Baby died after night nanny gave Piriton

[examworries2026]

Just read this story and really shocked.

Is it normal practice for night nannies to give 8 week old babies antihistamines to sedate them? Appalling.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czd77edm8g1o

Obviously you’re not being unreasonable - it’s definitely not OK to sedate an 8 week old baby!

This night nanny thing needs to be stopped. There was another case recently. The grandson of football manager Steve Bruce https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz67jyvy7g9o

I remember when I had my first, he's 18 now, a woman at one of the (free) baby groups I went to had a night nanny and she paid £500 a week for 5 nights iirc. She said that the woman was a nurse in her country, too.

If it was that price then, now, it would be so much more. And definitely if you want someone who is actually medically qualified and experienced. This leaves a gap for people to find a cheaper version. A bit like people who don't get help with childcare fees so opt for a childminder who isn't OFSTED registered and will be a bit cheaper than usual.

I read that yesterday & was horrified for the child’s poor parents. You can’t give anything to an 8 week old except for paracetamol and saline spray basically, unless a doctor has told you to.

Even worse, the night nanny is still working as a night nanny when she has in all likelihood contributed to the death of a baby.

It’s entirely inappropriate for this to be in AIBU.

Of course that's not normal practice. It is extremely unfortunate that the police were not more thorough in their initial assessment. My own mother was a nanny when a young woman and one of her charges died as a cot death - no foul play, the two doctors in the house tried desperately to resuscitate the baby and there was no blame attached to her whatsoever. She was always traumatised by it though and used to get up in the middle of the night to check her grandchildren were okay. My children grew up with a succession of nannies and I am sure that they never had antihistamines administered to sedate them.

The article said the piriton wasn't the cause though.

Considering that they don’t need any qualifications to do the job, it should be stopped.
Drugging a newborn is crazy.

When I’ve had a nanny, they have never administered any kind of medication without prior permission from me.

Its not clear from the article if the nanny admits to having given the child the antihistamine.

It states the nanny is still working as one - would something like this not come up on a DBS check?

It does not. The coroner recorded an open verdict because it cannot be proved that the Piriton contributed to the death, partly because inadequate forensic evidence was gathered at the time.

The article says nothing of the sort.

The baby had antihistamine, and shouldn’t have. There is no evidence about where it came from, because the orderly environment and circumstances gave police no reason to expect foul play so they didn’t investigate. It isn’t standard practice to search a home in those circumstances.

So there’s nothing on the Nanny except circumstances, basically. Theoretically, it could have been administered by someone else in the house.

It’s tragic.

Yes, so OPs headline is rather sensationalist and possibly incorrect.

It has not been proven that the night nanny gave the baby the drug.

It has not been proven that the drug caused the death.

How, exactly, do we know this isn't instead a tragic SIDS case for example?

No charges or conviction, so nothing on a DBS.

I’m old - my dc are adults. When the oldest was a baby you could buy Medised (antihistamine plus paracetamol) over the counter and people used to talk about giving it to get their kids to sleep. I used it myself - but in my defence only when the kids were unwell, but it was “known” that some people used it fairly routinely. I can’t remember the age restriction at the time but it was for actual babies - maybe 3 months plus. People used it during teething. People used it when they were on holiday. It got changed to only for older kids and eventually phased out after a couple of incidents (i think someone went to jail for it and it was brought up repeatedly by conspiracy theorists over the McCann children being left sleeping in that apartment). Anyone looking after babies in the 90s-00s will have been familiar with it.

There's nothing in the article that says this is normal practice so not sure why you suggest it may be.

It seems to me that the lack of regulation is the issue. Any trained nanny or remotely competent person will know you don't give babies medication without very good reason and without checking with the parents first.

(Should caveat this by saying that we don't actually know that the drug was administered at all.)

I agree Raven.

I also wonder whether taking care of lots of babies makes people complacent or think the rules don't apply to them because nothing bad happened the first however many times they did it. Obviously not all nannies would go against guidance but I think this kind of complacency might cause some to misjudge the risk assessment.

Is nanny a protected term? I thought you had to do a formal course to be a nanny. Or is this what you have to check out when you look for one?

I think they use other terms like "night nurse" or "mother's help" to get around the qualification issue.

Here was something called fenegan that was popular back in the day. You could buy it OTC to help babies sleep. It's now prescription only.

I don’t think ‘Nanny’ is a protected term as such, @GlovedhandsCecilia I looked it up and Gov.UK says it just means someone caring for children for up to two families.
earlyyears.blog.gov.uk/2025/07/11/nannies-what-you-need-to-know/

The medical cause of death was listed as unexplained. Maybe the piriton contributed to this, maybe it didn't. If the nanny did give the baby piriton, then it is concerning she is still working as a nanny. No 8 week old should be given that medicine and wanting to sedate a baby means she is not fit to do that job (if she was indeed the person who administered it).

When I was 18, I use to babysit my friends baby/toddler overnight from when he was about 1 in the early 00s. He was a handful but it would not have occurred to me to give any medication unless they asked me to give it to him. I looked after 6 months old babies on occasion too in my 20s and again no way would I have wanted to sedate them.

I think it’s crazy grown adults with their own kids or Nannies with considerable experience in looking after kids would do that.

My two eldest were early 00s babies and i remember this too. I can even remember it being debated on early MN. It was controversial to use it for anything other than medical reasons (teething/illness), and i'm pretty sure, as you say, you couldn't use it on a two month old little baby. But people did use it on long haul flights and for colicy babies who didn't sleep. It was considered safe if used correctly, but of course people didn't.

I think that is something they need to do. Then you'd know if you are hiring someone who fancies themselves as "good with babies", or someone with some standardised training.

I never had a night nanny though we could have afforded one, but my DD was a very easy baby who slept well enough for us to rest from the off. I don't think I would say that night nannies just shouldn't be used because of one bad egg. I do think that people working as night nannies ought to be regulated to some extent, though, even if it's just requiring them to undertake CPD to make sure they are up on things like (for example) it not being safe to give certain meds to babies under a certain age.

Devastating for the parents. I feel so sad for them.

My daughter had a friend when they were little... the parents gave the kids antihistamines every night to put them to sleep. when we stayed over once I watched the little girl go to sleep so fast it was scary... we stopped being friends with them.