I also got a helicopter parenting vibe from this article. Particularly the way she seems to be crediting her parental decisions with the child not developing “long term issues” from having some ladybugs in their bedroom.
I don’t have any issues with her decision to let her son sleep in her bedroom for a couple days (and I might have done the same). She just seems to be overvaluing the importance of her response in this situation, and undervaluing kids’ natural ability to develop and outgrow their fears.
I think it’s important to let it pass, it helps us feel involved and meaningful.
Also, pre-school is beneficial for development in general. They start learning how to function as part of a wider society there. The only 'mistake' I can identify in the article was going for the 'on-off' pre-school regimen. According to some experts in child development I've spoken to (Montessori method), predictability of routine is paramount to healthy development. If the child is 'on-off', he/she doesn't really become a core part of the 'pre-school society', has trouble making friends, and in general it messes with their little heads that there is no predictability on how their day or week is going to go.
But helicopter parenting? No, not really.
The whole piece basically feels like a humblebrag how great mother she is and how she made all the right choices.
It doesn't contradict what you say per se - kids can have development impediments, and there are dedicated experts to help them. Did she ever reached to those? Nah, she knows the best whats good for her kids. Again, one of those described above.
(The older I get the more I see how people are just few certain 'types' and few subtypes and once they are in certain category, they almost always behave in predictable patterns for given category. Once you are familiar with those, rarely can anybody surprise you with their behavior. This is certainly one of the types I meet)