The wife and I have considered having kids in the next few years and I've been trying to forecast what that truly would cost.
What costs popped up that you didn't expect but actually cost a small fortune.
What did it cost you a fortnight to basically take care of this extra person in your middle-income family? I understand this can go really high or low, but on average.
Your experience would be a great help!
Did you even read the links at all? From the first one
"In that instance a 33-year-old woman was charged with one count of leaving a child under 12 unattended, under the law mentioned above."
AND
"You'll find it in the Queensland Criminal Code, section 364a, under the title "Leaving a child under 12 unattended":
for an unreasonable time
So if you have been walking the 1km with your kid for a year and they know the route and they are going to school and not to hang out at Northland you aren't going to prison for 3 years
Why are you asking me about specifics or to make a clarification about what is considered "an unreasonable time"? Do I look like your local police? A FACS case worker? A judge? A lawyer?
There was another article where an 11 year old girl's parents were cautioned because she had caught a bus on her own. She wasn't making trouble and didn't get into trouble. Given your attitude I can't be arsed digging it out.
I just want to chime in that I pretty much raise my 12 year old along the same lines as posted by @mskeggs. It's been doable even in the 2000s.
My son has also ridden a bike to school by himself since he was in year 4. Prior to that, we rode to school together. Now he takes the bus and has been doing that since he was 11.
It's only in the last 5 or so years that I've heard of parents being warned about their under 12 being left alone. Also take a look how much child care as gone up since the 2000s.
@syousef:
That's a shame. And yes, childcare, especially in capital cities is completely ridiculous.
Anyway, from what I read from the articles, the police can warn all they want. It is their job to watch out for everyone's safety. Even if I do get charged, I doubt a reasonable judge or tribunal will find I've done wrong. In my opinion, those regulations are there to allow for adults who are genuinely neglecting to be held responsible.
According to Family and Community Services New South Wales, there is no actual law that states at what age children can be left alone, but the law is clear about the responsibility of parents to look after their children.
Yep you're not telling me anything new. I linked to articles with detailed laws on a per state basis. In QLD there is a specific law that does state the age of 12 years.
In other states it is vague, which means if anything goes wrong with your child it's up to the local authorities to decide whether to charge you. Personally I'd rather clear cut laws than subjective vague ones.
But the world is now at the point where people will only employ a licensed builder to clean their gutters (joking, I hope!)
Actually on a 2 story house you'd probably need someone with the proper ladders etc. Remember Molly Meldrum's fall? If not compuslory (sic) now I'm sure it will be soon.
What is the relevance of Molly's fall?
He wasn't cleaning gutters in his one story home.
Or is it something to do with his fall in Thailand?
@syousef:
I didn't ask you anything,I just pointed out that it doesn't say anywhere in those links (which I did read) that it is illegal to leave your kids alone. It may be an offence depending on context. If you expect me to do my due diligence in reading your links and comprehending them perhaps you should do the same and also realise that mskeggs has pointed out that he resides in nsw, where I am sure you have noted
According to Family and Community Services New South Wales, there is no actual law that states at what age children can be left alone, but the law is clear about the responsibility of parents to look after their children.
Anyway, if you're so adamant that you are right and I'm wrong, that's fine you can have all my internet points for the day
The relevance is a few people have catastrophic falls of ladders and before you know it there is a rule that people can't be above a certain height on a ladder without training and certification.
People use to do their own plumbing and electrical.
I pointed you to a Qld law that states age 12 and you argued the wording as if YOU would get to choose what it meant if you eent before a magistrate.
If I was making it up or misinterpretting there would not be stories on parents being cautioned.
You can lead a horse to water as they say.
There is literally nothing about the advice that addresses childcare or children sports. You could deploy the advice while also deploying a range of strategies regarding childcare and organised sport.
Also, if you can't think of a sandwich that isn't peanut butter, mate…
Edit: After reading all of your comments I think you probably just shouldn't have had kids. Now that you have had kids you need to work really really really hard on your resilience because what you think is extreme difficulty is basically a doddle.
Yeah nothing to do with Molly at all. Well except for that he did something that resulted in an injury which may one day be part of what leads to a ban on working on tall ladders in your own home. But other than that, nothing. Just a name drop. Far out!
The advice is about raising children cheaply and I have demonstrated that there are pressures that make this difficult or impossible today. If you can't comprehend how those things are releated, it's not my place to replace 13 years of your education.
And just who the bloody hell do you think you are to tell me I shouldn't have had kids? Or how hard my life is for that matter? Jerk!
Second on your list is everyone goes to good public school, do you happen to live in good school catchment or did you purchase a house considering this?
I'm in two minds now with my eldest starting prep next year. Either we move three suburbs away to get in the good school catchment (50% more expensive house) or pay the private school fee….
We live in a school catchment that is a bit mixed. The high school gets about average results, it has a fair number of indigenous kids that often face extra challenges in learning. It has an 'enrichment' stream that is academically focused, but also a more vocational stream aiming to get kids to complete school in a way that leads them into work.
I find that even a 'not so good' school will have good kids and teachers willing to work hard to help your kids achieve good results if their efforts are rewarded.
Both my spouse and I have volunteered for plenty of fundraising BBQs, and serve on the P&C, and go to class reading groups (not anymore that the kids are bigger) and help organise things that enrich the school.
This makes the place better for everyone, and tends to be very self-reinforcing. Others see the efforts put in and want to get involved themselves.
And it is selfishly beneficial too. I know Elise and Jenny, the principals, I know Julie and Steven and Margaret and Dani who taught my kids, and I know their kids and those kids have ridden with me to excursions or soccer gala days etc. If they have concerns about my kids, they can give me a bell, or mention it in the playground after school. If I have concerns they know where I am coming from.
The kids down at Grammar pay thousands to go there, and have some very fine facilities. But a heap of those kids are there so the strict school can straighten them up. Others are there because their parents can't spend the time looking after their kids so effectively outsource it for money. I don't think private school is a panacea by any means.
I obviously think local schools are a good option, and they will help kids grow up to be good members of society, even more so if they grow up part of the local community.
What she said !
Good way to live even without kids. People are too caught up in buying happiness instead of living it.
This x100.
I have 5 kids (I know, not very ozbargainy) - and we manage ok. Mostly we've been on a single income with my wife staying at home / uni.
Kids go to a cheaper private school (helps 1 has a academic scholarship), but we still manage to go on holidays, have a PS4, netflix etc. The older ones do have ipads (they have to for school :/ ). Kids do A sport/ activity each.
You can still live a great life with kids. Shop healthy and smart, buy a 2nd hand caravan or camper trailer and holiday around Australia.
It's all comes down to how good you are budgeting your money.
I can help you with that "IPAD/PS4" Problem , If you buy a "Nintendo New 3DS XL" + a 64gb/128gb Sd Card , you can get every game for free if you follow this guide https://3ds.guide/ I did this for my neices, all the games are made for kids and i only had to pay for the 3DS
A bit cheeky!
My kids have more screens than I am happy with, and each has saved up and bought themselves various Apple and Android devices, so the wants for ipads and PS4s isn't really a problem I'm that interested in solving.
But as I quite like old Nintendo games I do have a couple of Gameboys/DS with an R4 card doing what you suggest for older generation software.
@mskeggs: Yes the R4 card is the best way to go , then they will be able to play proper kids games ..infact i started of with a 3DS "r4" card called the SKY3DS+ .. ended up being a waste of money after i learned of that simple guide that i sent you.. lol
as for the PS4 .. thats a bad idea, The consoles are "cheap" but they end up costing tons of money because of the expensive games .. Buy a Mod chipped PS2 off of Gumtree , Those play ps1/ps2 and with the help of the mod chip you can easily burn games on cd's and Dvd's .. or just buy games of gumtree too .. I suggest Ape Escape 1,2,3 Those games made my childhood
If they are old enough, you can put a Emulator on their ipad/android etc and they can play games up to the PS1 on their phone on tablet , as long as you put the games on their for them and show them how to load a new game.
@Most Wanted:
Cheers, I understand, and thanks for the tips.
My position is I want me and my kids to spend less time on screens, so I tend to be fighting a battle to get them to be doing other things, rather than giving them more reasons to get on screens.
It's a losing battle, however.
My kids are a bit older, and are rooting and jailbreaking devices (which I am quite pleased with - I don't want kids at the mercy of what a corporation deems allowable, and I like that my 14yro emulated a gameboy on his phone to play Pokemon red as it aligns with my own feelings that reading old novels or listening to old music is a worthwhile experience and helps to get more out of modern stuff, but that is trending a bit philosophical) and spending time on social media, or looking at memes or youtube.
So to avoid pitched battles I'm trying a few ideas like reading night, board game afternoon and just stuff like lets go take some sandwiches to the park. One kid is interested in broadcasting, or at least the youtube version of, so I'm encouraging him to do co-op vodcasts with mates, and they spent a day last weekend fooling around with mates and a green screen.
It bothers me quite a bit. I actually think it is very likely we will discover that too much screen time correlates with some types of mental illness in future, but in the same way we accept too much junk food leads to poor physical health outcomes, screens will be so ingrained in our day to day we will just shrug our shoulders and say nothing can be done - the same way we just accept mechanically recovered 'meat' nuggets are on sale in the freezer at Coles. It is unquestionably bad and needs somebody to do something, but it is just so far gone we move on.
So I fight little battles to get kids off screens (and hypocritical adults, of which there are at least two in this house).
Budget about $1M each….. for 18 years…..
18 years, they're pretty much self sufficient at the toddler stage?
Eneloops……lots….
Can someone kinda explain the eneloops pun?
Is it about the Panasonic cells?
Or, a play on the words?
Can't curb the curiosity…
whilst dick smith was trading it was the source of inexpensive enelopp batteries. DSE deals for eneloops was often the benchmark for price. also eneloops are an awesome battery to have due to their Low Self Discharge rates (LSD). and ozbargainers would buy eneloops if there was a great deal even if they didn't need them because they are great. and so some people would have a reasonable supply that may last them for a decade or 2. and then it became a running joke (of sorts) that eneloops is almost a currency or at least a measure of value against some other item.
Hi =)
While you're at it, can you explain the bikie thing too please
Thanks
@Blahness: somehow it started out that bikies could be utilised to solve major problems. hired goons if you will. perhaps a throw back to the 60s and the Woodstock debacle. For a while it was jested that bikies could manage your problems - e.g. loud neighbours. Then the range of problem solving that which bikies could manage expanded to include a wider range of tasks e.g. mowing the lawn, attending parent teacher evenings, etc. and finally it, like Daryl Somers career. descended into a pitiful and sad one word response to any thing - eg. what should I get my partner for our anniversary?. I believe using "bikies" as an answer still has a legitimate place given the correct circumstances or humorous absurdity. However it is now oft thrown around with scant regard for comic effect and has degraded in to neg inducing frenzy upon its usage.
@Scrooge McDuck: Broden was a member here who claimed to have scored 10 PS3s for $199 in this deal from 2011 and that he made significant profit by on-selling them. It was later revealed that he had only bought one.
The term "Broden" is therefore used to describe someone who buys up cheap stock to then on sell it.
Though in reality Broden didn't buy up stock. he failed.
@DarwinBoy: back in 2012 there was a Harvey Norman pricing error for a tablet. it instantly picked up and posted on Ozbargain and obviously went ballistic. The deal was not honoured by HN as the discount amount ($122) had been set as the price rather than the reduced price ($600). Mr Harvey said that the massive salesw avalanche was the work of "Professionals" rather than everyday consumers.
Link to Ozbargain post about it
hence, to obtain the best possible price for something is to be "Professional" as well as an acknowledgement of skillful ozbargainary*.
ozbargainary - adjective, to obtain the best possible price through the use of discounts, vouchers, codes, pricematching, cashbacks, reduced shipping, etc
And finally, how's it going?,
@0p: reasonably well. thank you for asking.
today between breaks in telecommuting I fixed up a front loader washing machine that was not filling with water. Got it off gumtree on sunday. important lesson here people - don't use fabric softener. removing the detergent draw revealed a 2 cm thick crust of dried out fabric softner. I removed that and ran some bleach through the machine. did a few cleansing rinses and now the machine totally works. success!
Thanks altomic
Yeah. Who needs cryptocurrency when you got eneloops.
come on negs, everyone knows the standard OzB currency is ENE
Sure there is a massive financial cost - two kids about $450 a week on average - but in my opinion the rewards far outweigh the cost.
450 Dollars!?
What are they spending it all on?
450 Dollars!?
Who should I talk to about collecting my back-pay? 🤑
Thanks! Sounds about right from my rough calculations.
You don't need to buy contraceptives for a while, so it's actually a cost saving.
Every family is different, you can't really compare.
You don't need to buy contraceptives for a while, so it's actually a cost saving.
You're probably not getting action during that time and if you are, it's probably not with the new mother, so you should buy some contraceptives.
Hormones mate… They have a funny effect…
You're probably not getting action during that time and if you are, it's probably not with the new mother, so you should buy some contraceptives.
I can sell you mine for a few eneloops.
Cost you a lot of sleep for 1 year.
Just 1 year?
Haven't had kids yet so happy for the experienced ozbargainers to share their experience.
Then you shouldn't be answering.
You speak as though everyone who answers on the forum has had a kid. Let @ballsofsteel sell you his/hers for a few eneloops.
Well the question is "What Do Kids Actually Cost?". OP is trying to find the actual cost. It doesn't help if you don't have a kid or facts to back your response.
I don't have a kid either, but I also don't make up responses either to answer OP's question.
It actually cost you sleep at the initial stage so what I wrote isn't wrong. Not everything is monetary cost.
Edit: Im not putting up troll answers. It is relevant. So get your facts straight.
Cost you a lot of sleep for 1 year.
1 year!!?
Have you been to a fertility clinic!?
That depends entirely on the child. Some kids may start sleeping through the night by 6 months old.
6 months… geez my son was doing that just before 6 weeks.
He rarely woke up during the night without a good reason thereafter.
This is how it can be… but doesn't happen for so many reasons today.
Hence my new ghbours 5 & 6 year olds act like 2 year olds with tantrums. One cannot even talk yet.
How did you do that within 6 weeks?
Many apologies, but I have just learnt how to quickly find replies to my comments that I would answer if I knew thiamin long ago.
It was 30 years ago. I followed my own combination of the advice at the time. A cross between demand feeding and the phased out routine feeding.
I was getting bombarded as a new mother with conflicting advice starting in the hospital, I had read some great books but had no practical ideas in my head.
A lovely older midwife who had had her own children could tell I was in trouble. She sat and talked with me.
We decided together on a practice. She spoke with my doctor. Anyone who tried to firce other than that was told "my doctor ordered …..".
The general rule of thumb was not to feed under 3 hours unless I could not bear it any longer. I would offer boiled water in a bottle as a first attempt to settle. This worked most of the time.
I tried to establish a routine around that. Eg - a morning series of songs, opening the curtain and a cheery greeting.
At night (a bedtime) - a different routine which was quieter but involved songs, goodnight to various things in his room, closing curtains, turning off light but a nightlight.
From day 1 at home, he was lifted at night not when he stirred or made noises - but when noise was present for a minute that was actual cries. Babies make noises and move around without needing attention. Really it is true.
He was fed, nappy change etc but communication from either parent was kept quiet and NEVER play. Also only essential light. Just the exoevted basics of care but with love and comfort.
He was left as long as he slept from the bedtime routine - so it naturally got to a point of longer and longer.
Once that was in a state of happening most nights - a feed was never offered. It was only ever boiled water and nappy change if necessary - and back to his bed. Again NO PLAY etc,
Obviously if there was something requiring immediate attention it was acted on. Babies can go downhill very fast.
Waking without a good reason just feeling didn't happen.
Disclaimer: my son was monitored for weight and health by a health professional - vhecked against his growth and height chart. He was keeping in line with his position on that compared to where he started.
There are babies where this is not the case and you need to adjust.
Also babies with reflux are not going to have this happen. There are other examples too.
The go to book for practical advice of the time was still lightly regarded last I checked.
When I was working in maternity as a student nurse later, I saw the mothers whose babies had already got Mum going whatever it wanted by the time of discharge. It gets worse from there if you let it.
Of course Dad's are more in the picture now so where I have Mum should be read as including Dad. There are cases where Dad is to be read as the main caregiver.
It is a whole new worsld now. However, with a healthy baby with right weights etc, the method would still work.
Edit: I refused to use anything with plastic and only used disposable for travel. At night, there were 2 cloth nappies and a woollen over those. That meant that the moisture did not irritate him as quickly. However some babies do not like moisture at all.
I have an image I just saw on fb today - an article written this year by a family psychologist in USA.
Fits with my views on so much - and my own experience and qualifications.
I cannot get it in on my phone
Basically - wording below is his. Parents could be better put.
Kids are not the most important people in the family who deserve to be No 1 in your priority.
No 1 should be the parents & their relationship
Treating kids as No 1 leads them to a status they have done nothing to deserve. This is followed by a feeling of entitlement.
Without the parents relationship - they kids could not exist.
Furthermore, without the parent or parents income, the kids would have no food, housing, clothes etc.
He even went as far to say that parents in a relationship should be taking more time talking to each other and less time with the kids and they should be in their own bed in their ien room to ensure the telationship priorities.
The goal as a parent is to raise a child who does not feel entitled and can be of benefit towards the community and the country (rather than what seems to be the case with the millenials - generalisation - of feeling entitled).
All that is his artivle not my own words - just to be clear
NAPLES DAILY NEWS Sunday 1st january 2017. Authored John Rosemond
Website: johnrosemond.com
Definitely refers to America - so a Naples in USA
Those with access to TROVE may find it
don't forget the cost of diapers… it sure was a big cost for this family, next was daycare until they hit school.
Do they really go through that many? Crazy to think how much they cost!
Kids crap a lot and they know when they've got a fresh nappie on
Kids crap a lot
Not if you don't feed 'em. Just sayin'…
Do they really go through that many?
I don't rate diapers as a significant cost. 7 nappies * 365 * 25c/nappy = $638/year
As your baby gets older, you start to use less, so 7 nappies/day is an overestimate for a year.
Nappies go on sale all the time - you can get them as low as 10c/nappy if you stack the right discounts. Woolworths/Coles are pretty good about letting you exchange unopened boxes if you stock up on the wrong size.
All up, you're probably looking at less than $1500 in nappies, if you shop smartly, until your kid is toilet trained.
(I didn't include the cost of wipes)
exactly what I was looking for….. in budgeting terms, thanks!
If you toilet train them at 22months you should probably get away with under 1K.
The child hasn't been conceived and you've already decided when they'll be toilet trained by? If they don't follow your plan, then what? Lock 'em in a dungeon?
@syousef: All 4 children are well past the conceived stage and the youngest (two years) toilet trained a couple of months ago using the 3-day technique whilst many others her age will still be in nappies for the next year or two, with parents having to fork out and for and change nappies, she trots off to go to the toilet.
tl;dr You're not fantastic. You're lucky.
That worked for YOUR kids. Great. Good for you. It won't work for everyone.
This "It worked for me, therefore it will work for your otherwise it's your fault" fallacy is one of the most toxic and destructive barriers to empathy that exists.
Some kids are not toilet trained till much later. Others have medical issues or take medicines that cause them to wet themselves at night.
@syousef: Must have got lucky 4 times then. Sure some kids can't be toilet trained at that age, the vast majority of parents though, write it off without even trying. All we did was followed someone else's system, it's not rocket science, but it does take effort. We know quite a number of other people who tried it and it worked for them as well, they must have all just got lucky too.
You seem pretty quick to write off something as luck that you don't know anything about and can't even be bothered reading a short article about it to slightly inform yourself.
You are jumping to many woefully wrong conclusions, where you are pulling the "it's your fault" stuff from I have no idea, certainly nothing I have said or even implied. No, I don't think we are fantastic for doing it, all we did was follow somebody else's instructions, I am happy we probably saved several $1000's from it which was the point of the comment in this thread. We have also had friends who wait until their kids are 4-5 and they seem to battle with their kids to get them out of nappies until they just virtually train themselves where as we generally did it over a weekend with our kids.
Must have got lucky 4 times then.
Geez, a bunch of siblings have similar traits in common. How is that possible?
Yeah and you think I'm the one jumping to "many woefully wrong conclusions"?
Btw mate if you knew me, you'd realise just how silly accusing me of not even being bothered to read a short article on the subject is. I look up multiple sources on just about everything obsessively. Again, I'm not the one jumping to conclusions.
Geez, a bunch of siblings have similar traits in common. How is that possible
And a bunch of friends too? Ohh I know what they had in common, they actually tried it.
Yeah and you think I'm the one jumping to "many woefully wrong conclusions"?
Btw mate if you knew me, you'd realise just how silly accusing me of not even being bothered to read a short article on the subject is. I look up multiple sources on just about everything obsessively.
I didn't jump to any conclusions, you said
tl;dr
which correct me if I am wrong, stands for too long didn't read
And a bunch of friends too? Ohh I know what they had in common, they actually tried it.
None of your friends had children who had issues with toilet training…yeah right…or perhaps you didn't have many friends.
I didn't jump to any conclusions, you said
When did I say I hadn't read the article? Are you just making things up now?
@syousef: Had plenty who have had issues, none that tried this method, most of the issues were the kid's being older and not wanting to give up nappies, they seem to be more happy to go along with it when they are younger.
You responded to my two lines with a linked article with tl;dr enlighten me with what it was that was too long and you didn't read then if not the article or the two lines?
And just to point out the jumping to wrong conclusions here again. I said a bunch of friends, you the incorrectly change that to all my friends.
There is plenty of literature about children and bed-wetting. You want an article? Here you go:
http://www.rch.org.au/kidsinfo/fact_sheets/Bedwetting/
According to that roughly 5% of 10 year olds are still wetting the bed.
And just to point out the jumping to wrong conclusions here again. I said a bunch of friends, you the incorrectly change that to all my friends.
Ha! So did you have friends who didn't succeed with this method that you didn't mention? THIS is your example of me "jumping to conclusions"? How does that even compare to accusing me of not bothering to read articles? Tit for tat doesn't work when the situation isn't even comparable.
But none of that even matters. You have told me this method is fool proof. I've given you evidence that children have trouble with wetting the bed much later than 22 months. What exactly is your plan for parents with children who don't stop wetting the bed. "The method just works" is nonsense.
@syousef: Really? Pretty sure you are just trolling now, still haven't responded to your obvious tl;dr issue but anyway, here goes.
Ha! So did you have friends who didn't succeed with this method that you didn't mention?
This isn't even a wrong conclusion, just simply wrong
Had plenty who have had issues, none that tried this method
.
How does that even compare to accusing me of not bothering to read articles.
I didn't accuse you, you said that you didn't read it, it can't be more obvious than that.
But none of that even matters. You have told me this method is fool proof.
Wrong again, I didn't.
I've given you evidence that children have trouble with wetting the bed much later than 22 months.
There is a total difference between the occasional bed wetting and toilet training, or are the 5% of 10yr olds still wearing nappies? a quote from your link shows just how wrong you are "If you are putting your child in a nappy or pull-up at night to save on laundry it is unlikely that he or she will become dry while this continues. It is better to do away with the nappy or pull-up altogether" so leaving them in nappies is not a good idea.
What exactly is your plan for parents with children who don't stop wetting the bed.
Follow what the experts say, there are plenty of good ideas in the article, like getting them out of nappies.
"The method just works" is nonsense.
If you are going to quote something, it's should be something that has actually been said, you just don't make something up.
You have a magic toilet training method that has a 100% success rate by 22 months. Got it. You accuse me of trolling! Ha! This isn't "occassional" bed wetting we're talking about. Look up Dunning Kruger mate.
@syousef: I've painstakingly pointed out many of the instances where you are plainly wrong, you are free to address any of those points but your response to ignore what has actually been said, try to set up strawmen arguments, change the topic, and then accuse of mental issues when you are backed into a corner by your own words.
I have plainly pointed out the instances where you are talking absolute nonsense and provided links.
The cognitive dissonance required to fail to understand how ridiculous your claim of a 100% successful solution to a problem that has troubled humanity since ancient times because you read some article and you and a handful of your friends succeeded in toilet training early is truly awe inspiring. Do you also believe in a flat earth?
So answer my question. Put up or shut up. What do you do if the child doesn't learn by 22 months?
I have plainly pointed out the instances where you are talking absolute nonsense and provided links.
Actually, you provided one link, not links, to an article about bedwetting, which in no way contradicts anything I have said, the rest has been jumping to conclusions and strawmen, attacking things I haven't actually said with a few personal attacks thrown in to try and make up for the lack of substance.
The cognitive dissonance required to fail to understand how ridiculous your claim of a 100% successful solution to a problem that has troubled humanity since ancient times because you read some article and you and a handful of your friends succeeded in toilet training early is truly awe inspiring. Do you also believe in a flat earth?
A classic example of yet another straw man argument, I never claimed it worked for 100%, if you actually read and comprehend This comment I made earlier particularly the Sure some kids can't be toilet trained at that age you can see I have said it won't work 100% of the time. There is a big difference between it worked for me and people I know, and, it will work for everyone.
So answer my question. Put up or shut up. What do you do if the child doesn't learn by 22 months?
I don't know why I need to point out the painfully obvious but If you have tried and it didn't work or they have a condition that means they won't be able too then, you obviously keep them in nappies for longer.
Fortunately Australian babies wear nappies, not diapers.
Whatever dude.
Only the dobbers I'm told.
diapers? Wrong country….
Capital costs at T-minus 3 to 0 months:
This is the 'fun' purchases. The ones that'll hold value and can be reused for siblings etc. Before the sleep deprivation hits :D
Ongoing costs:
Our biggest cost was the obstetrician cost of around $6k and increase in private health insurance premiums to top hospital cover (if you don't take this out, you could face another $6k cost). You can save a lot of this cost if you go public.
Other costs:
Pram, cot and mattress were $100 each. We've hardly used the pram as we carry the bub in arm (which is good for bub's core and also our upper body and leg strength, provided you hold them properly to prevent back pain and regularly so your muscles develop as they grow) and get them to walk as much as possible. Baby carrier for initial period was $185;
Baby clothes ~$200 - we've been given a lot of very good quality family and friend's hand me downs.
Car seat $150
Baby monitor ~$80
Breast pump, bottles around $350
Nappies < $50 - we toilet trained from start. An added benefit is you save on barrier creams and the like, change mats and accessories. Also very easy to take baby out.
Toys ~$100 so far (excluding Dad's toys) - we take the bub to play and explore outdoors a lot
Play mats ~ $300 for 2
Learning tower ~$120
Books - $200 so far - this is negligible compared to my book collection.
we toilet trained from start.
Curious how you toilet train a 1 week old baby?
You can only give them peeing and pooing opportunities then - e.g. in the morning when they woke up, after a feed etc. We only completely took her off nappies after 8/9 months and she's only telling us regularly that she needs to go at around 18 months.
@ihbh:
I still don't understand though! What do you mean by providing them opportunities? How can you control the peeing and pooing of a 1 week old baby?
How can you control the peeing and pooing of a 1 week old baby?
With a litter-box perhaps? 🤔
You can't control when your kids learn, and if they have a medical issue that requires certain medications, you're STUFFED.
@mskeggs:
This is becoming rarer by the day. Compulsory insurance for those running the clubs is one issue. I'm also tired of sponsorship. MacDonalds sponsoring Little Athletics and giving kids a "first hit is free" reward at the field undoes the 20 minutes of excercise the kid actually gets when you spend 4 hours on the field waiting for stuff to happen.
The law in most states say under 12 they have to be supervised. Out in public or at home.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-09/how-long-is-too-long-t…
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-threat-to-parents-on-childr…
https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2012/apr/23/re…
With genuine respect, I think you haven't kept up with the times.
Actually on a 2 story house you'd probably need someone with the proper ladders etc. Remember Molly Meldrum's fall? If not compuslory now I'm sure it will be soon.
On this we almost completely agree. Government policies certainly contributed but there are other factors too.
Asthma and croup are considered minor, but sometimes require an ambulance. Try keeping a kid at a healthy weight or toilet training them when they're on steroids. Hyper-flexible joints are no fun either when they go along with broken bones.
Then there's the wife. I started typing her list of ailments but decided against sharing that. It's not short.
I think grandparents spending time with the kids IF they're physically up to it is great. The same people who say it's not fair to let them look after kids are often trying to shove them into a nursing home prematurely. (I can see from your post that is NOT you). I think as long as you treat them with genuine love and respect grandparents can be a great ally and benefit too.