Is this okay?

[FebMama]

I currently have DS1 who is 3 and DS2 who is two weeks old tomorrow.

With DS1, I used to respond immediately to every little whimper, winge or cry.

With DS2, there are times I can't respond as quickly as I am doing something with DS1. For example, today I put DS2 in the Moses basket. He was fed, clean nappy and was asleep. He woke up after a few minutes and let out a little cry but I was sorting out breakfast for DS1 so couldn't get to him immediately. Eventually, DS2 just went back off to sleep again.

Is it ok that I didn't respond? Everywhere you read says to respond immediately to newborn cries but there are times where I physically am not able to (the same happened when I was in the shower the other morning or when I was on the loo!).

Of course if the cries continued then I would have obviously seen to him.

What's the best thing to do here?

You should respond immediately.

While sorting breakfast for DS1 you absolutely could have responded to your baby, you just chose not to.

You also could have waited and has your shower until your partner came home/there was another adult to look after the baby.

Being stuck on the loo can not be helped but that isn’t a situation that happens often.

When you don’t respond and he “settles” off back to sleep, all you’re teaching him is that nobody is going to come when he needs them. I wouldn’t want to send my child that message.

Ignore the PP.
you can't spend the whole time your baby's napping waiting just in case he wakes up.

You'll know the difference between a little cry and a serious cry and you'll respond differently to those events.

Don't neglect yourself.
It's fine to have a shower or make some food as long as baby's clean and fed.

I think it's fine and the reality of more than one child. As long as you respond when he needs you to and not just at the first whimper he'll be grand.

I think Melanie'sflowers is a bit overly dramatic, there's a world of difference between a baby settling back to sleep after a moment or two of being disgruntled and a baby that's learned not to bother crying because they are ignored.

@MelaniesFlowers I could have but I chose not to? Not entirely accurate. It wasn't like I left the baby to cry for 10 minutes. It was probably 30-40 seconds of a cry if that.

And as mentioned, baby was asleep, had been fed and had been changed. So I knew for a fact baby's essential needs had been met at this point.

It's not always possible for me to wait until another adult is present for me to do things such as have a shower or be a parent to my 3 year old.

Ignore the first poster.

It's fine. It's normal. It's the case for every single second/third/fourth child ever born.

And you often find subsequent children are more settled/easy going than the first probably because of this tbh!

Thank you @GoodChat. You're absolutely right, when the baby is asleep that's my chance to either go and have a quick shower or tend to my toddler.

@PushingAnElephantUpTheStairs exactly that, I have sussed out his cries by this point. What I would say is a little wimper when he's put down in the Moses basket isn't a situation that requires me to rush to him straight away but I'd of course never let him cry at the top of his lungs. You're right, it's the reality of life with two kids. Thank you.

@NuffSaidSam thank you for the reassurance!

I’d love to know what posters like @MelaniesFlowers suggest you do when for example, driving a car?

@FebMama at points either your toddler or baby will need you and have to wait. They will be okay. The fact you’re worrying about it shows you are doing a great job. Congratulations on your new baby

Also ignore the 'learned not to cry because no-one comes' line.

That's frequently trotted out on Mumsnet to shame people who sleep train.

Obviously, anyone capable of logical thought would realise that's completely untrue when talking about loved and cared for children.

I have three. Of course the baby has to wait sometimes, they don’t come to any harm. My youngest is the happiest child of the three.

He is learning to self soothe in a safe place which is a vital skill. My daughter never learned to self soothe and it has caused huge anxiety issues down the line (this was the official reasoning from CAMHS)

I'm a couple of months ahead of you with a 2yo and a 12 week old and have found the same. I've had to leave the baby a lot more than I left my first, but he's been better at settling himself than my first (not sure of the cause/effect relationship there) and is now a very happy, smiley little boy. I think it's important for my toddler that the baby doesn't always get priority - I think that could be more damaging for her than a few minutes grizzling is for the baby if you see what I mean.

What complete and utter rubbish. Please ignore this Look people with more than one child can not respond immediately and if you have twins like myself then it is impossible. No harm has ever come to a baby that is looked after but has to wait to be picked up. You are doing a great job keep going

Would you prefer she ignores her toddler?

@MelaniesFlowers absolute bollocks

Of course it's fine for them to let out a little cry and not be immediately tended to, that's life of having more than one kid! In fact it's fine anyway!

That first response is both bonkers and nasty!

you are one person with one pair of hands. So long as everyone is safe, someone may have to wait a minute until you can respond. You can try your best but realistically it’s hard to immediately stop cooking/bathing toddler etc. leaving anyone crying isn’t great so ideally get to the upset one as soon as you can; but you are a mum not a self replicating magician!

@MelaniesFlowers
oh sod off 😂
Yes, finishing a toddlers breakfast sends a two week old a message that they are abandoned for life.
What message does dropping everything for the toddler and running to a baby send? You're not important now that the baby is here and the baby comes first - that's what it says.
You are ridiculous.

What a load of nonsense

It's good for babies to be able to self settle. Mums cannot always drop everything the second a baby cries

As long as baby isn't in distress it's ok to let them cry for a minute or 2

Thank you to those of you who understand and can absolutely see where I'm coming from! I feel much better about it and reassured that I'm not the only one in this boat.

Just going to ignore @MelaniesFlowers unhelpful and uneccessary comments. Your views are unrealistic. I can't suddenly stop being a parent to my 3 year old as surely this too will do some damage to him, no?

Basically echoing what everyone else has said, apart from @MelaniesFlowers who isn't on this planet.

Of course it’s fine. Please ignore @MelaniesFlowers it’s just the reality of having more than one child.

of course, he is fine to cry for a few minutes, maybe if you are worried you can just chat to him a bit if you cant reach him, so he can hear you.

I was a nanny for a long time, and worked for families with a whole range of strategies on leaving crying babies, from "never for a second" to hours at a time, all were well loved and cared for, and grew up equally happy and well balanced - yes you harm a child if you neglect it and it feels unloved, of course, but this doesnt happen in the situations described by the op

Ignore this shit

What a load of codswallop! Also, are you really trying to say she should drop everything with the older child to immediately attend to a whimper off the youngest? How do you think the older child will feel if Mum constantly stops what she’s doing with them in favour of the youngest?