Maintainence man manoeuvred my 3 year old out of the way

[tooloololoo]

Today I was in a bakery with 3year old dd, she went to look at the cakes whilst I ordered. However the maintainence man kept manoeuvring her out of the way back to me whilst I was ordering because there was a vent by her legs. It resulted in dd having a massive meltdown and throwing herself on the floor

On reflection am I being unreasonable to think the maintainence man could have walked me instead of taking ds shoulders and walking her back to me?

At first I was distracted at the till and didn’t realise it was a maintainence person

But the OP wasn’t bothered about that. She was bothered because her child was repeatedly moved away from where they were being a pain in the arse.

Another wind them up and watch them go thread I see

I'm sure the Bulgers find it very comforting to know the chances of what happened to their son occurring were 'vanishingly small'. Not.

And I'm not sure why you keep reiterating the same point. Are you trying to speak in defence of parents who don't keep hold of their toddlers at all times when they are out? Because that's the only reason I can think of that you would keep mentioning the rarity of incidents like the James Bulger case.

I’m sure they find it comforting that kids aren’t being abducted every couple of minutes - it would be odd to think otherwise, surely.

It’s simply hysterical hyperbole to equate a child misbehaving in a shop with James Bulger. I don’t think over dramatising an incident like this, which happens many times a day through the country, is either helpful or healthy.

That doesn't answer my question at all, and neither does resorting to accusations of 'hysterical'. I'm going to ask you directly. Do you think it's OK for a parent to let go of a toddler's hand when out shopping?

Yes of course. Are you serious? You think it’s not ok for a parent to ever let go of a toddlers hand whilst shopping?!

Comforting, yes, but I'm finding some posts on this thread downright worrying. If someone did tragically have their child snatched, the fact that it doesn't often happen wouldn't bring them even the remotest shred of comfort. Who would want to be 'that' parent?

I suspect what's really happening here is that people are finding this thread uncomfortable and getting on the defensive because they let their small children wander round shops unsupervised too. That's my honest opinion.

I think you’re coming across as someone desperate to parent blame. Absolutely no normal confident non clinically anxious person is going to feel defensive that they aren’t physically attached to their toddler in public

FFS. If they are watching them at the time, obviously. But OP wasn't bothering to watch her child and nor do many so-called parents I see out and about. You're not seriously going to claim there's zero chance OP's child could have come to harm through her failure to parent?

See my reply above. I kind of think it makes a difference if the child is being watched at the time, kwim? 🙄 If a parent can't be arsed to do that, I will absolutely 'parent blame' them.

I don’t know what you’re on about. Yes it’s ok not to watch your children every second too. It’s called life. They’re not going to be abducted and tortured to death, no.

I agree to a point. It is impossible to keep your eyes on a child all the time and it is unlikely any serious harm will occur as a result. Random freak tragedies do occur, but unless you keep a child in bubble wrap in their bedroom for 16 years you often can't forsee or mitigate these.

It's more likely, as it would appear in this case, that the child is routinely allowed by OP to wander and annoy the fuck out of other people and doesn't experience reasonably being told "no" or expected to meet a basic level of social behaviour. OP's indignation that someone else did some basic parenting would appear to point to this.

Good on the maintenance man for not putting up with it.

So you are literally saying that you think it's fine to let go of a toddler's hand in a shop and not watch what they are doing?

I think you do very much know what I am 'on about'. It's not all about whether they'll be 'abducted and tortured to death', and keeping an eye on a very young child in a public place hardly constitutes helicopter parenting. Even though some people on this thread seem to think it's hysterical to suggest James Bulger's situation could recur (which it could), there are so many other things, less bad but still to be avoided, that could happen. Kid wanders outside the shop, trips and hurts itself, or attracts the attention of someone dodgy, or simply panics and gets scared... do people really think doing their shopping trumps ensuring that a small vulnerable child is kept safe and comfortable?

This thread is really disturbing.

Not at all, she was, I believe, east European so the only word I could understand was Police as she screamed at me. The woman who had seen it happen yelled at her in, presumably, the same language and she stormed off with her child. The other woman told she had been wanting the police called for my 'assault' and she said she would speak up for me if needed, she worked in the shop nearby.

Surely you watch them all the time when you're out in public though? Or are you the type who happily lets your child barge in to people or get in the way of anyone who happens to be out at the same time as you?
Even in the park I'll be watching DS constantly incase he decides to walk in front of a swing or something.
I watch him so he doesn't get hurt and doesn't hurt other people. I thought that was basic parenting.

No, sometimes I look at the thing I’m buying or I look down at the card machine to check the amount before buying. Sometimes I make eye contact with the cashier.

Sigh. Yet another lengthy thread started by a “one and done”. So many of these lately, one would almost - if one had a cynical turn of mind - suspect their genuineness.

If they're real, personally I hope they're having a good hard think about their so-called parenting.

I'm not sure James Bulger's mum would agree with you. Yes it's unlikely that will happen but you don't know. You don't know who else is there. It takes seconds for a young child to run off and you don't know what will happen.
I keep my eyes on my child, if I have to look away I have him standing next to me/infront of me holding my hand.
I can't believe parents are so relaxed about their child's safety.

I’m sorry but I do think you need to have hold of her in these situations.

Indeed. Other pp have mentioned reins, which were de rigueur when I was little (I was born in 1958) and for my 9 years younger brother - especially as buggies were not a thing in those days. I don't know why they aren't used routinely.

I was about to say the same thing. Back in the early 70s, if I was out with DD (6 months) in her small pram, I could have DS (3) alongside me safely on the street or in a shop because he was wearing reins. No need to hold his hand or constantly look at him because I knew exactly where he was. Mind you, he knew what No meant too, which far too many toddlers today seem not to.

I remember asking this of someone I worked with who was complaining about how hard it was having to keep hold of/keep track of his toddler when out and about. His reply was that apparently it was a pain walking with them when they were on reins. I'd have thought it was a small price to pay for knowing they were safe!

I used reins/little life backpack when mine were small in the mid-late 00s