AIBU about childminder

[mammajulie]

AIBU about childminder?

last week for a message saying a few children in the setting had Hand Foot and Mouth and said if children were displaying symptoms then to keep them off until spots had scabbed over and they were feeling well enough to join in normal activities. Anyway a few days later she sent me some pictures of my son with a few spots, anyway I picked him up and he had a few. Has been absolutely fine in himself all week but has had 3 days off. Due back Monday all things well. Is this standard? I’m sure nhs says you don’t have to stay away from childcare etc.

Also I’ve since seen via social media she took 3 children to the zoo yesterday, saying they were unexpected quiet and took some children for a treat. Is this not a slap in the face for me when I’ve had to take 3 days off work and he’s not even ill?

it’s not exactly treating all children equally is it?

YANBU

If your child was well enough then she cannot refuse to provide childcare on the basis that she thinks he has an illness. That's not her decision to make and, even if in the contract, isn't enforceable. If your child is too unwell then that's different but she cannot just decide she's not taking children.

And, yes, very inconsiderate to post about the zoo. The skeptical side of me would question if she had the zoo planned all along but was limited on numbers (car space? voucher code? limit on adult to child ratios?).

I would be very, very unimpressed. I absolutely would not be paying her and would consider removing my child over this kind of behaviour. Has she been this way before?

I don’t this this is unreasonable. Hand, Foot and Mouth is very infectious and they would likely all have been off with it if one got it as it would have been passed on. Not entirely sure how taking the others to the zoo is unreasonable either as if that’s what she had planned for the week it is what it is. I’m sorry your child had hand, foot and mouth.

Her policy states suspected cases of HF&M have to stay off until spots have scabbed over. She has 4 off with it now apparently.

She’s done the right thing and followed her policy to prevent cross infection as much as possible.

The fact that she went to the zoo is irrelevant to anything and nothing to do with you. I can’t see why you’re taking it personally or relating it to the fact that you’ve had to look after your own infectious child.

She has a policy and is sticking to it.

If you think your kid is well and you are off work why don't you do your own trip to the zoo.

I agree with this.
I actually caught HFM as an adult and it was horrible - it's also very contagious!

She’s quite strict about HF&M, chicken pox, sickness and diarrhoea even when the kids are well in themselves.

The trip was her, her husband and Co minder and they only ended up with 3 kids between them.

Would you really not pay her? She could then terminate my contract couldn’t she?

YABU. She's trying to stop the spread of these nasty illnesses. Think about how much more time off work you'd need if your kid picked up more bugs due to a feckless childminder with poor infection control procedures.

She can set whatever terms she like for her business, within the law.

She doesn’t want to look after potentially ill and infectious children, and I can’t say I blame her.

There’s nothing wrong with that, she has a policy and is following it. Children are infectious before they show symptoms and for a few days after symptoms so I’d say if a child has spots it’s sensible to keep them off until scabbed over

Honestly, these responses are bizarre.

HFMD is very infectious. It's infectious before blisters appear and for weeks after they've crusted over. The reason why there's no reason to send children home is because it's entirely pointless to do so. It's closing the door after the horse has bolted... It serves no purpose at all other than giving the childminder a break. It doesn't stop it spreading because it's already spread by the time it's noticed. This is different from chicken pox, where you're far more likely to be infectious at that point so it makes sense to be off and isolating.

I'd honestly not use a childminder who is so determined to reduce the amount of time your child is there - it'd be a nightmare if he's sent home every five minutes even when he's perfectly fine.

She can terminate your contract for any reason at all. She could do that even if you do pay her.

YABU

As others have said HF&M is very contagious- as far as I ever knew, children are generally excluded from childcare for this, or at least many places have it as policy.

If it’s her policy/ part of ts and cs as you say, then you can’t really complain.

I can see her thinking re the zoo - if a few were off with hf&m it must have seemed a good opportunity to take the rest of them out somewhere that wouldn’t usually be possible. I don’t think she’s done anything wrong.

But as others have said, you can take him out somewhere if he’s well.

HFMD is infectious weeks after the blisters come up and is most contagious just before and as the blisters come up.

Keeping him home after the blisters have appeared and sending him back when they've scabbed over is just blindly copying the guidance for when chicken pox is most infectious and pretending they aren't entirely different diseases.

YABU - she has a duty of care to protect the other children (and herself) from infections etc. Plus it's her home where she also lives with others. Hfm in adults can be awful.

I'm a cm and dont accept children with HFM, chicken pox, or D&V if [parents think] they are well in themselves. If I catch it then no one will have any childcare.

My teen DS caught it a few years ago from a mindee and was so so unwell, far worse than any of the little ones had been. It was awful.

Childcare settings have a duty of care to keep childcare healthy and protect their wellbeing, the NHS doesn't hold jurisdiction over individual settings so if that's their policy then thats the rule!

Most parents appreciate it when I explain that it means their child won't be playing trains with little Jimmy who has tbe runs!

There are plenty of settings, including private nurseries and schools, who have a policy that states exclusion for HFM until all blisters have scabbed. It's not an unusual policy and she is not being unreasonable to hold to it, you would have been made aware of her policies when you took up the offer of a place (ditto her policies on chicken pox, sickness and diarrhoea, etc).

Don't withhold her fees, that's ridiculous advice especially when she's not in breach of any policies or contract terms. If you withhold the fees, she'll report it to her insurance and they'll pursue you for it.

My DS nursery allows SC into nursery with HFM unless they have a lot of cases then they ask parents to keep them off. I think she’s being sensibly cautious and probably doesn’t want to catch it herself? I have had it last year and it was awful. I was much more unwell than my DS.

She’s right to try to protect the other children. It can be very unpleasant (even dangerous) for some children.

Our nursery follows the same policy, so she seems like she's acting reasonably to me.

So it makes sense to keep the children off when they are the most infectious

Which isn't what the childminder is doing. She's keeping them off after they're most infectious.

As soon as she noticed spots she is sending the children home, she can’t predict they have something whilst not displaying any symptoms but as soon as symptoms show the children go home

Which is exactly why the guidance is not to bother sending them home. That's the point.

If that's her policy, that's her policy. You must've been aware of it and agreed to it when you chose her as your childminder. And your take on the zoo thing is daft. It sounds like it'd be planned for a while as there was a co-minder. But if it was short notice because of reduced numbers, I'm sure your son will get to benefit from similar trips in the future when he's well and others aren't.

YABU some children get HF&M quite dramatically and it's really infectious. I'd be glad she's trying to limit the spread