Author Topic: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad  (Read 16591 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

turnip

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 595
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #120 on: October 14, 2013, 12:25:53 PM »

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

But this child isn't 18 months old. This child is 4. At 4, he should have some idea that you don't pick things up and deliberately throw them, especially not expensive things. This is in no way comparable to removing choking hazards from the vicinity of a toddler.


From the OP

Quote
a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts

This is a 4 year old with behavior issues which the nanny should have been aware of and prepared for.  Apparently she was not. 

One possibility is that the parents are at fault because they did not hire or prepare the nanny well.  That can certainly happen - they hired the nanny assuring her that little 'Billy' was a perfect angel who would never hurt a fly, and the nanny has only begun to understand that this child has issues which are not being addressed and are beyond her skill to handle. 

At the other extreme, perhaps the parents looked for a nanny with experience and interest in working with children with behavior problems, and the nanny assured them that she was well prepared for and comfortable with little 'Billy's' particularly issues, but, in fact, the nanny exaggerated her experience and is completely overwhelmed by little Billy and unwilling to just come out and say so. 

We know that a 'normal' 4 year old should know not to deliberately throw breakable items.  I promise you that not every 4 year old is at this level of cognition and self-control.   The question comes down to what this nanny should have expected.

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #121 on: October 14, 2013, 12:31:09 PM »

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

But this child isn't 18 months old. This child is 4. At 4, he should have some idea that you don't pick things up and deliberately throw them, especially not expensive things. This is in no way comparable to removing choking hazards from the vicinity of a toddler.


From the OP

Quote
a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts

This is a 4 year old with behavior issues which the nanny should have been aware of and prepared for.  Apparently she was not. 

One possibility is that the parents are at fault because they did not hire or prepare the nanny well.  That can certainly happen - they hired the nanny assuring her that little 'Billy' was a perfect angel who would never hurt a fly, and the nanny has only begun to understand that this child has issues which are not being addressed and are beyond her skill to handle. 

At the other extreme, perhaps the parents looked for a nanny with experience and interest in working with children with behavior problems, and the nanny assured them that she was well prepared for and comfortable with little 'Billy's' particularly issues, but, in fact, the nanny exaggerated her experience and is completely overwhelmed by little Billy and unwilling to just come out and say so. 

We know that a 'normal' 4 year old should know not to deliberately throw breakable items.  I promise you that not every 4 year old is at this level of cognition and self-control.   The question comes down to what this nanny should have expected.

Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.

Redwing

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 349
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #122 on: October 14, 2013, 02:41:50 PM »


Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.

This is the crux of the whole matter in my opinion.    Having three kids and a grandchild, I know just how quick a 4 year old can be.  He could easily have grabbed the I-pad while it sat on the table with the nanny in the same room and thrown it to the floor before she could stop him. 

lollylegs

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 611
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #123 on: October 15, 2013, 01:35:30 AM »
Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.

This is exactly where I stand. Even if my child accidentally broke the iPad, I'd still be offering to buy a new one.

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4717
  • So many books, so little time
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #124 on: October 15, 2013, 02:43:34 AM »
Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.

This is exactly where I stand. Even if my child accidentally broke the iPad, I'd still be offering to buy a new one.

This is my opinion exactly as well.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice

hannahmollysmom

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1308
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #125 on: October 15, 2013, 03:54:53 AM »
After reading many pages, I still feel the parents are responsible. Simply that they agreed to their child going to the nanny's house during construction. It was doing them a favor.

Put it this way, if the nanny has no children, then when you are in your own space, you don't think to put away items that might be broken by the child. I know that I forget to put away certain things when my granddaughter visits and then I scramble when she gets here.

Basically, it does not matter what the child has for issues, the nanny was doing the parents a favor! Therefore, they are responsible.

turnip

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 595
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #126 on: October 15, 2013, 03:52:48 PM »

It is not my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for anything the child does.

It _is_ my view that if the nanny is in charge, she is responsible for taking reasonable precautions to make sure my child is kept from things that my child could damage, or could damage my child.  Let's move away from the OP and assume the nanny is in charge of a typical 18 month old.  If she has assumed responsibility, assured the parents that she is experienced and capable of taking care of an 18 month old child, and then takes the child to her home, I would assume that she has taken the precaution of removing any glasses, vases, , scissors, small choking hazards, etc.   These are all standard precautions for taking care of a child at that age and development level, and if I arrived at her house to discover her outraged that my child had knocked over her precariously balanced Ming vase, I'd think the nanny had been a bit careless, and I don't think I'd offer to fork over a pile of money to replace it.

But this child isn't 18 months old. This child is 4. At 4, he should have some idea that you don't pick things up and deliberately throw them, especially not expensive things. This is in no way comparable to removing choking hazards from the vicinity of a toddler.


From the OP

Quote
a 4-year-old child who had ADHD and was prone to aggressive outbursts

This is a 4 year old with behavior issues which the nanny should have been aware of and prepared for.  Apparently she was not. 

One possibility is that the parents are at fault because they did not hire or prepare the nanny well.  That can certainly happen - they hired the nanny assuring her that little 'Billy' was a perfect angel who would never hurt a fly, and the nanny has only begun to understand that this child has issues which are not being addressed and are beyond her skill to handle. 

At the other extreme, perhaps the parents looked for a nanny with experience and interest in working with children with behavior problems, and the nanny assured them that she was well prepared for and comfortable with little 'Billy's' particularly issues, but, in fact, the nanny exaggerated her experience and is completely overwhelmed by little Billy and unwilling to just come out and say so. 

We know that a 'normal' 4 year old should know not to deliberately throw breakable items.  I promise you that not every 4 year old is at this level of cognition and self-control.   The question comes down to what this nanny should have expected.

Of course, every child is different. But that does not negate the fact that parents are responsible for (note: not 'to blame for', there is a big difference between blame and responsibility) the consequences of their childrens' behaviour until such an age as the children are able to take their own responsibility for it. I'm not sure why this is even up for argument. That's what being a parent *means*.


But - to back up to the top of my post - are the parents also responsible for the precariously balanced Ming vase broken by the 18 month old?    Perhaps you think they are - it is certainly possible to take a firm line with these things - but I thing it is a question a lot of people would disagree on.

It is rarely clear-cut when an object belonging to A has been broken by B - whatever the ages and circumstances involved.  B should not be breaking A's objects, but A has some responsibility to keep their objects in places where they are not likely to be broken.

If this 4 year old was likely to break an iPad, and the Nanny knew that, than the Nanny should have been more careful.

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #127 on: October 15, 2013, 04:37:19 PM »
I do take a hard line in this case, because it wasn't an accident.

An 18 month old accidentally breaking something in the normal course of being an 18 month old - toddling into something, falling over and knocking something off somewhere - is *very* different from a four year old deliberately throwing something down the stairs and breaking it.

As far as childrens' behaviour that might result in an incident like this is concerned, the buck ultimately stops with the parents. Parents are responsible for their children until such an age as they can assume their own responsibility.

To extend your metaphor in the opposite direction: if your (you general) child threw a ball or a stone at a car and broke the windscreen, is it the car owners fault and therefore their responsibility to pay for because it wasn't parked in the garage? No, it is not. 

turnip

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 595
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #128 on: October 15, 2013, 04:49:35 PM »
I do take a hard line in this case, because it wasn't an accident.

An 18 month old accidentally breaking something in the normal course of being an 18 month old - toddling into something, falling over and knocking something off somewhere - is *very* different from a four year old deliberately throwing something down the stairs and breaking it.

As far as childrens' behaviour that might result in an incident like this is concerned, the buck ultimately stops with the parents. Parents are responsible for their children until such an age as they can assume their own responsibility.

To extend your metaphor in the opposite direction: if your (you general) child threw a ball or a stone at a car and broke the windscreen, is it the car owners fault and therefore their responsibility to pay for because it wasn't parked in the garage? No, it is not.

The 18-month old may have deliberately knocked over the vase too - 18 month olds are capable of tremendous mischief, they just are incapable of understanding the consequences of that mischief. 

So while the 4 year old's behavior may have been 'deliberate', I think that using 'deliberate' when talking about a 4 year old with known behavior problems can be misleading.   If he is like the 4 year olds I know with behavior problems, he acts out in destructive ways because he is suffering in ways most of us can't imagine and is reacting with the few tools in his limited tool box.

And again we are not talking about the child breaking a friend's iPad or a relative's iPad or a stranger's iPad - those are much more clear cut.   We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child.

I'll tell you easily - anyone who knows my son ( who is 6 ) well _and_ deliberately leaves an iPad within his reach is a fool.   For the most part I would probably recompensate them,  but they made an easily preventable mistake and I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again.

perpetua

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2212
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #129 on: October 15, 2013, 05:14:23 PM »
Why is it deliberate when the nanny leaves out an ipad, but not deliberate when your (general) child picks it up and throws it? Maybe she just forgot? Maybe she was distracted? Perhaps by something the child was doing?

It works both ways.

The fact is that parents *are financially responsible for their children*. That's where the buck stops. That's just part and parcel of being a parent.

turnip

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 595
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #130 on: October 15, 2013, 05:35:07 PM »
Why is it deliberate when the nanny leaves out an ipad, but not deliberate when your (general) child picks it up and throws it? Maybe she just forgot? Maybe she was distracted? Perhaps by something the child was doing?

It works both ways.

The fact is that parents *are financially responsible for their children*. That's where the buck stops. That's just part and parcel of being a parent.

I have never insisted that the nanny deliberately left out the iPad.  I have only stated that _if_ the nanny _did_ deliberately leave out the iPad, than I can appreciate why a parent would think that she should shoulder some of the costs.  The OP does not say why the iPad was in reach of the child, so we are left to consider different possibilities.    If 100 different children throw 100 different iPads owned by 100 different nannies, I think that it is possible in 1 or 2  of the cases the Nanny shares some of the blame.  I will easily accept that in most other cases the child and parents should take the blame, which is why I have stated - repeatedly - that I would pay if this occurred with my child. 

jpcher

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 8737
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #131 on: October 15, 2013, 07:32:52 PM »
I'm with turnip. 100%.  ;D

MariaE

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4717
  • So many books, so little time
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #132 on: October 16, 2013, 12:36:55 AM »
I'll tell you easily - anyone who knows my son ( who is 6 ) well _and_ deliberately leaves an iPad within his reach is a fool.   For the most part I would probably recompensate them,  but they made an easily preventable mistake and I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again.

I'm trying to understand what you mean here. Are you saying that your 6 year old would be likely to throw the iPad as well, or merely that he'd be likely to drop it or in other ways accidentally damage it? Those are two hugely different things IMO.
 
Dane by birth, Kiwi by choice

Virg

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5884
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #133 on: October 16, 2013, 09:50:41 AM »
turnip wrote:

"The OP does not say why the iPad was in reach of the child, so we are left to consider different possibilities.    If 100 different children throw 100 different iPads owned by 100 different nannies, I think that it is possible in 1 or 2  of the cases the Nanny shares some of the blame."

The problem with this is that you're arguing an edge case, but you stated several times that the nanny should be shouldering some of the responsibility, and those two things don't match.  If it's "possible in 1 or 2 cases" out of a hundred, then you're acknowledging that it's extremely unlikely that the nanny did something that would warrant making her pay for any of the damage, so it rings hollow for you to say "We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child.We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child" because that's going to cover many of the 98 or 99 cases as well.  I agree that it would be reasonable to ask the nanny to be more cautious with such things in the future, but in the face of this one example, saying, "...I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again" still strikes me as assessing too much of the blame to her.

Virg

turnip

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 595
Re: S/O damaged laptop: The nanny and the damaged ipad
« Reply #134 on: October 16, 2013, 07:37:53 PM »
turnip wrote:

"The OP does not say why the iPad was in reach of the child, so we are left to consider different possibilities.    If 100 different children throw 100 different iPads owned by 100 different nannies, I think that it is possible in 1 or 2  of the cases the Nanny shares some of the blame."

The problem with this is that you're arguing an edge case, but you stated several times that the nanny should be shouldering some of the responsibility, and those two things don't match.  If it's "possible in 1 or 2 cases" out of a hundred, then you're acknowledging that it's extremely unlikely that the nanny did something that would warrant making her pay for any of the damage, so it rings hollow for you to say "We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child.We are talking about a Nanny who possibly should have known better than to leave an iPad within easy reach of this child" because that's going to cover many of the 98 or 99 cases as well.  I agree that it would be reasonable to ask the nanny to be more cautious with such things in the future, but in the face of this one example, saying, "...I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again" still strikes me as assessing too much of the blame to her.

Virg

Quote
but you stated several times that the nanny should be shouldering some of the responsibility,

I've never stated that

Quote
"...I would think carefully before leaving them alone with my child again"

_if_ I felt she hadn't been cautious.  I don't know how many times I need use the words 'if' 'possibly' or 'maybe' to convince people that I am not taking a hard line that the nanny is 100 percent responsible for anything the child may break under any circumstances.   I think it is possible that the nanny has some responsibility.  I disagree with other posters who seem certain that regardless of the circumstances the parents should absolutely pay 100% of the replacement costs because that is what responsible parents do.