Letting newborn cry for a little while - dealing with other children?

Why not just put them in their cot when you need to get things done. They are safe and you can go to the toilet, have a shower, get dinner ready, have your cup of coffee etc.

Holding, no - too tricky to wipe. In a sling, sure if I needed to. Not worth waking her etc by taking her out, but if her dad was around or she was awake and happy to chill that would be the preference. But absolutely I had her in the sling with me for the toilet innumerable times over the course of 2 babies.

One of my most miserable nights as a parent of a young baby was with a bottle refusing ebf baby when I had a D&V bug. Grim as anything, but still needed feeding, even though that was all I did. I'm sure I'm not alone in that experience 🤢.

Tampon changing with a baby strapped to my front. That was a whole new level of dexterity 😂.

I can't believe someone things is normal to hold a baby when having a poo. Mine never even came in the bathroom with me and if they cried for 5 minutes when I had a poo, they cried.

That's of you are happy to carry them around constantly. I certainly wasn't and needed time without a baby attached to me

Its absolutely fine. When its your third baby with two other little ones there is no choice.
Mine are all adults and totally unscathed from being left to cry . I know its old fashioned but I remember the health visitor saying " If they are fed,warm and safe put them in their cot ,sit down for 5 minutes with a cup of tea and breathe" They are well adjusted ,happy adults . Far too much pressure on mother's now.

No wonder young mums are so frazzled. It is fine to leave a baby to cry for a while till you can get to them. Enough with all the guilt. A baby is part of a family and others have needs too.

Modern life is truly strange

On one hand there are people who can’t cope with the toilet being flushed without the lid being down because of all the poo particles allegedly circulating around them, and then on the other hand we have mothers who are literally holding a newborn baby whilst they are pooing into the toilet. Crazy!

There is such extreme madness on this thread that I am almost amused by all!

My second child sounds like your first. Screamed constantly. I absolutely never held him while I was having a poo and I did shower every day. Being a mum, even to a newborn, really doesn’t mean you have to sacrifice every part of yourself. It is still ok to meet your own basic needs (like hygiene and going to the toilet!) I actually think it is quite poor parenting to completely neglect yourself. If you don’t take care of your basic needs how can you care for a newborn. Obviously with a newborn time is short and you expect to have almost no time to yourself. But I genuinely find it shocking that people didn’t allow themselves to go to the toilet or have a shower in favour of never allowing their child to cry for a second. It’s not realistic and is a really unhelpful message for new parents to be given.

Gosh. Mine are at university now but I’m sure I left them for more than a few minutes. I mean, if they were crying, I would keep a dialogue going and chat reassuringly to them. But I wouldn’t always be able to physically touch them. Some of the responses here are a little bit extreme.

It shouldn’t always be the baby that has to wait, but equally it shouldn’t always be the older child waiting. I would be very shocked if a mum/dad never ever tended to the older child first. That seems like terrible parenting and very damaging for the older child. Also will lead to massive resentment from older child.

It will also depend on your children. My oldest was the most chilled contented baby ever. Almost never cried. My youngest cried constantly, probably 8 plus hours a day for his first year. Screamed in the sling, car seat, push chair, when being held, when put down. Would stop feeding every few mins to scream! My oldest would have been totally ignored for about 18 months if I’d never left the baby to cry. It would have been cruel and borderline abusive to make him wait every time his brother cried. They are extremely close to each other and to me now as teenagers. Neither of them were damaged by the experience. DS1 would absolutely have been damaged by being completely ignored for months in favour of the new baby. Parenting more than one child means balancing their needs to the best of your ability. I’m sure I haven’t always got it right but I would never completely ignore one child in favour of the other.

Anyone with babies close together let's this happens often not intentionally but it's a natural consequence of being a second child. The type of cry is important too, if it's pain you'll know to react quickly but if it's hey I'm awake and want attention now, a few minutes is OK. It's also a little unfair for 3 yr old to be constantly ignored in favour of baby, yet they need to learn it's not all about them. Its a tricky balance. If 3 yr old is mid story and baby suddenly makes a noise I think older child gets priority. If older child has been played with and engaged with for a while it's ok to say I need to go mind the baby soon and leave when baby cries. It's also OK to make older child understand that just because baby sleeps doesn't mean Mummy is all theirs, mum needs time to herself too.

That's why a stretchy wrap was so wonderful - I didn't choose between my dc, I'd comfort both if needed.

And if the" older" one is 18 months? They wouldn't really understand either

No one is saying you always deal with the older one first, more that you don't always deal with the baby first.

I used to find that normally the older was quick to deal with. So they needed a drink, or reaching a game down, or kissing a hurt knee. All things that take less than a minute.
Baby would take far longer than that, and then you have the pressure of an older child waiting while you're dealing with a messy nappy or feeding, rather than able to do it at your own pace while the older one is happy.

But also your older one did not ask for a sibling, has suddenly found that mummy and daddy have to share their time. There are times when you cannot jump up and abandon baby to help them, so you're showing them that they are as important - and loved.
You're building a bank of goodwill from them for the times they don't come first. That's how they learn to share without jealousy, not by showing them they now are down the pecking order.

I think the main thing to consider is whether the baby is just whinging or actually crying.

Being left for a few minutes while they're just being Aggy is fine, but when they're actually screaming and crying you need to go to them straight away in my opinion.

I'm not sure that's accurate that carrying children is a new thing. It's definitely was less common in the west but in my country it's always been completely normal to have your baby strapped to you. Given that a baby has been growing inside it's mother for 9 months it feels abnormal to not have them close to you in their first months of life.

I recognise there are practicalities at times, and no mum should be berated for leaving baby so she can do necessities, but on the whole babies want to be close and hearing a heartbeat.

@muggart

yep. Similarly it’s not ok to expect a mother to wait until her husband or whoever is around so she can shower or go for a poo…I mean, she could and up really constipated!

@Cherrytree86yes that’s true. I was “fortunate” i guess in that it was my first baby who cried a lot, and my second was much more manageable. you are right though if it had been the reverse maybe I would see it differently.

@muggart

because some babies cry a LOT meaning the older child would have to do an awful lot of waiting!

It is absolutely fine to leave a baby crying for a couple of minutes while you attend to your other child(ren). Please feel free to ignore the people who say you should never leave a baby to cry. Yes, the baby is probably a bit upset, but will it harm them? Probably not. If they're dry, fed, and safe, just get on with what you need to do and resist the guilt-tripping.

What I don’t understand about this is why it’s assumed that the newborn should be the one to wait, why not the older child who has more capacity to understand? the newborn didn’t ask to be born either and they are equally valuable.

obviously leaving aside situations like if the older one is in the bath and there’s a safety element to it.

I always taught my 3 year old that if the baby was crying then the baby needed to be tended to, just like my 3 year old had been at their age.

@muggart

i think maybe you took it a bit literally!

When I had my twins I was dead against having something electronic do what I thought I should be doing.

when they got much older I thought back and realised how stupid I was. What was I thinking? Who knows. I do think some of us go a bit nuts in the early days. If I had my time again I would for sure get one. And a king sized bed.

I was lucky enough to have quite a big shower. I could put my twins in one of those bath seat thingies on the shower floor from when they were basically newborns while showered in peace. No way was I missing out on my shower. Some of us need it to feel human.

Well in all fairness the guidance I was given was that I shouldn’t leave a baby to cry, so I was following what I believed to be expected of me.