Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all


My 19 month won't sit in a high chair or a booster seat. He will climb onto an adult chair and sit there - any thing else induces a tantrum. I am not sure what to do. I am prepared to be strict but I don't want to do this if this is the age that children tend to graduate to an adult chair anyway. Those with older toddlers, what age did your children move to an adult chair? I am tempted to get a Trip Trapp, but suspect that my son will not agree to sit on that either as he is fiercely independent and just wants to sit in the same seats as we do and to get up and down himself.


Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/17295-toddler-wont-sit-in-high-chair/
Share on other sites

I think some kids love the high-uppyness of high chairs, and even the feeling of being a bit snug - one of mine did, and would sit in it for ages watching me cook etc. However, my youngest has never 'done' highchairs. We have a small table with mini adult type chairs that he would sit on, or would otherwise prefer to sit on an adults lap and eat his meal at the big table. Or a picnic on the floor... just never a highchair!
Little Saff is 16 months old, and recently she has taken to sitting in an adult chair at our table. We put a little folded blanket on it to make her sit up higher. When she wants down, she asks for helps. She just needs a hand to hold to get down. We've had a couple accidents where she's tried to get down on her own, but luckily it's only a small drop resulting mostly in a bruised ego. Now she'll only sit in a high chair if we're eating out. Sounds like your little boy is ready for a big chair too. Have fun. :)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Thank you for clarifying, James. So why would anybody want to take this on as a franchise if it is staying in this building? If it is now to be a sub office, does that mean that much of  the space could be used as a different kind of business altogether, with just part of it being used as a sub Post Office? Because if it is all to remain solely for Post Office business, (albeit as a sub Post Office it won't be providing all the services which it currently does) I can't see who would want to take it over? If it isn't profitable as a Crown office, how could it be  profitable running just as a sub office, even if staff are being paid less and it's opening for longer hours? Because presumably all the other overheads such as rent will remain the same?
    • Girobank was genuinely innovative, regarding the addressed customer base (significantly the previously unbanked) - but this would have been an ideally outsourced operation to an existing bank which already had the operational systems (and the regulatory experts) to manage a bank for someone else at marginal cost. The Post Office - when you consider the issues over the Horizon software - never originally designed by ICL/ Fujitsu for the application it ran - is a very good reason why the Post Office being involved in banking was long-term a bad idea.  To get back to the topic of this thread, the Horizon debacle is still not over (the software system is still in place) - most of the wrongly penalised sub-postmasters are still out of pocket - I'm not sure I would be leaping to take on the franchise being offered in Lordship Lane.
    • Otherwise in Bellenden Road are brilliant! They’ve made me stage dresses, restructured vintage finds and are working on remodelling my late brothers huntsman tweed suit for my modern husband! Not cheap and rents have meant they are moving premises at mo.
    • Penguin, I broadly agree, except that the Girobank was a genuinely innovative and successful operation. It’s rather ironic that after all these years we are now back to banking at the Post Office due to all the bank branch closures.  I agree that the roots of the problem go back further than 2012 (?), when the PO and RM were separated so RM could be sold. I’m willing to blame Peter Mandelson, Margaret Thatcher or even Keith Joseph. But none of them will be standing for the local council, hoping to make capital out of the possible closure of Lordship Lane PO, as if they are in no way responsible. The Lib Dems can’t be let off the hook that easily.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...