Car seat questions- help a confused soon to be second time mum out

[Nc4post99]

Hiya

Probably an Obvs question but DH and I have 2 hatch backs (leon and 1 series) we’re expecting our second child so got a new car seat for our eldest who’s 2. They are both iso fix so there is no room to sit in the back with the newborn when they’re born as the middle seat is pretty much taken up by both bases. Is this ok? My NCT class said someone (if 2 adult passengers) always has to travel in the back with a newborn for safety reasons. We’re going to get a new car but apparently there is some shortage of some part or other that means won’t be here until after birth probably in the new year. This is safe right? We’ll put a mirror in the back to see baby and toddler but just wanted to check that’s ok?

Also, we’re looking at a seat ateca? Can they fit 2 isofix bases and a person in the back?

WTAF. No one has to travel in the back with the baby. I knew NCT were bonkers but that’s a new one. Just limit your the recommended time which I think is 30 minute the first 4 weeks and 2 hours after that.

WTF I have never travelled in the back with a baby. Get a mirror.

Eh? I've never heard of this. I didn't even sit in the back on the way home from hospital (because I was too bloody sore). Both kids have survived.

No one has to sit in the back. What an odd thing for them to say! I choose to on some longer journeys as it's easier to entertain DD and pass things to her, but if we had two and I couldn't fit then that would be that.

Sounds bonkers to me. And I work with car seats.

If it was a requirement why does it only apply when two adults are in the car? Does the baby magically know there is only one adult and not spontaneously combust? :o

Perhaps they are concerned about oxygen saturation levels. But if so, this is a bit unfounded because you can't tell a child's oxygen saturation level just by looking at them, so sitting in the back gives you no more info than the front, and also, it's not immediately dangerous if a child's oxygen saturation levels reduce a bit anyway, which is why it's fine to have a newborn in the car seat for up to about 30 mins and an older baby up to about 2 hours.

Stick to the time limits, ensure you're using the seat correctly, don't (obviously) prop a bottle in the seat with them and you don't need to worry about watching them that closely.

I never travelled in the back with any of mine except the day I brought them home from the hospital.

I’ve never travelled in the back with DS

I think this will be if you don't have a mirror as you might not be able to see if the head slumps forward. My neighbours have 2 - they put the eldest in the front (he was 2) and one of them sat in the back with the newborn.

I didn’t think much of it at the time and was like ok, cool I can’t sit in the back but now I’m like huh? That can’t be a thing? Glad to know it’s not! We’ll get a mirror and make sure to limit travel to 30 mins.

@BertieBotts I took it as when the two adults are making the trip, ie one is driving. So one adult making the trip would be the driver. But they deffo said someone if available should travel in the back with the infant due to position asphyxiation.

Anyone had an ateca? Or similar?

@Tataru

No one has to sit in the back. What an odd thing for them to say! I choose to on some longer journeys as it's easier to entertain DD and pass things to her, but if we had two and I couldn't fit then that would be that.

For clarity it wasn’t has to as if this is law more like for safety reasons you really should, hope that makes sense x

Yes, I know what they meant I just thought it was an odd justification - either you need to do something or you don't, if it's fine to leave the baby unwatched when there's only one adult (who obviously can't sit in the back!) then surely it's fine all the time.

But yes if it's for positional asphyxiation they are talking rubbish. Someone in the back can do nothing except notice if the baby's head falls onto their chest (and even this is not an emergency, it can safely wait a few minutes although it's not ideal.)

@BertieBotts

Yes, I know what they meant I just thought it was an odd justification - either you need to do something or you don't, if it's fine to leave the baby unwatched when there's only one adult (who obviously can't sit in the back!) then surely it's fine all the time.

But yes if it's for positional asphyxiation they are talking rubbish. Someone in the back can do nothing except notice if the baby's head falls onto their chest (and even this is not an emergency, it can safely wait a few minutes although it's not ideal.)

Will just chalk it up to nct being bonkers, they deffo also told us 2 hrs in a car seat from birth, midwife led anti natal ones said 4 later (more bonkers still). In keeping with the overall nonsense about breastfeeding they taught too

2 hours from birth used to be the advice but it was changed in 2016, so they are a bit out of date.

4 hours must be to do with back issues rather than breathing.

@BertieBotts

2 hours from birth used to be the advice but it was changed in 2016, so they are a bit out of date.

4 hours must be to do with back issues rather than breathing.

🤷‍♀️ Don’t know, they just cited safety and said all the shops tell you it’s 2 hrs but it’s actually 4 🤷‍♀️

But then both courses spoke about fore and hind milk so 🤷‍♀️

How would this even work for single mothers? They could never drive their child anywhere for months. I sat in the back with DD1 on the way home from the hospital, with DD2 is sat in the front.

The lullaby trust recommends no more than 2 hours so I’ve always gone with that. I did see somewhere on one NHS trust leaflet no more than 30 minutes in the first 4 weeks, for some people the distance from the hospital to home is longer than that.