Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Do you think rushing a child to toilet train can make the whole process take longer and be more stressful?

39 replies

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 11:32

I know a few parents who have been determined that their child should be dry by age 2, they started trying at about 22 months (maybe later) but when the child clearly wasn't ready.
Six months on they are still going and have made little progress, I think it's because when they started the little one had no chance but was just changed every time they had an accident and encouraged to use the potty, I think this must only stress the child and when it comes to the age they might be ready there is no place to start from and they just carry on as before.

I'm not saying that my children were the average difficulty to potty train but I started when they showed an interest in the potty, a dislike of the nappy and could hold it for a bit (about 2 1/4 to 2 1/2) and it was done within a week.

Would anyone like to say how they did it and how well it went?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

SoupDragon · 30/12/2008 11:35

Personally I believe that a child will be reliably dry (ie takes themselves to the toilet and no accidents) at the same age no matter whether you begin training at 12 months or 24.

When mine were ready they trained in 1 week (DS1), 2 weeks (DS2) and 3 days (DD). All between 2.6 and 3.

MrsMattie · 30/12/2008 11:41

Totally agree with SoupDragon.

My son wasn't ready until not long before his third birthday, but was completely accident free and dry at night within about 10 days.

I know plenty of parents who have started 'training' really early, and the process just went on and on for months because the child wasn't ready. What's the point?

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 11:41

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with training them young, only if they're not ready.

If a child is ready at 18 months go for it, and lucky you.

As you show if you wait until the child is ready it happens very quickly

OP posts:

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting

Colbeck · 30/12/2008 11:43

Yes.

Mind were both nearly 3 and took a few days (for dry days DS2 was longer for nigts)

Don't rush them, there is no advantage. Nappies are so much easier.
I guess there is only a cost advantage possible.

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 11:43

Is there anyone here who has had the potty training going on for months because their child wasn't ready?

In hindsight would you have waited?

OP posts:

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 11:45

Well I used terries which I think help them realise when they were wet, but the cost wasn't much of an issue.

Whether they were 2 or 3 it would only have cost me in washing not nappies.

Anyway I don't think a parent should put their child through stressful toilet training just for cost incentives.

OP posts:

smugmumofboys · 30/12/2008 11:47

I agree. Both mine were left until almost three and were dry by day after a week and by night a couple of weeks later.

As someone once said to me. A two year old who is 'toilet-trained' and wets themselves every day isn't toliet trained at all: they're just a toddler in pants.

Unfortunately, it's yet another area in which competitive mothers feel the need to compete. I could tell you all about my friend's antics but won't...

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 30/12/2008 11:47

yes I do.

I did "rush" DS1 into toilet training (day time - he's still wet at night now at 8yrs old) just before his 3rd birthday as I was expecting DS2 about 2 months afterwards and didn't think I could cope with toilet training and a new baby.

DS2 trained at his own speed (very quickly) at a simlilar age, was dry at night (of his own accord) about 1 1/2yrs after that.

Sawyer64 · 30/12/2008 11:50

I bowed to pressure from peers and my mum, when DS was 2. he hadn't shown any signs of being ready. I started off well,but after 3 weeks of constant wetting,and sitting for 20 mins on a potty and then standing up and weeing all over the floor I gave up,as i was getting really stressed.

I tried again when he was 2.5 and he was dry in 3 days.

DD1 was dry in 3 days when she showed signs at 2.1 yrs,and DD2 showed signs at 22 mths,but started at 2.1 mths and she was dry and clean in 3 days too.

M-i-l reckons her's were dry and clean at 12 mths

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 30/12/2008 11:51

ooops forgot to finish my post about DS1 - it was awful, took about 2 months of regular (7/8/9+ accidents a day) until he was dry. Was pretty awful for both of us.

OrmIrian · 30/12/2008 11:52

Yes. IME.

AliceTheCamelHasGotTheHump · 30/12/2008 11:54

Definitely.

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 11:56

I don't think night time dryness has much to do with it, my boys now 7 and 9 were trained in a week when they were ready but are still bed wetters.

I must admit I consider DD (5) to be potty trained even though she needs nappies outside the house. But this is because she is incontinent so having her use the toilet (very rarely having accidents) in the house is the best that she could actually hope for and she managed that.
I do loath these mothers who claim there 2 year old is potty trained but still has an accident every day (how is that potty trained!!!) or these people who say that there 5 year old is dry at night when then are lifting them in the night, left to themselves they'd still be wet.

I can understand why some people rush into training because there is a baby on the way but realistically it's going to be more stressful if you have wet pants every day and a baby.

OP posts:

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 11:58

Ah yes the MILs and your parents always telling you how early you were trained, I just Ignored mine but I think I was trained quite late anyways.

OP posts:

notwavingjustironing · 30/12/2008 11:59

I totally agree. I'm friends with someone who had a baby four weeks after me (DS2 who is now 2.6)and she has been competitive mum since they were born. She announced a couple of weeks ago that her DS was now fully trained since Tuesday (it was now Friday). Two days later she announced he was "dry every night" I was just

She then made a huge point of bringing round all his pull ups for me (who was obviously lagging behind). I think if it had been my first Ds I would have been upset - but I just laughed instead

With DS1 though I just waited till he wanted to do it, and he was nearly 3. I was dreading it, but it was actually fine!

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 30/12/2008 12:02

notwaving - that would be unusual for boys.

However when my SIL's youngest was 22 months old they went abroad for a month. While out there her DD became dry day and night in less than a week (reliably) - my SIL was to say the very least

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 12:02

Did anyone here actually use pull ups. I think they are confusing in the way that you are trying to teach the child the difference between nappies and pants and now you give the child a pull up which are pants yet it's ok to pee in them like a nappy.

OP posts:

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 30/12/2008 12:03

yes - I've used pull-ups for all 3 of mine, but not for potty training. I use them as normal nappies as it's SOOOOOO much easier to get a pull-up on a running toddler than a standard nappy - and take a little longer to learn to take off in the middle of the night in their cot

notwavingjustironing · 30/12/2008 12:05

I know FAQ I would expect girls to be quicker too - as others have said, you can't actually say they've done it if the child is still having "accidents" every day.

I am very impressed with your SIL though

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 12:05

I admit during potty training I had them bare bottom a lot of the time, even though they can hold it for a bit terries are awkward to get off in a hurry

OP posts:

goldFAQinsenceandmyrrh · 30/12/2008 12:06

yes I was rather too - she was shocked, and tbh quite embarassed as she knew that my DS1 (several years older than her youngest DD that trained herself ridiculously early) was still wet at night, and that my DS2 (only 10 weeks older than the DD in question) was still firmly in his nappies (well pull-ups) at that point LOL.

Original poster

SunshinePine · 30/12/2008 12:07

I think a lot of it can be luck DS1 just came up to me and announced he didn't like his nappy, so we took it off showed him the toilet and that was that.

OP posts:

aGalChangedHerName · 30/12/2008 12:19

Definitely!!!

I am a CM and i have had masses of parents turn up on a Monday with 2 pairs of spare pants and trews saying oh wee jonny is ready to be toilet trained at 18 months old

Yeah wee jonny who can't actually talk or indicate or have any understanding that he needs a wee FFS.

Fecking nightmare for me and wee jonny

I left mine and they pretty much did it themselves tbh. The ds's were almost 3 and were dry day and night in a week. Dd1 was 2.5 and dry day and night within 3ish weeks. Dd2 is 2.6 and not interested as yet.

scarletlilybug · 30/12/2008 12:19

See, I know plenty of people who have waited "until thir child was ready" who have had a really long, drawn-out process as a result. Particularly boys - who start potty training at 3.5 or so and are still having regular "accidents" 6 months later. This is just something I often seem to ccome across.
The average age of potty-training has increased so much over the last few decades - I'm sure it's down to the use of disposables and changed expectations, rather than any inherent change in biology or ability. JMO.

belgo · 30/12/2008 12:21

Not my experience. DD1 was potty trained in a day at age 23 months and dd2 within two weeks at age 19 months.

Flip

1 2