Accident at nursery

thorsoak

ravilious_fan wrote: »

That is a very brave and honest thing to say, though you are bound to get slated for it on here :eek: I personally don't understand why someone would have a baby and then pay strangers to look after it, either. Your baby is the most precious thing you've got. Re the BiB many of my friends have pretty much said the same thing. If something happened to the child during the day, a baby wouldn't be able to tell you

Parent and toddler groups would enable the child to socialise, and once they're clean and dry they can attend nursery school for a few mornings a week, so it's not as some people are saying, that babies who aren't dumped on a nursery for 12 hours a day are somehow disadvantaged when it comes to social skills. I think a lot of them just like to tell themselves that, to be honest.

Anyway, it's good to know there ARE some like-minded souls out there who don't see their children as an obstacle to getting up the career ladder. Why have them if that's how you feel!!

With some people, there is no choice - if they are to pay their rent/mortgage their babies do have to go to a nursery/childminder, however much the parents hate the idea.

In these circumstances the use of the word dumped is emotive and denigrating - perhaps you might care to change it.

pelirocco

VfM4meplse wrote: »

She doesn't. I do.

But like I say, I don't think anyone could look after her better than me!

This has to be the most disturbing post on this thread
OP your sister and the father come top of the list , possibly followed by grand parents ( on account of their experience)
You really need to take a step back

pigpen

thorsoak wrote: »

I don't suppose that this nursery would meet with the OP's approval:-

http://www.dandelionsnorfolk.com/

Shown on BBC Look East on Monday - it is like the Adventure Playgrounds that I was associated with back in the 1970s!

That looks a wonderful place.. I'd send mine there!



vfm.. I'm actually a bit concerned.. if you want another baby, have one, foster one, adopt one.. pretending someone elses child is your own is a touch strange. I don't think you sound like the best person to look after her.. she would never experience the fun of being a toddler, never experience freedom or the joy of just running wildly. She needs to learn and expand her physical development and become her own person. The development of spacial awareness and range of movement and coordination is what she needs to be learning, those gross motor skills so she can learn to ride a bike or kick a ball or swim.. and that involves repetition (it apparently takes around 15 attempts of trying to do something to find the right neural pathways to achieve it.. that is 14+ fails) and falls and bumps and knocks and scrapes.. it is a very important part of her growing up and you could damage that growth with your molly-coddling.. however good intentioned it is not healthy for her.

Your sister sounds like she has the right balance between providing necessary care and allowing her daughter to have to opportunity to expand her development.

My granddaughter just has a badly bruised foot.. and my 4 y/o has come home from nursery with a graze on her elbow .. I said never mind, she has another!.. to go with the tiny bruise on her forehead she came home with yesterday!

onlyroz

ravilious_fan wrote: »

Anyway, it's good to know there ARE some like-minded souls out there who don't see their children as an obstacle to getting up the career ladder. Why have them if that's how you feel!!

Strange how nobody ever criticises men for wanting to progress up the career ladder.

ravilious_fan

thorsoak wrote: »

With some people, there is no choice - if they are to pay their rent/mortgage their babies do have to go to a nursery/childminder, however much the parents hate the idea.

In these circumstances the use of the word dumped is emotive and denigrating - perhaps you might care to change it.

Childcare costs almost as much as the person is earning, in most cases. Especially if there's more than one child. So the financial argument is a red herring.

(Obviously there are high earners like lawyers and hospital consultants, etc, for whom this is not the case but they are the minority)

Ergo - the parents don't 'hate the idea' - they would simply rather go out to work than look after their child/ren full-time. Their choice.

ravilious_fan

onlyroz wrote: »

Strange how nobody ever criticises men for wanting to progress up the career ladder.

Actually no-one has criticised women, either, so you can stop playing the hard-done-by feminism card.

In any case if you are squabbling about which one of you is going to look after the children, that does beg the question as to why you bother having them.

hazyjo

Don't even see it as a 'career ladder' - most of us just do the same job day in day out, we just need the cash! No, I don't have kids, yes I do have a nephew and twin nieces. All those years of battling for equality and being respected and paid the same and fighting for equal opportunities in just about every area, yet mention kids/parenting and people go back several decades and start saying how the mother should be at home looking after their offspring. Can't have it every way.


People automatically go on the defence when their parenting is brought into question. Imagine if it were your child. How would you feel if the situation were reversed and someone was undermining you as a parent for the decision you had made. I agree that you do run the risk of your sister moaning about you behind your back and limiting access to HER child. It does seem a bit much and agree, obsessive/too opinionated.


As above, what happened?! What was the accident.


I remember my sister getting whacked round the head at infant school with a large kids' bible (or a 'God and Jesus book' as she then called it - took us a while to work out what she was going on about lol).






Accidents are exactly that. Some could have been avoided with hindsight, but most just happen.


I'm in my 40s and still manage to fall over, walk into things, or drop things on a fairly regular basis. Skidded on a bloody flower twice and thought I'd broken my leg.


Accidents are accidents. C'est la vie.


Jx

arbrighton

pollypenny wrote: »

Wow! I answered what I thought was a reasonable question. Now I find that there's a lot more to it.

I didn't know that the child involved is a niece. The OP is over-stepping the mark and in real danger of estrangement from her sister.

Exactly this- the OP reads as if this is your own child. A little alarming the more you post

onlyroz

ravilious_fan wrote: »

Actually no-one has criticised women, either, so you can stop playing the hard-done-by feminism card.

In any case if you are squabbling about which one of you is going to look after the children, that does beg the question as to why you bother having them.

When people say things like "why bother having kids if you're just going to plonk them in childcare?", or "children get better care at home", what they invariably mean is "mummy should stay at home with the kids while daddy gets to go out and have an interesting career".


Any suggestions that would make things easier for both parents to share the child-rearing duties while still maintaining an interesting career (e.g. enhanced paternity leave, more flexible working arrangements, increasing the free nursery hours for working parents) are usually pooh-poohed by the same people.

FBaby

I really wonder which world some people live in!

Childcare costs almost as much as the person is earning, in most cases. Especially if there's more than one child. So the financial argument is a red herring.

In most cases, really? Most working mothers manage to take a year out of work, then they get the grant from the time their child is 3, so that's two years of paying childcare for. Usually by the time the second comes about, the older one has started school. Then you have those who can claim childcare vouchers and of course, there are educated women about who do hold a responsible job who do earn above average. These women do have children too!

Anyway, it's good to know there ARE some like-minded souls out there who don't see their children as an obstacle to getting up the career ladder. Why have them if that's how you feel!!

What a patronising comment! Most women who work full-time do so because they can't afford not to. I can't help wonder how many of those who make such statement live in the South/SE of England. It's all very well when your mortgage is under £100K for decent accommodation, it's another matter when for the same house, your mortgage is £200K if no more.

Being career oriented doesn't mean that you don't care about the welfare about your child. I have always been ambitious and aspired for a good job, but I would have and still would give it up any minute if I thought my children needed me full-time, even if it meant we were struggling to pay the bills. As it is was, I did need to pay the bills and my kids were thriving at nursery.

I personally don't understand why someone would have a baby and then pay strangers to look after it, either. Your baby is the most precious thing you've got. Re the BiB many of my friends have pretty much said the same thing.

Because you don't decide to have children just for when they are babies. Your responsibility doesn't stop when they stop being babies. It really all comes down to priorities, and like many parents, I wanted to offer my children opportunities, and opportunities don't come free.

My DD is about to go to college and has decided she wants to go to one one hour away because it will offer her the best chance to take up the studies she is hoping to. The choice is obvious and all her teachers are supporting it. The thing is, I will have to pay for her travel which will be over £150 a month. We are very lucky that this is something I will be able to afford, but it is highly unlikely that I would be in this position if I'd chosen to be a single mum on benefits and then only working part-time rather than deciding to stick with my full-time job and end up being offered promotions over the years. A number of her school friends were considering applying to attend that college too but in the end didn't because their parents couldn't afford the travel and instead will have to go to the local, low rated one.

I am not saying that women working full-time are always making the right choice. It's only when we look back that we can decide we made the best choices for our children. It also very much depends on priorities. I just get really fed up with men and women who have made the choice to be SAHM who think they have a right to judge those who have made a different choice because they are persuaded they know better what is good for all children. The UK has the highest (or one of the highest) number of SAHM in Europe, yet I don't see UK kids growing into better prepared/happy adults then those on the continent.