Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To expect my chilminder to look after DS with cast on

45 replies

Joey09 · 19/02/2011 11:46

My 17 month old fractured his leg and has been in a cast for 3 weeks. My partner and I have taken time off to look after him on the two days he's normally with her. Now in the last week he's very mobile and we felt he'd be fine with childminder. She said ok but at the last minute changed her mind and said she didn't think she'd be able to cope and it wouldn't be fair on the two older children. I'm annoyed she's said this without even seeing DS to assess him. She started to talk about it not being covered in contract or insurance (injury not covered in contract and would be surprised if this situation specifically excl from insurance). Also why couldn't she do activities that would be ok for all of them, their days are often dictated by the pre school times of the other kids. If she'd assessed him then made the decision giving us time to tell work or organise alternative care I wouldn't be so annoyed.

OP posts:
Kerrianne · 19/02/2011 11:59

It is quite possible the insurance would kick up a stink though. I imagine (though I don't know) they'd want her house re-asessed to make sure everything is suitable.

PaperView · 19/02/2011 12:01

If your DS injured himself further at her house then her insurance may not cover for it. I would be pleased my CM would be so honest with me tbh.

rainbowinthesky · 19/02/2011 12:02

Sorry seems fair enough. I'm not a childminder but wouldnt fance looking after a 17mnth old with a cast.

not1not2 · 19/02/2011 12:08

must be hard with the lack of notice
only brightside is that since she's made herself unavailable surely you wont pay
perhaps ask her how that will be dealt with on the bills?

SylvanianFamily · 19/02/2011 12:11
Hmm

surely the purpose of the cast is to protect his leg.

I could understand with a more complicated and unstable health condition - but I can't see the difficulty with a cast. I would suppose he would be less mobile and less trouble, if anything...

... and what kind of fragile older children can't make concessions for an injured toddler?

Blu · 19/02/2011 12:18

Lookong after a toddler in a cast is no different from looking after a toddler not in a cast. IME.

He can go in the buggy for school runs.

But she would be quite right to risk assess it and check with her insurance - it sounds as if she might have said 'no' without even checking.

KatyMac · 19/02/2011 12:20

I have had children with casts on; I never even thought about contacting my insurance.

Kerrianne · 19/02/2011 12:23

You're lucky then Katy. It's always best to check these things especially in the 'No win no fee' culture we're living in Sad

shoshe · 19/02/2011 12:25

I've had two children with casts on, first was a baby with hips in a cast. second was a 8 year old.

I did notify Insurance who said fine!

KatyMac · 19/02/2011 12:26

If the GP/hospital considers it OK for them to attend then there are no special circumstances to contact the insurance company about

Kerrianne · 19/02/2011 12:29

I think the key issue for this toddler is this...Now in the last week he's very mobile

The GP/hospital aren't going to asses the risks in the house and that's all the insurance company care about.

Every policy is different so must because one CM can do it, doesn't mean another can.

Kerrianne · 19/02/2011 12:30

must = just

purepurple · 19/02/2011 12:32

Not very inclusive is it, to exclude a child because of a medical condition. Ring Ofsted and ask what they think.

KatyMac · 19/02/2011 12:34

That's what I was thinking PP

Imagine if she were asked to take on a child with a real problem additional need

Original poster
Joey09 · 19/02/2011 13:00

Thanks for your comments. Interesting to know others have looked after toddlers with casts, my feeling is that every case will be different which is why she should have assessed him before making this decision. I asked for a refund but she says that wouldn't be fair on her. Was also thinking of contacting ofsted but maybe I should just forget it now. DS is leaving her soon anyway.

OP posts:
SylvanianFamily · 19/02/2011 13:06

I honestly don't get it: what is the additional danger?

Is it tripping? (versus, say, teetering about on plastic dressing up shoes?)

Is it aggravating injury (which surely the GP would have mentioned)?

Is it other kids getting hit with the cast (cos kids never find blunt heavy objects round the house..)

I'm utterly bemused.

Kerrianne · 19/02/2011 13:07

I think that's the thing OP. Every case and insurance policy will be different. Ofstead would probably want a risk assesment too. The world seems to be mad for them.

Re Katy if she were asked to take on a child with an additional need, again there would have to be a new assesment.

My child's school added a new class in the summer and a risk assesment had to be carried out in the corridoor incase it rained and the extra 25 pupils made it extra slippery Confused

Anyway OP, hope things for out for you all and that he's back whizzing about without it soon enough Smile

Kerrianne · 19/02/2011 13:08

'work' out for you I meant Blush

KatyMac · 19/02/2011 13:10

I think she is totally out of order expecting you to pay when she is refusing to have him

Original poster
Joey09 · 19/02/2011 13:16

She didn't really mention danger it sounded more like she didnt think she'd be able to cope. Didn't sound like she'd actually contacted insurance she just assumed there might be an issue. If it was me I'd have assessed child and made the two calls to ofsted and insurance co. I don't think that's asking too much.

OP posts:
ChaoticAngelofAnarchy · 19/02/2011 13:17

So she wants you to pay her for the privilege of not having your child Hmm

Point out to her it's her decision not to have him and ask for a refund again.

activate · 19/02/2011 13:18

a childminder is self-employed you don't pay for a service she is not providing

so you need to say excuse me what do you mean not fair on you? you are not providing a service we pay for and so we don't have to pay

she's taking you for a ride

I too would like to be paid for not going to work

KatyMac · 19/02/2011 13:21

You I feel (perhaps wrongly - NannyNick will know) that both OFSTED & my insurance company expect me to assess risks on a day to day basis and make adjustments as necessary. They would only need to be checked with if I were to act outside my normal operating conditions (venue, number of children etc)

Maryz · 19/02/2011 13:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

onceamai · 19/02/2011 13:32

Sounds absolutely ridiculous. Both my children have broken bones and worn casts, both have carried on as usual to the best of their abilities and within reason. A 17 month in a cast shouldn't pose a problem at all - presumably she still has stair gates up and at 17 months, can pick him up anyway.

Politically correct namby pambyness gone absolutely mad.