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?

Half an egg?

Obviously a fuck up. Also one day. Not entirely sure what the goal of the post is.

baby was 13 months?? Honestly I wouldn't be concerned too much then as Im sure they would have voiced they were thirsty or hungry.

This. Toddlers can be very unpredictable with eating and drinking. I'd feel very differently it was an 8 or 9 month old, but a 13 month old can very clear about needs.

OP the baby should NOT he left with this person again.

I usually am a pretty relaxed, non judgy parent. However, this is awful. At 13 months, the baby should have water, milk, 3 meals as well as snacks if needed. They should also be given what THEY like to eat, not what someone else thinks they would like.

I feel like it's normal to keep trying baby with new things that they don't normally eat as that's how they start to like new things. At 13 months old food shouldn't just be written off as "they don't like that" as they should be being exposed to all sorts of food regularly.

And I agree with PP that scrambled egg for lunch is fine and the fact he didn't eat it means he wasn't really hungry at that point.

Plenty of people do the "offer them the meal and if they don't eat it assume they're not hungry" thing with children. I don't think it's unusual at all after two different foods are refused not to make a third one and just instead to wait until the next meal.

Personally if it was someone looking after my child I'd instruct them to also offer some snacks next time and I'd also ask that if a food they chose was refused that the alternative given was one of the foods I'd provided but I really don't think the food is that big of a deal.

Not exactly 5* care and not how I'd do things myself but as a one off I'd put it down as a bad day. I don't think it's neglectful when a child is offered food but just doesn't like it. Three meals were offered during the day in the end.

The drink not being offered at all is definitely the issue here. I'd be very unhappy about that. I think the whole egg thing is actually detracting from that.

Your OP is vague and isn't clear at all that food was offered and refused. It could easily be describing adults ignoring a babies cries of hunger and requests for food.

I'd want a sippy cup accessible at all times and whether I'd leave my child with them again would depend on who they are and whether they took it seriously or not and whether they seemed sorry.

Lots of people just fill up a sippy cup or whatever else the toddler will use and leave it around for the toddler to help themselves. As opposed to 'offering' them a drink.

He wasn't given half an egg for lunch - he was given a whole egg plus something else, he only chose to eat part of it. Your language was deliberately selective and emotive. That's why some of us are trying to get a clearer idea of what happened with water/milk.

Will the baby be left with these adults again?

I would say it’s neglecting the needs of a child in particular fluid intake. If it was a 15 year old looking after then they need fluids and food for babies explained/ written. If it’s an adult it is neglect especially the fluids or lack of! Probably the baby is not unwell but will be hungry and thirsty after that.

This sounds like a reasonable hypothesis.

@OP was the baby in his own home? Toddling about, and could have found (as someone suggested) a sippy cup of manky water in a toy box? Mine used to stuff them down the side of his cot, or they would slip there, but he always knew where to find it during nap time, so I assume stuffed. Did he have a nap? Did either of the 'responsible' adults have a cup of water that he could have helped himself from. Either way, it is not likely that a baby inside a house, in January, is going to suffer unduly from a lack of fluids between 7am and 5pm.

That is neglect and if it was my child I wouldn't let that person anywhere near them again.

Whoever these fuckwits are (grandparents?) it sounds like they were punishing the baby for not liking what they offered. Then they've given excuses and lies. They wouldn't be left alone ever again.

My best guess is that the carers are older people who don't look after children too often and don't like instructions.

Not feeding or giving drink to a child is neglect whatever their age.

I feel lack of drinks is more serious than the food aspect of Mum came home and fed the baby at tea time.

Not providing a 13mo with fluids from breakfast to 5pm is neglectful, but regarding food; my health visitor recently advised me to stop offering alternatives to avoid perpetuating fussy eating habits (as this is what I had been doing).

Now we do as nursery does, which is offer food but if it isn't eaten we won't offer alternatives until the next mealtime. Clearly if he has already missed a meal and is refusing his next meal we would offer something we knew he would eat, but my point is that it's fairly standard for carers not to keep offering food until a toddler decides they like what's on offer.

This is what I was thinking!

A 13 month old would be screaming the house down if they were hungry.

🙄

Just change your vote then.

I think it's a bit misleading to say no one fed the baby when they did actually.. they just fed him two things he didn't like so didn't eat much of..
This is a very different scenario than deliberately not feeding a baby or completely forgetting.
I'm presuming this wasn't a main carer for the baby but a family member? So they don't know the baby as well as mum?
So they just assumed the baby wasn't hungry when it wouldn't eat the food offered.
If the baby did not cry amd was just a bit grumpy.. then if they did not know the baby well I can see how they may have just not realised he was hungry.
I think you've twisted this to make it look like abuse when it very probably was a genuine mistake.
If its a one off then the mum should just tell whoever looked after the baby that the baby doesn't like those foods and won't eat them but I'll eat other foods and is still hungry at midday.
There. End of issue.
The baby will not have been harmed by being a little hungry for a few hours once. As you say it was just mildly grumpy not screaming the house down, so was obviously not that much effected.
I think people are making a big deal of a simple mistake that could be easily prevented from ever happening again.
Unless there's some massive backstory and this is something that's part of a pattern.. then this was not abusive or neglectful. It was just a mistake

Maybe a weaponised incompetence control tactic so mum doesn't feel comfortable leaving ths house anymore.

My 13 month old ate the following:
breakfast: yoghurt pouch, porridge with banana
snack (while out) a sweet pouch
lunch cream cheese sandwich, 1/2 a persimmon
afternoon milk and biscuits
dinner pasta with vegetables and lamb, a pancake
bedtime milk

I agree if the baby accepted this the baby is used to this (which doesn’t make it right). This is neglect. Is the other adult depressed, unwell?

I see you say adults (plural) were in charge of looking after the baby. If one wasn’t the father and therefore the default primary carer then that is the problem. When more than one adult is left to look after a small child you risk no one doing so as everyone assumes someone else is. They might look after the baby in the moment but not consider broader needs like bottles/food/naps.

This is neglect.

Is it a one off? Miscommunication and everyone's horrified, realising it can't happen again and ensuring it doesn't?

Is it happening over and over again?

Are the parents very young, vulnerable, living in poverty, have needs themselves that aren't being met?

Are the parents abusive, drug users?

Is one parent under the other's control?

Was this a babysitter, grandparent, childminder?

Whatever the situation the child comes first and I would take it further.

www.nspcc.org.uk/what-is-child-abuse/types-of-abuse/neglect/?ac=182421

Food for the day and a schedule were left.

Not unless someone effectively forced her to drink. She would wait until I was there and then breastfeed relentlessly until the next morning. It's not unusual for BF babies at that age.

Definitely neglect considering food and a feeding schedule were left for the carers for baby. They just didn't give a damn.