Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

No food

218 replies

cherrychapstickk · 01/12/2023 18:07

hello,

As the title says really.

My 2 and 3 year old have been taken out for the afternoon by their aunt and uncle.

They ended up having them for around 4 and a half hours, I expected around 2 but they said they got carried away.

Once they'd left 3 year old burst into tears saying she was hungry (they normally have dinner at around 5) and it turns out (i checked with auntie) they've not eaten with them at all.

Had I known they were going to be 4 hours I'd of packed some food but as I didn't know and they got carried away, am I unreasonable for thinking its quite harsh not to offer your young nieces any food?

I cannot imagine having any of their children, especially at such a young age, for that duration of time and covering dinner time and not offering anything to eat whatsoever.

OP posts:
neveradullmoment99 · 01/12/2023 22:22

Headaching · 01/12/2023 18:43

Did you let them know the kids haven't eaten lunch so they'll need to eat while they're out? Or if you did feed them lunch I wouldn't expect the Auntie and Uncle to feed them as others have said, lunch time had passed and they bought them back home for dinner. I don't see the issue

Yeh..its weird if they have children, even at primary. I would have expected them to have had a few things to eat, even a treat while they were out or when they got back like a snack.

YouJustDoYou · 01/12/2023 22:30

betterangels · 01/12/2023 22:17

Plus who goes to a Christmas market and doesn't buy a snack.

People who don't have a lot of money, for instance? Actually, I think that if a parent wants to make sure that their children have snacks, they should provide them. As I said above, I would have bought something, but it (evidently) can't be expected.

Us, because I can't pay fucking £7 for a bratwerst

JoyeuxNarwhal · 01/12/2023 22:31

LimePi · 01/12/2023 20:00

People on this thread who don’t see an issue are idiots.
young kids have lunch at 12/12-30 and then tea or big snack at 15/15-30. And then dinner at 5-6 pm.

They can’t go without food between 12-30 and 6 pm

🐎💩

CurlewKate · 01/12/2023 22:40

I'm just amazed they got round a Christmas market without donuts, crepes, popcorn, waffles, hot dogs....

But no big deal. No harm done.

beAsensible1 · 01/12/2023 22:53

2 & 3? why is everyone acting like not feeding them for 4 hours isn't cheeky or at least bring them back if you dont want to feed them earlier.

fours hours without food for an under 5s, poor babies

Jimmyneutronsforehead · 01/12/2023 23:03

When my son was 2-3 he wouldn't have noticed if he'd skipped snack time between lunch and dinner if he was carried away and happy.

It just is one of those things.

Aunt and uncle probably didn't realise little kids struggle with interoception especially when they're distracted.

Their kids might have been especially vocal about food compared to yours so they had expected the kids to be more vocal.

If they're good people I don't think they'll have done it on purpose, but I do think in future you should pack snacks and drinks anyway for just incase.

Paddleboarder · 01/12/2023 23:06

As the parent, though, I would have sent snacks with the children to make sure they had something they were happy to eat. Or at least brought it up in conversation before they went.

Tiiredofthiss · 01/12/2023 23:11

Encourage your little ones to speak up when they're hungry,but also explain their snack/eating routine to anyone looking after them. I haven't been in charge of 2-3 year olds for years but back when my younger family members were that age and I would babysit, it would be quite normal for them to have lunch at 12 at nursery and then not eat till dinner in the evening. We didn't really have snacks between meals. If one of the little ones said they were hungry I'd offer them a piece of fruit or a glass of milk, but that didn't happen often really.

Pluvia · 01/12/2023 23:12

I'd be going spare if I didn't have something to eat between 12.30 and 17.45, OP, particularly if I'd been busy.

Can't believe they thought it was okay not to offer young children a snack. I'd be really concerned — not about the food, no great harm done there, but about the fact that they don't seem to understand what children need. What were they thinking?

Kittylala · 01/12/2023 23:15

Where ever my kids were at that age, they had snacks in their bags. A lesson to learn.
My youngest age 5 eats lunch at 12 and then a snack at 5 and then lunch at 6. But we live in europe so this is the norm.

Prolapsefears · 01/12/2023 23:17

I think that's really no big deal at all, but then kids being constantly fed snacks is a big bug bear of mine!

I mean surely 4 hours with no food is nothing?

People wonder why kids are fussy eaters, it's because they're basically never given a chance to be properly hungry for actual food.

I see it all the time! Feeding kids multiple snacks at 10 or 11 and then wondering why they never eat their lunch.

Urhh. It blows my mind. Rant over.

This aside, they probably didn't realise and clearly loved spending time with their nieces so much that they got carried away. Treasure the help and love.

Justleaveitblankthen · 01/12/2023 23:28

Some children are too shy to ask for things like food or drink, even with relatives.
I know that I was and my DC were exactly the same.

milveycrohn · 01/12/2023 23:44

A very interesting thread.
To me, the modern concept of 'snacks' is rather bewildering. As a child, we always went from lunch at around 12.00 to 'tea' or 'dinner' around 5.00. Worse than that, as I really struggled with eating the (disgusting) school dinner, and often just had the potatoe (I still hate mashed potatoe). So basically went hours without this constant snacking business.
I really cannot remember what my own DC did, but really sure I rarely had snacks, as we just could not afford it. They had school dinner at ?? then came home and had tea around 5.00, the time gradually moving back as they got older, etc.
That said, if I had someone else's kids for that length of time, I would probably expect to give them some food of some sort, usually as a treat, but I confess, it would be a reserve in case they got upset for something, but then, other friends would often say that snacks would spoil their appetite for dinner.
I recently asked my adult DC about this concept of snacks, and they said we just did not have any. True there were a few things in the cupboard but they were for when they stopped having school dinners and had packed lunches, and if they took the crips or similar, then there would not have been enough for the following day.

Calliopespa · 02/12/2023 09:19

Kittylala · 01/12/2023 23:15

Where ever my kids were at that age, they had snacks in their bags. A lesson to learn.
My youngest age 5 eats lunch at 12 and then a snack at 5 and then lunch at 6. But we live in europe so this is the norm.

Well if I’m correct that means he goes over 4 hours between lunch at 12 and snack at 5? I’m not criticising that, but just pointing out that it’s a very similar gap to the post. My cousin’s DD seems to want food constantly, at least every couple of hours. But she never really eats a balanced meal. My mum said the other day she snacked about an hour before lunch, proceeded to pull the chicken and fresh tomato out of her sandwich at lunch because she “wasn’t hungry”, and just ate half the bread, then made a big scene for a packet of Pom bears about 2 hours later because she was starving. As my mum observed “ not a decent bit of protein went into her.” IME this type of unbalanced grazing is quite common these days.

Bananabuttons · 02/12/2023 17:26

I think that’s pretty rubbish. My kids get so emotionally dysregulated if they don’t eat regularly and at that age I would have offered them a couple of snacks during that time. Did they drink anything?

My MIL and FIL took my 3 young children out at 11am and came back at 2.45pm having not offered them anything to eat or drink. They said they’d only be out for an hour or so but when they didn’t come back I assumed she would pop into the supermarket at get sone sandwiches or something. My youngest was only 2 at the time.

mantyzer · 02/12/2023 17:45

You would expect your children to be offered a couple of snacks in the 4 hours between lunch and dinner?

@Calliopespa I totally agree. I think it has directly led to children in general being fatter.

AtomicPumpkin · 02/12/2023 17:46

Maybe your relatives don't buy into the constant-snacking culture, which is actually very recent.

mantyzer · 02/12/2023 17:53

Children did not used to have constant snacks. They also used to be slimmer and few children were overweight.
You need to feel hungry, it helps with appetite regulation. If you eat as soon as you feel very vaguely hungry, your natural appetite regulation does not work properly.

Riverlee · 02/12/2023 18:04

I guess the concepts of snacks has changed over time for adults and kids. At one time, you never saw people walking along the street with cups of coffee, but now people seemingly can’t pass a Costa or Starbucks without purchasing a hot drink.

Pluvia · 02/12/2023 18:08

mantyzer · 02/12/2023 17:53

Children did not used to have constant snacks. They also used to be slimmer and few children were overweight.
You need to feel hungry, it helps with appetite regulation. If you eat as soon as you feel very vaguely hungry, your natural appetite regulation does not work properly.

Who is talking about constant snacks? And why do you assume that everyone processes food and feels hunger the same way? There's growing scientific evidence that some people experience hunger very differently from others. We wouldn't accept a one-size-fits everyone solution to anything else in life, surely? So why would you think that the way that suits you is right for everyone else?

Dibbydoos · 02/12/2023 18:11

Hi @cherrychapstickk I don't get how MNrs are saying 4 hours isn't unreasonable, it is. Your DCs are young, so they should have had a snack, poor things.

I do hope they had drinks.

If it happens again, pack snacks for your kids and tell your relatives what time they should
stop for snacks and drinks. Some people are clueless.

JulieFrance · 02/12/2023 18:30

Reading lots of messages on here. Skipping after lots of valid for and against. I gave 4 grown daughters. Personally had no support, when divorced living in France. I do think, lack of communication here. I would have been thrilled to have someone take my kids out (if had a family member) but also would be freaking and sending messages if supposed to be home 2 hours earlier. Not sure what you said to them (no snacks? Or no meals) confusing. You should have been more clear. And did you text to say, when will they be home, as getting worried, they will be hungry. Understand your concern. But not a big issue, for you just to have said, ‘I appreciate you taking them, your Nieces, but was worried when you took for a lot longer. As they will be hungry also. Did they text to say will be bringing home later? If so why didn’t ‘you’ say well in that case they will need a snack

Stellastag · 02/12/2023 18:39

Poor kids that’s ridiculous. You always feed and water little ones. Whether you have your own children or not. Common sense to give them some sort off snacks.

Mama32130 · 02/12/2023 18:52

Whether you get carried away or not you still think i need to feed the kids now. They’re out of order I'm sorry i would be fuming if that was my kids.

Ryeman · 02/12/2023 19:01

An afternoon out without some kind of food would be very unusual for us, even if we were without the kids! So yes I find it unusual that they didn’t have a snack.