As if possessing the “it-bag” or “it-pair” of vertiginous (try-to-walk-and-you-might-end-up-in-A&E) heels wasn't enough, nowadays it also seems you need to have the it-child. Ever wondered when kidswear got so ludicrous? And I'm not even referring to the sort of clothes bought by parents who truss up their offspring in the ghastly manner of pre-teen beauty pageant queens: everyone knows that Little Lord Fauntleroy outfits or Bo Peep get-ups are not the way to make friends in Year 5.

Something is afoot, though, when even the non-statement (the equivalent of no-make-up make-up) is looking disturbing. What's up with this childrenswear that's so entrenched in the style diktats of “good-taste”? Bon Point, the chichi French label beloved of the Notting Hell set, got the ball rolling a few years back with £100-plus Babygros, but today's backlash against twee, French-style Princess coats is just as worrying.

Where trips to Gap or H&M were once the norm, the majority of designers have introduced lines for pre-teens. If you log on to www.littlefashiongallery.com, you'll find mini Marc Jacobs churning out smock-tops or smaller versions of grown-up dresses for not much less than the adult price. The trendy American label, 3.1 Phillip Lim, has just launched its own range for children with pared-down detailing, while the West London boutique Aimé has recently opened a kid's shop with not a ruffle or sickly pastel in sight.

I have to admit that I was swayed by some star-print leggings for a friend's baby (a pattern that is resolutely of the season) that I stumbled across at Paul & Joe, but mostly because they had been reduced by 60 per cent.

At one level, you can see the commercial incentive. Why wouldn't a designer play along with using his offcuts for a garment that is sold for marginally less than the adult version? More fool us, however, for buying into it. Because something's wrong when you factor in that there's no VAT on children's clothes and that you're still getting little change from £80 for an eight-year-old's dress. Why we want to promote such self-consciousness in kindergarten kids - and this from a fashion journo - is a mystery.

Take Milk, a French magazine for les enfants, which is so achingly hip that in this month's issue, 19-month-old Ophelia has a better-decorated bedroom than most adults have houses. In between the pages of saccharine, wholesome children from the Ralph Lauren ads are fashion shoots. These, I should add, are high-end, proper fashion spreads. There's one loosely based around David Hockney - a boy with a shock of blond hair, big-rim glasses, wearing an eclectic mishmash of spots, stripes and nonchalantly arranged scarves. Cute, perhaps, but you do wonder whether a six-year-old boy would want to be so painstakingly styled. Where, you ask, are the clothes ready to take the splatter of mud or paint? More disturbing is the image of a little girl with a giant, black-feathered cape, above right, a cross between edgy French Vogue ensembles and something a mini Keith Richards might put on.

The ten-year-old daughter of one fashion editor I know told her mother that she couldn't wait to be grown-up so that she too could wear cashmere cardigans like Mummy. The fashion editor didn't have the heart to tell her that cashmere cardigans were made for kids, except that, at £75 a pop, she wasn't going to be forking out for one anytime soon. No thanks, give us Mini Boden and Petit Bateau any day.

Times recommends

• Ask me about sex, not pay
• Culture clubbing
• Honor Blackman: Words from the wise