Booster seat until age 8 only or older? A little long...

[bopper]

Since this is a budget board, I would say you should not have replaced it. She probably doesn't even see/look at the chair anymore. She knows no different and if she wasn't complaining and it was still safe, it does not need to be replaced.

 

[Bibbidi]

Since this is a budget board, I would say you should not have replaced it. She probably doesn't even see/look at the chair anymore. She knows no different and if she wasn't complaining and it was still safe, it does not need to be replaced.

Well, I have to disagree, because even though this is a budget board, it doesn't mean that it's a no spend board. It simply (IMO) means utilizing your money wisely so as not to buy foolishly or impulsively. I don't think it was a foolish purchase because her current booster has been used for 4 years. The seat padding is not very plush anymore. Is it structurally sound? Should be--but is it comfortable for long trips and clean looking? Not exactly. I will keep the old booster for a spare if we need one sometime, but I am glad to know that by replacing it I can keep my daughter safe in a new booster longer.

 

[LIBLULA]

My DD8 is still in her booster seat. She's 52 inches tall and about 51 lbs. Her doctor wants her in one until she's 58 inches tall.

 

[matosfam]

I totally agree about the need for a booster (often even beyond age 8/state requirements). The APA recommendation is until they are 4'9", BUT, it is possibly even more important to be sure that your child's seatbelt is positioned correctly. If the shoulder restraint falls anywhere near the neck an individual (of any age) and they are involved in a crash the likelihood is that there may be severe injuries. My friend and neighbor is an EMT specialist at a hospital and is constantly being called for consult on varied neck injuries resulting for improperly placed shoulder restraints. She recommends that shoulder restraints absolutely be used whenever possible because abdominal injuries from lap-only restraint can also be severe, but stresses that the shoulder restraints must be laying safely across the shoulder and not near the neck.
Many vehicles have a sliding adjuster to lower the top of the shoulder restraint, but if yours doesn't (mine doesn't) you can find inexpensive adapters to create a better fit. We have this one (below). It is washable, portable and inexpensive. When our daughter grows tall enough to be out of her booster this will still be a great asset for her safety so we think it is a great bargain! (JMHO)
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2328535

Blessings.

 

[KadysMom]

Every step up in seats (From rear-facing, to foward, to booster) is a step DOWN in safety. Research is even showing now that you should keep your infant rear-facing as long as possible. The law here is 1 yr/20lbs...but my new baby will stay rear-facing much longer than that.

That is not entirely true. My DD was 12 pounds at a year and only 18 pounds at 2. So she was rear facing at 18months. Her pedi almost died when he found out because he said if anything happened, she could have serious hip damage. Her legs were way too long for rear facing even though her weight was not. So I think that they should stay rear until it is no longer safe

 

[gasperdam]

As far as the booster seat issue: my DS8 is still in one and he is BIG he's tall and almost 90lbs., BUT he's still in it because he's 2 inches shy of the 4'9"
requirement. And he's not too happy about it either, but I say "oh well"!

That is not entirely true. My DD was 12 pounds at a year and only 18 pounds at 2. So she was rear facing at 18months. Her pedi almost died when he found out because he said if anything happened, she could have serious hip damage. Her legs were way too long for rear facing even though her weight was not. So I think that they should stay rear until it is no longer safe

I'm not really in agreement on this one. The research I have done online indicated that it was still safer for kids to remain rear facing EVEN IF there legs were touching the seat because of their immature neck muscles. What has scared me into keeping my youngest DS rear facing until age 2 was when I read stories of children becoming internally decapited in a crash because their neck was not strong enough to support the weght of their head.

 

[Bren's Mom]

That is not entirely true. My DD was 12 pounds at a year and only 18 pounds at 2. So she was rear facing at 18months. Her pedi almost died when he found out because he said if anything happened, she could have serious hip damage. Her legs were way too long for rear facing even though her weight was not. So I think that they should stay rear until it is no longer safe

This is false. Your pediatrician clearly doesn't read the recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics. They state to rear-face until your child has outgrown the seat rear-facing by either weight (generally 30-35lbs depending on the seat) or height. If your child was 18lbs at 2 years old your pediatrician should have commended you for continuing to rear-face (in CT an 18lb infant is REQUIRED BY LAW to rear-face regardless of age).

Of course, we don't want our child to suffer any injury. But a foot, leg, hip injury can be fixed. Most broken necks cannot. It's their neck/spine that you should worry about.

Here is a link to the AAPs most recent car seat guide:
http://www.aap.org/family/carseatguide.htm

It might be good to bring it to your pediatrician at your next visit so he is aware. They have been recommending extended rear-facing since 2002. They also reiterated this information in their March 2008 publication.

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/6/398

Injury prevention magazine also published a recent study the results of which were:

Children between the ages of 1 and 2 are significantly more likely to be seriously injured if forward facing than they are if they are rear-facing in ALL types of crash (frontal, rear end and side impact).

Anyway, back on topic. To OP...part of being safest in the car is using any/all seats and boosters properly and at all times. So if your dd is more comfortable and happier in the new Compass and therefore rides in it more safely then the expense is definitely justifiable. Good for you!

 

[kathi29]

That is not entirely true. My DD was 12 pounds at a year and only 18 pounds at 2. So she was rear facing at 18months. Her pedi almost died when he found out because he said if anything happened, she could have serious hip damage. Her legs were way too long for rear facing even though her weight was not. So I think that they should stay rear until it is no longer safe

That is so completely false, and the reason a lot of people turn their kids around before they should. There are NO documented serious injuries or deaths from a child being rear facing. There is no damage caused by a child sitting criss-cross if they have long legs. Other countries RF their kids to age 4 or 5! Besides, given the choice, would you rather your child have a broken neck than a broken leg?

 

[KadysMom]

Well her legs were so long we had to turn her. Her neck was stronger than a 20lb one year old. She was just moved to a full back booster because she has been in the middle of the back seat in her 5 point harness since we moved her from rear facing at 2. She will be 7.

Nothing irritates me more than dropping her off or picking her up from school and seeing the kids getting out of the cars from the front seat. These kids are 6 and 7. There is a little one her age and sits in the front with no seat belt. I was to scream at the parents!!!

 

[kathi29]

Well her legs were so long we had to turn her. Her neck was stronger than a 20lb one year old.

Who told you that? Did they try to break her neck and come to the conclusion that it was stronger? It's not all about weight. Bone structure and density comes with age and physical development. A baby's length is 25% head. That's a big head to be supported by a small body.

 

[dzorn]

Tennessee passed a law a few years ago that required a booster until age 9 or five feet tall. My grandson, who was eight at the time, and had been out of a booster, had to go back into one. He wasn't happy, but he wasn't given a choice by his parents.

Michigan just passed one also.

 

[Taja]

My friend's DGD is 10 and still has to use a booster seat. I think she's pushing 55 lbs. now--she's tiny for her age. Not skinny, very well proportioned for her height, just much smaller than the other children her age at school. She's about the size of most of the 7-year-olds. *sigh*

 

[mombare]

Wow - Minnesota's law is still 4 yrs/40 lbs required for a car seat. I just cringe when I see a young child sitting in the backseat in a regular belt, and it is completely LEGAL! My 5 year old is very tall (only 1 1/2 feet less than her mom), so she outgrew the 5 point harness seat we had for her. You guys do have peanuts!
We did put her in a high back booster -which we gave her for her birthday and I swear she was more excited about that than any other present!! I think any money spent on a carseat/booster is well worth the money - and if it means less of a battle to keep an older child in one, then the investment is worth it.
Before I was a parent, I worked for a mentoring program...I was always torn about the possible law change to require more years in boosters because we would mean MAJOR changes for serving younger kids. In all honesty, these kids would probably not ever get a mentor because it would be too difficult to deal with this issue. Unfortunately the kids in our program need mentors for a reason...BUT, we had not had an auto accident, so we did not suffer any consequences from kids not being in car seats. Unfortunately I can only recall one 5 year old who had a booster seat (90% of these kids live in poverty). The parents were more worried about paying for food (which is justified) and other necessities than making sure their kids had booster seats that were not required by law.

 

[tlbwriter]

That is not entirely true. My DD was 12 pounds at a year and only 18 pounds at 2. So she was rear facing at 18months. Her pedi almost died when he found out because he said if anything happened, she could have serious hip damage. Her legs were way too long for rear facing even though her weight was not. So I think that they should stay rear until it is no longer safe

Your ped is completely out of date. There is no evidence of children having leg or hip injuries caused by being rear-facing. None. I realize you believed him at the time - of course we're going to believe our pediatricians - and you thought you were doing what was best for your child. But he was absolutely wrong and it would be best if you didn't perpetuate his misinformation.

 

[tlbwriter]

Well her legs were so long we had to turn her.

You mean you chose to turn her.

Her neck was stronger than a 20lb one year old.

How was this determined? I don't know of any way to test this, other than seeing how much force it takes to break it.

 

[Bren's Mom]

An 18 mo olds neck will be stronger than a 12 mo olds, and an 18 mo olds stronger than a 12 mo olds, and so on. So her statement was factual. However, until their spine completes fusing, around 3, it is safER to remain rear-facing. As it is safER to remain rear-facing until 30-35lbs.

In any case, the poster followed her pediatrician's advice, something many of us do without question. And she kept her child harnessed for a good long time after that. She stated her child is 7 years old now, so belaboring the point isn't going to get anyone anywhere. The incorrect info the pediatrician gave her was corrected with factual posts earlier. Why keep hammering away at her?

 

[RACHELSMOM1]

I have to wonder how I or my children ever survived. When I was a kid, we all just crammed into the back seat, no belts or booster seats. My 2 grown sons, also (they are 32 and 28). That being said, my girls (ages 8 & 9) still ride in their boosters, even though legally, just the seatbelt is required.

 

[tlbwriter]

Why keep hammering away at her?

Because I think it's important to stop the flow of misinformation, and instead of saying "wow, I didn't know that," she persists in saying that she did the right thing. But I'll stop. Like you said, the misinformation has been corrected.

 

[gasperdam]

Why keep hammering away at her?

I agree with this. Like the poster said her child is now 7, and my 8 and 6 yr. old kids were also turned around right at 1. To be honest, my dh turned my dd who is almost 3 now around at 12mos. old too, so I am guilty of doing the same thing. But when my dd was 2 I discovered all of the info about keeping kids rear-facing for the longest period of time possible, and I was almost sick at what potential danger we had put our kids in. Now I guarantee my youngest ds will STAY rear-facing as long as he possibly can!

 

[HayGan]

I have to wonder how I or my children ever survived. When I was a kid, we all just crammed into the back seat, no belts or booster seats. My 2 grown sons, also (they are 32 and 28). That being said, my girls (ages 8 & 9) still ride in their boosters, even though legally, just the seatbelt is required.

Heck, I remember laying down in the back window of my dad's old Cutlass waving to truck drivers and getting them to blow their horns! OK so there was a time or two when I rolled on to my sister's heads after a quick stop but we all survived

With that said, I am a stickler for safety and I am glad that so many laws have been put into place in regards to this issue. I am in complete disbelief of the people I see ona daily basis who put their children's lives at risk by simply not buckling them up properly.