someone wise on MN will know the answer to this

[mybabywakesupsinging]

should say this is not related to a current pregnancy, but, for my curiosity,
how common is it for a first baby to not have its head engaged at term? is it considered to mean anything?
off to bed will look out for wisdom...

it means that you willbe forever poor

oh well

did actually want to know...it made me fret at the time, you see...everyone else's baby seemed to have his/her head engaged long before...

A high head at term in your first pregnancy is usually taken to be a "sign" that something else might be going on. It's reasonable to be seen in a hospital ANC or day unit if it happens. All sorts of reasons for it. They should usually scan - a portable scan on the ward is fine - just to recheck where the placenta is, and that there are no fibroids or cysts. Other causes are excess fluid (polyhydramnios) and occasionally it is "true" CPD - where the head doesn't actually fit in the woman's pelvis. For the majority, the head does engage and the baby does deliver.

mine wasn't engaged and no-one offered me any other scans or mentioned my pelvis might not be the right size, got induced at term+11 and just set off with the gel and then waters broke on their own and Ds engaged and got on with the job.

mine wasn't engaged either and i didn't have any scans. mine was because of the size of the bag of waters.

My dd's head wasn't engaged, she was persistently OP & I had a PROM. Head was so high when I started contracting that they thought she might be breach so I was scanned. She never descended (absolutely exhausting 'active' labour climbing stairs, rotating hips & walking miles etc) and despite >30 hours of proper contractions cervix didn't dilate beyond 5cm. Eventually had synto & finally an epidural (bliss) but she became distressed after about 45 minutes & I asked for a section. Next baby (& all future ones) was born by elective section. No reason found for failure to descend, certainly had nothing to do my lying on my back etc.

thank you all... he did deliver, btw, although somewhat reluctantly...

For birth 1 and 2, head was 3/5 engaged on admission to hospital.

no.1 gave birth 8 hours later
no.2 gave birth 45 mins later

My own reasoning is I must have a short wide pelvis or something which means 3/5 of baby's head can still be felt when engaged.

Never had confirmation of this theory though!

Congrats!

dd wasn't engaged until about a week before I was due to give birth. They wanted me to have a c/s but luckily she turned just in time.

She took ages to come out, but that's party due to her being a first and me having an epidural.

ds was engaged pretty much from the word go, home birth and very very quick. His head was bloody huge an' all!

Interestingly, there are ethnic differences in this (so I'm told!). Black women tend to have higher, narrower pelvises and their babies often engage much later, sometimes not until labour starts.

I'll be mortified if mears pops up to tell me that's an old wives' tale

yes I think that it is normal not to have head engaged at term if you are afro-carribean, even if first pregnancy

My third was late engaging with the head. What I was told by the midwives at the time was..."your baby is running a bit late engaging". Nothing else was wrong. So basically it was what it was. She engaged in time for birth. No biggee. [grin}