How long did you rear face your child's carseat?

[Bren's Mom]

There are tons of affordable options! Practically any seat aside from the Graco Comfortsport is going to rear face higher than 30 pounds. Most rear face to 35 or 40 pounds, and one rear faces to 45 pounds. If you like Graco, check out the Graco My Ride 65. Evenflo makes a few as well: the Triumph Advance, Momentum 65, Triumph 65, Symphony 65. Safety1st makes the Complete Air. There is the Learning Curve True Fit, Britax convertibles, the Sunshine Kids Radian... just to name a few.

Erica has a great list there. I also wanted to mention that the Cosco Scenera, which sells for $40-50 (sometimes as low as $35 on sale) now rear-faces to 40lbs.

It does have a shorter shell than many of those listed above, but it's very affordable and can most kids to an age where they can be turned ff'ing more safely.

 

[here757]

I'm with you. Both my kids were way too long for the carseat carrier we had and went to forward facing at 1 year.

my kids were so tall.. right after a year they got turned around too. i was worried about the knees being up in the chest area.. also dangerous!

 

[jodifla]

No one can be perfect all the time, but why take it to the other extreme - to never try to do better? No, RFing doesn't work for everyone, just like BFing doesn't work for everyone. Does that mean people who choose to do it shouldn't be allowed talk about it?

Talking about it is good and fine.

Pushing for laws so the rest of us HAVE to do what we feel is not right for us becomes the problem.

 

[DisneyMomma81]

my kids were so tall.. right after a year they got turned around too. i was worried about the knees being up in the chest area.. also dangerous!

No ~ not at all

Also ~ car crash *they're not accidents* is the leading cause of death for ages 32 and under. I guess once we get to 33 it's cancer heart disease *cause "we" eat crap/smoke and other things that "get" us.

 

[Bren's Mom]

It seems there might be some confusion based on what I'm reading about kids being too long/too big for their carriers and needing to go forward facing then...

The progression for most people for car seats today would go:

Infant carrier (for convenience, use until you no longer desire to, or until outgrown by height or weight per the manufactuer's instruction), they only go rear-facing

Convertible in rear-facing position (recommended to continue until the child outgrows by height or weight per the manufacturer's instructions)

If a child outgrows this seat before the age of two it is recommended, if possible, to purchase a convertible with a taller shell/higher rear-facing weight limit to continue to rear-face for optimum safety.

Convertible in forward-facing position (recommended to continue until the child outgrowns by height or weight per the manufactuer's instructions)

If child outgrows before age 5-6, it is recommended, if possible, to get a seat (a forward facing only seat is fine for this purpose) that will harness to a higher weight before putting in a booster for optimum safety.

Booster seat (recommended until 4'9" tall at a minimum AND passes the 5 step test)

You can, if you choose, skip the infant carrier altogether. It's definitely NOT a requirement, it is only a convenience. You may use a convertible seat rated from 5lbs in the rear-facing position from the day you take baby home from the hospital. Although many larger convertibles don't fit small babies very well at first, but it is certainly allowed.

This is why CPSTs stress making smart purchases for car seats, because you want to get the best value for your money and be sure the seat(s) you purchase will last for as long as you need them.

 

[mrsr2ro]

No one can be perfect all the time, but why take it to the other extreme - to never try to do better? No, RFing doesn't work for everyone, just like BFing doesn't work for everyone. Does that mean people who choose to do it shouldn't be allowed talk about it?

I'm not saying don't talk about it. I just think that parents (and I admit I am guilty of this too) put so much emotional investment into raising their children, that when others say "but why wouldn't you if the option is there" or "I just cannot understand why anyone wouldn't want to do what's best for their child", or "Why wouldn't you try to do better, try harder, spend more, etc", people get very defensive/upset. Then any useful info being shared gets pushed to the side.

I know I get highly sensitive to comments for other parenting topics and I've probably stuck my foot in my mouth on others (before I had kids I said I would NEVER do many of the things I do now). I just think it would be nice to find away to discuss them without coming off judgemental OR defensive

 

[robinb]

No one can be perfect all the time, but why take it to the other extreme - to never try to do better? No, RFing doesn't work for everyone, just like BFing doesn't work for everyone. Does that mean people who choose to do it shouldn't be allowed talk about it?

No, of course not. However it can be done without smug, holier than thou & superior comments like "My child's safety is worth more than fill-in-the-blank" and "Better a broken leg than broken neck" . Just as the subtext of "breast is best!" is often "moms who bottle feed don't love their babies as much as bf'ing moms do!" to those formula feeding moms, many of the arguments here in support of rear facing car seats have negative subtexts for those who choose to turn their kids around earlier.

 

[waltskids]

Thanks for all of the great advice everyone! I know these types of subjects always stir up strong emotions in people and I do think parents have the right to do what's best for their own family. My family's choice is to extend rear facing for our daughter, which I know is not for everyone. I am going to look into a seat that will rear face a little longer but priced right

I do however have a concern about her legs as she gets taller. Do they just cross their legs? My DH keeps asking how it may be uncomfortable for her and I am wondering that too.

 

[SassyLassy]

No, of course not. However it can be done without smug, holier than thou & superior comments like "My child's safety is worth more than fill-in-the-blank" and "Better a broken leg than broken neck" . Just as the subtext of "breast is best!" is often "moms who bottle feed don't love their babies as much as bf'ing moms do!" to those formula feeding moms, many of the arguments here in support of rear facing car seats have negative subtexts for those who choose to turn their kids around earlier.

Take it however you like but this wasn't meant to be snooty but this is fact for me. The difference in a child's spine strength between 1 to 2 years is HUGE so if we did get in an accident and they were FF and that affected their spine I couldn't forgive myself since they could be RF'ing at that time. So as stated, I rather have a broken leg over a broken neck!

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I think I am simply going to drive in reverse from now on.

 

[Ariel on Land]

Haven't read any of the PPs except the OP-- so I apologize if I'm missing out on any big drama controversies!

But I rear faced as long as the seat allowed. My twins were over 3.5 years old when they finally reached the weight limit of 33 lbs and that's when we forward faced them. They had no issues whatsoever rear facing, they were comfortable, and in fact, they could reach their toys easier if they dropped them, so honestly, I think they'd rather RF than FF! No worries that their legs were too long, they're tall for their age and had no issues. Just sat cross legged or let their legs hang over the sides. No biggie. Also, if I didn't have twins and would have to drop over $500 dollars for new seats, I'd have bought them new seats in order to RF them to 45 lbs like the new ones can now do! We're now pregnant w/ #3 and will be rear facing him/her until the weight limit as well!

 

[Derby]

No, of course not. However it can be done without smug, holier than thou & superior comments like "My child's safety is worth more than fill-in-the-blank" and "Better a broken leg than broken neck" . Just as the subtext of "breast is best!" is often "moms who bottle feed don't love their babies as much as bf'ing moms do!" to those formula feeding moms, many of the arguments here in support of rear facing car seats have negative subtexts for those who choose to turn their kids around earlier.

Just because you're taking those comments that way doesn't mean they're intended that way. I get annoyed at these discussions because the people who didn't do x, y, or z always feel the need to jump in and defend themselves.. when no one was asking them or attacking them in the first place.

 

[Derby]

Take it however you like but this wasn't meant to be snooty but this is fact for me. The difference in a child's spine strength between 1 to 2 years is HUGE so if we did get in an accident and they were FF and that affected their spine I couldn't forgive myself since they could be RF'ing at that time. So as stated, I rather have a broken leg over a broken neck!

 

[luckylady131]

Thanks for all of the great advice everyone! I know these types of subjects always stir up strong emotions in people and I do think parents have the right to do what's best for their own family. My family's choice is to extend rear facing for our daughter, which I know is not for everyone. I am going to look into a seat that will rear face a little longer but priced right

I do however have a concern about her legs as she gets taller. Do they just cross their legs? My DH keeps asking how it may be uncomfortable for her and I am wondering that too.

They just cross their legs, or hang them over the side of the seat.

 

[robinb]

Take it however you like but this wasn't meant to be snooty but this is fact for me. The difference in a child's spine strength between 1 to 2 years is HUGE so if we did get in an accident and they were FF and that affected their spine I couldn't forgive myself since they could be RF'ing at that time. So as stated, I rather have a broken leg over a broken neck!

If you had explained your reasoning in your first post on the subject, then maybe you wouldn't have sounded so "snooty" and smug .

 

[princessmom29]

They just cross their legs, or hang them over the side of the seat.

I have always been bothered by this and wondered about why, if you are intended to leave your child reafacing for extended time, are the seats not desigend to accomodate their legs. These seats are not designed for legs to dangle over the sides, or be crossed in front. It compormises the safety of the seat. It is obviously a less than ideal situation. Why is there no accomodation made for it?

 

[kirstenb1]

We have 2 dd's aged 12 and 5. Our older dd we turned her around front facing when she hit 20 lbs, probably 18 mths or so.

DH had read about safety issues by the time our younger dd was born. So she was about 2 1/2 when we turned her seat to front facing. She has some muscle weakness and gross motor delays, so dh was adamant about her rear facing

 

[justhat]

I have always been bothered by this and wondered about why, if you are intended to leave your child reafacing for extended time, are the seats not desigend to accomodate their legs. These seats are not designed for legs to dangle over the sides, or be crossed in front. It compormises the safety of the seat. It is obviously a less than ideal situation. Why is there no accomodation made for it?

How exactly would you make such an accomodation?

Secondly, how on earth does a child sitting criss cross compromise the safety of the seat? My almost 7yo often sits that way in her carseat (Britax Frontier that is currently used with the harness), so how is it any different than if my almost 1yo is crossing her legs in her infant carrier? That doesn't make any sense.

Same with dangling the legs over the side. My 4yo dangles 1 leg over the side of his FF carseat all the time. How does that compromise the safety of the seat in any way?

 

[tlbwriter]

I have always been bothered by this and wondered about why, if you are intended to leave your child reafacing for extended time, are the seats not desigend to accomodate their legs. These seats are not designed for legs to dangle over the sides, or be crossed in front. It compormises the safety of the seat. It is obviously a less than ideal situation. Why is there no accomodation made for it?

The only accommodation that could be made would be to make the seat longer to allow for the legs, but that would make it difficult or impossible for anyone to sit in the front seat. And like a previous poster, I'm confused as to how a child crossing/dangling their legs compromises the safety of the seat. There are no documented cases of children suffering from broken legs because their legs were crossed or dangling over the side. What safety issue are you concerned about?

 

[princessmom29]

How exactly would you make such an accomodation?

Secondly, how on earth does a child sitting criss cross compromise the safety of the seat? My almost 7yo often sits that way in her carseat (Britax Frontier that is currently used with the harness), so how is it any different than if my almost 1yo is crossing her legs in her infant carrier? That doesn't make any sense.

Same with dangling the legs over the side. My 4yo dangles 1 leg over the side of his FF carseat all the time. How does that compromise the safety of the seat in any way?

I don't allow DD to cross her legs in her booster or dangle over the side. It is much easier to break a leg in the crossed position than sitting correctly in the seat. Same with dangling over the sides, it is much easier to break a leg that way, or dislocate a hip in an accident. I just wish that there was some way to protect their little legs in a crah, and I think with enough engineering it could be done. An increased recline on the seat coupled with sloped legrest is one idea that comes to mind. I don't get why, if they are going to recommend extended rearfacing, more carseat compines don't put some research dollars into it.