"Dawn Lawson" wrote in message
news:d1XUb.411915$JQ1.285952@pd7tw1no...


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

I didnt say shrug it off. AFAIK. As I said, I was irate when something
similar happened. I fixed it and then after a bit of
complaining, calmed down. I wasnt telling her to forget it or invalidating
her feelings. Just in my own way, saying that
I understand and that it seems like an honest goof, and acknowledging how
hard and frustrating it is when you have kids
you have to leave them in the care of others sometimes, and even at best,
things wont be perfect. Thats difficult, but to some extent
inevitable.
If it came across as "why are you worried, forget it" , thats not what I
meant.