Late walking babies - gross motor progression

[Anonymous]

My did didn't take steps independently until 18 months and then it was only a few steps. She was "walking" on her knees since 15 months and the ped said that babies that find other ways of getting around (eg, scooching while sitting up) don't have any incentive to walk sooner. But the ped said at the 15 month appointment if she wasn't walking at 18 months to call EI and start PT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My did didn't take steps independently until 18 months and then it was only a few steps. She was "walking" on her knees since 15 months and the ped said that babies that find other ways of getting around (eg, scooching while sitting up) don't have any incentive to walk sooner. But the ped said at the 15 month appointment if she wasn't walking at 18 months to call EI and start PT.

I would call at the 15 month appt b/c it can take a while to get an eval and PT scheduled.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are just getting my "late" walker evaluated now at 4 yrs old. ("Late" because he walked around 16 months, which is not really late.) He just has some proprioceptive issues, so mild that he most likely will not qualify for any public services. I don't have any reason to think we should have gotten him evaluated earlier. I always figured based on his dad's own clumsiness that I wouldn't worry about it until it started to impact him in some way. Now that I see he's noticing he is slower than the other kids, I'm working on it. Although people freak out about "early intervention" there's really no strong evidence that in cases like this there is any harm in a wait and see approach.

It sounds harmful in your case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are just getting my "late" walker evaluated now at 4 yrs old. ("Late" because he walked around 16 months, which is not really late.) He just has some proprioceptive issues, so mild that he most likely will not qualify for any public services. I don't have any reason to think we should have gotten him evaluated earlier. I always figured based on his dad's own clumsiness that I wouldn't worry about it until it started to impact him in some way. Now that I see he's noticing he is slower than the other kids, I'm working on it. Although people freak out about "early intervention" there's really no strong evidence that in cases like this there is any harm in a wait and see approach.

It sounds harmful in your case.

Yeah. He's 4 and has issues you could have addressed as a toddler. Why on earth would you still be advocating a do nothing approach?

[Anonymous]

19:29 here -- my DS did PT for a few months and graduated. He is still pretty wimpy, low stamina and uncoordinated, as a preschooler. Early intervention doesn't mean that a child is "cured" forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will note that late to sit generally means low core strength/low tone, just something to be aware of.

This is us. DS was late to sit/walk. The sitting was our first clue into low tone problems. For us- those issues have translated into a host of other concerns- but obviously not for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Tone problems do actually generally mean other problems. It can occur on its own but it does mean you should kebab watching for other delays. It means something is off neurologically. Not trying to be doom and gloom but it is what it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tone problems do actually generally mean other problems. It can occur on its own but it does mean you should kebab watching for other delays. It means something is off neurologically. Not trying to be doom and gloom but it is what it is.

But low tone and weak core are NOT synonymous. My son was late to sit and is therefore on the later end of other things and it's because of his core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tone problems do actually generally mean other problems. It can occur on its own but it does mean you should kebab watching for other delays. It means something is off neurologically. Not trying to be doom and gloom but it is what it is.

But low tone and weak core are NOT synonymous. My son was late to sit and is therefore on the later end of other things and it's because of his core.

I don't know about that. I thought low core strength was low tone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Tone problems do actually generally mean other problems. It can occur on its own but it does mean you should kebab watching for other delays. It means something is off neurologically. Not trying to be doom and gloom but it is what it is.

But low tone and weak core are NOT synonymous. My son was late to sit and is therefore on the later end of other things and it's because of his core.

I don't know about that. I thought low core strength was low tone.

DP. Two different PTs told us that DS had muscle weakness and a weak core, but was not low tone. I'm not clear what the difference is, but they were sure.

[Anonymous]

Are you all using contraptions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Are you all using contraptions?

No, he was born that way. A preemie. We did mostly floor time, tummy time. He still was late, late sitting, late crawling, late walking. Mostly w sits, although I ask him to fix his legs.

[Anonymous]

I do not think there is any difference between weak muscles a weak core and low tone. Sorry, but there is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are just getting my "late" walker evaluated now at 4 yrs old. ("Late" because he walked around 16 months, which is not really late.) He just has some proprioceptive issues, so mild that he most likely will not qualify for any public services. I don't have any reason to think we should have gotten him evaluated earlier. I always figured based on his dad's own clumsiness that I wouldn't worry about it until it started to impact him in some way. Now that I see he's noticing he is slower than the other kids, I'm working on it. Although people freak out about "early intervention" there's really no strong evidence that in cases like this there is any harm in a wait and see approach.

It sounds harmful in your case.

Yeah. He's 4 and has issues you could have addressed as a toddler. Why on earth would you still be advocating a do nothing approach?

Because there wasn't actually an issue until it was actually affecting him. I am not advocating do nothing - there was just nothing to do at that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Tone problems do actually generally mean other problems. It can occur on its own but it does mean you should kebab watching for other delays. It means something is off neurologically. Not trying to be doom and gloom but it is what it is.

I am the poster who waited until 4. My kid has no tone issues and no neurological issues. He is just a "clumsy child".