to be disappointed with Brown Owl

[parakeet]

My 7-year-old daughter has just returned from her first Brownie camp sleep over. She enjoyed it during the day but when she came home the next day she tearfully told us that she had got upset at night and Brown Owl (the leader) wasn't very nice to her.

They were all staying in a kind of lodge with a dormitory for about 15 girls and a separate bedroom for the leaders. Apparently she went into the kitchen crying to Brown Owl several times and she said to her crossly "I don't want to hear it." There were apparently a couple of "section leaders" - older teenage girls - there too, who were nice to her, but she still seems to have been quite upset and now says she doesn't want to go on the next sleepover.

I realise these Brownie leaders do all this voluntarily, and I am very grateful to them for all their sterling work. Yet I would have expected Brown Owl to have comforted a crying and homesick 7-year-old, not been dismissive. AIBU?

Hackmum I point to the obvious difference though that midwife- teachers and all other jobs are paid but I take your point and i am sure your are right all brown owls are probably not perfect. Our Brownies love it and I know that not as a leader but as a mother and because she was having such a wonderful time i joined as a leader too which is always am option and gives a very clear impression of what is going on. Just saying like because in my experience Brownies are always looking for New leaders

Well if Brown Owl is simply an unsympathetic, curmudgeonly old cow, op needs to shoulder some of the blame for sending her daughter away in the care of such a rat bag in the first place, don't you think, hackmum?

There are some wonderful Brown Owls and there are some awful ones.

I withdrew my dd from a group as I witnessed on more than one occasion, a woman who was neither kind or caring. She acted as if the dc were a huge inconvenience.

The last straw was when she screamed in my face, in front of a group of parents on a trip to a water park., as I'd dared to ask her why non swimmers were being allowed on a ride that said 'strong swimmers only'.
(It was a banana boat ride, where they would end up in deep water)

I was going to put in a formal complaint when Snowy Owl told me, in confidence, that Brown Owl was on the verge of a breakdown because of personal problems and begged me not to say anything. I was assured that she was leaving at the end of term.

It really dented my trust in people who I'd always assumed would have my DD's safety and enjoyment at the forefront of their minds. I always made sure I made visits and asked lots of questions from then on, for any groups/activities.

Having said that, in this case if your dd was happy when she's at 'normal' brownie nights, then this incident wouldn't bother me. Does Your Dd think this woman is kind and caring generally?

Whatever the actuality of what may or may not have happened, the outcome is that the OPs DD has been put off from going again. We can speculate amongst ourselves forever about whether Brown Owl was unsympathetic to a desperately homesick girl away or being firm with someone who had been up and down for trivial reasons and wasn't really upset. The only person who can give their account is Brown Owl.

OP has said that she will approach Brown Owl in a non-confrontational way with a view to seeing whether DD was a bit too young to be going to camp, which will then help them decide what to do about future opportunities. She certainly hasn't said that she would be going in all guns blazing demanding to know why Brown Owl upset her precious DD so I'm not sure where some people are getting this from.

I echo Hackmum - I've been on one Pack Holiday where the Brown Owl in charge was an absolute harridan. Had never seen this side of her before so was somewhat surprising but I would never go on camp/holiday with her again and I'd guess neither would a number of the Brownies!

I'm not suggesting that the child is lying, but a 7 year old won't factor in wider events like a couple of other girls being told off for giggling, another girl "disturbing" the others with a torch for reading etc. Her perception won't reflect the wider situation that the leaders are dealing with.

I've been on pack holidays where it's taken 4 hours for the girls to all settle to sleep. We'll then be woken in the night to dish out Milk of Magnesia to someone with tummy ache (or whatever has got a girl out of bed). We then need to get up half an hour earlier than the girls in the morning to get ourselves in a fit state of personal dress before the girls can get up.

A different situation as the girl was older and just not used to going to bed at any sensible time, but we have ended up getting to the point of conversations like the following:
Brown Owl...
No.
But...
No.
She...
No.
I...
No.
Oh God, this isn't good.
(note, this conversation followed an entire day of "Can I sleep next to x?" being asked to every leader on repeat- "no" did not mean anything in her home. She was not allowed to sleep next to x because of the disruption she'd caused on the previous sleep over when she'd become the first Brownie ever in the unit to have to sleep with the leaders)
If you're dealing with a girl like the one above, it will influence (not deliberately) your reactions to other girls, such as homesick 7yr olds.

MrsMook, but if the child is a shy, undemanding one surely it shouldn't matter what other girls have been up to. That child should have been given some sympathy. A hug and a consoling word in the first place may have sent her back to sleep, rather than a curt 'I don't want to hear it" which may upset a child even more.

excusetypos hence why some of have asked what the several reasons were for the dd getting out of bed. The point remains that without a consent from the parents to administer hugs as leaders we are not allowed by law to touch the kids. Yes a child who is upset for genuine reasons should be comforted and yes a hug can placate most of them but unfortunately it is simply not allowed. Leaders will not jeopardise their reputations and their lives, the repercussions are simply not worth it, as a former commissioner (above all leaders in the area) I have had to reprimand leaders who have 'hugged' a crying child without signed permission as the parent complained, I have had to speak to another about travelling unsupervised with girls in her car. Yes it is the pc brigade gone mad but please remember that the rules are there to protect your children first of all and us as leaders secondly.

The 'curt' wording is mums interpretation of how it was said based on an upset and tired child, I am not dismissing her concerns or accusing her daughter of lying, but that said there is more to this than has been posted as the OP hasn't come back to answer the enquiries about the several things her dd got up to speak to brown owl about. Without that all we can do is offer an explanation based on our personal experiences of the likely causes.

It goes without saying that if the several reasons were an upset child crying for mummy because she missed her then that is a whole different ball game. If you read my post I have said that if there is more to it then talking to the brown owl is absolutely the right thing to do, but if it was just the suggestions made here about telling tales then tbh saying anything is pointless.

What we do know is that the OP's daughter went several times. I'd be suprised if the BO had said "crossly" "I don't want to hear it" in the first place. In the absence of more facts, it's likely that it was said at the end, after the young leaders had helped out.

Most people go into Guiding because they want to do it for the girls. Organising a sleepover is a lot of extra work that is taken on voluntarily, extra to running the unit. It's very unlikely that the leader will put herself through all that extra work, sacrificing her own home life for a weekend if she is genuinely uncaring. The examples I've given have been to illustrate the kinds of issues that the leaders are dealing with at the end of the day that will influence their reaction- whether it was genuinely heavily handed, or badly interperated by a tired 7 yr old. It's not just the interest of an individual girl at play, it's a larger group. If a girl is seen by others to be getting more attention, and staying up, others can be encouraged to try their luck.

Usually a few days later (epececially when she's caught up on her sleep) a girl's perception of what happened changes, and the fun of the experience overrides what the upset was. If the girl is still upset and put off weeks later then there is a genuine issue. Appoaching a leader soon after the event can make a bigger issue out of something that would have solved itself of its own accord. It might be better tackled if there seems to be an issue by the time the next event is being planned.

The point remains that without a consent from the parents to administer hugs as leaders we are not allowed by law to touch the kids

This is not true. Child protection laws don't work quite like this.

There is a very big difference between a comforting arm on the shoulder of an upset child in a well lit room with witnesses.

And a hug in a private place without a witness.

Sensible precautions are what is required,

picture the rules within guiding for safeguarding children prohibit any contact. They are there for a reason, and do you really think it matters whether there were witnesses? If a child makes a complaint about being touched the police have to act. Can you imagine the uproar if a parent complained but because a witness said it was fine nothing was done??

Babyhmummy, I am afraid you are wrong. Sorry. But you are.

Indeed, curlew. picture is correct - it is inappropriate contact that is not permitted. Here

I would always comfort an unhappy Cub with a cuddle or hug, provided there were other adults present and it was an appropriate thing to do.

OP, by all means ask Brown Owl what happened, but I think you have the answer already - your DD was probably one of several girls who were up and down like yoyos with one silly thing after another (she poked me, she rolled onto my mattress, she took my sweet ...), and the upshot was that Brown Owl eventually said "Enough is enough - I don't want to hear about it."

No one gives up their weekend, plus hours for prep and planning, with the intention of then neglecting a child's welfare.

I am correct thank you curlew and Waltons.

Incidentally Curlew is your NN a TAC reference?

Babyhummy can you point to a source that you think backs you up?

Babymuumy, I'm sorry but it's uninformed people like you which means these stupid 'rules' get put through as 'The Law' when infact its just ridiculous misinterprtation of the guidance.

Of course you can cuddle a child, hold their hand, etc etc.

As a commissioner surely you should be interpreting this guidance correctly?

Can you imagine the uproar if a parent complained but because a witness said it was fine nothing was done??

Incidentally that's how witnesses are used in our justice system- to corroborate (or otherwise) facts.

If a serious complaint is made of course it must be investigated by the appropriate authorities and this may well be upsetting for all concerned. BUT this isn't a reason to allow an entire generation to grow up without normal, appropriate physical contact with adults.

I would rather err on the side of caution than to be accused of over stepping the mark. Mud sticks remember! I advise my guiders of the same.

My DD is 7 and didn't go on the lastest Brownie camp because she isn't ready for sleepovers yet.
What happens with her (she went on a Rainbows sleepover last year) is that she is all excited during the day and the evening with no chance to really think about not being at home. They go to bed all giggly and over excited about being in a different room with other people, get asked/told to quieten down and as people start to drop off and it becomes quieter she starts to actually realise that she is in a strange bed in a room with different people, it's dark and suddenly it isn't fun anymore... So the tears come.
Fortunately the Rainbow Mother is also our Brown Owl and helped Dd through her homesickness so totally understood why we decided that she should skip ths one. She did assure us that DD's tears only lasted about 10 minutes though before she fell asleep.
Speak to Brown Owl and you will get a fuller picture. If she's usually good with the girls there will be a reason.

We can agree to disagree then. I prefer to act within the laws and guidance, and ensure that those young children/teenagers in need of comfort/congratulation get it.

I don't think it is healthy for children to grow up in a world where they are isolated from human touch however.

Anyways back to the OP- sounds like a storm in a teacup. What harm came to your daughter?

"I would rather err on the side of caution than to be accused of over stepping the mark. Mud sticks remember! I advise my guiders of the same."

Hmm- bit of a backtrack here! Please, everyone- this poster is interpreting the guidelines incorrectly. Do not take what she says as fact.

Not a back track at all, there are safeguarding rules in place for a reason. If a parent signs the form then tlc is fine within reason, if not then no it's inappropriate.

However this is entirely not what the thread was about and you are now just goading for reaction

Add message | Report | Message poster babyhmummy01 Mon 17-Jun-13 11:30:11
"I would rather err on the side of caution than to be accused of over stepping the mark. Mud sticks remember! I advise my guiders of the same."

Well you should be working with children then.

If you can't give a child a cuddle when they need one, or sit them on your knee while you give them some reassurance, then leave the job to someone who will follow the guidelines and offer child comfort when they need it.

And please STOP telling guides they shouldn't have physical contact.

You are giving them incorrect advice.

When I was training the handbook said that hugs weren't 'under no circumstances' but they are certainly discouraged.

Not a back track at all, there are safeguarding rules in place for a reason.

There are, and they are very important. But you have not interpreted them correctly. Why is it for you to make stricter rules than HQ?

If a parent signs the form then tlc is fine within reason, if not then no it's inappropriate.

Why? Who says this? I've never seen this in all my (many) years of guiding. Which document recommends that this is best practise?

I'm not goading 'for a reaction' (what reaction would I be trying to elicit?). I'm trying to put you straight because I genuinely believe that your attitude is harmful to young people and girlguiding as a whole.

I am not goading. I am trying to prevent you spreading misinformation.

You are backtracking. You started by saying "The point remains that without a consent from the parents to administer hugs as leaders we are not allowed by law to touch the kids" then changed that to ""I would rather err on the side of caution than to be accused of over stepping the mark. Mud sticks remember! I advise my guiders of the same."