S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad

[Sharnita]

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.

[Hmmmmm]

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?

[perpetua]

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.

[TootsNYC]

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.

[Sharnita]

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?

[Hmmmmm]

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.

[jmarvellous]

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.

[Sharnita]

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?

[Millionaire Maria]

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.

I am also a parent. It's fine to fire a nanny if they are actually being negligent. But having your back turned to a four year old for as long as it takes them to pick up an object and throw it is not negligence. And if you called it that when you were questioning me about the incident, I would not continue to work for you. It is completely unreasonable to expect a child's caregiver to be within reaching distance, with no distractions, all day long. And I disagree that the parents are the only ones who get to make the decision of who is responsible. They weren't even there to see the incident.

[blarg314]

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.

[LifeOnPluto]

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.

[Winterlight]

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.

[sammycat]

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.

[sammycat]

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.

[sammycat]

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

Yes!