Nobody fed the baby.

[shaylla]

I need a bit of perspective from others point of view here please.

A 13 month old - given breakfast at 7.30, then instead of his normal lunch is only given half an eggs worth of scrambled egg at lunch time. No water or milk all day then till 5 when another adult returns home and finds out (and feeds baby immediately). The adult/s in charge of the baby all day 'didn't realise' ... ??

This is neglect yes?

Yes it's neglectful. Whoever it was should never be allowed to look after the baby ever again. If it was my child I would have been extremely angry and would tell them they would never again be caring for my child.
I honestly cannot see how someone can think it's ok not to even give the baby a drink for the whole day, is the person compos mentis with full capacity?

I think offering two different kinds of food for lunch is fine, if baby rejected both and wasn't screaming the house down they're not starving hungry are they.

No drink all day is a bigger concern. You say 'nothing was offered' and given the way you initially phrased the food issue vs reality I'm wondering if there's more to that story too. Did baby have access to water at all (e.g. a sippy cup they can use at will) and you're just annoyed they weren't encouraged to use it, or was there no access to liquid at all for the whole day?

If the baby wasn't showing any signs of hunger, then I don't think it's a big deal.

Both of mine would have let me know in no uncertain fashion if they were hungry at that age. Maybe baby was having too much fun with all the movement to be bothered about food?

Thank you.

I don't want to give details of who everyone is because i wanted pure gut reactions just to the lack of food. I'm sorry if it's frustrating

Poster who said baby couldn't have been that hungry or he would have eaten all the egg - well the egg was offered at mid day. He wouldn't have been hungry enough to eat all of something he's not keen on at that point.

We know no drink was offered because the main adult admitted it. Forgetfulness is the excuse.

Yes, the egg thing seems a bit of a red herring - missing out on (or refusing to eat) a single meal is hardly a huge deal imo.

BUT no fluid’s offered at all to between 7.30 and 5pm IS neglectful if that if what OP is suggesting happened? Or did the child at least have some water or milk at “lunch” even if they didn’t eat much?

ETA: Latest post from the OP says no fluids were ever offered. Really hope these people won’t be looking after the child regularly or that someone else can help them.

So you've exaggerated in your original.post then

You made it sound like they were just given half an egg for lunch when in fact that was the 2nd thing they were offered and they didn't eat the whole egg.

If I was looking after a child at the point of only half the 2nd offering being eaten I would assume they weren't hungry.

Willing to bet there is information about liquid intake that you also aren't being upfront about

Absolutely that is neglect!

The baby had breakfast and was offered lunch he didn't like what was first offered so they made him scrambled egg he ate half of it. I don't think that's unusual.
If he really wasn't offered anything to drink all day that's worrying but it doesn't sound as though he was deliberately neglected.

i'm being 'upfront' (? i've done nothing wrong) about the fact the baby was offered 2 things he doesn't like at mid day, accepting half an egg, and offered/given nothing else afterwards. No drink. What 'access' to fluids do you think i'm not being upfront about? How would a 13 month old get a drink other than being given a drink?

I just wanted some perspective on how angry to be. I'm bemused by it. So is the mum.

So did the mum not leave any food/milk for the baby or was it an emergency situation?

Anyway, may thanks to all who posted.

If the baby refused drinks for the entire day the parents should have been contacted for guidance or to come and give fluids. You don’t say ‘oh well the baby didn’t want it so it doesn’t matter.’ It wouldn’t be acceptable in a professional childcare setting so why should it be accepted from relatives?!

If the baby was sent with food it would happily eat and was instead given food it didn’t want to try. It’s a baby! Babies have no clue about how refusing to eat half an egg will affect their hunger. The adults should have offered the food provided for the baby when they realised that their attempt to give what they thought was best didn’t work.

The babys normal food was all left ready.

They just didn't give it to him.

This would give me the rage. Did these people not eat and drink themselves? Would it not have crossed their minds, as they sipped water, had a snack or made themselves a cup of tea, that the baby might like something too?

From what you've said, I'm assuming these are selfish people who are completely unused to being responsible for others, caring for them or putting them first. They're used to just looking after themselves and no one else. So they just don't think about the needs of others. Perhaps unfairly, I'd also assume they were more likely male than female (but hopefully not the baby's dad!).

Weird that a sippy cup of water wasn't floating about. We always used to have one so dc could drink (fling it about) as they wanted

Because she’s being dramatic ffs. Concentrate on your own life if the baby won’t eat, it ain’t hungry

The no drinks all day is cruel

This sounds like a chaotic household!
Or adults who are only interested in themselves, not taking their responsibility seriously at all.
Mine would be screaming blue murder with that tiny amount of food/drink.

The baby's mum must have been furious and very upset. I think it's a case of neglect, yes. Poor baby. Though as a one-off with half an egg at lunch time, fortunately not life threatening. I would not trust these carer adults again and honestly I see it as passive aggressive. EG resentment at being asked to care for a baby. I remember aeons ago in my NCT group a woman eventually left her partner/baby's dad specifically because of a last straw incident when he'd been left babysitting, made himself lunch and gave nothing to the baby. Again 'forgetting', 'didn't cross his mind' were the excuses. But in the context of general sullen uselessness the mother made the decision to part ways. I hope it worked out for her and baby.

my boy 8 months showed absolutely no hungry signs was happy not to eat all day with dad. I got home and baby was hungry and all over me. My husband was like he didn't ask for anything. I truly don't know what was going on. But baby had two bottles back to back and I absolutely gave my husband a full serve. He has never done it again.

The food is one thing but no water or milk
😱😱😱
😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫

it’s very lucky it’s Jan and not a warm day in July…that poor baby 😥

whoever they were they wouldn’t be looking after my baby again….

This wasn't a professional childcare setting though. If you want your MIL (or whoever this mystery relative is) to pull you out of work (or wherever you are) to come and give the baby a drink, you will have to tell them that.

If the baby was happy, the baby was not starving. Babies are pretty good at letting you know when they are unhappy or uncomfortable.

A 13 month old, though? At this age, I'm pretty sure mine would have communicated that they were thirsty, if they'd needed something.

I’m guessing you are the grandmother and you and your daughter left the child with your respective husbands who were useless. I must say though if this is a one off and the child wasn’t loudly making their feelings of hunger and thirst known then no actual harm done, but I would be reading both the men the riot act for sure.

That's not what you said originally

It's a drip feed.