Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2

AIBU?

Not me, was this mum unreasonable?

49 replies

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 21:03

I'll save my opinion for now.

I was swimming on Sunday at the local pool, it's a VERY quiet women only session which is lovely.

A woman brought her 4/5 to the pool with her.

The little girl had arm-bands and a ring and was floating happily in the shallow end. Seemed unphased and was happily holding the edge and scooting along the edge slowly. The mum would talk to her, swim a length quickly, talk, swim...and so on. The other women in the pool were also talking to her, smiling. At some point there was someone always near the child plus two lifeguards.

The lifeguards weren't fussed until a woman loudly complained about the unattended child. They then told the woman she couldn't leave her to swim lengths. The mum changed the little girl sat her on the bench by the pool and tried to get a few lengths in. The little girl was happy watching and din't leave the bench, seemed quiet and mature for her age and very obdient. The mum did about 1.5 lengths before the same women started shouting to the lifeguard about the unattended child near the pool edge, said she'd report them to the manager if they didn't tell the mum to stop it.

OP posts:

Report

honeybehappy · 14/09/2010 21:06

i can see her point with the child in the pool but no when she was just watching.

Galena · 14/09/2010 21:07

I would say the mum wasn't unreasonable, however, I would also say that if it is a 'women only' session the other woman also wasn't being unreasonable to ask that the child wasn't there. It wasn't a child time, it was an adult-only time. Not sure about the bit about when she was sat on the bench though - maybe she just doesn't like children and felt there was the possibility that her nice quiet adult-only swimming time would end up overrun by children over the weeks.

StewieGriffinsMom · 14/09/2010 21:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BranchingOut · 14/09/2010 21:08

She was NBU. Most pools have rules saying that all non swimmers need to be accompanied, which as far as I am concerned means that the adult should be within close range of the child.

The recent drowning thread on Chat was certainly a bit of a wake-up about water safety...

CerealOffender · 14/09/2010 21:08

i don't think you should leave a child that young unattended esp. if they can't swim tbh.

brassband · 14/09/2010 21:09

If it's a women only session the child shouldn't be there at all.the clue is in the name!!!

scurryfunge · 14/09/2010 21:11

Do the women only sessions mean adult women only? That is probably what pissed off the control freaky woman.

Mowiol · 14/09/2010 21:11

I suppose the woman saw it as a danger so not sure that she was unreasonable.
She probably did it from the best of motives and who knows but what she may have had experience of a tragedy or something.
But maybe she should have been more discreet or spoken to the mum directly.
There was a tragedy up here where a little boy (unaccompanied by an adult) drowned in a pool and wasn't discovered until staff were alerted, having covered the pool over, and sadly he was found at the bottom.
I'd find it hard to say the woman was unreasonable I think.

booyhoo · 14/09/2010 21:14

well, the mum was UR inthe first place to bringher DD to a ladies morning. he ladies go there for adult time, they pay specifically for this child free excercise time so i think they have every right to expect children aren't brought along.

BUT

i think the other woman could have quietly spoken to the mother and said, "I know it might be difficult getting childcare but i don't think your daughter should be here. this is a ladies morning and it should be kept that way." what she did do was cause a scene and embarassment and made up excuses to have the child removed rather than be adult and tell the truth that she didn't want teh child there. (understandably IMO)

fledtoscotland · 14/09/2010 21:16

The child was wearing armband which indicates she wasnt a competant swimmer = constant supervision. Sorry but the woman intervening was right. Children/non-swimmers can drown in seconds.

Myleetlepony · 14/09/2010 21:21

I agree with fledtoscotland.
Maybe shouting wasn't the best thing to do, but she may have been very upset at the thought of how quickly the little girl could get into trouble. Also I think the mum was being a little bit unreasonable assuming that nice people would keep an eye on her daughter while she swam her lengths.
And... women only sessions aren't supposed to be for children too. If you let one person bring a child, then everyone could.

Myleetlepony · 14/09/2010 21:22

Actually, it shouldn't have been down to the other woman to do something about this. The pool staff should have put a stop to it immediately.

booyhoo · 14/09/2010 21:26

you are right myleetlepony. it should have been stopped by the pool staff before she got in the pool.

AnyFuleKno · 14/09/2010 21:30

The mother should never have gone off swimming lengths and trusting that everyone else would supervise.

withorwithoutyou · 14/09/2010 21:31

"At some point there was someone always near the child plus two lifeguards."

Don't know if I've read that right but that reads to me like she expected everyone else to take responsibility for her DD.

I don't think she should have taken her DD along. Bad enough to take her along to an adult session but to leave her unattended is wrong.

grapeandlemon · 14/09/2010 21:31

I agree the staff should have picked up on this. Drowning takes seconds and is very hard to spot, even when not swimming lengths so far away from your child. I think the Mother was VU.

Where is that thread on drowning it was shocking......

LynetteScavo · 14/09/2010 21:36

I would never try and get a length in when swimming with arm banded DC. So the other mum was being a bit UR

If my 4/5 year old was sitting by the side of the pool I might get in 3 or 4 laps max. If someone complained about that I would give them more than a dirty look.

AnyFuleKno · 14/09/2010 21:37

so what do you think strawberrycake?

ReneRusso · 14/09/2010 21:41

I think she was unreasonable to take her swimming to an adult only session, and even more unreasonable to swim lengths. Having sher Sitting watching was probably ok though, bit unnecessary of shouty woman to object.

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 21:42

Oh sorry, the women sessions in our borough include children, including male children 5 and under. Sorry if I was unclear, a few women use it as a nice quiet time to have the very young ones in the pool as it's less boisterous than the public swims. I thought this was the norm everywhere. I suppose female only would be a better name for them. Noone has any issue with the presence of kids, just the unattended issue.

Personally I felt for her. We had a chat and she is a single mum without childcare. Looking at the child I understood her judgement that the child was sensible, especially when watching from the edge. I didn't like the heavy-handed attitude of the other woman. The lifeguards weren't bothered until she intervened and had just stood near the child chatting. It was not ok officially but lifeguards were watching the child not bothered as it was quiet. In total there were about 7/8 people in the pool. I was getting out anyway and said I'd sit with the child for 5 min while she got a few lengths in. I understand the risks, but it's a good natured session with regular people and people were happy with the child and tend to watch out for each other. Maybe she should have asked I guess, but she meant well.

OP posts:

msyikes · 14/09/2010 21:43

I would not leave ds alone in the pool while I swam lengths, he is 4/5 and a reasonably competent swimmer so does not use armbands now but even if he did have armbands on, I wouldn't leave him. Too risky IMO.

It's really really hard to get exercise in and have to look after dcs though- there were postnatal sessions at my local pool and babies were entertained while strapped in their seats at the pool edge, that was great! To get my lengths in I have to hand ds over to dh and dh takes him in the cafe while I swim, I am v lucky I think, if dh wasn't so helpful I'd never get any exercise!

But why take dc to the pool and not want to spend time with them in the water????? V odd on this mother's part I think.

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 21:43

On the other hand though I doubt I would do it with one of mine.

OP posts:

msyikes · 14/09/2010 21:45

x post single mum without childcare must be v difficult.
Given the context you desribe the other woman was a bit ott.
However, still personally would not leave ds in the water on own aged 4/5. Would go swimming when exh had access, if exh had access.

strawberrycake · 14/09/2010 21:48

I don't know her situation but she was shy, awkward and quiet. A Young-ish muslim women who seemed embarrassed when she said she was alone with the child with no family.

OP posts:

ememum · 14/09/2010 21:49

I think it was probably alright to leave the little girl.

Flip

1 2

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.