Bedroom Tax for 13 months?

mysterywoman10

I've explained above soontobemesrg would you leave a 2 year old alone then?

It's long overdue specific legislation in this regard but if something does happen it's a criminal offence.

mysterywoman10

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

Rubbish - thousands of people have fifteen year old babysitters. Are you suggesting that is an unacceptable situation?

Yes I am a 15 year old is not an adult.

Thomas_Hardy

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I've explained above soontobemesrg would you leave a 2 year old alone then?

It's long overdue specific legislation in this regard but if something does happen it's a criminal offence.

So it is not unlawful to leave a child in the care of a fifteen year old for a short period, it is unlawful to leave a child in a potentially dangerous situation. The two are very different things.

Thomas_Hardy

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

Yes I am a 15 year old is not an adult.

So what about all these babysitters - are all the parents criminally negligent? Remind us about all these thousands of prosecutions there have been?

soontobemrsg

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I've explained above soontobemesrg would you leave a 2 year old alone then?

It's long overdue specific legislation in this regard but if something does happen it's a criminal offence.

I don't disagree with you re the need for new legislation however I did post prior to seeing your reply.

There is a huge difference between leaving a 2 year old alone and leaving a 2 year old with a 15 year old though. Should something happen as long as the 15year old is deemed responsible then no criminal charges for negligence would be brought.

Back to the OP - Have you looked into the childcare element of the student grants as it's higher than that of CTC and WTC?

mysterywoman10

I agree with you it is an unlegislated area until something goes wrong!!

Then yes they are potentially criminally negligent, this is where the law is contradicting itself, but hardly a first is it?

I think 16 should be the minimum. And it should be clear.

If you leave a small child with a 15 year old who ignores that child and neglects it and the house catches fire because they have left the hob on and the small child climbs up, while gaming with their mates, then yes the parent is criminally to blame.

Not that I am suggesting the OP is in this category because clearly they want to arrange proper child care for their child.

looby75

There is no legal age where a child can be left alone on in the care of other children. If a 15 yr old is sensible and reliable then there is no reason what so ever that they can't be left for a couple of hours in charge of younger siblings.

When my daughter was 15 and my son was 7 she babysat for me on many occasions, she was (and still is) trustworthy and there were never any problems.

OP I can completely understand why it isn't really an option for you to move, it just doesn't make sense for such a small amount of time. As well as mystery shopping there are lots of survey sites online that you can earn a bit extra from too. Also ebay, it's surprising what you can get with a good old fashioned clear out. I have been listing some of my mother in laws clothes for her over the last year (she's a bit of a compulsive buyer, and had loads of clothes that she'd never worn taking up room in her wardrobe) and she's got well over £500 after fees etc by just selling a few things a week.

Thomas_Hardy

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I agree with you it is an unlegislated area until something goes wrong!!

Then yes they are potentially criminally negligent, this is where the law is contradicting itself, but hardly a first is it?

I think 16 should be the minimum. And it should be clear.

If you leave a small child with a 15 year old who ignores that child and neglects it and the house catches fire because they have left the hob on and the small child climbs up, while gaming with their mates, then yes the parent is criminally to blame.

Not that I am suggesting the OP is in this category because clearly they want to arrange proper child care for their child.

If you leave a small child with a person of any age who then neglects it, then the parent *may* be to blame. Age is not the issue here, it is whether it is reasonable to transfer responsibility to that person, and whether harm or neglect is foreseeable.

Many fifteen year olds are capable of fulfilling that responsibility, as is proven on a daily basis. Giving responsibility to someone of that age is not a negligent act, giving responsibility to an incapable person of any age is a negligent act.

princessdon

mysterywoman10 wrote: »

I've explained above soontobemesrg would you leave a 2 year old alone then?

It's long overdue specific legislation in this regard but if something does happen it's a criminal offence.

Not true in any way shape or form.

There is no legal age because the legal test applied is the ability to provide reasonable care without endangerment.

They set no age/limits because they cannot. A mature 14 year old can be more capable than a 16 years old with learning difficulties. You can be a parent very early in life, are you suggesting they never spend a second alone with their child?

It is the same test applied to anything that can lead to negligence charges. To allow a 2 year old to play out late alone is negligent, to allow a 12 year old to play out late alone isn't. You cannot legislate common sense, nor can anyone say to leave the 15 year old isn't negligent either. Neither knows the capabilities of the children, their maturity, the needs of either.

Assuming no disabilities then the average 15 year old is perfectly capable to look after younger siblings with no additional needs, for a short period of time, in reasonable conditions.


To leave them for a weekend, with no money or on the top of Mount Everest would not be reasonable.

soontobemrsg

Thomas_Hardy wrote: »

Giving responsibility to someone of that age is not a negligent act, giving responsibility to an incapable person of any age is a negligent act.

This This and This!