Author Topic: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby  (Read 7125 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

LB

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2526
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #15 on: April 10, 2012, 02:37:38 PM »
OP I was wondering if Pamela were sitting right next to you & asked to hold DS would you allow her? I wonder if proximity & bring 'right there' would help control the situation.

Well. Possibly. Right now, when I think about it, I'm still angry with her and that is coloring my reaction. I feel like just deciding she's not allowed to hold him at all. But that's just the protectiveness in me coming out. DH is still firm on not letting her hold him at all too, so he would have to be softened to the idea of one of us her holding him with one of us right there. He has never been too fond of Pamela (or her husband) anyway, so he may not change his mind on this one.

Thank you everyone else for the suggestions and comments. I feel like I'm already better equipped to handle this at the next meeting (if we bring DS).

SoCalVal

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2684
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #16 on: April 10, 2012, 02:38:28 PM »
Haven't read all the way through yet but agree with PPs who have said safety trumps etiquette.  There's no way Pamela should be allowed to hold your baby ever again (because that would mean trusting her again, and I certainly wouldn't risk my baby's safety -- if I had one -- to give her another chance).



GlassHalfFull

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #17 on: April 10, 2012, 02:48:53 PM »
Haven't read all the way through yet but agree with PPs who have said safety trumps etiquette.

I don't see why safety has to trump etiquette in this case.  Etiquette does not equal having to hand your baby over to anyone who asks, it's just trying to be polite in your refusal.

fountainof

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 669
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #18 on: April 10, 2012, 02:56:43 PM »
I think it would be best to politely decline any requests to hold the baby again with something like "he is a bit fussy today, he is best sitting here" or something similar.

The spice thing is more gross for other patrons I would think and it is nice you told a waitress.  I'll admit I don't get the butter knife thing, those things are so dull and don't have a point so I never understood why kids cannot have them.  After all their kid kitchens include plastic ones.  I could see not allowing it but it doesn't seem like a run across the room yelling "no" thing, just a simple request. 

LB

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2526
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #19 on: April 10, 2012, 03:02:48 PM »
I think it would be best to politely decline any requests to hold the baby again with something like "he is a bit fussy today, he is best sitting here" or something similar.

The spice thing is more gross for other patrons I would think and it is nice you told a waitress.  I'll admit I don't get the butter knife thing, those things are so dull and don't have a point so I never understood why kids cannot have them.  After all their kid kitchens include plastic ones.  I could see not allowing it but it doesn't seem like a run across the room yelling "no" thing, just a simple request.

Butter knives often have a small part that is serrated and pretty sharp. There's also that babies tend to play with things by waving them around or throwing them. He could have poked himself in the eye, or the mouth, or poked someone else in the eye or the mouth. Or he could have thrown it at someone sitting next to him.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 03:08:04 PM by LB »

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 13163
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #20 on: April 10, 2012, 03:05:47 PM »
My ex and I began to have less and less to do with some friends of hers, after an incident with our youngest son.

We were at a restaurant with this crew and both our kids (younger one, Zack, was only a few months old at best.) I had to take the older one (Grant, about 18-19mo at that point) out of the restaurant because he was getting fussy. Shortly thereafter, my ex comes storming out of the restaurant, holding Zack and hysterical. It turns out that one friend was holding Zack when another asked to hold him. First friend passes him off, but the second one missed the catch, dropping Z a few inches to the table. We rushed off to the hospital -- fortunately Zack was fine. We'd had some issues with these people before, inviting us to a New Year's party and not warning us that the hosts had dozens of tiny fragile glass knick-knacks all over the place. We ran ourselves ragged trying to keep Grant from breaking things. Plus, people would say that they'd watch him for us, and then just "forget" to actually do it.

Bottom line: Safety and your peace of mind trump just about anything else. If you don't trust people to hold your child, then don't let them. If they get their feelings hurt, that's their problem, not yours.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

MrsJWine

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8846
  • I have an excessive fondness for parentheses.
    • Wallydraigle
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #21 on: April 10, 2012, 03:08:22 PM »
I don't really get the problem with the butter knife, unless it was serrated, or he was crawling around with it. Almost all of my children's toys could have hurt them in some way if they shoved them into their eyes.

However, the salt shaker... eesh. I would have explained to her that the next person to sit at the table was going to have to use that shaker. Either the waitress will have to take it back to the dishwashers and refill or get a new one (pain in the butt, waste of time/resources), or she won't notice it, and the next person to sit there gets baby slime out of the salt shaker instead of salt. Either way, it's very inconsiderate. A lot of people get their backs up about how you raise your kids, but if you frame it in such a way that it's about how your child's behavior impacts other people, they're often much more acquiescent.

And yeah, I wouldn't let Pamela hold him in such a setting again.


I have a blog.  I hate that word.


Utah

Rivaini

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 807
  • Bears. Beets. Battlestar Galactica.
    • Keto Kitchen
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #22 on: April 10, 2012, 03:08:35 PM »
I'll admit I don't get the butter knife thing, those things are so dull and don't have a point so I never understood why kids cannot have them.  After all their kid kitchens include plastic ones.


This is not a "kid", this is a baby. Play kitchens are generally not intended for 9 month old babies.
Err on the side of awesome.

NorCal

LB

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2526
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #23 on: April 10, 2012, 03:14:56 PM »
I don't really get the problem with the butter knife, unless it was serrated, or he was crawling around with it. Almost all of my children's toys could have hurt them in some way if they shoved them into their eyes.However, the salt shaker... eesh. I would have explained to her that the next person to sit at the table was going to have to use that shaker. Either the waitress will have to take it back to the dishwashers and refill or get a new one (pain in the butt, waste of time/resources), or she won't notice it, and the next person to sit there gets baby slime out of the salt shaker instead of salt. Either way, it's very inconsiderate. A lot of people get their backs up about how you raise your kids, but if you frame it in such a way that it's about how your child's behavior impacts other people, they're often much more acquiescent.

And yeah, I wouldn't let Pamela hold him in such a setting again.

Okay, yes, a plastic rattle, if you shoved it into your eye would hurt. I can't see a baby doing much more than whacking himself in the face with it and shaking it off.

However, a butter knife, which does come to a kind of point, would take a lot less force to cause damage or pain.

evely28

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2600
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #24 on: April 10, 2012, 03:18:46 PM »
I think it would be best to politely decline any requests to hold the baby again with something like "he is a bit fussy today, he is best sitting here" or something similar.

The spice thing is more gross for other patrons I would think and it is nice you told a waitress.  I'll admit I don't get the butter knife thing, those things are so dull and don't have a point so I never understood why kids cannot have them.  After all their kid kitchens include plastic ones.  I could see not allowing it but it doesn't seem like a run across the room yelling "no" thing, just a simple request.

I used to think this also and let my two year old play on the floor with a butter knife and a box while I did dish'es. A trip to the ER and a few stitches later I learned. ;) As for Pamela's lovely attitude, keep her away from the baby! Life's not all about her or what she did with her own kid's but with someone else's baby, err on the side of caution or simply hand them back. I didn't let my kid's suck on random things and would sometimes get accused of being a germaphobe. What I do with my baby is my business and what you do with your baby is your business. Pamela showed a lack of judgement for what she did with the baby and then a lack of maturity for what she said to the OP.

Only me

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 735
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #25 on: April 10, 2012, 03:39:06 PM »
REading this thread, I think OP will be great with "Sorry No".

I am CF and don't hold most people's kids. I prefer older children as I find them easier to relate too, however I have a big problem with the person who was holding the baby and the OP....OP yes next time step up sooner, not everyone has common sense around babys.

As for "Pamela", was she stupid. She escalated the danger to the baby as far as I am concernred. She allowed him to play with a knife to possibly cut himself. Then she allowed him to suck on the spice shaker, ok besides the grossness of passing it on, the baby could have been allergic to something. And then to put him down where he could be trampled.

Seriously what was this lady thinking. And please don't tell me she wasn't thinking, she knew she put the baby down in a dangerous space, especially if she was sarcastic about it afterword. If she was sincere, then her apology would have been also.

Onlyme

Jones

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2670
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #26 on: April 10, 2012, 03:50:43 PM »
I am embarrased to admit that I have cut myself with a butterknife before.  :-\  Also, I would not give a small child the chance to eat tons of seasoned salt; I wouldn't eat it by itself, they shouldn't either. And to put him on the floor where oblivious adults are walking?  >:(

I am appalled at how Pamela acted with your child. I was encouraged by coworkers once to bring my son to a restaurant work-related dinner. He was in a high chair, though he didn't eat solids yet he could sit up fine. People came over to sit in the empty chair next to me, hold him for a few minutes while we talked, put him back in his chair and then go back to their own seats. It was a blast actually; I had him dressed up in a buttoned shirt and slacks, and he was a very friendly and cheerful infant (hadn't begun teething yet, lol). Could a setup like this be an option for you at your restaurant events?

GlassHalfFull

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #27 on: April 10, 2012, 03:52:32 PM »
REading this thread, I think OP will be great with "Sorry No".

Seriously what was this lady thinking. And please don't tell me she wasn't thinking, she knew she put the baby down in a dangerous space, especially if she was sarcastic about it afterword. If she was sincere, then her apology would have been also.

Onlyme

I agree this is probably a good situation for short and sweet as far as a response.  The parents don't owe her a reason.  On the apology, I was under the impression that was regarding the spice shaker, 'After the meeting, Pamela came up to me and sarcastically apologized for the spice shaker. "I'm so sorry if I contaminated him."'

GlassHalfFull

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 294
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #28 on: April 10, 2012, 04:00:49 PM »
Pamela showed a lack of judgement for what she did with the baby and then a lack of maturity for what she said to the OP.

I agree, though regarding her lack of judgement, she may have initially felt that judgement was right on par with that of the parents, as they didn't intervene at all in the knife incident, belatedly in the spice incident, and didn't say anything about putting the baby on the floor (unless I missed something.)  Again, no excuses for her behavior, but perhaps some reasons for it continuing.

MrTango

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2469
Re: S/O Not allowed to hold the baby
« Reply #29 on: April 10, 2012, 04:53:00 PM »
I think the parents can be perfectly polite in declining to allow her to hold the baby in the future.
"No, thank you, he's fine with me." is a perfectly polite response.  The tone of voice can be altered to suit the situation.

If for some reason she asks why you never let her hold Baby when you let others hold Baby, I don't think it would be rude to actually tell her that you're uncomfortable allowing her to hold Baby "because of how you handled Baby the last time you held him."