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.

I’ve got about fifteen minutes before I put my phone down for the night so if there’s anything you want me to answer then now’s your chance. Ideally without insults.

You keep asking this. I've answered repeatedly

I assume you're capable of reading the thread.

If you aren't I can't help you.

I couldn't care less if you answer or not. I'm not anticipating groundbreaking insight.

[quote Almostascot]@WaltzingBetty But he can’t climb out of his car seat himself!!! So I have some work to do.[/quote]
Well you could alway (shock horror) lift him

Though I hear that's punishment.

So maybe just leave him stuck there til he grows up

@WaltzingBetty

I’ve got about fifteen minutes before I put my phone down for the night so if there’s anything you want me to answer then now’s your chance. Ideally without insults.

You keep asking this. I've answered repeatedly

I assume you're capable of reading the thread.

If you aren't I can't help you.

I couldn't care less if you answer or not. I'm not anticipating groundbreaking insight.

Ok. Well, I’m not going through pages of posts to miss mysterious questions I might have missed on a fast-moving thread so if you’re not willing to repost them, I’d appreciate it if you could stop accusing me of dodging them. I’ve asked several times.

[quote Almostascot]@WaltzingBetty But he can’t climb out of his car seat himself!!! So I have some work to do.[/quote]
Well according to pumper earlier NT 2.5 year olds absolutely can climb out their car seats and down from the car so he’s lost his genius label.

Still you’re a better parent than me - I didn’t realise any of my 6 grasping natural consequences at that age made them geniuses. Bad parent of the decade here 😂😂

@EarringsandLipstick

It's impossible to have an informed discussion when you keep using terminology you clearly don't understand and can't explain

Why do you keep saying this Betty? What is you think Pumper doesn't understand? And what is she not explaining?

It seems clear to me.

I actually find your posts incomprehensible. But you're entitled to a different view. Just perplexed by your aggression.

Of course you do.

It's because you're confusing evidence with opinion

Ok. Well, I’m not going through pages of posts to miss mysterious questions I might have missed on a fast-moving thread so if you’re not willing to repost them, I’d appreciate it if you could stop accusing me of dodging them. I’ve asked several times.

Where have I accused you of dodging questions?
I see we're back to the creative writing

I have done the same thing with my toddler. They learn pretty quickly to keep their socks and shoes on then.

I told him not to run with his bowl of cereal or he might fall. Of course, he fell, cereal everywhere, tears etc! Next day I give him his bowl he says ‘I careful mummy, no run’. So he learnt through natural consequences.

That's so different!

Your DC learnt by experience, as we all do.

If the child in this case had got out of the car & stood on cold ground by choice and not liked it, and CM said, well that's what happens if you stand on the ground with no shoes on! - she might have remembered it (or not, ego knows!)

But the child here was just taking off their socks & shoes. They weren't thinking of the cold ground or anything else.

The CM putting them there & distressing them doesn't create a learning experience, at all.

Similarly, if you had made your DS run with a bowl & cereal, just because you decided he should learn a lesson unconnected with his lived experience, he'd just have been confused / upset.

@WaltzingBetty

Ok. Well, I’m not going through pages of posts to miss mysterious questions I might have missed on a fast-moving thread so if you’re not willing to repost them, I’d appreciate it if you could stop accusing me of dodging them. I’ve asked several times.

Where have I accused you of dodging questions?
I see we're back to the creative writing

Here:

However I stand by the fact that she is unable to answer any questions on child development and has openly admitted to knowing nothing about the terms

@Almostascot

Well I’m feeling pretty good about my DS who is 2.5. I told him not to run with his bowl of cereal or he might fall. Of course, he fell, cereal everywhere, tears etc! Next day I give him his bowl he says ‘I careful mummy, no run’. So he learnt through natural consequences. According to pumper that is beyond the normal development for a child of his age. He’s a genius!! or maybe not....

I would totally support my CM if she did this...I would thank her.

New question then

How do you explain this @Pumperthepumper ?
According to you toddlers aren't capable of this

It's because you're confusing evidence with opinion

Why have you got 'evidence' and others only 'opinion'?

I'm not an expert. But I'm a parent, and have plenty of evidence from that.

You're quite unpleasant really.

How do you explain this @Pumperthepumper* ?
According to you toddlers aren't capable of this*

Because that is a natural response. Nobody spilled his cereal for him to teach him not to run.

According to you toddlers aren't capable of this

The 2 situations are totally different.

In this one, the toddler learnt through what he did.

In the OP's example, the child was just put on cold wet ground to teach them a lesson they were unaware of.

Simple, really.

However I stand by the fact that she is unable to answer any questions on child development and has openly admitted to knowing nothing about the terms
Ah yes

I see.

If you think 'dodging' is the same as 'unable to answer' then I understand how you've entirely misunderstood that

FWIW they aren't the same

Diving implies deliberately avoiding
Unable implies not capable

You're welcome

*dodging

But that is the punishment, and I’m sorry that you don’t like it - the punishment is the childminder using their physical advantage to lift the child out of the car to stand barefoot in the mud, to reach her a lesson. Again: that’s not something we would do to an elderly person with limited cognitive development. Because it would be pointless - unless you also think this 2.5 year old wouldn’t do exactly the same thing tomorrow?

Yikes. Ok. So you believe that punishment can only be physical, when one has a physical advantage over another, and punishment can only be validated if it would be unacceptable to do to an adult/usually elderly person with a devastating degenerative brain condition? You have no issue with manipulating a two year old into doing something they don't want to do but you do want them to do by tricking them into it? But as that just involves words not lifting them out of the car and allowing them to do what they insist they would like to do in a safe environment, that's not punishment, yes? This is exhausting. Who knew that allowing a child to go barefoot when they have explicitly said they would like to, would be seen as punishment?
If this scenario played out exactly the same but the child ended up liking being barefoot, would the act of lifting a child out of a car and placing them on the ground still be a punishment, @Pumperthepumper? The actions, intentions, physical advantage, etc, would be identical, except the child really loved exploring the environment with her feet, would you still call it a punishment?

Fucking hilarious 😂 😂

@EarringsandLipstick

According to you toddlers aren't capable of this

The 2 situations are totally different.

In this one, the toddler learnt through what he did.

In the OP's example, the child was just put on cold wet ground to teach them a lesson they were unaware of.

Simple, really.

Exactly.

AAAAAARRRRGGHHHHH

@WaltzingBetty

However I stand by the fact that she is unable to answer any questions on child development and has openly admitted to knowing nothing about the terms Ah yes

I see.

If you think 'dodging' is the same as 'unable to answer' then I understand how you've entirely misunderstood that

FWIW they aren't the same

Diving implies deliberately avoiding
Unable implies not capable

You're welcome

English isn’t my first language so I do sometimes miss some subtle points - but I don’t think I’m wrong here. You’ve accused me several times of being unable to answer, I’m not. I’ve asked you several times to ask me direct questions and you won’t. But I’m not insulting you in the process.

@Pumperthepumper

How do you explain this @Pumperthepumper* ? According to you toddlers aren't capable of this*

Because that is a natural response. Nobody spilled his cereal for him to teach him not to run.

Right so toddlers can only learn naturally then?

They can never learn to be toilet trained for example? As lifting them on the potty isn't natural is it

But your solution of forcing them into shoes whilst verbally chastising them doesn't seem to be especially focussed on 'choice'?

You're totally making shit up!

That's not what I said at all

Popping on a child's shoes as they'll need to stand on the ground, while explaining why, is not either 'forcing' or 'verbally chastising'.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are deliberately on the wind-up here 😂

@Beseigedbykillersquirrels

But that is the punishment, and I’m sorry that you don’t like it - the punishment is the childminder using their physical advantage to lift the child out of the car to stand barefoot in the mud, to reach her a lesson. Again: that’s not something we would do to an elderly person with limited cognitive development. Because it would be pointless - unless you also think this 2.5 year old wouldn’t do exactly the same thing tomorrow?

Yikes. Ok. So you believe that punishment can only be physical, when one has a physical advantage over another, and punishment can only be validated if it would be unacceptable to do to an adult/usually elderly person with a devastating degenerative brain condition? You have no issue with manipulating a two year old into doing something they don't want to do but you do want them to do by tricking them into it? But as that just involves words not lifting them out of the car and allowing them to do what they insist they would like to do in a safe environment, that's not punishment, yes? This is exhausting. Who knew that allowing a child to go barefoot when they have explicitly said they would like to, would be seen as punishment?
If this scenario played out exactly the same but the child ended up liking being barefoot, would the act of lifting a child out of a car and placing them on the ground still be a punishment, @Pumperthepumper? The actions, intentions, physical advantage, etc, would be identical, except the child really loved exploring the environment with her feet, would you still call it a punishment?

I’d still say it was out of order for a childminder to make that decision for the child, yes. So if the child was unsure about walking on the ground barefoot and the childminder forced them to do it - even knowing they would like it - I’d say that was unfair.

They can never learn to be toilet trained for example? As lifting them on the potty isn't natural is it

@WaltzingBetty yes, you can’t force a child to potty train, that’s right. You can encourage them and make it fun, but until they have the development to hold it until they get to a toilet, you can punish them all you want and it’ll make absolutely no difference.

That’s a very good example, thank you.

English isn’t my first language so I do sometimes miss some subtle points - but I don’t think I’m wrong here. You’ve accused me several times of being unable to answer, I’m not. I’ve asked you several times to ask me direct questions and you won’t. But I’m not insulting you in the process.

You're fundamentally misunderstanding what i'm saying

You have clearly answered 'what?' Or ''Ison's understand' to the questions I've asked.

That's a fairly clearly indication that you are unable to answer those questions. I've repeatedly said that's fine as you obviously don't understand them.

You're the one that keeps labouring the point and asking me to repost them. It's pointless. If you could have answered them then I assume you would have.
You obviously can't
I don't see that me reposting them would help