Just Wondering....

Wife&MomX3 · Jul 18, 2008

I hear/see ppl say congrats or good for U when somebody's child makes it til 2 yrs old RFing. Im wondering why, since I always thought size was the important part, not so much age. Is there some spinal maturity reached @ age 2 that I dont know about? TIA!

crunchierthanthou · Jul 18, 2008

Wife&MomX2 said:
I hear/see ppl say congrats or good for U when somebody's child makes it til 2 yrs old RFing. Im wondering why, since I always thought size was the important part, not so much age. Is there some spinal maturity reached @ age 2 that I dont know about? TIA!

It's quite the opposite- age over weight/size. It's related not only to spinal development and strength, but head size in proportion to the rest of the body. There's a good explanation about with nice illustrations here-

http://www.childrestraintsafety.com/rear-facing.html

The AAP recommends rear facing to the limits of the seat (whether by weight or by height). Age two is just a good starting point as a goal. Really, the ossification of the cervical vertebrae doesn't happen until age 3-6.

Wife&MomX3 · Jul 18, 2008

crunchierthanthou said:
Really, the ossification of the cervical vertebrae doesn't happen until age 3-6.

Thas wut I was lookin 4, thanx! And I worded my OP kinda bad, I kinda made it sound like I think ht/wt is more important than age all the time, but I dont think that for babies or anything! I meant when it comes time to FF, U want to wait til they outgrow by height or weight, regardless of age. Hope that sounds better!

crunchierthanthou · Jul 18, 2008

gotcha.

I just wanted to clarify because saying "size is the important part, not so much age" is how we end up seeing ff 9 month olds who reached 20 lbs.

natysr · Jul 19, 2008

Also, when the old standard was to FF at 12 months AND the law is most places allows FF at 12 months, when one promotes education about the benefits of RF, to see a person actually take the information to heart and continue to RF for an additional 12 months on top of the "standard" is a great accomplishment, even if that isn't always to the limits of the seat. It definately allowed more time for that baby's body to mature.

And if the carseat is installed correctly and used correctly, I believe that a 12 month old, 20 pounder isn't necessarily un-safe FF. But they are definately significantly safER RF.

capeKO71 · Jul 19, 2008

Yeah - when I am educating folks about rear facing, most of them are familiar with the 1 & 20 lb thing... so instead of totally shocking them, I like to say - "The new recommendations are to rear face to the limit of your seat" - and they always ask what "age" that would be... and I say - a good goal is age 2 - but some kids can rear face much longer then that.

Wife&MomX3 · Jul 20, 2008

crunchierthanthou said:
gotcha. I just wanted to clarify because saying "size is the important part, not so much age" is how we end up seeing ff 9 month olds who reached 20 lbs.

Ugh, I know

When it comes to car safety, Im jealous of moms w/ short/petite kids. I woudl love to RF my kids til they were 4. Im hoping ds can stay harnessed in his Regent til he's @ least 6 or older, but Im not holding my breath w/ how tall and long bodied he is.

Just Wondering....

Wife&MomX3

New member

crunchierthanthou

New member

Wife&MomX3

New member

crunchierthanthou

New member

natysr

New member

capeKO71

New member

Wife&MomX3

New member

Car-Seat.Org Facebook Group

Sponsors

Forum statistics