Nobody fed the baby.

This sounds like a chaotic household!
Or adults who are only interested in themselves, not taking their responsibility seriously at all.
Mine would be screaming blue murder with that tiny amount of food/drink.

The no drinks all day is cruel

Because she’s being dramatic ffs. Concentrate on your own life if the baby won’t eat, it ain’t hungry

Weird that a sippy cup of water wasn't floating about. We always used to have one so dc could drink (fling it about) as they wanted

This would give me the rage. Did these people not eat and drink themselves? Would it not have crossed their minds, as they sipped water, had a snack or made themselves a cup of tea, that the baby might like something too?

From what you've said, I'm assuming these are selfish people who are completely unused to being responsible for others, caring for them or putting them first. They're used to just looking after themselves and no one else. So they just don't think about the needs of others. Perhaps unfairly, I'd also assume they were more likely male than female (but hopefully not the baby's dad!).

If the baby refused drinks for the entire day the parents should have been contacted for guidance or to come and give fluids. You don’t say ‘oh well the baby didn’t want it so it doesn’t matter.’ It wouldn’t be acceptable in a professional childcare setting so why should it be accepted from relatives?!

If the baby was sent with food it would happily eat and was instead given food it didn’t want to try. It’s a baby! Babies have no clue about how refusing to eat half an egg will affect their hunger. The adults should have offered the food provided for the baby when they realised that their attempt to give what they thought was best didn’t work.

I just wanted some perspective on how angry to be. I'm bemused by it. So is the mum.

So did the mum not leave any food/milk for the baby or was it an emergency situation?

The baby had breakfast and was offered lunch he didn't like what was first offered so they made him scrambled egg he ate half of it. I don't think that's unusual.
If he really wasn't offered anything to drink all day that's worrying but it doesn't sound as though he was deliberately neglected.

Absolutely that is neglect!

So you've exaggerated in your original.post then

You made it sound like they were just given half an egg for lunch when in fact that was the 2nd thing they were offered and they didn't eat the whole egg.

If I was looking after a child at the point of only half the 2nd offering being eaten I would assume they weren't hungry.

Willing to bet there is information about liquid intake that you also aren't being upfront about

Yes, the egg thing seems a bit of a red herring - missing out on (or refusing to eat) a single meal is hardly a huge deal imo.

BUT no fluid’s offered at all to between 7.30 and 5pm IS neglectful if that if what OP is suggesting happened? Or did the child at least have some water or milk at “lunch” even if they didn’t eat much?

ETA: Latest post from the OP says no fluids were ever offered. Really hope these people won’t be looking after the child regularly or that someone else can help them.

If the baby wasn't showing any signs of hunger, then I don't think it's a big deal.

Both of mine would have let me know in no uncertain fashion if they were hungry at that age. Maybe baby was having too much fun with all the movement to be bothered about food?

I think offering two different kinds of food for lunch is fine, if baby rejected both and wasn't screaming the house down they're not starving hungry are they.

No drink all day is a bigger concern. You say 'nothing was offered' and given the way you initially phrased the food issue vs reality I'm wondering if there's more to that story too. Did baby have access to water at all (e.g. a sippy cup they can use at will) and you're just annoyed they weren't encouraged to use it, or was there no access to liquid at all for the whole day?

Yes it's neglectful. Whoever it was should never be allowed to look after the baby ever again. If it was my child I would have been extremely angry and would tell them they would never again be caring for my child.
I honestly cannot see how someone can think it's ok not to even give the baby a drink for the whole day, is the person compos mentis with full capacity?

Ok so for all the people who say it's not that bad. Would you have these people round to babysit your child? Or feel ok leaving your child with them if it's the other parent

So what are you doing about it? Posting on Mumsnet just to sound off or will you be taking action?

"Bemused" isn't good enough.

At that age, my breastfed little one would also rather not drink if left with other people. She would also have spent a at least 2 hours napping (ready to stay up all night breastfeeding!).

If baby was having long naps, this means there is less time for feeding?

Was it the first time baby was being left with grandparents or something? The problem is that babies don’t follow the schedules either. Especially with new people and/or new places.

Some babies can take a large amount of breast milk in a shorter space of time. Depends on mums let down ect. A baby who has had breakfast, half an egg and some breast milk is not comparable with one who has had no milk or water all day. Off course it is completely neglectful.

Are you related to the baby OP?

Who are the parents in relation to you? Friends, family?

If you’re concerned for the babies welfare please raise a safeguarding concern.

You may well be surprised but I think you'll find your view would be in the minority here. No way should a 13 month old be deprived of milk or water from 7.30am to 5pm! Would you be happy to go that long with nothing to drink? Thought not.

how do you know they didn't give the child a drink?