Nina wrote:
"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:aIVUb.410896$JQ1.214986@pd7tw1no...


Nina wrote:


Let it go. If you hadnt told her specifically not to feed him anything
without permission
she meant no harm.

Meaning no harm and doing no harm mightn't be the same thing.

"Let it go" seems to overlook "deal with it" which I think has been done.

Dawn


I agree. There are 2 issues
1. being angry at the nanny
2. being upset that the baby was fed wheat

She has the right to do both,and after she vented said she'd calmed down. In
her view harm was done,it was upsetting.

Especially as the baby has allergies, and a history of same, and she's
been doing all she knows how to do to prevent further allergies.
If you can shrug that off, kudos. Frankly, I would have been pretty
irate too. In this case, the nanny seems to honestly not have "got"
the whole thing about wheat avoidance, etc. not quite the same as
actively seeking to disrespect "mum"s wishes, but still upsetting and a
bit worrisome.

Dawn