Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think that 16 month old needs direct supervision by the pool?

146 replies

cluelessnewmum · 05/06/2016 16:53

Currently on holiday with DH and 16 month old DS, this is the first holiday we've been on when DS is walking.

DH has a different parenting style to me, alot more laid back. He thinks that it is OK to let DS play by the pool (ie right next to it, well within falling in distance) whilst he is about a metre away on a sun lounger, where as I think that if he is going to be that near the pool he needs someone right next to him.

I should say that DS has been taken to swimming lessons from a very young age so does seem to understand that the pool is water and he shouldn't go in, he seems to have good safety awareness, but in my opinion anyone could still slip and fall, he could drop a toy in there and reach too far to get it etc.

DH has just got annoyed with me for saying that we need to take it in turns supervising him when he plays by the pool.

WIBU? How does everyone else manage the taking it in turns thing supervising their young ones on holiday? I'd like to leave DH to it when he is looking after him and I don't want to micromanage which is why I ask the question...

OP posts:
lougle · 05/06/2016 22:53

Please do be careful with flotation jackets. DD1 is light for her age. She has SN. We put a jacket on her that was for a smaller age but still heavier weight - it was the best fit we could find given her very low weight for age. We thought we were safeguarding her from danger because she adores water and has no sense of danger.

As we walked in to the water from the shallow end, to my horror, I saw her top half simply pitch forward under the water and she was there, with her face pinned under the water by the vest that was meant to save her, with her little bottom pointing up in the air. There was no way she could right herself and we literally had to lift her out of the water to overcome it. The vest came straight off and DH bought armbands from reception and put those on. It was a real shock.

FoodieToo · 05/06/2016 23:06

No need to be rude Mrs Spectre. I was talking about the youngest. Thought that was obvious.
Older children do not need hand held pool supervision, they just need an adult on hand.
However, in my experience, toddlers do. Based on what happened to us.
And we had great holidays.
My goodness, why so sneering?

Chinks123 · 05/06/2016 23:07

I second that some floaty vests do make them tip forward, poor DD was paddling next to me and suddenly was forced onto her face. Obviously I was right there so she was fine but she wouldn't have been able to get herself back up.

Chinks123 · 05/06/2016 23:07

But I still stick by saying he needs something floaty on Smile

edwinbear · 05/06/2016 23:13

The flotation jackets have several pieces of foam that you need to adjust depending on the child. You can check by having them float upright in out of depth water and taking out floats/adding them back in until they float head up. The jacket instructions will tell you whether to remove the front or back foam first.

DoinItFine · 05/06/2016 23:16

He doesn't need something floaty on.

He needs close (in terms of both distance and attentiveness) supervision when he is near water.

Floating aids can make swimming more fun, but they are not safety devices and do not reduce the need for supervision.

In fact, they can be dangerous in and of themselves.

arethereanyleftatall · 05/06/2016 23:18

As a lifeguard, my remit is I need to be able to get to anyone in the pool in 30seconds.
The ops dh is 1m away, watching every move the lo makes. If child falls in, he will be with him in one - two seconds. I don't think that's long enough for anyone to drown.

Op - your title is correct, then do need direct supervision, but IMO 1m away watching attentively is direct supervision.

Doinitfine - overreaction as usual.

kitkat1968 · 05/06/2016 23:20

At baby swimming lessons the babies jump in,towards the parent who is standing in the water, the bay bobs under and then the parent lifts them up into their arms. Isn't this what would happen if your 16m fell in and your DH was a meter away.He would jump in and have him out in a couple of seconds

DoinItFine · 05/06/2016 23:23

30 seconds is definitely long enough for a baby submerged in water to drown.

There again, the world is full of shit lifeguards and children drown in pools supervised by lifeguards.

Relying on a lifeguard tobget to your baby is nit at all smart.

As many lifeguards will tell you.

DoinItFine · 05/06/2016 23:24

Isn't this what would happen if your 16m fell in and your DH was a meter away

Um, no.

The clue is in the word towards.

beetroot2 · 05/06/2016 23:25

Don't get the lifeguard bit, 20 seconds? Are you on arial suspension over the pool for your whole shift and scanning? The parent was 1m away watching.

arethereanyleftatall · 05/06/2016 23:25

True kit Kat. When we introduce submersion at baby swimming, they go under for a good one to two seconds. Water babies lessons, it's even longer. This isn't drowning.

Those talking about how babies can drown in shallow water are right, they can, but not when it's only a few seconds, so this doesn't apply to ops scenario.

lougle · 05/06/2016 23:26

edwinbear that's good to know - we were a bit naive there I think.

beetroot2 · 05/06/2016 23:26

OMG, just don't let your child anywhere near water, don't go on holiday at all Grin

lougle · 05/06/2016 23:28

Beetroot, to be fair, whenever I've been at the pool, the lifeguards have been walking up and down scanning the water at all times. If anything looked amiss, they would just dive in and swim to that person within seconds.

arethereanyleftatall · 05/06/2016 23:29

Doinitfine/beetroot, you've missed the point I was making.

The British standards set are that it is adequate to be able to reach a body in 30 seconds. (Differs pool to pool but generally).

So, this scenario as described in the op, whereby the parent can reach the child far far quicker than this, is not going to result in a drowning.

DoinItFine · 05/06/2016 23:31

Bemused that someone claiming to be a lifeguard saying it is fine to let a baby fall into a pool because you can probably get them out before they die.

It goes against the very basics of water safety to have people falling into deep water and requiring rescue.

Your job as parent is to make sure the lifeguard does not have to rescue your child.

beetroot2 · 05/06/2016 23:32

Maybe lougle, its not what Ive seen though.

I still don't get why people are getting so het up about a dad watching his kid from a sun lounger 1m away. 1m is 3 and a bit feet away. Unless the mother knows him to be a bit shoddy on the childcare front of course.

DoinItFine · 05/06/2016 23:38

1 metre from the child on the edge of the pool is not one metre from the child that has fallen into the pool.

it is adequate to be able to reach a body in 30 seconds

A body. How reassuring.

Yes, if "a body" is reached within 30 seconds that is probably quickly enough to prevent death by drowning.

One might imagine a parent would not want to run the risk if their baby falling into deep water and inhaling it.

It is not remotely the same as a controlled submersion.

DixieNormas · 05/06/2016 23:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LittleReindeerwithcloggson · 05/06/2016 23:49

OP other posters have mentioned secondary drowning/dry drowning and I suggest you look this up and share with your husband.
It is a very real risk when a young child in particular falls into the pool and "breathes" in water. Yes, your DH could stop him actually drowning but secondary drowning has no symptoms until later and often it's too late to save them

AnnieOnnieMouse · 05/06/2016 23:54

DH should get off his lazy arse and interact with his child.
It isn't about one metre not being close enough, it's that if he isn't actually interacting with the child, he is more likely to let his attention lapse for a moment, and that moment is all it takes.
Why take such a clear and obvious risk?

arethereanyleftatall · 05/06/2016 23:55

When you introduce submersion to a baby/toddler the first time is never 'controlled,' ie, the first time they do it, they do not know what's going to happen. We use the same words every time so they begin to learn what's coming 'ready,name,go' usually, but that first time, will be no different to this child falling in.

Have you watched the YouTube vids of that baby who has learnt to kick to the surface and float on back after he falls in? Pretty amazing, but actually the teaching a baby to do that is pretty horrific. And it's a teaching method employed by many (not me, I don't agree with it). It invokes pushing them under a lot, for longer and longer periods.

CakeNinja · 06/06/2016 00:11

God, I was at a waterpark yesterday, waiting at the bottom of the lazy river for my family.
Another family comes down first, mum, auntie, then one dad with DC on his lap. Mum leaps back into the bottom of the water to collect the DC.
Puts him on the side. We all sit and watch as she dives back in to collect nephew from uncles lap.
No one watches other DC who has angered back into the plunge pool. The lifeguard all of a sudden dives into the water to pull out the little boy who is standing completely still, totally submerged under the water. He had obviously wandered back down the steps to rejoin his mum, and just kept walking.
We all got quite a shock. Thank fuck for the lifeguard. Drowning all of a sudden didn't look like what I thought it would, flailing and splashing. It was deadly silent.
Thankfully he seemed fine after being lifted out, everyone was shaken up but i was totally shocked.

1m away to me sounds fine so long as he's paying attention, although as pps have said, at that age, you play in the water with an adult or totally away from it imo, not playing at the edge of the pool.

My youngest is 4.5 and I sat on the edge of the small pool all fortnight if he's been in there, he still wears armbands too!
Oldest are 10 and 12 and I keep an eye on them too. They are much stronger swimmers than I am but water is more powerful than all of us. You can't be too careful really.

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 06/06/2016 00:22

Oh Cake. That must have been terrifying to see. It's so easily done. Water and children can be a lethal combination.
My sister and BIL took my dnephew on holiday in the summer. My sister went to get a drink or something.
. Next second BIL noticed my nephew is nowhere to be seen. He told me a voice said. "He's in the pool. Anyway. He looks in the pool and finds him struggling. Thankfully. He got him out and he was fine. I often think of how close my precious boy came to drowning.. Some one up there was certainly watching over him.