To think that libraries should be more understanding of young families?

[cyanarasamba]

My sister fessed up at her local library that her 18 month old DS had destroyed 3 board books while her back was turned. Not something he'd shown any signs of before, normally quite happy to sit and "lift flaps" etc.

She was very much put on the spot and told she should pay £15 to cover the cost - money she didn't have and won't have without a few weeks of saving. Also given a lecture on "her responsibilities" as a parent supervising young children etc. While I might have responded in kind, my sister is a senstive soul and left close to tears.

Now she won't go near the place which seems a real shame - both children got so much out of visiting, her DD is six and very bright and normally borrows a lot. Surely some kind of "two strikes" system might be appropriate, or at least a little more sympathy to families?

I am considering drafting a letter for her to the library, would you think these sort of comments appropriate to include?

Sounds like the librarian was a bit harsh in her tone if they upset your sister that much, so a reference to that would be appropriate in your letter. Were the books destroyed to the extent that they were left unusable?

at our library we are told to expect baby books with torn pages and teeth marks

additonally, there are no fines on late returns for kids books and the same with damage

think your sister was treated quite harshly and £15 seems very steep

sorry but I think the library have a point, albeit I think they could have gone about it in a better way.

Most libraries rely on funding for their books, and so if books are destroyed it's not like they can just dip into their prophets and buy more.

Why was an 18 month old left on his own long enough to destroy not one, but three books?

This is awful.

I was fairly sure that my local cc's policy had an exception for childrens books and I've just looked on their website. It says ...

"Please note - parents are not charged for books damaged by children under the age of 5 years. (This applies only to under-fives material - board and picture books, rhyme collections etc and not adult books) "

So at least in my part of the country common sense prevails.

I'd give the main library in your area a call to find out what their policy is.

good luck

Your poor sister and what a shame the children will miss out. Libraries are supposed to be a place for families and parents are now encouraged to take their babies from very early on. Even with the 6 month Bookstart pack, an encouragement to join a local library is given. So I think that the Librarian could have been a bit more understanding and empathic. I don't think that she had any right to lecture your sis on her parenting skills. Having said that, maybe an 18 month old needs to be more carefully supervised when in the library with books that don't belong to the family. But, it's also easy to make a judgement error and I'd be completely on your sister's side here!!
Hope this doesn't put her off completely and that her children go on to be real book and library lovers!!

It does seem as though she was a bit harsh and 15.00 is a bit steep imo.

Could she not look for the titles on ebay and take them in to replace them it might be worth a try.

We have are told to expect baby books with chunks out of them ,however I can understand the librarian been peed off that it wasn't just one but three books that were ruined.

I am slightly that the child managed to ruin 3 books. And also think that your sister is over-reacting by not going back to the library, especially as you say that her 6yo gets so much out of the trips. It does sound like the librarian's attitude was a bit much also, though.

The librarian is obviously a bit of a harridan.
My old library had a policy of no fines/no payment for replacements but my new one does make you pay if books are damaged.
Libraries are so underfunded, I imagine the librarian was stressed about budget, but no adult should be lecturing another: your sister is not a child or a subordinate. If you write, then maybe you could focus on that aspect. It is not OK to imagine yourself falsely in a position of power and then talk down to people. Emphasise that your sister has been put off returning and how this will have an impact on her children's reading habits.
(I love libraries and there is so much for children, I think it's a shame they won't get to go any more.)

Up in Liverpool things are very different - at a recent talk we were told not to worry at all about toddlers damaging books, as board books etc were only expected to last 12 weeks .The priority is very much on encouraging families of young children to use the library, and not to worry about them damaging books. I would double check with your local council as to their policy, it may just be one particularly stroppy librarian re:charging.

Usually when you join a library the form you have to fill in states that you will be expected to pay the replacement cost of any books lost or irreparably damaged. £15 works out at £4.99 per book which doesn't seem outrageous.

Tbh I never left dd alone with library books and even now constantly remind her that they are only borrowed and we must look after them.

I once borrowed a book on cat behaviour and stupidly was reading it in the bath. I put it on the side while I topped up the water and my bloody cat jumped up and knocked it into the water. I had to pay the replacement cost which was about £20. I did get to keep the curled and stuck-together paged book though .

Sorry, just re-read that and it comes across as a bit pious.
The librarian was out of order for lecturing. Whatever needed to be said could have been said in a more kindly and understanding manner.

I do think she should pay for replacement tbh. One book is perhaps understandable but three? That does sound as though she wasnt really supervising her ds very closely at all. How long was her back turned for?

If the librarian was a bit arsey then I'm not that suprised tbh. I wouldnt think social skills were at the top of the list for someone to work in relative silence in a library

We don't charge for damaged books if the child is under 5.
We are constantly trying to reiterate to patrents that damage by babies is normal because we want parents to use the library so they can introduce their children to books.
I would write higher up, find out who is in charge of children's services for the library authority, quote other authorities policies (can find out which on Internet), she might get a refund.

I dont think she has paid dooley.

can I ask which authority she is in?

I think you or your sister should write or phone and speak to the library manager. It is likely that he/she would waive the charge. Some library staff are miserable old jobsworths unfortunately.

I work in a public library, and we are in the process of withdrawing a load of children's books at the moment because we can't fit them all on the shelves! we're not too bothered about damaged board books, and certainly wouldn't lecture a mother on her parenting and discourage her from coming back to the library.

i think libraries should factor in the cost of babies destroying books into their yearly budget. Why lend books out in the full knowledge that in all probablity the child will gnaw or rip the book to pieces and then punish parents for their child's normal physiological development?

I agree that the librarian was po-faced and silly to lecture your sister like that; libraries are supposed to be actively encouraging families now rather than discouraging them like this.

I can understand your sister's upset, however if she stops her kids from having the library as a resource because of this then I think she is being childish in the extreme and needs to re-think!

She just needs to use it as a learning experience - supervise her young one much more with library books and use this as a very useful opportunity to teach her kids how important it is to care for books.

Out of order - she should write a letter and point out the need to encourage library use not deter it. My local library very good at seeing the sense in encouraging use!

The answer really is in the line 'won't go near the place' Be that for whatever reason -for some anger, for some embarrassment - but everyone has lost out, so whats the point. The dwindling use of public libraries means you have to encourage, and the librarian's attitude fell way short of that.

If they do have a policy of paying for damage it is unfair to demand payment there and then - any library worth its salt would allow partial payment and continued borrowing.

When I took the dc's (age 9, 3 & 1) to join our local library after we had moved I was specifically told not to worry about damaged books - they are expected from the younger ones and they much prefer that children are encouraged to read than have parents not borrow for them because they are worrying about that sort of thing.

I haven't given a book back damaged although dd did rip one of the plastic covers and the librarian didn't even mention it.

Well, I wouldn't lecture anyone about damaging a book (unless they trotted in laughing away and said "look what I did!"), but you normally do have to pay when books get badly damaged. I had someone returning an inter-library loan that had been eaten by a dog once...

Agree with niceglasses though - there are ways of extracting money from people! The person on the issue desk (who was probably a library assistant) may not even have been fully aware of policy, so it's worth asking to speak to a library manager/supervisor/whatever public libraries call those in charge these days!

But I really think she shouldn't stop going to the library!

I think this is massively unfair. There have been many times that I have taken books from the library for DS that have been ripped and drawn on. When I return them, They seem to think it is me. I can only assume that there are many people who just sneak the books back in without saying anything about the condition.

Good on your sister for being honest. The books do need to be paid for, but the library is there so that children who might not otherwise get an opportunity to can read books. Who wins in this situation?

I have to say I know accidents can happen but I think children should be taught to respect their own property and that which isnt theirs in particular. I dont think toddlers are obliged to wreck stuff just by virtue of being a toddler.

My dd has never drawn on walls or wrecked her books etc and not because I am a super parent but just because I have always been vigilant over her behaviour when she is touching things which dont belong to her and I've instilled respect in her from a very early age.

I think that the mum should be given an option to pay weekly or whatever and encouraged back to the library certainly, but to spoil one book is accidental, to allow three in one go to be wrecked is negligent IMVHO.

Our local library also doesn't charge for books trashed by under fives.
I agree that the person on the desk's attitude wasn't right too, I would check what the local authority policy is - they do vary.
Can I just say, as others have, that the person you see that the desk has probably not been consulted about a library authority's replacement policy, and may be having to implement something harsh they are not happy with in the interests of cost recovery and budgetary constraints. Librarians are often now obliged to work with debt collection agencies and account directly for any non-recovered costs and it is a hateful aspect of our work tbh. This might explain her brusqueness if not excuse it.
Erk at the doggy interloan ManchesterMummy. Although this does not count as irreparably damaged I do feel borderline hysterical when a pube drops out of a returned item, I have to say