Let me see if I understand. It seems there's a baby who hasn't been baptized and the parents are hoping for a particular priest to baptize him, but that priest can't come until the baby will be 2 months old. The parents are concerned about the baby going 2 months without baptism, although there's no danger of death whatsoever. And to get the baptism done faster they're considering going to an NO priest. Is that correct?
I understand the concern about going to a NO priest. The NO rite of baptism is not the same as the traditional rite. But if the form and matter are right, then the effect is the same, as far as I understand.
But if there's no danger of death, there shouldn't be any problem waiting for the other priest. As long as the parents and caregivers know how to baptize someone, and are prepared to do so in case of the baby being in danger of death, then all should be well.
Also, if the baby is in danger of death and is baptized and recovers, the priest can do a conditional baptism, as far as I'm aware.