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

[turnip]

And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.

[alis]

Well, my only point is that ADHD is not an excuse for such actions. It is not. I have a son with autism and while his autism may explain some of the strange and difficult things he does, it does not absolve him from discipline for such actions. If anything, it is other parents or people with only brief laymen's knowledge of conditions like autism and ADHD that try to give him a free pass for certain behaviour, when in reality, that actually makes it more difficult for him to be corrected. For example, when my son gets angry and pushes down another kid who tries to touch his toy (he is not a wee toddler), and I try to discipline him, people say "oh it's okay, I know he will be like that..." well no, it's NOT okay and no, it's not an excuse for his outbursts, he must not be labeled "the autistic kid who is going to be violent if you upset his perfect world alignment"

[perpetua]

And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.

Who said that? I certainly haven't. This is what I mean by 'there's a difference between fault and responsibility'. It is not the parents' *fault* that the child is like he is, but, at this age anyway, he and the results of his behaviour *is* their responsibility.

ETA: ...in the same way that any parent of any kid, differing needs or not, is responsible for the actions of their children until such an age as they can be deemed responsible themselves. If a kid kicked his football through your window and broke it, his/her parents would be responsible for paying for the damage, unless he/she was old enough to have a job and pay for it him/herself. The ADHD thing is actually a bit of a red herring in this discussion.

[hobish]

And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.

I really don't see how PA comments like that help anyone.

[Bexx27]

And as usual we see a lot of insistence that the parents must be failing the child and making excuses.   I am not surprised.  It must be comforting to believe that good parents always produce well-behaved kids.

Who said that? I certainly haven't. This is what I mean by 'there's a difference between fault and responsibility'. It is not the parents' *fault* that the child is like he is, but, at this age anyway, he and the results of his behaviour *is* their responsibility.

ETA: ...in the same way that any parent of any kid, differing needs or not, is responsible for the actions of their children until such an age as they can be deemed responsible themselves. If a kid kicked his football through your window and broke it, his/her parents would be responsible for paying for the damage, unless he/she was old enough to have a job and pay for it him/herself. The ADHD thing is actually a bit of a red herring in this discussion.

I think it's comments like those below -- which do seem to imply that the parents are making excuses and/or not getting Herman the proper help -- that turnip is responding to. Most people on the thread are not saying this, however.

The child deliberately broke the laptop? I'd say they parents should pay.   Sometimes you can't just keep using conditions as excuses.

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

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.

With disorders like autism and especially ADHD, there is a tendency of some parents to use it as an excuse.

[alis]

Yes Bexx, and I say that as a mother of a child with a similar disorder, not as some judgemental person who doesn't have a clue. I wasn't speaking about the parents in the OP, obviously they feel it was unacceptable since they replaced the iPad, but there are some people that try to excuse such actions as ADHD or Autism and my point is that these excuses (rather than explanations and subsequent required discipline accordingly) doesn't help "us" (the parents of children with these disorders), if anything it just hurts more. Just because "our" children behave abnormally in some situations does not mean that it should be excused or in any way treated as a natural event because of it. A child with ADHD or Autism has challenges but unless they are so far into a spectrum that they are not conscious of the world around them, it means that they may actually require further discipline than a "normal" child, not less or handholding.

I do very much AGREE with those comments you highlighted (and not just my own), and I suspect any mother like me who has a child with ADHD or autism will as well. Sometimes people like to speak up for "us" and "we" don't necessarily agree with soft approaches, because laymen sometimes don't understand that these kids are still "normal".

[Bexx27]

Yes Bexx, and I say that as a mother of a child with a similar disorder, not as some judgemental person who doesn't have a clue. I wasn't speaking about the parents in the OP, obviously they feel it was unacceptable since they replaced the iPad, but there are some people that try to excuse such actions as ADHD or Autism and my point is that these excuses (rather than explanations and subsequent required discipline accordingly) doesn't help "us" (the parents of children with these disorders), if anything it just hurts more. Just because "our" children behave abnormally in some situations does not mean that it should be excused or in any way treated as a natural event because of it. A child with ADHD or Autism has challenges but unless they are so far into a spectrum that they are not conscious of the world around them, it means that they may actually require further discipline than a "normal" child, not less or handholding.

I do very much AGREE with those comments you highlighted (and not just my own), and I suspect any mother like me who has a child with ADHD or autism will as well. Sometimes people like to speak up for "us" and "we" don't necessarily agree with soft approaches, because laymen sometimes don't understand that these kids are still "normal".

But the argument is not about "hard" or "soft" approaches to discipline. It's people saying that the parents are making excuses or doing something wrong, when there is absolutely no reason to believe that.

[turnip]

Well, my only point is that ADHD is not an excuse for such actions. It is not. I have a son with autism and while his autism may explain some of the strange and difficult things he does, it does not absolve him from discipline for such actions. If anything, it is other parents or people with only brief laymen's knowledge of conditions like autism and ADHD that try to give him a free pass for certain behaviour, when in reality, that actually makes it more difficult for him to be corrected. For example, when my son gets angry and pushes down another kid who tries to touch his toy (he is not a wee toddler), and I try to discipline him, people say "oh it's okay, I know he will be like that..." well no, it's NOT okay and no, it's not an excuse for his outbursts, he must not be labeled "the autistic kid who is going to be violent if you upset his perfect world alignment"

Everyone is having a different discussion.  The question was never "should the child be disciplined?"    No one has suggested that the child should be coddled because he may or may not have a condition.

The question comes down to how much responsibility the _nanny_ has for his behavior.  She is aware he has behavior problems.  She has been hired to care for him.  She is ( presumably ) familiar with his outbursts.  Whatever can or should be done regarding his behavior is a bit besides the point, the question is whether or not the nanny should bear any of the burden. 

And I think if this is within the realm of 'normal' behavior for this child and if she took responsibility for him knowing that this sort of behavior should be watched out for, than she does bear some responsibility.  Like I said - if it happened once, if it was a nanny I knew and loved and trusted, than I would replace the iPad happily confident that she'd just had a bit of bad luck.   

[Virg]

TootsNYC wrote:

"And if my child had epilepsy and broke something, I'd pay for it.  Especially if it were my nanny."

Agreed, but the repair costs for a nanny can be pretty exorbitant.

Virg

[MariaE]

TootsNYC wrote:

"And if my child had epilepsy and broke something, I'd pay for it.  Especially if it were my nanny."

Agreed, but the repair costs for a nanny can be pretty exorbitant.

Virg

*snerk*

[Winterlight]

TootsNYC wrote:

"And if my child had epilepsy and broke something, I'd pay for it.  Especially if it were my nanny."

Agreed, but the repair costs for a nanny can be pretty exorbitant.

Virg

And if the 4yo is breaking the nanny, you might need an upgrade.

[Jocelyn]

I'm concerned about the point of view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for any damage the child does.

If the nanny takes the child out in public, and he damages something, would we expect her to pay for it?
 Suppose she takes him to a children's matinee, and he throws a Coke on another patron, who wants his clothes dry-cleaned. Would the nanny be expected to pay for that? Should she be expected to predict that giving him refreshments would lead to him throwing them?
Suppose he took off his shoe and threw it at her plasma TV. Would she be responsible for paying for the TV?
If she were babysitting him in his home, and he throws something and breaks it, would she be responsible for reimbursing the parents for their property?
I think you'd have to be paying a nanny a lot more than most nannies make, if you were going to expect her to assume financial liability for any and all damage the child does while in her custody. As someone pointed out, it's impossible to watch a child every minute, without being the sort of controlling person that would probably infuriate most 4 year olds (never leaving them alone, making them accompany you to the bathroom, stand next to you while you prepare meals, etc.).

[TootsNYC]

The other thing is, the nanny is your agent, so what she does is "as if you are doing it." If I understand how "agency" works most of the time. That's one reason why you so carefully choose a nanny (or other agent).

[miranova]

I think you'd have to be paying a nanny a lot more than most nannies make, if you were going to expect her to assume financial liability for any and all damage the child does while in her custody.

I have to agree with this.  There is no way I would nanny for someone who expected me to personally cover deliberate destruction to my property by their child.  I guess if you feel strongly about it, you can take the stance that the nanny shouldn't have left it out so she should pay for it, but then you'd better be prepared to find a new nanny every time your child does these things because I just don't see many nannies being willing to take on that kind of liability on an ongoing basis.

[White Lotus]

My kid, my responsibility to pay for damages.  Nanny probably brings the iPad everywhere, to do course work, or read, or whatever, when she is not directly needed for childcare, like during naps, or quiet solo play, or Tube Time.  It isn't good for children to give them no time without direct adult interaction.  This is exactly what a SAHP would do, including leaving the iPad on a coffee table.  I can hardly blame a nanny for what could easily have happened were I doing the job personally.  And, at base: my kid, my responsibility.