Those who aren't flexible with meals for kids?

[KristinaBreece]

Let me clarify that a bit. I always make sure that I'm making at least one thing I know each child likes & should eat without a fuss. For lunch today, I made turkey sloppy joes, lima beans (they're DS's favorite vegetable of the moment), and dried apricots. My 2 will generally always eat all of this. The 5yo boy I care for is kind of a picky eater, but he loves fruit & he always eats sloppy joes when they're served here-- usually asking for seconds.

 

So, if one of the aforementioned DC sat down at lunch today & refused to eat a single bite of it, insisting that "I HATE sloppy joes! I NEVER eat this!" How would you proceed for the day? My general rule is that anyone who doesn't make a good stab at eating their meal doesn't get snacks. I do hate the idea of a little person being hungry all day, though. The 2 other DC will have jello for snack at 2:00. I will not be offering this kind of treat to the child who didn't eat a single bite of lunch... should I give said child the opportunity to eat what was offered for lunch at that point? My thought process is: If the kid is truly hungry at that point, the given food should be looking pretty good. Right?

[Jan in SC]

It's fine for your children, but I think you should ask the parents what they want for their child.

 

I don't think you need an alternative, but I wouldn't be happy if my five year hadn't eaten anything all day.

[MaMa2005]

Well, I happily raise my hand and say I am a mean mom. I serve meals (such as you described) and if someone doesn't eat it, they know that another meal will be served at the appropriate time. I have made it abundantly clear that I am not a short order cook.

 

We don't snack here so I'm no help with that question, but if it were me, I would say that since lunch wasn't eaten, no snack. :nopity:

[JudoMom]

I always let mine have snack, even if they didn't eat what was served at lunch. Our snacks are small (granola bar, cheese stick, piece of fruit, etc) and certainly won't fill a hungry stomach up if they missed lunch, and I don't let them have a larger snack than usual. But I don't recall ever not letting them have a snack at 3:00.

[AK_Mom4]

I said - offer lunch again. But what I really wanted was an option to offer lunch again and let them have jello too if they ate some lunch.

 

For my kids when they refused something they normally would eat, it usually meant they were getting sick or something was off (tired, unhappy). They were usually happy to come back and eat later on.

[amo_mea_filiis.]

I said other. Offer what was refused at lunch, and offer snack.

[QueenCat]

It's fine for your children, but I think you should ask the parents what they want for their child.

 

I don't think you need an alternative, but I wouldn't be happy if my five year hadn't eaten anything all day.

 

Who is paying for the food? You or the parents? If you, then you decide if he must eat what was served for lunch, or can have something else. If the parents, they decide. Personally, I'd offer a nutritious snack, not the treat. In our house, most snacks are nutritious, and meant to be a mini-meal as that is what our doctor recommends. He says three big meals a day are not good for the digestive system. He also says it's better to fuel the body in 5-6 mini-meals. Attention is better. Since you've had issues before with said child, you need to be firm in whatever way it is going to be. Your own children won't take it lightly if there are different policies for the other child than for them .

Edited April 28, 2011 by CathieC

[twoforjoy]

I wouldn't make a special snack, or an extra snack if the child was hungry an hour later. But, if an afternoon snack is part of your normal routine, I'd consider it more like a regular meal time (which I wouldn't make a child skip for not having eaten their last meal) and still offer it.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I said other of course;) It depends on the age of the child firstly. My 15yo (should he ever happen to refuse food) could wait for the next meal. I do as you and always have something I'm sure each of them will eat. If it was a temper tantrum not eating later won't help. I try to make snacks cheese, cracker & fruit, peanut butter toast, plain yogurt and fruit, etc. A nutritious bit, not a mini meal and not a 'treat'.

[Wabi Sabi]

I would've made sure that there was something he would eat at lunch. Maybe he doesn't like sloppy joe but what else did you serve?

 

I used to have a home daycare and I tried my best to make sure there was at least one thing being served that everyone would eat. So, even if Johnny didn't want his sloppy joe he could at least have some green beans and apple slices to eat so that he wouldn't go hungry. I wouldn't cater to the children and make something entirely different, though.

 

At that point, assuming he got *something* in his belly at lunch, then sure: he'd get Jello along with everyone else.

 

ETA: Just reread and see that he was offered fruit instead. In that case I'd just let bygones be bygones and move forward. I wouldn't make him something different now, but I'd still give him snack with everyone else at the regular time. The natural consequence of skipping lunch is being hungry until food is offered again, not missing out for the rest of the day IMO.

Edited April 28, 2011 by Wabi Sabi

[2squared]

It's fine for your children, but I think you should ask the parents what they want for their child.

 

I don't think you need an alternative, but I wouldn't be happy if my five year hadn't eaten anything all day.

 

:iagree: I would make the choice of skipping snacks and/or reserving lunch for my dc, but I would not want someone else making that choice for them - especially if I was paying for said person to take care of my dc. I would want and expect my child to return to me having eaten something during the day. I would not want a crabby, hungry kid at the end of the day.

 

I don't cater to my dc, but I do recognize that everyone has off days where the usual just doesn't sit right for whatever reason. That's cool. That's what apples, peanut butter, and bread are for.

[Daisy]

I agree the rules are different if you are taking care of someone else's child. If the child won't eat what you fix then I'd make an arrangement for the parent to send the child with a lunch.

 

If it was my kid, he would be offered his lunch at snack time or he would go without.

[6packofun]

As an adult, I still have foods that I just don't like. I don't force myself to eat them, sometimes even if I'm being served the item by someone else. Why should I force my kids--much less someone else's!--to eat what *I* think tastes good all the time?

 

I think that the meal you made is something I wouldn't enjoy at all. Those are just not items I really like except for the dried apricots which are a sugary snack item to me, not a side dish. Anyhow, I'm not saying this to be rude, only to say that I would be disappointed and eat very little of it. A young child has opinions and tastes, too, so I always try to have one healthy thing that everyone will eat and let the child eat all they want of that. Or I offer peanut butter and jelly, granola, crackers and cheese or an apple with pb on it. Children's tastes don't dictate every single meal that I make, but I'm sensitive to their young tastes because *I* like to be considered as well. Each meal doesn't have to be a buffet, but I feel it's my duty to have each kid's stomach filled with *something* healthy. I don't withhold meals or food as punishment, but there would be another non-food related consequence for talking rudely ("I hate this!!").

 

I'm not sure this addresses the issue here because I'm confused if the child complaining actually DOES like the food and is just being contrary or if it's something else. This is a tough issue sometimes because we want our kids to have broader tastes and not encourage pickiness, but there are also foods that people truly don't like. I can think of a few that I've never liked in my entire life and I avoid them! LOL

[katilac]

I picked "other" because I would have tried something else at lunchtime. Sloppy joes are served on bread or rolls, right? So I would have offered the child the chance to eat the bread without the meat and sauce, adding butter or peanut butter if he wished. That would not be a big deal to me.

 

If he didn't eat any of the lunch, for whatever reason, I would offer snack as usual and also the option to eat the bread, with or without sauce. Like a pp said, if you offer snack each day at 3, it's really more of a scheduled meal, not a "treat." If it's junky enough every time that it can only be considered a treat and not part of the day's nutrition, I would really, really rethink that, especially if the kids get a snack in the evening as well.

 

Mostly, I would talk to the parents and ask them how they want to handle it.

[mrsriley81]

If one of my children refuses to eat their lunch/dinner/etc., I save it for them and if they get hungry I offer it back up to them. If it's something they truly don't like, I ask that they at least try a certain amount of it. If I am serving something I know they don't like, I make sure to compensate with plenty of other healthy things that I know they do like, but I still ask that they try some of whatever it is that they don't like. For instance, my daughter HATES mushrooms. If I am serving something that has mushrooms in it, I make sure to put less in hers, but I ask that she at least attempts to eat it.

 

If I was in your situation, I would save it for later, offer it again at snack time. If he ate it then, I would probably then allow jello as well.

[Mrs Mungo]

:iagree: I would make the choice of skipping snacks and/or reserving lunch for my dc, but I would not want someone else making that choice for them - especially if I was paying for said person to take care of my dc. I would want and expect my child to return to me having eaten something during the day. I would not want a crabby, hungry kid at the end of the day.

 

I don't cater to my dc, but I do recognize that everyone has off days where the usual just doesn't sit right for whatever reason. That's cool. That's what apples, peanut butter, and bread are for.

 

:iagree: I'd offer a PB sandwich, apple, something like that and ask the parents how to handle it in the future.

[Murmer]

My son (almost 2 should update my signature) is very picky and usually will not eat what is offered. He is always offered a piece of bread, nothing on it, but a piece of bread. So if he doesn't want the meatloaf I made for dinner he can have a piece of bread...if dd gets a piece of candy he will not. I do always offer him what we eat every time we eat. So he gets snacks and if he doesn't want the snack that I have offered...he can have a piece of bread. This way he is not starving but he isn't being rewarded either.

[Impish]

You weren't specific as to which child it was, so I have 2 answers.

 

If it is your child, I'd reoffer lunch.

 

If its the daycare child, then I'd go with lunch and/or snack.

 

I'd talk to the parents about it too. You don't want a habit of becoming a short order cook, kwim? Since its something that he previously enjoyed 2nds of, (if it is the daycare child) then I'd be wondering what was up.

[Pretty in Pink]

It depends on the age of the child. My 2yo is served one bite of each dish on the table and encouraged to try each but if he doesn't he gets a PB&J and sent on his way. He still gets snacks later in the day.

 

My older children are not allowed to do that. I serve small portions and don't force them to eat foods that they detest (which are few and far between, to be honest). If my 5yo pulled what you described I would remind him that he would't be eating again until the next meal. I would save the plate of food from lunch in the fridge (if the child had not made a mess of it) and at snack time if that child wanted to eat I would offer to heat up his lunch. I don't know the exact age that I start doing that...when they are old enough to be reasoned with...definetely by 4 years of age.

 

ETA: It's trickier if it's the daycare child, and I get the feeling from the OP that it is. I don't think I would make a daycare child go without. I would toss the lunch and serve him a snack, and have a talk with his parents when they pick him up.

[Tess in the Burbs]

I am mean about meals. I have asked everyone for the list of foods. I serve things they like if they just taste them. My ds refused to eat the other night and went to be starving. He cried himself to sleep. It's not the first time...and I am sure it wont' be the last. Had he tasted it he would remember he liked it last time we had it.....

 

so no, if you refuse food in our house you are skipping that meal and snacks and possibly breakfast the next morning if attitude is really bad.

[Allearia]

I think it is completely different for one who is not your own child and you should give him a snack. If I was a parent I would be furious if my child hadn't been fed. I probably would have found something he would eat for lunch as well. It sounds like a tough situation, definitely talk with the parents and see how they want you to handle it.

[Ellie]

I don't believe it's necessary to make the disliked food appear at another meal.

 

The rule in our house (which I didn't have to enforce often) was that as long as I could tell that the child made a good effort to eat her food, she could have something snacky an hour or so later (I didn't schedule snacks). If she refused to eat a meal, or ate a toothpick full and said she was finished, she had to wait until the next meal. I only had to do that a couple of times before dd caught on.

[susankenny]

Are these your children??

 

If not, give out a weekly or monthly menu and an alternative listed. Then, if they don't like it, they can send a lunch with the child for that day. This is what they do at public schools. But saying to a 5 year old that they have to eat it or get nothing when your not their mom would upset me.

 

 

Susan

[*Lulu*]

I voted to offer the child a snack. However, it really depends on what you serve for snacks.

 

I have a sometimes eater, (one day he eats like a horse, the next like a bird), so I really try to make EVERY bite I offer as nutritionally beneficial as possible. Our afternoon snack is almost always fruit or veggies, so I would never feel bad about offering it to someone who refused lunch.

[*Lulu*]

Okay, I just read what some are saying about feeding a child that isn't your own.

 

I think that depends on the nature of your relationship with the parents.

 

Is this a child you've kept for a long time and the expectation is they are treated as family, or is this a strictly business arrangement? That would definitely make a difference in how you handle it.

[JennyD]

I serve three meals and two scheduled snacks (more like mini-meals) per day. While I take preferences into account -- usually-- when preparing meals, my general policy is here it is, take it or leave it. You may NOT make rude remarks to the cook, but you are free to decline politely and go hungry.

 

But every eating event is a brand new world. So I wouldn't offer anything else at lunch, but just proceed with snacktime as originally planned.

 

I do agree with everyone who has said that the situation is different when it's not your own child.

Edited April 28, 2011 by JennyD

[Tammyla]

:iagree:

 

I think it is completely different for one who is not your own child and you should give him a snack. If I was a parent I would be furious if my child hadn't been fed. I probably would have found something he would eat for lunch as well. It sounds like a tough situation, definitely talk with the parents and see how they want you to handle it.

[susankenny]

Okay, I just read what some are saying about feeding a child that isn't your own.

 

I think that depends on the nature of your relationship with the parents.

 

Is this a child you've kept for a long time and the expectation is they are treated as family, or is this a strictly business arrangement? That would definitely make a difference in how you handle it.

 

It still should be the decision of the parent, regardless of how close they are. I would be so incredibly pissed if someone did not feed my child all day (because they didn't want a sloppy joe???:confused:). If it was my mom, my sister, or my best friend - I don't care. I would be angry.

 

Susan

[Impish]

It still should be the decision of the parent, regardless of how close they are. I would be so incredibly pissed if someone did not feed my child all day (because they didn't want a sloppy joe???:confused:). If it was my mom, my sister, or my best friend - I don't care. I would be angry.

 

Susan

I hear what you're saying, and don't totally disagree. I suggested re-offering lunch and/or snack.

 

However, considering the child has had 2nds of this very lunch before, I would be talking to the parents about what happened, b/c you don't want to start a routine that you start to become a short order cook.

[*Lulu*]

It still should be the decision of the parent, regardless of how close they are. I would be so incredibly pissed if someone did not feed my child all day (because they didn't want a sloppy joe???:confused:). If it was my mom, my sister, or my best friend - I don't care. I would be angry.

 

Susan

 

That's where the nature of the relationship comes in.

 

If my dc's refused to eat the lunch my mom, sister, or best friend offered I wouldn't even bat an eye if they didn't get anything until supper. Yes, they would have been hungry, but that probably means that they'll eat better during suppertime. (I love giving double servings of veggies! :tongue_smilie: ) The way I see it no child ever died from missing one meal.

[Pretty in Pink]

It still should be the decision of the parent, regardless of how close they are. I would be so incredibly pissed if someone did not feed my child all day (because they didn't want a sloppy joe???:confused:). If it was my mom, my sister, or my best friend - I don't care. I would be angry.

 

Susan

 

I would be upset, too.

[susankenny]

I hear what you're saying, and don't totally disagree. I suggested re-offering lunch and/or snack.

 

However, considering the child has had 2nds of this very lunch before, I would be talking to the parents about what happened, b/c you don't want to start a routine that you start to become a short order cook.

 

Talk to the parents about it? Yes. Not feed the child? No.

 

Susan

[Wabi Sabi]

I am mean about meals. I have asked everyone for the list of foods. I serve things they like if they just taste them. My ds refused to eat the other night and went to be starving. He cried himself to sleep. It's not the first time...and I am sure it wont' be the last. Had he tasted it he would remember he liked it last time we had it.....

 

so no, if you refuse food in our house you are skipping that meal and snacks and possibly breakfast the next morning if attitude is really bad.

 

Really? So if a child who hadn't eaten dinner was quite grumpy the next morning you'd consider purposely withholding breakfast as well? Wow. Hello low blood sugar!

 

I'm not one to cater to my children (or the daycare children I used to watch) with regards to special meals, but allowing a child to miss multiple meals in a row as a form of discipline just seems really dangerous, IMO. There have been a couple of times that my dd has gone to bed without dinner (not as punishment or refusal, she just fell asleep early and slept through dinner) and in the morning was lethargic, unable to be fully woken, had dangerously low blood sugar and was spilling large amounts of ketones in her urine. She doesn't have any other underlying health issues or medical concerns- she's a normal, healthy toddler. We have to be really careful now with always making sure she has something to eat before bed.

[susankenny]

That's where the nature of the relationship comes in.

 

If my dc's refused to eat the lunch my mom, sister, or best friend offered I wouldn't even bat an eye if they didn't get anything until supper. Yes, they would have been hungry, but that probably means that they'll eat better during suppertime. (I love giving double servings of veggies! :tongue_smilie: ) The way I see it no child ever died from missing one meal.

 

For me, it still assumes too much. Even if I knew for a fact that my best friend would make her child miss a meal if they disliked it, I would never presume that I had the same authority to respond in the same manner.

 

Susan

[Wabi Sabi]

 

If my dc's refused to eat the lunch my mom, sister, or best friend offered I wouldn't even bat an eye if they didn't get anything until supper. Yes, they would have been hungry, but that probably means that they'll eat better during suppertime. (I love giving double servings of veggies! :tongue_smilie: ) The way I see it no child ever died from missing one meal.

 

Actually, see my above post (#34). No, dd didn't die, but her blood sugar was so low that it could've been quite dire if we hadn't realized something was wrong and gotten medical attention. Let me reiterate: she's a normal, healthy child (albeit very petite with hardly any body fat which is a factor here).

 

No, that's not likely to happen with just skipping lunch, but it's still something to be aware of if the child is going a long time without food or especially if missing more than one meal in a row.

[Tutor]

It's fine for your children, but I think you should ask the parents what they want for their child.

 

:iagree:

 

When we were watching other people's children, it turned out that one of the children was a very picky eater. The mother had already offered to pay more so that I could buy all-organic foods to serve her children (and us, she understood that I didn't want to make separate meals for everyone). Her son would often not eat what was prepared, and the mother thought that his later bad attitude was due to low blood sugar (it may have been). We had to discuss how I would handle her son's eating difficulties. Our family rule is "refuse lunch, no snack." But he wasn't mine, so I had to come up with a plan everyone was happy with.

 

We ended up with: my house, my rules (in an attempt to help the mom break the picky eating). However, I also would call or text the mom on days he didn't eat much so she would know to either bring a snack for the car ride home or be prepared to serve an earlier supper. His pickiness decreased quite a bit over those two years and everyone was (generally) happy. :001_smile:

[MamaT]

For a young child, I would re-offer the lunch and offer a snack. Like others have said, I would be upset if my child was in someone else's care and had not eaten all day.

 

In our home, if you don't like what's served for a meal, you make yourself a sandwich - but my kids are older.

[JeneralMom]

I would never withhold food from a small child. On a strictly business level, if I am paying you to serve my child a snack you had better be serving my child that snack whether he refused his meal or not. As someone who had had serious eating disorder I would never, NEVER, use food as a punishment or reward.

[KristinaBreece]

To address what seems to be the biggest issue, it was daycare boy. We don't normally have a scheduled snack, but carrots, celery, and apples are all available as snack options. The jello was made as a specific one-time treat, and it was noted to the kiddos when it was made that said treat was dependent on eating lunch. I made the sloppy joes per his mother's list of what he likes to eat, and with the knowledge that he often asks for this item when something he truly doesn't like is offered. He did come in about 40 minutes after lunch and declare that he was STARVING-- he wanted a bologna sandwich, which actually is never an option at our house... I just don't buy it. Instead he got... a new sloppy joe & a few carrot sticks (which he could have opted for at lunch time), which he happily gobbled down. I suspected at lunch time that this was another run at being "above the rules," an issue that I know his mother addresses with him every. Single. Day.

 

What I would have done is offer him the sandwich when the other kids were having their treat. At dinner time, he would get the same meal as everyone else. Three meals a day here-- I will NOT become a short order cook to a 5-year-old. He gets the same rules as everyone else.

 

 

Who is paying for the food? You or the parents? If you, then you decide if he must eat what was served for lunch, or can have something else. If the parents, they decide. Personally, I'd offer a nutritious snack, not the treat. In our house, most snacks are nutritious, and meant to be a mini-meal as that is what our doctor recommends. He says three big meals a day are not good for the digestive system. He also says it's better to fuel the body in 5-6 mini-meals. Attention is better. Since you've had issues before with said child, you need to be firm in whatever way it is going to be. Your own children won't take it lightly if there are different policies for the other child than for them.

 

This was really my biggest issue. Making the same rules apply to everyone. His parents & I have discussed the meal policy before, and they are comfortable with it. They know the day before what will be served, and will occasionally send him a different lunch if he doesn't like what's to be for lunch.

[Murphy101]

I serve each meal at each meal time. If they didn't like breakfast, then I don't make them eat breakfast before serving lunch. If I served snacks, I'd have the same policy.

 

Part of the overhead cost of daycare is food. If they want me to be a short order cook, they'd probably have to pay me a whole lot more than they are willing to cough up.;)

[susankenny]

 

What I would have done is offer him the sandwich when the other kids were having their treat. At dinner time, he would get the same meal as everyone else.

 

Absolutely and totally reasonable. I would not be upset at all if you handled it this way. This is very different than simply not feeding him all day. I think this is a very good compromise & more than fair.

 

 

Susan

[Sherry in OH]

I would have saved the child's lunch. He or she would be given the opportunity to eat it and then have the treat, to have an alternative snack of my choice, or to go hungry. The alternative snack would be something with nutritional value - hardboiled egg or a bowl of cereal would be two examples.

 

If this is someone else's child, ask what they would like for you to offer as an alternative to meals.

 

PP indicate they would be irritated by no food being offered. I am the opposite. If the options are go hungry or eat junk food, I would rather you not feed my children. In my house, jello is junk food. Snacks are foods with some nutritional value.

[stripe]

Just curious -- What is the point of a snack?

 

Why is it that if you don't eat lunch, you don't get a snack?

 

Couldn't one argue, if you ate lunch, you wouldn't really need a snack?

 

Why isn't it okay to not eat something, suffer the hunger, and then move on? (I mean, why stop with withholding a snack? Why not, say, not feed the child for the rest of the day or week?)

 

How will withholding food contribute to a) a happy environment, b) a healthy diet, and c) a good relationship with food in the future? I would put the event in perspective and try to figure out a way to deal with this that balances this moment with your long term goals.

 

And if it's not your child, I definitely would not think it's appropriate to refuse to feed that child.

 

I would also change snacks. Jello is not nutritious. A piece of fruit (with cheese or peanut butter, say), yogurt, or an egg seems more appropriate to me, than colored sugar water. Pudding would be vastly superior.

[susankenny]

PP indicate they would be irritated by no food being offered. I am the opposite. If the options are go hungry or eat junk food, I would rather you not feed my children. In my house, jello is junk food. Snacks are foods with some nutritional value.

 

But he lost his privilege of a special snack (i.e. junk food). He refused to eat his lunch understanding the consequence. The outcome is very fair. He won't go without food & he also will not go without consequence. Everyone else will enjoy jello (a special treat which is not normally served), while he has to do without. He will get a sandwich instead.

 

Kudos OP. I think you are handling it very well.

 

 

Susan

[KristinaBreece]

Just curious -- What is the point of a snack?

 

Why is it that if you don't eat lunch, you don't get a snack?

 

Couldn't one argue, if you ate lunch, you wouldn't really need a snack?

 

Why isn't it okay to not eat something, suffer the hunger, and then move on? (I mean, why stop with withholding a snack? Why not, say, not feed the child for the rest of the day or week?)

 

How will withholding food contribute to a) a happy environment, b) a healthy diet, and c) a good relationship with food in the future? I would put the event in perspective and try to figure out a way to deal with this that balances this moment with your long term goals.

 

And if it's not your child, I definitely would not think it's appropriate to refuse to feed that child.

 

I would also change snacks. Jello is not nutritious. A piece of fruit (with cheese or peanut butter, say), yogurt, or an egg seems more appropriate to me, than colored sugar water. Pudding would be vastly superior.

 

No one's refusing to feed any child. I choose their meals based on a list of foods he DOES like and the foods my own children enjoy. And, as I mentioned before, the Jello isn't a "normal" snack, but a treat-- on the list of food that his mother says is appropriate & that he will eat. He was, as I suspected-- because he has the same issue with his mother & others, trying to get around the rule, which has consistently been the same. When he decided he was hungry, he ate what was offered. The goal with this particular situation is to not be manipulated by a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.

[stripe]

He refused to eat his lunch understanding the consequence.

Did he really? How do you know?

 

I am just curious.

 

He was, as I suspected-- because he has the same issue with his mother & others, trying to get around the rule, which has consistently been the same. When he decided he was hungry, he ate what was offered. The goal with this particular situation is to not be manipulated by a 5 year old throwing a tantrum.

So it sounds like you have it all figured out. So where do we come in? Just to agree with you?

 

I don't personally enjoy being "forced" to eat things, and I have known children to have health issues after being forced to eat (e.g. allergic attacks, vomiting, diarrhea, and, in the long run, anorexia), as well as a dislike for that certain food they were forced to eat. However, since you are in possession of all the facts and I know none of it, again, I am not sure why we were asked.

Edited April 28, 2011 by stripe

[susankenny]

Did he really? How do you know?

 

I am just curious.

 

Umm. Because I read this entire thread.

 

Susan

 

 

ETA: From OP: "The jello was made as a specific one-time treat, and it was noted to the kiddos when it was made that said treat was dependent on eating lunch."

Edited April 28, 2011 by susankenny

[Jenny in Florida]

I have to vote "other" until I know whether it's your child?

 

If it is not yours, I'd offer a healthy snack at some point during the day.

[Crissy]

I agree the rules are different if you are taking care of someone else's child. If the child won't eat what you fix then I'd make an arrangement for the parent to send the child with a lunch.

 

If it was my kid, he would be offered his lunch at snack time or he would go without.

 

:iagree: Exactly.

The first time it happened, I would feed him a nutritious snack. I would also make arrangements that very day for the parents to send the child's lunch thereafter.

 

(ETA: Maybe it is obvious now why I don't run a day care. I have even less patience for other people's children than I have for my own. ;) )

Edited April 28, 2011 by Crissy

[Abigail4476]

My child: They will be re-offered lunch when they're hungry again, and unless they at least *taste* it, they won't get snack. I only require that they take one bite of new foods, and I don't serve them things that I know they dislike.

 

Someone else's child: I would re-offer lunch later, and if they still refuse, give them something else.