leaving children on their own?

zagfles

poet123 wrote: »

You mentioned it in the way of saying she stuck her nose in other peoples business and look what happened under her own nose. Why mention it otherwise?

I mentioned it to support FBaby's point that she know her own child's capabilities and limitations much better than strangers who know nothing about her child other than his age, and that people who think they know what's best for other peoples' children often don't even do a great job of bringing their own kids up.

There was a clear element of pleasure in the post, regardless of what emoticon was used.;)

Yeah, and I was really pleased that kid got knocked down and seriously injured near us, because that gave me an excuse for another road safety lesson for my kids. And I'm delighted a relative of ours got lung cancer because I used that to show my kids the dangers of smoking. Oh, the little pleasures in life!

poet123

zagfles wrote: »

I mentioned it to support FBaby's point that she know her own child's capabilities and limitations much better than strangers who know nothing about her child other than his age, and that people who think they know what's best for other peoples' children often don't even do a great job of bringing their own kids up.

Obviously that can be true. Equally, it can be true that there are irresponsible parents who need reporting for the safety of their children. One does not negate the other. The fact that this woman had a daughter who was pregnant at a young age does not mean she was wrong to report a child left home alone.

zagfles wrote: »

Yeah, and I was really pleased that kid got knocked down and seriously injured near us, because that gave me an excuse for another road safety lesson for my kids. And I'm delighted a relative of ours got lung cancer because I used that to show my kids the dangers of smoking. Oh, the little pleasures in life!

Protest all you like that was how it came across, as an element of glee that she had got her comeuppance.

FBaby

Funny how you accuse others to take things personally, yet do exactly the same yourself!

You were trying to make a statement that being 9 is too young to be left alone NO MATTER WHAT. I was just trying to say that in SOME cases, it might not be and you won't accept the exception to the rule.

Here we are again, making generalisation and refusing to accept that the rule might not apply to all children. No point in going any further here. You won't accept that it is highly likely that I have insure the safety of my children. Even the fact that SS have never been contacted despite the fact that I, or my kids, have never made a secret of the situation is not enough to accept that my situation might be different from the norm.

poet123

FBaby wrote: »

Funny how you accuse others to take things personally, yet do exactly the same yourself!

You were trying to make a statement that being 9 is too young to be left alone NO MATTER WHAT. I was just trying to say that in SOME cases, it might not be and you won't accept the exception to the rule.

Here we are again, making generalisation and refusing to accept that the rule might not apply to all children. No point in going any further here. You won't accept that it is highly likely that I have insure the safety of my children. Even the fact that SS have never been contacted despite the fact that I, or my kids, have never made a secret of the situation is not enough to accept that my situation might be different from the norm.

Where have I taken things personally?

I accept some children will be fine, some will be fine crossing a busy road at 6, some will be fine playing out alone two miles away from home in the local park at a similar age. The point is that in general, just because they may be fine does not make it desirable or the norm. If you are not there you cannot ensure the safety of your child, you can hope for the best, and you may be right, or you may not. It is up to you whether you take the risk, I wouldn't. But it is your prerogative to make that call for your child and take the consequences of that if there are any.

Nor would my concern be the SS, as we see daily, many dangerous neglectful situations go investigated. However, from the links given there have been instanstances where parents of children have been prosecuted so it can and does happen.

As I said, we will have to agree to disagree.

kushy

I can suggest you to manage your meetings in such a way that one of you should take care of children as aged children should not be kept alone.

glitter_fairy

kushy wrote: »

I can suggest you to manage your meetings in such a way that one of you should take care of children as aged children should not be kept alone.

I had done, but had then been let down my the person meant to be watching them for me.

FBaby

I accept some children will be fine, some will be fine crossing a busy road at 6, some will be fine playing out alone two miles away from home in the local park at a similar age.

That was all the point I was trying to make, that SOME children will be fine.

The point is that in general, just because they may be fine does not make it desirable or the norm

I think the issue of the norm has always been my point, that my boy wasn't the norm and before the OPs further post, I believed that her children might also not be the norm. She then stated that she was relieved to have found alternative arrangements and I replied that in that case, she was not doing the right thing to consider leaving her boys alone if she felt relieved not to have to.

In terms of whether it is 'desirable', I think that very much depends on what you consider desirable or not. The fact that I have seen my child's confidence triple since he has taken on more responsibilities is a desirable outcome to me, but again, it's all about what you prioritise as a parent.

If you are not there you cannot ensure the safety of your child, you can hope for the best, and you may be right, or you may not. It is up to you whether you take the risk, I wouldn't

You can never ensure you children are safe. Many accidents happen all the time when children are under the care of an adult and most of the time, it has nothing to do with the parent being neglectful. Who says that if a burglar wanted to come and rob the house whilst we were home that I could defend my child? We could both be hit on the head just the same.

I hope for the best for my children all the time, when they are with me, when they walk to school, when they are with their dad away from me. The reason why I decided that it was ok is purely because I do not believe he is at any more risk whilst home alone for an hour then if he was at a party at a friend's house, or on a bus going to a school day out.

Of course SS should investigate reported cases and prosecute when appropriate. But I think -and hope- they would prioritise cases like that poor 2 year old toddler left by her mum to a stranger. There is enough shocking stories like this already that go un-investigated that are genuinely concerning.

poet123

FBaby wrote: »

That was all the point I was trying to make, that SOME children will be fine.

That does not make it right. By extrapolation some children won't be fine, and that risk/harm may have nothing to do with their "maturity". We have read some posts which illustrate that point on here.

FBaby wrote: »

I think the issue of the norm has always been my point, that my boy wasn't the norm and before the OPs further post, I believed that her children might also not be the norm. She then stated that she was relieved to have found alternative arrangements and I replied that in that case, she was not doing the right thing to consider leaving her boys alone if she felt relieved not to have to.

Because she accepted she was taking a risk by leaving them alone. You apparently see no such risk, and that is fine. Others disagree.

FBaby wrote: »

In terms of whether it is 'desirable', I think that very much depends on what you consider desirable or not. The fact that I have seen my child's confidence triple since he has taken on more responsibilities is a desirable outcome to me, but again, it's all about what you prioritise as a parent.

And there are no other ways of increasing confidence which don't involve being left alone? Goodness, how did the rest of us manage? You appear to be trying to find validation for your actions and outcomes which suit. There are other ways of achieving those ends.

FBaby wrote: »

You can never ensure you children are safe. Many accidents happen all the time when children are under the care of an adult and most of the time, it has nothing to do with the parent being neglectful. Who says that if a burglar wanted to come and rob the house whilst we were home that I could defend my child? We could both be hit on the head just the same.

You can try to ensure it, if having a parent there didn't go some way towards that we could all leave them home alone overnight. Why have childcare at all for any over nines then? Additionally, I would much rather I was there to support and comfort my child if we were burgled than them face it alone, regardless of whether I could physically change the events.

FBaby wrote: »

I hope for the best for my children all the time, when they are with me, when they walk to school, when they are with their dad away from me. The reason why I decided that it was ok is purely because I do not believe he is at any more risk whilst home alone for an hour then if he was at a party at a friend's house, or on a bus going to a school day out.

In those instances he is in company, with people who could assist him if he had any issues, home alone he is not.

FBaby wrote: »

Of course SS should investigate reported cases and prosecute when appropriate. But I think -and hope- they would prioritise cases like that poor 2 year old toddler left by her mum to a stranger. There is enough shocking stories like this already that go un-investigated that are genuinely concerning.

I think we all understand that some cases are far worse than others. That should not mean we gloss over/ignore other instances of concern.

FBaby

That does not make it right.

How not? That's what I don't understand in your insistence that no children under the age of 12 should be left alone. If some children will be fine, how is it not right for them?

Because she accepted she was taking a risk by leaving them alone. You apparently see no such risk, and that is fine. Others disagree.

I don't remember her accepting she was taking a risk but saying she was relieved. but again, you are totally misinterpreting what I am saying. I never wrote that I thought OP wasn't taking a risk, I said that if she thought she wasn't, that she might very well be right. When she said that she was relieved, I said that clearly she wasn't confident that there was minimal risk and therefore it wouldn't have been right to leave her boys alone. I went by what SHE said, not what I believed or not.

And there are no other ways of increasing confidence which don't involve being left alone? Goodness, how did the rest of us manage? You appear to be trying to find validation for your actions and outcomes which suit. There are other ways of achieving those ends.

There are probably others, but they are likely to involve taking some minimal risk too. That's what confidence is about, daring to do something and then realising that you are safe and can do it.

I do not need to validate my actions, I believe in my them, just like you believe in yours. All this is about is trying to get you to see that it's not because people don't agree with you that they are wrong in their choices.

You can try to ensure it, if having a parent there didn't go some way towards that we could all leave them home alone overnight. Why have childcare at all for any over nines then?

We are going over the same thing over and over....I am NOT saying that all 9 year old can be left alone. That's what childcare is available, because most need it, just not ALL! By the way, my local council funded holiday scheme allows children to walk there and back on their own with parent's agreement. Do you think the council is acting totally irresponsibly for even providing this choice to parents?

I would much rather I was there to support and comfort my child if we were burgled than them face it alone, regardless of whether I could physically change the events.

ha ha, how are you going to comfort your child if you are knocked unconscious? And of course, we are talking about an event that is much less likely to ever occur than a road accident!

Home alone, with 8 neighbours in a close, who we know well, half of whom are retired and home most of the time, and a mobile to call if there are any concerns, a far cry from a 9 year old left in a farm miles away from the next house without any form of communication!

gemma1979

My daughter is 12, nearly 13, and very mature for her age. I leave her for up to an hour/two home alone and have a neighbour on standby.

I was left home alone overnight from being 7 mon-fri while my single mum worked nights, I was ok but very scared and if in this day and age would probably have been taken by social services as I believe this was wrong I still suffer anxiety from it now and would never do it to my children.