When is it appropriate to stop giving a child's age in months? I recently had an interview for a job caring for a 3 year old and 5 year old. Mom gave their ages as 39 months and 63 months. I found it odd. Does this seem strange to any of you?
15 comments:
Observer
said...
I would say its strange. Its usually done when development, etc., happens rapidly with infants from one month to another. Huge changes in a 3 month old to 6 month old. Not so much for a "63 month old and a "66 month old". So the answer is when a change in months is not a huge factor in development changes.
I've noticed this happening a lot lately too! I don't know why parents would continue referring to their kids this way for so long, but I agree that after 2 years it's weird.
I've noticed this more in the last couple of years as well.
Honestly, it has become a red flag to me when looking at jobs. When someone refers to their 4 year old as 48 months I find that the child tends to be treated as an infant in other areas of life, and the parents expect you to continue that trend.
For me I'd give the cut off at 3 years old. After that a she turned 3 in April or whill be 4 in August is enought to describe where the child might be developmentally.
I'd say two is a good time to stop but maybe its to distinguish between "old" and "young" 3's...there is a BIG difference between a kid who just turned 3 and a kid who will be 4 in a couple months.
Yeah this is weird and I would consider it a red flag. This mom probably babies her kids in a major way. I think the cutoff is between ages 2 and 3. I will refer to a child as "almost 3" or "35 months"--same thing and not weird.
At 2, I would say, BECAUSE alot happens the first 2 years of life. (crawling, walking, talking, laughing, personality and the kids looks start setting in, etc) so saying a baby is 5 months can kinda determine what stage they are in (5 month old is not walking, talking, but IS smiling, starting to crawl, babble, etc VS a baby who is 13-14months and starting to walk, talk, etc.)
A parent saying my baby is 63 months is odd and i don't no why she does it. Maybe to confuse lol.
15 comments:
I would say its strange. Its usually done when development, etc., happens rapidly with infants from one month to another. Huge changes in a 3 month old to 6 month old. Not so much for a "63 month old and a "66 month old". So the answer is when a change in months is not a huge factor in development changes.
I'd say at two
I've noticed this happening a lot lately too! I don't know why parents would continue referring to their kids this way for so long, but I agree that after 2 years it's weird.
I've noticed this more in the last couple of years as well.
Honestly, it has become a red flag to me when looking at jobs. When someone refers to their 4 year old as 48 months I find that the child tends to be treated as an infant in other areas of life, and the parents expect you to continue that trend.
For me I'd give the cut off at 3 years old. After that a she turned 3 in April or whill be 4 in August is enought to describe where the child might be developmentally.
I agree on 2. Although, I probably start reffering to my charges as "almost 2" at about 1.5 haha.
I see this a lot now and agree it is too weird. I think parents do this so it seems their child is still a baby to them.
I would say after two years of age, a child should be referred to by years instead of months.
Yes it's extremely weird, and I have noticed this alot recently along with 3, 4, and 5 year olds being called toddlers.
I honestly think it has to do with parents wanting to keep their kids little for longer because they spend so much time away from them.
I would say the cut off is 2 years old or slightly past two. I wouldn't blink if I heard someone say their kid was 27 or 28 months.
I'd say two is a good time to stop but maybe its to distinguish between "old" and "young" 3's...there is a BIG difference between a kid who just turned 3 and a kid who will be 4 in a couple months.
Yeah this is weird and I would consider it a red flag. This mom probably babies her kids in a major way. I think the cutoff is between ages 2 and 3. I will refer to a child as "almost 3" or "35 months"--same thing and not weird.
After three it just sounds infantile.
I agree with 2. I would have had to hold back a snicker if a mom referred to her 5 year old as 63 months :)
My mom still refers to me as her "220 month daughter."
Just kidding.
♥
well. I think 1 years old is good enough. You can't do it before that because the kid has only been alive for "months" not years.
It is a big deal to have your 1st birthday. You are celebrating being 1 YEAR old. Not 12 MONTHS old
At 2, I would say, BECAUSE alot happens the first 2 years of life. (crawling, walking, talking, laughing, personality and the kids looks start setting in, etc) so saying a baby is 5 months can kinda determine what stage they are in (5 month old is not walking, talking, but IS smiling, starting to crawl, babble, etc VS a baby who is 13-14months and starting to walk, talk, etc.)
A parent saying my baby is 63 months is odd and i don't no why she does it. Maybe to confuse lol.
This just makes me wonder if she still breast feeds them or something. Idk why, I guess because the hardcore long-term bf'ers count in months? Hahah..
Post a Comment