sun protection policy

[Guest 2580]

Hi everyone,

we have a sun protection policy stating that between the hottest times of the day (11-3) we do not take children out. It also states that children will not be allowed outside without suncream.

One parent has requested that their child be taken out during the hottest time, and does not have and suncream due to them needing more vitamin D.

Obviously this is against our policy which has been explained to them, but they are insisting we follow their wishes.

What are everyones views?

Anyone had similar experiences/ got any suggestions as how we could resolve this?

Thanks

[Rea]

If that's your policy and the parent was aware when they decided to bring the child to you then I'd stick to my guns. But, keeping the children in between those times is a long time to have no outdoor play. I understand the need to be careful but maybe you could include in you policy that children wear hats and long sleeves. Vitamin D can be taken as a supplement and from foods so I would help mom to find a balance.

[Guest 2580]

thank you for your relpy!

we are quite lucky that the garden is quite shaded for most of the morning and we have shade sails so can be outside doing certain activities in shaded areas, and are flexible with the routine.

we do also have in our policy about cotton clothing, long sleeves and hats.

I was thinking I could research other sources of Vitamin D and suggest these as an alternative?

I was more concerned at the fact the parents insist that we follow their wishes in delibreately putting their child in the sun at the hottest times with no sun cream, regardless of our policy. They are saying thats their wishes and we should follow them- just wondering where I stand with that side of their arguement and would anyone else would do/ say to them!

Thanks

[Rea]

I'd remind them they knew your policy when they started and presumably you ask parents to sign a contract which shows that. If they weren't happy with it they shouldn't have signed up to it. I'm sure there are other settings they could have gone to without such a policy, they chose you.

[flowlow]

I agree with Rea we can't always adhere to parents wishes and they must have had access to policies when they joined with you. If it is your policy you have a right to stand by it and if they don't like that then maybe another setting would suit them. I think mostly as long as you can back up why you can't comply with what parents want and there is good reason (so not just because it doesn't suit you etc...) then that is that.

 

Although maybe comprise with activities in the shade between these times would be ok?

[sunnyday]

Oh - I've been there, done that with a set of parents - it was "we don't want to put chemicals on her skin" :blink: in their case - they started sending her 'unprotected' and wearing this enormous and I mean enormous sun hat.........

 

Long story short - downloaded a fact sheet from Cancer Research re damage to young skin - distributed to all parents - kept child in the shade - only took about a week for them to 'get their acts together' and have a re-think

 

However, if they hadn't 'come round' on their own - I would have had to have a discussion with them along the lines of - 'this can't go on etc. etc. - might even have mentioned child protection/safeguarding to them' failing to protect your child from the sun would surely constitute 'neglect'.......

 

Your policies are in place for good reason and it is totally unreasonable for parents to think that they can 'ignore' them.........

 

Good luck with it all - don't forget to let us know what happens :1b

[Guest]

we go out, we very rarely have hot days, i would not stay in for that length of time either

 

we have hats and parents are responsible for applying suncream

[Stargrower]

Yes we go out too. We might keep our babies indoors during that time on a really scorching day, but they are few and far between. Shade, hats and suncream is the way forward! Stick to your guns.

[Guest]

I suspect the following BBC News report has sparked the parent's concern; which is understandable.

A six-year-old Leicestershire boy has developed the bone-softening disease rickets after too much sun cream stopped him from developing essential vitamin D.

Chris Head, from Lutterworth, always had factor 50 sunscreen on when he played outside blocking the sunlight from his skin.

His mother Suzi said she was shocked to discover her precautions had resulted in a painful condition for her son.

You might find the following link interesting!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-22531725‎

Edited June 12, 2013 by Guest

[Stargrower]

There's a yogurt being advertised at the moment that claims to provide 100% RDA of vitamin D. I think it's called Cal-in Plus.

[Inge]

There is a recommendation that young children have supplements of vitamin D , that maybe the way to go... there are plenty available now.. noticed when I last got my supplements. it is a bit of a trade off between sun protection and possible skin cancer, and vitamin D production, which as it can be supplemented makes me feel it possible to cover both angles. Sorry my keyboard will not let me make paragraphs enter key does not seem to be working! so one long missive from me for now until I sort out what I have done.

[Inge]

can I also add my son who has always been careful has recently had 3 moles removed as they looked suspicious, all proved clear but it is really something to be considered these days..

[Beau]

http://www.sunsmart.org.uk/advice-and-prevention/vitamin-d/