Letting a 3yr old use the 18m and under section in a soft play. play centre when no

[SaintNoMountainHighEnough]

Throwing this one to the Mumsnet hivemind.

As the title says, at a soft play, no children under 18 months about, my three year old starts playing in there. I let her get on with it. While supervising.

A little baby arrives, I take her out.

AIBU not sticking to the law and letter of this?

Sounds fine to me.

It's fine it's just incase the bigger kids trample over the babies isnt it? you took your child away it's fine.

Though there may have been people wanting their babies to play in there who were put off by there being a 3 year old in there, yes they could have asked you to take her out but a lot of people wouldn’t be comfortable with that.

Depends if its designed to keep babies safe, or has got equipment a bigger child may break.

Why are you even questioning yourself? You behaved exactly as you should have done.

assuming that there were no smaller children in the centre until that point

There was a parent here sticking to the law and letter of it, so my behaviour set a double standard their little one wouldn't feel was fair.

Literally nothing happened, I cannot understand the need for validation in every little thing we do in our lives these days.

Just use it. If someone says something then just apologise and move on. It's a soft play. There is no letter of the law.

I wouldn't.
It sends mixed messages to the child(ren).
What's wrong with the area for the child's actual age?

I don't think that they are cut out for soft play then tbh.
OP it was fine, the soft plays by mine are 0-3 in the younger section. People stay with their babies and can use their words.

It's a soft play. There is no letter of the law.
There are definitely insurance implications. If there were no little ones in the centre then I can't see a problem but it would be selfish to let an older child on if other new mums with smaller children are being put off approaching the baby area by a gallumphing 3-yr old.

No you're right actually, and it did annoy me seeing older kids in the younger kids section but I am a stickler for the rules!

Their child wouldn't have known or cared please don't question yourself you didn't do anything wrong if it worries you just don't do it again.

I don't think they have the rule for no reason so no I follow the rules as that is what I want my child to do

I used to let mine do this but take them out as soon as there was a baby in the vicinity. If the baby didn’t come in, I’d ask the mum if she minded and, if she said not, say to let me know when she did want to use it.
My DC are older now and it’s similar in swimming pools in hotels & things which say no ball games or no jumping in. If we’re the only people there - and we might well be - then I let them do as they please. As soon as someone comes through the door, whether there’s another guest or a cleaner or something, then they stop. And stop
immediately.

I probably wouldn't myself because of mixed messages to my child about who's allowed in there. But equally I wouldn't care if someone else did as you did. And as for the other parent saying it's not fair on their child because of her choices, she needs to get over that. There will be many instances over the years where other parents have different rules, she needs a strategy for explaining that to her DC.

I don't think it's a big deal. I used to let my daughter in that section when she was 2 or 3 if it was empty. There was one particular toy she liked so she would usually just be sitting playing with that. I'd move her if another child (under 18m) went in. Sometimes the mum would say she was fine to stay, given she was just sitting still.

I don't see why there should be an issue with that. The baby area at ours has a ball pit that slightly older kids still enjoy and I would never have an issue with them using it if there were no babies in it.

When they're older (and haven't got mum to make these dodgy decisions) how will they know which rules are to be obeyed or will they think they're not aimed at them?

I find it really weird that people think children can't develop an understanding of nuance and context.

"That area is for very little children, you can play in it for a little while if it's otherwise empty but then you will need to leave"

No different to

"You can't climb up the slide when there are other children playing on it, it's ok when it's just you"

How do the rest of us manage to hold these thoughts?

That area is for very little children, you can play in it for a little while if it's otherwise empty but then you will need to leave"
And the first-time mum who'd like go in with her baby but needs to ask permission from another mum first? Nothing to do with nuance and context, it's to do with respecting others and realising that conditions are there for a reason - I bet the 3-yr old wouldn't have been covered if she'd had an accident in an unauthorised area.

I do have eyes and can see if there are mothers with babies there.

Or simply 'those area is for younger children so we need to play in an area for older children'

Feel free to do that 🙂

One of the ones we used most regularly was 0-3 and since I would be supervising her I was able to make sure my daughter at the older end of that scale didn't spook or play too near to younger less mobile children. I don't see any difference in with this really. People will overcomplicate anything.

So you teach your child that the rules don’t apply to them and if they want to ignore rules put in place for a benefit of others that’s fine even when you’ve got a direct example of appropriate behaviour right in front of you.

Then the other parent has to explain to DC “yes darling some people feel entitled to ignore rules even when it means others might lose out”

Not the best parenting example imo. Unreasonable.