Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Or is the vicar? Noisy DCs in church

861 replies

drspouse · 14/02/2016 13:32

Background so as not to drip feed, bear with me as this is horrendously long: we go to a fairly naice church in a large historic building, locally there is a sought after church secondary school but none of the church primary schools are over subscribed. We've been going to this church for 12 years and we have two DC, aged 4 and 1. The 4yo is being investigated for mild SN and has always, always been very "lively". DC2 is walking.

The church knows us. Current vicar has been there about as long as our DC1 and baptised both of them. Church has a side chapel which is open to the rest of the pews where there are baby/toddler toys, a mat to play on. One other family (who are new to the country and have a 10 month old) use this baby play area every week.

The 4yo goes to Sunday School in term time, one of us goes with him, as we take it in turns and it doesn't last the whole service, both of us get some time during the service actually in the church. He's just starting to be able to stay in for 10 minutes on his own. DC2 is still lively and, yes, noisy in the side chapel. The other regular family's baby isn't walking yet. When smaller, both he and our DC2 could be quietened by feeding or carrying around.

Because of the pressure for secondary admission, most of the families that come have primary aged children. I can think of a couple of other families who are regulars with young DCs e.g. one Sunday School teacher has an 18 month old but I think she is restrained sat with them on non-Sunday School weeks not in the side chapel.

Today was the first weekend of half term, no Sunday school, there were 2 other children at church apart from our "baby chapel" group, maybe 6 and 8, who were using a construction toy in the side chapel for part of the time. Our DC1 was running around, fairly quietly, but was also throwing a small, soft, non-dangerous teddy up and down and catching it or running to get it. Frankly the only way to stop this would have been to physically restrain DC1 leading to shouting, screaming and kicking. This could be seen from the main church. DC2 was very excited by this and was squeaking, and also as a new walker fell over 2 or 3 times and cried, and was cuddled, and then was quiet.

Half way through someone came in and said "did we know the other room was open, we could go there if we wished". We declined and said no, we wouldn't, because where would be the point in being at church if we were not in the church? we might as well stay home. This is the first time in four years anyone has said anything, and I was massively surprised. It's definitely not the first time we were noisy!

The vicar stopped me on the way out and repeated that something had to be done, that it was distracting, people had complained, and that it was "exciting the other children" (the ones quietly using a construction toy? or the 10 month old who was quiet?) I said that the answer was not for us to go out because there was no point in us going to church if we couldn't be IN church. He repeated that "something must be done".

How does your church run this? Can you give us any ideas for suggestions? We want to bring this up and make some constructive suggestions (though frankly if the church can't put up with noise, it can't put up with children, and it will be left with definitely nobody under 5 and probably nobody under 50).

The historic fabric means a glassed off area is not possible (and I'd feel massively excluded in an aquarium every week!). There's only one area out of the church where smaller children could play (so they couldn't run a creche at the same time as Sunday School). We'd also feel pretty excluded if we couldn't go on non-Sunday School weeks (which is probably 15-20 weeks of the year), and I wouldn't bother if we had to be in an area with "piped church", also. It's not a "praise band" church where listening through an audio or video link gets you the flavour of church, it's a trad but (we thought) friendly church with old fashioned liturgy.

OP posts:
GruntledOne · 17/02/2016 22:00

Running around quietly is still really irritating for anyone who has that in their eyeline whilst trying to concentrate on something else, especially when that is seemingly ignored by their parents.

again. They weren't running around in anyone's eyeline. They were out of sight.

inlovewithhubby · 17/02/2016 22:02

So why did people complain then Gruntled? What the op thinks is acceptable 'out of eyeline' behaviour evidently does not accord with that of her fellow parishioners.

SquidgeyMidgey · 17/02/2016 22:03

GruntledOne nope, but if the vicar has felt the need to speak to OP rather than tell the complainants to go away then that's clearly how that ship sails. Mine isn't like that, seems most of us on here have churches not like that. So do you make yourself stressed making a stand or do you rock up somewhere else, somewhere between suited to your family an enjoy it. I think OP IBU to expect them to change to suit her.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 17/02/2016 22:03

Squidgey thanks for the armchair psychoanalysis

Thornrose .they basically mean...."it's PC gorn mad" Wink

gooseberryroolz · 17/02/2016 22:03

Gruntled

From the OP;

Today was the first weekend of half term, no Sunday school, there were 2 other children at church apart from our "baby chapel" group, maybe 6 and 8, who were using a construction toy in the side chapel for part of the time. Our DC1 was running around, fairly quietly, but was also throwing a small, soft, non-dangerous teddy up and down and catching it or running to get it. Frankly the only way to stop this would have been to physically restrain DC1 leading to shouting, screaming and kicking. This could be seen from the main church. DC2 was very excited by this and was squeaking, and also as a new walker fell over 2 or 3 times and cried, and was cuddled, and then was quiet.

Half way through someone came in and said "did we know the other room was open, we could go there if we wished". We declined and said no, we wouldn't, because where would be the point in being at church if we were not in the church? we might as well stay home. This is the first time in four years anyone has said anything, and I was massively surprised. It's definitely not the first time we were noisy!

The vicar stopped me on the way out and repeated that something had to be done, that it was distracting, people had complained, and that it was "exciting the other children" (the ones quietly using a construction toy? or the 10 month old who was quiet?) I said that the answer was not for us to go out because there was no point in us going to church if we couldn't be IN church. He repeated that "something must be done".

Which part of that makes you think that the OP and her DC were out of sight and earshot of the congregation??

SquidgeyMidgey · 17/02/2016 22:03

Better suited, flipping phone.

SquidgeyMidgey · 17/02/2016 22:05

Fanjo you're welcome Wink and yes that is pretty much what I mean, wrecks all the hard work that's been put in.

gooseberryroolz · 17/02/2016 22:05

.they basically mean...."it's PC gorn mad"

No Fanjo I mean the careless slinging around of 'disablist' and 'exclusion' at the merest provocation makes life much harder for DC with SN that have real difficulties accessing mainstream places, including my own DC.

GruntledOne · 17/02/2016 22:06

DC in care waiting for adoptive placement do NOT sit in two year plus CAMHS waiting ists. Severe SN would be picked up

You seriously are living in a different world, gooseberry. Some SNs don't become evident till children are 2 or even later. Look at the SN board, for goodness sake, it's full of people fighting against the refusal of education and other professionals to recognise and provide for their children's SNs. I mentioned upthread a case I had come across where council and school professionals stoutly maintained that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with a boy (then aged 8) who ended up with a full statement and a placement in a residential special school: and in fact he was a child in the care system. There is in fact in the SN world a recognised problem that social services tend to close their eyes to SNs in children in care, because they know that imposing more expense on the council's budget won't be well received.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 17/02/2016 22:07

I don't have to fight for what DD has BTW. We are actually pretty lucky.

So look for another way to dismiss and belittle me. Or just give it up.

gooseberryroolz · 17/02/2016 22:08

You seriously are living in a different world, gooseberry. Some SNs don't become evident till children are 2 or even later. Look at the SN board, for goodness sake, it's full of people fighting against the refusal of education and other professionals to recognise and provide for their children's SNs.

I don't need to read the SN board, I live, eat and breathe the SN 'world' and am fully aware of the very real struggles that SN bring.

That's why this OP has irritated me so much.

Pontytidy · 17/02/2016 22:08

Surely the principle is that the church is for all, and therefore the children should be welcomed, irrespective of whether they have additional needs. It is not for us, the vicar or the congregation to assess anyone's needs as that is not the point. Some church communities are more laid back than others but it is that community that sort out how all can work together, ultimately if the community can't accept the family then maybe another church might be more appropriate, I do however think that would be sad as the op is part and has been part of that community for a longtime.

GruntledOne · 17/02/2016 22:10

No, she didn't. She explicitly said that she enjoyed watching her child learn to walk increasing distances up and down the aisle and climb up and down steps.

That doesn't even answer the point it purports to reply to, gooseberry: you quoted me saying "OP doesn't suggest that she shouldn't try to keep him still, she is simply realistic about what can be achieved, and weighs up the benefits of enforcing discipline when it may cause more disturbance than letting him do what keeps him quiet and happy". Which is precisely an acknowledgment that she was saying that at times it was more productive to let him walk quietly up and down out of everyone's sight in the side chapel than to try to force him to sit still, which would have caused more noise.

And it's also highly selective in ignoring her enumeration of all the steps she takes to keep her children quiet as much as possible.

gooseberryroolz · 17/02/2016 22:10

You still haven't answered gruntled

From the OP;

Today was the first weekend of half term, no Sunday school, there were 2 other children at church apart from our "baby chapel" group, maybe 6 and 8, who were using a construction toy in the side chapel for part of the time. Our DC1 was running around, fairly quietly, but was also throwing a small, soft, non-dangerous teddy up and down and catching it or running to get it. Frankly the only way to stop this would have been to physically restrain DC1 leading to shouting, screaming and kicking. This could be seen from the main church. DC2 was very excited by this and was squeaking, and also as a new walker fell over 2 or 3 times and cried, and was cuddled, and then was quiet.

Half way through someone came in and said "did we know the other room was open, we could go there if we wished"^. We declined and said no, we wouldn't, because where would be the point in being at church if we were not in the church? we might as well stay home. This is the first time in four years anyone has said anything, and I was massively surprised. It's definitely not the first time we were noisy!

The vicar stopped me on the way out and repeated that something had to be done, that it was distracting, people had complained, and that it was "exciting the other children"^ (the ones quietly using a construction toy? or the 10 month old who was quiet?) I said that the answer was not for us to go out because there was no point in us going to church if we couldn't be IN church. He repeated that "something must be done".

Which part of that makes you think that the OP and her DC were out of sight and earshot of the congregation?!?

GruntledOne · 17/02/2016 22:12

exactly the inverse applies to you - how do your presumptions hold any more water than my own?

No idea, inlove, unless you could explain which presumptions you are talking about. I think the issue really is how your presumptions about what works with the OP's children hold any more water than hers, bearing in mind that she actually knows them.

fanjoforthemammaries7850 · 17/02/2016 22:12

Which part of that doesn't look like a ridiculous overreaction on the part of the vicar?

gooseberryroolz · 17/02/2016 22:13

That doesn't even answer the point it purports to reply to, gooseberry: you quoted me saying "OP doesn't suggest that she shouldn't try to keep him still, she is simply realistic about what can be achieved, and weighs up the benefits of enforcing discipline when it may cause more disturbance than letting him do what keeps him quiet and happy". Which is precisely an acknowledgment that she was saying that at times it was more productive to let him walk quietly up and down out of everyone's sight in the side chapel than to try to force him to sit still, which would have caused more noise.

Of course it answers it. Reluctantly deciding to allow a behaviour in preference to a tantrum is a world away from 'enjoying' it.

AdriftOnMemoryBliss · 17/02/2016 22:13

my ds has physical disabilities as well as his autism/adhd.

The church is not an appropriate place for practising motor skills or mobility.

The church in my parents town, a very old fashioned C of E type establishment used to run a childrens church in the Rec room off the main church area. They used to join the main service for the bread/wine and then go back to the Rec Room.

They also used to run a 30 minutes session after the main service for children that did crafts and stories in line with the subject of the day. I was Head Chorister of the choir for years and i used to help with the little children with that one as soon as i'd done tidying the choirs vestry.

There are options if the OP is willing to discuss it with the Vicar, its just a matter of being thoughtful about what is best for the children AND the congregation.

SquidgeyMidgey · 17/02/2016 22:13

Fanjo I did say I was aware it sounded condescending and wasn't meant that way. I'm glad you got what you need without a battle, and that's not meant to be condescending either. Trouble with writing on a screen is that you can't impart a tone. I think all of us on here do actually agree on the fundamentals if not the details.

GruntledOne · 17/02/2016 22:14

So why did people complain then Gruntled? What the op thinks is acceptable 'out of eyeline' behaviour evidently does not accord with that of her fellow parishioners.

Why does everyone assume that the fact people complained means automatically that they were justified? As these pages regularly attest, people complain about the most ridiculous things at times. In a church, they really should be more tolerant. If you've got to turn your head to see what it is you're unhappy about, maybe the quickest remedy is to turn it back again.

AdriftOnMemoryBliss · 17/02/2016 22:14

"Our DC1 was running around, fairly quietly, but was also throwing a small, soft, non-dangerous teddy up and down and catching it or running to get it. ... This could be seen from the main church."

can people stop saying the OPS child was not running around!

SquidgeyMidgey · 17/02/2016 22:14

and I wasn't trying to belittle you Fanjo, quite the opposite in fact.

gooseberryroolz · 17/02/2016 22:15

Which part of that doesn't look like a ridiculous overreaction on the part of the vicar?

The vicar said the behaviours were distracting.

He said people had complained.

A church member felt compelled to step in and suggest they move midway through the service.

Why do you keep insisting that the congrgation couldn't see or hear them? Clearly they could. Clearly they were causing quite a disturbance.

GruntledOne · 17/02/2016 22:15

No Fanjo I mean the careless slinging around of 'disablist' and 'exclusion' at the merest provocation

Not by any stretch of the imagination what Fanjo did.

gooseberryroolz · 17/02/2016 22:16

Not by any stretch of the imagination what Fanjo did.

Did I say Fanjo was responsible? Confused