I had twins who were small...big for twins, but small for babies. They were slightly behind schedule with, crawling, walking, talking, potty training etc...but not too far. Its normal for smaller kids to be a little behind.
2007-05-15 07:30:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by 6QTQTS 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
My friend had a preemie and was given a schedule. Her child didn't catch up to their scheduled milestones until maybe past her 1 yr birthday. The thing that she was comforted by was that when her child was around 2 months old, she was actually supposed to be barely born. So, know that most preemies won't make milestones like a full term baby. Actually, some full term babies don't make those scheduled milestones! LOL!
2007-05-15 07:30:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by downinmn 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. A baby who is preemie, there milestones are evaluated not at the original due date but at the actual birthdte.
A preemie may be behind some depending on how earlier the delivery was.
So always estimate your child's milestones from his birthdate only. Also, don't drive yourself crazy looking for him to so everything on schedule. babies develop in their own time frame and milestones are just averages not exact.
Enjoy your baby and good luck
2007-05-15 07:32:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by qpook 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I had twins at 33 weeks gestation, and yes that's what they told me. My boys are 6 years old now and are just like any other kid their age. But yes, when they were babies, all those milestones for the different months, were achieved closer or even a little later than the original due date. They started pulling themselves up on furniture and taking a few steps while holding on at 10 months, they didn't walk till almost 16 months. They've always been in the 10th or 25th percentile for height/weight. But they look like normal size kids to me (compared to their classmates.)
2007-05-15 07:32:01
·
answer #4
·
answered by who-wants-to-know 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I have a friend who had twins at 29 weeks almost 3 years ago. I know they we're told to expect their milestones at their adjusted age. They're doing great and hit their milestones like any other child just 2 months later. Perfectly normal children w/ no apparent issues. Good luck to you w/ this.
2007-05-15 07:46:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your sweet baby was really early so there's a really good chance that he/she will reach milestones at their adjusted age, or even a little later.
My son was born at 35 weeks and they told me the same thing. However, he's right on target and even a little advanced in some areas for his age.
So, don't worry about it. Your little one has a lot of catching up to do! Congrats on your child!
2007-05-15 07:53:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by cottagemama 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
My son was 6 weeks early and was always a couple of months behind (sitting up at 9 months, crawling at 12, walking at 19) until about age 2. After that I think most premies are back on a "normal" schedule.
2007-05-15 08:17:36
·
answer #7
·
answered by lvberg 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. I had a 28-weeker.
Up to about age 18 months they checked her milestones against her adjusted age based on her due date.
She is now age 3, and they are now using her actual age based on her birth date.
She is getting special monitoring up to age 6 to ensure she is meeting her developmental milestones.
It will depend how early your baby was when deciding not to follow the "adjusted" age and start following actual age.
2007-05-15 07:29:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by sharkyincanada 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was extremely lucky. My daughter was born 5 weeks early and was very sick in the beginning. I was told that all development would be delayed by about 5 weeks or so. In other words, if "normal" baby starts walking at 1 year then my baby would walk at about 1 yr and 5 weeks. Well, my daughter was fast at everything. She walked at 9 months and was reading at 2.5 years. We were pretty lucky.
2007-05-15 07:29:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by momofmodi 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes that is what I was told with my twins, to expect things to happen a tad bit later than with a full term baby. And the babies followed their due date, just like the doctors told me. They were only 6 weeks early so they really weren't too far behind.
2007-05-15 07:29:22
·
answer #10
·
answered by Havanah_A 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, ours came at 33 1/2 weeks. After about 6 months though, he was basically caught up.
2007-05-15 07:28:32
·
answer #11
·
answered by lillilou 7
·
0⤊
0⤋