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

[perpetua]

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

[turnip]

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

I think plenty of people have implied that it's the parents fault.   Let us all agree that it is not.

'Responsibility' is a different issue.   If I am paying someone to watch my child, they are taking on the responsibility for keeping my child safe - which includes keeping them from breaking things.  ( Again, broken glass and electronics can be dangerous, aside from monetary concerns )

I am not saying it is clear cut - I can see arguments for both sides, and as I said if it were my child I would pay.  But I would also think my nanny had been careless to leave the iPad out, and if a similar issue occurred later I'd be much less likely to pay.

[TeraNova15]

Intentional destruction of property is not always or even commonly a behavior that one sees with ADHD. And as far as the elilepsy example went, it would depend. If the parents werwn't treating the epilepsy then, yes, they would be liable.

We don't know what measures, if any, these parents have taken to deal with these behaviors. We do know the nanny can't decide to try therapy, mefication. Her comtol over his sleep and diet is far more limited than theirs.

ADHD is one of the things that contributes to the behavior of a child. It is not the only thing. A lot of kids who have ADHD don't do what he is doing. It is feasible his behavior has nothing to do with ADHD. It is possible it does but their current method of treating his ADHD isn't working. It could be they haven't really worked on any way of dealing with his.ADHD in a more productive way. Because they have the authority the nanny doesn't, they also have the responsibility.

This.

The epliepsy question is a straw man arguement. The child would have broken the item unintentionally in that case. Even then, if I was the parent, I would replace the iPad as a gesture of goodwill towards the nanny for taking on a child with medical difficulties.

You can either use the ADHD to excuse the child's behavior or use it as a teachable moment. This child needs to be taught respect for others and their property. Children without ADHD can be destructive as well, and as Sharnita point out destructive tendancies are not typical of children with ADHD.

My experiance with ADHD is largely anectdotal, but a friend of mine grew up with ADHD and continues to struggle with it in his adult life. While his behavior is sometimes erratic, his parents instilled in him a strong sense of personal responsibility and he never "blames" his disorder for his actions. I asked him if he's ever destroyed someone's property when he was a child (or as an adult). He said no, but if he had he knows his mom would have made him "work" for the money to replace it as a child, and if he did it as an adult he would definetely replace it without a second thought.

[alis]

I have a child with autism (same age, too).

With disorders like autism and especially ADHD, there is a tendency of some parents to use it as an excuse. Yes, my son cannot cope in a simple grocery store lineup and will melt down due to his disorder - it doesn't "harm" people, it's just irritating, however, that does not mean that I give him a pass to wilfully destroy property without consequences and harm others. Destroying property is harmful.

ADHD does not mean you go assault people and destroy their property. I do agree she should not have left such an intriguing electronic around a boy with his problems, but his disorder does not excuse violence. You CANNOT excuse violence with children who have ADHD because they CAN learn, it's just far more difficult to teach them. Besides, they don't stay 4 forever.

[Bexx27]

I'm actually not sure we can assume that this was intentional destruction of property. If the child were older it would be more clear cut, but even neurotypical 4-year-olds are not always able to anticipate the consequences of their actions. A child with ADHD is particularly bad at controlling his emotional reactions, restraining his impulses, and understanding what will happen if he doesn't. I think it is doubtful that Herman actively intended to break the ipad. We don't even know if he'd seen an ipad before or knew what it was. It's likely his only intention was to express his anger by throwing whatever object was in reach.

That said, I don't actually think his intent makes a difference where responsibility is concerned; I'm just uncomfortable with some of the harsh comments directed at this child and his parents. This type of thinking is why many parents of kids with ADHD feel guilty and judged. We know nothing about this family and some posters seem to be assuming that the parents are not already doing everything in their power to help Herman. There is no magical parenting technique that will guarantee perfect behavior from any child.

There's also a huge difference between using a disorder as an excuse and using it as an explanation (perhaps one of many explanations) for the child's behavior without absolving the child of responsibility. If you want to help a child learn the skills to control his impulses, regulate his emotions, etc., the first step is understanding why these things are so difficult for him and why the discipline methods that are successful with other children may not work for him.

Anyway, I don't know much more about this story than what I've already posted, but I can clarify that the nanny was not using the ipad at the time and that Herman's parents did immediately apologize and replace it.

[Two Ravens]

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?

[Yvaine]

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?

You said "young man," so I assume the murderer was an adult, which makes this completely different.

[Two Ravens]

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?

You said "young man," so I assume the murderer was an adult, which makes this completely different.

He was 18 but still living in his parents home.

[Yvaine]

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

It's interesting how far this can be taken. I was just reading about a case where a murder victim's parents were suing the parents of the young man that killed her for damages. Just how far does this parental liability extend?

You said "young man," so I assume the murderer was an adult, which makes this completely different.

He was 18 but still living in his parents home.

Then I'm not going to dig into speculating about it, since there may be legal issues I'm not aware of. I have no idea of what case you're talking about and don't know any of the particulars. But morally, I think there is a big difference between an 18yo and a 4yo in terms of responsibility. And I think there are gray areas in between there; i.e., I think a 14yo is more responsible for his own actions than a 4yo, but less so than an 18yo.

[Twik]

It's an interesting point, that would probably make an interesting legal case if it came to that. In general, I'd say that the nanny was the "proximal cause," because she didn't take the reasonable precaution of putting the ipad away. However, as a parent, I would do everything I could to reimburse her.

[TootsNYC]

None of this means that his issues have gone away.  He can still be destructive and possibly always will be.  We all do our best to reduce the frequency, but that is as much as we can currently do with the tools we currently have.

I think you're confusing 'fault' with 'responsibility'.

Nobody is saying it was the parents' fault that Herman threw the ipad. But he is their child and as such they must assume responsibility for what he does. Until he's of an age where he can make good any damages himself, it is their responsibility to pay for them.

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

Especially if it were my nanny.

[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.