# How to respond- ignore crying infant & tend to toddler?



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm wondering how to respond to this comment that a friend of my mother's posted on my facebook. It also got me thinking so I have a few questions about that (at the end).
My status said "Home alone with my children today- yikes!" (I am recovering from c-section at the moment).
Her response was
_I think going from 1 baby to 2 is really hard, but a very wise friend of mine w/4 kids once gave me this advice. If both kids are crying at the same time, go to the older one first, because her needs are more immediate. The baby really won't know the difference if you go to her 5 minutes later.
You'll do fine. It's a big adjustment._
I obviously don't agree with her. Other friends of mine are commenting on her post- saying that it is great advice, cool advice, etc. I have other friends who are young mothers on my facebook and don't want them to get the idea that it is okay to let their newborns cry for five minutes. How can I respectfully state that it's not okay?

In addition- does anyone have any information (links, etc.) on how to deal with a screaming toddler and screaming newborn at the same time the "AP" way? My toddler is a handful- she's 2. However, I'm able to redirect her attention to something else when the newborn (9 days) needs something. What would YOU do in the event of a needy toddler and needy infant- whose needs get tended to first?

TIA.. her comment has really got me thinking.


----------



## ~Demeter~ (Jul 22, 2006)

I would say sling the babe and tend to the toddler, both their needs are met then








going from 1 to 2 was very hard for me, if I could go back I would do it way differently. I often made my oldest wait. I think there's a book called Siblings Without Rivalry, that might be helpful in how to cope with two little ones. Crying it out is never ok.. no matter how little time you do it, Dr. Sears has some good info on his website about the effects of CIO and cortisol and stress on the baby. Maybe direct her (and them) to his website?


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

I actually think your friend is giving good advice. Deal with the toddler first, because the toddler is more mobile, and therefore more prone to injuries that require immediate attention. If you know the toddler is okay, and in a reasonably safe "holding pattern" (which is to say, the kid's been redirected appropriately), then you can take your time dealing with the infant, who isn't yet capable of falling down the stairs while coming to find you, or splitting her forehead open on a door frame.

Even with only one kid in the house, I sometimes had to let the baby cry for a few minutes. It's not my preferred strategy. It wasn't fun for anyone. But even the most dedicated parents have to do it sometimes, and it *is* okay.

ETA: I seriously don't think that letting a baby yell for a few minutes while you, say, get a toddler out of the pants he accidentally pooped in, qualifies as CIO.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Thanks- didn't even think of Dr. Sears. I've never actually researched CIO much- just something I've always known I'd never do. IMO, CIO is wrong no matter the age or for how long you do it- mostly for the moral reasons, but I'm going to check out the scientific stuff as well.


----------



## GoBecGo (May 14, 2008)

Ideally both will be tended to ASAP. For us, given my DD will be 4 when her sibling is born, that will mean me verbally reassuring DD that i'm coming to help her while physically attending to the baby first. Unless DD has hurt herself or something. And bear in mind, i haven't done it yet except very short term while caring for other kids.

For me the greatest need gets the most immediate attention. A hungry toddler will be grumpy if they aren't fed within a few minutes, a newborn, with a tiny stomach, will be extremely hungry, and probably terrified if they have to wait for food (from observing my newborn DD she was at least 3 months old before the urgency left her hungry cry, before then she sounded like she literally believed she would die if she didn't get my attention - which in terms of Nature arranging her actions and my reactions so as to have as many babies survive as possible she probably did). I think the lady's comment is correct - the greatest need should be attended to first, BUT i totally disagree that a 2yo is as helpless as a newborn. My DD can easily go 3 hours now without eating and still not be starving when she does, especially if she's busy playing or something. As a newborn she fed FOR an hour every 2 hours and became frantic (sobbing hyterically and physically shaking) if she had to wait crying more than a minute or two for a feed. The two just don't compare.

Perhaps you could comment that you feel you should always attend to the greatest need first (i.e. agreeing with her) but that for you a newborn is definitely more helpless than the toddler.

As an aside, i really think that the 2yo who was attended to immediately as a newborn will have a far greater ability to trust that help, though delayed when mama attends to he new baby, IS COMING, than the 2yo who was forced to wait alot as a baby and has basically learned that help will be patchy and they'd better make sure to scream the loudest to make sure they get it. I believe that the past years have taught DD that she can trust that evn if i can't help her Right Now, i AM listening, i DO care, and i WILL help as soon as i can. I plan to teach her sibling the same thing the same way.


----------



## notneb (Aug 31, 2006)

With 2 or more kids, you have to evaluate their needs and deal with the greater need first. Sometimes that does mean that the infant will wait for 5 minutes while you deal with the toddler's immediate needs, say for comfort after an injury. Sometimes the baby's needs will be more pressing and your toddler will have to wait a few minutes for your attention or affection. You're not superhuman, you can't be in two places at once, and there is nothing to gain by beating yourself up for that. Neither baby nor toddler will be scarred by having to wait a few minutes while you help with their sibling.


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Honestly, I would let it go. She posted her advice, whether you (or others) take it is another thing entirely. Posting a "but your so wrong and here's why" retort just makes you look a bit crazy, especially if you have only been parenting more than one child for 9 days.

But I'm also one that doesn't think letting a baby cry for a few minutes if you absolutely have to meet another child's (or even your own) needs is at all equivalent to CIO. There were times with my two (18 months apart) when the baby had to cry for a minute or two while I met the toddler's needs, even though I was a master babywearer at that point. It didn't happen all that often, but it did happen.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

My kids are 19 months apart. I did my best to tend to BOTH of them. I changed diapers on the floor, BF on the floor while reading a book, etc. Having on through this, I think the AP solution is to figure out how to be totally present for both kids at the same time. Sure there were times that I needed to do something for one child while the other waited for a minutes (while crying).

Even though my first child had been APed, she really hated sharing me with her sister. There were times that she was happy and fine until the moment her sister needed me, and then she would scream and cry. It wasn't pleasant, but making her crying my highest priority would have been bad parenting. I made sure to spend plenty of one on one time with her while her sister was asleep.

Babies sleep more than toddlers, so the toddler gets to be the highest priority all that time. They also got one-on-one time with parents that the younger sib will never ever get.


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GoBecGo* 
I believe that the past years have taught DD that she can trust that evn if i can't help her Right Now, i AM listening, i DO care, and i WILL help as soon as i can.

My 2yo actually understands this, for the most part. If I tell her that "mama is feeding the baby, and I will color with you once baby is done eating", she says okay, and goes off about her toddler business.

If she were in immediate danger or something I'd clearly put the baby down and help her- like you said- it's similar to a survival thing.


----------



## CarrieMF (Mar 7, 2004)

Quote:

What would YOU do in the event of a needy toddler and needy infant- whose needs get tended to first?
It depends on what the immediate need is. Whichever is more urgent gets tended to first.

You'll also find you can tend to both at once.


----------



## bebebradford (Apr 4, 2008)

Actually from an emotional standpoint it's pretty good advice. Esp during such an adjustment time.. If you can deal with the toddler first it's great. Toddlers are more aware of what's going on, and they will REMEMBER if they are taken care of first. It's an emotional security issue. It also helps with jealously of a new baby. Granted, if the infant is in serious need.. go to them first.


----------



## pauletoy (Aug 26, 2007)

I guess I am not really sure why you disagree with the comment. Maybe in the few days you have been the parent of two, you have been able to equally meet the needs of both children without one crying. But it is not realistic to think there will never be a time when both kids need you and you won't have to let the baby cry for a bit to attend to the older child. It is not equal to crying it out not even close. When you have two little ones, you just do the best you can to meet the needs of both kids. Sometimes, the baby comes first sometimes the toddler comes first.

I personally would not respond to the comment. You are a new mother of two yourself, so it really doesn't seem appropriate for you to give advice on something that is new to you also.

Everyone has to find their own way of doing things. It's fine if you don't agree with her way.


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *notneb* 
With 2 or more kids, you have to evaluate their needs and deal with the greater need first. Sometimes that does mean that the infant will wait for 5 minutes while you deal with the toddler's immediate needs, say for comfort after an injury. Sometimes the baby's needs will be more pressing and your toddler will have to wait a few minutes for your attention or affection. You're not superhuman, you can't be in two places at once, and there is nothing to gain by beating yourself up for that. Neither baby nor toddler will be scarred by having to wait a few minutes while you help with their sibling.









:

And not that you need more unsolicited advice,







but go easy on yourself. In the initial recovery from a c/s, slinging the baby so you can fully parent the 2 yo is not going to be such a great idea, at least in my experience. So hopefully you won't have too many days where you have full charge of both of them, at least not for awhile longer.


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

I think you're looking at from the perspective of a very very new newborn versus a few months down the line. For me, it depends on who is in more danger or needs more help. If the baby was unhappy because he'd rolled himself onto his tummy and couldn't get back on his back; but the preschooler needed help wiping; well, the baby will be okay for a minute.

I tried to use the mental note that if I would have run out of the bathroom mid-pee to respond to a child with that need, then I should drop what I'm doing with the other child to respond. And honestly, those situations do happen with a toddler more often than a baby. If I would have said "I know, I'll be there in a minute" and let the child fuss while I finished pottying, well then, they'll be fine while I help the other child.


----------



## jacie87 (Jan 17, 2009)

I don't have two yet, but I will at some point in the next couple of weeks so this is something I think about often.

Most of the time (I'm guessing...) the infant's needs will be more immediate. Of course, I'm sure there will be situations when the toddler's needs are more pressing, so I think for me it will likely be a situation-by-situation decision of who to tend to first. My toddler is more likely to be crying because she didn't get exactly what she wanted for dinner than because she needs me _right now._


----------



## MaterPrimaePuellae (Oct 30, 2007)

I agree that it's good advice. I don't yet have two children, *but* I believe that Dr. Sears actually does recommend tending to the toddler first-- I think this is in the section of The Baby Book about sibling rivalry.


----------



## confustication (Mar 18, 2006)

I have three. When the second came along, the first was nearly seven. It was easy to meet both their needs because the seven year old could understand when I asked her to wait a bit for me. When number three came along, #1 was adept at waiting, and choosing good times, but #2 was 14 months old. He doesn't understand waiting, and while he has a very laid back attitude, sometimes his need for me is greater than the littlest's. Things that would have horrified me with my first (the baby has been crying for 30 seconds!) are things I take in stride.

Also, i think that attending first to the toddler IS a good idea- it can take less than a minute to help them into a happy activity, "Let's see if your cars drive over the coffee table!" while a toddler at a loss for a good activity isn't going to wait the minutes it takes to get a newborn into a carrier, or latched onto a breast without a meltdown.

I've also learned that if you set up your house right, it doesn't happen often- we strive to make our living space explorer friendly, so the toddler has free run without my having to intervene much, and the baby sleeps on me or in a basinette nearby- so there's really no running to tend to things... the kids just fall into the rhythm of our household.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

It totally depends on the situation. Newborns CAN wait a minute or so if necessary. It's not ideal, but it won't permenantly damage them. Sometimes the baby needs to be fed NOW and the toddler just "wants" Mommy and is in a better position to wait. Sometimes you can sling the newborn and grab the toddler off the top of the refridgerater before she falls, and THEN sit down to nurse them both.

Really, it's a matter of "get to the one who needs you the most" and that can alternate every 5 minutes.


----------



## StephandOwen (Jun 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just Kate* 
But I'm also one that doesn't think letting a baby cry for a few minutes if you absolutely have to meet another child's (or even your own) needs is at all equivalent to CIO.











Sometimes kids just have to cry. That's the way life is. NOBODY is the perfect parent who can hop to it every time the baby makes noise. I work in a daycare and can have 10 infants in my room (with one other adult). Now, I think those ratios suck. But that's not my decision. I do the best I can but you can bet that sometimes a baby has to cry because I only have 2 hands, as does my co-worker. If more than 1 baby is crying I have to make a quick assessment on whose needs are more pressing at that time. Sometimes it's the 7 week old baby who just woke up screaming in hunger. I'll obviously feed that baby before, say, sitting on the floor to play with a 7 month old who is just fussy because he wants attention. (okay, more often than not I would sit on the floor next to the 7 month old and hold onto the feeding 7 week old..... but that wasn't my point







). And what about parents of twins or other multiples? Obviously they cannot do everything at once so a baby is going to have to cry at some point. I don't think all twins/multiples/infants in daycare are doomed to a life of feeling neglected because they had to cry for a few minutes while the caretaker was tending to someone else









And that's coming from someone who advocates highly for no CIO.


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

My experience with 4-1/4 yo dd1 was that while she was old enough to understand that the baby's needs were really important, she was also old enough that the separation of several days--with both her dad and I not sleeping at home--was really hard on her. We had major reconnecting to do when I got home, and in some cases it meant doing more than I really wanted to, with a newborn and c/s recovery. Totally caught me off-guard, because I was expecting it to be easier because she's older. In our case, if I'd always made her wait, she would have seen that as a kind of breaking trust with her, and it would have taken even longer than it did to get back to a new normal.

My point, I suppose, is one that's been made in several ways already: this isn't a black and white issue. Because you can't be two places at once, there will be times when one child has to wait. And it's not reasonable to expect that it's the older child who will always be able to wait the longest.


----------



## flapjack (Mar 15, 2005)

I agree with her. My 2yo - and to an extent, my 4yo- have simple, quickly expressed urgent needs that can be expressed and dealt with in a few seconds. I won't let baby scream by himself, but I will carry him around whilst I prepare a drink or sandwich for a sibling. It takes seconds, but it's worth it for family peace.


----------



## Norasmomma (Feb 26, 2008)

I think there is nothing wrong with that advice, for me it depends on who seems more freaked at that moment. My DS has had to cry a few times due to my tending to the needs of DD, that's just life, there's one of you and 2 of them, sometimes someone will have to cry.

For me it comes down to who's needs are most pressing.


----------



## alexsam (May 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *notneb* 
With 2 or more kids, you have to evaluate their needs and deal with the greater need first. Sometimes that does mean that the infant will wait for 5 minutes while you deal with the toddler's immediate needs, say for comfort after an injury. Sometimes the baby's needs will be more pressing and your toddler will have to wait a few minutes for your attention or affection. You're not superhuman, you can't be in two places at once, and there is nothing to gain by beating yourself up for that. Neither baby nor toddler will be scarred by having to wait a few minutes while you help with their sibling.

Yes- I totally agree with this. A "blanket statement" either way doesn't really work.

Also, there is a big (huge!) difference between "Letting a baby cry" and/or CIO and a baby crying in a non-emergency situation because you are dealing with pressing needs and are "getting there". CIO (and "letting cry") are ideas about "teaching" independence to an infant by ignoring them. A baby crying for a minute while you are helping a toddler in the bathroom or peeling a banana for them so you can sit and nurse without interruption is not the same thing at all.

And, not every cry is the same. For me, with the second child I was much better able to destinguish between a "Hey, I want to get picked up... Hey, Ehh." and "NOW! NOW! NOW!".


----------



## WindyCityMom (Aug 17, 2009)

I guess I was just looking at her comment a different way. She's a very mainstream person, largely anti breastfeeding, and we generally clash as far as parenting goes. She is a friend of my mothers, and my mother passed away, so I feel bad not having her as a "friend" on facebook. Oh how technology has me wrapped around its finger.....

anyways.

I was kind of interpreting it as leaving my screaming hungry newborn alone for 5 minutes to do something of less importance.. I think it's just something to do with every child is different. My kids don't cry as newborns unless they're hungry. This one doesn't even cry when she wants to be held. My toddler is a handful but is easily redirected to another activity.. our home is largely toddler-proof now, and is very small so we're usually very close to eachother. There are few situations where my toddler NEEDS me in the way where she cannot wait. Now, If it came down to peeling a banana while baby was crying to eat, then that is fine because it takes seconds and will make all of us happier in the end. Basically, the only reason my newborn really cries is for hunger, and most of my toddler's needs can wait, which she understands. I suppose it isn't as black and white as I thought it was







Thanks for the responses everyone.


----------



## acupuncturemomma (Dec 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *notneb* 
With 2 or more kids, you have to evaluate their needs and deal with the greater need first. Sometimes that does mean that the infant will wait for 5 minutes while you deal with the toddler's immediate needs, say for comfort after an injury. Sometimes the baby's needs will be more pressing and your toddler will have to wait a few minutes for your attention or affection. You're not superhuman, you can't be in two places at once, and there is nothing to gain by beating yourself up for that. Neither baby nor toddler will be scarred by having to wait a few minutes while you help with their sibling.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just Kate* 
But I'm also one that doesn't think letting a baby cry for a few minutes if you absolutely have to meet another child's (or even your own) needs is at all equivalent to CIO. There were times with my two (18 months apart) when the baby had to cry for a minute or two while I met the toddler's needs, even though I was a master babywearer at that point. It didn't happen all that often, but it did happen.











Crying does not always = CIO


----------



## marrymeflyfree (Jan 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WindyCityMom* 
What would YOU do in the event of a needy toddler and needy infant- whose needs get tended to first?

This is the question of the year in our house, too. We have a 2mo and a 19mo, and there's only one parent (me) much of the time since my hubby travels often for work. The first 7-8 weeks were really a bear because my husband had to be away about 98% of that time. I did have my parents and MIL for the first 3 weeks, but even that was a juggling act because my toddler is not very attached to them and just wanted her mom! I also had a c-section, and that recovery does become yet another ball in the air to manage.

I don't have any black and white answer for you nor do I know if what I've done is 'right'...most of the time, I just try to be as gentle as possible with my older daughter when these moments pop up. My goal is to meet both of their needs without sending the message that the baby's needs are more important than her's. Distraction and/or giving her a 'job' sometimes helps ('Where is the green ball? Can you give me a diaper?' Etc...) I will confess that older daughter has watched a bit more TV than I would like lately, too. There's nothing like a little Caillou or Sesame Street to buy me a little time or calm a cranky toddler. I'm also trying to remember that she is learning, and that I need to be her teacher. For instance...the baby would wake up and start making noise, and the toddler would get upset when I'd walk away from her to go get the baby. So I just started explaining every time that the baby is awake and wants to play with us. Lately, the toddler gets upset less often when she hears the baby stirring, and instead says "baby play?". I am also trying to make a point to spend a good portion of the baby's naps just playing/cuddling with my older daughter instead of tending to my house/etc...I have definitely noticed that she is more clingy and jealous with me on the days when she gets less of that. My home is messier, but I think that is a small price to pay to ease my toddler's transition to big-sisterhood.









Having said all of that, there definitely have been times where I've had little choice but to let one cry while I tend to the other. It makes my skin crawl, honestly, but there are moments when one's needs truly do outweigh the other's, when things just fall out of harmony. I just try to do whatever I need to do as quickly as I can. Older daughter is old enough to remember the hurts, and I don't want to set the precedent that her sister always comes first...but I also want a happy, content, thriving, non-stressed baby, too. It is a balancing act. For me, there have been some compromises, and I hate that. But I just try to keep the mommy-guilt at bay, and remind myself that we are now a family of four - and we're all learning how to be a family of four. Siblings have to share, and they get their first lessons in that right from the beginning I suppose. We are definitely still learning here, I am very much looking forward to reading the input from all the experienced AP mamas in this thread.


----------



## bluebunny (Jul 14, 2006)

I wouldn't respond as I don't think it is necessary to get into a back and forth on facebook.
My third child is a month old and I have let her cry a few minutes while I tended to the older two -- one in the potty, one spilled something all over the floor that the dog was getting into...things happen. I am very anti-CIO but I don't see where I, being one person with two hands, can always tend to everyone's needs at the same time. I think as a parent, you will evaluate the needs of your children and deal with them in the manner you feel is best.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Having watched families play out over the years, families where the older child's feelings and needs are seen as a higher priority because they are more likely to be remembered seldom get to a point where the second child's feelings are seen as equal. They tend to stay focused on what is going on with number 1, and number 2 is just along for the ride thoughout childhood.

It's a typical family pattern in many mainstream families. I don't think the advice is good at all. It just sets up a very unhealthy attitude that is hard to break. The younger child learns that the are second place, so they adapt to that. That's a sad thing to do to an infant, and not helpful to the older child who now believes that life should always revolve around them.


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Linda on the move* 
Having watched families play out over the years, families where the older child's feelings and needs are seen as a higher priority because they are more likely to be remembered seldom get to a point where the second child's feelings are seen as equal. They tend to stay focused on what is going on with number 1, and number 2 is just along for the ride thoughout childhood.

It's a typical family pattern in many mainstream families. I don't think the advice is good at all. It just sets up a very unhealthy attitude that is hard to break. The younger child learns that the are second place, so they adapt to that. That's a sad thing to do to an infant, and not helpful to the older child who now believes that life should always revolve around them.

So clearly, the optimal goal is to do as people on this thread seem to agree: to balance the needs of both (or all) children as best we can.


----------



## ameliabedelia (Sep 24, 2002)

[

Quote:

QUOTE][Having watched families play out over the years, families where the older child's feelings and needs are seen as a higher priority because they are more likely to be remembered seldom get to a point where the second child's feelings are seen as equal. They tend to stay focused on what is going on with number 1, and number 2 is just along for the ride thoughout childhood.

It's a typical family pattern in many mainstream families. I don't think the advice is good at all. It just sets up a very unhealthy attitude that is hard to break. The younger child learns that the are second place, so they adapt to that. That's a sad thing to do to an infant, and not helpful to the older child who now believes that life should always revolve around them. /QUOTE]
I think family dynamics can work the opposite way just as frequently (where the younger child's needs take priority)..I've seen both cases. Actually, what I have seen happen OFTEN (and struggle with in my own family) is that the child who cries the loudest/longest/is most demanding/highest needs/most spirited takes priority/gets attention. That could be ANY child in the birth order...it totally depends on personality and I do think it is something parents need to watch out for...that they aren't always giving priority to one child just because they cry louder/harder/longer, etc.


----------



## ~Katie~ (Mar 18, 2007)

I think to a point her statement is correct, but it really depends on the situation. I don't think tending to one child while the other is crying is CIO, nobody is capable of doing all things and being everywhere at once, particularly if you spend a great deal of time parenting alone. It is true that a toddler can learn patience in certain situations, I know that my DS has had to, but we still find ourselves in situations where I need to tend to him first.

I've been a single mother for the last 7 months and it's really a matter of weighing whose needs are more pressing at the time. For example, DS came down with a stomach bug around 2am yesterday morning. I had to get up with him because he had awful diarrhea and in doing so, DD woke up. I could either leave my toddler covered in poop while I sat and rocked and nursed the baby for 20-30 minutes, or I could help him to the toilet to finish going and get him cleaned up. I chose to help the sick child and then I tended to the baby. If I constantly chose to disregard my toddler's needs and always tended to the baby first, what kind of message would that send him? I don't practice CIO. I'm aware of what I'm capable of as a parent and I do my best to meet the needs of both of my children as equally as I can, sometimes that means somebody is crying while I tend to the other. As others have said, a crying baby does not equal CIO. All children are different and all families are different.


----------



## pixiekisses (Oct 14, 2008)

Whomever needs me the most gets me first. Simple as that.
Carriers and babywearing is really a good thing though, usually the infant will be content in a wrap while I tend to the others, but if the infant needs food it's urgent above all else and the others have to wait. (I'm not talking life and death matters here, obv. whomever's bleeding heavily gets tended to right away.)
Older siblings are a very good thing too sometimes, my older ones will help the little ones with stuff if I'm dealing with something I can't let go right away.


----------



## GreenGranolaMama (Jul 15, 2009)

DH and I have started the conversation about when we want to think about number 2, but tending to 2 crying babes is defiantly one of my biggest concerns...


----------



## Wild Lupine (Jul 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *notneb* 
With 2 or more kids, you have to evaluate their needs and deal with the greater need first. Sometimes that does mean that the infant will wait for 5 minutes while you deal with the toddler's immediate needs, say for comfort after an injury. Sometimes the baby's needs will be more pressing and your toddler will have to wait a few minutes for your attention or affection. You're not superhuman, you can't be in two places at once, and there is nothing to gain by beating yourself up for that. Neither baby nor toddler will be scarred by having to wait a few minutes while you help with their sibling.











It can also be possible to soothe one child even while tending to the other. The older child can sometimes be able to wait more comfortably if they are sung to or kept in a dialog until it is their 'turn.' A young baby can held or slung while tending to the older one.

Regarding the Facebook comment, you might want to let it go. It's not advice that is going to harm anyone greatly (she's not advocating CIO for sleeping, or rice cereal for a six week old, for example). The advice might not work in every situation, but there's much, much worse child raising advice out there to be concerned about.


----------



## Bug-a-Boo's Mama (Jan 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bebebradford* 
Actually from an emotional standpoint it's pretty good advice. Esp during such an adjustment time.. If you can deal with the toddler first it's great. Toddlers are more aware of what's going on, and they will REMEMBER if they are taken care of first. It's an emotional security issue. It also helps with jealously of a new baby. Granted, if the infant is in serious need.. go to them first.

I've heard that advice many times. And actually it is for the above reason, the older child will remember and the baby won't. But I do think that it is good advice PP have given about verbally reassuring the older child that you are coming, etc.

I do understand that IYO it is wrong to even let an infant cry for a minute, IMO it isn't that much better to let the older child cry either. Although sometimes neither can be helped.


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GreenGranolaMama* 







DH and I have started the conversation about when we want to think about number 2, but tending to 2 crying babes is defiantly one of my biggest concerns...


definitely wait awhile before having a second child; from your signature line, your first is less than a year old.

i waited until my child was three (and four months) before number two was born. it's still hard. but at least i can trust her alone some of the time when i need to take care of the baby.

it's tough, tough, tough. bedtime is a real issue for me. i'm always alone with the kids. my husband works a long, odd shift, so he's home at 8 pm and up again at 3 am. i'm always alone at bedtime, and i have yet to figure out an exact routine that does not result in baby crying (he's almost 4 months old).

i do the best i can, but it's mentally exhausting.

i read this whole thread and i'm amazed that so many people with only one child wanted to comment about theories and how they think they would deal with it. you never know how you really deal with it until you are in the scene, and have to make choices on the fly. butt wiping of the preschooler is pretty important in my book. if i don't take the time to wipe her butt, she'll get a nasty rash that will take a lot more time and effort to clear up. not to mention poo smears all over everything, again, time and effort.

my preschooler is "persistent". if i don't give her her needs met (dinner, etc.) i hear about it over and over until i get it done. ideally, i have a routine whereby baby is fed first before preschooler's time for needs comes up. i have a bouncy seat in the kitchen, however, for the times i need to set baby down. i have a second bouncy seat near the bathroom.

and for those who feel that baby crying ever is wrong, how do you ever go anywhere in the car? my poor baby crys every time we go in the car (older child did, too, when she was a baby). i minimize car trips as much as possible, but some are unavoidable. *shrug*. i hate hearing him cry, i really do, but it is not safe to pull the car over and get out and nurse him every time he cries.

all i can really say, is that it is tough, tough, tough work handing two kids alone. you do what you've gotta do.


----------



## Linda on the move (Jun 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Bug-a-Boo's Mama* 
I've heard that advice many times. And actually it is for the above reason, the older child will remember and the baby won't.

we are talking about toddlers, though, and few people remember much from when they were 2 or 3. I just don't see a child that aged being traumatized because mom was talking to them while getting baby situated at the breast and then mom encouraged them to bring a book over so mom could read to them (or whatever). I've been there, and just don't buy it.

Quote:

I do understand that IYO it is wrong to even let an infant cry for a minute, IMO it isn't that much better to let the older child cry either. Although sometimes neither can be helped.








There is a HUGE difference between a child crying and child "being left to cry." Some times babies and toddlers cry. One of my kids was high needs and sometimes she cried no matter what I did. Sometimes our kids start crying when we really can't pick them up -- like when we are in the bath room. It's not *wrong,* it's just life.


----------



## Materfamilias (Feb 22, 2008)

It's a tough question. The issue I have with the newborn crying is that to him, it does seem like an eternity crying without getting his needs met. At what point, for him, does crying go to CIO? Maybe not the same point that we think. Just a thought.
I know the OP is recovering from a c/s, but after that babywearing is the way to go IMO.
And I do agree there's no hard and fast rule here. It depends totally on the circumstances.
ETA: another thing that bugs me is saying that a baby won't remember being left to cry, but if that's so, why don't we just CIO? I do think that, even if they don't remember a specific incident, they are shaped by the experience.


----------



## gardenmommy (Nov 23, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *WindyCityMom* 
I guess I was just looking at her comment a different way. She's a very mainstream person, largely anti breastfeeding, and we generally clash as far as parenting goes. She is a friend of my mothers, and my mother passed away, so I feel bad not having her as a "friend" on facebook. Oh how technology has me wrapped around its finger.....

anyways.

I was kind of interpreting it as leaving my screaming hungry newborn alone for 5 minutes to do something of less importance.. I think it's just something to do with every child is different. My kids don't cry as newborns unless they're hungry. This one doesn't even cry when she wants to be held. My toddler is a handful but is easily redirected to another activity.. our home is largely toddler-proof now, and is very small so we're usually very close to eachother. There are few situations where my toddler NEEDS me in the way where she cannot wait. Now, If it came down to peeling a banana while baby was crying to eat, then that is fine because it takes seconds and will make all of us happier in the end. Basically, the only reason my newborn really cries is for hunger, and most of my toddler's needs can wait, which she understands. I suppose it isn't as black and white as I thought it was







Thanks for the responses everyone.


Sounds like you are sorting through what will work for your family. I have 4 children, am expecting #5. I have found that some needs are urgent, needing attention RIGHT NOW, and others can wait for 5 or 10 minutes, regardless of age. You will figure out which is which as you go along. I think you sound like a very sensitive, caring person; your children are fortunate to have such a mother. There are days when it's hard to decide what is the best course of action, days when you question everything you do. You aren't perfect, you'll make mistakes, but every day is a new day with a new opportunity to try again.


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

welcome to the family. thats what I always told the babies when they were fussing but I was with of the others. my second cried more than my first (my second actually cried all the time and never ever slept so she got left to fuss a lot. I simply couldn't ignore her 3 year old sister for two solid years. Madeline got me sometimes. and baby fussed. not ideal but nothing about Lilys infancy was ideal....she is really a bad example.) Ava wasn't terribly fussy but she was in line with a high maintence two year old and a 6 year old. but I can not do everything and the baby's needs were not always most important. a crying six year old is just as important as a crying six month old. and while they were crying the 2 year old was likely off making mischief of one kind or another. as a matter of fact if I couldn't hear her screaming chances are she was the most pressing need right then.









Ususally the older childs needs could be met most quickly. So I ususally started with that. oh you need juice. got it. ok now I can nurse the baby. It didn't hurt the baby to fuss a couple of minutes and as a result she got quality time for the next 15 minutes instead of 15 minutes of interupted nursing with extreme chaos and screaming in the back ground. on the up side she had two sisters who doted on her and gave her more attention than either of them ever had. In the end I think she got the better end of the deal even if it meant she had to fuss for a while every now and then.


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

I have four children and even though two are now in their teens there have been times when their needs came before their younger sisters' even when they were tiny. There are times when my 16yo needs to know that he is still important to me and that his needs aren't any less than any of the others even though they are younger and less able to regulate their feelings.

To me it isn't about age or CIO; one of them will need you more than another at some time or other.

When you are new to parenting two you are in a new place where you haven't been before. Up until then you have had to choose between yourself or your child and of course it is a good thing that you put your child first. Your needs could wait or were less important and you had the maturity to understand that.

Once you have two or more children you fall out of the picture to a great extent and the needs of the children are foremost. You can't give one of them your maturity I mentioned in the previous paragraph and put the other one in the position of the only child.

What seems simple right now may not be simple in 3 months time but don't beat yourself up if you find that you have done something which is much like the advice you presently don't like. It won't be the end of the world.

Oh and don't respond on Facebook. Keep your own counsel and also keep in mind that not all mainstream parents are bad parents in one or all respects.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Idealy, neither of my boys would ever cry by themselves. But, this is reality. And sometimes one has to wait. When I'm in the middle of changing DS1's diaper I can't just stop and leave him w/ poop all over him cause' the baby started to cry. Sometimes, dinner has to be made (and no, I'm *not* comfortable cooking w/ baby in a sling), or the fires have to be checked (we heat exclusively w/ wood), or, you know, *I* have to go to the bathroom, and one or the other is just going to have to cry for a few minutes. THeres no way around it. Generally, if DS1 starts crying, and I'm not totally int he middle of something (opening the woodstove, or the oven or changing DS2's diaper or something), I stop and see whats up and fix it when possible. But, thats just me. You'll figure out what works for you. But generally, I think her advice is sound.


----------



## amandaleigh37 (Jul 13, 2006)

I haven't read the thread, just the OP.

I don't think your friend's comment was saying it's "*ok* to let the baby cry" at all. But when you have two children who both have an immediate need (which thankfully is not THAT often, at least in my experience so far), the reality is that you DO need to choose who to help first. Sometimes it will be the baby, sometimes it will be the toddler. So in that sense, I don't agree with her that it should ALWAYS be the older child, but I don't think it is bad advice either. It's just a reality when you have one person caring for two children.


----------



## jenners26 (Mar 16, 2008)

I have three under three right now, a 1yo, 2yo, and an 11 week old (and a 7yo!). Some days it seems like one of them is crying all day long! Just today, my 11 week old woke up from her nap crying because she needed to be fed at the same time that my 1yo was crying because he wanted a toy and couldn't get the bin open, and my 2yo had had a diaper blowout and needed clean clothes. I dealt with the 1yo first, because it was a fast fix. Get the toy, he stops crying. Then I dealt with the 2yo, because even though the 11week old needed to be fed, I couldn't leave the 2yo in wet clothes just for the sake of not letting the baby cry! So I changed her, stopped to pee (sometimes Mommy has needs too!), and then fed the newborn last.

Does it suck to have to let an infant cry? I suppose. But for some of us it's unavoidable, and honestly, I DESPISE it when people compare a situation like the one I dealt with today to leaving my baby to cry it out. I am not IGNORING my screaming child's needs so that I can get more sleep. I am doing the very best I can to quickly meet EVERY CHILD's needs so they all feel loved and secure.

I think as an AP community we have to get past this notion that a baby who cries for a moment (or sometimes even five moments) is somehow equivelant to using CIO.


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *lilyka* 
on the up side she had two sisters who doted on her and gave her more attention than either of them ever had. In the end I think she got the better end of the deal even if it meant she had to fuss for a while every now and then.









Heh. My 5 yo is very maternal. She--generally--won't let her sister fuss. Now, I wish she wouldn't bring the baby to me when I'm on the toilet, but otherwise the nurturing is a good thing.









nak


----------



## Materfamilias (Feb 22, 2008)

Why oh why were mothers not born with Shiva-like arms? I could use about four more


----------



## Grace and Granola (Oct 15, 2005)

I have boys 17 months apart, so I can see where your friend is coming from to an extent. I agree with most of the replies that you've gotten so far. The bottom line is that you, as mom, need to evaluate and respond in the best way. The reason I can agree with your friend's FB post, is that the majority of the time, when the toddler is crying, you can "solve" that by getting the cup, snack, toy, etc that will fix the problem. With the newborn, he might need to be nursed, rocked, changed...all things that take considerably more time. Just because the baby is a newborn and you don't want him to cry, doesn't mean that you nurse babe for 15 minutes while a toddler cries for a cup of milk.

Most of the time you'll be able to sling/carry the newborn as you tend to the toddler's needs. This is coming from the mom of a baby #2 who cried 8 hours per day for his first two months of life. I can't remember letting him cry alone, but there were plenty of times when he was crying in my arms or in bouncy seat, as I talked to him and looked at hime, all the while I tended to my toddler's needs. You do the best you can, using your very wise mother's intuition! Letting a baby cry for a few moments is not the same as CIO.

I just don't think her FB reply warrants too much concern about damaging young mothers' attitudes. My reply might be: Thanks for the tip! At least I'll have (newborn) in a sling, so even if he has to wait, he'll be with me.


----------



## ElliesMomma (Sep 21, 2006)

ps: (i posted earlier but had one more thought about why you sometimes *have to* take care of the older child first) -- if you are constantly putting the older child off, and never taking care of their needs (first), it will create more jealousy between the siblings.


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jenners26* 
I have three under three right now, a 1yo, 2yo, and an 11 week old (and a 7yo!). Some days it seems like one of them is crying all day long! Just today, my 11 week old woke up from her nap crying because she needed to be fed at the same time that my 1yo was crying because he wanted a toy and couldn't get the bin open, and my 2yo had had a diaper blowout and needed clean clothes. I dealt with the 1yo first, because it was a fast fix. Get the toy, he stops crying. Then I dealt with the 2yo, because even though the 11week old needed to be fed, I couldn't leave the 2yo in wet clothes just for the sake of not letting the baby cry! So I changed her, stopped to pee (sometimes Mommy has needs too!), and then fed the newborn last.

Does it suck to have to let an infant cry? I suppose. But for some of us it's unavoidable, and honestly, I DESPISE it when people compare a situation like the one I dealt with today to leaving my baby to cry it out. I am not IGNORING my screaming child's needs so that I can get more sleep. I am doing the very best I can to quickly meet EVERY CHILD's needs so they all feel loved and secure.
*
I think as an AP community we have to get past this notion that a baby who cries for a moment (or sometimes even five moments) is somehow equivelant to using CIO*.

I totally agree. I have three children and sometimes I have had to do exactly what you did.

They are now 12, 10, and 4. Sometimes I still have to decide whose needs to meet first.

I also don't think it is one bit selfish to care for your own needs, like using the restroom.

I have a hard time with people who say that they don't shower or eat for days because of the baby or babies. That is not me being snarky, just concerned for that person's well-being. It is so unhealthy. If you don't eat, don't bathe and hold your bladder for long periods of time, you will get sick. In the long run, being a "martyr" will harm your child IMHO, because if you are too ill to care for him/her, then what have you accomplished?


----------



## Kivgaen (Dec 5, 2003)

On one hand, I hear what you are saying, but on the other hand, I understand her point as well...

Does it have to be an either-or thing? Maybe there can be some middle ground. For example, why is the baby crying? Is she hungry? Need a diaper change? Just want to be picked up? Held? What's the problem? Can you attempt to sooth her temporarily (with a thumb stuck in the mouth, for example, if she is hungry?) Can you pick her up and put her in a sling while you tend to the toddler first?

I guess it would just depend on the specific situation. The toddler WILL know that you have chosen the baby over him, and therefore there may be some resentment that develops towards the baby (if that happens repeatedly) and it may be a source for sibling rivalry.

Can you distract the toddler with the crying baby, and get the toddler to help you solve the problem of why the baby is crying? That might also work...


----------



## zonapellucida (Jul 16, 2004)

HMMM NEVER are a toddlers needs more immediate unless they are in danger. Amazing hwo things have changed


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zonapellucida* 
HMMM NEVER are a toddlers needs more immediate unless they are in danger. Amazing hwo things have changed

Really? So I should let my (theoretical) toddler cry and wet his pants if his (theoretical) infant sibling is crying because he is trying to roll over and can't? And an infant crying because she lost her thumb triumphs the puking and crying preschooler?

Lets be realistic, there are many times that a toddlers' needs are more immediate than an infants'. Tending the infant first 100% of the time regardless of need isn't any more AP than (true) CIO because it ignores the needs of the older child. You have to use common sense.

(Or does a child not deserve AP parenting because you magically don't have any immediate needs anymore once you become a big brother or sister?







I'm not aware of any AP guru that suggest that you neglect caring for an older child or yourself just so the baby _never_ has to cry or wait.)


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zonapellucida* 
HMMM NEVER are a toddlers needs more immediate unless they are in danger. Amazing hwo things have changed

A vomit-covered toddler who has woken an infant sibling with the sound of his or her distress needs attending to before breastfeeding the infant back to sleep.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

The best advice I got was ------ it is ok to grab the toddler, grab the infant, and cry on the floor with the both of them.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

Why can't the children be taken care of the same time? You can talk to both children lovingly. While you are washing up the puked cover child. You can tell them both in loving tones what you are going to do for the both of them. Acknowledge how both are distress and there are lots of love to go around. You can snuggle more than one child at a time.


----------



## writteninkursive (Feb 22, 2009)

I have 3 kids not yet in school. DD1 is 4, DD2 is 2, and DS is 4 months. DS _always_ wins my assistance first. He is a baby. If he's crying, it's because he NEEDS something. If DD2 is crying, it's because she's emotional 24/7 and she probably dropped a piece of popcorn on the floor or lost her Barbie. If DD4 is crying, it's because DD2 pushed her or she wants to "eat something else" (always). Clearly, DS's needs are more important than that. My two older kids know that they wait because their brother is a baby and if everybody needs something, he gets tended to first, and then I tend to them, based on how immediate their need is.

The baby WILL know. Babies are learning to trust their parents. Toddlers already do or don't. If you neglect the baby to tend to the 2-year-old (and we all know how immediate their needs can be - ahem!), the baby will start to think he doesn't matter and learn that when he cries, no one helps him.









No way.


----------



## Kivgaen (Dec 5, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marsupialmom* 
The best advice I got was ------ it is ok to grab the toddler, grab the infant, and cry on the floor with the both of them.
















Loved that









Your second post was pretty good too


----------



## Kivgaen (Dec 5, 2003)

I'm wondering... How did you respond to her facebook comment?


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *writteninkursive* 
I have 3 kids not yet in school. DD1 is 4, DD2 is 2, and DS is 4 months. DS _always_ wins my assistance first. He is a baby. If he's crying, it's because he NEEDS something. If DD2 is crying, it's because she's emotional 24/7 and she probably dropped a piece of popcorn on the floor or lost her Barbie. If DD4 is crying, it's because DD2 pushed her or she wants to "eat something else" (always). Clearly, DS's needs are more important than that. My two older kids know that they wait because their brother is a baby and if everybody needs something, he gets tended to first, and then I tend to them, based on how immediate their need is.

*The baby WILL know. Babies are learning to trust their parents. Toddlers already do or don't. If you neglect the baby to tend to the 2-year-old (and we all know how immediate their needs can be - ahem!), the baby will start to think he doesn't matter and learn that when he cries, no one helps him.









No way.*


Well sure, if you never put the baby first, ever. I don't call it neglect to care for the other child before the baby every once in awhile, if it is needed.


----------



## amandaleigh37 (Jul 13, 2006)

Quote:

The baby WILL know. Babies are learning to trust their parents. Toddlers already do or don't. If you neglect the baby to tend to the 2-year-old (and we all know how immediate their needs can be - ahem!), the baby will start to think he doesn't matter and learn that when he cries, no one helps him.
Who is talking about "neglect"? Neglect would be leaving a crying baby in a room by himself and ignoring him. I am pretty sure none of us are talking about doing that.

I'm kind of shocked that you would think that just because a baby arrived, the older child (who WAS the "baby" before) automatically becomes less important in terms of needs. Yes, Toddlers already have established trust. But how quickly will that trust begin to diminish when they realize that the baby ALWAYS is more important? There is a wide range here of urgency - from a slight baby whine to a full out cry, to a request for mommy to read a book or a suspicious sound coming from the playroom that might mean danger... No 2 situations will be alike, and making a common sense judgment call on who to rush to first is not neglect.

Yes, a child who is whining for more juice can wait. But if I'm in the bathroom cleaning up a potty accident with my preschooler, and baby awakes from a nap fussing, baby is going to wait the 30-60 seconds it will take while I finish up and get to him.

If those of you who have never had to do this would like to share your secret - perhaps you have more hands or have figured out how to be in 2 places at one time.


----------



## karkli (Sep 18, 2009)

As others have mentioned, the advice to address the older child before tending to the newborn goes beyond just _Who will_ remember _being slighted by mom?_

If the toddler and the newborn are both crying and their needs for you are equal (and neither is in danger of physical injury), tending to the toddler first is wonderful advice, as far as I'm concerned. A toddler is likely able to understand that their needs are equal, but Mom is choosing to address baby brother/sister first, every time. Even the most AP-nurtured toddler can be prone to jealousy issues when there is a new baby in the house. Personally, I think it is VERY AP to take this natural reaction on the toddler's part to heart and address his/her needs accordingly.

That doesn't mean babying the toddler or always prioritizing him/her over the newborn, but it does mean acknowledging and empathizing when possible.

Of course, ideally, the original suggestion of slinging babe and tending to the toddler is probably best but during a c-section recovery that may simply not be possible.

Best response to the FB comment, in my opinion: _"Thanks for the advice. I'm sure we'll figure out what works best for us!"_


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

Yeah, I have to say, I'm pretty dumfonded at the idea that baby will ALWAYS come first. I mean, seriously? If my toddler's cracked his head on the floor cause' he fell off the chair and baby happens to need changed, I should change baby THEN tend the toddler?? Seriously?? I don't think so! There is *NO* one-size-fits-all approach. But I can tell you that, generally speaking, I can get DS1 to stop crying and be happy by taking the minute to go get a glass of water or grab an apple or orange or cheese stick from the fridge. But DS2 is likely to need nursed (15+ minutes), changed (2-5 minutes), or something else that takes a bit longer. So, I take the one minute to get DS1 happy and then can take my time with DS2, cause' I'm not listening to DS1 whine and cry cause' HE's hungry or thirsty or whatever. The idea that I'd be better off tending to DS2 and making DS1 unhappy for 15 minutes or more is just... insane to me. But whatever.


----------



## mm22 (Jan 5, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bluebunny* 
My third child is a month old and I have let her cry a few minutes while I tended to the older two -- one in the potty, one spilled something all over the floor that the dog was getting into...things happen. I am very anti-CIO but I don't see where I, being one person with two hands, can always tend to everyone's needs at the same time.

lol... I just had to respond to this as with my almost-3-year-old and my 13-month-old, I often wish I had 2 of me, and yes, 4 hands!!


----------



## Just Kate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mm22* 
lol... I just had to respond to this as with my almost-3-year-old and my 13-month-old, I often wish I had 2 of me, and yes, 4 hands!!









I think every parent does. I could have used the extra hands and a double even when I only had one child.









(_Then_ I could have been super mom







)


----------



## mm22 (Jan 5, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Just Kate* 
I think every parent does. I could have used the extra hands and a double even when I only had one child.









(_Then_ I could have been super mom







)

Agree!

I sometimes wonder though, are we trying too hard to be "Super Mum"?

Also, how do mums with more kids handle it all and stay sane and so collected?!! Salute!


----------



## orangefoot (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mm22* 
Also, how do mums with more kids handle it all and stay sane and so collected?!! Salute!

I am not always sane and am infrequently collected


----------



## moaningminny (Dec 31, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amandaleigh37* 
I haven't read the thread, just the OP.

I don't think your friend's comment was saying it's "*ok* to let the baby cry" at all. But when you have two children who both have an immediate need (which thankfully is not THAT often, at least in my experience so far), the reality is that you DO need to choose who to help first. Sometimes it will be the baby, sometimes it will be the toddler. So in that sense, I don't agree with her that it should ALWAYS be the older child, but I don't think it is bad advice either. It's just a reality when you have one person caring for two children.

This is exactly how I look at it. I would have loved to have tended to both my daughters at the same time, but sometimes it just.isn't.possible.


----------



## Grace and Granola (Oct 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *orangefoot* 
I am not always sane and am infrequently collected


----------



## sewchris2642 (Feb 28, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mm22* 
Agree!

I sometimes wonder though, are we trying too hard to be "Super Mum"?

Also, how do mums with more kids handle it all and stay sane and so collected?!! Salute!

Because my goal was never "put baby/toddler first". I put needs first, regardless of who's needs they were. So sometimes I came first, sometimes dh came first; and sometimes one of the girls did. Because Dylan is so much younger than his sisters, his needs probably came first more often than their needs/wants. And I'm way too lazy to ever aspire to be "Super Mom".


----------



## LaughingHyena (May 4, 2004)

One of the best pieces of advice I got was to tell each child what you were doing and why. In many ways it was more important for me to explain to DS (my younger child) that I was putting him in his bouncy chair to go and fetch and drink for DD, then I would feed him.

I really think it helped DD to notice that I did tend to her needs first sometimes (she was 2 1/4 when DS was born). She heard plenty of I'm feeding DS, when he's asleep we will be able to do X.

Otherwise my ordering was something like
Anyone bleeding or injured
Helping older one on the toilet
Quick fix (eg open the toybox, fetch a banana)
Nappy changing
Feeding DS


----------



## Grace and Granola (Oct 15, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LaughingHyena* 
One of the best pieces of advice I got was to tell each child what you were doing and why. In many ways it was more important for me to explain to DS (my younger child) that I was putting him in his bouncy chair to go and fetch and drink for DD, then I would feed him.

I really think it helped DD to notice that I did tend to her needs first sometimes (she was 2 1/4 when DS was born). She heard plenty of I'm feeding DS, when he's asleep we will be able to do X.



great advice


----------

