leaving children on their own?

jellyhead

lindseykim13 wrote: »

I know the op has sorted this now, but i would no way leave my 10 nearly 11yr old and 8yr old alone at home.
They could cope they are not stupid but you can't predict what 'could' happen. An accident, burgler, someone calling social services whatever -they need someone near by just in case imo.
Theres a couple of kids where i live who were getting left alone from age 7 & 8 all the mums and dads speak about how they aren't being looked after properly, i keep quiet! I'm surprised nobody has been round there though.

I suppose nobody has been round because nobody has thought to mention it to anyone who might come round.

zagfles

poet123 wrote: »

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one! I don't think that any child of nine should have to be responsible enough to be left alone simply because a parent wants to, or even "has" to put something else first.

Well I agree in as much as a child shouldn't be expected to take on responsibility they're not ready for for the parent's convenience, but equally a child who has proved themselves mature and capable of being trusted shouldn't have their development hindered by a parent who wants their "baby" to stay a baby.

Nor do I think that cloaking that responsibiity as "maturity" makes it any different. Yes, children are all different and may appear to be able to cope, but if push comes to shove I would rather err on the side of caution and be safe rather than sorry.

Let's drop this illusion that there's a risk free option. You take your child out, they might get killed in a car crash. You get someone to babysit, they might abuse or neglect the child. There is no risk free option. I know when I left my children alone, I took the lowest risk option (plus the one they themselves chose).

poet123

zagfles wrote: »

Well I agree in as much as a child shouldn't be expected to take on responsibility they're not ready for for the parent's convenience, but equally a child who has proved themselves mature and capable of being trusted shouldn't have their development hindered by a parent who wants their "baby" to stay a baby.

I doubt anyone would disagree, but at nine they are still very much a child, and as such need supervision.

zagfles wrote: »

Let's drop this illusion that there's a risk free option. You take your child out, they might get killed in a car crash. You get someone to babysit, they might abuse or neglect the child. There is no risk free option. I know when I left my children alone, I took the lowest risk option (plus the one they themselves chose).

That applies at any age though, you could say that a baby asleep in a pram is at less risk by being left alone than they are being pushed along a pavement. That doesn't mean you would/should take that option.

FBaby

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one! I don't think that any child of nine should have to be responsible enough to be left alone simply because a parent wants to, or even "has" to put something else first.

As Zaggle has explained, I don't know why you are fixed on the idea that the child is pushed, forced, obliged to do something they don't want to do but is imposed on them hence making them feel anxious and worried.

The way it happened with my kids is that one day I said I needed to go somewhere and they said they didn't want to go and would rather stay home. I asked if they were sure, they said yes. I said what happened if this or that happened, and they answered rightly with confidence. The first time was a few minutes and then it increased. I would never ever have imposed on my kids to stay home alone if they hadn't themselves insisted that it was what they wanted.

Nor do I think that cloaking that responsibiity as "maturity" makes it any different. Yes, children are all different and may appear to be able to cope, but if push comes to shove I would rather err on the side of caution and be safe rather than sorry.

For how long? When are you completely certain that it is safe? What is it makes you think 'yes, my kids are absolutely safe to stay home alone, I know I am doing the right thing now'? What if these thoughts that provided you confidence that they were safe, you had had when they were much younger? Would you have hold them up then? On which basis, just purely the number attached to their age?

poet123

So, what if you had such a mature child that you believed they would be safe home alone from age 4? Would you do it?

And of course kids will say they would rather stay home alone than traipse round a shop, kids say a lot of things. It is up to the parent to make a decision not the child.

Mine were probably 12/13 when they were left home alone because at that age they are better equipped to deal with any issues that might arise. I think Secondary school age is a good marker to use, as it a time to encourage and develop independence.

glitter_fairy

poet123 wrote: »

So, what if you had such a mature child that you believed they would be safe home alone from age 4? Would you do it?

And of course kids will say they would rather stay home alone than traipse round a shop, kids say a lot of things. It is up to the parent to make a decision not the child.

Mine were probably 12/13 when they were left home alone because at that age they are better equipped to deal with any issues that might arise. I think Secondary school age is a good marker to use, as it a time to encourage and develop independence.

So because your children were ready at that age no children are ready before that?

emma.cook3

From a a child protection point of view at work, if one of the children of that age told me they had been left alone in the house, i would have to write it up as a child protection issue.

poet123

glitter_fairy wrote: »

So because your children were ready at that age no children are ready before that?

No, because, like the poster above I would expect anything else to be considered as a child protection issue unless it was an emergency.

glitter_fairy

poet123 wrote: »

No, because, like the poster above I would expect anything else to be considered as a child protection issue unless it was an emergency.

But if thats the case why does the law not say?

FBaby

poet123 wrote: »

Mine were probably 12/13 when they were left home alone because at that age they are better equipped to deal with any issues that might arise. I think Secondary school age is a good marker to use, as it a time to encourage and develop independence.

You go on and on about the 'age' which is nothing more than a number. Secondary school is a good marker on which basis? Just because you think it is? For all the secondary kids just because they are over the age of 12?

What if you meant my boy, not knowing his age, and after talking to him about life, what he would do in an emergency etc... you decided that you thought he was 12. Would you say he was ready to be left alone because you thought he was 12? Would you change your mind just because you then realised that he was 9?

You decided that your children were not ready to be left alone before they were 12 or 13. That was your view that they were not ready before. I know my boy was ready at 9 probably on the exact same basis that you did, it is just that my boy was capable of making decisions appropriately at a younger age.