Author Topic: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad  (Read 15614 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Deetee

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5599
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #45 on: October 07, 2013, 11:28:48 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.

Psychopoesie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 872
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #46 on: October 07, 2013, 11:52:14 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?

Deetee

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5599
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #47 on: October 08, 2013, 12:56:28 AM »


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.




MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4625
  • So many books, so little time
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #48 on: October 08, 2013, 01:02:46 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.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2098
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #49 on: October 08, 2013, 02:44:55 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.


hannahmollysmom

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1297
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #50 on: October 08, 2013, 04:04:47 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.

Stranger

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 436
  • diligo ergo sum
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #51 on: October 08, 2013, 04:56:58 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?


Hmmmmm

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6459
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #52 on: October 08, 2013, 09:49:14 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?

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21458
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #53 on: October 08, 2013, 09:54:59 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.

Psychopoesie

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 872
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #54 on: October 08, 2013, 10:04:46 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.  :)

rigs32

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 520
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #55 on: October 08, 2013, 10:14:50 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.

Virg

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5880
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #56 on: October 08, 2013, 10:30:55 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

TootsNYC

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 30648
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #57 on: October 08, 2013, 10:43:04 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.

Hmmmmm

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6459
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #58 on: October 08, 2013, 10:50:30 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?

Millionaire Maria

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2823
  • Truth and Happiness create each other.
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #59 on: October 08, 2013, 10:52:54 AM »

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.


Of course that's true, but that's all the more reason to hold the parents responsible. All children behave like savages sometimes, and as parents, you don't get to abdicate responsibility for that by paying someone else.
People everywhere enjoy believing in things they know are not true. It spares them the ordeal of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for what they know. –Brooks Atkinson