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

[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."

[jpcher]

I'm seeing so many good arguments for both sides of the fence.

I still say that there was a strong possibility of negligence on the nanny's part. Leaving an iPad on the coffee table where it's within easy reach of a known destructive child is a big part of that negligence.

I'm picturing this possible scenario: Herman was doing whatever Herman does while Nanny was playing on her iPad without paying too much attention to or interacting very much with Herman. Nanny is getting aggravated because Herman is getting aggravated and she finally says "Fine. I'll get you a snack." Nanny puts the iPad down on the coffee table and goes to the kitchen. Herman, seeing the "thing" that's taking up all of Nanny's attention, figures the best way to get Nanny to pay attention to him is to throw the "thing" away.

I don't see this as a far-fetched scenario at all and, to me, it speaks loudly of negligence on the Nanny's part. In the above case, I would not offer to pay for the iPad.

As an employer I think that I would be perfectly within my rights to ask Nanny what was going on when the incident occurred. And I would most definitely ask my child what happened. ADHD, destructive behavior or what have you, the child still has a voice.

Virg -- you keep mentioning the pragmatic thing by doing what's necessary to keep a good nanny. I understand your point of view, however your POV is on the Nanny's side when the nanny might not be that good to begin with. I paid my nanny almost 1/2 of my weekly salary so Nanny was making almost as much as I was. It would really 'hurt my feelings' to pay out for damage that was done just to keep a "good" nanny, when the nanny wasn't really that good anyway. (Okay, how many times can one write the word good in one paragraph? ) When I fired my nanny, it wasn't due to just one incident. Was it practical? No. But it was necessary.



Like I said, a whole lot of strong statements for both sides, but I'll stand firm by saying it's not a must that I pay for damages until I know further facts.

[TootsNYC]

I'm picturing this possible scenario: Herman was doing whatever Herman does while Nanny was playing on her iPad without paying too much attention to or interacting very much with Herman. Nanny is getting aggravated because Herman is getting aggravated and she finally says "Fine. I'll get you a snack." Nanny puts the iPad down on the coffee table and goes to the kitchen. Herman, seeing the "thing" that's taking up all of Nanny's attention, figures the best way to get Nanny to pay attention to him is to throw the "thing" away.

And I'm picturing this possible scenario:

Nanny was using her iPad to check in w/ faraway family members last night on Facebook. She sets the iPad down on the coffee table, and it gets partially obscured (or camouflaged) by magazines and the TV remote. She goes to bed.

The next day, she forgets it's there, because she thinks she tucked it away on the shelf. She runs around putting a few other things away, and then Herman arrives.

She's busy w/ Herman, including getting him snacks. He wants to do something and she won't let him because it's not allowed; he's unsettled by being in a new place, gets mad, and sees the iPad.

We can picture any scenario we want.

[LifeOnPluto]

jpcher, I was picturing something similar too. Of course, we don't know what really went on, but I can easily imagine that scenario happening.

For me, the crux of this matter is the nature of the object - an iPad. It's a small, portable, fragile item. It's not the same as the kid breaking the television set (which is heavier and not as easily moved elsewhere). I think the Nanny was rather silly not to have moved her iPad out of the child's reach. Especially since she was fully aware that this was a four year old with destructive tendencies. 

[Yvaine]

I'm picturing this possible scenario: Herman was doing whatever Herman does while Nanny was playing on her iPad without paying too much attention to or interacting very much with Herman. Nanny is getting aggravated because Herman is getting aggravated and she finally says "Fine. I'll get you a snack." Nanny puts the iPad down on the coffee table and goes to the kitchen. Herman, seeing the "thing" that's taking up all of Nanny's attention, figures the best way to get Nanny to pay attention to him is to throw the "thing" away.

And I'm picturing this possible scenario:

Nanny was using her iPad to check in w/ faraway family members last night on Facebook. She sets the iPad down on the coffee table, and it gets partially obscured (or camouflaged) by magazines and the TV remote. She goes to bed.

The next day, she forgets it's there, because she thinks she tucked it away on the shelf. She runs around putting a few other things away, and then Herman arrives.

She's busy w/ Herman, including getting him snacks. He wants to do something and she won't let him because it's not allowed; he's unsettled by being in a new place, gets mad, and sees the iPad.

We can picture any scenario we want.

Yeah, this. I think it was just out because it's her house, she'd had it out before Herman came over, and forgot about it right in the moment because she was focused on Herman. Jpcher, I see no reason to assume a situation where she's playing on the iPad and ignoring the kid. None at all.