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.

PFB stands for perfect first born OP. Mother’s tend to overreact when dealing with their one and only child.
Personally I think your childminder sounds extremely sensible. Your child was not being punished, she was allowed to suffer the natural consequences of her actions. Even if there had been snow on the ground I would have approved.

Why would you think a child is incapable of that connection?

Betty I've repeated this over & over.

Because the child did not choose to walk barefoot on the cold wet ground. They were put there. Ergo, no connection formed 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

Even if there had been snow on the ground I would have approved.

How lovely 😠

Because the child did not choose to walk barefoot on the cold wet ground. They were put there. Ergo, no connection formed

Setting aside that opinion isn't supported by science, or child development

Then how is that different from a child being put in the potty? They don't choose that either

@EarringsandLipstick

If you can't explain them I can fully understand

I have explained every single point I made. Repeatedly. Unlike you, I've had no difficulty doing so.

Where have I had difficulty explaining or answering any of your questions?

So, if a puppy poohs on the lino, are we to conjecture that the old-fashioned and derided expedient of pushing it's nose into its waste is a way of teaching a puppy a ' natural consequence' is that uncovered pooh in the wrong place might get stuck on the nose? Or is the owner doing this just creating an association between strong, smelly pooh and not having the pooh in the right place? Or is it a punishment ? How we explain that experiment is open to different interpretations ( as is the bare feet experiment) but clearly a dog playfully sniffing its own pooh would be a different experience for them than having their nose forced into it.

Totally irrelevant argument because there's too much time between the act of poking and the punishment.

Operant conditioning including punishment works if it is applied correctly . Timing is crucial

Appropriateness of punishment is a different consideration but I wouldn't place a barefoot child on Par with a face shoved in faeces

@EarringsandLipstick

Why would you think a child is incapable of that connection?

Betty I've repeated this over & over.

Because the child did not choose to walk barefoot on the cold wet ground. They were put there. Ergo, no connection formed 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

So you think operant conditioning only works when the child chooses it?

It doesn't
Your opinion can be otherwise, but it would be unsupported by the evidence

Childminder was between a rock and a hard place. Strapping your child into a buggy against her will could have been construed as unnecessary restraint, which is not allowed unless the child is actually in danger. Your DD is capable of walking and refused to wear her shoes so CM had no other option but to put her on the ground without them. Ofsted would agree that this was the least restrictive option available so YABU. Said as a former childminder, now a primary school teacher.

[quote EarringsandLipstick]@AsMuchUseAsAMarzipanDildo

She’ll be back here, moaning, expecting everyone to agree with her. Only to be met with another 30 pages of people telling her she’s being ridiculous and her saying “No I’m not!.

This is the kind of crap that is making MN such a vile place atm.

Why say this? OP asked one question about one scenario, and that allows you to deduce this?

By all means, tell her she IBU but seriously, this is warranted???[/quote]
So why did she ask the question then. There’s literally 30
pages of everyone bar you and pumper saying “YABU” and she flounced within the first few because it wasn’t the answer she wanted. The overwhelming majority of posters have done the exact same thing and (contrary to your and pumper’s insistence they’re not capable of it) their child has learnt from it. So should we all pretend we haven’t and hypocritically egg on the OP to sack the childminder?

She’s asked for advice on the UK’s biggest parenting forum.

Because the child did not choose to walk barefoot on the cold wet ground. They were put there. Ergo, no connection formed

I imagine they were not just put there. As thousands of parents may well have experienced the conversation would have gone something along the lines of X you need to put your shoes on we are at the park.
X - don't want to.
CM - if you don't put your shoes and socks on your feet will be cold and wet.
X - don't care.
CM ok (stands X on floor)
X - Cold feet shoes on please

Oh lord, I’d hate to be a childminder

@sweeneytoddsrazor

Because the child did not choose to walk barefoot on the cold wet ground. They were put there. Ergo, no connection formed

I imagine they were not just put there. As thousands of parents may well have experienced the conversation would have gone something along the lines of X you need to put your shoes on we are at the park.
X - don't want to.
CM - if you don't put your shoes and socks on your feet will be cold and wet.
X - don't care.
CM ok (stands X on floor)
X - Cold feet shoes on please

Perhaps Sweeney but that's not as OP describes it (and I just re-read to check).

If it happened like this, it's a bit different, as DC was provided with choice & agency.

It didn't seem so in OP's posts.

A few seconds with her feet on a cold wet floor isn't causing her discomfort.
Kids test boundaries to learn, she learnt walking outside without shoes isn't always as comfortable as having no shoes on.
Putting her in her buggy would not have taught her why you want her to wear shoes.

The overwhelming majority of posters have done the exact same thing and (contrary to your and pumper’s insistence they’re not capable of it) their child has learnt from it.

How an this be possible when @EarringsandLipstick and @Pumperthepumper state that it's impossible?

Weird

So why did she ask the question then.
There’s literally 30pages of everyone bar you and pumper saying “YABU” and she flounced within the first few because it wasn’t the answer she wanted. The overwhelming majority of posters have done the exact same thing and (contrary to your and pumper’s insistence they’re not capable of it) their child has learnt from it. So should we all pretend we haven’t and hypocritically egg on the OP to sack the childminder?

Tell her she's BU. She specifically said she was fine with this.

She was absolutely slated on the first few pages. I don't think that's necessary - she just asked a question.

She left the thread. That's her right.

You're fine go disagree with her. It's Jnr horrible way you projected about what she'd be like when her DD was at school that I objected to. Why do it?

She’s asked for advice on the UK’s biggest parenting forum.

Yeah. But key word is 'advice' not 'abuse'.

@WaltzingBetty

Betty she's a toddler. I have often had cranky kicking children. Firmly not roughly, I would hold legs & put on shoes. No fuss, other than to clearly say 'no kicking'.

Ok so I'll ask again as you keep ignoring the question, how is you physically restraining a child, forcing them to wear shoes they don't want and verbally chastising them not punishing,
but the childminder facilitating the child's choice not to wear shoes and then giving them to her when she changes her mind a punishment?

@EarringsandLipstick

@EarringsandLipstick

She said lifting was forceful and punishing.

Might be worth reading the thread rather than diving in halfway through to argue alongside someone who's posts you haven't read and whiMs reasoning you don't understand

Oh stop. I'm truly leaving you be now. Such a strange way you have.

She didn't say this.

I read a lot of the thread & all relevant posts.

I made my arguments based on the scenario OP posted & the subsequent discussion I was part of.

Stop telling me when I can & can't post. The only poster I don't understand is ...you.

Pumper clearly said here that it was the lifting and 'plonking' that made it 'bullying'

I assume the same applies when you put a child on the potty?

I assume the same applies when you put a child on the potty?

Oh I'm a glutton for punishment & my phone should be off BUT ...

Yes, absolutely, if you 'plonked' a child one potty against their will, that's bullying behaviour.

But that's not toilet training and no parent I know has ever done this. (They wouldn't get far with toilet training if they did)

HTH Betty

If she had left your child standing barefoot in the mud on a cold day for 20 minutes, I would be livid. I would almost bet, however, that it was closer to 5-7 minutes, at most, because that's how long my own sons lasted when they pulled that. They are now 40 and 41 years old, and it doesn't seem to have damaged them any.

Yes, absolutely, if you 'plonked' a child one potty against their will, that's bullying behaviour.

Right so just to be clear it's bullying to ever lift a child against their will?

But it's fine to physically restrain a child and force them to put on socks and shoes against their will that they don't want to wear, as you said you would do earlier.

Can you explain the difference please?

@WaltzingBetty

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?

@EarringsandLipstick Another question you didn't answer...

No wonder teachers have such a hard time with disobedient childrdn reading some of the ridiculous replies on this thread. Mini tyrants aged two allowed to get their own way and choose not to do what they are told.

Right so just to be clear it's bullying to ever lift a child against their will?

No, that's not what you asked you asked re TT & I answered that.

But it's fine to physically restrain a child and force them to put on socks and shoes against their will that they don't want to wear, as you said you would do earlier.

Obviously context (again!) matters. But yes of course, it's fine for a parent to put on a child's shoes when needed (it goes without saying - well, to most people - that doesn't include sitting astride them, breaking their foot to put it in the shoe. Just for clarity).

Can you explain the difference please?

1. The difference is you are misquoting me (I answered only about TT as that's what you asked)

1. Plonking a child on a toilet / potty against their will is bullying behaviour. Putting on a child's shoes, while ensuring they don't hit / bite (which was the context in which I made that point earlier, that word 'context' again. Know how much you fail to understand it!) is responsible parenting

HTH.

Another question you didn't answer...

I'd actually responding to you.

I admit I got sucked back in again ....

But it doesn't matter - I've substantively answered all your points & it's not enough

You're quite bullying aren't you?

I'd actually stopped* responding to you, that should say.