SIL wants her baby to 'catch a tan'

[LocksHear]

AIBU to be fuming?!

She refuses to cover him up and isn't applying any sun lotion. Baby is 10 months.

Apparently no one puts sun lotion on their kid's in her country, and they're just kept out of the sun when it's at its strongest (between 1.30/3)

She's adamant he doesn't burn, and she doesn't. Which is true. But burning isn't the only sign of skin damage by the sun. So is a sun tan. Any change to pigmentation is, isn't it?

I was at the park with her and all the kids yesterday, I made a point of putting sun lotion on all of mine, and made sure I had loads in my hands when I said "Oh I've loads left. Let me do yours. Might as well, loads left "

She was very and said I'd rather you didn't. I didn't know what to say to that. 5 minutes later she claimed to have a migraine coming on and left.

I've been advised to report her to her health visitor but I know she doesn't have one.

I agree with Cynderella. I think children need sunshine and UV ON their skin occasionally to make Vitamin D. Children who are routinely kept out of the sun and covered up get rickets. There is a world of difference between a bit of a tan and severe sunburn, just as there is a world of difference between putting your children on a exclusively raw food diet and giving them fruit and vegetables.

Children need to play out in the sun judiciously and they do not need to be slathered from head to toe in clothes and suncream unless they are on a beach in full sunlight for several hours, or spending a long day outside. My son used to come out in a rash when I put suncream on his face, whereas if I kept a hat on and dappled shade he was fine, healthy fit no infections. this same son suffered from vitamin d deficiency when as a teenager his exposure to sunshine went right down - I look back and think thank goodness he was a bonny tanned boy up until that point.

Everyone in my family adults especially has suffered from vitamin d deficiency, the energy and zest we had as children playing outside replaced with the sedentary adult lifestyle mostly indoors. Everyone needs the benefit of UV rays. Google how Vitamin D is made and how the skin absorbs it via sunlight and in what form. Google vitamin d deficiency too, BBC did a recent report on it.

Will the child go to nursery at some point?

I've written all sorts of counter arguments because people here are clearly uneducated about skin cancer risks, but I cba. Your SIL is a twat.

All children under five registered with a UK GP have a health visitor.

It’s not that hot in this country atm and it’s been a long winter. Why would you deny your child some vitamin D? Wait a while, it isn’t hot enough for creams.

You’re acting like an interfering busybody OP. Report her indeed

It’s April? Are you in the UK? It’s certainly not very sunny where I am. I would let my toddler get 20 minutes of sun time for vitamin D.

I was shocked on holiday in Croatia last year as all the Italian kids had full on tans and tiny swimwear.

Same in Greece- I was really really really told off my older ladies at the beach for covering my little ones with uv50 swimming suits!

I'm in the south east and it's been cloudless skies and 26 to 28 degrees for today, and the last two days this week.

So all the people who think a child having a tan is a sign of bad parenting just keep their children indoors all summer? Even with spf 50 on, a child will still tan. I wear spf30 every day in the summer and don't sunbathe and still tan. What are we supposed to do about it?

It’s not that hot in this country atm and it’s been a long winter. Why would you deny your child some vitamin D? Wait a while, it isn’t hot enough for creams

No, it's absolutely not hot today but it was yesterday and the day previous to that. Of which, both days my SIL didn't bother to protect her small baby from harmful sun, for much longer than half hour. Try 5/6 of them.

I'm not a busybody. It is actively increasing my nephews chance of skin cancer in the future.

I'm not saying he should be slathered and kept in the shade all day, but keeping him in direct sun for hours isn't good. Not at all

I'm on the same page as a lot of PP, DS is 2, I don't put sun cream on him when we're just playing at home, as the yard only gets sun at the far end until about 10am, then it's shaded anyway, so I leave hisskin clear for the vitamin D benefits. I don't put cream on him if we're going to be in the sun for about 10 mins or less (eg yesterday afternoon when we nipped to the shopat the end of the road).

I do however use a daily suncream on him from 10am onwards if we're going to be out and about for a chunk of the day, and top up 2 hourly is he's not got much shade (for example at the beach or the park). I keep a hat on himand cover as much ofhis skkin as I can without him getting too hot.

I'm not the biggest chemical fan, and avoid using them where I can, but sometimes I feel the benefot of them outweighs the negative. Suncream is firmly in that catagory for me.

OP I'll admit I'd be horrified in your shoes, and her chices are afar cry from mine, but unless her children are regularly let to burn, I wouldn't have thought there would be anyone willing or able to intervene, as surely that falls withing the realm of parental choice rather than abuse?

You're in a tricky situation, because at the end of the day, you can't force your parenting choices on her. I get infuriated when people do it to me, because I don't make any decisions regarding DS flippantly. I've read guidelines and information, and already made what I feel is the best choice. I never thank anyone for trying to override those decisions.

This is not a child protection issue. You've told the mum what you think and she can consider that when weighing up the risks. That is absolutely as far as you can take this.

Can you imagine having the social worker come round because someone reported you for letting your kids do something that you consider reasonable but has a potential future harm on their health or development e.g. eating biscuits or crisps, not reading every single day, playing on a phone or tablet. You really just need to accept that we all raise our children differently and what you see as an unacceptable abuse of a child, she sees as normal and healthy.

No they don’t ickey. You can refuse the services of a HV quite easily

You can refuse the services but the health visitor still has your child on her caseload and is still responsible for your child. Don't ask me how I know.

oh, and I forgot to add that YABU

The BBC report from 2016 says that if people used suncream as the manufacturer recommended, they would not make Vitamin D. Just google and see how in the last five years they have realised that people are making no Vitamin D because the Vitamin D they would have naturally made in the past from sunlight in the summer months from 10-3 (the only time that Vitamin D can be made by the skin from the action of sunlight) IS BLOCKED BY SUNCREAM.

the NHS spokesman recommends short bursts of sunshine without suncream. Just read it...google vitamin d supplements for all BBC 2016.

There is a school of thinking that she is right and a lack of vitamin D from all the covering up and sun lotion is going to cause children more damage than the sun. It’s implicated in a lot of diseases like MS.
I prefer to let my children out at times when the sun is less dangerous without cream for vitamin D benefits.

I have MS, and low vit D levels if I don't supplement. It's nice that you think a bit of exposure will give you enough vitamin D, but it's bollocks really. Unless you are running around or lying naked for a significant amount of time you will not be getting enough. Everyone in the western world should supplement.

Tans stop vitamin d being produced.

This is the video I was thinking of. Please watch

It’s april so regardless of temperature the sun is not particularly strong in the uk and the bbc rates uv as low for today, I don’t think you’d ever get a high uv rating in April as we’re only 1 month past the spring equinox. We’ve been in the garden and at the park today and haven’t had it on, likewise my dd didn’t wear it to school this week, she hasn’t got burnt.

It is bvu to actively want your 10 mo to get a tan though!

There is a school of thinking that she is right and a lack of vitamin D from all the covering up and sun lotion is going to cause children more damage than the sun. It’s implicated in a lot of diseases like MS.

Was there not something a few years ago advising that children get 10 mins or so a day exposure to the sun for these reasons?

I’ve always put sunscreen on my 2, they are 9 and 12 and have never burned. The eldest is olive skinned and just goes dark brown anyway

The UV ratings for tomorrow where I am (south east) reach a High at 13:00 and Medium for a couple of hours before and after. That's the Met Office. Is that being hyper cautious then, or just plain wrong? Are UV weather ratings not accurate?

Icky not if you don't consent to your information being passed to the Health Visiting Team in the first place.

You cannot make Vitamin D when the sun is less dangerous... You can only make it BETWEEN 10-3 April to Sept due to the angle of the sun in northern latitudes.

There are also theories that suncream can itself contribute to skin cancer. The fact is, they don't know, as it is hasn't been around for that long.

Whereas Vitamin D in sunshine has been around for....well, millions of years - we are adapted to use it long before we had supplements available (even things like codliver oil) The darker and more olive your skin the more UV you need to make that vital Vitamin D. Fair skin was evolved to cope with lack of UV available in northern latitudes, therefore skin had to be better at responding to low levels of sunshine (hence you more easily burn with fair skin)