# 32 pounds at 21 months ...



## MariesMama (Sep 26, 2008)

I have a Marathon for DD that she is getting close to outgrowing RF! Really, what would you techs do in this situation? I was thinking about a Radian to keep her RF, but really??? How much more height does the Radian have than the Marathon anyway. DD is 35" tall, not sure about her torso but she's fairly proportionate.

Blahhhhhh after my whole Roundabout (original RA) fiasco I'm so not thrilled. And jealous of my friends with teeny tiny little kids.

Any advice at all would be great.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

At under two, I wouldn't even consider it a question. I'd purchase a new convertible. (I'm assuming you have a 33 lb Marathon?)

I'd get the Graco My Ride, any of the Sunshine Kids' radians or the Safety First Complete Air. I would absolutely not turn a 1 year old forward facing, nor would I intimate to someone else that it was 'ok'.


----------



## MariesMama (Sep 26, 2008)

No, it's a 35 lb Marathon. I'm just trying to plan ahead. If it were a 33 lb, I would definitely get a new seat.

Which website has the $5 seat return ... thing? I'd like to try a Radian in my car but don't have a lot of faith in it actually fitting. I drive a 2001 Saturn SL1.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

I know Target will let you buy on line and return to a brick and mortar store for a full refund including shipping.

Is her weight at 32 nekkid? Or is her weight 32, fully dressed with shoes on?

If you have a 35 pound Marathon, and 32 isn't her nekkid weight, you've obviously got a little more wiggle room. In your shoes, as a parent and a technician, I would still be buying a 40 or 45 lb seat to continue rear facing.

However, there's a possibility that her growth might slow down radically and she could take a year to gain the next three pounds.

If 32 is her undressed weight, with clothes and shoes she's probably near 34, so I don't think you have much time.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

I have a 33 lb 20 month old FF in a True Fit. Are you against turning her FF?


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
I have a 33 lb 20 month old FF in a True Fit. Are you against turning her FF?

Neither a 22 month old nor a 20 month old belongs in a forward facing seat. The OP is very wise in exploring her options.

i strongly recommend turning your child rear facing. Having her forward facing at this age is not a safe option.


----------



## MariesMama (Sep 26, 2008)

She is 32 lbs dressed, but without a coat. I know it could be quite a while until she actually hits 35 lbs, but it could also be next week.

Thank you for the advice. I'm going to try to find a Radian to test out in my car before making any decision


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Keep in mind that puffy winter coats can't be worn in car seats...just thin polar fleece ones.

If she's 32 pounds fully dressed, you may have a fair chunk of time


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
Keep in mind that puffy winter coats can't be worn in car seats...just thin polar fleece ones.

If she's 32 pounds fully dressed, you may have a fair chunk of time









I would still make sure you have the money saved for the seat when the time comes. It could take a year, or even two. Or it could be 3 months. My kids go through giant growth spurts, gaining 2 or 3 lbs at a time.


----------



## MariesMama (Sep 26, 2008)

She has fleece jackets and a wool coat, and we keep a stack of blankets by the door so they're nice and warm for car rides. Those puffy coats are everywhere though! It was hard to find a coat that she could keep on in the car.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

It sounds like you've got a great handle on what you need to do to keep your daughter safe. Good luck!


----------



## kirstenb (Oct 4, 2007)

I would wait and see personally before buying something... DS is 29 months and has been holding steady at 31 pounds for a good 6 months now. I would research but wouldn't buy anything until she is 34 pounds- she may level out and stay at 32 pounds for quite a few more months.


----------



## bobandjess99 (Aug 1, 2005)

I agree that dd might hpld her weight for quite some time...so I'd probably make sure I saved/had the money on hand for a new seat, but wouldn't rush to buy one just yet.
If the radian will work in your vehicle, it's a great bet. However, your child doesn't seem exceptionally tall, which means the nice, cheap graco myride might be a great option for you. 40 lb RF limit, with a decent, but not uber- tall shell, and cheap, $150 usually, but with coupons, could be less. I'd at least go try one out as you try out the radian.


----------



## lolar2 (Nov 8, 2005)

I love how the myride came out pretty much the same day DS hit 41 pounds!


----------



## butterfly_mommy (Oct 22, 2007)

I have a 21 month old who is 32 pounds fully dressed RF in a True Fit. I will be buying him a Radian XT when he out grows the TF and have asked my family to contribute to the seat purchase instead of gifts for Christmas and his birthday. I am guesstimating him to hit 35 by Feb.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
I would absolutely not turn a 1 year old forward facing

At 21 months old she's 3 months shy of two. Hardly a 1 year old.


----------



## StoriesInTheSoil (May 8, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
At 21 months old she's 3 months shy of two. Hardly a 1 year old.









Uh... that doesn't make any sense. You are an age for a year so if a child is not yet 2, they are still 1. Would you say that a child that was 3 months from their 16th birthday should just be able to get their license because they are hardly a 15 year old?

Besides, if she's not one and not two, what the heck IS she?


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tinyactsofcharity* 
Uh... that doesn't make any sense. You are an age for a year so if a child is not yet 2, they are still 1. Would you say that a child that was 3 months from their 16th birthday should just be able to get their license because they are hardly a 15 year old?

Besides, if she's not one and not two, what the heck IS she?

There is MUCH bigger difference between a 21 month old and a 12 month old, than there is a 15 year old who's 3 months away from 16 and a 16 year old.

Calling the original poster's child a 1 year old when she is almost 2 is for dramatic effect, because it sounds way more neglectful when it's a 1 year old forward facing instead of a 2 year old.

Not that I disagree with the fact that an ALMOST TWO YEAR OLD should still be rear facing, even at 31 pounds, but I'm not going to regress her age to make her _sound_ younger for dramatic effect. She is what she is - almost 2.


----------



## petra_william (Nov 28, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
There is MUCH bigger difference between a 21 month old and a 12 month old, than there is a 15 year old who's 3 months away from 16 and a 16 year old.

Calling the original poster's child a 1 year old when she is almost 2 is for dramatic effect, because it sounds way more neglectful when it's a 1 year old forward facing instead of a 2 year old.

Not that I disagree with the fact that an ALMOST TWO YEAR OLD should still be rear facing, even at 31 pounds, but I'm not going to regress her age to make her _sound_ younger for dramatic effect. She is what she is - almost 2.


id say she is what she is.... she is 1.

recommendations are to keep kids rf till they are at LEAST *2 and 30 lbs* is that not so?


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
At 21 months old she's 3 months shy of two. Hardly a 1 year old.









I'm sure you didn't mean to be sarcastic. It must have been an accident.

A 21 month old is 1 year old. A child under two does not belong in a forward facing seat. There is no wiggle room there.

As the matter of fact, a child over two should continue to be in a rear facing convertible, as well, but those first 24 months are without a doubt the most crucial.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *petra_william* 
id say she is what she is.... she is 1.

recommendations are to keep kids rf till they are at LEAST *2 and 30 lbs* is that not so?

No, the recommendation is to keep the child rear facing in a convertible for as long as she/he fits, with the recent testing showing that a child under 24 months in a forward facing seat is FIVE HUNDRED PER CENT more likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury, AND with the knowledge since the 60s that children are best served in rear facing convertibles until around the fourth birthday.

The study showing 500% safety increased was not conducted on children over 2, as the real life data just isn't there yet. There is no reason to think that the numbers go from 500 to 0 at 24 months.

It's only been in the last six months that the US has produced multiple convertibles capable of getting most kids to the fourth birthday.

In spirt, though, you were right







There is never a scenario where a forward facing 1 year old is ok.


----------



## Selesai (Oct 26, 2005)

I agree with North of 60.

And yes, I know most people on this board will tell me to put my daughter RF but I'm not concerned about it, and I don't think that it is as completely unsafe as is insinuated.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
There is MUCH bigger difference between a 21 month old and a 12 month old, than there is a 15 year old who's 3 months away from 16 and a 16 year old.

Calling the original poster's child a 1 year old when she is almost 2 is for dramatic effect, because it sounds way more neglectful when it's a 1 year old forward facing instead of a 2 year old.

Not that I disagree with the fact that an ALMOST TWO YEAR OLD should still be rear facing, even at 31 pounds, but I'm not going to regress her age to make her _sound_ younger for dramatic effect. She is what she is - almost 2.

I think your angst is misplaced.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Selesai* 
I agree with North of 60.

And yes, I know most people on this board will tell me to put my daughter RF but I'm not concerned about it, and I don't think that it is as completely unsafe as is insinuated.


You would be wrong. It's not insinuated. It's researched, confirmable, verifiable fact. You can choose to put your child at risk, but it doesn't mean she is not dangerously, possibly lethally at risk, just because you wish it were so.


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

I believe that the current AAP suggestion is rf until AT LEAST 2yrs old. AND to the limits of their seat...

but I could be remembering wrong.

-Angela


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

No, that is not the current AAP recommendation. The recommendation in full, since 2002 has been

1. A bare minimum of 1 year and 20 pounds (reflective of the fact that child restraints really didn't go beyond that)
2. After one and 20, to the limit of the convertible
3. Child restraint manufacturers need to develop seats that will keep all children rear facing to the fourth birthday

In February of this year, they published a newsletter encouraging pediatricians to tell their parents that the old rule of 1 and 20 was outdated, and that 2 years was a better safety goal. They have not revised the official recommendation above, but they are currently evaluating changing the language.


----------



## traceface (Feb 17, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MariesMama* 
How much more height does the Radian have than the Marathon anyway.

Don't know the exact numbers but the Radian does have significantly more height. My six year old (tall) can still fit in the Radian, height-wise (forward-facing, of course)

I think you'd get years more with a Radian and could just turn it around when the time comes.


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
I'm sure you didn't mean to be sarcastic. It must have been an accident.

Completely. My bad!

Quote:

A 21 month old is 1 year old. A child under two does not belong in a forward facing seat. There is no wiggle room there.
I don't disagree, but at this age there is such a big difference between 1 years old (aka, 12 months) and 21 months, that I look at a 21 month old as almost 2 and not like a "1 year old".

If this were not a conversation about car seat safety and we were talking about shoe sizes and lunch ideas, would we still be arguing over the semantics of whether or not a 21 month old is "almost two" or "a 1 year old"? I don't think anyone would have any problem calling a 21 month old almost two in the context of shoes sizes and lunch ideas. Just saying.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
I think your angst is misplaced.









Ironic...


----------



## lonegirl (Oct 31, 2008)

North_Of_60 said:


> I don't disagree, but at this age there is such a big difference between 1 years old (aka, 12 months) and 21 months, that I look at a 21 month old as almost 2 and not like a "1 year old".
> 
> If this were not a conversation about car seat safety and we were talking about shoe sizes and lunch ideas, would we still be arguing over the semantics of whether or not a 21 month old is "almost two" or "a 1 year old"? I don't think anyone would have any problem calling a 21 month old almost two in the context of shoes sizes and lunch ideas. Just saying.
> 
> ...


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *North_Of_60* 
Completely. My bad!

I don't disagree, but at this age there is such a big difference between 1 years old (aka, 12 months) and 21 months, that I look at a 21 month old as almost 2 and not like a "1 year old".

If this were not a conversation about car seat safety and we were talking about shoe sizes and lunch ideas, would we still be arguing over the semantics of whether or not a 21 month old is "almost two" or "a 1 year old"? I don't think anyone would have any problem calling a 21 month old almost two in the context of shoes sizes and lunch ideas. Just saying.
















Ironic...

Ok, let me rephrase. You're incorrectly attributing shaming intentions to me. I did not say, "one year old" to shame anyone. I said one year old because the child is a one year old. We're not talking about shoe sizes. We're talking about child restraints.

I'm interested in presenting factual material. Factual material doesn't change based on parental convenience or perception.

It really doesn't matter if the child is 'just one' or 'almost two' in terms of child restraint safety, because the child still needs to be rear facing.

If I'm talking about behavioral development, I'll frequently specify 'what kind' of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 year old my child is...because it's relevant there. It's not relevant here.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

lonegirl said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *North_Of_60*
> ...


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
Ok, let me rephrase. You're incorrectly attributing shaming intentions to me.

It sure read that way. It seems that if you call an almost 2 year old a 1 year old it sounds far more negligent for her to be forward facing than if she were actually 2 (which she will be three months).

If facts and literal interpretations are so important, I would call her what she is - 21 months old. Sure, she's technically "one year old", but we all know at that age there is is a huge difference between 12 months and 21 months.

A one year old riding forward facing sounds so much "worse" than a two year old riding forward facing, and whether or not you meant to sound shameful by making that distinction in an attempt to play the "you're a bad mother" card to keep that child rear facing, you did.









The child is 21 months old. Should she be rearfacing since she is under 2? Yes. No need for generalizations, but if you're going to make them, make them according to her age (and she IS closer to 2 than 1), not according what suits your purpose.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Really, I promise, you're making assumptions about my feelings here









To me, a one year old does not sound 'worse' than a two year old, because they should both be rear facing.

It's not even an argument I can wrap my head around, because I wouldn't ever forward face a child of either of those ages


----------



## lonegirl (Oct 31, 2008)

Maedze said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *lonegirl*
> ...


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

lonegirl said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Maedze*
> ...


----------



## North_Of_60 (May 30, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
It's not even an argument I can wrap my head around, because I wouldn't ever forward face a child of either of those ages









Well, if you're going to round an age out, round it to the CLOSEST age, not to which one sounds more convincing was all I'm saying. But since that wasn't your angle, I'm sure you'll agree 21 months is much more _accurate_, and closer to two, than "one year old". You know, since you're into presenting factual material and all.


----------



## Maedze (Dec 16, 2008)

Well, I feel like we're not on the same page. I said one...because I said one. I didn't round it out. The child is one. One plus how many months is not relevant to the discussion in any way, shape or form. There was no ulterior motive.

I'm not sure I understand why you're angry. If there's a technical point that I need to clarify, please let me know. Otherwise....???


----------



## Latte Mama (Aug 25, 2009)

lonegirl said:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Maedze*
> ...


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Maedze* 
No, that is not the current AAP recommendation. The recommendation in full, since 2002 has been

1. A bare minimum of 1 year and 20 pounds (reflective of the fact that child restraints really didn't go beyond that)
2. After one and 20, to the limit of the convertible
3. Child restraint manufacturers need to develop seats that will keep all children rear facing to the fourth birthday

In February of this year, they published a newsletter encouraging pediatricians to tell their parents that the old rule of 1 and 20 was outdated, and that 2 years was a better safety goal. They have not revised the official recommendation above, but they are currently evaluating changing the language.

Thanks for the clarification!

-Angela


----------



## Smithie (Dec 4, 2003)

*"Your 'happiness' with your decision does not negate the fact that it was also a poor decision, an inadvisable decision and potentially a deadly decision."*

I'm pretty sure that for some people, you could say all those same things about their decision to drive their kids around in a car AT ALL. The lady who crossed the center line going around a curve and almost hit me yesterday, for instance.

I'm glad the, um, "word on the street" is changing to "turn 'em at two!" rather than "turn 'em at one!" I'm so, so grateful for the new seats with higher RFing weight limits. But ERFing until 4 is not going to be a universal practice in America anytime soon. Parents will make the decision based on the existing safety data PLUS the experience their child is having PLUS their happiness with the quality of the RFing install in their car PLUS the ability (or lack thereof) to buy a new car PLUS the needs of any younger children who may have come along. A person who can do the RF/FF/RF "puzzle" pattern in the back of her small sedan is going to flip kid #1 when kid #3 is born.

Safety decisions have a lot of components. I wish the emphasis was more on installing/using seats and boosters correctly, rather than on extended harnessing or extended RFing or whatever the next "must-do" thing turns out to be. I seriously wonder how many parents are driving around my town with a RFing Britax they think is soooooo safe that is going to pitch their kid through the side window because it's not installed correctly.


----------



## MommaSuzi (Jan 9, 2006)

Less than 3 years ago I had 2 different pediatricians argue with me strenuously on this topic. The first insisted that I needed to turn my 19.5 pound 12 month old around to front facing. Then 3 months later a different pediatrician had the same argument with me about my then 20 pound 15 month old. Both insisted that I was endangering my child by having them rear facing at that age. Obviously, these pediatricians were wrong (and I faxed them a copy of the AAP recommendations highlighting the part about keeping kids rear facing as long as they fit and didn't exceed the weight limits of their car). My point is simply that "prevailing wisdom" has shifted over the course of a few years. I don't thing it's necessary to vilify people for following recommendations they may have been given by their pediatrician, or others, with the best of intentions. For goodness sake at least the kid is in a car seat! Any idea how many are not at almost 2??? Many.


----------



## goodheartedmama (Feb 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommaSuzi* 
Less than 3 years ago I had 2 different pediatricians argue with me strenuously on this topic. The first insisted that I needed to turn my 19.5 pound 12 month old around to front facing. Then 3 months later a different pediatrician had the same argument with me about my then 20 pound 15 month old. Both insisted that I was endangering my child by having them rear facing at that age. Obviously, these pediatricians were wrong (and I faxed them a copy of the AAP recommendations highlighting the part about keeping kids rear facing as long as they fit and didn't exceed the weight limits of their car). My point is simply that "prevailing wisdom" has shifted over the course of a few years. *I don't thing it's necessary to vilify people for following recommendations they may have been given by their pediatrician, or others, with the best of intentions. For goodness sake at least the kid is in a car seat! Any idea how many are not at almost 2??? Many.*

I have mixed feelings over this. Yeah, it's awful that pediatricians are telling parents that they're fine FF at 1. Or even that it's dangerous to RF once their legs touch the back of the seat. But at the same time, as a parent, I have the responsibility to inform myself on all kinds of things. That includes keeping them as safe as possible in the car. I didn't do that at first. When my son was 1 and outgrew his 30 lb rear facing carseat, I turned him FF. I didn't know about ERF. By the time I knew, he was too large to RF in any seat they had at the time. I accept responsibility for that, though, and certainly don't go "well, at least he was in a carseat." The fact that some parents are too ignorant of basic carseat safety doesn't mean that every parent still shouldn't try to do what's best for their child. And it certainly doesn't mean that people shouldn't try to educate people on being as safe as possible.


----------



## lonegirl (Oct 31, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Smithie* 
*"Your 'happiness' with your decision does not negate the fact that it was also a poor decision, an inadvisable decision and potentially a deadly decision."*

I'm pretty sure that for some people, you could say all those same things about their decision to drive their kids around in a car AT ALL. The lady who crossed the center line going around a curve and almost hit me yesterday, for instance.

I'm glad the, um, "word on the street" is changing to "turn 'em at two!" rather than "turn 'em at one!" I'm so, so grateful for the new seats with higher RFing weight limits. But ERFing until 4 is not going to be a universal practice in America anytime soon. Parents will make the decision based on the existing safety data PLUS the experience their child is having PLUS their happiness with the quality of the RFing install in their car PLUS the ability (or lack thereof) to buy a new car PLUS the needs of any younger children who may have come along. A person who can do the RF/FF/RF "puzzle" pattern in the back of her small sedan is going to flip kid #1 when kid #3 is born.

Safety decisions have a lot of components. I wish the emphasis was more on installing/using seats and boosters correctly, rather than on extended harnessing or extended RFing or whatever the next "must-do" thing turns out to be. I seriously wonder how many parents are driving around my town with a RFing Britax they think is soooooo safe that is going to pitch their kid through the side window because it's not installed correctly.

Thank you! Well said


----------



## Ducky5306 (Jul 2, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MariesMama* 
I have a Marathon for DD that she is getting close to outgrowing RF! Really, what would you techs do in this situation? I was thinking about a Radian to keep her RF, but really??? How much more height does the Radian have than the Marathon anyway. DD is 35" tall, not sure about her torso but she's fairly proportionate.

Blahhhhhh after my whole Roundabout (original RA) fiasco I'm so not thrilled. And jealous of my friends with teeny tiny little kids.

Any advice at all would be great.

my ds was 33 lbs at 17 months







I had to turn him FF (he had a 33 lb RA) At the time I couldn't spend the money for 2 extra lbs but I wish I would have because he is now 3.5 and only weighs 36 pounds! They slow way down then they get close to 2 (Most kids anyway) If its doable i'd wait it out and weigh often or if you have the money i'd just get a 40lb RF seat (or the 45lb Radian) that wasn't an option when my son was 17 months old (2007)


----------

