leaving children on their own?

zagfles

Spendless wrote: »

Isn't that the truth! The most 'at risk' my son ever was wasn't being left home alone for less than an hour aged 9 nearly 10. It was shortly before his 12th birthday, he was outside, he was in the village I've lived in on and off since the 1970s and he has since he was 19 months old, he was with a friend and he came across a group of children all known to him, all attending his school or in the primary school he had just left and 3 of them knocked him to the ground, assaulting him and hitting him round the head. The others watched, jeered on and 1 of them filmed it. Son wrestled himself free and then went to an adult he saw not far away. Someone who was a stranger to him. He asked him for help cos thankfully I have never said he wasn't allowed to talk to a stranger (go off with one is a different matter). This man came to son's assistance and later contacted the school the kids involved were at also.

How awful! Hope he wasn't hurt badly either physically or emotionally - and yes this again illustrates how over emphasis on "stranger danger" could do more harm than good.

I once got lost playing hide and seek in a country park, was probably about 8 at the time, I'd gone into a wooded bit and completely lost my bearings, and ended up walking miles in the wrong direction trying to get back. I didn't have a clue where I was or how to get back. In the end I saw a family with kids my age and I thought I'll have to go against all the advice I was given (mainly at school) and ask them for help. They took me in their car back to where I said my parents were, but I was really panicing all the way, kept asking them "are you sure this is the right way".

But like Ester Rantzen found - these days adults seem less willing to help lost kids or kids in trouble, because they worry about being suspected of being up to no good themselves.

valk_scot

poet123 wrote: »

Risk is risk, one does not negate another. You have to let your child out of your sight, they have to go to school etc, you do have a choice whether to leave a child at home alone.

They don't have to go to school, actually, you can chose to home educate them. And, come to think of it, you don't have to let them out of your sight either, you could take them everywhere with you.

Spendless

zagfles wrote: »

How awful! Hope he wasn't hurt badly either physically or emotionally - and yes this again illustrates how over emphasis on "stranger danger" could do more harm than good.

Physically no, emotionally yes, very much so. Shortly afterwards following him having 2 school ties taken from him and lost/destroyed in the space of a week, we found 2 pages of incidences in his school planner of bullying he'd been writing down. Thankfully though he had written it down and it was produced during a meeting with his form teacher and HoY and from that school accessed some support for him which was worked out wonderfully well.:)

valk_scot

Spendless wrote: »

I thought I had read this somewhere. It's not about being home alone versus walking to school but about the age where it is more likely that they will be in a road accident as a pedestrian.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8010807/Road-accident-risk-doubles-when-children-start-secondary-school.html

I have to say though that the number quoted of children that are injured or killed is still very, very small when compared to the total number of children of similar age walking to school in any one day in the UK, no? So the overall statistical risk of it happening to one specific child is also very small. Cold comfort if it's your child of course.

poet123

valk_scot wrote: »

They don't have to go to school, actually, you can chose to home educate them. And, come to think of it, you don't have to let them out of your sight either, you could take them everywhere with you.

I was speaking generally, most children are still educated in a school and most children are not umbilically attached 24/7 if they are living an average life. You get my point though I am sure.

mumps

poet123 wrote: »

This thread stemmed from another which you may or may not have read. That had posts from those who left nine year olds for an hour or more from choice on a regular basis.


Because you have posted within my post and not quoted I can't answer every point but I will try to respond to the main ones.


Of course I don't equate leaving a nine year old with sending them down the mines, that would be ridiculous;) I do think that leaving a child of nine for any amount of time is unacceptable, but if a parent/other adult is not there they are being left to fend for themselves and cope with whatever arises. How are they not?

I don't think that it follows at all that those who wouldn't leave a child alone at nine will be over protective of a teen, anymore than I would say the opposite; that those who would leave a child alone from choice will be disinterested in their teens and let them run riot or do as they please.

My youngest son has three siblings, two of them live at home but work as lawyers and are 24 and 26, so I doubt he was in any real danger either mentally or physically;) As for being alone he was at a sports camp for one full day and resting and revising for the other two days with a trip to the pictures thrown in. In the evenings he went to the gym with his older brother who is a teacher, and who lives just 5 mins away. Being a teacher he was also at home during the day for the duration of our trip, but, as my youngest son is quite self reliant, he didn't want to go and stay with him which he could easily have done, he preferred to stay at home and do his own thing.

Re the BBQ, that was something I used to illustrate things my sons had done under supervision, it was never suggested that a nine year old left alone would do that. But of course you knew that! Nor did I use the emotive term "abandoned":rotfl:

I don't think siblings are ever going to be as observant of a younger siblings feelings as parents are, after all they are not the parents and have their own lives. I am perhaps so conscious of this because of the suicides and attempted suicides I have been involved with professionally. All young people,2 to 1 male to female and success rate the same. Typical comments afterwards, "He had seemed so happy today" and "She has always been so sensible" It is such a difficult age, they have hormones, first relationships, pressures at school and all sorts of worries about the future, friendships etc. I have left mine for a few days at that age but only in an emergency, I wouldn't go on holiday without them, well I wouldn't when they were that age, the only holidays we had without them was when they were on school trips or away with friends. Half an hour for a nine year old or sevenal days for a 15 year old, you view one as an easy choice and I chose the other. Your experience tells you one thing mine tells me another.

I don't think I said you used the term abandoned but it was used. I will go back and check.

zagfles

valk_scot wrote: »

I have to say though that the number quoted of children that are injured or killed is still very, very small when compared to the total number of children of similar age walking to school in any one day in the UK, no? So the overall statistical risk of it happening to one specific child is also very small. Cold comfort if it's your child of course.

As a very rough calculation it's about a one in 10,000 chance for a 12 year old.

(based on population of about 65 million, average life expectancy 75, so bit under a million at any one age, bulge at the lower end so perhaps 1 million 12 year olds, 96 of whom were killed or seiously injured).

mumps

From NHS website http://www.cavos.org.uk/content/pdfs/Suicide%20fact%20sheet.pdf

Suicide is second highest cause of death in 15 to 24 year olds. It is a growing problem with teenagers.

poet123

mumps wrote: »

I don't think siblings are ever going to be as observant of a younger siblings feelings as parents are, after all they are not the parents and have their own lives. I am perhaps so consious of this because of the suicides and attempted suicides I have been involved in professionally. All young people,2 to 1 male to female and success rate the same. Typical comments afterwards, "He had seemed so happy today" and "She has always been so sensible" It is such a difficult age, they have hormones, first relationships, pressures at school and all sorts of worries about the future, friendships etc. I have left mine for a few days at that age but only in an emergency, I wouldn't go on holiday without them, well I wouldn't when they were that age, the only holidays we had without them was when they were on school trips or away with friends. Half an hour for a nine year old or sevenal days for a 15 year old, you view one as an easy choice and I chose the other. Your experience tells you one thing mine tells me another.

I don't think I said you used the term abandoned but it was used. I will go back and check.

Nice tack, but my eldest son has a pastoral role for year 7 in his job so I think I can be relatively confident that his well being was in safe hands.

I also have extensive MH training/qualifications, so again, I doubt there are any issues there.

I doubt anyone who wasn't trying to point score ;)would equate leaving an almost 16 year old at home for 3 days in the care of his three adult brothers one of whom has specific training in the area of children with leaving a nine year old home alone.

So, you wouldn't go away on a short break leaving an almost 16 year old in the care of three adult siblings? Yet in 3 months he could get married, join the army etc,etc, and yet you purport to advocate empowerment and giving children responsibility?:rotfl:

Interesting too, that you view the care of a child (well, in our a case a teenager 2 months off being 16) by any other adult rather than a parent as inferior.

valk_scot

zagfles wrote: »

As a very rough calculation it's about a one in 10,000 chance for a 12 year old.

(based on population of about 65 million, average life expectancy 75, so bit under a million at any one age, bulge at the lower end so perhaps 1 million 12 year olds, 96 of whom were killed or seiously injured).

And that's over a year, yes? Where the child does about 500 trips in total between school and home (or vice versa), very roughly, if they walk to school every day? So the statistical risk per trip is...err, one in (500 x 10,000)? One fatality/serious injury per half a million walk to or from school trips?