Would you leave a nine year old home alone?

poet123

No, not unless it was a dire emergency

plumpmouse wrote: »

Do you really believe though that an 11 year would be that much better able to cope in an emergency?

I'm pretty certain that if somebody broke into my house whilst my son was on his own (which is probably a slim chance considering my house has never been broken into in the 30 odd years I have been alive) that he would cope better at 11 than 9? If he fell and banged his head and knocked himself out at 11 would he be more likely to survive, if the house set on fire, considering he knows to leave the house immediately now, would he leave quicker at 11?

I'm just curious as to why risks can be deemed acceptable when a child reaches a magic age (be that 11, 12, 13,14 etc etc) but not at 9 or 10. After all legally they are children until 16/18 depending on your viewpoint.

I'm also uncertain as to people who query the by choice as being a worse thing than leaving a 9 year by necessity, because in all honesty if I felt that it was inappropriate to choose to leave my child alone I can't think of any occasion where they wouldn't be able to come with me wherever I'm going. I would also raise the point that the child left in an emergency would be more at risk than a child who is left by choice as they will have spoken to probably at length about safety and rules etc.

I think there have to be guidelines and the NSPCC suggest 12.

There is a huge difference in children of 9 and 12 in general. They are subject to the demands and responsibilities Secondary school imposes for one thing, they have learned to step up to the plate. That said, if evidence showed they were not ready at 12 I would still err on the side of caution. At nine I wouldn't consider it.

Re your comments on emergency, I agree, but I know that others have issues to contend with that I have not experienced so I wanted to leave that as an option.

poet123

No, not unless it was a dire emergency

mumps wrote: »

I have left mine alone from about 9, to be honest I didn't think it was that big a deal so can't say exact ages for all four of them but the good news is they have all grown up safe and well. I have also let one fly abroad at 10, he coped with immigration, passport control and customs without any help in a country where he didn't speak the language. I won't go into how I felt about the airline that was supposed to be supervising him till he was handed over to relatives!

I don't think I gave mine any specific instructions when I left them, to be honest it wouldn't have occurred to me that they would do anything to wreck the house or set it on fire. They were all travelling to school alone by 9 and I think they were at more risk out on the road, this was proven when one was hit by a car outside school, fortunately no serious damage done.

Between them they have travelled to more countries than I can even remember, they have had adventures I could have only dreamt of and sometimes I get a call after the event to tell me not to worry if the insurance people get in touch as they have been in hospital with suspected malaria.

Do I regret any of it? Not on your life, when my first was born I vowed that they would have opportunities to do anything they wanted to do, I was sure that I didn't want fear to stop them doing what they wanted. I was 18 at the time without a bean but I think I have done what I set out to do and raised four useful citizens who have some great memories for when they are old and grey.

I have many grey hairs but I have never let on about my worries, they still don't know that I check on their flights on line and relax when I know they have landed safely. I would hate to think they had missed out on anything because of my worries.

I have four too, and three of them have done the same, but they weren't left alone until 12 ish so I don't think the outcome is much to do with when they were first left alone. I suspect my youngest who is almost 16 will do the same, again, it will not be related to being/not being left alone. More related to hard work, opportunities and the ability to be self reliant.

mumps

Yes, from choice

poet123 wrote: »

I have four too, and three of them have done the same, but they weren't left alone until 12 ish so I don't think the outcome is much to do with when they were first left alone. I suspect my youngest who is almost 16 will do the same, again, it will not be related to being/not being left alone. More related to hard work, opportunities and the ability to be self reliant.

And confidence? I don't think it matters what opportunities they have or how hard they have worked if they don't have the confidence to do it. I have always told mine they can do anything they want, so far they seem to have proved me right.

mumps

Yes, from choice

poet123 wrote: »

I think there have to be guidelines and the NSPCC suggest 12.

There is a huge difference in children of 9 and 12 in general. They are subject to the demands and responsibilities Secondary school imposes for one thing, they have learned to step up to the plate. That said, if evidence showed they were not ready at 12 I would still err on the side of caution. At nine I wouldn't consider it.

Re your comments on emergency, I agree, but I know that others have issues to contend with that I have not experienced so I wanted to leave that as an option.

I think mine seemed more sensible at 9 than at 12/13 I think it is hormones.

Toto

No, not unless it was a dire emergency

mumps wrote: »

And confidence? I don't think it matters what opportunities they have or how hard they have worked if they don't have the confidence to do it. I have always told mine they can do anything they want, so far they seem to have proved me right.

There are many ways to instil confidence in a child, supporting them to achieve things for themselves is the way we tend to go about it. I don't necessarily think that abandoning them leads to a feeling of confidence. A sense of survival maybe.

poet123

No, not unless it was a dire emergency

mumps wrote: »

I think mine seemed more sensible at 9 than at 12/13 I think it is hormones.

I only have boys, so I didn't have many issues with hormones aside from a bit of sulking!

mumps wrote: »

And confidence? I don't think it matters what opportunities they have or how hard they have worked if they don't have the confidence to do it. I have always told mine they can do anything they want, so far they seem to have proved me right.

Yes, confidence too, although sometimes it is a fine line between confidence and arrogance! I work with teens, many of who seem to have parents who have instilled into them the belief that they are better than everyone else at everything (all without evidence!)and that is when confidence can be misplaced. It is hard getting it right isn't it?

joeblack066

I think everbody's normality is different and cannot be compared. Apples and oranges really.

pulliptears

What I don't understand is what has changed? What is inherently more dangerous now than 60 years ago? At 9 my Dad would have been responsible for taking his younger siblings to school, a mile or two over fields in all weathers. He'd have been responsible for various jobs around the farm and operating machinery on it, he was also responsible for making the fire when he got home at night. My Nan would have been out at work, Grandad out in the fields somewhere.

Many kids had the same responsibilities and rose to them because they were treated as responsible.
What has changed so much that a 9 year old who lit the family fire 60 years ago now isn't trusted to cook himself a piece of toast? I genuinely don't understand.

poet123

No, not unless it was a dire emergency

pulliptears wrote: »

What I don't understand is what has changed? What is inherently more dangerous now than 60 years ago? At 9 my Dad would have been responsible for taking his younger siblings to school, a mile or two over fields in all weathers. He'd have been responsible for various jobs around the farm and operating machinery on it, he was also responsible for making the fire when he got home at night.

Many kids had the same responsibilities and rose to them because they were treated as responsible.
What has changed so much that a 9 year old who lit the family fire 60 years ago now isn't trusted to cook himself a piece of toast? I genuinely don't understand.

I think that is a fair point, but my feeling is that it wasn't desirable then either to rob a child of childhood by expecting them to shoulder adult burdens. It was perhaps, in terms of historical events more understandable then though.

I also think that stats would show lots of children being injured or killed whilst undertaking these kinds of tasks.

Personal opinion but I feel nine is too young to be min adults unless it is through necessity ie young carers, family issues etc.

Person_one

No, not unless it was a dire emergency

plumpmouse wrote: »

Do you really believe though that an 11 year would be that much better able to cope in an emergency?

I do, yes. Or at least that the effects of an emergency would not be quite so traumatic.

I'd actually say secondary school age rather than just 11, as children do seem to have an 'emotional growth spurt' in the first term of secondary.