Asked to leave GS event...because I had my 9 week old w/ me in sling - Page 3

[Ackray]

That does totally stink. I can imagine how dissapointed you are. I don't think that they are meaning to teach anything bad to the kids though. Maybe it has something to do with insurance/accident problems that they've had in the past and sticking to rules to teach the girls that "rules are rules".

[zeldamomma]

Originally Posted by alegna

I would agree with this as an option for an older baby- but the baby is only 9 weeks old!

-Angela

We don't know what the organizers were expecting of the accompanying adults of the Daisies. If, for example, they were expecting the mom to spot her daughter while she climbed a rock wall, then bringing any infant along would be inappropriate. While the policy should have been explained to the OP before she signed up, I do think it's reasonable for some activities to not allow siblings, particularly if each child is required to have an accompanying adult.

I don't think the policy sends the message that "mothers are second class citizens", nearly as much as "this is not a place for babies".

It's tough when you have a big kid that can't do what they want because of their baby sibling. Sorry.

ZM

[alegna]

Originally Posted by One_Girl

A father can hold his own 9 week old baby and comfort him very well for at least an hour and a half if he has been fed well before leaving time. Allowing my daughters father to have this time with dd is how my exh built up such a great relationship with dd and I think it is one of the reasons why he has been on-board with attachment parenting and non-violence/non-shaming parenting practices.

A family member can take over and go with the older child no matter how old the baby is, if they are around and don't have other obligations.

Dd never went an hour and a half between feedings during the day during infancy. She loved her daddy but no way that would have worked. Not to mention daddy may have other sibs to watch as well.

-Angela

[mommajb]

I experienced this also. It was applied to all events, even meetings. None of my daughters are now a part of this organization.

Have you considered Roots and Shoots?

[clane]

Originally Posted by TexasSuz

WOW! I am shocked at this policy. We are in Cub Scouts and siblings are always welcomed at events. In fact most of the Pack events are open to the entire family. We all go camping together, go bowling, etc. This is a very unfamily friendly policy! I don't know what I would do if I could not take my 3 year old dd to most Cub Scout meetings are events!

This has been our experience with Cub Scouts as well. The only event that is closed to siblings is the Webelos in the Woods. DD (newly 5) even has a pack t-shirt. She is dead set on being a cub scout, not a girl scout LOL.

[srlpenny]

I do take plenty of time to bond with each of my children individually, but a trip from 8am to 10pm w/ a 9 week old baby? She was not resentful at all ...except that we were told to leave. When she got home she said "I wished I had had my Pennys (that's our last name) there. I doubt a baby in a sling makes things more chaotic or expensive either.

Originally Posted by One_Girl

If you have someone else that can watch the baby and bring him when he needs to nurse it might be a nice bonding experience for your dd to have that time in girl scouts alone with you. A lot of times when a parent is volunteering they can't do it well with other kids along and it makes things more chaotic and expensive than it really needs to be for the whole group. Is there someone else that can go with her so she can still have fun with the group? If you take her out and she really wants to be in the program when there are other family members who can step in and go to the functions with her it may cause a lot of resentment towards the baby.

[soso-lynn]

Originally Posted by SusanElizabeth

Yes, I can see what Uptown Girl and Chel are saying.

I sympathize with you OP, but as I'm reading this what's also flashing through my mind is the birthday parties we had where occasionally a parent would assume that if one sibling is invited, the others are also. We never turned any siblings away but I think it's important to kids to have a few of events they can go to with their mom without their little brother or sister present.

An infant in a sling is not the same as a kid running around and trying to be part of what the older kids are doing. What's the big difference between a baby in the mom's belly and a baby in a sling?

DD never left my sight until she was at least 1. I brought her everywhere I went (including class) in her sling and she never bothered anyone.

I think that preventing a mom and her infant from being anywhere is always a problem. How can it not make them second class citizens?

And the insurance thing is just another example of things that are so wrong with some societies.

[Beth F]

What an awful experience for your family.

I hope that you can find a more rewarding activity for your daughter that is more respectful of your parenting choices.

I refuse to go to events/activities where I can't bring my younger babyworn child. We have no family nearby. Plus, both nursed every hour or less and would not accept being without me for the first year or so of their lives.

Beth F

[chel]

Originally Posted by zeldamomma

We don't know what the organizers were expecting of the accompanying adults of the Daisies. If, for example, they were expecting the mom to spot her daughter while she climbed a rock wall, then bringing any infant along would be inappropriate. While the policy should have been explained to the OP before she signed up, I do think it's reasonable for some activities to not allow siblings, particularly if each child is required to have an accompanying adult.

I don't think the policy sends the message that "mothers are second class citizens", nearly as much as "this is not a place for babies".

It's tough when you have a big kid that can't do what they want because of their baby sibling. Sorry.

ZM

I was very surprised at my dd last experience at camp, they had my dd (right after K) doing canoeing and archery. Not something to do with an infant. Even I wasn't too comfortable being around a bunch of 5-6yr olds with arrows!

Originally Posted by alegna

Dd never went an hour and a half between feedings during the day during infancy. She loved her daddy but no way that would have worked. Not to mention daddy may have other sibs to watch as well.

-Angela

that also is the thing, if one has to nurse every hours or so, how much could the adult assist the older dc? Especially since this was an all day event. Maybe the OP had a infant that was "ideal" - nursed in sling and slept the rest of the time, but my dd got in the evenings. While I've been camping/backpacking a lot with my dd when she was an infant I needed to adjust things around her schedule, no way could I have kept up with a camp agenda designed for school age dc.

[kennedy444]

That is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of! A baby in a sling being asked to leave. Just crazy....
Even the GS Summer day camp I volunteered at allowed siblings (brothers!!!) and they got their own teen leader for the day!!

I would call and write to everyone at all levels.

[m9m9m9]

I guess I don't get the insurance thing bc wherever the event is held, that place will also carry insurance. I could see for some events that toddler/preschoolers could be a problem but and infant in arms I don't see the issue with.

[zeldamomma]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

An infant in a sling is not the same as a kid running around and trying to be part of what the older kids are doing. What's the big difference between a baby in the mom's belly and a baby in a sling?

DD never left my sight until she was at least 1. I brought her everywhere I went (including class) in her sling and she never bothered anyone.

I think that preventing a mom and her infant from being anywhere is always a problem. How can it not make them second class citizens?

A baby in a mom's belly cannot be dropped, and is protected from impact by amniotic fluid. A baby in it's mom's belly does not cry, or need to be nursed or need a diaper change. It's great that your baby had a personality that allowed you to take her everywhere without making special accommodations for her-- my third child was like that, but my first two couldn't have handled it.

Girl scouts is supposed to be about the girls, not their moms-- it is a shame that the policy wasn't explained when it should have been, but if the camp was planning for each Daisy to have an adult assistant, a woman who is already busy caring for an infant may not be able to fill that role.

To say that a woman should be able to bring her infant in a sling everywhere is absurd-- should military pilots bring their babies on missions? Should surgeons wear their babies in the operating room? Acknowledging that mothering a baby is a task that takes time and effort does not make mothers or babies second-class citizens.

ZM

[soso-lynn]

Originally Posted by zeldamomma

A baby in a mom's belly cannot be dropped, and is protected from impact by amniotic fluid. A baby in it's mom's belly does not cry, or need to be nursed or need a diaper change. It's great that your baby had a personality that allowed you to take her everywhere without making special accommodations for her-- my third child was like that, but my first two couldn't have handled it.

Girl scouts is supposed to be about the girls, not their moms-- it is a shame that the policy wasn't explained when it should have been, but if the camp was planning for each Daisy to have an adult assistant, a woman who is already busy caring for an infant may not be able to fill that role.

To say that a woman should be able to bring her infant in a sling everywhere is absurd-- should military pilots bring their babies on missions? Should surgeons wear their babies in the operating room? Acknowledging that mothering a baby is a task that takes time and effort does not make mothers or babies second-class citizens.

ZM

What I am saying is that we should trust that mothers know what they are doing. I am sure that if the OP felt that her baby would be too demanding and would prevent her from doing what she needed to do (in this case, supervise her other child and keep up with the group), she would have gone.

It is a very fine line between acknowledging that mothering takes time and effort and coming to the conclusion that mothers need to stay home. What we really need to acknowledge is that mothers are fully functional human beings capable of deciding for themselves when and how to parent their children.

It seems like like we have taken the public-private division of genders and transfered it to children. Women are no longer second-class citizens forced to stay within the boundaries of private, pre-assigned areas of societies but their children are.

How can we fight for employment opportunities that do not force us to leave our children in daycare and other improvements in our society if we still think that that women are only allowed out of the house of the house if they leave their children behind?

And trying to find situations where it would be impractical to bring a baby is not helpful. There are, of course, situations where a baby might be in danger and I trust that, given the chance to think for themselves, most mothers would not put their children in those situations.

[zeldamomma]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

What I am saying is that we should trust that mothers know what they are doing. I am sure that if the OP felt that her baby would be too demanding and would prevent her from doing what she needed to do (in this case, supervise her other child and keep up with the group), she would have gone.

It is a very fine line between acknowledging that mothering takes time and effort and coming to the conclusion that mothers need to stay home. What we really need to acknowledge is that mothers are fully functional human beings capable of deciding for themselves when and how to parent their children.

It seems like like we have taken the public-private division of genders and transfered it to children. Women are no longer second-class citizens forced to stay within the boundaries of private, pre-assigned areas of societies but their children are.

How can we fight for employment opportunities that do not force us to leave our children in daycare and other improvements in our society if we still think that that women are only allowed out of the house of the house if they leave their children behind?

And trying to find situations where it would be impractical to bring a baby is not helpful. There are, of course, situations where a baby might be in danger and I trust that, given the chance to think for themselves, most mothers would not put their children in those situations.

I suspect that they needed her to do more than just supervise, as one adult often supervises several kindergarten aged children and they were requiring an adult for each kindergarten-aged child. I understand what you're saying about trusting mothers, but sometimes the mother doesn't have enough information or experience to make a good decision, and IMO the organizer is morally required to make sure the event is carried out in a way they feel is safe.

I think that there is a big difference between saying that "this event is not for babies" and saying that babies are second class citizens who may not leave the house. Five year olds can do a lot of cool stuff, but sometimes they need a parent's entire attention to do them. While some families would certainly appreciate a camp that could accommodate children of any age, it's going to be difficult to plan such a camp and make sure that everything is being done safely. My guess is that the organizers were trying to plan something cool for school-aged girls, and I don't think these accusations of being unfriendly to families is fair-- my oldest is 5 years older than my youngest, and I think it has been important for my oldest to get to participate in some more challenging activities without her little brother along.

ZM

[phathui5]

That stinks. Ds1 was in boy scouts for a short time and I was able to take all of the younger kids with us.

Five year olds can do a lot of cool stuff, but sometimes they need a parent's entire attention to do them.

I'm going to have to disagree. We generally have 5-12 kids around here, so I may be biased, but I can't think of a time when someone's needed me and a younger sibling or extra neighbor kid has been an issue.

[EnviroBecca]

I'm sorry this was so upsetting for you! Please don't drop out of Girl Scouts over this!

Rules about insurance and who is allowed to attend are annoying, but they are there for the safety of the girls and liability coverage of the organization. Your daughter's leader misinformed you, so it's not your fault this happened, and the organizer should have been nicer about it. Write to the council, explain what happened, and ask for a very clear explanation of their policies about who may attend council events. If this ever happens to you again (you're already at an event when you're told you or your baby are not allowed) ask to sign a waiver saying that if you/your baby are injured you will not hold them liable.

Seems to me the best option for your family, for events where your daughter really is required to bring an adult (see below), is for her to bring her dad or another adult other than you, until your baby is old enough that you can be away from him.

From the time my son was born until he was 22 months old, I did not attend overnight or long-day council events with my troop because I couldn't bring my son to them. (I did attend events a few hours long, by pumping.) However, when we camp as a troop or with our community (region of the council), the rules are looser: I could bring my son as long as he didn't take an extra bed and, once he was eating solids, I paid for his share of food.

So, you still could be assistant leader next year, but when the girls want to go to a council event, you tell the parents you are unable to go and someone has to volunteer (and register, unless there's special insurance) to make this possible for the girls. I always was able to get a volunteer.

(BTW myself and none of the other mothers are reg GS either, so that malarkey)

Actually, for council events that parents attend, the council buys additional insurance that covers ADULT attendees. You were covered; your baby wasn't. She just didn't explain that properly.

Oh and my dd is a Daisy so she had to have a parent with her.

Daisies are required to be accompanied by a parent only for overnight events. The council may have had a special rule for this event...but if so, that implies that they were expecting parents to be very involved in the activities. Nursing a baby, changing his diapers, maybe having to take him outside if he's screaming, all are distractions from one-on-one activities with your daughter. My son before he learned to crawl was so non-disruptive of our troop meetings that I almost forgot he was there...but in a 14-hour day, he would've had at least one difficult spell that required my full attention.

As a toddler, my son began wanting to do what the girls were doing or to do something else with my help ("I want a drink of water" "Get out the markers and scissors and tape for me" "Play tigers with me") so my usual policy now is that he attends Girl Scouts only if his daddy can be with him. That doesn't make me (or him) a second-class citizen; it makes me an effective leader.

So my daughter cannot go to events because she has a baby brother?

No, your daughter needs to bring an adult who does not need to bring the baby. Did the council or her leader specify that ONLY a girl's legal mother could accompany her?

Dolcedaze wrote:

I also wanted to mention that the way your daughter's membership paperwork was written, an adult is usually registered for each family, even if you're not a leader or involved in any other way like that.

This is not the case as far as NATIONAL registration, the one tied to the insurance, is concerned. If you did not fill out a separate form for yourself and pay $10, you are not registered. There's no "automatic registration of an adult" like this in the council I'm in now or the one where I grew up.

m9m9m9 wrote:

I guess I don't get the insurance thing bc wherever the event is held, that place will also carry insurance.

If it is a Girl Scout camp, it won't. Even if it is another place that has its own liability insurance, it has arranged the event with Girl Scouts with the understanding that all the people they're bringing are covered under their insurance.

Zeldamomma wrote:

Girl scouts is supposed to be about the girls, not their moms-- it is a shame that the policy wasn't explained when it should have been, but if the camp was planning for each Daisy to have an adult assistant, a woman who is already busy caring for an infant may not be able to fill that role.

I attended a community camp to which a leader had brought her baby, and it turned out that although he was nursing and thus couldn't be away from her, he also was accustomed to having his daddy rock him to sleep and to not being moved while sleeping. She had a very rough time getting him down for his nap and for the night and getting him back to sleep after his several night wakings, and she had to stay with him the entire time he was sleeping. This made her unavailable to lead her troop for two hours during afternoon activities and for the evening campfire--these things were outdoors or in other buildings. Baby's screaming in the middle of the night woke all the other leaders and some of the girls in their lodge. Her co-leader was very upset, and I don't blame her! They didn't have enough adults with the troop to enable one of them to step off the job for hours at a stretch.

I hope you'll address this incident with the leader and council, but I hope you'll also stick with Girl Scouts, demonstrate good mothering of an infant when it's appropriate to bring your infant, and step aside (or leave him with Daddy, when he's older) from those few times when it isn't. If this troop leader hassles you about having your baby with you at any time, find another troop.

[Romana]

I think it makes sense to find a more family-friendly group of a similar nature. If you stay with girl scouts, you'll likely find these kinds of conflicts continuing. Dh and I have spent a fair amount of time finding activities and groups for dd that allow siblings because otherwise she wouldn't get to participate. It's not worth separating a nursing mama and newborn/infant, or otherwise making family or sibling-unfriendly accommodations, to be a part of a group. We'd rather find a group that better fits our lifestyle, and then we're all happier.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience. Definitely look into the other groups - there is probably something your dc will enjoy just as much, and you will enjoy much more!

[soso-lynn]

Originally Posted by zeldamomma

I suspect that they needed her to do more than just supervise, as one adult often supervises several kindergarten aged children and they were requiring an adult for each kindergarten-aged child. I understand what you're saying about trusting mothers, but sometimes the mother doesn't have enough information or experience to make a good decision, and IMO the organizer is morally required to make sure the event is carried out in a way they feel is safe.

I think that there is a big difference between saying that "this event is not for babies" and saying that babies are second class citizens who may not leave the house. Five year olds can do a lot of cool stuff, but sometimes they need a parent's entire attention to do them. While some families would certainly appreciate a camp that could accommodate children of any age, it's going to be difficult to plan such a camp and make sure that everything is being done safely. My guess is that the organizers were trying to plan something cool for school-aged girls, and I don't think these accusations of being unfriendly to families is fair-- my oldest is 5 years older than my youngest, and I think it has been important for my oldest to get to participate in some more challenging activities without her little brother along.

ZM

First, I assume this is some kind of typo, but if there is one adult for every child, then why would the adults be required to supervise more than 1 child?

Then, we are not talking here about hijacking an event meant for a specific group (in this case, 5 year old people who, for some reason need to have XX chromosomes, but that is another topic) and turning it into an all-ages event. That is something that should not be discussed the day of the event, obviously. This is about an infant in a sling, not disturbing anyone or anything. If he was such a disturbance, it would not have taken half a day for the leader to kick them out.

And about children being second class citizens, it is not one event where they are allowed or not that directly makes them oppressed. Black people 'were' not oppressed because they had to sit at the back of a bus and women 'were' not second class citizens because they were not allowed to do certain jobs. Those are symptoms of a bigger problem. There is no need to try and oversimplify what I said to make it sound crazy like the surgeon thing before...

[Black Orchid]

Roots N Shoots is an AWESOME organization! I'm a leader at the chapter at our UU church

GS is also a great organization. It just sounds like they have some rules that don't fit your needs. I would suggest getting clearer on the rules for events and adjust your expectations... or if you can't adjust your expectations, then find a different type of organization.

I started the thread thinking how badly this stunk... but I really appreciate the mamas who took the time to explain the policy. It makes sense. It might not be agreed with, but it is definitely in place to protect the necessary parties. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it is wrong.

[zeldamomma]

Originally Posted by soso-lynn

First, I assume this is some kind of typo, but if there is one adult for every child, then why would the adults be required to supervise more than 1 child?

Then, we are not talking here about hijacking an event meant for a specific group (in this case, 5 year old people who, for some reason need to have XX chromosomes, but that is another topic) and turning it into an all-ages event. That is something that should not be discussed the day of the event, obviously. This is about an infant in a sling, not disturbing anyone or anything. If he was such a disturbance, it would not have taken half a day for the leader to kick them out.

And about children being second class citizens, it is not one event where they are allowed or not that directly makes them oppressed. Black people 'were' not oppressed because they had to sit at the back of a bus and women 'were' not second class citizens because they were not allowed to do certain jobs. Those are symptoms of a bigger problem. There is no need to try and oversimplify what I said to make it sound crazy like the surgeon thing before...

I guess I don't understand what you want. I'm an unschooler. I believe in empowering children and taking them seriously, but I don't think that means that every event needs to welcome all ages. Different ages have different needs, and sometimes an organizer only has the energy/facilities/time/money to focus on a particular age group. I would hate for people to stop offering events because they can't manage to accommodate all ages.

I agree that there are certainly anti-family and anti-child tendencies in our society, but I don't see that in this case. In this case I see miscommunication.

What I was trying to say in my post was that because 5 year olds do not require one-on-one supervision, the accompanying adults were probably expected to be active participants during the day.

ZM