To be cross with our childminder?

[ranging]

Name changed.

DD has been going to the same childminder since she was 8 months and she is now 2.5. She absolutely loves it there and she's very kind and friendly, I get lots of crafts home that DD does and they go out and do a lot.

DD is going through a challenging phase, not doing as she's told, very stubborn, sometimes hitting and biting.

When I picked her up on Friday, the childminder said that she had taken her shoes and socks off in the car and was refusing to put them back on, so she took her out the car and put him on the (wet and muddy) ground in her bare feet and told her basically that's what you get for not putting your shoes on. She apparently got upset by this and then finally allowed her to put her shoes back on.

I was a bit taken aback by this, AIBU to tell her I am not happy about this at all? I'm not sure if this is an ok tactic to use with a toddler but I never would and don't want anyone else to treat her like that either.

What questions do you want me to answer?

Are you seriously expecting me to repost the obvious questions from the last half hour or so that are on this thread?

You've already said you don't understand. That's fine.

What's odd is accepting your own lack of knowledge but still insisting you're right despite that obvious lack of knowledge.

You're basically saying ' I know nothing about thus subject, don't understand your questions and have never heard of any of the science but you're talking garbage and I'm right'

I applaud your (misplaced) self confidence.

@WaltzingBetty

What questions do you want me to answer?

Are you seriously expecting me to repost the obvious questions from the last half hour or so that are on this thread?

You've already said you don't understand. That's fine.

What's odd is accepting your own lack of knowledge but still insisting you're right despite that obvious lack of knowledge.

You're basically saying ' I know nothing about thus subject, don't understand your questions and have never heard of any of the science but you're talking garbage and I'm right'

I applaud your (misplaced) self confidence.

Yes. I have no idea what questions you want me to answer, and it’s a long thread. So if you want me to answer them, you’ll have to post any I’ve missed (ideally without insults) and I will.

What's that phrase? Better to be silent and presumed ignorant than open one's mouth and confirm it?
Seriously @Pumperthepumper, you're making yourself look rather silly.
You appear to be extremely out of touch with the capabilities of many 2.5 year olds. You seem to think they are all pretty incapable of learning through experiences and are not capable of understanding cause and effect, therefore not having a favourite food or an unfavourite food, can't use language to get what they want/need and basically just go about like a goldfish in a bowl. Not learning anything from previous experiences yet being able to identify an adult's intentions when lifting them up and manage to get themselves out of a car seat and safely down to the ground, despite not being able to learn from previous experiences. It's all just complete word vomit. Just because you think something, it doesn't make it true.

How Is not forcing the child to wear shoes punishing if the child didn't want to wear shoes ?

As I read it, the DD took off her shoes & socks in the car.

CM chose to put her on the wet, cold ground as a consequence.

That's a punishment to me; it's pretty nasty actually.

If it was in the car, why does it matter? Ok they get to the house, and shoes needed. Fine. I'd either have popped them on very quickly or left it. Surely the car is beside the house?

I wouldn't have deliberately put the child on the ground. I agree with everything Pumper says about this.

I am a pretty strict parent of 3. I'm baffled what the big issue is re the shoes & socks to start with.

@Beseigedbykillersquirrels

I haven't read all the posts. But I too think Pumper is making valid points.

I don't get why she's being attacked so much?

@EarringsandLipstick

How Is not forcing the child to wear shoes punishing if the child didn't want to wear shoes ?

As I read it, the DD took off her shoes & socks in the car.

CM chose to put her on the wet, cold ground as a consequence.

That's a punishment to me; it's pretty nasty actually.

If it was in the car, why does it matter? Ok they get to the house, and shoes needed. Fine. I'd either have popped them on very quickly or left it. Surely the car is beside the house?

I wouldn't have deliberately put the child on the ground. I agree with everything Pumper says about this.

I am a pretty strict parent of 3. I'm baffled what the big issue is re the shoes & socks to start with.

They were going to the park. The child chose to not put on her shoes

@EarringsandLipstick

How Is not forcing the child to wear shoes punishing if the child didn't want to wear shoes ?

As I read it, the DD took off her shoes & socks in the car.

CM chose to put her on the wet, cold ground as a consequence.

That's a punishment to me; it's pretty nasty actually.

If it was in the car, why does it matter? Ok they get to the house, and shoes needed. Fine. I'd either have popped them on very quickly or left it. Surely the car is beside the house?

I wouldn't have deliberately put the child on the ground. I agree with everything Pumper says about this.

I am a pretty strict parent of 3. I'm baffled what the big issue is re the shoes & socks to start with.

If you read the OP's post she talks about dealing with this in the context of going to the park/playing with friends. So the assumption is they were going out on an outing. So outdoor play

So the child wanted to go to her outdoor play/park with no shoes.

The childminder facilitated that
The child changed her mind and the childminder supported that change of mind and shoes were put on.
Where's the punishment?

@Beseigedbykillersquirrels

What's that phrase? Better to be silent and presumed ignorant than open one's mouth and confirm it? Seriously *@Pumperthepumper*, you're making yourself look rather silly. You appear to be extremely out of touch with the capabilities of many 2.5 year olds. You seem to think they are all pretty incapable of learning through experiences and are not capable of understanding cause and effect, therefore not having a favourite food or an unfavourite food, can't use language to get what they want/need and basically just go about like a goldfish in a bowl. Not learning anything from previous experiences yet being able to identify an adult's intentions when lifting them up and manage to get themselves out of a car seat and safely down to the ground, despite not being able to learn from previous experiences. It's all just complete word vomit. Just because you think something, it doesn't make it true.

They’re not capable of cause-and-effect in the same way an adult is, no. So a child won’t understand, for example, why they can’t have six bananas in a day (too much potassium, nearly killed Peter Andre apparently) So it’s up to you, the adult, to give them alternatives.

What we have here is a child who can’t understand why they can’t have those six bananas, and rather than being offered alternatives, they are punished for wanting those bananas. They don’t have the development at two and a half to reason that ‘something I want isn’t good for me, so I have to surpass my natural instincts because otherwise I’ll be punished’. They don’t learn any faster.

"Apologies if I've missed something but I can't see that YABU here! "

I think you've missed this bit:
DD is going through a challenging phase, not doing as she's told, very stubborn, sometimes hitting and biting.
and this:
the childminder said that she had taken her shoes and socks off in the car and was refusing to put them back on

I'd be reluctant to force shoes and socks on a tantrumming toddler that was hitting and biting.

Being strapped into a buggy that she does not like going in, whilst her friends get to run and play freely? That is a consequence.

For the people who keep commenting on the CM being able to just carry the child into the house...

They clearly weren’t going to the house given that and the OP stating she’d have put the child in the buggy.

[quote EarringsandLipstick]@Beseigedbykillersquirrels

I haven't read all the posts. But I too think Pumper is making valid points.

I don't get why she's being attacked so much? [/quote]
Again, thanks @EarringsandLipstick

Natural consequence seemed to work. As long as this was done fairly and nicely I can’t see the problem

What we have here is a child who can’t understand why they can’t have those six bananas, and rather than being offered alternatives, they are punished for wanting those bananas. They don’t have the development at two and a half to reason that ‘something I want isn’t good for me, so I have to surpass my natural instincts because otherwise I’ll be punished’. They don’t learn any faster.

Unless you think 2 year old children aren't capable of operant learning?

You can think that. You'd be wrong. But that certainly doesn't seem to stop you.

You also still haven't ever explained how allowing the child out to the park with no shoes as she wanted is punishing?

Look pumper.

Either
Option A: it is the learner who's perception determines a sense of "punishment" (waltzings analysis) in which case in this scenario its unlikely child would perceive this in the context of "punishment" therefore there is none.

Or

Option B: it is the adult who chooses to impose "punishment". In which case in this scenario the childminder considers this outcome to be a classic case of allowing a natural consequence, therefore again, there is in fact no punishment.

I think you need to move away, conceptually, from the notion that this is about punishing a child. It's not. It's about enabling a scenario which permits a cause & effect learning experience:

• I will not wear my shoes
• its wet and muddy
• I don't like the mud on my feet
• its nicer to wear shoes outside

@Tanith

"Apologies if I've missed something but I can't see that YABU here! "

I think you've missed this bit:
DD is going through a challenging phase, not doing as she's told, very stubborn, sometimes hitting and biting.
and this:
the childminder said that she had taken her shoes and socks off in the car and was refusing to put them back on

I'd be reluctant to force shoes and socks on a tantrumming toddler that was hitting and biting.

I didn't miss those bits!

That's a normal, if challenging, toddler.

Don't be daft - you wouldn't be able to manage a tantrumming toddler, as an adult? I'd absolutely put the shoes & socks on, swiftly, and proceed. Other people would have different methods.

What I would not do, as a parent, or if I minded someone else's child, is put them on the wet ground to deliberately upset them.

Your post baffles me.

Oh and a 2.5 year old absolutely can perceive simple cause and effect. Where on earth have you got the idea that they can't?

@Pumperthepumper

You've had some harsh words directed at you! I agree with any of your posts I've read here.

I think it's fine for others not to, but the personal attacks (looking at you @WaltzingBetty ) are really out of order.

I'd absolutely put the shoes & socks on, swiftly, and proceed.

So you think forcing a toddler to wear items that they've expressly removed and don't want to wear is fine but lifting them into the ground barefoot because they've chosen not to wear shoes is punishing?

[quote EarringsandLipstick]@Pumperthepumper

You've had some harsh words directed at you! I agree with any of your posts I've read here.

I think it's fine for others not to, but the personal attacks (looking at you @WaltzingBetty ) are really out of order. [/quote]
Is it a personal attack to state that Pumping knows nothing about subjects that she's clearly admitted to knowing nothing about?

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

Look pumper.

Either
Option A: it is the learner who's perception determines a sense of "punishment" (waltzings analysis) in which case in this scenario its unlikely child would perceive this in the context of "punishment" therefore there is none.

Or

Option B: it is the adult who chooses to impose "punishment". In which case in this scenario the childminder considers this outcome to be a classic case of allowing a natural consequence, therefore again, there is in fact no punishment.

I think you need to move away, conceptually, from the notion that this is about punishing a child. It's not. It's about enabling a scenario which permits a cause & effect learning experience:

• I will not wear my shoes
• its wet and muddy
• I don't like the mud on my feet
• its nicer to wear shoes outside

It’s not though - that theory falls apart unless you think the OP’s kid would do anything differently tomorrow if their shoes were uncomfy. And it’s very unlikely that, at 2.5 years old, she’d think ‘oh hang on, yesterday when my shoes were rubbing and sore I took them off and was lifted onto the mud, I won’t do that again’. Do you think she would?

And neither of your scenarios are applicable because the onus is on the adult to use their physical advantage. So lifting a child onto a toilet: fine. Lifting them out of the car as a punishment: not fine.

And it’s not a natural consequence if she was lifted out of the car - it would be a natural consequence if she decided to walk around the park barefoot and didn’t like it. Being lifted out of a car by somebody you can’t fight off isn’t a natural consequence.

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

Oh and a 2.5 year old absolutely can perceive simple cause and effect. Where on earth have you got the idea that they can't?

Yes.

But the toddler is not thinking much more beyond taking her shoes & socks off than 'I want to!'

When she then is punished by being put down on cold wet ground, she doesn't like it, but no way is she going to make the the leap to, 'oh this is because I chose to take my shoes off'.

She'll just feel miserable & upset.

That doesn't mean she should be indulged. Just: 'shoes on now please' & if not, you say what's going to happen eg buggy, carry, whatever will make the point without drama.

Stroppy toddlers need boundaries & discipline, absolutely. But what's the fuss over shoes & socks, I really don't get it.

I love it when people say things like I'd absolutely put the shoes & socks on, swiftly, and proceed as if the parent/childminder/nanny that the post is about somehow wouldn’t think of, or so if it was possible. It’s the same when people declare their child would never tantrum because they wouldn’t allow it.

The level of arrogant confidence is something else.

"Don't be daft - you wouldn't be able to manage a tantrumming toddler, as an adult? I'd absolutely put the shoes & socks on, swiftly, and proceed. Other people would have different methods. "

Of course I can manage a tantrumming toddler. I have plenty of practical experience. What I would not do is to use force to put shoes and socks on one, risking being hit, bitten or kicked in the face.

Oh right.

Now we're imagining the OP has put her child in painful I'll-fitting shoes to make the argument work
This is like a creative writing exercise

@NoIDontWatchLoveIsland

Oh and a 2.5 year old absolutely can perceive simple cause and effect. Where on earth have you got the idea that they can't?

From a basic understanding of the cognitive development of a child. And they can’t rationalise cause and effect in the same way an adult does. At best you can hope for a Pavlovian response to punishment but I think we can agree that’s not ideal.