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

[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.

[#borecore]

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?

[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!

[Deetee]

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.

[Psychopoesie]

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?

[Deetee]

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.