He's not MY kid!

November 20, 2005 11:27 AM

How far does a parent's responsibility go when they have their kid at someone else's house (who has no kids)? Is it the responsibility of the hosts to kid-proof their house?

Today a friend had received a painting that she had asked another friend to paint. The paint was still wet and there was an almost two-year-old coming over, so it was put in a room behind a closed door. As things were winding down, the hostess asked the painter of the picture and me to help her figure out where to hang it. While we were discussing it, the kid walked in and promptly walked across the painting (which, by the way, was not directly in his path-- it was like he sought it out). I grabbed the kid but not before there were footprints of paint across the painting. When his parents (who were in other rooms) heard what happened, they both responded, "That's what they get for leaving things on the floor!" I bit my tongue. Hard.

And the more I think about it, the more frustrated I get. They were both just hanging out, letting their kid wander around the house. They had not asked any of us to keep an eye on him, so the rest of us assumed that his parents were keeping track of him.

But I don't have kids, so maybe this is one of those areas that I "will understand when I have kids" (as the mother of said child has stated before). So I ask you, because they will be going over to all of our houses again, is it our responsibility to have our houses completely ready for the child? Is it unreasonable of us to want to be able to have grown-up zones? None of the rest of us have kids because we have chosen not to. Are we supposed to keep track of the kid when his parents aren't?

I don't mean those questions as angry as they sound. I am just really trying to understand the mindset of my friends and am trying to prevent homicide in the future. (It was close today--if the painting hadn't been salvaged...)

posted by wallaby to human relations (37 comments total)

This is just like when you own a rottweiler, and someone taunts the dog and the dog bites their hand off. That's what they get for getting too close to the rottweiler. If you owned a rottewiler, you would understand this perfectly.


It seems to me that the parents are not only ignoring the kid, but completely unwilling to take responsibility for the damage the kid might do.

If I stepped on someone's painting, I would expect them to seek damages from me. At the very least, I would be apologetic. If I had kids, and they destroyed someone's stuff, I would feel responsible for their actions. Not until they become adults do I get to relinquish legal responsibility for their actions.
posted by b1tr0t at 11:38 AM on November 20, 2005

IMO, parents who don't control their kids, who then in turn destroy something at someone else's house (especially something that the owners took reasonable efforts to keep safe!), are responsible for their kids' damage.

I think it's only smart for non-parents to make sure any really precious things are out of the kids reach -- obviously, you wouldn't want to leave the proverbial Ming vase perched on the edge of a coffee table when there's toddler coming over -- but it's totally unreasonable for parents to assume that non-parents can (or should) completely kidproof their own homes.
posted by scody at 11:46 AM on November 20, 2005

When his parents (who were in other rooms) heard what happened, they both responded, "That's what they get for leaving things on the floor!"

That's just inappropriate and insensitive. I think it is the parents' responsibility to watch their child while at a friend's house. If they took the child to a restaurant or a store and the child caused property damage, the parents would be held responsible. I don't see why it should be different if they're taking the child to a friend's house.
posted by Uncle Glendinning at 11:46 AM on November 20, 2005

Note: I have a toddler who would probably do exactly what the child in question did, given the opportunity. Toddlers are naturally curious and have no sense of what can cause destruction (or the consequences of that destruction).

However, if my kid destroyed something in a host's house, I would feel obligated to make restitution. When we visit non-childproofed places (restaurants, houses of friends without kids, whatever), it's OUR responsibilities as parents to make sure that both the child AND the furnishings remain safe. To blame the host seems particularly offensive.
posted by aberrant at 11:47 AM on November 20, 2005

It is reasonable to hold parents responsible for the actions of a toddler (they are supposed to be keeping an eye on him). On the other hand it also sounds a bit negligent (toddler or not) to leave a painting on the floor of an unlocked room. So theoretically if your friend wanted compensation this wouldn't be clear cut.

Friendship-wise, they were assholes to respond with "That's what they get for leaving things on the floor!" instead of apologizing. You're also running into the very annoying terrain of people who have become parents and think the world revolves only around them. Welcome to the world of thirty somethings :-(.
posted by mirileh at 11:58 AM on November 20, 2005

I'm a parent. I have frequently had the only kid around at parties, grownup dinners, etc. If my daughter ever did anything to damage anything in anyway, I would hold myself responsible, be apologetic and do what I could to make amends.

However, the longer I know someone and the more time I spend with them -- basically the more of a direct relationship they have with my kid -- the more I'd hope they'd start to put things up or I'd feel comfortable asking politely if I can move things from the bottom shelves, etc. before I let a small child loose. But it is always my responsibility to know what she's up to and what could get in her way.

Any parent who counts on anyone else to childproof to the point of avoiding responsibility is being naive simply because every kid is different. I once had a parent laugh at me and say, 'You have a jar of Vaseline on an open shelf!' as if I had placed bleach in a sippy cup. My daughter's never shown any signs of getting into things in that way, I had no reason to worry about it. But their son on the other hand apparently likes him the jar opening. Is it my job to keep him from it? Naaaah.

So at least from my perspective, will you get it once you have kids? I don't get their apparently callous attitude, so no. No you won't.

I don't blame the kid in any way. Pretty colors/shapes. I'd go out of my way to check it out if Mom and Dad weren't watching me, too. Good way to get attention, I bet.
posted by Gucky at 12:00 PM on November 20, 2005

Friendship-wise, they were assholes to respond with "That's what they get for leaving things on the floor!" instead of apologizing.

Is that really *exactly* what they said? I guess I find this to sound too much like one persons side of a story. I'm not attacking the poster but just questioning whether the question has been unduly weighted.
posted by vacapinta at 12:16 PM on November 20, 2005

The fact that it was put in a locked room just means you should have been much more careful once it was unlocked.
posted by smackfu at 12:20 PM on November 20, 2005

It is the parents' responsibility. Do not invite them over until they apologize and promise to control their child.
posted by Captaintripps at 12:26 PM on November 20, 2005

I'm sorry but you can not control a child.. no matter what you do! Children are people too and they will do what they want to. At that age it is all about exploring and they don't have the understanding that we may have attachments to specific things like paintings.

If you have a kid in your house, you need to know enough about kids to understand that you need to protect things in your house.. that means keeping the door locked so the child can not get into trouble! If you are not willing to take precautions in the future, then don't have children in your house.

With that said, those parents are a bit insensitive and I would hope that if it was my child, that I would react way differently. I would expect them to apologize and offer to fix the situation. But that is a quality of friendship, not so much parenting.
posted by dhammala at 12:36 PM on November 20, 2005

No, that's wrong, and the worst part is that they didn't even appologize.
posted by leapingsheep at 12:45 PM on November 20, 2005

You both share a little responsibility here. Sorry, but it's true. The parents should have been watching, but you should have been thoughtful enough to shut or lock the door to the room that you had previously placed your precious painting in (because the kid was coming over, remember?). So, you're both a little bit at fault here.

However, the important thing now is how it was handled. If the parents really were as callous as you describe, then don't invite them over with the kid anymore. They suck. If your real life response is as whiny and selfish as this question, then don't expect for them to invite you over much, either.

PS I don't have kids, or a rottweiler. I have a little dog, and I take full responsibility for her when we're out.
posted by MrZero at 12:49 PM on November 20, 2005

The parents are in the wrong. Completely. It doesn't matter how close you are, but if you're going to let your two year run around unsupervised, thats just asking for trouble.

This doesn't mean that the accident would not have happened, but they need to take responsibility for it. You should talk to them, but nicely, in a friendship way about your concerns.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:51 PM on November 20, 2005

If the parent's attitude is "That's what they get!" it's up to you to decide from now on if they are welcome in your home. You are totally justified in asking them to leave the toddler behind. Simple as that.
posted by Catch at 12:55 PM on November 20, 2005

This story chilled me to the bone; it could have turned very tragic very quickly, and the blase attitude your friends exhibited not only towards the painting but to their child's safety infuriates me.
Children are people too: very curious people, very playful people, and very stupid people. They're still learning.
But it is their parents' responsibility to provide a safe environment for their children to learn in, and, when venturing out of that environment, to minimize the potential for damage and injury by controlling as many variables as possible, including their children's behavior.
Say the child found the kitchen and brained him/herself with a toaster by pulling on the cord. Who would be at fault?
You, for having a toaster? (You monster!)
The child, for lacking basic logic? (The brute!)
Or the parents, who seem to expect their hosts to also act as babysitters?
Jackasses.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:06 PM on November 20, 2005

My kids are 37 and 30, so perhaps my opinions are a bit dated.

I would not have gone to someone's house, and allowed the rugrats to be in a room I was not in, whether they had kids or not.

Suppose instead of a painting, they had wandered into the kitchen/bathroom/anyplace chemistry was unguarded, and gotten poisoned. (As Gucky points out, what one kid finds attractive, the next one may never bother, so everyone's rules are different.) Would they then say it was your job to keep them from getting poisoned? What if the kid died of it? These are things you need to consider.
posted by unrepentanthippie at 1:10 PM on November 20, 2005

i think this is something you should leave between the hostess and the parents ... she was somewhat careless ... and they were somewhat insensitive

at least you know now that they aren't going to watch the kid very well or be very concerned about what he does ... take it as a warning and make sure your house is kid-proofed before they come over
posted by pyramid termite at 1:11 PM on November 20, 2005

Those parents are wrong, because they are responsible for both riding herd on their progeny and making amends when they don't fulfill that mission. It is not the responsibility of non-parents to modify their home. It is the parents' responsibility to modify their children's behavior. In this case, the child's actions are understandable; his parents' actions are not.

You can control a child. If you don't believe that, do not take your uncontrollable child to other people's houses. A large part of a parent's job is to civilize their progeny. You owe it to the rest of us to raise well-behaved children.

Yes, I have children. No, they do not break other people's stuff.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:17 PM on November 20, 2005

My wife and I don't have kids, but we have nieces and nephews and friends with kids that have been over to our house many times.

I've never had any parent behave this callously at our house. I've had nephews break things, and the parents were very apologetic and took full responsibility (and that's all it took, an apology, to mollify us). It's their kid, and thus their responsibility. There's no other way to see it.

Bad people, those parents. They wouldn't be my friends any more (now, if they're family, they'd be in for some damn harsh words from me).

Since precautions were taken to keep the kid out of the room, and he only came in once the adults were there, and his parents weren't watching him and didn't care, I'd say they're Class 'A' jerks.
posted by teece at 1:34 PM on November 20, 2005

Chiming in to agree that it is the parents' responsibility to keep their kid from wreaking havoc and to make amends if they fail at the former.

I had some family members with several children visit a few years ago for Christmas. A couple of the kids started running around, picking up anything that looked interesting, pulling things off shelves, etc.; when we talked to the parents and asked them to control their kids better, they just said "Hey, we have to do that at home. This is YOUR house." Needless to say, we didn't want to invite them over after that.

I had certainly "child-proofed" to some extent, but they weren't my kids -- I did not know what would tempt them and what they would do. They got into things I would have never expected them to get into.

"You can control a child. If you don't believe that, do not take your uncontrollable child to other people's houses. A large part of a parent's job is to civilize their progeny. You owe it to the rest of us to raise well-behaved children."

Yes, yes, a million times yes.
posted by litlnemo at 1:43 PM on November 20, 2005

I had my children very close together-which meant I had three toddlers at one point.


Those parents were in the wrong, totally. I never ever would have let a child of mine out of eyeshot unless someone else was specifically watching that child, period. Not just that someone was in the vicinity-that someone was RESPONSIBLE.

Parents like that are tempting fate-next time it could be something much more deadly to their child.
posted by konolia at 2:15 PM on November 20, 2005

I'm sorry but you can not control a child.. no matter what you do! Children are people too and they will do what they want to.

Sorry, dhammala, but that's bollocks. You CAN and MUST control children. They lack the judgement that comes with experience, and their behavior must be controlled in order for them to avoid life-threatening situations and other trouble until such time as they exhibit the judgement necessary to become responsible for their own actions.
posted by aberrant at 2:22 PM on November 20, 2005

It is the parents responsibility to watch their kids and make sure damage is not done.

However, it seems like a lot of parents haven't received this memo. I have a friend who thinks it is perfectly adorable when her 3 yo gets into everything. I invited them over for lunch one day and thought I did a pretty good job of child-proofing. However, the child tried to drag the cat around by her tail, pulled up the plants in my newly planted garden, yanked things off shelves that she could reach, etc. I kept asking her to stop and looking at her mother to reinforce the message that she should stop, but the mother just laughed and merely said something similar to "she's such a troublemaker but she's so cute I just can't stop her." Lesson learned: I will never invite them over again.

Visit with these friends in their home, not yours. You already know that they do not feel that it is their responsibility to control their children around other people's property. If you do have them visit your house, let them know ahead of time that you would appreciate if they kept a good eye on their children since you know that there is no way you could have thought of everything that needs childproofing. Make sure they know that it is their responsibility, while in your home, to make sure that your possessions and their children are intact at the end of the visit.
posted by necessitas at 2:33 PM on November 20, 2005

You can control a child. If you don't believe that, do not take your uncontrollable child to other people's houses.

Absolutely. My parents scared the crap out of me and my bros whenever we visited anyone else. We were expected (as a family) to behave as guests, and not as a bunch of folks somehow entitled to free child care from our hosts. I glad they did it, and I still love them for it.
posted by carter at 2:36 PM on November 20, 2005

Parents should take responsibility for their kids, no matter where they are. If parents let their ten-year-old visit a friend's house, it's the visitor's parents' job to make sure loaded guns aren't scattered around the premises.

However, if you are childfree and invite a child over, even with its parents, it is nothing but the most obvious of good sense to substitute plastic for the usual good china and to take the Lladro figures off the coffee table.

In this case, the homeowner was careless (and maybe not the brightest) for leaving the door open and for not making sure the child was being supervised as it interacted with the host's stuff, but the parents were way, way more careless for failing to keep an eye on their kid in a house full of potential hazards to their child.

Assuming your description is accurate, the parents can hardly blame the host when the parents were far more culpable.
posted by booksandlibretti at 3:29 PM on November 20, 2005

Another vote that the parents are completely in the wrong. The host took proper precautions. Even if the host had taken no precautions, I believe the parents would be in the wrong.

My wife and I have no children. We have many friends with children, ranging in age from just-hatched to seven-years-old. We have these kids over all the time. In fact, several times a year we have upward of twenty kids — all under the age of seven — tearing around the house. We take reasonable precautions (especially when we host large gatherings), but if something gets broken, there's no question that the parents are ultimately responsible.

We are not jerks and would never be confrontational about this sort of thing, but I can imagine a situation in which we would have to be assertive. Fortunately, that has never happened. In these cases, which are actually rather rare, the parents have never failed to volunteer responsibility and to offer restitution.

A typical scenario: a buddy and I were sitting on the back porch smoking and sipping Scotch on a summer evening. His four-year-old daughter came back to join us. She climbed on a chair and started flailing around, as kids will do. She tipped the chair back into a glass-panelled door breaking a single panel. The father was much more upset than I was. He disciplined the child while I cleaned the mess. He offered to do all the repairs himself, but the replacement panel was cheap ($5), so I just paid for it and then invited him over for the repairs. The reapairs took all of ten minutes, and then we got to sit on the back porch again, smoking and sipping Scotch.
posted by jdroth at 4:31 PM on November 20, 2005

(I have no children)

Another vote that the parents are completely in the wrong. The host took proper precautions. Even if the host had taken no precautions, I believe the parents would be in the wrong.

Here, here. It's an understandable oversight on the hostess's part to leave the door open- her attention was on the party in general, and a new painting at that specific moment. There is no excuse- zero, nada- for parents to leave a child that age unattended, ESPECIALLY at someone else's house.

*sigh*... strike another one for our "Excuse and Deny" culture...
posted by mkultra at 4:53 PM on November 20, 2005

If only it had been a woodchipper, the tables could have been turned: "That's what they get for letting the child wander around unattended!"

I believe those so-called "friends" should become your new ex-friends.

It's also an eye-opener for all of us without kids: it's probably best to keep all children out of our homes. I'll bet most of us have all sorts of dangerous things in cupboards and closets and workshops that some unattended kid could easily kill or sicken himself with. Last thing one needs in a situation like that is a parent who thinks it's the homeowner's responsibility to keep the child safe, not his own.

Indeed, this has just become one of our house rules: no child under the age of six will be allowed in this house. It just isn't worth it.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:15 PM on November 20, 2005

now, now. i don't even like children (and thank god, none of my friends have them yet), but i know all of my friends will probably have kids someday. when they do, their children will be welcome in my home. i trust my friends to be responsible, good parents. if a child in my house started ripping up my plants, annoying my dog, breaking things or getting into things they shouldn't, i would grab that kid, grab that kids parents, and speak with them outside. i would politely but forcefully tell them to either get their kid under control or leave immediately. rudeness like that can't be tolerated, especially not among "friends".
posted by booknerd at 5:46 PM on November 20, 2005

Parents who refuse to take responsibility for their spawn piss me off. Regardless of how young or old the child is, it is the responsibility of the parent to monitor and control the child's activity. It would be different, I guess, if the parent was not present, but this slack approach to parenting is disgraceful.

On the rare occasions when our kids are in a non-child home, we don't allow them out of our sight, because they can get in so much trouble so fast - my 3 year-old son can get into a cupboard containing medicines in our kitchen that is at my eye level (~5'9" or so high) by dragging a bar stool up to the cupboard and climbing it and have the cupboard open in about 15 seconds. Kids are scary and dangerous and need to be watched constantly. BY THEIR PARENTS!
posted by dg at 6:18 PM on November 20, 2005

This flamewar just happened on Fark, over a sign at a cafe that said kids must be well-behaved or leave.
posted by IndigoRain at 7:11 PM on November 20, 2005

The parents are very lucky your friend had a painting, not a samurai sword collection, or as five fresh fish noted, a woodchipper.

Blaming the host for their careless parenting is just wrong. By failing to keep an eye on their child they didn't just endanger the host's belongings, they risked their child's life.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:25 PM on November 20, 2005

Here is the article being discussed on Fark. If there are such places on the UWS, someone let me know. I sometimes have my weekend brunches at more expensive places than I would like, just to avoid families with children.
posted by bingo at 8:06 PM on November 20, 2005

Well, this is already being well-discussed so I'll just throw in my vote: As the parent of a 2-year-old, I think the parents are being jerks (several times over).
posted by winston at 8:24 PM on November 20, 2005

Uh, actually Fark picked it up from the New York Times or another wire source. The Chicago Reader looked at how the story became a national media sensation.

I'm with the majority here -- the parents were at fault, and should have apologized immediately for their failure to control the small ball of destructive energy they brought with them. Of course, the host might also have exercised bad judgement by even considering opening the door to that room while the kid was around and not secured -- but again, they're not used to having kids around.

Having helped raise three ADHD (at minimum) kids, I have a sixth sense about what sorts of trouble they're likely to get themselves in, even as teenagers. I'll never forget the time they all went out on the screen porch and defied me, playing tag through the (aging) screens, one by one. Even if you know it's gonna happen, sometimes, you can't stop it -- so best keep them as far away from it as possible.

Woodchipper? Hell, what about a pool?
posted by dhartung at 8:26 PM on November 20, 2005

Of course the parents are at fault.

I've found it useful to divide my acquaintances with children into two camps: those for whom the word "No" MEANS "No", and those for whom it does not. The parents whose kids mind them are welcome to visit with their families, and those whose kids are little horrors are welcome to meet us for a late dinner or other outing, sans children. It's the only way we've managed to deal with what is a sad state of affairs.

We have a new baby, and my husband and I discuss this aspect of child-rearing a lot. It helps that we have one family of neighbors with 4 fantastically kind and well-behaved children (aged 8 to 1), so that we have a pattern to follow.

My sister-in-law read an Amish child-rearing book called "To Train Up a Child" that I found very interesting as far as the discussions of personal responsibility went.
posted by mdiskin at 7:43 AM on November 21, 2005

Parents were in the wrong, most definitely. As others mentioned, what if the item had been a woodchipper, a pool, or something even more mild like a bucket of water (you can drown in an inch of water), or a dog or cat? A two-year-old should be supervised at all times, by its parents, *especially* when visiting friends. If a friend's child or even my own child was bothering my pets, I would remove said child from the situation. You never know when something might happen. Alas, the questioner could not remove the child before the incident occurred.

The type of parents who don't discipline their kids because they think their behavior is "cute," are STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE parents, plain and simple. That behavior is not "cute" and it will just get worse over time.
posted by cass at 8:18 AM on November 21, 2005