Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Flip

Original poster

Anyone go into labour without babies head being engaged?!

15 replies

Kearaleigh12 · 27/02/2019 20:19

I'm 38weeks stm, baby is head down but not engaged 😑 first baby was engaged by this time (came naturally on his due date). Has anyone gone into labour & baby not being engaged? It's a big concern to be induced.

OP posts:

namechangedyetagain · 27/02/2019 20:22

Yep. I did. He wasn't engaged (And breech before that). Into labour and delivered at exactly 40 weeks.
He's 12 this year

YouCantBeSadHoldingACupcake · 27/02/2019 20:23

I have 7 dc and only dc1 was engaged before her due date, the rest were partly engaged or not engaged at all. Only 1 of those had to be induced

Paddingtonthebear · 27/02/2019 20:24

Yes, not engaged and breech before that. I was induced at 40w+4 I think.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

3rd trimester Childbirth Families General pregnancy

Kokapetl · 27/02/2019 20:24

Pretty sure it's normal for second babies to engage later if at all. I don't remember that my second engaged at all and I went into labour naturally a few days before the due date.

IggyPoppers · 27/02/2019 20:28

DC2 wasn't engaged and came a week early.

SpeedyBojangles · 27/02/2019 20:28

Yes, once, second baby. None of my babies heads have ever engaged. All have been sections mind (for three different reasons)

Birdsgottafly · 27/02/2019 20:28

Second babies do engage later.

Go into as deep a bath as you can, babies go naturally into the birthing position when we get into water. That's why, in every culture, Women would go into rivers etc, as well as for pain relief.

SweetheartNeckline · 27/02/2019 20:28

Yeah perfectly normal for subsequent babies to engage during labour. My 2nd and 3rd were never felt as being engaged and I delivered vaginally after easy, spontaneous labours at 41+3 and 40+3.

lilyboleyn · 27/02/2019 20:34

Only your first baby has to engage before.

BrizzleMaverick · 27/02/2019 20:50

My midwife with my second told me it is normal for subsequent babies not to be engaged until you go in to labour.

Redwinestillfine · 27/02/2019 20:53

Yes with my first! It was fast (3.5 hrs). I'd seen the midwife earlier that day and baby wasn't engaged so it was a bit of a shock. I was expecting to go over.

frazzledasarock · 27/02/2019 20:56

Yep, I went into labour and she wasn’t engaged.

Midwife thought it would take ages as she was back to back.

I had her three hours after going into hospital!

TheSheepofWallSt · 27/02/2019 20:56

Yep.

First baby was 1/5 engaged from 30 weeks and never went any further. At 40+6 I was still 1/5 and cervix wasn’t anywhere near “ready”.

I had a sweep which the midwife said was useless, went for some acupressure and reflexology, which I knew had done something- and was in full blown labour 6 hours later.

Only felt him drop down just before I got the urge to push 6 hours after that.

frazzledasarock · 27/02/2019 20:58

Had mine at 39 weeks

HardAsSnails · 27/02/2019 20:58

Yes, first and only birth, and didn't engage until last minute, had been for a scan that day too (planned home birth and MW suspected breech which he wasn't!).

Flip