Potentially stupid question here, but: if none of the other parents sent in sunscreen, like the mom is claiming, why aren't there any other kids sunburned from this outing?
Given all of the press this has received, if nobody else provided their kid with sunscreen, I'd think at least ONE other family would be coming forward with a burned kid.
while this whole story is making less and less sense, the fact that this daycare has run into issues before, I kind of wonder if they don't ask for sunscreen and because of that, the parents assume they supply it, so the day they are asked to send some in, parents forget.
BUT even with that, ALL the parents forgot?
So maybe the daycare didn't make this request at all???
Just making wild guesses here, obviously. This whole story is weird.
That's the part I'm having the hardest time with - every single parent forgot sunscreen, knowing their kid was going to a waterpark? I just don't believe that.
I agree...wtf? There is some non-truth telling going on. If the DC requested it in the first place, that is them acknowledging that it is necessary. I can't imagine them then just being like oh tra la la no one brought it so we are still going outside. I do see DC not putting it on without the parents providing or allowing it b/c that is a liability for them if the child has any sort of an allergy or whatnot. But then too bad so sad kids can't go outside. This is all bizarre. But with burns that bad I can't imagine that it wasn't visible to the daycare before the kids were picked up. I hadn't seen the photos until now and I was picture little tiny water blisters (I have gotten those before) not those HUGE things omg.
I posted earlier in the summer that my son's public school sponsored camp did not allow sunscreen on campus. It had to be applied in the morning prior to camp when some kids were getting to camp at 7:30 in the morning and not going outside until much later in the day. I should send this article to them.
Re: why these boys were the only ones severely burned--
I think earlier articles said that the other kids all kept their tshirts on, but these boys refused to wear shirts and the daycare workers didn't force them.
Also, at least one of the boys was a fair-skinned red head.
Potentially stupid question here, but: if none of the other parents sent in sunscreen, like the mom is claiming, why aren't there any other kids sunburned from this outing?
Given all of the press this has received, if nobody else provided their kid with sunscreen, I'd think at least ONE other family would be coming forward with a burned kid.
Allegedly, the boys were the only ones refusing to wear cover ups.
NONE of the parents supplied sunscreen? Then why the fuck would you take the kids out to a water park?
This, sunscreen is relatively cheap. I know when my kids have run out, they daycare applies their own and moves on. I signed a waiver stating they could do this. It's not rocket science. If you don't have sunscreen provided by a parent or a waiver that you can apply your own in that circumstance, you DO NOT TAKE THE CHILD OUTSIDE.
It's really expensive. I have to have use neutrogena if I'm applying more than once, and you have to use a lot for it to be effective (I don't remember the numbers, but it's more than most people think), and I have to reapply every two hours (more often if around water). That adds up really fast. I don't go outside enough for it to matter anymore, but when I did it was so expensive. Like way more than half my grocery budget expensive (relative, of course- single and broke).
I'm going to call BS on $35 sunscreen at Walgreens (vs like a liter of Supergoop at Nordstrom.)
I don't know if they sell it at Walgreen's, but California Baby Super Sensitive no fragrance sunscreen is $35.99 for 6 ounces at Target. My sensitive skin baby breaks out in the cheap stuff, but thankfully the Aveeno worked so I wasn't forced to shell out that much for sunscreen.
Ellie's preschool sent us reminders to please apply sunscreen when the weather got nicer-they said by law they're not allowed to apply it to the children. Is this because it was a school and not a daycare?
When I worked at a daycare in MA we put sunscreen on the kids. We had each parent get a permission form signed by their kid's pediatrician, but we definitely sunscreened them every darn day.
The yellow blisters they have definitely look like they're caused from severe sunburn, but the white blisters on the one boy don't seem like they're from a sunburn.
I find it hard to believe that any daycare has ZERO sunscreen on hand. Ours always had a giant bottle handy just in case. And I'm also baffled at why the DC workers didn't tell the boys to put their damn shirts on, regardless of whether they (in their infinite child wisdom) didn't want to wear shirts.
There's much more to this story than anyone knows at this point.
Where I live daycares are not allowed to apply sunscreen without written permission from the parent. It's considered medication and they have to follow the same protocol as administering any other medicine. Even if our daycare had sunscreen, they wouldn't be able to apply it because they are only permitted to apply sunscreen provided by the parent.
Ellie's preschool sent us reminders to please apply sunscreen when the weather got nicer-they said by law they're not allowed to apply it to the children. Is this because it was a school and not a daycare?
When I worked at a daycare in MA we put sunscreen on the kids. We had each parent get a permission form signed by their kid's pediatrician, but we definitely sunscreened them every darn day.
My kids' school buys and applies it.
I think we filled out a form at the beginning of the year giving permission.
Anyway, they are pretty fair but don't burn easily. Their faces turn beet red easily though lol and that has caused concern in the classroom at a few points. Their reactions to the red faces make me think they are pretty vigilant about applying sunscreen.
Has anyone else looked at the aunt's FB page? She's the one they said wouldn't turn over the ointment. It makes me wonder even more what the real story is.
Regardless of what adult or adults are to blame, I feel awful for those boys.
I'm sort of curious as to why the boys only had burns to their backs. You would think that if they were outside in the sun all day that their faces would have at least been a little red. I didn't notice any sort of serious burn on their face. When I burn, the area across my nose is the first to go.
Anyway, if they were out of sunscreen, then you send someone to the store to buy some. You borrow some from another family. If this was major amusment style water park with slides, they usually sell sunblock in their shop. The place near me offers, sunscreen, swim diapers, batteries, towels and other items in their gift shop. They had options and they didn't take advantage of them, so it's on the daycare. I would have canceled the whole trip to be honest. Children have very sensitive skin, you don't just put a shirt on the kids and tell them to have fun. They also need sunblock on their faces, legs and arms.
Potentially stupid question here, but: if none of the other parents sent in sunscreen, like the mom is claiming, why aren't there any other kids sunburned from this outing?
Given all of the press this has received, if nobody else provided their kid with sunscreen, I'd think at least ONE other family would be coming forward with a burned kid.
Allegedly, the boys were the only ones refusing to wear cover ups.
But nobody else even having burned noses or ears?
I'd understand nobody else having a burnt back or shoulders if everybody else was wearing a shirt, but were all of the other kids wearing ski masks protecting their faces, too?
Idk, I find it really weird that no other parents are coming forward to corroborate the mom's version of things, even with the recent update about the DC having other issues in the past.
The yellow blisters they have definitely look like they're caused from severe sunburn, but the white blisters on the one boy don't seem like they're from a sunburn.
I believe the blisters in some of the pictures are white because of a medication applied to them, they aren't naturally that color.
I find it odd that there aren't any other parents with kids that were there that day coming forward to either refute or corroborate the details of this story. I also find it suspicious that in the initial reports, the mom claimed that they were told by the ER that they couldn't be treated unless they were blistering and now suddenly they're looking for a lotion that may have caused that. What's most shocking is all the people in here refusing to believe that anyone would willingly harm a child. Do you people live in the world?
I don't find it too unusual for an ER to fail to treat a burn. Most hospitals, especially smaller town ones, really do not know proper burn care. My husband had 2nd degree burns on his hands from a fire and they put a band aid on them and said, sorry, you need to go to a different hospital, we don't know what to do.
I do live in this world but I truly cannot fathom someone doing this to a child. My daughter was in an accident and suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns over 30% of her body. To think someone would put a child through such horrendous pain on purpose makes me literally sick to my stomach.
I'm glad to know that the boys are now in the care of one of the best burn hospitals in the world. They also treated and continue to treat my daughter. They are amazing doctors and I hope the boys fully recover.