To use a family bed or to not use a family bed – it’s many parents’ dilemma. Yet, for all the praise about bonding that family beds receive, the negatives are a precipitous downside – one, in fact, that negates all benefits. Putting the parents, possible older children, and a new baby in a bed together is said to synchronize sleep cycles and help the baby rest better, but the CPSC speaks against it, citing suffocation hazards.

Yet, the negative facets rarely register on an individual’s radar until a tragedy is recounted in greater detail. South Carolina newspaper The State did such a piece recently. Describing the experiences of one family in Richland County, the piece goes onto discuss why cosleeping is hazardous for infants and the possibility that cases diagnosed as SIDS may, in fact, involve dangerous sleeping arrangements.

If your child is 1 years old or younger, how strong is he or she? How well can he or she move? Even the most developmentally-advanced babies, however, find themselves trapped when a larger person in the bed rolls over or even accidentally lays an arm or leg across an airway. Because the child can neither move nor lift, he or she often suffocates.

Gary Watts, the Richland County coroner, quoted in the State piece mentions that more infant deaths may be attributed to cosleepin than previously assumed. In the event a child suffocates in the family bed, a coroner asks the caregiver to recreate the situation in order to rule out SIDS, which does not involve a dangerous sleeping arrangement. Aside from family beds, laying a baby to sleep on a couch or arm chair, in a crib with a comforter or pillow, or in a room with a dog are also considered sleeping hazards.

Some habits can be difficult to break, however – including cosleeping, which may have been used by families for generations. About this, Watts told the press:

“My grandmother did it, my mother did it, and I know I did it. But it’s unsafe. At some point, you have to realize it’s a danger to the infant. If you want to have a child in the room – put him in a bassinet beside your bed.”

It’s the celebrity baby story of all celebrity baby stories. Announcing her pregnancy less than six months ago, Beyonce gave birth to her daughter, named Blue Ivy Carter. Yet, even with this seemingly good news, the gossip rags still unearthed semi-sordid details from anonymous witnesses. Us Weekly, for instance, goes on about the extreme security measures the couple and their entourage took while staying at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York. Called “insane” by one bystander, security, however, is practically necessary, considering the crazed nature of the paparazzi.

One parent sharing the same space with Beyonce and Jay-Z’s group describes being pushed out for the sake of security. He said: “They just used the hospital like it was their own and nobody else mattered. […] They locked us into the NICU and would say, ‘You can’t come out to the hallway for the next 20 minutes.’ When I finally was able to go back out, I went to the waiting room and they’d ushered my family downstairs!”

Do you think witnesses are exaggerating? Is this level of security necessary for the famous couple? Those quoted, however, may just be overstating for the sake of gossip. A hospital spokesperson told the magazine that, while the couple did reserve space, they didn’t take up a full floor.

Not even a week old, Blue Ivy already appears in a song and had a statement released. Written by Jay-Z, “Glory,” now already available online, features his daughter’s first cries. An ordinary couple – one without multiple chart-topping albums – might put out a simple birth announcement, printed with a photo of the new baby, to family and friends, but Jay-Z and Beyonce did theirs on a large scale, having a publicist put out a statement that reads much like a birth announcement:

Hello Hello Baby Blue!
We are happy to announce the arrival of our beautiful daughter, Blue Ivy Carter, born on Saturday, January 7, 2012. Her birth was emotional and extremely peaceful, we are in heaven. She was delivered naturally at a healthy 7 lbs and it was the best experience of both of our lives. We are thankful to everyone for all your prayers, well wishes, love and support. Beyoncé & JAY Z

When a child starts sucking or chewing on a toy, dirt, germs, and choking aren’t the only threats you need to be concerned about. A report from the Environmental Health Strategy Center released on December 13 shows that 650 name-brand products, including baby toys, contain hormone-disrupting toxic chemicals, such as BPA and NPEs. For baby products, such well-known toys as PLAYMOBIL figures and Chicco rattles are made with BPA.

While banned from baby bottles in some states, such as California, BPA can be found in items ranging from soup cans to receipts – and now baby products. BPA mimics estrogen in the body and can harm a child’s brain and behavioral development. In addition to California, 17 other states have enacted laws against such chemicals in products over the past decade, and a national measure, the Safe Chemicals Act, is in the works.

If it passes, the Safe Chemicals Act would override the Toxic Substances Control Act, which is now 35 years old and has never been revised. Once in place, the Safe Chemicals Act would require chemical manufacturers to disclose health and safety information for compounds and to control harmful substances.

While states are taking on this responsibility for now, companies, such as Johnson & Johnson, are addressing recalls pertaining to chemicals. According to the Associated Press, Johnson & Johnson announced in November that it is removing traces of chemicals from its baby products all over the world. The realization to change began in May 2009, when two possible carcinogens were found in the brand’s popular Baby Shampoo. Additionally, two dozen other products were recalled over two years. Although Johnson & Johnson is still improving, the brand mentioned it has removed phthalates from baby products.

Environmentally-friendly baby products are difficult to come by. Yet, removing chemicals from a baby’s space is crucial. Parents should be able to create such a space for their children, and hopefully the Safe Chemicals Act will allow them to do so.

Announced in early December, Oscar de la Renta, known primarily for stylish gowns worn by celebrities at awards shows, plans to design babies’ and children’s clothing. While somewhat contradictory to the notion that baby products should be practical, Oscar de la Renta’s children’s clothing line is coming after a handful of other high-end designers, such as Gucci and Fendi, ventured into this field.

The fashion house recently appointed Papo d’Anjo’s Cathering Monteiro de Barros to vice president of the children’s line. Although no prices have been announced, the kids clothing is expected to hit stores in fall 2012 and will include garments for girls and boys between the ages of 18 months and 14 years. While fashion-forward pre-teens with money may gravitate toward the line, the brand claims its clothing will be for parents who “want their children to look like children.”

In addition to Fendi and Gucci, other ultra high-end brands have veered in the direction of children’s fashion, including Paul Smith, Burberry, and Stella McCartney. Profiled by the New York Times, these high-end designer kids lines fall into two camps: mimicking adult fashion in style or specifically designed for children. In addition to Oscar de la Renta’s upcoming line, Fendi falls into the latter. To the press, Silvia Fendi said:

“There is a fashion element to the collection. But it is important that it be clothing that works for children and that it be made well from good materials.”

On the same note, these high-end designer lines are made to last or, in the case of Stella McCartney, use eco-friendly materials. Yet, considering how quickly children – especially toddlers – go through clothing, is shelling so much for an outfit worth it? Unless the item is to be passed down, it ends up being nothing more than an expensive novelty.

A new baby costs $12,000, while having a child up until 18 years old is $250,000 in present dollars. Because children are a significant expense to a couple or single parent, financial planning must be done before; yet, spending and saving habits also drastically change after a baby arrives, according to Citibank’s Women & Co. survey conducted by BabyCenter earlier in December.

The survey shows that a mother’s thoughts change after she has a child. Money is primarily on her mind, with parenthood coming in second. But, while this figure may cause some to say, “Pay more attention to your kids!”, the majority of new mothers (60 percent) find themselves making more daily financial decisions; 30 percent split decisions equally with a partner.

Financial decisions and responsibilities increase at the same time. These include deciding on new products, budgeting more, spending, managing savings, and financial planning. While mothers generally spend less on themselves than before, they seek out deals or coupons more. In fact, saving is considered more often, as well as rethinking financing and discussing spending with a partner.

Saving, additionally, shifts from paying off past debt to future planning. A new mother, as well as her partner, starts saving for a child’s education, begins to plan retirement, and is regularly thinking of strategies to lower spending.

Although her role in the workplace and, if magazines are any indication, getting her pre-baby body back are generally thought of as concerns and changes for new mothers, finances go through just as much of a change, if not more. About the results of the survey, Linda Descano, CFA(R), President and CEO of Women & Co., said in a statement:

“As every parent knows, having a baby changes everything – and finances are not an exception. The life change of a baby brings about new and substantial financial needs and questions. After having children, moms are increasingly taking charge of not just day-to-day spending, but also the longer-term planning of the financial future of their family.”

Go green at all times of the year and with nearly any item – including baby gifts for Christmas or Chanukah. Yet, finding green baby gifts can be a challenge, as most retailers don’t carry them. Standard baby products, from mattresses and sheets to toys, tend to contain chemicals, be it PVC, phthalates, or BPA, and these leach out and enter a child’s environment. For doing something good for the environment and reducing your own or someone else’s carbon footprint, here are some suggestions for green baby gifts:

• Eco-friendly diaper cakes from Rattlecake put a mundane yet necessary item in an attractive package. A typical Rattlecake diaper cake has 80 to 150 diapers and various baby toys attached to the outside. Eco-friendly diaper cakes have Seventh Generation diapers and assorted organic cotton and corn fiber-filled toys on the outside.

• Baby Planet Zoey Strollers are environmentally friendly and safe – two qualities any parent enjoys. Each Zoey stroller can be used with timi & leslie diaper bags and is equipped with all-terrain wheels and a five-point harness.

• Naturepedic mattresses come in sizes for babies and children. Regardless of the size, however, all Naturepedic mattresses are made out of organic cotton, without harmful chemicals and allergens, and are waterproof.

• On the same subject as bedding, consider a Moses basket stand for a parent who has one of these temporary baby beds. Each is made out of organic wood with no paint, stains, or toxic finishes.

• Yellow Label Pink Cuddle Dolls are all handmade – no machines or child labor is involved. Each soft toy, which can be given to a baby or toddler, is made by hand in accordance with Fair Trade practices.

• Surprise a new mother with a Lassig Vintage Metro diaper bag. With a colorful print, each diaper bag is made without PVC, nickel, AZO dyes, or phthalates.

Christmas and Chanukah are only a few weeks away, and if you’re looking for a baby gift, for your own child, a friend’s, or family member’s, you might be stuck on what to get. Toy stores are no help; the options are endless, and you might not be able to discern what is useful and what’s not. In general, follow guidelines for purchasing a holiday baby gift as you would for a shower: fun yet practical. Consider the following suggestions:

• Toys, toys, toys. A kid can’t ever have too many toys; yet, parents find that some activities are more useful than others. While play appears to be for fun, it’s educational for babies and toddlers but not in the ways you may think. Rather than reaching for Your Baby Can Read, find toys that stimulate a child’s senses, assist with building motor skills, or encourage creative or critical-thinking skills. For babies, these toys are often black, white, and red or have various colors and textures. For toddlers, on the other hand, soft toys that keep them active, such as blocks, dolls, or play sets, are your best bet.

• Be practical. Parents can never have too many onesies or diapers. But rather than going a mundane route, dress up your present. Holiday diaper cakes have a fun appearance and include 80 to 150 diapers. For clothing, consider the child’s age or size and go with basics: onesies, t-shirts, footies, or pants. Also, if parents prefer pink or blue, make sure to keep colors in mind.

• Think about parents’ wants or needs. Is a new mother carrying around an ordinary diaper bag? Surprise her with one that looks like a designer handbag on the outside but is equipped with all the features a parent needs inside. Or, if parents are in need of a new stroller, car seat, or crib, consider purchasing one, but ask about their preferences beforehand.

Have you decided on a name for your new baby yet? If not, check out the most common trends for baby names in 2011. BabyCenter.com published its list of the 100 most popular baby names in 2011 for girls and boys this week. Just like the past few years, names ending in –aiden are a trend for baby boys, while unisex-sounding “Madison” and “Brooklyn” are some of the top ones for girls. BabyCenter.com has the full list available, but here are the top 10 names for both genders. Note that spelling variations are not counted as separate names:

Girls’ Names
Sophia
Emma
Isabella
Olivia
Ava
Lily
Chloe
Madison
Emily
Abigail

Boys’ Names
Aiden
Jackson
Mason
Liam
Jacob
Jayden
Ethan
Noah
Lucas
Logan

Out of these, as BabyCenter.com points out, “Mason” and “Liam” had the most gains for boys. “Mason,” however, has semi-celebrity connotations. One of the Kardashian sisters, who seem to be everywhere these days, from television to advertisements, named her son “Mason Dash” in early 2011. Being the third most popular name for boys is likely a result of the reality television/socialite family’s influence. Yet, if you are thinking of a name for your child, “Mason” may seem dated in 10 years, after the Kardashians’ influence has waned.

Aside from this change, Aiden, Jayden, Caden, and Brayden all seem to be holding strong. While a recent trend, these –aiden names may not disappear for a while. For girls, on the other hand, popular names like Sophia, Emma, Emily, and Abigail are all distinctly feminine, but Brooklyn, Madison, Addison, and Peyton all sound fairly unisex, if not like names of places. Although model Brooklyn Decker is popular at the moment, this name, too, might sound dated in a few years. And, what kid wants a name sounding too much like a borough of New York? Tacking on a middle name of “Heights” or “Bridge” would approach Moon Unit Zappa proportions of ridiculousness. Before picking a name, think about connotations and meaning.

No parent wants to lose a baby to SIDS. As a result, a market for SIDS-preventing baby products has sprung up. Recently, however, the FDA decreed that they have not approved any SIDS-preventing baby products. Parents, in response, should stop using them, while manufacturers should remove all claims on their packaging.

Most parents have come across SIDS-preventing or reducing baby products or may have even purchased them. If, on the other hand, you aren’t familiar with such products, the full scope of them involves wedges, sleep positioners, mattresses, sleep surfaces, bedding, pillows, and sleep tents. But, no matter the type of product, the concept is the same: the item is designed to keep the baby in a fixed position to prevent suffocation. Declaring them dangerous, the FDA mentioned in its statement that babies can slip out of these positioning products and end up suffocating. In fact, they state, 13 deaths resulting from SIDS-preventing baby products have occurred over the past 13 years.

Aside from parents, the FDA addresses manufacturers of such products. Because no claims can be supported thus far, the FDA requests that all statements touting SIDS-reducing properties, even from medical professionals, be removed from packaging until the product is cleared or approved by the government agency.

As far as proper positioning is concerned, what should a parent do? Parents need to stick with a basic approach: the FDA states they should put the baby on its back in an empty crib. Items like crib bumpers, stuffed animals, and other soft toys left in the sleeping area all pose suffocation hazards. Aside from what’s in the crib, parents should be aware of what’s around it – particularly cords. Babies may grab at monitor cords and can end up strangling themselves. To prevent this from happening, parents are advised to keep all cords at least three feet away from a crib.

While a brand often associated with celebrities, Bugaboo has been in the news for another distinction recently – a stroller recall. The Bugaboo Bee is the specific model being recalled. A front wheel sticks when swiveling, and when this happens, the stroller can tip over.

Unlike most stroller recalls, the Bugaboo Bee is still usable – just as long as the front wheels are locked to prevent tipping. For those that purchased the stroller between January and September 2011 and registered with the brand, Bugaboo will send out a repair kit to customers at no charge. If, on the other hand, you didn’t register, customers can fill out a request form for a kit. The repair kit will contain a wheel replacement set with metal bearing wheels to prevent non-swiveling.

The Bugaboo Bee experienced issues with its wheels nearly a year ago. Because of shimmying issue, the company replaced the Bee’s metal wheels with plastic. Some models on the market still have metal wheels, and if you own such a Bugaboo stroller and find that the wheels are shimmying, the brand will send out a washer ring set for fixing the problem.

About the recall and correcting the problem, Bugaboo released a statement to the press, stating:

“The safety and wellbeing of our customers and their children is paramount to Bugaboo. Previously this year we found that, although non-swiveling wheels affect the driving experience, we believed it did not affect the safety of the stroller.

“However, the latest safety assessment by an independent expert concluded, following further tests, that there is a small chance that the stroller’s front wheels could jam, which could make the stroller tip over.

“In light of this we believe that the safety profile of this product is inadequate and not up to our quality standard. We take this very seriously and therefore we immediately stop shipment and sales of the Bugaboo Bee.
[…]
“We believe that these metal bearing swivel wheels will be the solution to the non-swiveling issues some Bugaboo Bee customers are experiencing and remove any potential for tip-over and the risks associated with tip-over.”