RTÉ Investigates tonight (21:35): Crèches, Behind Closed Doors

walshb

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Blaming every one else? Are they not blaming the owner of the creche? Who else are they blaming?

Yes. Creche exposed. Parents aware. Up to parents now to find alternative care, check it out, make sure they are happy and hope for the best, because no matter how much research you do, you can never fully trust that your child will be always safe. Parents take these chances/risks. Same with choosing a childminder.

The rush now to go to court to sue. What exactly are they suing for?

Where does it end?

Surely some of these families can’t go in front of a court with the dodgy noodles and watered down milk angle? Or the child left crying for a period of time?

If this is the way it is then everyone in society is due a payout for some hardships they endured..

Hannibal_Smith

walshb wrote: »

Yes. Creche exposed. Parents aware. Up to parents now to find alternative care, check it out, make sure they are happy and hope for the best, because no matter how much research you do, you can never fully trust that your child will be always safe. Parents take these chances/risks. Same with choosing a childminder.

The rush now to go to court to sue. What exactly are they suing for?

The parents aren't blaming everyone else though, they're suing the person responsible. Its perfectly understandable to trust that the owner of the creche your child is in won't chuck them on to their tummies and hold their face down, while your child tries to swat it away. Youre not naiive to trust that they have fed your child the food they said they have, instead of instant noodles and watered down milk. Or to trust that they take fire safety seriously.

We're not talking blind trust, here. Just your run of the mill, don't put me kid in harms way kinda thing.

walshb

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

The parents aren't blaming everyone else though, they're suing the person responsible. Its perfectly understandable to trust that the owner of the creche your child is in won't chuck them on to their tummies and hold their face down, while your child tries to swat it away. Youre not naiive to trust that they have fed your child the food they said they have, instead of instant noodles and watered down milk. Or to trust that they take fire safety seriously.

We're not talking blind trust, here. Just your run of the mill, don't put me kid in harms way kinda thing.

I am not disagreeing here that they are not happy with things.

I just think the rush now to get solicitors involved, going to court and suing is crazy. It’s wrong.

Serious question: what angle? Breach of contract?

Surely going in front of a judge moaning about noodles and milk and cots being close to each other can’t result in compo payouts?

Will the parents have to prove that their young children suffered, are suffering and will still suffer due to their experiences? How can they prove this?

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

I am not disagreeing here that they are not happy with things.

I just think the rush now to get solicitors involved, going to court and suing is crazy. It’s wrong.

Serious question: what angle? Breach of contract?

Surely going in front of a judge moaning about noodles and milk and cots being close to each other can’t result in compo payouts?

Will the parents have to prove that their young children suffered, are suffering and will still suffer due to their experiences? How can they prove this?

I explained this to you on the other thread they didn’t receive what they paid for. They have actually been wronged.

walshb

salmocab wrote: »

I explained this to you on the other thread they didn’t receive what they paid for. They have actually been wronged.

Ok, so breach of contract.

Hannibal_Smith

walshb wrote: »

I am not disagreeing here that they are not happy with things.

I just think the rush now to get solicitors involved, going to court and suing is crazy. It’s wrong.

Serious question: what angle? Breach of contract?

Surely going in front of a judge moaning about noodles and milk and cots being close to each other can’t result in compo payouts?

Will the parents have to prove that their young children suffered, are suffering and will still suffer due to their experiences? How can they prove this?

Im sure the video evidence of the kids distressed will help. They don't just turn up to court and say... Hey judge.. Give us a few kid here will ya.. Johnny's a bit sad. They will have all necessary expert reports to support their claim.

walshb

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Im sure the video evidence of the kids distressed will help. They don't just turn up to court and say... Hey judge.. Give us a few kid here will ya.. Johnny's a bit sad. They will have all necessary expert reports to support their claim.

Oh I don’t doubt that the “experts” will be on hand to help out, greasing their palms..

30 families implies minimum 30 children?

All them looking for compensation? 30 children all shown to have “suffered” to such an extent that suing is the option?

I don’t know. Something doesn’t sit right here.

Anyway, will wait to hear more of what exactly 30 families are suing for.

iamwhoiam

walshb wrote: »

I am not disagreeing here that they are not happy with things.

I just think the rush now to get solicitors involved, going to court and suing is crazy. It’s wrong.

Serious question: what angle? Breach of contract?

Surely going in front of a judge moaning about noodles and milk and cots being close to each other can’t result in compo payouts?

Will the parents have to prove that their young children suffered, are suffering and will still suffer due to their experiences? How can they prove this?

They paid for a service they didn’t get . Money spent and they got shoddy service . So yes let them at very least get what they owed . Who said anything about looking for anything for suffering ?

walshb

iamwhoiam wrote: »

They paid for a service they didn’t get . Money spent and they got shoddy service . So yes let them at very least get what they owed . Who said anything about looking for anything for suffering ?

Well, like I said. Wait and see.

Not sure yet what exactly they want to sue for..

Sorry about that

walshb wrote: »

Oh I don’t doubt that the “experts” will be on hand to help out, greasing their palms..

30 families implies minimum 30 children?

All them looking for compensation? 30 children all shown to have “suffered” to such an extent that suing is the option?

I don’t know. Something doesn’t sit right here.

Anyway, will wait to hear more of what exactly 30 families are suing for.

I get where you're coming from, and I agree with your sentiment completely; we do have a culture of suing here. If I had a child in there I'd rather the owner was prosecuted and punished with a custodial sentence. I don't think I'd look for money. It can't undo what was done.

However, I don't think you fully understand how dreadfully she treated those children. Just try to imagine how you'd feel if someone pressed your face down into a mattress on a regular basis and ignored your cries to stop. As for watering down the milk- that shocked me just as much. Imagine your child not growing/gaining weight at the rate they should, because their (well paid) carer caused them to be malnurished. I wouldn't eat crappy noodles if I was paid, but these kids didn't get the choice. She should be locked up.

Hannibal_Smith

walshb wrote: »

Oh I don’t doubt that the “experts” will be on hand to help out, greasing their palms..

30 families implies minimum 30 children?

All them looking for compensation? 30 children all shown to have “suffered” to such an extent that suing is the option?

I don’t know. Something doesn’t sit right here.

Anyway, will wait to hear more of what exactly 30 families are suing for.

I dont know whether you saw the TV show? If you saw your kid being mistreated would you not be furious? You can't see at all why they would take legal action?

markodaly

seligehgit wrote: »

When you have as toothless a statutory body as Tusla inspecting these creches the symbolism of the parents taking legal action is positive optics.

Suing should not be viewed on as good news, as it will just increase premiums across the board, which will be passed onto parents.
We have a big thread in this forum about the compensation culture in this country and attitudes like this are a key to the problem.

walshb

Sorry about that wrote: »

I get where you're coming from, and I agree with your sentiment completely; we do have a culture of suing here. If I had a child in there I'd rather the owner was prosecuted and punished with a custodial sentence. I don't think I'd look for money. It can't undo what was done.

This is sense. Laws broken or crimes committed, go through the process...

This story of 30 families now suing...well, will wait to hear more.

seligehgit

markodaly wrote: »

Suing should not be viewed on as good news, as it will just increase premiums across the board, which will be passed onto parents.
We have a big thread in this forum about the compensation culture in this country and attitudes like this are a key to the problem.

I'm well aware of same thread and despise the prevalent compensation culture but dislike the idea of such conduct and lack of compliance with regulatory requirements going unpunished due to the powerlessness of a statutory body to shut down or severely sanction such creches.

walshb

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I dont know whether you saw the TV show? If you saw your kid being mistreated would you not be furious? You can't see at all why they would take legal action?

I have already explained that the thoughts of children being abused makes me sick.

Issues here and in general are what exactly is abuse, to the extent where you might actually go to court to sue?

30 families here...were all the children abused to an extent that courts and suing is needed?

Sorry, but to me, not being fed a diet that was agreed is not abuse. It’s not ideal, and I would challenge to change it, but mother of god, when we start calling these things abuse, and looking to the courts.....

My child being assaulted is absolutely abuse. My child being roared at and shouted at. I mean, proper shouting and roaring, is abuse.. To some people, a slightly raised voice is termed as shouting and roaring and as abuse. See, the term abuse can be so muddy..

Relating to this issue, I think parents should be happy that they know. Happy it’s over, and happy they have options.

If there are real genuine abuse/assault type scenarios from this, go for it. But I don’t want to hear suing because of dodgy milk and noodles..

Hannibal_Smith

walshb wrote: »

I have already explained that the thoughts of children being abused makes me sick.

Issues here and in general are what exactly is abuse, to the extent where you might actually go to court to sue?

30 families here...were all the children abused to an extent that courts and suing is needed?

Sorry, but to me, not being fed a diet that was agreed is not abuse. It’s not ideal, and I would challenge to change it, but mother of god, when we start calling these things abuse, and looking to the courts.....

My child being assaulted is absolutely abuse. My child being roared at and shouted at. I mean, proper shouting and roaring, is abuse.. To some people, a slightly raised voice is termed as shouting and roaring and as abuse. See, the term abuse can be so muddy..

Relating to this issue, I think parents should be happy that they know. Happy it’s over, and happy they have options.

If there are real genuine abuse/assault type scenarios from this, go for it. But I don’t want to hear suing because of dodgy milk and noodles..

I asked if you saw your kid being MISTREATED would you be furious, not abused.

Did you see the show?

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

I have already explained that the thoughts of children being abused makes me sick.

Issues here and in general are what exactly is abuse, to the extent where you might actually go to court to sue?

30 families here...were all the children abused to an extent that courts and suing is needed?

Sorry, but to me, not being fed a diet that was agreed is not abuse. It’s not ideal, and I would challenge to change it, but mother of god, when we start calling these things abuse, and looking to the courts.....

My child being assaulted is absolutely abuse. My child being roared at and shouted at. I mean, proper shouting and roaring, is abuse.. To some people, a slightly raised voice is termed as shouting and roaring and as abuse. See, the term abuse can be so muddy..

Relating to this issue, I think parents should be happy that they know. Happy it’s over, and happy they have options.

If there are real genuine abuse/assault type scenarios from this, go for it. But I don’t want to hear suing because of dodgy milk and noodles..

You keep mentioning the milk, crèches are not allowed give children anything low fat it’s not an agreement it’s the rules.

walshb

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I asked if you saw your kid being MISTREATED would you be furious, not abused.

Did you see the show?

Mistreated? Abused...semantics.

Quite similar, no? Same applies to the term mistreated. People can have vastly differing views..

My view of mistreatment may differ from yours and yours from others and mine from others. So, of course I’d be upset, or furious (depending on the specifics) if I believed my child was mistreated. Would it automatically see me suing? No..

Relating to courts and suing: will have to wait to hear more.

Maybe parents are looking for a percentage refund for issues in the creche..

So, if, for example they paid 1000 euro a month, they might want some refund on a portion of it...

Here’s another thing. Why did it take a sting operation to unearth all these so clear-cut and obvious problems?

It makes me think that parents seemed happy enough with the set-up, and now all of a sudden a sting operation shows up these issues, and a heap of parents are heading to court?

Unless these court claims were in the pipeline before the sting by RTE?

I haven’t read anything to suggest that families were aware of problems in the creche, to the extent that courts and suing was needed.

walshb

salmocab wrote: »

You keep mentioning the milk, crèches are not allowed give children anything low fat it’s not an agreement it’s the rules.

This is hilarious...

Would you think it would be possible grounds for suing, so? One of the possible grounds to go to court and sue?

If all you have to show is this, would it be a winner in court?

So, let’s say your child wasn’t shown to be abused in the real genuine physical sense, and all you have to go with is the milk and noodles angle, would you encourage solicitors and courts here?

If the judge announced that anyone in here suing because of the milk and noodles, get out. Would that annoy you? If the judge only wanted to hear of actual claims of abuse and mistreatment, warranting real consideration..so, even claims that my child had adults raise their voices, if these were thrown out, would that be right?

Hannibal_Smith

walshb wrote: »

Mistreated? Abused...semantics.

Quite similar, no? Same applies to the term mistreated. People can have vastly differing views..

My view of mistreatment may differ from yours and yours from others and mine from others. So, of course I’d be upset, or furious (depending on the specifics) if I believed my child was mistreated.

Relating to courts and suing: will have to wait to hear more.

Maybe parents are looking for a percentage refund for issues in the creche..

So, if, for example they paid 1000 euro a month, they might want some refund on a portion of it...

Here’s another thing. Why did it take a sting operation to unearth all these so clear-cut and obvious problems?

It makes me think that parents seemed happy enough with the set-up, and now all of a sudden a sting operation shows up these issues, and a heap of parents are heading to court?

Unless these court claims were in the pipeline before the sting by RTE?

I haven’t read anything to suggest that families were aware of problems in the creche, to the extent that courts and suing was needed.

It's not semantics at all. It's a different word. If abuse was the label I put on it, abuse would have been the word I selected.

I would call deliberately watering down milk and feeding them sub par food mistreatment.

I would call manhandling a kid so they're face down in a cot and putting a hand over their face while they whimper mistreatment.

I would call leaving a child in a high chair for extended periods mistreatment.

Would you not? If these things were done to your kid would you be furious? Would you not take legal advice?

RTE went in after being contacted by parents with concerns. That's how RTE found out about it.

Did you watch the show?

walshb

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not semantics at all. It's a different word. If abuse was the label I put on it, abuse would have been the word I selected.

I would call deliberately watering down milk and feeding them sub par food mistreatment.

I would call manhandling a kid so they're face down in a cot and putting a hand over their face while they whimper mistreatment.

I would call leaving a child in a high chair for extended periods mistreatment.

Would you not? If these things were done to your kid would you be furious? Would you not take legal advice?

RTE went in after being contacted by parents with concerns. That's how RTE found out about it.

Did you watch the show?

But again, different people would view mistreatment differently.

Example: you say extended periods of time in high chair as mistreatment. My view, your view, others’ views of extended could easily differ..

I said clearly that if I felt my child was abused/mistreated, and it was to a level I deemed serous, yes, I would probably seek legal advice..

I did watch the show.

I didn’t like what I saw. But the rush to sue here I am not getting.

I cannot see how 30 families are all feeling aggrieved to the extent that suing and courts are needed.

Hannibal_Smith

walshb wrote: »

But again, different people would view mistreatment differently.

Example: you say extended periods of time in high chair as mistreatment. My view, your view, others’ views of extended could easily differ..

I said clearly that if I felt my child was abused/mistreated, and it was to a level I deemed serous, yes, I would probably seek legal advice..

I did watch the show.

I didn’t like what I saw. But the rush to sue here I am not getting.

I cannot see how 30 families are all feeling aggrieved to the extent that suing and courts are needed.

It's not just my view though, it was the view of the Under cover child care worker, it was view of the two professionals watching and it was also the view of whoever came up with the regulations :pac:

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

This is hilarious...

Would you think it would be possible grounds for suing, so? One of the possible grounds to go to court and sue?

If all you have to show is this, would it be a winner in court?

So, let’s say your child wasn’t shown to be abused in the real genuine physical sense, and all you have to go with is the milk and noodles angle, would you encourage solicitors and courts here?

If the judge announced that anyone in here suing because of the milk and noodles, get out. Would that annoy you? If the judge only wanted to hear of actual claims of abuse and mistreatment, warranting real consideration..so, even claims that my child had adults raise their voices, if these were thrown out, would that be right?

Much as I appreciate you taking what I said and running away with yourself, I was pointing out the watering down or not if milk wasn’t an agreement as you said but in fact a rule that the crèche are obliged to adhere to. Your too busy looking for what doesn’t exist to see what was said

walshb

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It's not just my view though, it was the view of the Under cover child care worker, it was view of the two professionals watching and it was also the view of whoever came up with the regulations :pac:

Ok..

That’s fair enough.

Still can’t see the need for the courts here. Sure, there may be some genuine cases, but 30 families tell me that a lot are jumping aboard for the payout..

Anyway, nice debating with someone who can debate a different view in a respectful and accepting fashion.

walshb

salmocab wrote: »

Much as I appreciate you taking what I said and running away with yourself, I was pointing out the watering down or not if milk wasn’t an agreement as you said but in fact a rule that the crèche are obliged to adhere to. Your too busy looking for what doesn’t exist to see what was said

Grand,

So what’s your view on the questions I asked?

salmocab

walshb wrote: »

Grand,

So what’s your view on the questions I asked?

Your question about suing for milk and noodles no I wouldn’t sue for that as it’s facetious but I would certainly be kicking down the crèches door looking for some money back on not getting things I had clearly paid for. Things I would have paid for would certainly include food and milk.

mrslancaster

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

....
RTE went in after being contacted by parents with concerns. That's how RTE found out about it. ....

Very upsetting to watch & very worrying for working parents who need to use a creche. did the parents who contacted rte have to move their children to another creche?

IMO the government should have some type of licence system for creches and every service should be required to display the licence and staff qualifications at the entrance.

If getting the licence depended on properly vetted and qualified staff, safe premises and correct ratios then parents would have some confidence in the creche.

If there's no current licence, then parents could avoid it.

There needs to be some way to stop rogue operators like this. It's not good enough to depend on rte to do an expose every few years.

iamwhoiam

walshb wrote: »

Grand,

So what’s your view on the questions I asked?

You keep going on bout the blessed milk , can you not see that it was the least of the kids worry

Hannibal_Smith

mrslancaster wrote: »

Very upsetting to watch & very worrying for working parents who need to use a creche. did the parents who contacted rte have to move their children to another creche?

IMO the government should have some type of licence system for creches and every service should be required to display the licence and staff qualifications at the entrance.

If getting the licence depended on properly vetted and qualified staff, safe premises and correct ratios then parents would have some confidence in the creche.

If there's no current licence, then parents could avoid it.

There needs to be some way to stop rogue operators like this. It's not good enough to depend on rte to do an expose every few years.

I don't know anything else about the parents who contacted RTE.

I couldn't even imagine being a parent of one of the kids and watching that footage.

The woman who owned this creche was reprimanded in 2005 for an incident where a child was left behind on an outing. In 2007 there was something else. This year she was fined by the district court for not registering the creche.

I agree, some better system is desperately needed. There are 37 creches on a critical list and nobody but Tusla seems to know what kind of critical state these creches are in. It's really not good enough.

salmocab

mrslancaster wrote: »

Very upsetting to watch & very worrying for working parents who need to use a creche. did the parents who contacted rte have to move their children to another creche?

IMO the government should have some type of licence system for creches and every service should be required to display the licence and staff qualifications at the entrance.

If getting the licence depended on properly vetted and qualified staff, safe premises and correct ratios then parents would have some confidence in the creche.

If there's no current licence, then parents could avoid it.

There needs to be some way to stop rogue operators like this. It's not good enough to depend on rte to do an expose every few years.

Crèches do have to be registered and their staff do need to have correct qualifications and vetting. Ultimately tusla are the biggest problem they are beyond useless. Most crèches are well rum places with people that have the kids well being at the fore, obviously they need to make money but without a good reputation it can only last so long for them.