Two Toddlers, One Biting Policy
A child care center serving 18- to 36-month-olds has had four biting incidents in two weeks, all involving one 22-month-old, 'M.' One incident broke the skin of another child. The director's handbook says biting 'may result in suspension after repeated incidents.' M's parent works a shift that makes a suspension financially devastating and says M is teething and has limited words. The bitten child's parent demands M be removed. Staff are split: two want M out, two say the behavior is developmentally typical at 22 months and the handbook language is too vague to enforce. The center is licensed for 20 children with a 1:6 infant-toddler ratio.
1. Should the director suspend M? Build the decision from developmental evidence and policy.
Read the worked answer
Developmental evidence first: Biting peaks in toddlerhood, when language is limited and frustration cannot be verbalized; teething and sensory seeking are common triggers. At 22 months, biting is a communication and regulation behavior, not misconduct in any moral sense. Suspension removes the child from the setting where the skill would be taught and does not reduce the behavior - it relocates it.
Policy analysis: The handbook says biting may result in suspension 'after repeated incidents.' 'May' is discretionary, and 'repeated' is undefined. A discretionary clause applied to a 22-month-old for a developmentally expected behavior is legally and ethically weak - and a suspension triggered by disability-adjacent behavior (limited language) raises fair-treatment concerns.
Decision: Do not suspend. Instead: (1) convene an individualized behavior support plan with a functional hypothesis (what precedes each bite - transition? toy conflict? fatigue?); (2) shadow M during high-risk windows; (3) teach a replacement signal (sign, word, or offered chewy tool); (4) notify both families of the plan. Suspend only if a documented plan fails and the handbook is revised to define thresholds - which is a policy fix, not a response to this child.
2. How should the director handle the bitten child's parent, who wants M removed?
Read the worked answer
Validate the safety concern without conceding the remedy. The parent's child was injured; that is real and deserves a prompt, specific response - not a defense of M.
Steps: (1) Report what happened and what the center is doing for their child (wound care, incident report, supervision changes). (2) Explain confidentiality: the center cannot discuss M's plan or discipline, and by the same rule will not discuss their child with others. (3) Name the concrete protections: increased staff proximity during known risk windows, a bite-response protocol, and daily communication. (4) Be honest that exclusion of a toddler for a developmental behavior is not the center's policy and would not be applied to their child either - the standard protects every family.
Avoid: promising the behavior will stop immediately (it may not) or disclosing M's teething/language details. If the parent remains unsatisfied, offer the licensing complaint channel and a meeting with the director, which respects their right to escalate while holding the professional standard.