DC’s friend broke something expensive - WWYD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach a group of 10-11 yo 5th graders and there is a huge range of maturity in that group. Some are more like teens and would absolutely know that they broke something. They'd also have the maturity to know not to touch and, if something was broken, it would be malicious.

There are also some kids in the same group who would have zero realization that there are things they shouldn't touch or that break easily. I don't know if their parents keep breakable items up so the kids haven't had a chance to learn not to touch, or if the kids can't control themselves so the parents are forced to keep breakables up, but these kids have zero clue. They wouldn't know they were doing something wrong in opening the turn table, would touch to see how it worked and, if parts started coming off, they'd keep going to try to understand or to fix it. Zero clue.

I think it can be hard to understand when you have kids in the former group and meet a kid in the later group, or vice versa. It's just like some kids walk at 9 months and others at 18 months--it's nothing the parents did, but part of development.

OP, I'd be really careful attributing motive or malicious intent to a 10 yo. You need to own that you overestimated this 10 yo's ability to control himself. Take a few more days and try to step back from your emotional response to this. I'm not saying the other family shouldn't take some responsibility, but you're very attached to the idea that the kid acted maliciously, when there's no motive or reason to think that the 10 yo was anything but impulsive and clumsy.

She didn’t overestimate the kid’s ability to control himself. She overestimated the kid’s parent’s ability to control her own kid. Big difference.

OP has never said that th parent was in the room, but that the parent was "present" which I took to mean something like having coffee in the kitchen while the kids played elsewhere in the apartment. If the parent was there, why did they have to ask their kid if they opened the case and touch it? The story doesn't make complete sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach a group of 10-11 yo 5th graders and there is a huge range of maturity in that group. Some are more like teens and would absolutely know that they broke something. They'd also have the maturity to know not to touch and, if something was broken, it would be malicious.

There are also some kids in the same group who would have zero realization that there are things they shouldn't touch or that break easily. I don't know if their parents keep breakable items up so the kids haven't had a chance to learn not to touch, or if the kids can't control themselves so the parents are forced to keep breakables up, but these kids have zero clue. They wouldn't know they were doing something wrong in opening the turn table, would touch to see how it worked and, if parts started coming off, they'd keep going to try to understand or to fix it. Zero clue.

I think it can be hard to understand when you have kids in the former group and meet a kid in the later group, or vice versa. It's just like some kids walk at 9 months and others at 18 months--it's nothing the parents did, but part of development.

OP, I'd be really careful attributing motive or malicious intent to a 10 yo. You need to own that you overestimated this 10 yo's ability to control himself. Take a few more days and try to step back from your emotional response to this. I'm not saying the other family shouldn't take some responsibility, but you're very attached to the idea that the kid acted maliciously, when there's no motive or reason to think that the 10 yo was anything but impulsive and clumsy.

She didn’t overestimate the kid’s ability to control himself. She overestimated the kid’s parent’s ability to control her own kid. Big difference.

OP has never said that th parent was in the room, but that the parent was "present" which I took to mean something like having coffee in the kitchen while the kids played elsewhere in the apartment. If the parent was there, why did they have to ask their kid if they opened the case and touch it? The story doesn't make complete sense.

OP here. It’s in my actual OP that the mom was in the room. I have never written in any post that the child acted maliciously. There is no other place for the equipment; DH was not home when this occurred; he used this typically daily, or at minimum 5 days a week. I have not written anything other than these things, other posters have. I appreciate the idea of how to present this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh please! I bet the stupid thing collects dust 95% of the time. Calvin Harris he is not. Clearly the money is no big deal since he saw no need to tell the kids that it was strictly off limits. All of the sudden now that it’s broken, it’s a big deal. It’s annoying no doubt but when you invite kids over this is what you are inviting. Asking a family to pay for something ridiculously expensive to replace is tacky. Not everyone has money to pay for pet vanity hobbies of grown men. Grow up!

Jesus Christ, how old are you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, what if the kid had tripped on the corner of the rug and reached out to save himself and grabbed the turntable and it crashed to the ground? Would you then expect them to pay to repair or replace it?

But that’s not what happened at all. The child knowingly opened the turntable and played with it, thereby breaking it. It’s not the same situation at all so it’s irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach a group of 10-11 yo 5th graders and there is a huge range of maturity in that group. Some are more like teens and would absolutely know that they broke something. They'd also have the maturity to know not to touch and, if something was broken, it would be malicious.

There are also some kids in the same group who would have zero realization that there are things they shouldn't touch or that break easily. I don't know if their parents keep breakable items up so the kids haven't had a chance to learn not to touch, or if the kids can't control themselves so the parents are forced to keep breakables up, but these kids have zero clue. They wouldn't know they were doing something wrong in opening the turn table, would touch to see how it worked and, if parts started coming off, they'd keep going to try to understand or to fix it. Zero clue.

I think it can be hard to understand when you have kids in the former group and meet a kid in the later group, or vice versa. It's just like some kids walk at 9 months and others at 18 months--it's nothing the parents did, but part of development.

OP, I'd be really careful attributing motive or malicious intent to a 10 yo. You need to own that you overestimated this 10 yo's ability to control himself. Take a few more days and try to step back from your emotional response to this. I'm not saying the other family shouldn't take some responsibility, but you're very attached to the idea that the kid acted maliciously, when there's no motive or reason to think that the 10 yo was anything but impulsive and clumsy.

She didn’t overestimate the kid’s ability to control himself. She overestimated the kid’s parent’s ability to control her own kid. Big difference.

OP has never said that th parent was in the room, but that the parent was "present" which I took to mean something like having coffee in the kitchen while the kids played elsewhere in the apartment. If the parent was there, why did they have to ask their kid if they opened the case and touch it? The story doesn't make complete sense.

OP here. It’s in my actual OP that the mom was in the room. I have never written in any post that the child acted maliciously. There is no other place for the equipment; DH was not home when this occurred; he used this typically daily, or at minimum 5 days a week. I have not written anything other than these things, other posters have. I appreciate the idea of how to present this.

You have said that the damage was purposeful and intentional, both of which ascribe a motive. Why do you think the kid intentionally damaged the equipment? Why do you think the parent let them?

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Is it a telescope?

I was at a dinner party once in which a guest bumped into a telescope and it fell. It looked fine to us, but was severely damaged on the inside.

The guest was not a wealthy woman, but she offered to pay, not realizing the damages were $4k plus.

Later, when she got the bill, she tried to back track. The rest of us got dragged into it as a lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't expect payment if I were the host, and probably wouldn't have even mentioned it. But also if I were the parent of the kid who broke it I wouldn't be offended if you asked for money. I would be embarrassed but I would pay you whatever you asked for. I would then probably decline future invites because it feels petty and spiteful to blame a 10 year old. But if it's more important to you than the friendship, thats on you and I would accept it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach a group of 10-11 yo 5th graders and there is a huge range of maturity in that group. Some are more like teens and would absolutely know that they broke something. They'd also have the maturity to know not to touch and, if something was broken, it would be malicious.

There are also some kids in the same group who would have zero realization that there are things they shouldn't touch or that break easily. I don't know if their parents keep breakable items up so the kids haven't had a chance to learn not to touch, or if the kids can't control themselves so the parents are forced to keep breakables up, but these kids have zero clue. They wouldn't know they were doing something wrong in opening the turn table, would touch to see how it worked and, if parts started coming off, they'd keep going to try to understand or to fix it. Zero clue.

I think it can be hard to understand when you have kids in the former group and meet a kid in the later group, or vice versa. It's just like some kids walk at 9 months and others at 18 months--it's nothing the parents did, but part of development.

OP, I'd be really careful attributing motive or malicious intent to a 10 yo. You need to own that you overestimated this 10 yo's ability to control himself. Take a few more days and try to step back from your emotional response to this. I'm not saying the other family shouldn't take some responsibility, but you're very attached to the idea that the kid acted maliciously, when there's no motive or reason to think that the 10 yo was anything but impulsive and clumsy.

She didn’t overestimate the kid’s ability to control himself. She overestimated the kid’s parent’s ability to control her own kid. Big difference.

OP has never said that th parent was in the room, but that the parent was "present" which I took to mean something like having coffee in the kitchen while the kids played elsewhere in the apartment. If the parent was there, why did they have to ask their kid if they opened the case and touch it? The story doesn't make complete sense.

OP here. It’s in my actual OP that the mom was in the room. I have never written in any post that the child acted maliciously. There is no other place for the equipment; DH was not home when this occurred; he used this typically daily, or at minimum 5 days a week. I have not written anything other than these things, other posters have. I appreciate the idea of how to present this.

You have said that the damage was purposeful and intentional, both of which ascribe a motive. Why do you think the kid intentionally damaged the equipment? Why do you think the parent let them?

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

NP. Intentional is not the same as malicious. Words have meanings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see why your husband is pissed. It’s his kid’s friend who came over and acted like a jackalope and HIS prized item gets broken. That sucks.

The kid shouldn’t have been in the turntable. No question. Kids also don’t have a really good idea of a) how something can be damaged and not LOOK broken to them and b) the cost of fixing something that is broken.

The parents should be on the hook but from their perspective, your husband had an expensive item out and their kid didn’t intentionally break it so they’re not going to pony up the full cost.

You unfortunately are in the middle of all these competing perspectives!

I guess I would respond to their initial request and say “A repair isn’t advisable. The full cost to replace is $2300.” Leave it at that. If they say “well, we are only paying the $600 we offered,” leave it there- take the money, put it toward a new one, accept that it really really sucks and never invite that kid over again.

Once you objectively and succinctly convey what the replacement cost is, they might say “ok, we will pay it.” In which case you graciously accept, still invite them over in the future, but make it clear that nobody is to ever touch the turntable.

Sorry, rough little situation!

I'm not sure I'd want to go back to someone's house in that case, honestly. I would offer to pay but I'd be miffed that they (a) didn't insure their precious equipment and (b) took no responsibility themselves for where the item was located.

Are you equally miffed that you didn’t watch your child closely enough that he broke another person’s belongings? Didn’t think so. This is how little monsters are made—by permissive parents who don’t hold their children or themselves accountable for any damage they wreak in the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So weird to put out so many details but then be annoyingly vague on what the object is. Obviously with this obfuscation the other people would still recognize the story.

Eff it. It was part of his stereo. He’s a big music collector. We all live in apartments, we’ve all been over before and the kid deliberately opened the turntable case and ruined something. It wasn’t because of roughhousing.

Well that's not exactly a hobby that one "does". He uses the turntable to listen to music. That's nice. But I don't find it compelling personally and I grew up listening to music on turntables. It's overrated.

Your DH is also approaching his estimate based on nothing more than what the internet tells him.

If you actually want to know how much it is going to cost to fix and want the other person to pay then get to actual estimates from someone legit who actually does repairs. Get two. and present the estimates. Let the friend know you need to get an estimate.

If the cost is really in the thousands, and the friend can't pay it, then take what they offer or put a claim in through your insurance.

There were ways to secure the item and you didn't so that is on you. And warning people verbally isn't enough. If it was that valuable and that important, then yes, you should take extra steps beyond a random verbal reminder. An nosey adult could have easily damaged it to. It happens.

Honestly, who are you people? Don’t touch other people’s delicate belongings. Do you go to museums and touch the paintings? I don’t know anyone as gauche as the people you apparently know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach a group of 10-11 yo 5th graders and there is a huge range of maturity in that group. Some are more like teens and would absolutely know that they broke something. They'd also have the maturity to know not to touch and, if something was broken, it would be malicious.

There are also some kids in the same group who would have zero realization that there are things they shouldn't touch or that break easily. I don't know if their parents keep breakable items up so the kids haven't had a chance to learn not to touch, or if the kids can't control themselves so the parents are forced to keep breakables up, but these kids have zero clue. They wouldn't know they were doing something wrong in opening the turn table, would touch to see how it worked and, if parts started coming off, they'd keep going to try to understand or to fix it. Zero clue.

I think it can be hard to understand when you have kids in the former group and meet a kid in the later group, or vice versa. It's just like some kids walk at 9 months and others at 18 months--it's nothing the parents did, but part of development.

OP, I'd be really careful attributing motive or malicious intent to a 10 yo. You need to own that you overestimated this 10 yo's ability to control himself. Take a few more days and try to step back from your emotional response to this. I'm not saying the other family shouldn't take some responsibility, but you're very attached to the idea that the kid acted maliciously, when there's no motive or reason to think that the 10 yo was anything but impulsive and clumsy.

She didn’t overestimate the kid’s ability to control himself. She overestimated the kid’s parent’s ability to control her own kid. Big difference.

OP has never said that th parent was in the room, but that the parent was "present" which I took to mean something like having coffee in the kitchen while the kids played elsewhere in the apartment. If the parent was there, why did they have to ask their kid if they opened the case and touch it? The story doesn't make complete sense.

OP here. It’s in my actual OP that the mom was in the room. I have never written in any post that the child acted maliciously. There is no other place for the equipment; DH was not home when this occurred; he used this typically daily, or at minimum 5 days a week. I have not written anything other than these things, other posters have. I appreciate the idea of how to present this.

You have said that the damage was purposeful and intentional, both of which ascribe a motive. Why do you think the kid intentionally damaged the equipment? Why do you think the parent let them?

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

NP. Intentional is not the same as malicious. Words have meanings.

So what was the intent? What exactly does the OP think the kid intended? The adult? Intentional has a meaning. It's different than impulsive and clumsy.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, OP, but it’s just stupid to have such expensive things where kids are playing if you can’t put the things away. You say you live in a small apartment, so it sounds like this is not the stage in your life where you have expensive things for the hobby. Same reason I’m waiting to get super nice furniture. Things happen, things get broken.

[Anonymous]

It's a turntable right? Most kids haven't seen one and would be curious -- they look interesting. Also, they would not realize it's fragile because they don't look that way either.

Did they break the stylus?

[Anonymous]

It’s funny people are talking about the friendship. This friendship is over, no matter what happens next or who pays for what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I coach a group of 10-11 yo 5th graders and there is a huge range of maturity in that group. Some are more like teens and would absolutely know that they broke something. They'd also have the maturity to know not to touch and, if something was broken, it would be malicious.

There are also some kids in the same group who would have zero realization that there are things they shouldn't touch or that break easily. I don't know if their parents keep breakable items up so the kids haven't had a chance to learn not to touch, or if the kids can't control themselves so the parents are forced to keep breakables up, but these kids have zero clue. They wouldn't know they were doing something wrong in opening the turn table, would touch to see how it worked and, if parts started coming off, they'd keep going to try to understand or to fix it. Zero clue.

I think it can be hard to understand when you have kids in the former group and meet a kid in the later group, or vice versa. It's just like some kids walk at 9 months and others at 18 months--it's nothing the parents did, but part of development.

OP, I'd be really careful attributing motive or malicious intent to a 10 yo. You need to own that you overestimated this 10 yo's ability to control himself. Take a few more days and try to step back from your emotional response to this. I'm not saying the other family shouldn't take some responsibility, but you're very attached to the idea that the kid acted maliciously, when there's no motive or reason to think that the 10 yo was anything but impulsive and clumsy.

She didn’t overestimate the kid’s ability to control himself. She overestimated the kid’s parent’s ability to control her own kid. Big difference.

OP has never said that th parent was in the room, but that the parent was "present" which I took to mean something like having coffee in the kitchen while the kids played elsewhere in the apartment. If the parent was there, why did they have to ask their kid if they opened the case and touch it? The story doesn't make complete sense.

OP here. It’s in my actual OP that the mom was in the room. I have never written in any post that the child acted maliciously. There is no other place for the equipment; DH was not home when this occurred; he used this typically daily, or at minimum 5 days a week. I have not written anything other than these things, other posters have. I appreciate the idea of how to present this.

You have said that the damage was purposeful and intentional, both of which ascribe a motive. Why do you think the kid intentionally damaged the equipment? Why do you think the parent let them?

It doesn't make a lot of sense.

I don't think OP said that the kid broke the turntable on purpose. She said the kid twisted a piece of the turntable on purpose - and that this twisting broke it. The kid meant to do the thing that predictably led to the breaking, but did not do the thing in order to commit the breaking.