Parents are told to avoid screens altogether in the first two years of a child’s life.

At the same time, digital devices are part of everyday family life used for communication, work, learning, and at times, simply getting through the day.

Our new research talks to first-time parents about how they navigate – or try to navigate – this tricky time.

What is the guidance on screen use?

Australia’s national 24-hour movement guidelines recommend no screen time for children under two and a maximum of two hours for children over five.

Advice from prominent bodies such as the World Health Organization are similarly clear about limiting screen use for children.

As well as concerns about children being too sedentary, this advice comes amid ongoing research about the potential harms of too much screen use. These include sleep problems, language delays and social-emotional issues.

However, this rigid health advice conflicts with education guidelines that children are introduced to – and gain skills in – digital technologies before they start school.

There is also a growing understanding among researchers that strict guidelines around screen use are not compatible with real life and can be confusing to parents.

In January 2026, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a new policy statement noting both concerns about screen use but also potential benefits if the content is good quality and appropriate for children. The academy argued we cannot view children’s media use through the lens of “screen limits alone”.

Our research

Our study wanted to understand how first-time parents interpret and apply screen use guidance in the early years.

This is a group navigating a steep learning curve. Without prior experience to draw on, many rely heavily on external advice while also feeling pressure to make the “right” decisions.

Our study involved 23 Australian parents of children aged under four, recruited via social media and community advertising. Parents’ views were sought via interviews and focus groups.

What we found

Parents reported a variety of interpretations of screen time recommendations. For some, it was about strict adherence. Evangeline* (mother of a six-month-old) shared her firm stance on restricting screen use:

I don’t want her to be using a phone or using an iPad or even watching TV until she’s at least a couple of years old.

Others took a more flexible stance, depending on their household’s needs. Chad (father of an 18-month-old) explained

I don’t believe no screens is possible […] I believe that probably using screens for a large period of time is a problem, but I also don’t necessarily think that if the TV’s on for 15 minutes occasionally that that’s going to break the world either.

The quest for sanity

Parents in our study spoke about using screens to stay in touch with family and to manage competing demands such as preparing meals, caring for multiple children, or simply taking a moment to reset. So while “clear guidance” around screens was valued, strict rules were often not feasible in practice.

Parents expressed frustration that current guidelines oversimplify the issue as “no screens” versus “screens”. As Carmela (mother of a 17-month-old) told us:

I can’t just sit looking after a baby for the entire time. You’ve got to have some sanity. I think most parents now are going that way but feel guilty for it.

Yann (mother of a six-month-old) wanted guidelines that acknowledged the realities of family life today.

it’d be nice to say ‘okay, well, realistically [the] majority of you are going to use screens under 18 months, what are some guidelines? Here’s some shows we might recommend.’

Chad also wanted more clarity on what the overarching problem was with a limited amount of screen use in infancy.

What’s the actual risk factor here? […] ‘cause if my son’s really unhappy and you turn on the TV for 15 minutes […] and then he’s happy for the next four hours, is that really worse than being unhappy?

These reflections highlight the gap between expert recommendations and real-world parenting.

Parental guilt

Parents described the emotional weight of decisions about screen use and their kids.

Many were already using screens in their homes but felt guilty about doing so. Social media and parenting groups often intensified these feelings. Managing children’s screen use was not just about following advice but about navigating judgement, uncertainty and the tension between ideals and real life.

Or as Natalie (mother of a three-year-old) told us, she didn’t want to hear more social media opinions on the matter.

I don’t want to get 100,000 voices out there giving me their responses to add to the parental guilt and the parental angst.

What can parents do?

Our research suggests parents do not necessarily need more rules. They need more support to help them make informed decisions.

Parenting decisions are shaped by context, including children’s needs, family routines, work demands and available support. Parents need guidance that reflects this complexity.

This means moving towards more balanced, practical advice, focusing less on how long children spend on screens, and more on how they are using them.

For parents, research shows its important to:

• focus on what kind of content your child is consuming. Is it designed for children? Is it developmentally appropriate? Does it invite thinking, creativity, or learning?

• are they watching alone, or with another adult or sibling? Are there opportunities to talk, ask questions, or connect with what they’re seeing? Co-viewing supports language development and comprehension.

• does it help your child connect with others (for example, their family or peers), or engage actively (for example by responding to or participating in what they are seeing)?

Improving support is not about telling parents to do more or less. It is about offering guidance that helps families make informed, thoughtful choices about screens based on their individual child, their context, and what works in their everyday lives.

*names have been changed.

---

Read more: Why parents need to be like Big Ted and ‘talk aloud’ while they use screens with their kids

---

Stephanie Milford does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Data from Australia’s wastewater drug monitoring program suggests methamphetamine use (also known as speed, ice or crystal meth) is at a record high. Cocaine is also up. MDMA may be levelling off. Heroin is fluctuating.

At first glance, these findings from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission this week sound alarming.

But before we draw big conclusions about worsening drug use, it’s worth taking a closer look at what this data can and can’t tell us.

What wastewater data actually measures

Wastewater testing works by analysing sewage for traces of drugs people have used. Researchers test samples from treatment plants to estimate how much of a drug has been consumed by the population connected to that system.

It measures metabolised drugs. So it’s able to tell the difference between drugs that have been flushed down the toilet and drugs that have been excreted.

It’s a clever method that avoids some of the issues of self-report surveys, where people may under-report illegal behaviour.

It also gives close to real-time data unlike population surveys that are only conducted every few years.

But wastewater data can only measure the volume of drugs consumed, not the number of people using them or level of harm they experience.

Wastewater data can’t differentiate quantity from frequency. When it shows increases in particular drugs, we don’t know whether there are more people using the drug, or if the same people are using more of the drug, or using it more often.

It also can’t identify whether changes are due to higher purity.

So when we hear methamphetamine use is at a “ten-year high”, it really means the total quantity detected is higher, not necessarily that more Australians are using methamphetamine, or that harms are increasing.

Do these findings match other data?

National surveys, treatment data, hospital presentations, police seizures and wastewater data all track different parts of the drug system at different time points. And they don’t always move in the same direction at the same time.

Long-running population survey data shows a decrease in the prevalence of methamphetamine use over the past 15 years. Other data shows harms have increased, such as more people needing treatment and more ambulance callouts for methamphetamine. We have also seen a shift toward more potent forms of the drug and more intensive use among a smaller group of people.

That pattern fits with wastewater increases.

The same caution applies to cocaine. Wastewater data shows a steady rise but we can’t tell whether this reflects increased use by people who already use cocaine, or an increase in new users.

Based on other data – including the National Drug Strategy Household Survey, which shows increases in people trying the drug – it’s likely to be both.

Could prescriptions be affecting the data?

One question that often comes up is whether increases in stimulant prescriptions, such as those used to treat attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), could be influencing wastewater results.

There has been a significant increase in prescription amphetamines such as short- and long-acting dexamphetamine for ADHD.

Wastewater can’t easily distinguish between illicit and prescribed amphetamines.

But the scale of increase seen in the volume of methamphetamine is unlikely to be explained by prescription use alone.

MDMA levelling off

The wastewater report suggests MDMA use may be levelling off after earlier peaks. This is consistent with what we know about drug markets.

MDMA tends to follow social patterns. It rises with nightlife and festival culture, and falls when those environments change. We saw a big drop during the pandemic when both access to both MDMA and to festivals was substantially reduced.

There were early signs it was on the increase again. The plateau may reflect a stabilising market after post-pandemic rebounds.

Heroin is different

Heroin shows a more even pattern. Less than 1% of the population uses heroin but they tend to use it regularly, over a longer period.

Fluctuations in heroin use tend to occur when there are changes in supply, purity, or availability of treatments such as opioid substitution therapy, such as methadone.

---

Read more: How does methadone work as a heroin-replacement therapy? And what about the longer-acting buprenorphine?

---

What about the high rates in regional areas?

The wastewater report notes higher per capita use of some drugs in regional areas. But population survey data shows a lower percentage of people use illicit drugs in regional areas.

Wastewater data can make regional drug use look higher, not because more people are using drugs, but because a smaller group may be using them more heavily and more often.

Regional communities have fewer treatment services, greater economic stress and tighter social networks that can amplify both supply and harm.

Wastewater data also can’t tell who are visitors to an area and who are residents. Areas with festivals, for example, may show increases during festival season.

So wastewater data cannot be interpreted in isolation; it needs to be read alongside the many other robust data Australia collects.

A resilient and adaptive market

One of the clearest insights from the wastewater data is not about consumption, but about how resilient the drug markets are.

Despite an enormous amount of money and effort spent by law enforcement, markets continue to adapt and, in some cases, grow.

With high prices and strong demand, Australia remains an attractive market. So when one route is disrupted, another often emerges.

Rather than just focusing on reducing supply, policy responses should also prioritise reducing harm.

Patterns of use are becoming more concentrated. A smaller group of people seem to be experiencing more severe problems. These people need earlier and more targeted treatment and support to reduce harm.

In the end, it’s not just about how much drug is being used, it’s about what that means for the people using it.

If you’re worried about your own or someone else’s drug use, you can call the National Alcohol and other Drug Hotline on 1800 250 015.

Nicole Lee works as a consultant in the alcohol and other drug sector. She has previously been awarded grants by state and federal governments, NHMRC and other public funding bodies for alcohol and other drug research. She is CEO at Hello Sunday Morning and a Board member of The Loop Australia.