Etiquette Hell

General Etiquette => Life...in general => Topic started by: Bexx27 on October 07, 2013, 09:28:14 AM

Title: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Bexx27 on October 07, 2013, 09:28:14 AM
The damaged laptop thread reminded me of a thread I came across on another message board a few years ago. The OP was a nanny for a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts. The child (Herman) had been known to throw and break objects such as vases and picture frames in the family's home.

While the family's home was undergoing renovations, the nanny (Annie) agreed to care for Herman in her own home to avoid the construction during the day. Annie's ipad was sitting on the coffee table. Herman grabbed it and threw it down the stairs, breaking it. Annie believed that Herman's parents should pay for a replacement. Many of those posting in the thread agreed with her, but if I were Herman's mother I would not consider myself responsible. Annie was aware of Herman's destructive tendencies and was being paid to supervise him. What do you think?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: 123sandy on October 07, 2013, 09:33:02 AM
I think the parents should have paid for it.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 07, 2013, 09:33:34 AM
I think that the parents should pay. Lord knows *I* would.

Because while Annie knows this about the kid, she also is doing me a huge favor by caring for him in her home--which she probably hasn't had that much time to Herman-proof.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: squashedfrog on October 07, 2013, 09:35:22 AM
The child deliberately broke the laptop? I'd say they parents should pay.   Sometimes you can't just keep using conditions as excuses.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Alpacas on October 07, 2013, 09:36:01 AM
The Parents should have paid.
Just because the Parents home is  Herman-proof doesn't mean that the Nanny should have made her home Herman-proof.She did the parents a favour by taking him home with her.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Two Ravens on October 07, 2013, 09:46:10 AM
The Parents should have paid.
Just because the Parents home is  Herman-proof doesn't mean that the Nanny should have made her home Herman-proof.She did the parents a favour by taking him home with her.

"Herman-proofing" was not necessary, but an iPad is easily put on a shelf and out of the child's reach. What was the nanny thinking having it out around Herman?

But I do think the parents should pay for at least half since the nanny was doing them the extra favor of taking care of Herman in her home.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: lkdrymom on October 07, 2013, 09:56:44 AM
If Herman acciddentally broke the IPAD I would say it is on the nanny....but he didn't...he purposely broke it so his parents should pay.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 07, 2013, 09:57:52 AM
The parents are on the hook. Their destructive child, his deliberate action, their responsibility.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: dawbs on October 07, 2013, 10:06:23 AM
The Parents should have paid.
Just because the Parents home is  Herman-proof doesn't mean that the Nanny should have made her home Herman-proof.She did the parents a favour by taking him home with her.

This.
Honestly, this is very reminiscent to me of the parents in "Calvin and Hobbes" paying through the nose to the ONLY sitter who will deal w/ Calvin.  These parents have an intentionally destructive child.  They have a nanny who watches said destructive child AND who was willing to host the child in her house as a huge favor to them---even if it's highway robbery (which I don't think it is), you pay it--because a nanny willing to put up with the child and still do favors is worth it.

(this isn't the comic I'm thinking of, but, close enough--recurring theme  ;)

http://webspace.webring.com/people/hu/um_8572/ch/chros.gif)
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Bexx27 on October 07, 2013, 10:40:59 AM
Interesting to hear these perspectives. I guess my thought process was:

Who is responsible? Herman. But since Herman is a child, the person who has to take financial responsibility is whoever was responsible for him at the time --> Annie. But I can understand the point of view that parents are always responsible for their children's actions, whether they are present/in charge at the time or not, although I'm not sure I totally agree. It's also a good point that Annie was doing them a favor by watching him in her home.

Out of curiosity, what if Annie had taken Herman to a playdate in another family's home and Herman had damaged something there? Would the parents still be responsible or would it be Annie?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 07, 2013, 10:53:02 AM
What if the parents had dropped Herman off for a playdate?  Would the parents of the friend be on the hook or his parents? Personally, I would expect his parents to pay, even though friend's parents were supervising.  Deliberate destruction of property goes a bit beyond regular child proofing.

I would think that replacing the item might be easier in the long run than finding another babysitter who will deal with that behavior.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 07, 2013, 12:57:08 PM
If this wasn't a nanny who was well acquainted with the child, I would say the parents should most definately pay. But this nanny was being paid to care fro the child,  knew the habits of the child and chose to leave an expensive items easily accesible to him.

As the parent, I would pay if asked. But I'd feel the nanny was very careless in leaving the item out and was maybe not watching the child as closely as needed.

It's sort of like I agree to dog sit in my home. I am aware the dog chews on shoes and know to put shoes away but lI eave a pair out accessible to the dog. I wouldn't ask my friend to pay for the shoes because it was my mistake.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Outdoor Girl on October 07, 2013, 01:59:55 PM
This one is less clear cut to me than the laptop, glass of water, cat one.

On one hand, Annie is doing the family a huge favour, getting Herman away from the house during the construction.

On the other hand, she is well aquainted with his destructive behavior and left out an expensive item within easy reach.

As the parent, it might depend on how good a nanny Annie is.  If she is fantastic with Herman and they really love her, they should pay for the iPad in the interests of good will.

Otherwise, as the parent, I would offer half the replacement cost.  Because the nanny was doing me a huge favour but ultimately, Herman was my child.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: hobish on October 07, 2013, 02:07:26 PM
If this wasn't a nanny who was well acquainted with the child, I would say the parents should most definately pay. But this nanny was being paid to care fro the child,  knew the habits of the child and chose to leave an expensive items easily accesible to him.

As the parent, I would pay if asked. But I'd feel the nanny was very careless in leaving the item out and was maybe not watching the child as closely as needed.

It's sort of like I agree to dog sit in my home. I am aware the dog chews on shoes and know to put shoes away but lI eave a pair out accessible to the dog. I wouldn't ask my friend to pay for the shoes because it was my mistake.

I disagree only because it was an intentional act of destruction. Dogs and cats aren’t kids and aren't really as accountable. This was no accident, it was deliberate. For the parents to react in a “Well, you know how he is…” kind of way would make me so angry I doubt I’d be their nanny much longer if I were she.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 07, 2013, 02:08:16 PM
There is also a lot more deliberation in Herman's intentional destructiin of the ipad and the cat knocking a glass of water onto a laptop.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 07, 2013, 02:31:54 PM
If this wasn't a nanny who was well acquainted with the child, I would say the parents should most definately pay. But this nanny was being paid to care fro the child,  knew the habits of the child and chose to leave an expensive items easily accesible to him.

As the parent, I would pay if asked. But I'd feel the nanny was very careless in leaving the item out and was maybe not watching the child as closely as needed.

It's sort of like I agree to dog sit in my home. I am aware the dog chews on shoes and know to put shoes away but lI eave a pair out accessible to the dog. I wouldn't ask my friend to pay for the shoes because it was my mistake.

I disagree only because it was an intentional act of destruction. Dogs and cats aren’t kids and aren't really as accountable. This was no accident, it was deliberate. For the parents to react in a “Well, you know how he is…” kind of way would make me so angry I doubt I’d be their nanny much longer if I were she.

If an older child, yes, I'd agree. But to me a 4 yr old with diagnozed ADHD prone to outbursts aren't on the same accountability level as other children.

And she did "Know how he is" and was the one responsibile for leaving it accessible to him and was being PAID to monitor him.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 07, 2013, 03:59:39 PM
There's also this: The nanny is acting as an agent of the parents.
The roommate is not.

When someone is acting as my agent, I'm responsible, to some degree, for what they do.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: sweetonsno on October 07, 2013, 04:16:00 PM
Because this was a deliberate act of destruction on the part of the child, I think the parents should be paying for it. That the nanny knows that the child behaves badly does not mean that she is to blame for his bad behavior. If she'd given him the iPad to try and calm him down during a tantrum, I might feel differently.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Deetee on October 07, 2013, 05:07:08 PM
If there was any reason for the iPad to be out ( the kid uses it while visiting ) and the parents are OK with the kid using electronics ( I am not trying to start a judgement on that. I know fabulous parents who use lots of electronics but this is a personal parenting decision.) Then I think the parents should pay because they have approved the use of the iPad with the kids.

But if there was no reason to have the iPad out, it's on the nanny. A four year old with known destructive tendencies should not be best expensive electronics  my four year old is careful and calm, but she is still four and I keep my tablet out of reach.

However, if I were the parent and she was a great nanny I would pay because I could likely afford it more.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Katana_Geldar on October 07, 2013, 05:45:07 PM
I must say that if this was my child and my employee, I would be so mortified that I seriously doubt I would be worried about who should really be paying for the iPad. I would be forking over the money with her next paycheck.

This. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the child is the responsibility of the parents and the parents should pay.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Deetee on October 07, 2013, 06:01:12 PM
I must say that if this was my child and my employee, I would be so mortified that I seriously doubt I would be worried about who should really be paying for the iPad. I would be forking over the money with her next paycheck.

This. It doesn't matter whose fault it is, the child is the responsibility of the parents and the parents should pay.

Even though I posted above that I (as a parent) would likely pay, I disagree. When the nanny is looking after the child, the child is the the responsibility of the nanny, not the parents. The kid wasn't there for a social visit (if so then it's almost certainly the parents responsibility even if they are not present)

The nanny's job is to look after the child. Part of that job is to keep the child from damaging objects. She is being paidto have rresponsibility for the child.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: jpcher on October 07, 2013, 06:31:39 PM
The nanny's job is to look after the child. Part of that job is to keep the child from damaging objects. She is being paidto have rresponsibility for the child.

I completely agree with the above.

The nanny knew the child had a history of somewhat destructive behavior. It's not the first time nanny watched the child. Perhaps the first time in nanny's home, but nanny should know the history by now and be prepared for the child's possible actions even in her own home.

My question to nanny would be "Where were you when he grabbed your ipad?" Even if the answer was "I just turned my back for a minute" I still think the nanny was negligent by leaving the ipad within easy access.

If nanny answered "He grabbed it out of my hand, ran to the stairs and just threw it" Eh. I still might answer "What were you doing on the ipad when you should have been paying attention to my child?"

I think the onus is on nanny . . . for not being diligent.



However, my answer will probably change if this was only a first/second even (possibly?) third time of the nanny watching the child where she really didn't know the child at all. But it doesn't sound like this is the case.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: mich3554 on October 07, 2013, 07:06:20 PM
It sounded like the child's visit to the nanny's home was not planned, but as a solution to a problem.  Did she know she was going to be bringing the child home with her in order to keep him away from construction?

IMO, if she knew in advance, she could have made preparations for this.  However, if the nanny showed up one morning along with the building contractors and she and the parents realized that this was not going to be a smart thing for the child to be there with the contractors, so they decided that the nanny should take the child to her home,then the parents should pay for the destroyed iPad.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: kherbert05 on October 07, 2013, 07:23:09 PM
Parents should pay 100% and they need to get help for that child. Now!
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 07, 2013, 07:32:10 PM
When the nanny is looking after the child, the child is the the responsibility of the nanny, not the parents. The kid wasn't there for a social visit (if so then it's almost certainly the parents responsibility even if they are not present)

But overall, the child's *behaviour*, as an entity in and of itself, is the responsibility of the parents. The ipad was broken as a direct result of that child's behaviour. Therefore, they should be responsible for paying for it.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: bonyk on October 07, 2013, 07:37:33 PM
I go back and forth on this one.  The tipping point for me is that kid threw the iPad: didn't drop it, didn't spill something on it, he threw it.  Yes, he has ADHD, and can go from 0 to 60 in the blink of an eye, but that doesn't absolve his guilt.  His parents need to pay up.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: katycoo on October 07, 2013, 07:44:41 PM
My response is the same as in the other thread - they should go halvsies.

The parents are responsible for damage caused by the child but the nanny was contributorily negligent by leaving a valuable item within the child's reach.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: jpcher on October 07, 2013, 07:50:01 PM
Yes. A whole lot of suppositions are being made here because we don't know the honest-to-goodness hard facts.

mich3554 -- You're completely right and I would agree with you if it was an all-of-a-sudden solution, but I didn't read the OP that way. I read it as pre-planned.



Millionaire Maria -- From a nanny's point of view, I understand your response. From a parent's side of view? (absolutely no snark intended here) I fired a nanny because, after she reported an incident and I asked her "Where were you when this happened?" she replied "I was studying." . . . I am not sorry, and no notice was given to the nanny. Nanny was being paid handsomely to watch my child. Incidence should not have happened.


Yes, in the child-care business accidents happen. I guess, in the long run, it's up to the parents to decide whether it was negligence on the nanny's part or to pay for the damage just because that's the way their child is.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 07, 2013, 07:55:10 PM
Even somebody paid to watch a child.is going to havr to go to the bathroom or otherwise look away.at some point. And a nanny is going to have little to no say as to.how theADHD is treated, how bad behavior is disciplined, etc. Since the final authority falls back on the parents do does the final responsibility.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 07, 2013, 08:09:09 PM
Even somebody paid to watch a child.is going to havr to go to the bathroom or otherwise look away.at some point. And a nanny is going to have little to no say as to.how theADHD is treated, how bad behavior is disciplined, etc. Since the final authority falls back on the parents do does the final responsibility.
But the responsibility of putting away expensive items out of the reach of any child is the responsibility of the guardian of the moment which was the nanny,
What would you think if instead the 4 yr old got ahold of a knife that had been left on the coffe table and cut themselves. Would you still not hold the nanny accountable for not putting inappropriate things out of the way?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 07, 2013, 08:12:55 PM
I think the knife argument is a red herring, this wasn't a safety issue.

I see what you're saying about childproofing, however, this wasn't an accident. And if your child's behaviour is *that* bad that he would deliberately pick up and destroy something expensive, and it sounds like this is a known issue and not a one-off, then that's your (general) responsibility.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 07, 2013, 08:14:41 PM
I think the knife on the coffee table is a bit of a straw man.

I think, however, that it is helping me clarify my thoughts on this.

I felt that the glass of water was NOT something that should have been left out overnight in *any* room of the house. And that's why I think the roommate should deal with the laptop.

But an iPad on the coffee table is the sort of thing that might be overlooked. I bet this kid doesn't run around throwing stuff EVERY day (or she'd never have let him in her house), so it doesn't surprise me that the nanny might overlook the fact that it's there.

I can't give you a hard-and-fast logical reason that someone can't poke holes in.

All I can say is, if it were my kid I'd be buying a new iPad.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 07, 2013, 08:17:26 PM
I agree. Knives aren't generally kept on coffee tables anyway, while it is a completely reasonable place to put an ipad. And if the kid is that.destructive should the nanny have to remove all her lamps and maybe even the coffee table itself?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 07, 2013, 08:21:49 PM
I think the knife argument is a red herring, this wasn't a safety issue.

I see what you're saying about childproofing, however, this wasn't an accident. And if your child's behaviour is *that* bad that he would deliberately pick up and destroy something expensive, and it sounds like this is a known issue and not a one-off, then that's your (general) responsibility.
I consider this to be a safety issue for the item. I don't leave items around that can be easily damaged by kids in my care, especially ones with destructive tendencies.

I'd pay, but I would start looking for a new nanny who wasn't so careless.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: #borecore on October 07, 2013, 08:24:26 PM
Back in my babysitting days, I might have brought over a library book to the house to read after the kid went to bed. If the kid ripped up the book (and I did babysit some wild children) in a fit of rage, I'd have expected the parents to pay 100% of the bill I'd get from the library.

The nanny was not at fault for having out an iPad around a kid any more than I'd have been with the library book.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 07, 2013, 08:36:06 PM
The otherthing is that he deliberately destroyed her property. If he hadn'tmanaged to get to the ipad would there have been much to prevent him from goung after some other personal property?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: blarg314 on October 07, 2013, 09:06:01 PM

I think for this, and for damage in general, there is a difference between an accident that occurs in the normal course of affairs, and deliberate negligence or destruction.

So if you have a party and someone spills a glass of wine on your nice carpet, it's your responsibility to have it cleaned - the occasional knocked over drink is a natural and expected consequence of entertaining. If your roommate is washing dishes and drops your favourite cup - again, a natural side effect of normal living conditions.

However, if you're having a party and someone gets drunk and throws a glass of wine at someone, or someone decides to play catch with your crystal, then they should pay for any damage that results because their actions are not within the normal bounds of expected behaviour.

In this case - if the nanny were normally babysitting in her own home, then I'd lean towards the fact that she should know what the behaviour of her charges is like, and that part of the setup for watching the kids would be some appropriate childproofing. She would also have the option to get insurance that might cover damage that occurs in the course of her job.

Given that she was doing a pretty major favour for the parents by looking after the kid in her own home, and that having an iPad on the table is a very normal thing to do in her own home, I'd go for the parents' paying for the damage.

If I were in the nanny's situation, and the parents' didn't offer to pay, I'd be looking for a new child to take care of, and I wouldn't worry too much about giving ample notice. I'd also be extremely reluctant to have the child in my home again - as others have said, now that he's trashed the iPad what's next? The TV? (LCD screens don't hold up well to heavy objects being thrown at them) Her computer? Maybe the lamps? I'm guessing that the nanny doesn't have the sort of space where she could remove all valuables to other rooms to give the kid a closed off safe room where he can't damage anything.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: LifeOnPluto on October 07, 2013, 09:41:14 PM
Tough question! I think I fall more into the camp of "The Nanny should bear responsibility for the damaged iPad".

Unlike televisions, or library books, an iPad is a portable, rather fragile, expensive piece of equipment. It would have been very easy for the nanny to have simply put the iPad on a shelf, or somewhere safe where the kid couldn't get to it.

That said, if I were this boy's parent, I'd offer to pay at least some of the cost towards repairing/replacing it, because I'd personally feel bad. But I appreciate that not every parent would want to do this.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Winterlight on October 07, 2013, 09:48:12 PM
I must say that if this was my child and my employee, I would be so mortified that I seriously doubt I would be worried about who should really be paying for the iPad. I would be forking over the money with her next paycheck.

Seconded. My child deliberately destroyed her property. I'm paying for it.
Title: Th
Post by: sammycat on October 07, 2013, 10:11:40 PM
I must say that if this was my child and my employee, I would be so mortified that I seriously doubt I would be worried about who should really be paying for the iPad. I would be forking over the money with her next paycheck.

Seconded. My child deliberately destroyed her property. I'm paying for it.

Thirded, and  POD to all Millionaire Maria's other posts in this thread.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: sammycat on October 07, 2013, 10:19:02 PM
I fired a nanny because, after she reported an incident and I asked her "Where were you when this happened?" she replied "I was studying." . . .

IMO there is a huge difference between a nanny being distracted because they were studying, especially if time for that was not agreed upon in advance, and someone/nanny turning their back for a moment to get something out of a cupboard, open a curtain, glance out a window, grab the child a snack from the kitchen. Anyone who berated me for that would have to find themselves a new nanny on the the spot, and good luck to them with finding someone suitable ASAP, especially if it's known that the child is so badly behaved and destructive. Even for a well behaved child, it can take a while to find a new nanny. It is unrealistic to expect anyone to keep their eyes on a child 100% of the time.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: sammycat on October 07, 2013, 10:21:06 PM
Parents should pay 100% and they need to get help for that child. Now!

Yes!
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Deetee on October 07, 2013, 10:28:48 PM
When the nanny is looking after the child, the child is the the responsibility of the nanny, not the parents. The kid wasn't there for a social visit (if so then it's almost certainly the parents responsibility even if they are not present)

But overall, the child's *behaviour*, as an entity in and of itself, is the responsibility of the parents. The ipad was broken as a direct result of that child's behaviour. Therefore, they should be responsible for paying for it.

If the child was unsupervised, I would totally agree. If my child got out of the yard, ran next door and broke a planter of the neighbours, I would pay. If I was visiting someone and my child grabbed an ipad and broke it, I would agree. If I left my child for a play date with a friend and she broke the ipad (deliberately) I would totally agree.

But, to my mind, all children have streaks of dreadful uncivilized behavior that they will demonstrate. Childhood is a bit of a confusing and crazy time for kids. That's part of the reason they behave like dreadful Mcdreadfuls sometimes. It isn't that they are bad. But they are learning civilized behavior. One of the very, very frustrating things about children is they don't progress in some linear slope towards adultness.   You can have this fantastic two year old who says please and thank-you and is as sweet as pie who one year later morphes into a tantruming mess of a three year old who can become the epitome of a rage storm over a miscoloured soup spoon. How you deal with the behaviour determines your skill as a parent, but judging the end product alone is insufficient.

All this is to say that the nanny knew the kids behaviour and was responsible for the behaviour of the kid under her watch. The parents are not responsible for the "bad" behaviour. Some kids are wired differently and the best parenting in the world may not be enough to prevent violent outbursts.

So for unpredictable four year olds, the person in charge is responsible for the behaviour.

I don't think the knife anology is a bad one at all. There was something around that he should not have been able to access and damage resulted.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Psychopoesie on October 07, 2013, 10:52:14 PM
Pod to those saying the parents should pay.

Just because she's paid to care for their child doesn't mean she should eat the cost of an iPad. I don't see the nanny as particularly careless. I'm sure she did her best to kidproof her home and keep things out of reach - she may only have left the ipad there for a few seconds. The kid sounds like quite a handful.

Their kid did something wrong - he/she damaged someone else's property. The parents should apologise to the nanny for the damage and offer to pay.

Another question just occurred to me. If the nanny was caring for the kid in the parents' home and the kid damaged something while in her care, would she be expected to pay for a replacement?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Deetee on October 07, 2013, 11:56:28 PM


Another question just occurred to me. If the nanny was caring for the kid in the parents' home and the kid damaged something while in her care, would she be expected to pay for a replacement?

That would depend in my view. If it was something that was already out like a vase or a TV then it's on the parents. If it was something that was normally stored well out of harms way ( laptop, crystal glasses) then it was on the nanny.

Basically, the person who brings a valuable breakable object near the child or the child near the object through either negligence or purposefully is responsible.



Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MariaE on October 08, 2013, 12:02:46 AM
Absolutely the parents should pay! If the kids had broken it by accidentally dropping it while playing normally, then I'd feel differently, but deliberately throwing it? Yeah, no doubt in my mind. If I were the parent, I couldn't pay her quickly enough, and if I were the nanny and the parents didn't pay, I wouldn't be the nanny any longer.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 08, 2013, 01:44:55 AM
When the nanny is looking after the child, the child is the the responsibility of the nanny, not the parents. The kid wasn't there for a social visit (if so then it's almost certainly the parents responsibility even if they are not present)

But overall, the child's *behaviour*, as an entity in and of itself, is the responsibility of the parents. The ipad was broken as a direct result of that child's behaviour. Therefore, they should be responsible for paying for it.

If the child was unsupervised, I would totally agree. If my child got out of the yard, ran next door and broke a planter of the neighbours, I would pay. If I was visiting someone and my child grabbed an ipad and broke it, I would agree. If I left my child for a play date with a friend and she broke the ipad (deliberately) I would totally agree.


I don't mean the child's behaviour at that particular moment in time whether he was being supervised by the nanny or not: i mean the child's behaviour as an overall thing. This child is known to be destructive. That's the responsibility of the parents, certainly until he's either been trained out of it or is old enough to accept his own responsibility.

Quote
But, to my mind, all children have streaks of dreadful uncivilized behavior that they will demonstrate. Childhood is a bit of a confusing and crazy time for kids. That's part of the reason they behave like dreadful Mcdreadfuls sometimes. It isn't that they are bad. But they are learning civilized behavior. One of the very, very frustrating things about children is they don't progress in some linear slope towards adultness.   You can have this fantastic two year old who says please and thank-you and is as sweet as pie who one year later morphes into a tantruming mess of a three year old who can become the epitome of a rage storm over a miscoloured soup spoon.

Sure, but I'd have to think that four is old enough to know that you don't pick up peoples' property and wilfully destroy it. This kid isn't a toddler.

Quote
All this is to say that the nanny knew the kids behaviour and was responsible for the behaviour of the kid under her watch. The parents are not responsible for the "bad" behaviour. Some kids are wired differently and the best parenting in the world may not be enough to prevent violent outbursts.

I don't mean they're responsible for it like it's their fault and I understand about bad wiring. But they are responsible for the *consequences* of it, because he's their child and their responsibility.

Quote
I don't think the knife anology is a bad one at all. There was something around that he should not have been able to access and damage resulted.

Here's one I think is slightly more analogous: If I drove a car that I knew had a propensity to slip its handbrake and roll down a hill, it would totally be my responsibility if it did just that and ran over a kids bike in someone's garden, whether it's been 'left out' or not. I know my car has this problem and it isn't yet 'fixed', so if something happens as a result of that problem then it's on me to pay for it. I can't just say "well, your kid left his bike out, tough cookies, he should have been more careful". My car with the problem is what's caused the damage, to his bike in his garden. Therefore it's on me to pay for it. Ditto Herman and the nanny's property in *her own house*. He caused the damage because of his issue, so as he can't pay for it himself, it's on the parents to do so.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: hannahmollysmom on October 08, 2013, 03:04:47 AM
My thoughts are the parents should cover it.  The nanny took the child to her home as a favor to the parents. Nanny probably does not have children of her own, and forgot to put the item away. Her home was not Herman proof, and she hadn't thought of that at the last minute.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Stranger on October 08, 2013, 03:56:58 AM
When DS was 2 years old, he watched limited educational TV programs some mornings. Unbeknownst to us, the TV channel screened infomercials during ad breaks - a *very* memorable one was for liquid leather.

DS watched Sesame Street with his nanny, and he was mesmerised by the wonders liquid leather could do. So very mesmerised, that he got hold of a very sharp knife while nanny was in the loo, and stabbed our leather couches REPEATEDLY. Only so we could get liquid leather to paint the couch, you see  :D

No damage to DS, thank goodness, and I would never have thought to ask nanny to stand in for the damage my inquisitive 2 year old caused. She was distraught that he could get to a knife, and insisted that we buy child locks for the cutlery drawers, which i obviously agreed to.

If DS did this at nanny's house, I would have had to pay for repairs or a replacement. It is impossible to watch a child 100% of the day. I couldn't do it, how can I expect another human to do it?

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 08, 2013, 08:49:14 AM
Pod to those saying the parents should pay.

Just because she's paid to care for their child doesn't mean she should eat the cost of an iPad. I don't see the nanny as particularly careless. I'm sure she did her best to kidproof her home and keep things out of reach - she may only have left the ipad there for a few seconds. The kid sounds like quite a handful.

Their kid did something wrong - he/she damaged someone else's property. The parents should apologise to the nanny for the damage and offer to pay.

Another question just occurred to me. If the nanny was caring for the kid in the parents' home and the kid damaged something while in her care, would she be expected to pay for a replacement?

I'm curious about what I missed to make you sure the nanny took proper precautions?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 08, 2013, 08:54:59 AM
The thing is, I don't think all 4 year olds deliberately destroy the property of others. That really isn't SOP for the average 4 yo.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Psychopoesie on October 08, 2013, 09:04:46 AM
Pod to those saying the parents should pay.

Just because she's paid to care for their child doesn't mean she should eat the cost of an iPad. I don't see the nanny as particularly careless. I'm sure she did her best to kidproof her home and keep things out of reach - she may only have left the ipad there for a few seconds. The kid sounds like quite a handful.

Their kid did something wrong - he/she damaged someone else's property. The parents should apologise to the nanny for the damage and offer to pay.

Another question just occurred to me. If the nanny was caring for the kid in the parents' home and the kid damaged something while in her care, would she be expected to pay for a replacement?

I'm curious about what I missed to make you sure the nanny took proper precautions?

You didn't miss anything. There's nothing in the OP to say if the nanny took any precautions or if she didn't: just that the ipad was on the coffee table, the kid got it and broke it. There's no info on how long it was on the table either.

I was giving the nanny the benefit of the doubt, given she's used to caring for this kid, knew he was prone to that sort of behaviour, and would presumably want to protect her stuff.

Sorry if my post was unclear.  :)
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: rigs32 on October 08, 2013, 09:14:50 AM
I also think the hourly rate of pay for nanny vs. cost of replacement is a necessary factor.  If my ipad is ruined and I must now work 30 hours to earn enough to replace it, I would not stay in the job unless the money was necessary to pay my bills.

Do the parents really want to be searching for a new nanny so they can be "right"?  What happens when their child goes to school?  If he breaks cell phones or other items belonging to other children, does the teacher become responsible?  The bus driver?  When does this child even become accountable for their behavior?

Perhaps I am not as well versed on ADHD, but such children can communicate and be communicated with, correct?  This is not a child who is severely autistic or in some other way unable to communicate and where there may be very little control over behavior.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 08, 2013, 09:30:55 AM
DeeTee wrote:

"All this is to say that the nanny knew the kids behaviour and was responsible for the behaviour of the kid under her watch. The parents are not responsible for the "bad" behaviour. Some kids are wired differently and the best parenting in the world may not be enough to prevent violent outbursts."

They don't bear blame for not preventing the outbursts of their child, but they bear the responsibility to deal with the consequences of their child's actions.  I see this the same way as someone's child throwing a ball through a window while he's visiting someone.  Sure, one could argue that the nanny shouldn't have left the iPad in reach, but we must not forget that she took the boy to her house as a favor for an unusual situation and as such there's got to be more responsibility on the parents because their situation is what caused him to be there in the first place.  If the nanny normally had Herman in her house then she's deeper in responsibility for childproofing but it was a one-off, and as others said what about any of a hundred other items that she may not have been able to remove or protect like lamps or her television?

jpcher wrote:

"Yes, in the child-care business accidents happen. I guess, in the long run, it's up to the parents to decide whether it was negligence on the nanny's part or to pay for the damage just because that's the way their child is."

This sounds like a good way to end up without a nanny, to be honest.  Look at it from the completely pragmatic view.  What nanny would consider it worth the risk to end up working for a week for free any time they had something like this go wrong (or worse if he managed to wipe out something like a television or break the faceplate of her oven or whatever)?  Would the same parents ask her to pay for broken stuff in their home if Herman destroyed something while she's watching him?  I know for certain that if I was the nanny in this situation and payment for the broken iPad wasn't proffered directly, I'd quit and find a child less likely to destroy my stuff and parents less likely to force me to pay out of my pocket for it, because the danger to my income would simply not be work the risk.

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 08, 2013, 09:43:04 AM
Quote
and as others said what about any of a hundred other items that she may not have been able to remove or protect like lamps or her television?

This is part of the key for me--the kid was determined to break something, so I'd be paying for *some*thing.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 08, 2013, 09:50:30 AM
I guess I'm overly protective of my electronics because I would never leave my iPad or my cell phone where a 4 yr old could get to it. My iPad spends a lot of time on the coffee table but when my neice and newphew come over, it is put away. If one of them damaged it do to my carelessness of leaving it where it was easily accessible to them, whether their damage was intentionally or not, I would take respnsibility for my own carelessness and not expect my inlaws to buy me a new one.

A TV or lamp is different. If they are in their proper place and they are damaged then there is no carelessness on the part of the nanny.

If the nanny was in my home and left my iPad out where my reckless 4 yr old could damage it, I would hold her accountable. I wouldn't make her pay for it, but it would color my opinion of her ability to take proper cautions.

I have not sad the parents aren't responsibile for the bad behavior. I would reimburse the nanny but I would be very put out that she was so careless as to leave an expensive item that could be damaged intentionally or unintentionally easily accessible.

For those who believe the nanny is not responsibile at all, would you feel the same way if the child knocked over a glass of juice and ruined the iPad that she had left on the coffee table?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 08, 2013, 09:54:55 AM
I guess I'm overly protective of my electronics because I would never leave my iPad or my cell phone where a 4 yr old could get to it. My iPad spends a lot of time on the coffee table but when my neice and newphew come over, it is put away. If one of them damaged it do to my carelessness of leaving it where it was easily accessible to them, whether their damage was intentionally or not, I would take respnsibility for my own carelessness and not expect my inlaws to buy me a new one.

A TV or lamp is different. If they are in their proper place and they are damaged then there is no carelessness on the part of the nanny.

If the nanny was in my home and left my iPad out where my reckless 4 yr old could damage it, I would hold her accountable. I wouldn't make her pay for it, but it would color my opinion of her ability to take proper cautions.

I have not sad the parents aren't responsibile for the bad behavior. I would reimburse the nanny but I would be very put out that she was so careless as to leave an expensive item that could be damaged intentionally or unintentionally easily accessible.

For those who believe the nanny is not responsibile at all, would you feel the same way if the child knocked over a glass of juice and ruined the iPad that she had left on the coffee table?

But the point is that the child did this deliberately. It was not damaged due to the nanny's carelessness. It was damaged due to the child's poor behaviour.

It wasn't an accident. Accidents happen. If he'd accidentally knocked over a glass of juice then perhaps she shouldn't have left it where juice could be knocked on it. But this child was *so* badly behaved that he wilfully destroyed an expensive piece of equipment belonging to someone else and that kind of behaviour *is* the responsibility of the parents, and should be their responsibility without any ill feeling towards the nanny at all.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Dindrane on October 08, 2013, 10:11:06 AM
I guess I'm overly protective of my electronics because I would never leave my iPad or my cell phone where a 4 yr old could get to it. My iPad spends a lot of time on the coffee table but when my neice and newphew come over, it is put away. If one of them damaged it do to my carelessness of leaving it where it was easily accessible to them, whether their damage was intentionally or not, I would take respnsibility for my own carelessness and not expect my inlaws to buy me a new one.

A TV or lamp is different. If they are in their proper place and they are damaged then there is no carelessness on the part of the nanny.

If the nanny was in my home and left my iPad out where my reckless 4 yr old could damage it, I would hold her accountable. I wouldn't make her pay for it, but it would color my opinion of her ability to take proper cautions.

I have not sad the parents aren't responsibile for the bad behavior. I would reimburse the nanny but I would be very put out that she was so careless as to leave an expensive item that could be damaged intentionally or unintentionally easily accessible.

For those who believe the nanny is not responsibile at all, would you feel the same way if the child knocked over a glass of juice and ruined the iPad that she had left on the coffee table?

It's not really an equivalent scenario. If Herman deliberately poured a glass of juice on the iPad that had been left on the coffee table, that would be similar to taking the iPad and throwing it down the stairs.

Aside from that, electronics can sometimes be rescued after getting wet. They sometimes end up being okay if they are simply dropped a short distance (such as from the hands of your average four year old to the floor). Most electronics would not survive being thrown down the stairs.

There's a difference between responsibility for the actions Herman takes and the underlying behavior issues that cause him to take those actions. His caregiver, whoever it is at the time, is responsible for the actions he takes to the point where that caregiver could reasonably be expected to have influence over them. So if Herman is across the room from the nanny, which most people would consider to be a reasonable level of supervision for a four year old, the nanny isn't going to be able to stop him from grabbing something and throwing it down the stairs. There's no way she could get to him in time to physically stop him, and a child who thinks it's okay to willfully damage other people's belongings is unlikely to listen to her tell him to stop.

It's the parents' responsibility to address the underlying behavior issues that make Herman so much more destructive than usual. And until those issues are resolved or Herman is old enough to take responsibility for himself, they are also responsible for dealing with the consequences (financial and otherwise) of the damage he causes. It stinks, and it isn't fair, but it's part of the job of being a parent.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Eden on October 08, 2013, 10:18:18 AM
I think because the Nanny was the responsible caregiver, the parents shouldn't pay. This wasn't a playdate or a one-time babysitter. This is the nanny who should and does know how Herman behaves.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 08, 2013, 10:24:03 AM


For those who believe the nanny is not responsibile at all, would you feel the same way if the child knocked over a glass of juice and ruined the iPad that she had left on the coffee table?


I might. Because leaving a glass of juice on the coffee table is negligent, I believe. But leaving an iPad on a coffee table isn't.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 08, 2013, 10:29:26 AM
I think my perception of the scenario is very different from others.

A 4 yr old who is known to intentionally break items in the family home does not sound like a normal 4 yr old to me. I think because of that behavior I am picturing a child with developmental challenges and I view a child with developmental challenges as less accountable for their actions, especially at 4. So I put more respnsibility on the adults around them to assure safety of the child, other people, pets, and things.

In my experience a nanny employed to care for a child with developmental challenges has higher skills and is paid more than a typical nanny because they have more responsibility.

I can understand believing the parent should pay because it was a deliberate act. I just don't understand why some do not believe the nanny was in any way responsibile for choosing to leave an expensive piece of property easily accessible to the child.

As Dindrane pointed out, the caregiver has responsibility for those behaviors the caregiver can reasonably influence. Putting away a small portable expenisve item would be somethign easily influenced to prevent the distructive action.  I see leaving an iPad on a coffee table where young children can access it without appropriate monitoring as very careless.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 08, 2013, 10:40:09 AM
Eden wrote:

"I think because the Nanny was the responsible caregiver, the parents shouldn't pay. This wasn't a playdate or a one-time babysitter. This is the nanny who should and does know how Herman behaves."

I'll double this back on my suggestion to be pragmatic about it.  Consider how many nannies would continue watching him after being told that the hundreds of dollars in damage that he just intentionally did to someone else's property isn't his parents' responsibility.  Consider also that Herman has a violent history and is destructive to his parents' property as well.  Given these two things I would imagine that they won't have to worry about paying for any caregiver's property that Herman destroys because they'll quickly find themselves unable to find a caregiver willing to risk it.  To my way of thinking, not paying for this kind of damage is tantamount to firing the nanny because it'd be a rare person who could take that kind of hit and keep doing the job.

Hmmmmm wrote:

"As Dindrane pointed out, the caregiver has responsibility for those behaviors the caregiver can reasonably influence. Putting away a small portable expenisve item would be somethign easily influenced to prevent the distructive action.  I see leaving an iPad on a coffee table where young children can access it without appropriate monitoring as very careless."

This wasn't a situation where the child got hold of the device and damaged it while fiddling with it or spilled something on it, he grabbed it and deliberately threw it down the stairs.  Given that, it's entirely reasonable to think that if the iPad wasn't there he'd have grabbed something else and destroyed it instead.  Where's the limit?  Also, the change of venue was entirely due to Herman's parents, and the nanny relocated him as a favor to them so again, that puts a lot more on them.  After all, he wouldn't have been anywhere near the iPad if they hadn't had to send him out of the house due to construction.  And, as I just said above, is it going to be worth the chance that they'll have to replace their nanny?

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 08, 2013, 10:46:05 AM
A 4 yr old who is known to intentionally break items in the family home does not sound like a normal 4 yr old to me. I think because of that behavior I am picturing a child with developmental challenges and I view a child with developmental challenges as less accountable for their actions, especially at 4.

This is true, however, that does not negate the parents from their responsibility to make good damages caused by what may be either developmental challenges or simple bad behaviour.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Hmmmmm on October 08, 2013, 10:57:08 AM
Eden wrote:

"I think because the Nanny was the responsible caregiver, the parents shouldn't pay. This wasn't a playdate or a one-time babysitter. This is the nanny who should and does know how Herman behaves."

I'll double this back on my suggestion to be pragmatic about it.  Consider how many nannies would continue watching him after being told that the hundreds of dollars in damage that he just intentionally did to someone else's property isn't his parents' responsibility.  Consider also that Herman has a violent history and is destructive to his parents' property as well.  Given these two things I would imagine that they won't have to worry about paying for any caregiver's property that Herman destroys because they'll quickly find themselves unable to find a caregiver willing to risk it.  To my way of thinking, not paying for this kind of damage is tantamount to firing the nanny because it'd be a rare person who could take that kind of hit and keep doing the job.

Hmmmmm wrote:

"As Dindrane pointed out, the caregiver has responsibility for those behaviors the caregiver can reasonably influence. Putting away a small portable expenisve item would be somethign easily influenced to prevent the distructive action.  I see leaving an iPad on a coffee table where young children can access it without appropriate monitoring as very careless."

This wasn't a situation where the child got hold of the device and damaged it while fiddling with it or spilled something on it, he grabbed it and deliberately threw it down the stairs.  Given that, it's entirely reasonable to think that if the iPad wasn't there he'd have grabbed something else and destroyed it instead.  Where's the limit?  Also, the change of venue was entirely due to Herman's parents, and the nanny relocated him as a favor to them so again, that puts a lot more on them.  After all, he wouldn't have been anywhere near the iPad if they hadn't had to send him out of the house due to construction.  And, as I just said above, is it going to be worth the chance that they'll have to replace their nanny?

Virg

I guess I don't agree that it is entirely reasonable to assume that.

But it would seem to me that if the nanny kept the iPad easily accessible for her while she was caring for the child in her home, I would bet that she normally takes that iPad with her to the job so I don't agre with the second hypothesis either.

And I have said 3 times so far that if I were the child's parent I would pay for the iPad. Her leaving an expensive item accessible indicates poor judgement on her part in my opinion and would make me question whether I wanted to continue to employee her. Other's have said that leaving a knife accessible to a child is different then leaving out expensive electronics. I disagree. I think leaving out expensive, portable electronics accessible to ANY 4 year old is negligant if you are not going to be deligently watching their activities.

ETA:  I'm concerned my posts are becoming redundant and will get the thread locked so I'll bow out.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 08, 2013, 11:04:03 AM
Hmmmmm wrote:

"Other's have said that leaving a knife accessible to a child is different then leaving out expensive electronics. I disagree. I think leaving out expensive, portable electronics accessible to ANY 4 year old is negligant if you are not going to be deligently watching their activities."

On the other stuff, I agree that it's just a difference in perspective, but this particular thing is in an entirely different category.  Leaving an iPad out can result in a busted iPad, but leaving a knife laying around can result in a life-changing (or life-ending) injury so you've got a tough row to hoe trying to equate them.

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Goosey on October 08, 2013, 11:06:27 AM
Two things that sway me the most are:

1. This was an unusal situation for the child to be in the nanny's house.

2. We don't know how generally babyproofed (or in this case old-enough-to-know-better-but-poorly-behaved-proofed) the nanny's house is since this was an unusual situation.

My kindle stays on the coffee table so that I can grab it when I want it. I don't think twice about it until I need it. And anyone who says their eyes are on their child 100% of the time for hours is lying or delusional. Since the parents requested this unusual situation, I think they are responsible.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Saki_Fiz on October 08, 2013, 11:07:49 AM
I think the parents should pay regardless if it was intentional or an accident.  First of all, a child is the parents' responsibility.  Secondly, an employee is also the employers' responsibility.

I guess I view this more as business etiquette.  If the nanny is a good employee and having to reimburse him/her for things my child has broken is a rare occurrence, then I'm going to pony up the cash to keep my employee happy.  If the nanny is a bad employee, and it's the third expensive item to be been "broken" by my child in a month, then I'm going to pay the item so there can be no complaints when I also let him/her go.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: padua on October 08, 2013, 11:17:06 AM
i don't know how it happened, but i've been completely swayed to the opposite side i was on when i first read this post.

i originally agreed that the parents should pay and that they were responsible. now i'm thinking the parents should offer to pay, but that the nanny is responsible. i did have some responsibility for my charges when i babysat. i didn't get to just rest on my laurels and let them do whatever they wanted. i was responsible for their behaviors when their parents were gone. if a kid breaks a window while they're playing outside, whoever is supposed to be watching them at the time is responsible whether it's a parent or a sitter. as a parent, am i responsible for all misbehavior my child does when i've paid someone else to watch him? what then is the sitter's responsibility?

i would definitely offer to pay but only out of kindness. i wouldn't at all feel responsible for the replacement. i would assume the sitter wouldn't offer to host my child at her home unless she was prepared to do so. i do have to trust that the sitter is going to offer a safe and secure place for my child when she offers to take him somewhere other than my home. especially a nanny who hopefully knows my child.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: mich3554 on October 08, 2013, 11:57:17 AM
Yes. A whole lot of suppositions are being made here because we don't know the honest-to-goodness hard facts.

mich3554 -- You're completely right and I would agree with you if it was an all-of-a-sudden solution, but I didn't read the OP that way. I read it as pre-planned.



IMO, it's hard to know whether the visit to the nanny's home was pre-planned according to the OP.  It doesn't say one way or the other.

While the family's home was undergoing renovations, the nanny (Annie) agreed to care for Herman in her own home to avoid the construction during the day. Annie's ipad was sitting on the coffee table. Herman grabbed it and threw it down the stairs, breaking it.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Bexx27 on October 08, 2013, 12:21:31 PM
Yes. A whole lot of suppositions are being made here because we don't know the honest-to-goodness hard facts.

mich3554 -- You're completely right and I would agree with you if it was an all-of-a-sudden solution, but I didn't read the OP that way. I read it as pre-planned.



IMO, it's hard to know whether the visit to the nanny's home was pre-planned according to the OP.  It doesn't say one way or the other.

While the family's home was undergoing renovations, the nanny (Annie) agreed to care for Herman in her own home to avoid the construction during the day. Annie's ipad was sitting on the coffee table. Herman grabbed it and threw it down the stairs, breaking it.

IIRC being at the nanny's house was planned in advance. I don't know how far in advance, but it didn't seem like it was a spontaneous decision when the construction proved too loud.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TeraNova15 on October 08, 2013, 03:01:41 PM
I think the parents should pay regardless if it was intentional or an accident.  First of all, a child is the parents' responsibility.  Secondly, an employee is also the employers' responsibility.

I guess I view this more as business etiquette.  If the nanny is a good employee and having to reimburse him/her for things my child has broken is a rare occurrence, then I'm going to pony up the cash to keep my employee happy.  If the nanny is a bad employee, and it's the third expensive item to be been "broken" by my child in a month, then I'm going to pay the item so there can be no complaints when I also let him/her go.

I agree with this.

And regadless of the etiquette issue, the child needs to be held accountable for his actions, in an age appropriate way. While ADHD is a very real disorder, using it to "excuse" a child's inapproriate actions teaches a poor sense of responsiblity and just encourages out of control behavior. I think its a far more powerful message to say to a child "You did something wrong, now we as a family are going to make it right" instead of "You did something wrong, now nanny is sad" or even worse "Nanny didn't watch you, so you did something wrong."
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: jpcher on October 08, 2013, 06:41:12 PM
I'm seeing so many good arguments for both sides of the fence.

I still say that there was a strong possibility of negligence on the nanny's part. Leaving an iPad on the coffee table where it's within easy reach of a known destructive child is a big part of that negligence.

I'm picturing this possible scenario: Herman was doing whatever Herman does while Nanny was playing on her iPad without paying too much attention to or interacting very much with Herman. Nanny is getting aggravated because Herman is getting aggravated and she finally says "Fine. I'll get you a snack." Nanny puts the iPad down on the coffee table and goes to the kitchen. Herman, seeing the "thing" that's taking up all of Nanny's attention, figures the best way to get Nanny to pay attention to him is to throw the "thing" away.

I don't see this as a far-fetched scenario at all and, to me, it speaks loudly of negligence on the Nanny's part. In the above case, I would not offer to pay for the iPad.

As an employer I think that I would be perfectly within my rights to ask Nanny what was going on when the incident occurred. And I would most definitely ask my child what happened. ADHD, destructive behavior or what have you, the child still has a voice.

Virg -- you keep mentioning the pragmatic thing by doing what's necessary to keep a good nanny. I understand your point of view, however your POV is on the Nanny's side when the nanny might not be that good to begin with. I paid my nanny almost 1/2 of my weekly salary so Nanny was making almost as much as I was. It would really 'hurt my feelings' to pay out for damage that was done just to keep a "good" nanny, when the nanny wasn't really that good anyway. (Okay, how many times can one write the word good in one paragraph? :P) When I fired my nanny, it wasn't due to just one incident. Was it practical? No. But it was necessary.



Like I said, a whole lot of strong statements for both sides, but I'll stand firm by saying it's not a must that I pay for damages until I know further facts.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 08, 2013, 09:07:23 PM

I'm picturing this possible scenario: Herman was doing whatever Herman does while Nanny was playing on her iPad without paying too much attention to or interacting very much with Herman. Nanny is getting aggravated because Herman is getting aggravated and she finally says "Fine. I'll get you a snack." Nanny puts the iPad down on the coffee table and goes to the kitchen. Herman, seeing the "thing" that's taking up all of Nanny's attention, figures the best way to get Nanny to pay attention to him is to throw the "thing" away.


And I'm picturing this possible scenario:

Nanny was using her iPad to check in w/ faraway family members last night on Facebook. She sets the iPad down on the coffee table, and it gets partially obscured (or camouflaged) by magazines and the TV remote. She goes to bed.

The next day, she forgets it's there, because she thinks she tucked it away on the shelf. She runs around putting a few other things away, and then Herman arrives.

She's busy w/ Herman, including getting him snacks. He wants to do something and she won't let him because it's not allowed; he's unsettled by being in a new place, gets mad, and sees the iPad.

We can picture any scenario we want.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: LifeOnPluto on October 08, 2013, 09:09:33 PM
jpcher, I was picturing something similar too. Of course, we don't know what really went on, but I can easily imagine that scenario happening.

For me, the crux of this matter is the nature of the object - an iPad. It's a small, portable, fragile item. It's not the same as the kid breaking the television set (which is heavier and not as easily moved elsewhere). I think the Nanny was rather silly not to have moved her iPad out of the child's reach. Especially since she was fully aware that this was a four year old with destructive tendencies. 
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Yvaine on October 08, 2013, 09:10:28 PM

I'm picturing this possible scenario: Herman was doing whatever Herman does while Nanny was playing on her iPad without paying too much attention to or interacting very much with Herman. Nanny is getting aggravated because Herman is getting aggravated and she finally says "Fine. I'll get you a snack." Nanny puts the iPad down on the coffee table and goes to the kitchen. Herman, seeing the "thing" that's taking up all of Nanny's attention, figures the best way to get Nanny to pay attention to him is to throw the "thing" away.


And I'm picturing this possible scenario:

Nanny was using her iPad to check in w/ faraway family members last night on Facebook. She sets the iPad down on the coffee table, and it gets partially obscured (or camouflaged) by magazines and the TV remote. She goes to bed.

The next day, she forgets it's there, because she thinks she tucked it away on the shelf. She runs around putting a few other things away, and then Herman arrives.

She's busy w/ Herman, including getting him snacks. He wants to do something and she won't let him because it's not allowed; he's unsettled by being in a new place, gets mad, and sees the iPad.

We can picture any scenario we want.

Yeah, this. I think it was just out because it's her house, she'd had it out before Herman came over, and forgot about it right in the moment because she was focused on Herman. Jpcher, I see no reason to assume a situation where she's playing on the iPad and ignoring the kid. None at all.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Dindrane on October 08, 2013, 09:19:29 PM
As Dindrane pointed out, the caregiver has responsibility for those behaviors the caregiver can reasonably influence. Putting away a small portable expenisve item would be somethign easily influenced to prevent the distructive action.  I see leaving an iPad on a coffee table where young children can access it without appropriate monitoring as very careless.

I did say that the caregiver has responsibility for behaviors they can reasonably influence, but since Herman was being cared for in a non-usual environment, I don't think "putting away every single valuable/breakable/expensive/potentially dangerous thing in a place where Herman can't get to it" is something most people would be able to reasonably do.

If the nanny left her iPad on the coffee table at Herman's house, where his parents presumably live in a state of "keep the valuables/things we care about/expensive/potentially dangerous items far away from Herman," I'd agree more with the idea that her negligence was partially to blame for its destruction. But I don't think that is equally true at the nanny's house, especially if she often keeps her iPad on the coffee table when she's not using it.

I don't live with children, and I don't have pets. As a result, I have things that could be dangerous to a 4 year old lying around. I have expensive things I care about out where there are easily accessible. My computer pretty much lives on my coffee table, because I mostly use it when I'm on the couch. Even with, say, a week's notice, I might not be able to put all of those types of things in an inaccessible spot. For one thing, I don't have a lot of extra room. For another thing, I'm not necessarily going to realize in advance all the things that could be problematic so that I can move them.

In the case of the iPad on the coffee table, if the coffee table is similar in color to the iPad, or it got obscured by something, or it's even just where the nanny habitually sets it down, I can see overlooking it. I don't always actively notice that my laptop is on the coffee table, because my brain has filed that away as "object that is in the right spot." It would take some effort on my part to reject that previous idea and form a new one about where the laptop should go, such that I would notice it on a quick scan of the room to see what needs to be put elsewhere before a child like Herman visits.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 08, 2013, 09:38:21 PM
OK - I have a SN child who can be destructive.  I also have a Nanny hired due to her experience with difficult kids, who I pay to watch DS.

So if it happened to _me_ with _my_ DS and _my_ Nanny, I would pay for the iPad.  I love my nanny, I know her to be a careful, responsible person, and I want her to to love her job and stay with us forever, quite frankly, so I'd pay and not look back.

_However_ I would consider that I was doing it out of a kindness.  I don't know that I'd feel that I owed her the money.  She's been with my son for 2 years, she knows as well as I do that he shouldn't be left unsupervised around electronics, and and I would feel like she had some responsibility for what happened.  However because of my deep trust in her, I'd assume it was just a "stuff happens" moment and wouldn't suggest we split the cost or anything like that.

If we had a different relationship where I really felt like she had been negligent in letting my son around the iPad ( and he's a chewer too, so aside from breaking it it's not unlikely he could have started chewing on it and ended up with a mouth full of glass and electronics ) I would be more inclined to say it was entirely her responsibility to cover the replacement cost.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MariaE on October 08, 2013, 11:52:39 PM
I pictured the scenario Toots described as well. No neglience at all. Why on earth assume the worst of the nanny?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: bonyk on October 09, 2013, 04:38:33 AM
I don't think the child necessarily threw the iPad to break it, or that he was intending to be destructive.  Many children w/ ADHD do things before they even realize they've done it.

And now I'm on the other side of the fence, lol.  Nanny should have put iPad away.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 09, 2013, 04:49:24 AM
I don't think the child necessarily threw the iPad to break it, or that he was intending to be destructive.  Many children w/ ADHD do things before they even realize they've done it.

That does not absolve the parents of their financial responsibility to make good any damage caused by their propensity to do that.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 09, 2013, 07:08:27 AM
bonyk, the OP said he is prone to aggressive outbursts. He has throne and broken things before. Now, I do agree that might not have anything to do with ADHD. There might be other behavioral issues there and those would be the respinsibility of the parents.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 09, 2013, 03:54:03 PM
jpcher wrote:

"I'm picturing this possible scenario: Herman was doing whatever Herman does while Nanny was playing on her iPad without paying too much attention to or interacting very much with Herman. Nanny is getting aggravated because Herman is getting aggravated and she finally says "Fine. I'll get you a snack." Nanny puts the iPad down on the coffee table and goes to the kitchen. Herman, seeing the "thing" that's taking up all of Nanny's attention, figures the best way to get Nanny to pay attention to him is to throw the "thing" away."

This scenario describes a nanny who's pretty awful, and the fact that this is the scenario you're entertaining seems to indicate that you don't think much of the nanny at all.  I agree that if a nanny is neglectful and irritable to the level this describes, that losing her wouldn't be a problem at all, but what makes you think she's anywhere near this bad?  I don't think I'm being off the wall to assume that Herman's parents consider her to be competent at her job, and I don't see the simple fact that Herman got hold of the iPad is proof that she's negligent.

"Like I said, a whole lot of strong statements for both sides, but I'll stand firm by saying it's not a must that I pay for damages until I know further facts."

I think this is where we're on opposite sides of the issue.  My take is that responsibility for paying for the damage defaults to Herman's parents and they should only refuse if there's proof positive that she was negligent, and as I said above I don't see the simple fact that he laid hands on it to be proof enough because I can come up with a number of plausible scenarios that do not require her to be negligent.  Your statement indicates that you shouldn't pay before ascertaining, which indicates that the nanny would need proof negative before you'd pay.  Said another way, I think that the burden of proof lies on Herman's parents to prove she was negligent and your statement indicates that you consider burden of proof to be on the nanny to prove she wasn't.

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: jpcher on October 09, 2013, 06:38:15 PM
Said another way, I think that the burden of proof lies on Herman's parents to prove she was negligent and your statement indicates that you consider burden of proof to be on the nanny to prove she wasn't.

Virg


Ah! The old "Innocent until proven guilty" thing! ;D Excellent point! I do, honestly, agree with you 100%.

However asking the nanny AND the child about what happened before I dish out some money doesn't necessarily mean that I immediately thought the nanny was guilty of negligence. As a parent, I'm practicing due diligence simply by looking for the facts and ensuring that my child is well taken care of.

Toots' scenario was also an excellent possibility of what really happened. So were the other "What if's?" that were brought up in this thread . . . so many scenarios can be built around the one paragraph that we were given.

I pictured the scenario Toots described as well. No neglience at all. Why on earth assume the worst of the nanny?

Because not everybody is lucky enough to have a nanny like turnip posted about.

Because I had a couple of badish (not horrible) experiences with day-care providers, where my parental antennae were twitching.

Because nowhere in the OP was the statement that Nanny was a long-term trusted employee.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Winterlight on October 09, 2013, 09:52:41 PM
I think the parents should pay regardless if it was intentional or an accident.  First of all, a child is the parents' responsibility.  Secondly, an employee is also the employers' responsibility.

I guess I view this more as business etiquette.  If the nanny is a good employee and having to reimburse him/her for things my child has broken is a rare occurrence, then I'm going to pony up the cash to keep my employee happy.  If the nanny is a bad employee, and it's the third expensive item to be been "broken" by my child in a month, then I'm going to pay the item so there can be no complaints when I also let him/her go.

I agree with this.

And regadless of the etiquette issue, the child needs to be held accountable for his actions, in an age appropriate way. While ADHD is a very real disorder, using it to "excuse" a child's inapproriate actions teaches a poor sense of responsiblity and just encourages out of control behavior. I think its a far more powerful message to say to a child "You did something wrong, now we as a family are going to make it right" instead of "You did something wrong, now nanny is sad" or even worse "Nanny didn't watch you, so you did something wrong."

Good point.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 10, 2013, 01:47:04 PM
jpcher wrote:

"However asking the nanny AND the child about what happened before I dish out some money doesn't necessarily mean that I immediately thought the nanny was guilty of negligence. As a parent, I'm practicing due diligence simply by looking for the facts and ensuring that my child is well taken care of."

I'm with you on this.  I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what happened and in fact I think it's very wise in any case because it's a good way to figure out how to ensure that it's not as likely to happen again.  I just take the stance that, unless the questioning produced some pretty ironclad evidence that the nanny dropped the ball, that the responsibility for the damage falls to Herman's parents.

"Toots' scenario was also an excellent possibility of what really happened. So were the other "What if's?" that were brought up in this thread . . . so many scenarios can be built around the one paragraph that we were given."

This is very true, and it's possible that Herman's parents might never find out exactly what happened, but again I agree that asking isn't accusing and it's a good idea.

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 10, 2013, 02:27:39 PM
I don't think that there are easy answers here, but I wonder at those who are quick to assume that the parent's are using the boys diagnosis as an 'excuse'.

Alternate question - if the boy had epilepsy - frequent, uncontrolled seizures - and was normally kept away from breakable items as a result, would it change anyone's answer?   

There is overall often a tendency to treat mental problems as not as 'real' as physical problems.  Saying this boy has behavior issues is not the same as saying that if he had good parents, the behavior issues would obviously be solved.  It is not news to me that my son has behavior issues.  It is the reason he has been in behavioral therapy 6-10 hours a week for the last 3 years.  It's the reason we have team of therapists and specialists we work with.  It is the reason he goes to a classroom that is prepared to deal with his issues, it is the reason we pay for childcare that has the ability to deal with his issues.

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 10, 2013, 03:29:37 PM
Intentional destruction of property is not always or even commonly a behavior that one sees with ADHD. And as far as the elilepsy example went, it would depend. If the parents werwn't treating the epilepsy then, yes, they would be liable.

We don't know what measures, if any, these parents have taken to deal with these behaviors. We do know the nanny can't decide to try therapy, mefication. Her comtol over his sleep and diet is far more limited than theirs.

ADHD is one of the things that contributes to the behavior of a child. It is not the only thing. A lot of kids who have ADHD don't do what he is doing. It is feasible his behavior has nothing to do with ADHD. It is possible it does but their current method of treating his ADHD isn't working. It could be they haven't really worked on any way of dealing with his.ADHD in a more productive way. Because they have the authority the nanny doesn't, they also have the responsibility.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 10, 2013, 03:32:11 PM
But if the parents are doing everything possible to treat this child's destructive behaviors and/or ADHD - are they still liable? 
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Sharnita on October 10, 2013, 03:39:40 PM
They are asking nanny to take those destrucyive behaviors into her home.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 10, 2013, 04:01:49 PM
And the nanny agreed to take the child.  For payment.  With ( presumably ) full history and knowledge of what the child is capable of.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 10, 2013, 04:51:12 PM
None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 10, 2013, 04:57:11 PM
None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

I think plenty of people have implied that it's the parents fault.   Let us all agree that it is not.

'Responsibility' is a different issue.   If I am paying someone to watch my child, they are taking on the responsibility for keeping my child safe - which includes keeping them from breaking things.  ( Again, broken glass and electronics can be dangerous, aside from monetary concerns )

I am not saying it is clear cut - I can see arguments for both sides, and as I said if it were my child I would pay.  But I would also think my nanny had been careless to leave the iPad out, and if a similar issue occurred later I'd be much less likely to pay.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TeraNova15 on October 11, 2013, 07:46:24 AM
Intentional destruction of property is not always or even commonly a behavior that one sees with ADHD. And as far as the elilepsy example went, it would depend. If the parents werwn't treating the epilepsy then, yes, they would be liable.

We don't know what measures, if any, these parents have taken to deal with these behaviors. We do know the nanny can't decide to try therapy, mefication. Her comtol over his sleep and diet is far more limited than theirs.

ADHD is one of the things that contributes to the behavior of a child. It is not the only thing. A lot of kids who have ADHD don't do what he is doing. It is feasible his behavior has nothing to do with ADHD. It is possible it does but their current method of treating his ADHD isn't working. It could be they haven't really worked on any way of dealing with his.ADHD in a more productive way. Because they have the authority the nanny doesn't, they also have the responsibility.

This.

The epliepsy question is a straw man arguement. The child would have broken the item unintentionally in that case. Even then, if I was the parent, I would replace the iPad as a gesture of goodwill towards the nanny for taking on a child with medical difficulties.

You can either use the ADHD to excuse the child's behavior or use it as a teachable moment. This child needs to be taught respect for others and their property. Children without ADHD can be destructive as well, and as Sharnita point out destructive tendancies are not typical of children with ADHD.

My experiance with ADHD is largely anectdotal, but a friend of mine grew up with ADHD and continues to struggle with it in his adult life. While his behavior is sometimes erratic, his parents instilled in him a strong sense of personal responsibility and he never "blames" his disorder for his actions. I asked him if he's ever destroyed someone's property when he was a child (or as an adult). He said no, but if he had he knows his mom would have made him "work" for the money to replace it as a child, and if he did it as an adult he would definetely replace it without a second thought.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: alis on October 11, 2013, 08:26:35 AM
I have a child with autism (same age, too).

With disorders like autism and especially ADHD, there is a tendency of some parents to use it as an excuse. Yes, my son cannot cope in a simple grocery store lineup and will melt down due to his disorder - it doesn't "harm" people, it's just irritating, however, that does not mean that I give him a pass to wilfully destroy property without consequences and harm others. Destroying property is harmful.

ADHD does not mean you go assault people and destroy their property. I do agree she should not have left such an intriguing electronic around a boy with his problems, but his disorder does not excuse violence. You CANNOT excuse violence with children who have ADHD because they CAN learn, it's just far more difficult to teach them. Besides, they don't stay 4 forever.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Bexx27 on October 11, 2013, 08:47:54 AM
I'm actually not sure we can assume that this was intentional destruction of property. If the child were older it would be more clear cut, but even neurotypical 4-year-olds are not always able to anticipate the consequences of their actions. A child with ADHD is particularly bad at controlling his emotional reactions, restraining his impulses, and understanding what will happen if he doesn't. I think it is doubtful that Herman actively intended to break the ipad. We don't even know if he'd seen an ipad before or knew what it was. It's likely his only intention was to express his anger by throwing whatever object was in reach.

That said, I don't actually think his intent makes a difference where responsibility is concerned; I'm just uncomfortable with some of the harsh comments directed at this child and his parents. This type of thinking is why many parents of kids with ADHD feel guilty and judged. We know nothing about this family and some posters seem to be assuming that the parents are not already doing everything in their power to help Herman. There is no magical parenting technique that will guarantee perfect behavior from any child.

There's also a huge difference between using a disorder as an excuse and using it as an explanation (perhaps one of many explanations) for the child's behavior without absolving the child of responsibility. If you want to help a child learn the skills to control his impulses, regulate his emotions, etc., the first step is understanding why these things are so difficult for him and why the discipline methods that are successful with other children may not work for him.

Anyway, I don't know much more about this story than what I've already posted, but I can clarify that the nanny was not using the ipad at the time and that Herman's parents did immediately apologize and replace it.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Two Ravens on October 11, 2013, 09:22:38 AM
None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Yvaine on October 11, 2013, 09:27:57 AM
None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?

You said "young man," so I assume the murderer was an adult, which makes this completely different.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Two Ravens on October 11, 2013, 09:31:34 AM
None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?

You said "young man," so I assume the murderer was an adult, which makes this completely different.

He was 18 but still living in his parents home.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Yvaine on October 11, 2013, 09:40:32 AM
None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?

You said "young man," so I assume the murderer was an adult, which makes this completely different.

He was 18 but still living in his parents home.

Then I'm not going to dig into speculating about it, since there may be legal issues I'm not aware of. I have no idea of what case you're talking about and don't know any of the particulars. But morally, I think there is a big difference between an 18yo and a 4yo in terms of responsibility. And I think there are gray areas in between there; i.e., I think a 14yo is more responsible for his own actions than a 4yo, but less so than an 18yo.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Twik on October 11, 2013, 09:47:28 AM
It's an interesting point, that would probably make an interesting legal case if it came to that. In general, I'd say that the nanny was the "proximal cause," because she didn't take the reasonable precaution of putting the ipad away. However, as a parent, I would do everything I could to reimburse her.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 11, 2013, 10:59:45 AM
None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

And if my child had epilepsy and broke something, I'd pay for it.

Especially if it were my nanny.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 11, 2013, 11:07:46 AM
And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: alis on October 11, 2013, 11:31:22 AM
Well, my only point is that ADHD is not an excuse for such actions. It is not. I have a son with autism and while his autism may explain some of the strange and difficult things he does, it does not absolve him from discipline for such actions. If anything, it is other parents or people with only brief laymen's knowledge of conditions like autism and ADHD that try to give him a free pass for certain behaviour, when in reality, that actually makes it more difficult for him to be corrected. For example, when my son gets angry and pushes down another kid who tries to touch his toy (he is not a wee toddler), and I try to discipline him, people say "oh it's okay, I know he will be like that..." well no, it's NOT okay and no, it's not an excuse for his outbursts, he must not be labeled "the autistic kid who is going to be violent if you upset his perfect world alignment"
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 11, 2013, 11:38:14 AM
And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.

Who said that? I certainly haven't. This is what I mean by 'there's a difference between fault and responsibility'. It is not the parents' *fault* that the child is like he is, but, at this age anyway, he and the results of his behaviour *is* their responsibility.

ETA: ...in the same way that any parent of any kid, differing needs or not, is responsible for the actions of their children until such an age as they can be deemed responsible themselves. If a kid kicked his football through your window and broke it, his/her parents would be responsible for paying for the damage, unless he/she was old enough to have a job and pay for it him/herself. The ADHD thing is actually a bit of a red herring in this discussion.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: hobish on October 11, 2013, 12:00:34 PM
And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.

I really don't see how PA comments like that help anyone.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Bexx27 on October 11, 2013, 12:10:31 PM
And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.

Who said that? I certainly haven't. This is what I mean by 'there's a difference between fault and responsibility'. It is not the parents' *fault* that the child is like he is, but, at this age anyway, he and the results of his behaviour *is* their responsibility.

ETA: ...in the same way that any parent of any kid, differing needs or not, is responsible for the actions of their children until such an age as they can be deemed responsible themselves. If a kid kicked his football through your window and broke it, his/her parents would be responsible for paying for the damage, unless he/she was old enough to have a job and pay for it him/herself. The ADHD thing is actually a bit of a red herring in this discussion.

I think it's comments like those below -- which do seem to imply that the parents are making excuses and/or not getting Herman the proper help -- that turnip is responding to. Most people on the thread are not saying this, however.

The child deliberately broke the laptop? I'd say they parents should pay.   Sometimes you can't just keep using conditions as excuses.

Parents should pay 100% and they need to get help for that child. Now!

Even somebody paid to watch a child.is going to havr to go to the bathroom or otherwise look away.at some point. And a nanny is going to have little to no say as to.how theADHD is treated, how bad behavior is disciplined, etc. Since the final authority falls back on the parents do does the final responsibility.


With disorders like autism and especially ADHD, there is a tendency of some parents to use it as an excuse.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: alis on October 11, 2013, 12:22:38 PM
Yes Bexx, and I say that as a mother of a child with a similar disorder, not as some judgemental person who doesn't have a clue. I wasn't speaking about the parents in the OP, obviously they feel it was unacceptable since they replaced the iPad, but there are some people that try to excuse such actions as ADHD or Autism and my point is that these excuses (rather than explanations and subsequent required discipline accordingly) doesn't help "us" (the parents of children with these disorders), if anything it just hurts more. Just because "our" children behave abnormally in some situations does not mean that it should be excused or in any way treated as a natural event because of it. A child with ADHD or Autism has challenges but unless they are so far into a spectrum that they are not conscious of the world around them, it means that they may actually require further discipline than a "normal" child, not less or handholding.

I do very much AGREE with those comments you highlighted (and not just my own), and I suspect any mother like me who has a child with ADHD or autism will as well. Sometimes people like to speak up for "us" and "we" don't necessarily agree with soft approaches, because laymen sometimes don't understand that these kids are still "normal".
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Bexx27 on October 11, 2013, 12:32:31 PM
Yes Bexx, and I say that as a mother of a child with a similar disorder, not as some judgemental person who doesn't have a clue. I wasn't speaking about the parents in the OP, obviously they feel it was unacceptable since they replaced the iPad, but there are some people that try to excuse such actions as ADHD or Autism and my point is that these excuses (rather than explanations and subsequent required discipline accordingly) doesn't help "us" (the parents of children with these disorders), if anything it just hurts more. Just because "our" children behave abnormally in some situations does not mean that it should be excused or in any way treated as a natural event because of it. A child with ADHD or Autism has challenges but unless they are so far into a spectrum that they are not conscious of the world around them, it means that they may actually require further discipline than a "normal" child, not less or handholding.

I do very much AGREE with those comments you highlighted (and not just my own), and I suspect any mother like me who has a child with ADHD or autism will as well. Sometimes people like to speak up for "us" and "we" don't necessarily agree with soft approaches, because laymen sometimes don't understand that these kids are still "normal".

But the argument is not about "hard" or "soft" approaches to discipline. It's people saying that the parents are making excuses or doing something wrong, when there is absolutely no reason to believe that.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 11, 2013, 12:56:04 PM
Well, my only point is that ADHD is not an excuse for such actions. It is not. I have a son with autism and while his autism may explain some of the strange and difficult things he does, it does not absolve him from discipline for such actions. If anything, it is other parents or people with only brief laymen's knowledge of conditions like autism and ADHD that try to give him a free pass for certain behaviour, when in reality, that actually makes it more difficult for him to be corrected. For example, when my son gets angry and pushes down another kid who tries to touch his toy (he is not a wee toddler), and I try to discipline him, people say "oh it's okay, I know he will be like that..." well no, it's NOT okay and no, it's not an excuse for his outbursts, he must not be labeled "the autistic kid who is going to be violent if you upset his perfect world alignment"

Everyone is having a different discussion.  The question was never "should the child be disciplined?"    No one has suggested that the child should be coddled because he may or may not have a condition.

The question comes down to how much responsibility the _nanny_ has for his behavior.  She is aware he has behavior problems.  She has been hired to care for him.  She is ( presumably ) familiar with his outbursts.  Whatever can or should be done regarding his behavior is a bit besides the point, the question is whether or not the nanny should bear any of the burden. 

And I think if this is within the realm of 'normal' behavior for this child and if she took responsibility for him knowing that this sort of behavior should be watched out for, than she does bear some responsibility.  Like I said - if it happened once, if it was a nanny I knew and loved and trusted, than I would replace the iPad happily confident that she'd just had a bit of bad luck.   

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 11, 2013, 01:42:26 PM
TootsNYC wrote:

"And if my child had epilepsy and broke something, I'd pay for it.  Especially if it were my nanny."

Agreed, but the repair costs for a nanny can be pretty exorbitant.

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MariaE on October 11, 2013, 02:38:42 PM
TootsNYC wrote:

"And if my child had epilepsy and broke something, I'd pay for it.  Especially if it were my nanny."

Agreed, but the repair costs for a nanny can be pretty exorbitant.

Virg

*snerk*
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Winterlight on October 12, 2013, 06:59:01 PM
TootsNYC wrote:

"And if my child had epilepsy and broke something, I'd pay for it.  Especially if it were my nanny."

Agreed, but the repair costs for a nanny can be pretty exorbitant.

Virg

And if the 4yo is breaking the nanny, you might need an upgrade.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Jocelyn on October 12, 2013, 09:20:27 PM
I'm concerned about the point of view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for any damage the child does.

If the nanny takes the child out in public, and he damages something, would we expect her to pay for it?
 Suppose she takes him to a children's matinee, and he throws a Coke on another patron, who wants his clothes dry-cleaned. Would the nanny be expected to pay for that? Should she be expected to predict that giving him refreshments would lead to him throwing them?
Suppose he took off his shoe and threw it at her plasma TV. Would she be responsible for paying for the TV?
If she were babysitting him in his home, and he throws something and breaks it, would she be responsible for reimbursing the parents for their property?
I think you'd have to be paying a nanny a lot more than most nannies make, if you were going to expect her to assume financial liability for any and all damage the child does while in her custody. As someone pointed out, it's impossible to watch a child every minute, without being the sort of controlling person that would probably infuriate most 4 year olds (never leaving them alone, making them accompany you to the bathroom, stand next to you while you prepare meals, etc.).
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: TootsNYC on October 12, 2013, 09:25:55 PM
The other thing is, the nanny is your agent, so what she does is "as if you are doing it." If I understand how "agency" works most of the time. That's one reason why you so carefully choose a nanny (or other agent).
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: miranova on October 13, 2013, 08:26:49 AM

I think you'd have to be paying a nanny a lot more than most nannies make, if you were going to expect her to assume financial liability for any and all damage the child does while in her custody.

I have to agree with this.  There is no way I would nanny for someone who expected me to personally cover deliberate destruction to my property by their child.  I guess if you feel strongly about it, you can take the stance that the nanny shouldn't have left it out so she should pay for it, but then you'd better be prepared to find a new nanny every time your child does these things because I just don't see many nannies being willing to take on that kind of liability on an ongoing basis.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: White Lotus on October 13, 2013, 12:47:20 PM
My kid, my responsibility to pay for damages.  Nanny probably brings the iPad everywhere, to do course work, or read, or whatever, when she is not directly needed for childcare, like during naps, or quiet solo play, or Tube Time.  It isn't good for children to give them no time without direct adult interaction.  This is exactly what a SAHP would do, including leaving the iPad on a coffee table.  I can hardly blame a nanny for what could easily have happened were I doing the job personally.  And, at base: my kid, my responsibility.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 13, 2013, 03:54:03 PM
I'm concerned about the point of view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for any damage the child does.

If the nanny takes the child out in public, and he damages something, would we expect her to pay for it?
 Suppose she takes him to a children's matinee, and he throws a Coke on another patron, who wants his clothes dry-cleaned. Would the nanny be expected to pay for that? Should she be expected to predict that giving him refreshments would lead to him throwing them?
Suppose he took off his shoe and threw it at her plasma TV. Would she be responsible for paying for the TV?
If she were babysitting him in his home, and he throws something and breaks it, would she be responsible for reimbursing the parents for their property?
I think you'd have to be paying a nanny a lot more than most nannies make, if you were going to expect her to assume financial liability for any and all damage the child does while in her custody. As someone pointed out, it's impossible to watch a child every minute, without being the sort of controlling person that would probably infuriate most 4 year olds (never leaving them alone, making them accompany you to the bathroom, stand next to you while you prepare meals, etc.).

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

I think the question comes down to whether or not the iPad could have and should have clearly been kept away from this child.   Now in terms of 'could', iPads are small and easily movable, so I don't think there's any reason that it _had_ to be within reach of the child.  ( If the child had smashed their large-screen TV, I'd consider that the parent's responsibility as the nanny can hardly have been expected to re-decorate her house prior to the child's arrival ).

So should the nanny have known better?  We just don't know from the information in the OP.   If this is a child who frequently acts out, breaks things, destroys things, and the nanny has full knowledge of that, then she does bear some of the burden of trying to keep these sort of events from happening.  That would be - I assume - part of her job description, and part of the reason she was hired.   
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Amara on October 13, 2013, 04:48:18 PM
Having no children I can't add to the discussion on that. However, in reading the post just above mine I had the thought that perhaps the nanny had "child-proofed" her house (mostly) and that the iPad was one of those things that was so familiar in its place she didn't really see it when she saw it. By that, I mean she may have overlooked it when (if) she was making her place safer because it's one of those things that is so common you know it's there but you no longer really see it.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: drzim on October 13, 2013, 06:02:31 PM
I have been going back and forth on this one, but ultimately I think the parents should pay.  The bottom line is that the parents are financially responsible for the kid, full stop.  It doesn't matter who is watching him.  If he does damage, the parents should pay.  The only exception might be gross negligence on the part of the nanny...meaning if she deliberately left him alone for an extended period of time  playing hopscotch in a room full of breakables....but I doubt that this is relevant to the original situation.

I was always taught to pay for something if I broke it....it didn't matter if it was out of place or if I was careless or not.  I broke it, I pay.  Kids who don't have money to pay are covered by their parents.

My friend was in a minor car accident the other day.  The other car had parked badly (crooked), and backing out, my friend accidentally hit the car.  Common sense would say "Park properly and you won't get hit" however, when it comes down to it, my friend had to pay because she was responsible for hitting the car.  The fact that the car was parked badly is irrelevant.  It's not an excuse that would change the liability of the accident.

The same thing can be said for this situation.  Just because the nanny was somewhat irresponsible and left her iPad out, it doesn't change the fact that the boy broke it.  Since he cannot pay, his parents should.

Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 14, 2013, 01:45:26 AM

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

But this child isn't 18 months old. This child is 4. At 4, he should have some idea that you don't pick things up and deliberately throw them, especially not expensive things. This is in no way comparable to removing choking hazards from the vicinity of a toddler.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 14, 2013, 11:25:53 AM

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

But this child isn't 18 months old. This child is 4. At 4, he should have some idea that you don't pick things up and deliberately throw them, especially not expensive things. This is in no way comparable to removing choking hazards from the vicinity of a toddler.


From the OP

Quote
a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts

This is a 4 year old with behavior issues which the nanny should have been aware of and prepared for.  Apparently she was not. 

One possibility is that the parents are at fault because they did not hire or prepare the nanny well.  That can certainly happen - they hired the nanny assuring her that little 'Billy' was a perfect angel who would never hurt a fly, and the nanny has only begun to understand that this child has issues which are not being addressed and are beyond her skill to handle. 

At the other extreme, perhaps the parents looked for a nanny with experience and interest in working with children with behavior problems, and the nanny assured them that she was well prepared for and comfortable with little 'Billy's' particularly issues, but, in fact, the nanny exaggerated her experience and is completely overwhelmed by little Billy and unwilling to just come out and say so. 

We know that a 'normal' 4 year old should know not to deliberately throw breakable items.  I promise you that not every 4 year old is at this level of cognition and self-control.   The question comes down to what this nanny should have expected.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 14, 2013, 11:31:09 AM

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

But this child isn't 18 months old. This child is 4. At 4, he should have some idea that you don't pick things up and deliberately throw them, especially not expensive things. This is in no way comparable to removing choking hazards from the vicinity of a toddler.


From the OP

Quote
a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts

This is a 4 year old with behavior issues which the nanny should have been aware of and prepared for.  Apparently she was not. 

One possibility is that the parents are at fault because they did not hire or prepare the nanny well.  That can certainly happen - they hired the nanny assuring her that little 'Billy' was a perfect angel who would never hurt a fly, and the nanny has only begun to understand that this child has issues which are not being addressed and are beyond her skill to handle. 

At the other extreme, perhaps the parents looked for a nanny with experience and interest in working with children with behavior problems, and the nanny assured them that she was well prepared for and comfortable with little 'Billy's' particularly issues, but, in fact, the nanny exaggerated her experience and is completely overwhelmed by little Billy and unwilling to just come out and say so. 

We know that a 'normal' 4 year old should know not to deliberately throw breakable items.  I promise you that not every 4 year old is at this level of cognition and self-control.   The question comes down to what this nanny should have expected.

Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Redwing on October 14, 2013, 01:41:50 PM


Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.

This is the crux of the whole matter in my opinion.    Having three kids and a grandchild, I know just how quick a 4 year old can be.  He could easily have grabbed the I-pad while it sat on the table with the nanny in the same room and thrown it to the floor before she could stop him. 
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: lollylegs on October 15, 2013, 12:35:30 AM
Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.

This is exactly where I stand. Even if my child accidentally broke the iPad, I'd still be offering to buy a new one.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MariaE on October 15, 2013, 01:43:34 AM
Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.

This is exactly where I stand. Even if my child accidentally broke the iPad, I'd still be offering to buy a new one.

This is my opinion exactly as well.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: hannahmollysmom on October 15, 2013, 02:54:53 AM
After reading many pages, I still feel the parents are responsible. Simply that they agreed to their child going to the nanny's house during construction. It was doing them a favor.

Put it this way, if the nanny has no children, then when you are in your own space, you don't think to put away items that might be broken by the child. I know that I forget to put away certain things when my granddaughter visits and then I scramble when she gets here.

Basically, it does not matter what the child has for issues, the nanny was doing the parents a favor! Therefore, they are responsible.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 15, 2013, 02:52:48 PM

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

But this child isn't 18 months old. This child is 4. At 4, he should have some idea that you don't pick things up and deliberately throw them, especially not expensive things. This is in no way comparable to removing choking hazards from the vicinity of a toddler.


From the OP

Quote
a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts

This is a 4 year old with behavior issues which the nanny should have been aware of and prepared for.  Apparently she was not. 

One possibility is that the parents are at fault because they did not hire or prepare the nanny well.  That can certainly happen - they hired the nanny assuring her that little 'Billy' was a perfect angel who would never hurt a fly, and the nanny has only begun to understand that this child has issues which are not being addressed and are beyond her skill to handle. 

At the other extreme, perhaps the parents looked for a nanny with experience and interest in working with children with behavior problems, and the nanny assured them that she was well prepared for and comfortable with little 'Billy's' particularly issues, but, in fact, the nanny exaggerated her experience and is completely overwhelmed by little Billy and unwilling to just come out and say so. 

We know that a 'normal' 4 year old should know not to deliberately throw breakable items.  I promise you that not every 4 year old is at this level of cognition and self-control.   The question comes down to what this nanny should have expected.

Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.


But - to back up to the top of my post - are the parents also responsible for the precariously balanced Ming vase broken by the 18 month old?    Perhaps you think they are - it is certainly possible to take a firm line with these things - but I thing it is a question a lot of people would disagree on.

It is rarely clear-cut when an object belonging to A has been broken by B - whatever the ages and circumstances involved.  B should not be breaking A's objects, but A has some responsibility to keep their objects in places where they are not likely to be broken.

If this 4 year old was likely to break an iPad, and the Nanny knew that, than the Nanny should have been more careful.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 15, 2013, 03:37:19 PM
I do take a hard line in this case, because it wasn't an accident.

An 18 month old accidentally breaking something in the normal course of being an 18 month old - toddling into something, falling over and knocking something off somewhere - is *very* different from a four year old deliberately throwing something down the stairs and breaking it.

As far as childrens' behaviour that might result in an incident like this is concerned, the buck ultimately stops with the parents. Parents are responsible for their children until such an age as they can assume their own responsibility.

To extend your metaphor in the opposite direction: if your (you general) child threw a ball or a stone at a car and broke the windscreen, is it the car owners fault and therefore their responsibility to pay for because it wasn't parked in the garage? No, it is not. 
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 15, 2013, 03:49:35 PM
I do take a hard line in this case, because it wasn't an accident.

An 18 month old accidentally breaking something in the normal course of being an 18 month old - toddling into something, falling over and knocking something off somewhere - is *very* different from a four year old deliberately throwing something down the stairs and breaking it.

As far as childrens' behaviour that might result in an incident like this is concerned, the buck ultimately stops with the parents. Parents are responsible for their children until such an age as they can assume their own responsibility.

To extend your metaphor in the opposite direction: if your (you general) child threw a ball or a stone at a car and broke the windscreen, is it the car owners fault and therefore their responsibility to pay for because it wasn't parked in the garage? No, it is not.

The 18-month old may have deliberately knocked over the vase too - 18 month olds are capable of tremendous mischief, they just are incapable of understanding the consequences of that mischief. 

So while the 4 year old's behavior may have been 'deliberate', I think that using 'deliberate' when talking about a 4 year old with known behavior problems can be misleading.   If he is like the 4 year olds I know with behavior problems, he acts out in destructive ways because he is suffering in ways most of us can't imagine and is reacting with the few tools in his limited tool box.

And again we are not talking about the child breaking a friend's iPad or a relative's iPad or a stranger's iPad - those are much more clear cut.   We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child.

I'll tell you easily - anyone who knows my son ( who is 6 ) well _and_ deliberately leaves an iPad within his reach is a fool.   For the most part I would probably recompensate them,  but they made an easily preventable mistake and I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: perpetua on October 15, 2013, 04:14:23 PM
Why is it deliberate when the nanny leaves out an ipad, but not deliberate when your (general) child picks it up and throws it? Maybe she just … forgot? Maybe she was distracted? Perhaps by something the child was doing?

It works both ways.

The fact is that parents *are financially responsible for their children*. That's where the buck stops. That's just part and parcel of being a parent.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 15, 2013, 04:35:07 PM
Why is it deliberate when the nanny leaves out an ipad, but not deliberate when your (general) child picks it up and throws it? Maybe she just … forgot? Maybe she was distracted? Perhaps by something the child was doing?

It works both ways.

The fact is that parents *are financially responsible for their children*. That's where the buck stops. That's just part and parcel of being a parent.

I have never insisted that the nanny deliberately left out the iPad.  I have only stated that _if_ the nanny _did_ deliberately leave out the iPad, than I can appreciate why a parent would think that she should shoulder some of the costs.  The OP does not say why the iPad was in reach of the child, so we are left to consider different possibilities.    If 100 different children throw 100 different iPads owned by 100 different nannies, I think that it is possible in 1 or 2  of the cases the Nanny shares some of the blame.  I will easily accept that in most other cases the child and parents should take the blame, which is why I have stated - repeatedly - that I would pay if this occurred with my child. 
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: jpcher on October 15, 2013, 06:32:52 PM
I'm with turnip. 100%.  ;D
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MariaE on October 15, 2013, 11:36:55 PM
I'll tell you easily - anyone who knows my son ( who is 6 ) well _and_ deliberately leaves an iPad within his reach is a fool.   For the most part I would probably recompensate them,  but they made an easily preventable mistake and I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again.

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying that your 6 year old would be likely to throw the iPad as well, or merely that he'd be likely to drop it or in other ways accidentally damage it? Those are two hugely different things IMO.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 16, 2013, 08:50:41 AM
turnip wrote:

"The OP does not say why the iPad was in reach of the child, so we are left to consider different possibilities.    If 100 different children throw 100 different iPads owned by 100 different nannies, I think that it is possible in 1 or 2  of the cases the Nanny shares some of the blame."

The problem with this is that you're arguing an edge case, but you stated several times that the nanny should be shouldering some of the responsibility, and those two things don't match.  If it's "possible in 1 or 2 cases" out of a hundred, then you're acknowledging that it's extremely unlikely that the nanny did something that would warrant making her pay for any of the damage, so it rings hollow for you to say "We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child.We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child" because that's going to cover many of the 98 or 99 cases as well.  I agree that it would be reasonable to ask the nanny to be more cautious with such things in the future, but in the face of this one example, saying, "...I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again" still strikes me as assessing too much of the blame to her.

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 16, 2013, 06:37:53 PM
turnip wrote:

"The OP does not say why the iPad was in reach of the child, so we are left to consider different possibilities.    If 100 different children throw 100 different iPads owned by 100 different nannies, I think that it is possible in 1 or 2  of the cases the Nanny shares some of the blame."

The problem with this is that you're arguing an edge case, but you stated several times that the nanny should be shouldering some of the responsibility, and those two things don't match.  If it's "possible in 1 or 2 cases" out of a hundred, then you're acknowledging that it's extremely unlikely that the nanny did something that would warrant making her pay for any of the damage, so it rings hollow for you to say "We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child.We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child" because that's going to cover many of the 98 or 99 cases as well.  I agree that it would be reasonable to ask the nanny to be more cautious with such things in the future, but in the face of this one example, saying, "...I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again" still strikes me as assessing too much of the blame to her.

Virg

Quote
but you stated several times that the nanny should be shouldering some of the responsibility,

I've never stated that

Quote
"...I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again"

_if_ I felt she hadn't been cautious.  I don't know how many times I need use the words 'if' 'possibly' or 'maybe' to convince people that I am not taking a hard line that the nanny is 100 percent responsible for anything the child may break under any circumstances.   I think it is possible that the nanny has some responsibility.  I disagree with other posters who seem certain that regardless of the circumstances the parents should absolutely pay 100% of the replacement costs because that is what responsible parents do.


Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: turnip on October 16, 2013, 06:39:03 PM
I'll tell you easily - anyone who knows my son ( who is 6 ) well _and_ deliberately leaves an iPad within his reach is a fool.   For the most part I would probably recompensate them,  but they made an easily preventable mistake and I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again.

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying that your 6 year old would be likely to throw the iPad as well, or merely that he'd be likely to drop it or in other ways accidentally damage it? Those are two hugely different things IMO.

Not in his mind.  He wouldn't be able to tell the difference at all.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: jpcher on October 16, 2013, 06:48:47 PM
I think it is possible that the nanny has some responsibility.  I disagree with other posters who seem certain that regardless of the circumstances the parents should absolutely pay 100% of the replacement costs because that is what responsible parents do.

POD. This is where I firmly stand and completely agree. In my opinion, turnip is spot-on.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MariaE on October 16, 2013, 08:22:29 PM
I'll tell you easily - anyone who knows my son ( who is 6 ) well _and_ deliberately leaves an iPad within his reach is a fool.   For the most part I would probably recompensate them,  but they made an easily preventable mistake and I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again.

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying that your 6 year old would be likely to throw the iPad as well, or merely that he'd be likely to drop it or in other ways accidentally damage it? Those are two hugely different things IMO.

Not in his mind.  He wouldn't be able to tell the difference at all.

Are there circumstances about your son that I'm just forgetting? Because I'd say that at age 6 a child is plenty old enough to tell the difference. Heck, even my 3 year old niece is old enough to tell the difference! But you may have explained, and I'm just too tired to remember.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MissRose on October 17, 2013, 07:22:15 AM
I knew when my sister's kids were younger to keep certain objects out of sight and reach.  They did not and do not have any behavioral issues of any kind.  They know to treat other people's items with respect and care.  Kids of preschool age can still be inquisitive at times but can be told NO do not touch this or do this even if takes a lot of repetition.

I still say Herman's parents should pay for the nanny's ipad, and ensure their son receives professional help for his problems. 
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: padua on October 17, 2013, 05:52:22 PM
I think it is possible that the nanny has some responsibility.  I disagree with other posters who seem certain that regardless of the circumstances the parents should absolutely pay 100% of the replacement costs because that is what responsible parents do.

POD. This is where I firmly stand and completely agree. In my opinion, turnip is spot-on.

i do as well. i think it's very situational. if i left my children in the care of a sitter and when i returned home my house was in shambles and the sitter was sitting on the couch snapping bubble gum and listening to her walkman while my kids were hanging from the light fixtures and she said: "by the way," you owe me $50 for your kids drawing on my leather jacket," my inclination wouldn't be to pull out my wallet. i think in some instances you're paying someone to be responsible for your children and that individual should be responsible for what your children do while in their care. in the case of the nanny, if we had a good relationship, she is in part responsible for what my child did while in her care because that's what i'm paying her for (if she isn't keeping him from breaking things, how is she keeping him safe?). however, i'd pay for the ipad because i want to maintain an ongoing relationship with her and because i'd feel badly about it.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: jpcher on October 17, 2013, 07:19:18 PM
I'll tell you easily - anyone who knows my son ( who is 6 ) well _and_ deliberately leaves an iPad within his reach is a fool.   For the most part I would probably recompensate them,  but they made an easily preventable mistake and I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again.

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying that your 6 year old would be likely to throw the iPad as well, or merely that he'd be likely to drop it or in other ways accidentally damage it? Those are two hugely different things IMO.

Not in his mind.  He wouldn't be able to tell the difference at all.

Are there circumstances about your son that I'm just forgetting? Because I'd say that at age 6 a child is plenty old enough to tell the difference. Heck, even my 3 year old niece is old enough to tell the difference! But you may have explained, and I'm just too tired to remember.

Earlier in this thread, Pg. 6:

OK - I have a SN child who can be destructive.  I also have a Nanny hired due to her experience with difficult kids, who I pay to watch DS.

snip

If we had a different relationship where I really felt like she had been negligent in letting my son around the iPad ( and he's a chewer too, so aside from breaking it it's not unlikely he could have started chewing on it and ended up with a mouth full of glass and electronics ) I would be more inclined to say it was entirely her responsibility to cover the replacement cost.

A nanny that is knowledgable about certain traits of the child she has in her charge (nanny was well informed of Herman's destructive behavior) should certainly be aware enough to keep her personal items out of harms way.



Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: MariaE on October 17, 2013, 11:39:26 PM
Thanks, jpcher. I wrote my last post on 4 hours' of sleep so figured I was missing something.
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: Virg on October 18, 2013, 08:55:22 AM
padua wrote:

"i think it's very situational. if i left my children in the care of a sitter and when i returned home my house was in shambles and the sitter was sitting on the couch snapping bubble gum and listening to her walkman while my kids were hanging from the light fixtures and she said: "by the way," you owe me $50 for your kids drawing on my leather jacket," my inclination wouldn't be to pull out my wallet."

This is part and parcel of why I disagree with your level of perceived responsibility.  Look at your own example, and consider how far out of line you had to go to prove your point.  I agree that someone who's that disconnected and neglectful wouldn't deserve reimbursement, but there's nothing in the original situation that indicates that the nanny was anywhere near this bad, and these edge cases keep getting rolled out to say that not every single situation falls to the parents.  I agree that there's never any 100% guarantee, but I'm trying to hew closely to the situation that was actually presented, and I find that the vast majority of reasonable assumptions about what happened put the responsibility for replacing the iPad squarely on Herman's parents.  I can easily create scenarios that put the blame on the nanny (she decides she wants an upgraded iPad, so she purposefully leaves it on the table and lets Herman destroy it, for example) but considering that Herman's parents trust her enough to let her take him to her home to watch, I have to assume that she's not grossly incompetent or malicious.

Virg
Title: Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
Post by: padua on October 18, 2013, 01:47:55 PM
padua wrote:

"i think it's very situational. if i left my children in the care of a sitter and when i returned home my house was in shambles and the sitter was sitting on the couch snapping bubble gum and listening to her walkman while my kids were hanging from the light fixtures and she said: "by the way," you owe me $50 for your kids drawing on my leather jacket," my inclination wouldn't be to pull out my wallet."

This is part and parcel of why I disagree with your level of perceived responsibility.  Look at your own example, and consider how far out of line you had to go to prove your point.  I agree that someone who's that disconnected and neglectful wouldn't deserve reimbursement, but there's nothing in the original situation that indicates that the nanny was anywhere near this bad, and these edge cases keep getting rolled out to say that not every single situation falls to the parents.  I agree that there's never any 100% guarantee, but I'm trying to hew closely to the situation that was actually presented, and I find that the vast majority of reasonable assumptions about what happened put the responsibility for replacing the iPad squarely on Herman's parents.  I can easily create scenarios that put the blame on the nanny (she decides she wants an upgraded iPad, so she purposefully leaves it on the table and lets Herman destroy it, for example) but considering that Herman's parents trust her enough to let her take him to her home to watch, I have to assume that she's not grossly incompetent or malicious.

Virg

sorry for the confusion: i was responding to this:
"I think it is possible that the nanny has some responsibility.  I disagree with other posters who seem certain that regardless of the circumstances the parents should absolutely pay 100% of the replacement costs because that is what responsible parents do."

i was giving an extreme situation because i, too, don't believe the parents are always 100% responsible. i just wanted to illustrate that there are situations where one can place the responsiblity on the person paid to watch the child. it seems as if there are some people who feel parents should be responsible regardless of the situation and i just wanted to indicate that i disagree.