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

[cluelessnewmum]

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...

[corythatwas]

My family have brought up several generations of children on a small island and never had a serious incident. But I would say I can't see the point of armbands or ordinary flotation devices unless you think there is a risk of not finding the lo in the water: as previous posters have pointed out they do absolutely nothing to keep him in a position where he can breathe. The only thing that helps there is a traditional life jacket with a collar. We were never allowed to wear flotation devices unless as part of a proper swimming lessons: our parents felt they just induce false security.

[cluelessnewmum]

Wow, thanks for all your responses, interesting to see the spectrum of opinions. Reassured that some people think it's fine and others don't, obviously down to parenting style rather than one of us being mad. That said, I personally agree with the post that says if you're having to fish your kid out the water then the supervision is not adequate.

DS has been used to being dunked under the water from a very young age and I've seen him kick up dozens of times but that is in the context of a swimming lesson when he's already in the pool, falling in would be different.

Also just to clarify, neither of us see looking after DS as a chore, we both love spending time with him but to both do that at the same time for a 12 hour day without any relaxation seems a tad unnecessary! We'll save that for if we have another baby!

Thanks all for your responses, ultimately I'm not going to relax unless someone is right next to DS by the pool so he will be supervised.

[ExtraHotLatteToGo]

Previously on the thread I said my concern would be the slippery surface around the pool (and the risk of DS of slipping over & hitting his head). This still stands, but if you aren't worried about that and still want DS to play near the pool then try asking your DH how he'd feel about sittng on a settee, while DS played about on the floor? Fine? Yes - great. Now ask him how he'd feel if the other side of DS there was an open fire. Would being close enough to pull him out of the fire and get emergency treatment be ok with him or would he want to be on the floor between DS & the fire to prevent him falling in?

[DoinItFine]

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.

WTF?

The thing that makes it controlled is that YOU know it is going to happen and you are beside them in the water.

That is nothing at all like leaving a baby to fall into water when you are sitting down relaxing a metre away.

The fire analogy is good.

Babies shoukd not be left to fall into danger, be that fire, a busy road, or a body of water.

I don't think I will ever stop being surprised that people think putting their baby at risk of falling into deep water is grand asong as someone will probably be able to get them out.

[BeYourselfUnlessUCanBeAUnicorn]

Yes, like the fire analogy. This is no different. Same as with a road, would your DH let him play by the kerb and stay a meter away? No different at all.

[newmumwithquestions]

Yes, like the fire analogy. This is no different. Same as with a road, would your DH let him play by the kerb and stay a meter away? No different at all.

Of course it's different. Baby goes into road for 2 seconds, could be fine if nothing is coming, or could be fatal if there is. Baby falls in fire for 2 seconds... I don't know how long it could take to be fatal but 2 seconds is definitely enough for serious damage. Baby goes into water for 2 seconds, is hooked out, is fine (maybe upset, but fine).

Of course it's best if they don't fall in but the potential consequences in the different scenarios are very different.

If baby is being supervised by someone 1m away, I don't see how they would end up in the pool (I'm assuming here that baby playing by the pool doesn't actually mean they are playing balance on tiptoes on the swimming pool edge).

[DoinItFine]

A baby who has fallen into a pool will NOT necessarily be "fine".

After you fish a bsby out of a pool, yiu need to take them to A&E to make sure they haven't inhaled any water.

Also, it will take far longer thaj 2 seconds for a seated person a metre away from the playing baby to retrieve them from the pool after tgey have fallen in.

Now they are further away and submerged in water.

It will not be two seconds.

Two seconds is more like the time it takes the reckining Dad to get to his feet and mske ut to the side of the pool.

The baby is still in the water.

[specialsubject]

Yep, secondary drowning. Don't die of ignorance.

[dizzyfucker]

My son is 3, given that is a little older. He fell into the pool a few weeks ago was retrieved by his brother who was in the pool at the time. He has always been afraid of falling into the pool, it finally happened. Our pool does have a fence and a gate, but when older children are in the pool it is difficult to tell the 3 year old that he cannot play there as well.

He was fine, just upset. I wouldn't run the risk with a 16 month old child though. We have two adults in the garden and two tweens in the pool whenever my son is near the pool. One adult can move quickly and can get them out, but it's not a nice experience.

I wouldn't say A&E, that's a bit extreme. A doctor can listen to see if there is fluid on the lungs following a fall into water.

[IamtheDevilsAvocado]

The only kids that should be playing at a pool are those who are absolutely confident in the water. Otherwise you should be in the pool with them... Or nowhere near a pool.


Secondary drowning is grim... People need to read about this....

Drowning doesn't look like you would think it would... Often very quiet and no cries.

It's not just the issue of jumping in and grabbing your toddler... Assuming you have realised... Other countries have very different health and safety rules... Kids have drowned as they have become tangled up in filters at the bottom of the pool.....It's not being neurotic to be worried and aware about these risks....

Bottom line: it is not and should not be a relaxing day by a pool if you have non-swimming kids

[GiraffesAndButterflies]

The road analogy is the best one. No cars- they're fine. But you're rolling the dice.

Don't inhale water/don't hit their head when they fall in/you manage to fish them out promptly- they're fine. You're rolling the dice though.

Personally I wouldn't roll those dice.

[dizzyfucker]

IamtheDevilsAvocado when every garden has a pool you cannot be that strict. Many people live everyday with pools. They are dangerous. We have a wooden cover and a fence but we cannot lock our three year old in the house because the older children want to swim. You have to teach them about water safety, make them wear a lifejacket and watch them. I would never get anything done if I spent my whole day clucking three inches away from my toddler like a mama chicken, incase he fell in the pool.

Secondary drowning is grim and very rare. Drowning is not rare and people need water safety sense. The OP was right IMO and should trust her instincts and for the record any child should be supervised in the water. Even strong and confident swimmers can drown if they get cramps or hit their head, no child should be unsupervised in a pool.

[coffeetasteslikeshit]

I'm another vote for 1m away being direct supervision.

[feathermucker]

It's 1 metre! 100cm. He's more than close enough.

But a float suit.

Don't you trust your DH?

[dizzyfucker]

Please, everyone, do not consider a float suit. Those are really dangerous if the toddler falls in. They can almost catapult the toddler forward into the water and they have no control over their body. They are probably safer without one.

I have mentioned before on a similar thread, if you want your child to be safe consider a US coastguard approved life jacket. Speedo do them.

[stopgap]

Personally, I would be in the pool with my child at that age. My two-year-old has no sense of danger, is highly active, and I prefer to be in the pool and monitoring as he likes to go up and down the steps etc. Even with my four-year-oldwho is a fantastic little swimmer, and can do a length of crawlI prefer to be in the actual pool than on the sidelines.

[Hissy]

Here you go.... People were right next to the kid, and didn't spot him drowning

1m, unless your pushing 7' tall feather, is not close enough for your arm to grab the baby. 16m old, they're not even that great at walking, swimming/surviving a fall into water? Less able still.

My ds is 10. I always watch him when he's in the sea. mind you, the Atlantic waves off Portugal are sneaky, they will put you down on your Arse in a second if you're not careful. Yes we're right by the lifeguard and surf shack, but I'm his parent, it's my job to keep him safe. When he buggered off into the surf when there were riptides, and the lifeguard had to blow his whistle, I made ds go and apologise.

A pool where it's not too crowded is slightly less pressurised, for a parent of a 10yo, but still, snoozing isn't an option like the pre kid days. When he was 5 I took him to a friends house in Mallorca, he was told never ever to be by the pool with out a grown up. I had to be there, in the water, or right by him the whole time.

It was exhausting, but that's my job. To keep him safe first and foremost.

[TooLazyToWriteMyOwnFuckinPiece]

Hissy is that a video of a child drowning??

[Hissy]

No. It's a video of a lifeguard spotting a child in real danger or drowning rigjt in the middle of others

And saving them. Dare say the parents or people with the child were nearby..

[Summerdreams]

Yanbu. I have a 22 month old and I would be going mad I think you do need to be touching distance as at 16 months they have no understanding of danger and surely people know these days how quickly children can drown.

[TooLazyToWriteMyOwnFuckinPiece]

Thanks Hissy (can watch it now!)
Have ordered one of those Speedo CG approved jacket things. No doubt someone will tell me they are no use! No plans to take my eyes off him though but you can never be 100%