Posted By Eric Burt Steph Maybe the nursery is worried about potential litigation from parents if they take on the responsibility of putting suncream on the children? e.g. not putting it on often enough, using the wrong protection factor, not covering all exposed parts etc etc. I would have thought that morally, they should be helping to protect the kids and that a short note to parents to the effect e.g. "We will apply suncream SF60 to arms and face after lunch. Please sign your agreement / otherwise to this. Please make sure your child has a sunhat" would suffice. It's not as if they are applying suncream as a parent would for a day at the beach - they are probably not outside for any great length of time and the children are clothed. Maybe the nursery could just issue a note to parents telling them that they will apply suncream at the request of the parents but the parents must supply it. Or get the nursery to plant some trees... or invest in a couple of gazebos etc etc Regards, Eric

Posted By Peter John Campbell Quill Dear Stephanie You may find this link useful http://www.cancerresearc...eschoolsandnurseries.pdf It sounds as if your nursery has an unfortunate attitude and hopefully education will improve this. I was surprised by your child's nursery position, and it is certainly not I have experienced elsewhere. Best regards Peter

Posted By Rod Douglas Stephanie, The phrase "Duty of Care" springs to mind, you might want to inform them of this, as they are caring for children whilst the parents are elsewhere (And being paid for the priviledge) Duties of care Evolving in the civil courts, the employer's duty of care to each of his employees can conveniently be considered under five headings. These require that an employer must provide: (1) Safe systems of work. (2) A safe place of work. (3) Plant and machinery that is safe to use. (4) Competent supervision and/or suitable training. (5) Care in the selection of fellow employees. These common law duties are now incorporated into statutory law under s. 2(2) of HSW which has extended the employer's obligations to the provision of training, instruction and information in sufficient detail to enable the employee to understand the hazards faced and be familiar with the techniques for avoiding them. These obligations have been further extended by the requirements of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (MHSWR) under which employers must carry out assessments of all operations and processes that present a potential risk to the health and safety of employees. Additionally, they must include working procedures and proper organisation to meet health and safety responsibilities and ensure that they have available to them adequate and competent assistance on health and safety matters. This extends to visitors, contractors, people in their care (This includes children) and anyone who is on their premises. I hope this is of some help, I had a similar problem with "Duty of care" at my young son's Junior School a few years ago. Where they let him walk out of school alone (He was 6) it was only by chance I was early. He was taking after school French lessons (At a cost)The French teacher "Rented" one of the classrooms, so The Head Mistress said it was nothing to do with her, I proved other wise (Duty of Care) and she was disciplined. All the best. Aye Rod D

Posted By David Broomfield Steph I can fully understand the staff refusal to apply the suncream direct to the children themselves, we were in a simular position at our nursery last year and were adviced by the National Care Standards to apply sun protection via a aerosol pump product but only with written consent from the parents.

Posted By Pete Moran There is one other issue to consider in this area...sunlight is needed for the production of Vitamin D by the body and whilst some protection is clearly required parents should be careful not to go over the top with applications of sun-blocks. There have been documented cases of children developing rickets due to having been plastered head to toe in high factor sun creams over long periods.

Posted By Stephanie Just to say thanks for all your responses. The nursery now agree to reapply suncream before the children go out to play. They had originally only refused to apply it because they didn't have time - although there are only about 25 children in the whole nursery, and at least 6 members of staff. Anyway, matter resolved, thanks again.

Posted By Pete Moran Jack...there is info at the following: http://micromedex.com/pr.../updates/sunscreens/pdf. Pages 3.17 2 A1 (a) http://mywebmd.com/conte...rticle/29/1728_62781.htm http://www.medinia.net/p.../patientinfo/rickets.asp

Posted By John Murgatroyd Yes, they have consdiered this. On here not long ago. However, consider this: Wearing only shorts and shirt (or no shirt) increases the likelihood of other injuries (grazes, cuts and bruises). So, quite a few sites insist on minimum clothing. FULL sleeve shirt and FULL leg protection. Site workers SHOULD be wearing a HARDHAT anyway, AND a Hi-Vis jacket of sorts. Many wear a "hanky" type of neck protection anyway. However, driving past a few on the way home I noted that many workers were not wearing hardhats , Hi-Vis or shirts. That's life, you try to lessen the accidents and you get squat help from the guys who are going to get hurt. But that's building site workers all-over.

Posted By Eric Burt PaulA Your child receives £66.00 per month (family allowance) which he/she then passes on to you to look after him/her. You are effectively then an employee, being paid to look after your child. I therefore think it is inappropriate to complain about the cost of carrying out this duty when your employer (your child) is giving you free reign with the money, allows you to carry out this task without requiring receipits for your expenditure, and carries out no auditing of either the quality of care they are receiving or where the money is actually spent. No other employer would treat you in this way and give you so much freedom, so I suggest you consider yourself lucky to be working for such a good employer. I take it you have kept the receipts for the "expensive suncream" just in case your employer decides to call in the auditors. Regards Eric

Posted By Richard If you don't like the way other people look after your kids, you could always try looking after them yourself, or is that too radical an approach? Richard

Posted By John Murgatroyd Oh well, this seems to have descended into the usual slanging match. Too many people seem to think "sunblock" when the better remedy would be NOT to go into the sun, or to wear clothing appropriate to the conditions. Funnily enough, if the nursery uses sunblock it ought to be in receipt of an MSDS for the cream ? A LOT of people are becoming worried about the "splash it on all over" approach to children and UV (A)(B). As I said, heating is a much more worrying effect of the sun where kids are concerned. You don't have to like what I'm saying.

Posted By Hilary Charlton What planet is Eric on - £66.00 per month - whoopee we'll all go mad on that - that should cover absolutely all the child's needs and requirements (in actual fact it is £69.55 pcm for the first child and £45.72pcm for subsequent children), including the expensive suncream that you don't need a receipt for. And as for Richard - did you give up work for your kids or would you consider doing so? Alternatively, is this merely a sexist question - if you would not be prepared to do it then don't expect the women to do so. I think most people would prefer to stay at home with their children but it is just not possible in this day and age because we women have become exceptionally fond of the luxuries of life ...... like eating! As for the suncream question - I know when my daughter went to nursery and she only went in the mornings, the nursery was happy to put suncream on because I asked and my daughter is a very pale redhead which means that she doesn't only burn she blisters horrendously. This was 10 years ago. The nursery do have a duty of care as you have placed them 'in loco parentis'. However, as I have read your thread and noticed that they have now agreed to put the cream on I guess this particular issue is resolved to your satisfactionn. As a matter of note, Eric, nursery at that time used to cost me £130 per month and the child benefit was less - how do you suppose I manage to pay £130 out of £66.00? Unless my maths is incorrect the amount outgoing is almost twice as much as the amount incoming - perhaps you are an accountant and can make these sums balance - it is quite beyond my poor feeble female brain!

Posted By Hilary Charlton Richard I apologise for going off on one, your message was worded in such a way as though a choice was to be had. In some cases this is just not so. Most women already suffer great pangs of guilt for having to work and farming out their children - I know that I did. I now work hours to suit the kids but still feel guilty about not being there during the summer holidays even though they are now 11 and 9. It is a difficult choice to make - do you carry on working to provide a better standard of home life, holidays, school trips, days out, etc, or do you give up work to ensure that the kids always have a parent at home and forego the other pleasures that money brings? Basically, with today's financial situation as it is - damned if you do and damned if you don't!

Posted By Paul Huber I have a friend in New Zealand and when his children were at nursey they were not allowed to play outside if they were not fully protected with hat, long sleeves and trousers. This is obviously a very precautionary approach but how can we ever be sure that sun cream is effective, it is so easy to miss a part of the body, as those of us with children will have noticed with horror after a day on the beach. We would not accept such poor standards of protection in the workplace. Let's face it Sun Cream is really for those who want to risk getting a tan while attempting to prevent burning. The best protection, and in my opinion the only one suitable for children is to avoid exposure. Remember that a sun tan is an indication of damaged skin, let's leave the habit of sunbathing(and all it's associated habits, eg stripping off as much clothing as possible as soon as the sun comes out) in the 60's where it belongs. Having said all that I suspect the reason for this nurseries decision has little to do with the risk of sunburn and more to do with the risk of being accused of inappropriate touching. What a sad world we live in!

Posted By George Wedgwood I like the idea of assessment but parents should also bear a lot of responsibility here, when they should be part of the agreement as to children being taken out in the sun in the first place - what about hyper sensitivity to sunlight, hypoallergenic reactions to creams, spot burning on exposed noses, arms etc. Parents know their kids best and should be able to provide advice in writing (or on a form) to nurseries as how best to deal with the agreed exposure. After seeing a recent TV programme on sun protection factors, I am now more sceptical than ever as to the effeciveness of any sun cream as UVA still gets though and its effect as a cancer trigger is still not fully researched. As for construction workers etc., I believe they should be given fact sheets by employers and made to wear suitable PPE (like in Aus they have broader brimmed safety helmets with neck cloths attached to shield themselves better). Simple things are often more effective as people tend to follow and use them.