leaving children on their own?

Tupperware_Queen

poet123 wrote: »

If you look at the whole tone of the pdf you can clearly see what they advise, for example:

f your child is under the

age of 12
they may not be
mature enough to cope with
an emergency. If you do need
to leave them, ensure it is only
for a short time.

If you want to be pedantic we can analyse the actual language rather than interpretation so, the above says if you "need" to leave them "ensure" it is only for a short time. So, drawn from that let's get rid of the idea that they think you should choose to leave them.

Then look at how you define "need" and if a "need occurs more often should you not think about eradicating that need?

I refer you back to my previous post - the reason they do not recommend that children are left is that if they did, the first time anything happened to a child left alone they would be blamed for giving bad advice.

By choosing the language that they do, they can straddle the fence, they are not recommending that children are left alone, but they are giving some guidance to help people like the OP, who may want/need to leave their kids for a short time.

As someone who works with children, and has undertaken a great deal of child protection and safeguarding work, I can understand why the NSPCC takes the stance they do.

The issue of children being on their own is a contentious one - see the length of this and the other thread for evidence of that. It would not be a good idea to legislate an age at which children can be left alone, as children develop at different ages, as demonstrated by the range of responses on this thread. Short of introducing some kind of test for parents to give to their children to assess their maturity, there really isn't a 'right' answer to this question.

Everyone has a unique set of circumstances, and the old adage of walking a mile in another man's shoes would be useful for some posters to consider before they make comments which are critical and judgmental of other people's choices when bringing up their children.

There are many choices which parents wish they didn't have to make, I for one had to choose to allow my children to live with their dad after our split, because my job is not compatible with providing them a safe and secure environment, I have to work periods of on call, night shifts and early starts, which would necessitate them being left alone for considerable hours every day. I wish I could have my kids with me, but I have to work, I want to work to provide for the children I and my ex chose to have. I am lucky that my ex can care for the children whilst I am at work, but I can see that some people may not be so lucky. If the OP was not working and claiming benefits she would probably be slated for that too, so she really can't win

Tupperware_Queen

poet123 wrote: »

And how is "young child" defined?

I have never mentioned young child, so not sure what point you are trying to make here?

In response to another poster who said children should never be left alone I questioned what their definition of a child was, given that legally this can be up to 18

Dunroamin

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

This the precise reason that the 'advice' they give is so vague and not at all definitive. If they did say that it was ok to leave a child of x age for x amount of time, and somewhere something dreadful happened to just such a child when they were left, then the NSPCC would be pilloried for advising such a course of action.

By recommending that children are not left regularly for hours at a time, they are sending a message without stipulating what they would consider acceptable. If they really did not consider it safe for children of the ages described (11 & 9) to be left at all, under any circumstances, for any length of time, then you can be sure that their literature would say so.

And, one would hope, they'd be campaigning for a change in the law. The fact that they aren't, seems to me to be quite telling.

poet123

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

Zagfles has made this a bit clearer for you

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

I have never mentioned young child, so not sure what point you are trying to make here?

In response to another poster who said children should never be left alone I questioned what their definition of a child was, given that legally this can be up to 18

You made the point above, yet Zaggy has selectively quoted as the fuller quote reads "
Never leave a baby or

young child home alone,


not even for a few minutes,

poet123

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

I refer you back to my previous post - the reason they do not recommend that children are left is that if they did, the first time anything happened to a child left alone they would be blamed for giving bad advice.

By choosing the language that they do, they can straddle the fence, they are not recommending that children are left alone, but they are giving some guidance to help people like the OP, who may want/need to leave their kids for a short time.

As someone who works with children, and has undertaken a great deal of child protection and safeguarding work, I can understand why the NSPCC takes the stance they do.

The issue of children being on their own is a contentious one - see the length of this and the other thread for evidence of that. It would not be a good idea to legislate an age at which children can be left alone, as children develop at different ages, as demonstrated by the range of responses on this thread. Short of introducing some kind of test for parents to give to their children to assess their maturity, there really isn't a 'right' answer to this question.

Everyone has a unique set of circumstances, and the old adage of walking a mile in another man's shoes would be useful for some posters to consider before they make comments which are critical and judgmental of other people's choices when bringing up their children.

There are many choices which parents wish they didn't have to make, I for one had to choose to allow my children to live with their dad after our split, because my job is not compatible with providing them a safe and secure environment, I have to work periods of on call, night shifts and early starts, which would necessitate them being left alone for considerable hours every day. I wish I could have my kids with me, but I have to work, I want to work to provide for the children I and my ex chose to have. I am lucky that my ex can care for the children whilst I am at work, but I can see that some people may not be so lucky. If the OP was not working and claiming benefits she would probably be slated for that too, so she really can't win

Of course it it contentious but we are talking about those who choose to do this, not those who see no other option but to do this due to the reasons you cite. And that was why I added the option of need to the poll.

I also work with children and vulnerable young people and have also undertaken a lot of safeguarding training. I would always err on the side of caution, not convenience, for that reason.

Tupperware_Queen

poet123 wrote: »

I also work with children and vulnerable young people and have also undertaken a lot of safeguarding training. I would always err on the side of caution, not convenience, for that reason.

I don't think it is a matter of convenience for most people, more a decision based on reviewing all the facts, and making an assessment of what is reasonable in the circumstances. I haven't seen anyone suggesting they would leave the kids home alone while they went shopping for shoes - its been about working, or running errands etc

I am not going to add anything else, as views are clearly entrenched. I know I make the right decisions for my children, what the rest of you do is not my concern! (unless I come across you in real life in a professional capacity!! )

poet123

Tupperware_Queen wrote: »

I don't think it is a matter of convenience for most people, more a decision based on reviewing all the facts, and making an assessment of what is reasonable in the circumstances. I haven't seen anyone suggesting they would leave the kids home alone while they went shopping for shoes - its been about working, or running errands etc

I am not going to add anything else, as views are clearly entrenched. I know I make the right decisions for my children, what the rest of you do is not my concern! (unless I come across you in real life in a professional capacity!! )

Running errands, as opposed to shoes....;)

As for your last para...ditto.

FBaby

The thing is it's by letting your child alone at home and seeing that they are coping absolutely fine that you gain the full confidence they are ok. So you might start with emergencies and you then move towards short times that are not emergencies. In the meantime the child gets older!

This thread had made me think that it really isn't about being home alone but at which stage we are comfortable with giving more responsibilities to our children. For instance, when were they allowed to walk in front without holding hands, when were they allowed to use a knife etc... I realise that as a whole I let my kids do all these things earlier than most of my friends with their children.

Many here would probably say I have been lucky that both my children have not once sustained an accident as a result. I don't agree, I believe they were ready each time I made a decision to let them do something on their own, but that my doing so they have naturally matured quicker.

Dunroamin

FBaby wrote: »

The thing is it's by letting your child alone at home and seeing that they are coping absolutely fine that you gain the full confidence they are ok. So you might start with emergencies and you then move towards short times that are not emergencies. In the meantime the child gets older!

This thread had made me think that it really isn't about being home alone but at which stage we are comfortable with giving more responsibilities to our children. For instance, when were they allowed to walk in front without holding hands, when were they allowed to use a knife etc... I realise that as a whole I let my kids do all these things earlier than most of my friends with their children.

Many here would probably say I have been lucky that both my children have not once sustained an accident as a result. I don't agree, I believe they were ready each time I made a decision to let them do something on their own, but that my doing so they have naturally matured quicker.

The trouble is, the longer parents leave it to allow children some independence, the less able they are to use it wisely and the more likely it becomes that things will go wrong. This then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the parents hold up their children's incompetence as a justification for their decision.

Toto

Dunroamin wrote: »

The trouble is, the longer parents leave it to allow children some independence, the less able they are to use it wisely and the more likely it becomes that things will go wrong. This then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy where the parents hold up their children's incompetence as a justification for their decision.

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?