How old is my baby?!

[MissTwister]

My baby was born at 36+3 so is classed as premature. I've been told she has two ages - her birth date age (5 weeks) and her developmental age which is worked out from her due date - this would make her just over a week old!

I've been told that development should be as per this second date. However, if she was born just 4 days later she would have been 37 weeks and therefore 'full term' and this would mean she would now be classed as 4.5 weeks with no adjustments made for being early.

So what age is she in terms of development. Is she 5 weeks or 1 or something in between - it's so confusing!

I see what you're saying, but the timescales are likely to make so little difference in terms of development that I would just say she is 5 weeks old. It's a bit different when talking about babies born at 26 weeks.

Disclaimer - my SIL had a baby at something like 36+5 and still goes on about how she was 'premature' and uses that to excuse her PFB tendencies. I've also worked with premature babies so know a bit about it.

SIL's baby is now 3, btw!

From the due date. There has to be a a cut off somewhere.

It maybe technically premature but the difference will be no existent as its a matter of days. Go from the day she was born. It's different if she was born at 30/31/32 weeks, and even then they catch up so quickly. As I CM I too am surprised at the amount of times I hear being premature as an excuse for something, usually bad behaviour. Don't let it weigh on your mind, it will make no difference to your child's development

Indeed button moon. And yes, there has to be a cut off - but we are talking a matter of days. And strictly speaking you are supposed to use 'corrected developmental age' until child is 2. It won't make a difference when your baby is 6 months old, let alone 2! Just stick with their date of birth.

In all honesty OP there's such a big difference in the rate at which babies develop that I wouldn't worry too much about it. The difference in ages is relatively small so I would just go by her birth date.

It depends, mine is a 36 weeker (or 35 by my dates) and he has had some delay. Not making excuses, honestly, as this is what the medical professionals tell me! But there's a lot of variation in when you get those first smiles etc.
Go with what you're comfortable with. At 10 months old I now just use his actual age. At the start I'd use corrected age, mainly to avoid "why is he so small" etc from people if I wasn't in the mood for the conversation.

Thanks all. She's not small - was born at 6lbs 5 and is now over 9lbs so doing well. I didn't think the few days would make much difference (although she did have a couple of issues and spent a night in NICU) but the BF people keep telling me she's technically only a week old as a reason for feeding issues!

We had feeding issues too, he had to be cup fed for a while and set an alarm etc. Although with my DS it was an emcs so I wasn't in labour so I don't think he was ready to come out at all if that makes sense. We were kept in for 8 days.
Health professionals will correct on weight charts, assessments etc for up to 2 years. It's early days yet but for example if you don't get those first smiles on time, remember you've got another month

My HV is plotting her on normal chart weirdly - I think she forgot. She's 25th on this but would be 75th on premature one!

I would love a smile soon - sometimes I think I can see her trying! And she holds her head strongly too

My son was born at 36+2, although he was small for his gestation so I think that made a difference. His early milestones - smiling etc - were a bit late but after a couple of months it made no difference. He sat up quite early, rolled over, etc.

They plotted his weight against his corrected age though, and kept a close eye on his weight gain. But he was only 4lb 12oz at birth so that's probably why they were concerned.

My twins were born at 34+5 and were initially late to do most things. First smile was at 11 weeks, sat up at 9 months, crawled at 12 months. However, by 18 months they were running and climbing up 6 foot slides in the park!

Hi OP, I have one DC born at 34 weeks and one at 36+6 so one "genuine" preemie and one "technical" preemie iyswim!

I think 36 weekers definitely are a little behind developmentally compared with their actual age, but the difference only lasts for the first two or three months, if that.

By the way 37 weeks is now called "early term" rather than "full term" to recognise the fact that 37 weekers are statistically slightly worse off than 40 weekers.

I know I'm very late to this and hope you are getting on well with your little one MissTwister

I am justabigdisco 's SIL (You might want to name change) Sorry about my PFB tendencies. I never called DS premature, just early (I don't remember going on about it, or indeed talking about it since he was a few months old, but anyway...)

DS was actually born at 35 + 6 and I would say he developed somewhere between actual and corrected for the first 4 months or so. After that he was on a par with actual. Possibly at the later end with some things e.g. walking, but early with others e.g. speech, so pretty much average after that point.

I did say he was "X age but a month early" for the first 3-4 months, just to explain why he was so small, then just used actual age from then on.