Post # 1
Weird title, hear me out.
My husband’s brother and sister in law have three kids who are 7, 5 and 10 months. I mentioned to a friend with kids that I was planning on gifting the oldest child Star Wars Legos as he loves Star Wars and loves building craft type projects. She seemed taken aback and told me she would never let her oldest play with something like Legos if she had a baby due to the choking hazards.
Now I’m wondering if I need to take the youngest sibling’s age into account when purchasing presents for all of our nieces and nephews this year and in the future?
(Obviously I can just call and ask my sister in law in this particular situation but we’re at the point now where we are buying presents for so many kids and quite a few of them have younger siblings on the way.)
Post # 2
I’ve never done that. It’s the parent’s responsibility to make sure kids are playing age appropriate toys. Everything for a 7 year old could have a part that’s dangerous for a 10 month old.
When my nephew was too little to play with Lego but my niece was obsessed, they had Lego in another room behind a baby gate that the baby couldn’t open. They’re 4 years apart, she would have very boring gifts if we always gifted at his age.
Now, if your nephew who’s 7 doesn’t have Lego yet, maybe I would check in just to make sure. But if he already has Lego, another set isn’t suddenly going to make things “more dangerous.”
I guess it just strikes me as lazy to give all the kids toys for the youngest’s age – especially when you’re talking 6+ years apart. If we’re talking 10 months and like 23 months, maybe it’s a bit more understandable.
Post # 3
It would be a shame to not allow a 7 year old to have legos because of younger sibilings. Legos were my absolute favorite growing up!
It’s never occured to me to buy presents based on a sibiling’s age.
Post # 4
I very much disagree with your friend. One does not deny an older child age-appropriate toys because s/he has younger siblings. It is the parent’s responsibility to keep the baby away from potentially dangerous things. I’ve had three children myself, so I’ve actually dealt with this in the real world, and not just as a hypothetical, and it isn’t that hard. It is unfair, IMO, not to buy the older child the things s/he might be interested in simply because they aren’t safe for baby.
Post # 5
I agree with your friend. I have two kids, 2 and 10 months. And i never buy things for my 2yo with small pieces. It’s so difficult to get kids to clean up after themselves and all you have to do is have one piece accidentally fall and then the little one always finds the small thing and puts it in her mouth.
Post # 6
I buy presents based on the childs age not their siblings age. Its up to the parents to monitor their children.
Post # 7
Nope. I buy for the child. I’ve cared for children of different ages at once and I’ve never had a problem with them having different toys. She does realize that the 7 year old would be left with no toys if everything had to be appropriate for the baby?
Post # 8
Your situation is not comparable to the OP’s. Both of your children are still under 3, the age group for which it is most important to be careful with small parts.
A 7 yr old is old enough to play with toys that have small parts without putting them in his mouth. The parents are old enough to ensure the child plays safely with this toy e.g. in his own room, behind a door or inaccessible to the baby.
Post # 9
That is stupid. I have a 14 year old, a 6 year old and a 9 month old. OF COURSE we have legos and toys with little pieces. We just have very specific areas where they are played with that the baby doesn’t have access to. It’s a parent’s job to watch the baby and the older kids don’t need to suffer for it. And honestly, my baby is just as likely to choke on a loose piece of dog kibble as a lego.
Post # 10
Neither of your children understand that Legos aren’t for putting in their mouths and aren’t capable of understanding keeping their things put away due to consequences of the other child choking. A 7 year old and a 5 year old are more than capable of understanding that they can’t keep their Legos out where a 10 month old can choke on them and put them away when they are done and by the 3rd child the parents should have a clear grasp on how to keep the youngest child out of danger.
Post # 11
You buy for the child not based on their siblings. Parents responsibility to make sure the older children know where to play and parents to keep youngest away.
I wouldn’t deny an older child the right to play with an age appropriate activity
Post # 12
that’s ridiculous, can you imagine the resentment the older child would feel for the younger child if they were aware they were missing out on everything intended for thier age group just because they have a younger sibling?
Post # 13
I would never have even thought of this and I don’t think it’s common if the kids have a wide age gap. If the parents decide not to let their child play with the toy, that’s their decision but not a problem with the gift giver.
Post # 14
MsPlucky : hikingbride : echomomm : CanMurph : impatient1 : julies1949 : eeniebeans : annabananabee : FromA2B2013 : nykkee :
Thanks everyone! What you all said makes sense and is exactly what I was thinking, however, I have absolutely no experience with children so I thought I should run it past others who have kids!
I do understand what you’re saying. My friend’s children are also very close in age so I’m assuming this is why she shares the same view point. I will probably check with my sister in law just to be safe but once I got to thinking about it, I highly doubt the 7 year old doesn’t already have a bunch of toys with smaller pieces.
Thanks again everyone!
Post # 15
Back in my day there were none of these precautions. If you choked on a lego, you choked on a lego.
My great aunts house was the place with all the legos, where we would go for family holidays and get togethers. I remember all 10 kids being thrown into one particular room that had the legos, Sega and other assorted kids items and once hour some adult would stick their head in to see if everyone was still alive.