stacking blocks, doing crafts...you name it.
Great for long car trips too - we have a few movies loaded onto the tablet that she can watch. But guess what? Sometimes she'll say no to the tablet and ask to listen to music instead (her current favorite is dubstep). Yesterday, she just wanted silence.
The biggest arguments that I heard from friends regarding the AAP recommendation were that TV programs were over-stimulating for their developing brains, and that a child who watched TV before 2, especially as babies, had a smaller vocabulary than those who didn't. Problem is, my daughter has a LARGER vocabulary than most of her peers. And she understands far more than what she can speak. I don't know if I can credit digital media for that, but it certainly didn't hurt it. I do know that she's picked up on certain actions or skills by watching them on the TV. She's learned dances too - several times she's busted out a dance move that I recognized from Yo Gabba Gabba.
Right now she's really into the Tinker Bell movies, and since watching she's pointed out birds and leaves and all sorts of nature things by name when we're outside.
So, that's a glimpse into our household. There's a lot of stuff that my child has learned from what plays on the television. And just like all of the writing here and on Sandra and Joyce's sites say, when it isn't limited, it's just one more activity to do. We felt that the "no limit" rule should be applied from the start.
Stacia
Mom to 18 month old Ellie
--- In [email protected], Juliet Kemp <juliet@...> wrote:
>
> I've read some about the advantages of not restricting TV/DVD use in
> older kids, and plan to take that approach once Leon, my 8 mth old, is
> older.
>
> Is there any advantage, though, to putting on TV or DVDs for under-2s?
> My understanding of the AAP publication on the matter is that children
> under about 2 just don't learn much/any from TV. If the TV isn't on
> anyway (we're not much a TV watching household and not at all while
> Leon is awake), and the child isn't asking, is it worth turning it on
> for him, in the same way I have been reading books to him since he was
> too young to get much out of them?
>
> My feeling is that certainly at this stage, Leon prefers physically
> exploring things wherever possible, and he just wouldn't get much out of
> TV/DVDs (with books he's really into turning the pages himself, stroking
> them, trying to pick things off, etc, and I encourage him to play with
> them like that rather than imposing "being read to"). But I'm wondering
> whether this is in part about my own attitude to TV, and trying to get
> to the bottom of that. So would appreciate hearing about others'
> experiences, or suggestions about other questions to ask myself.
>
>
> Juliet
>
Meredith
>We felt that the "no limit" rule should be applied from the start.There Is No "no limit rule". It's not a rule, and the goal isn't "no limits". There will be things some family members don't want to watch, and times when someone wants extra quiet. And the more kids there are in a family, the more complex the dynamics can become. Those are all things which can be worked out, but it's better to work them out because you want to foster warmer relationships and a peaceful, joyful home than to blindly apply a rule - any rule.
---Meredith
Sandra Dodd
-=-So, that's a glimpse into our household. There's a lot of stuff that my child has learned from what plays on the television. And just like all of the writing here and on Sandra and Joyce's sites say, when it isn't limited, it's just one more activity to do. We felt that the "no limit" rule should be applied from the start.-=-
I don't know that it's "a rule"--but the principle of allowing choices should apply from the start for sure!
-=-But guess what? Sometimes she'll say no to the tablet and ask to listen to music instead (her current favorite is dubstep). Yesterday, she just wanted silence.-=-
Kids can choose silence in a peaceful, honest way only if it's one of many acceptable options. Same with video, music, movies... :-)
Good! Great examples.
No one here is talking about forcing kids of any age to watch anything. It's not an all or nothing recommendation.
Arbitrary rules and fearful superstitions and judging by an age on a calendar instead of knowing one's own child... those things can be harmful.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't know that it's "a rule"--but the principle of allowing choices should apply from the start for sure!
-=-But guess what? Sometimes she'll say no to the tablet and ask to listen to music instead (her current favorite is dubstep). Yesterday, she just wanted silence.-=-
Kids can choose silence in a peaceful, honest way only if it's one of many acceptable options. Same with video, music, movies... :-)
Good! Great examples.
No one here is talking about forcing kids of any age to watch anything. It's not an all or nothing recommendation.
Arbitrary rules and fearful superstitions and judging by an age on a calendar instead of knowing one's own child... those things can be harmful.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Stacia Reichelt
You're right - I worded that incorrectly.
A better way of saying that might be that the we felt the idea of limits
based on arbitrary ages deemed appropriate by others had no place in our
home from the start. The principle is giving our child(ren) choices based
on knowing them and saying yes to as much as possible.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
A better way of saying that might be that the we felt the idea of limits
based on arbitrary ages deemed appropriate by others had no place in our
home from the start. The principle is giving our child(ren) choices based
on knowing them and saying yes to as much as possible.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]