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

[perpetua]

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.

[Dindrane]

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.

[Eden]

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.

[TootsNYC]

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.

[Hmmmmm]

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.

[Virg]

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

[perpetua]

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.

[Hmmmmm]

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.

[Virg]

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

[Goosey]

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.

[Saki_Fiz]

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.

[padua]

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.

[mich3554]

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.

[Bexx27]

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.

[TeraNova15]

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."