Children left at home alone

paddy's_mum

The stopping of contact is not to punish Daddy. It's to keep the children safe and I can't envisage anything more important to a parent. In any case, I'd rather be called bunny boiler than lazy, neglectful mother!

If the oldest boy is feeling some guilt, then that too can be laid squarely at the door of his father since one surely doesn't expect a seven year old boy to carry the burden of responsibility that a grown man should be shouldering?

Perhaps when this father explains to his own parents, his colleagues and his mates why unsupervised contact has been stopped, he'll find that they're not wonderfully impressed either.

I'm all for amity, negotiation, reasonableness and fair play but how can anybody in their right mind place such a burden on a small boy - those children are 7, 4 and 2 - a 2 year old couldn't even get himself out of his cot for heaven's sake, let alone open the door and run away from danger.

If leaving the children alone for 5 minutes, "occasionally" is really okay then why do any of us bother with fluorescent strips on clothing, cot bumpers, car seats, cycling helmets, cupboard latches, cordless kettles, stair gates ......

tandraig

ford_prefect wrote: »

So your thinking of stopping contact and yet deep down you know you wouldnt?

Deal with the issue at hand first and if there is a genuine safety issue then look at the contact arrangements.

How would your children feel if you stopped them seeing Daddy? Especially as your eldest feels quite proud of being given the responsibility.

If you go straight down the contact blocking route it will probably end up court with stress, costs and all the rest when a simple conversation or letter if you dont speak could resolve the issue.

In terms of whether its acceptable to leave kids alone at that age, my view is no, but given we have a couple of celebrity kid losers who thinks its "acceptable parenting" to go off and have dinner in a distant restaurant and leave kids under 4 to babysit themselves for extended periods different parts of society have different viewpoints.[/QUOTE]

and what does that have to with the post? these 'celebrity parents - I think I know who you mean - and I think you are one of the people who would castigate them for leaving the kids - you are now telling the OP she is over-reacting! decide which side you are on!
Ive already said - I wouldnt have left my kids of that age and my kids were near enough the age difference until my oldest was about 11 and she was very mature and responsible.
this needs sorting out - and as the couple are divorced - then perhaps the court needs to decide this - as the OP says there are other issues.

pigpen

ford_prefect wrote: »

Not to mention 3 kids on the at risk register and marked on the contactpoint database.

Don't be soft.. it takes court orders and all sorts to get children on there.. a phone call results in a housecall by 2 social workers who ask irritatingly simple questions about inane things while the others looks at how the children behave whether the parent interacts with them well etc etc.. it is all very cagey.

Alikay wrote: »

So valuable time can be spent telling some pillock not to leave his kids alone when he goes to the shop (which his ex could do for the price of a phone call), taking child protection workers away from a case-load which could include serious abuse and neglect?

Words fail me :mad:

For the sake of keeping the peace between separated parents.. yes.
It also would alleviate the substantial cost of a solicitor and that process alone would/could take months and months.. by which time there could have been a serious acident.

In the same situation I would report him.. he is the one not taking proper care of the children and I know for certain my ex would start up a blazing row and behave like a total tool if I said he wasn't to do something he thought was fine.. which would result in him being horrible to the children..

It are actually many, many departments within social services.. they don't just deal with people who neglect/abuse children and it is a different department that deal with these calls.. this is what they are paid for!!! Beyond these initial visits they are passed to another team IF there is cause for concern. These children need protecting from their dads silliness.. and if he might become aggressive or abusive towards the childrens mother it is a simple way to avoid such a confrontation.

ford_prefect_3

tandraig wrote: »

ford_prefect wrote: »

So your thinking of stopping contact and yet deep down you know you wouldnt?

Deal with the issue at hand first and if there is a genuine safety issue then look at the contact arrangements.

How would your children feel if you stopped them seeing Daddy? Especially as your eldest feels quite proud of being given the responsibility.

If you go straight down the contact blocking route it will probably end up court with stress, costs and all the rest when a simple conversation or letter if you dont speak could resolve the issue.

In terms of whether its acceptable to leave kids alone at that age, my view is no, but given we have a couple of celebrity kid losers who thinks its "acceptable parenting" to go off and have dinner in a distant restaurant and leave kids under 4 to babysit themselves for extended periods different parts of society have different viewpoints.[/QUOTE]

and what does that have to with the post? these 'celebrity parents - I think I know who you mean - and I think you are one of the people who would castigate them for leaving the kids - you are now telling the OP she is over-reacting! decide which side you are on!
Ive already said - I wouldnt have left my kids of that age and my kids were near enough the age difference until my oldest was about 11 and she was very mature and responsible.
this needs sorting out - and as the couple are divorced - then perhaps the court needs to decide this - as the OP says there are other issues.

Given that you highlighted it its a pity you didnt actually read it!

Let me make it "simples" for you.

I said I didnt agree but I pointed out that some sections of society view leaving young children for extended periods unsupervised as acceptable. That may well explain why her ex thinks its ok to do so!

ford_prefect_3

paddy's_mum wrote: »

The stopping of contact is not to punish Daddy. It's to keep the children safe and I can't envisage anything more important to a parent. In any case, I'd rather be called bunny boiler than lazy, neglectful mother!

If the oldest boy is feeling some guilt, then that too can be laid squarely at the door of his father since one surely doesn't expect a seven year old boy to carry the burden of responsibility that a grown man should be shouldering?

Perhaps when this father explains to his own parents, his colleagues and his mates why unsupervised contact has been stopped, he'll find that they're not wonderfully impressed either.

I'm all for amity, negotiation, reasonableness and fair play but how can anybody in their right mind place such a burden on a small boy - those children are 7, 4 and 2 - a 2 year old couldn't even get himself out of his cot for heaven's sake, let alone open the door and run away from danger.

If leaving the children alone for 5 minutes, "occasionally" is really okay then why do any of us bother with fluorescent strips on clothing, cot bumpers, car seats, cycling helmets, cupboard latches, cordless kettles, stair gates ......

The boy will feel guilt because he cant see his father and he is the one who told his mum, especially if the line is that they were not safe when he felt proud in making his siblings safe.

You clearly dont have much of a grip on child psychology.

Your approach will bring conflict, recrimination, legal costs and a group of very unhappy children, those avenues should not be the first ones explored.

The first simple step is to stop it happening again, if it cant be stopped then by all means move to a supervised approach to contact but to go in guns blazing and blocking contact as the first approach is tactically niave and potentially very damaging to the children.

Alikay

pigpen wrote: »

For the sake of keeping the peace between separated parents.. yes.
It also would alleviate the substantial cost of a solicitor and that process alone would/could take months and months.. by which time there could have been a serious acident.

I doubt that getting the NSPCC involved is going to keep the peace between them for very long is it? Surely quicker to call the ex direct, explain the problem and hopefully get an agreement that he won't do it again. In my opinion getting authorities involved is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If he refuses and continues to leave them, obviously it's time to take matters further, but as a first-line action that call to the kids dad could've been made in the time it took to begin this thread.

ford_prefect_3

pigpen wrote: »

Don't be soft.. it takes court orders and all sorts to get children on there.. a phone call results in a housecall by 2 social workers who ask irritatingly simple questions about inane things while the others looks at how the children behave whether the parent interacts with them well etc etc.. it is all very cagey.



For the sake of keeping the peace between separated parents.. yes.
It also would alleviate the substantial cost of a solicitor and that process alone would/could take months and months.. by which time there could have been a serious acident.

In the same situation I would report him.. he is the one not taking proper care of the children and I know for certain my ex would start up a blazing row and behave like a total tool if I said he wasn't to do something he thought was fine.. which would result in him being horrible to the children..

It are actually many, many departments within social services.. they don't just deal with people who neglect/abuse children and it is a different department that deal with these calls.. this is what they are paid for!!! Beyond these initial visits they are passed to another team IF there is cause for concern. These children need protecting from their dads silliness.. and if he might become aggressive or abusive towards the childrens mother it is a simple way to avoid such a confrontation.

I guess your not upto speed on Contactpoint are you?

The social workers visit and its noted as a neglect risk on the database against the childrens record (every child is on there)

That elevates the record in the database to one of risk as opposed to benign and any agency with access that runs a risk search will get those children popping up.

So everytime a school, DSS or other agency looks at those records it pops up as a risk!

Thats the joys of the government database society.

pigpen

ford_prefect wrote: »

I guess your not upto speed on Contactpoint are you?

The social workers visit and its noted as a neglect risk on the database against the childrens record (every child is on there)

That elevates the record in the database to one of risk as opposed to benign and any agency with access that runs a risk search will get those children popping up.

So everytime a school, DSS or other agency looks at those records it pops up as a risk!

Thats the joys of the government database society.

perfectly acquainted thank you It also states what action was taken and of any other issues.

It IS neglect!!

pigpen

Alikay wrote: »

I doubt that getting the NSPCC involved is going to keep the peace between them for very long is it? Surely quicker to call the ex direct, explain the problem and hopefully get an agreement that he won't do it again. In my opinion getting authorities involved is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If he refuses and continues to leave them, obviously it's time to take matters further, but as a first-line action that call to the kids dad could've been made in the time it took to begin this thread.

Yes, he'd not know who reported him.. could be anyone.. workmate, neighbour, person from the shop he popped to!

Depends on how receptive he is to criticism from the ex too.. some are almost human in their reaction others are beyond primitive.

Not knowing the man in question I'd err on the side of caution.. so I didn't get my face pummelled.. or the children weren't subject to a screaming rage.

paddy's_mum

D'you know - I'm not much fussed how good or otherwise my grip on child psychology is. All I'm hoping is that a small boy gets to grow up safe and unharmed.