Opinions on babies (9 weeks) crying alone

[safetyfirst1]

Last week our 9-week-old was fussing around bedtime. He’d been fed about 2 hours earlier quite a large amount, and he usually stretches up to 4 hours between feeds so DH wasn’t sure if he needed feeding again or would settle (DS can be demanding with feeds).

DH tried various soothing methods but baby continued crying. DH decided to feed him but decided to finish kitchen tasks first - dishwasher cycle and bottle sterilising (about 20 minutes total). He put baby in the dining room, lights off and closed the doors to stop the sound waking me up so much even though I could still hear it, and put on white noise while he completed these tasks.

After about 5 minutes I heard crying and went to check and he had been sick. He settled when I picked him up.

DH believes it’s reasonable to let babies cry briefly to see if they’ll settle (he wasn’t crying it out, instead he was seeing if baby would calm himself down and wanted to minimise the noise). He’d already decided to feed baby but wanted to complete the sterilising and dishwasher process first.

Is this reasonable for a 9 week old?

If he was so distressed he woke you and vomited hpw is it not cry it out?

it is normal for babies to be unsettled when they are small. Some children cry more and your baby will probably cry significantly more as time goes on.
If you have concerns, whether or not he is in pain, you should talk to doctor.

@BunnyRuddingtonbecause this is what DH insisted, he was just trying to quiet the noise and see if he settled

@GoldenRosebeemy question was more regarding how DH handled the situation rather than babies crying for long periods

I’m really confused. Your DH has let him cry so long that he got so distressed that he vomited. He's 9 weeks old. What do you want us to say?

I’d completely lose it if anyone did a trick like that with one of mine.

Does he know anything about how baby’s brain develops?

Wasn't this already a thread? I'm a bit more accepting of crying at a later stage than some people, but personally never let my baby cry on their own under 6 months. In answer to how your husband handled it - I would never leave a 9 week old to self settle. If my husband did this, I'd tell him it was wrong and not to do it again. He never did anything like this though... He would have just held the baby and gotten on with what he needed to do.

I really don’t agree with this. A 9 week old baby is entirely dependent on their parents for survival and has absolutely no capacity to self soothe. If he’s crying, he’s crying because he needs his parents in some form (hunger, pain, nappy etc). I’ve personally never agreed with CIO but there is perhaps some rationale to encourage older children (2+) to self settle as they get older but absolutely not a 9 week old - he doesn’t even know he’s been born. Have a little look at the “forth trimester”. He needs love, attention and care. I totally understand the long days and long nights but encouraging a newborn to self settle is not right. If the crying is uncontrollable and you need to take 5 to step away for a breath, that’s reasonable as long as they are safe, but not with the aim to self soothe. Sorry OP - I really hope you have some other support and feel you can speak up to your DH.

Absolutely, completely and totally unreasonable.

I don’t think it was reasonable to let him cry so long. It would have been better to offer milk straight away and maybe check that he didn’t have wind. I think it’s OK to leave them cry while you make their bottle (always struggled to do this while holding a baby) or tended to an urgent need of your own (toilet, quickly grabbing something to eat or drink) or seeing to another child with a more urgent need but unnecessary otherwise.

To add, he didn’t actually leave him for the 20 minutes but insisted this was his intention while he simultaneously fixed the coffee machine as when I went downstairs he was fixing the machine.

so baby had been crying alone for about five minutes before I intervened.

My issue is it would have been fine to leave him for the 20 minutes it what he continues to stick by, as it’s ok for absurd to cry and we don’t have to pander to them every time.

we have argued, and argued and argued about it and he still didn’t agree.

ive asked him to promise not to do it again and he agreed

Letting a very small baby fuss briefly to see if they settle – reasonable. Once a very small baby is crying, rather than fussing, no, they need attention from a caregiver as soon as reasonably practical (so allowing that sometimes you do need to use the loo, stop the toddler from climbing the bookcase, dry the dog's muddy paws before mud gets tracked all over the house, etc.). Even then, I usually tried to say something in a comforting tone in their general direction so they knew they hadn't been completely abandoned.

How did DH respond when he found out DS had been sick whilst he was being ignored?

@skkyelarkhe was still sticking by his explanation - I was overreacting and he didn’t agree it was a problem

Hmmm, that's not a great reaction, particularly if it's unusual for DS to be sick. Even for a sicky baby, if they've been sick, they need to be cleaned up, not ignored.

Do you think he was just digging in because he felt criticised? Does he generally have protective and care-giving instincts towards DS? Do they spend time together bonding (bath, feeding, cuddles)?

@skkyelarkyes they bond and do bath time sometimes he feeds him etc. I do think it was the criticism that got him.

im also pretty certain he’s neurodivergent and I appreciate not an excuse, but it is really making our communication difficult