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

[WindyCityMom]

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~]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.