SKL Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) I buy an annual membership to the local rec center which has an indoor pool. My #1 reason for doing this is so my kids can get exercise during the cold months. They used to have a rule that kids under 5 needed an adult in the water with them. Fine, I could see that, so I did it. I did not enjoy standing stupidly in the water for 50 minutes, but I did it. The minute my youngest turned 5, I stopped bringing my suit. I'd walk laps around the perimeter of the pool so I could watch for any monkey business and respond appropriately. I don't let the kids swim in water over their heads at these times, even though one of them is a pretty good swimmer. (They take swim lessons.) The pool has at least 2 lifeguards and usually hardly any kids (as in 5-10 kids) present when my kids swim there. So. They changed the rule to say that all kids 10 and under need to be "accompanied by an adult." The lifeguards are insisting that this means I have to be physically in the water the entire time my kids are in there. They don't care where in the water I am or whether I can actually see my kids at any given time, just that I'm in there getting wet. Does this strike anyone else as stupid? (Not that I've formed an opinion or anything!) Or does this rule seem reasonable to you? I do not want to be in the pool. I am not much of a swimmer and I don't want to take the time to change, shower, make sure my legs are shaved, etc., and what about "that time of the month"? Also, if I'm in the pool, my kids are hanging around me instead of playing and getting exercise. I want to go to the people in charge and demand that they either clarify this rule in a more reasonable manner or give my kids an exemption for at least the shallow side of the pool, since they are level 2 swimmers. I am considering canceling my membership if they insist on this rule. I think that a child who can swim and is old enough to go to school should be allowed in a pool with supervision from the side of the pool. (When I was a kid, you could walk yourself to the public pool and swim with only the lifeguards' supervision at age 8.) I guess this post is a sanity check. Tell me if there is something I am missing here. If you were making the rule, what would it be? Edited October 6, 2012 by SKL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie12345 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 My neighbors just had their 9yo drown in our community pool with two dozen swimmers and two lifeguards. So my rule would be no kids can swim if their oarents aren't interested in keeping their eyes on them every single second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SitLongTalkMuch Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'm with you:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 My neighbors just had their 9yo drown in our community pool with two dozen swimmers and two lifeguards. So my rule would be no kids can swim if their oarents aren't interested in keeping their eyes on them every single second. Well, I can watch them more easily when I'm walking around the perimeter - and I do watch at all times. I'm sorry to hear about your neighbor's child. I just heard of a young father in our community who drowned while swimming in a triathlon. I don't take water safety lightly, but I think there needs to be a logical age cutoff for shallow water, and I personally don't think it's the 11th birthday (at least not for kids who can swim). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acorn Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I wouldn't leave my 10-under kids alone in a pool. I bet liability insurance caused the policy change. I think it is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Ok, I personally know a 6 year old (almost 7 year old) level 3 swimmer who drowned this summer at a public pool with lifeguards in attendance and adults poolside. It's not about swimming level. It's about judgment. My 8 year old is level 4 and I still don't necessarily trust her judgment and even if I'm not in the pool with her I'm suited up and in and out. I sometimes will swim laps in a not crowded pool while my kids are swimming. I do trust my 11 (almost 12) year old's judgment now. He's working on red cross level 5. Even so, he isn't allowed to go to a pool without a responsible adult and a buddy system with a friend. So, sorry, I don't think this is a stupid rule. Level 2 is still a very beginning level and it was absolutely stunning how fast this little boy drowned this summer. You may feel you can watch your child better from pool side fully dressed, but you can't reach out to them. My guess is that the pool had problems with their previous rule and for liability reasons they had to change it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 Just for clarity, our pool is shaped kind of like a "U" with a clear cutoff between the shallow (left) side and the deep (right) side of the U. The water in the left side of the "U" ranges from 0" up to my shortest daughter's neck. My kids are not allowed to go into the deeper part of the pool (except with special permission from me / swim coach), and they cannot "accidentally" happen to find themselves there. I enforce this strictly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Our pool has the rule that ages 6 and under are required to have an adult with arms reach at all times. Kids between 7 and 14 need to have a swim license, which they get by passing a test. They instituted the swim license thing after a 10yo almost drowned. The rule you're describing seems ridiculous because it doesn't address the safety issue that it seems to be trying to address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momma2three Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 My pool has a rule that 7 and under need to have parents within arm's reach. I think that's a pretty good age. 10 seems like overkill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 I've noticed that since they started enforcing this rule, there are almost no children swimming in the pool when we go there. Way to encourage physical fitness. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 My pool has a rule that 7 and under need to have parents within arm's reach. I think that's a pretty good age. 10 seems like overkill. I could understand 7 and under. I would probably be complacent about that. It's hard to be complacent at the prospect of getting into the pool with my kids until they are almost in Junior High School. I agree that Level 2 isn't a high level of swim mastery, but 5+ years from now, they will be swimming far, far better than I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruby Rose Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Maybe you can just sit on the side with your legs in the water. Personally, I like to stay as close as possible to my kids near water. Accidents are accidents because they are unexpected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoot Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 See, I think it should be less about age and more about ones proficiency at swimming. If said child cannot swim, a parent should be in the pool with them at all times regardless of age. If said child is a capable swimmer without the help of a flotation device, there should be an adult with eye contact at all times but not necessarily from inside the water. One of the pools around here requires the child to take a swimming test each time (unless they have proven proficient, then it is written in their file) and then they are given a brightly colored band. No child is permitted in the water without a band and the lifeguards are able to easily assess where in the pool each child is allowed to go and whether they need a guardian in the water or not. Personally, I would speak to those in charge over the lifeguards and ask them to clarify the policy a bit better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justLisa Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I've noticed that since they started enforcing this rule, there are almost no children swimming in the pool when we go there. Way to encourage physical fitness. :glare: Because if you're like me and hate swimming you'd stop going! It's annoying. We actually paid more for this gym with an indoor pool and they would just ask the kids to float, and swim the short side of the pool to make sure they were pool safe. I know how to watch them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mommy22alyns Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 It doesn't seem way out of line to me either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleIzumi Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 My pool has a rule that 7 and under need to have parents within arm's reach. I think that's a pretty good age. 10 seems like overkill. That drives me mad. Our pool says that but it's impossible. This summer I had three kids all under 7 with me at the pool, and one can swim (and the entire reason she goes is to practice swimming). I can't swim alongside her around and around and around the shallow end within two feet of me while dragging th 4-year-old and carrying the toddler. :glare: I keep the toddler within arms reach even in the baby pool (poor clumsy kid :lol:) and normally keep a lifejacket on the middle one just in case, even though the water only comes to her neck, but I cannot keep them all within two feet. Not possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 That drives me mad. Our pool says that but it's impossible. This summer I had three kids all under 7 with me at the pool, and one can swim (and the entire reason she goes is to practice swimming). I can't swim alongside her around and around and around the shallow end within two feet of me while dragging th 4-year-old and carrying the toddler. :glare: I keep the toddler within arms reach even in the baby pool (poor clumsy kid :lol:) and normally keep a lifejacket on the middle one just in case, even though the water only comes to her neck, but I cannot keep them all within two feet. Not possible. It is hard! When my kids were both 4 I tried for a while, then just stood at a bit of a distance and let them play. Nobody complained. I was always close enough to get to them before anything "bad" happened. If they really expect the parent to keep the children who can swim within arm's length, nobody's going to get any exercise. They might as well just ban children from free swim (and stop taking our money). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mama Geek Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I taught my 2 yo to swim this summer and she was actually swimming before turning 2. If the pool is empty or only has 1 or 2 other people in it I am willing to watch her from the side. I sit the lawn chair on the edge of the pool and am ready to jump in any time. If it is more than that I am in the water with her. At 10 their rules sound like overkill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammi K Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Well, I can watch them more easily when I'm walking around the perimeter - and I do watch at all times. Which is exactly why life guards are NOT in the pool to guard. It is a silly rule. You have a much better line of sight and much quicker/easier access to your child in the event of an emergency if you are on dry land, says the lady who paid her way through college by guarding and teaching swimming. And, to the PP whose neighbor lost a child recently, where did the OP imply she wasn't willing to keep an eye on her kids? I read nothing to indicate that she was unconcerned with their safety but only that she didn't want to be in the water. In fact, the two dozen swimmers who missed the drowning child helps prove my point - Guarding from in the pool is not helpful. The guards on the other hand, yikes! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeacefulChaos Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Our Y makes the kids show that they can, in fact, swim. They have different color wristbands or whatever, for different levels of swimming, and some require parents in the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catz Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I like the idea of offering one to test out of the rule, but I can imagine how that might be difficult when there is a limited number of lifeguards. I have just come across too many people who do not watch their kids at all. I even saw a woman I know turn her chair around and face the other way because the sun was apparently causing too much glare on her electronic device. Her kids were 6 and 10. No way would I not watch my 6 year old. And this was at a rowdy and very crowded city pool. I think the people that aren't carefully watching their kids and allowing young ones in the deep end are the ones that cause these kind of rule changes. If the 5 and under rule was working, it wouldn't have changed. This kind of mentality is really common at busier public pools in my experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinsfamily Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 It doesn't strike me as an unreasonable rule. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stripe Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Pools near me have a height requirement for being in the water solo. My husband lost a family member as an infant to drowning, so, it's safe to say his entire family is rather drowning-sensitive. I am also not sure drowning is the only concern. Sometimes little kids misbehave or bother other kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Given how many parents I've seen at the beach here sitting on the shore and playing on their phones while their young children swim, I think it's a good rule. You can't text and play on the internet if you're in the water. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJ. Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I think the rule is pretty outrageous. I find it kind of funny that I am the only, or one of the few, that feels this way because I am a strict parent at the pool we attend compared to everyone else. The place we go to has a rule that kids under 12 or 13 must have an adult present, there aren't any rules about adults being in the water with children or a certain distance away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheres Toto Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Well, I've walked into a pool wearing a denim mini-skirt to help a kid who was having a little bit of trouble, and I think most of us would jump in fully dressed if our kid was drowning. I would ask for clarification on what the rule means. Is sitting on the side of the pool okay? Do you have to be in with them? How close to them? Personally, I would sit on the side of the pool, watch my kids closely, wear a t-shirt and shorts, and not worry about if my legs are shaved or not. :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Our Y makes the kids show that they can, in fact, swim. They have different color wristbands or whatever, for different levels of swimming, and some require parents in the water. Seems like a sound policy. Being out of the water (assuming one is paying attention, as a lifeguard should be) is the best position to be in to respond to a pool ful of children. But if a child is a non-swimmer or very poor swimmer, being close is best. Requiring a parent of a strong 10 year old swimmer at a rec pool with a life guard to be in the pool seems like over-kill, but for a non-swimming/poor swimming 10 year old it sounds more reasonable. Having a swimming test exemption sounds like a reasonable way to maximize safety while minimizing a one-size-fits-all rule. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Seems like a sound policy. Being out of the water (assuming one is paying attention, as a lifeguard should be) is the best position to be in to respond to a pool ful of children. But if a child is a non-swimmer or very poor swimmer, being close is best. Requiring a parent of a strong 10 year old swimmer at a rec pool with a life guard to be in the pool seems like over-kill, but for a non-swimming/poor swimming 10 year old it sounds more reasonable. Having a swimming test exemption sounds like a reasonable way to maximize safety while minimizing a one-size-fits-all rule. Bill :iagree:Perhaps they just don't want to test the kids. Maybe if you bring it up to the facility director you'll be able to get things sorted better. People drown at all ages. 10 is not a magic age. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zuzu822 Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 It seems a bit excessive. At our Y, kids under 8 can be alone in the shallow end with parent watching once they can touch bottom. My 4yo just meets the requirement, but since he's just barely swimming I don't let him go in alone. My 6yo is very tall, and a good swimmer to boot, so I watch him. At 8, the parent doesn't need to be in the pool area at all. To swim in the deep end, everyone under 16 must pass the deep end test. This really irritates me. It means I can't swim WITH my six year old to practice his lesson skills. His class is is held in the deep end, but is still an advanced-beginner level (stroke development) so he's not ready for the test. I've watched him struggle in the water while the teacher was otherwise occupied, yet I'm not qualified for one-on-one guidance/instruction outside of class. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momling Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I agree -- It doesn't make sense to have all parents of kids 10 and under in the pool. I understand having 10 and under parents in the pool area, since lifeguarding shouldn't also be babysitting. But in the pool? What about swim team practice? Swim lessons? Swim parties? Swim meets? That's absurd. My girls are good swimmers and do not need or want me anywhere near them. If we did have such a rule, neither of my girls could swim because I have to be watching my 3 yr old foster son who is terrified of water and will not be in the pool. Luckily at our Y, there is no rule about us even being on the pool deck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 I think the people that aren't carefully watching their kids and allowing young ones in the deep end are the ones that cause these kind of rule changes. If the 5 and under rule was working, it wouldn't have changed. This kind of mentality is really common at busier public pools in my experience. They were not really enforcing the 5-and-under rule. I used to see the kids from the preschool lessons being allowed to swim afterwards as their parents sat on the lounge chairs or stood near pool-side to watch. Here's a not-so-funny aside. Once when I was doing my walk around the pool, a swim coach was giving a lesson to two preschoolers, in water that was over their heads. One of the children was kicking around with one of those floaty boards, while she worked with the other kid. I noticed the preschooler losing her hold on the floaty board and getting into trouble. I pointed this out to the lifeguards and coach who then went to the child. :glare: But apparently only parents who are in the water care about children. :glare: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Ridiculous. Kids should have to pass a test, of course. But a ten year old? No way. I would of course sit by the pool, but be IN the pool? Not even for my 7 year old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs Mungo Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I wouldn't leave my 10-under kids alone in a pool. I bet liability insurance caused the policy change. Or it is due to the behavior of the younger patrons. Pools don't make up rules like this for no reason in my experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoundAbout Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Requiring a parent of a strong 10 year old swimmer at a rec pool with a life guard to be in the pool seems like over-kill, but for a non-swimming/poor swimming 10 year old it sounds more reasonable. Having a swimming test exemption sounds like a reasonable way to maximize safety while minimizing a one-size-fits-all rule. :iagree: Most of the pools we've belonged to require a swim test. I have no idea what swim level my son is since we do private lessons instead of red cross, but he swims 25 meter freestyle with proper side breathing and 25 meter backstroke and is looking to join a swim team after he turns 6 in a few months. I still like to be in the pool with him now because even though he's a good swimmer he not always mature. :glare: However, in a few years he'll likely be better than me, and by 10... I would be pretty outraged given his likely swim level by then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathwonk Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 i would tote up the pluses and minuses of following the rule: +) the child is less likely to drown. -) the parent is inconvenienced by getting wet. then do the math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twoxcell Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Our Y requires kids under 8 to have a parent with them in the water and kids under 16 have to pass a simple swim test to go in the deep end. I think those are reasonable rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyforlatin Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 We joined the university gym so that DD can swim year round. I had no idea until DH just told me this a few days ago that all kids 17 and under have to be accompanied by an adult, according to a posted sign. :001_huh: Some teens are taller and stronger than their moms. DD is always accompanied by DH, but she's young and it's one of those Olympic-sized pools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paige Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Or it is due to the behavior of the younger patrons. Pools don't make up rules like this for no reason in my experience. I bet it has just as much to do with younger kids playing roughly as it has with fear of drowning. Or perhaps a combination with horseplay leading to increased accidents. The parents in the water are a deterrent to unruly behavior. It's a shame that well parents of well behaved children now have to stand by them, but after spending some time in the pool this year, I can appreciate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AimeeM Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Hard one. I can personally watch my children better from OUTSIDE the pool. I can move faster and watch more than one area from the side of the pool than I an from inside the water; especially with multiple children. Given, I wouldn't allow my 3 year old in the pool without an adult, but once the boys are of swimming age, I would think it's safer for me to be outside the pool and able to quickly be by them if necessary than for me to have to slog very slowly in the water after three children going in separate directions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathwonk Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 this rule may well be silly. maybe what matters more is just making sure the kids know how to swim well. when i was 11 i went to a camp where they made available a "life guard" course. it required a lot of long distance swimming as well as some life saving techniques. this transformed my swimming ability from moderate to near expert. i recommend such training. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'll admit it. I bring books now. My kids have been '10 and up' for a few years now, but once they were able to swim, I moved from arm's reach to the side. Once they could swim a lap, I moved to a chair. At our indoor pool, I watch them from the hot tub :D. If every kid had a parent in the pool, it would be harder to see the kids because of all of the taller people in the water. It seems this policy would require more lifeguards. I know several 8-10 year olds who swim much better than their parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 i would tote up the pluses and minuses of following the rule: +) the child is less likely to drown. -) the parent is inconvenienced by getting wet. then do the math. I don't agree that my child is less likely to drown under the new rule, at least the way it's being interpreted by the lifeguards. Many kids drown with their parents right there in the water. In fact, I'd love to see a statistic that indicates whether child drownings are predominantly with parents in the water vs. watching from the side of the pool. Especially if they narrow those stats by age group and swimming ability. I agree with another poster who said that having more adults in the pool can make it harder to monitor my kids. In addition, it forces my kids into close proximity with anonymous adults I don't know. Considering all the fuss people make nowadays about potential child abuse, this seems to be an odd arrangement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 Not for anything, but what if the parent can't swim? :confused: I remember that my nieces and nephews were always strong swimmers, and so was my brother, but if my SIL had to be in the water to watch her kids, the kids would have been the ones fishing her cold, lifeless body from the bottom of the pool. Personally, I would be in the water with a 10yo, but I can swim. I'm honestly wondering what happens if the parent doesn't know how to swim -- is the kid banned from the water? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jpoy85 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 You posted you were worried about suiting up, shaving etc but what if you didnt look at it like that? What if you looked at it in a different, more positive way? I dont think the rule is asking too much, I think its a smart rule and you can certainly find a new pool if you dont like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 6, 2012 Author Share Posted October 6, 2012 Not for anything, but what if the parent can't swim? :confused: I remember that my nieces and nephews were always strong swimmers, and so was my brother, but if my SIL had to be in the water to watch her kids, the kids would have been the ones fishing her cold, lifeless body from the bottom of the pool. Personally, I would be in the water with a 10yo, but I can swim. I'm honestly wondering what happens if the parent doesn't know how to swim -- is the kid banned from the water? See, this is why I need to talk to someone in charge. It seems that no thought was put into the interpretation of this rule. There is no requirement that the adult in the pool actually be able to do anything if the child gets in trouble. I never took a single swimming or water safety lesson. As another person pointed out, the additional adults probably require additional lifeguard staffing, or at least take away some of the lifeguards' focus from the kids. Or is there some law that says if a parent is in the pool, the lifeguards don't have any responsibility for the safety of that family? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I think it's a bit silly. When I go to the pool alone with dds, I do not swim because I can watch them better poolside. If I'm in the pool, I must stick close and they want to play with friends, swim, and have fun. It becomes even harder when they go in two different directions. Staying poolside means I can keep a good eye on both and intervene if needed. It's only happened once and it was actually for one of their friends whose mother was in the pool but didn't see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 See, this is why I need to talk to someone in charge. It seems that no thought was put into the interpretation of this rule. There is no requirement that the adult in the pool actually be able to do anything if the child gets in trouble. I never took a single swimming or water safety lesson. As another person pointed out, the additional adults probably require additional lifeguard staffing, or at least take away some of the lifeguards' focus from the kids. Or is there some law that says if a parent is in the pool, the lifeguards don't have any responsibility for the safety of that family? I think you need to speak with the director of the rec center and find out exactly what the rules mean. As they have been explained to you, they simply don't make sense. I hope you get an answer soon! :001_smile: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie75 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I was swimming in the ocean at 8 by myself so I am with you. 10 is old to need a parent right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaneP Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 I think it's a bit silly. When I go to the pool alone with dds, I do not swim because I can watch them better poolside. If I'm in the pool, I must stick close and they want to play with friends, swim, and have fun. It becomes even harder when they go in two different directions. Staying poolside means I can keep a good eye on both and intervene if needed. It's only happened once and it was actually for one of their friends whose mother was in the pool but didn't see. :iagree: What can you do if your dc go in different directions? You are better off out of the pool if you have more than one child in the water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kubiac Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 This sounds like one of those situations where the liability risk to the pool owners of someone's kid drowning and the parents suing for damages is higher (probably much higher) than the amount of money they stand to lose if people start dropping memberships over this rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.