Would you leave a nine year old home alone?

Spendless

Yes, from choice

BTW since the poll gives the most votes to 'not unless it was a dire emergency' that indicates that most people WOULD leave their 9 yo at home. Take the reason out of the equation as surely the risks of stranger abduction, house on fire, plane dropping out of the sky are exactly the same regardless of WHY you've gone out. An emergency to me suggests that something crucial has come up with little notice, something that requires immediate action with maximum attention. Do most people think clearly in these set of circs, I know I don't. So I actually think leaving my 9yo as an emergency had come up would actually be more risk taking than it being discussed/thought about as I would be less likely to give detailed instructions about rules whilst I was out, due to timings and my mind on the emergency.

pigpen

Other please state.

That might be due to the lack of 'no not ever under any circumstances' option.

It wouldn't even cross my mind even in an emergency to leave my younger children home alone at all.. regardless of any emergency, they come first. I cannot think of an emergency I would be needed for at that short notice I couldn't get someone to watch the children.. what counts as a 'dire emergency'?

I think the most problematic time I had was when one was ill at home and I needed to collect another ill one from school.. or maybe when I had 1 in hospital on one floor and another on the floor above and 2 more at home.. perks of lots of siblings/children and extended family I guess.. always a sitter in an emergency.

Spendless

Yes, from choice

pigpen wrote: »

That might be due to the lack of 'no not ever under any circumstances' option.

It wouldn't even cross my mind even in an emergency to leave my younger children home alone at all.. regardless of any emergency, they come first. I cannot think of an emergency I would be needed for at that short notice I couldn't get someone to watch the children.. what counts as a 'dire emergency'?

I think the most problematic time I had was when one was ill at home and I needed to collect another ill one from school.. or maybe when I had 1 in hospital on one floor and another on the floor above and 2 more at home.. perks of lots of siblings/children and extended family I guess.. always a sitter in an emergency.

There's the option of putting other which they could do if the answer was a No, never.

The day I was contacted by one of my Grandmother's neighbours as my Grandmother was walking round her garden with a stick brandishing it at the downstairs flat occupants and threatening them as she thought they had kidnapped and were abusing my kids probably comes under 'dire emergency'. My kids were actually at school at the time and Gran had undiagnosed dementia and paranoia. She was sectioned under the MH act less than 48 hrs later.

FIL collapsing on the floor having sufferred a stroke after going to the loo but MIL still asleep, but managed after a while to crawl to a phone and alert someone.

pigpen

Other please state.

but with your grandmother they were at school so not an issue had they been at home I could get in touch with one of my sisters or my stepdad or numerous aunts or uncles who could get there before me.. or I'd take the children with me. The FIL collapsing.. I'd send OH.. they aren't my parents.. if he was unavailable I'd send an ambulance and tell them we'd be available ASAP or I'd take the children with me.. though getting to FIL 100 miles away would be problematic my former FIL died when KH was 5 so that would have been difficult too I hope he was ok though, it is awful. My uncle collapsed at school (teacher!) with a stroke and died a few weeks later.

If it was my mother she would be an @r$e and not go to hospital anyway so I'd do what I did when she rang me to tell me she had had a heart attack.. I asked if she wanted or needed me to come she said no so I said let me know how you get on then. She has a husband for that duty. Had I have just gone to the hospital she would have been furious.

I guess this is the difference between being the only one available and having a large extended family we can rely on in any emergency, whatever it is and whatever time of day someone is there.

Spendless

Yes, from choice

Yes they were at school but that call could have come at a time when they were home and my Grandmother who had had several weeks of acting 'bizarrely' and already had a psychiatric nurse calling weekly to see her, I wouldn't have taken the kids to see her.

FIL, My OH can be at work anywhere between 45 mins and 2 hours drive away. Both my sister and sis in law work and mil doesn't drive nor can she walk far so unable to get to people. My parents work, my Dad is a bus driver for a special needs school. My mother is a mobile hairdresser. neither has a down tools and leave job.

valk_scot

Yes, because of necessity only

pigpen wrote: »

I cannot think of an emergency I would be needed for at that short notice I couldn't get someone to watch the children.. what counts as a 'dire emergency'?

There was a new family moved in down the road from us, two kids of 6 and 7 and an older child of 14. The older boy got hit by a car at the end of our road and the mum came tearing out the house to be with him. It was only as she was getting in the ambulance with him (he was very badly hurt) that she suddenly remembered that not only did she have no shoes on or keys with her but that her other two were alone in the house. What to do...leave her possibly dying son, or leave the kids?

Fortunately there was more than one neighbour around and though we didn't even know their names at that point, we took charge of the kids and managed to contact another relative. But that would count as a dire emergency in my book, enough for her to leave two kids in the hands of near strangers anyway. Not everyone has the luxury of friends and family on call for emergency child care after all, or indeed the luxury of time to make arrangements.

(The elder boy made a full recovery btw, but it was touch and go at that point.)

I do think that personal circumstances also have a part to play in the overall decision making btw. I as a SAHM with a husband and reasonably good local network of friends (though no relatives) could probably work my life round never having to leave my two kids alone, ever, until they turned 18. Even easier if I had only one! But if you were a working single parent with more than one child and no local support, you're more likely to be faced with the necessity one day to make the decision to leave a nine year old at home alone, no? It's all very well for these of us with the resources to throw up our hands and say "Should never happen!!!" (not that I personally have said this, btw) but sometimes the ends of the string just don't meet up and a parent has to make a decision which, given more flexibility, s/he would choose not to. Life is not perfect and it's often not that predictable, you've just got to make the best choices you can at the time.

pigpen

Other please state.

I am definitely a 'whatever works for you' kind of person.. so long as you accept responsibility should there be an issue... but I think parental guilt does that for you. I will admit if I read in the paper there had been a 9 y/o left alone and had been seriously injured or died I would think it was the parents responsibility.. it is enough they would blame themselves and have to live with that terrible loss forever.. nothing could feel like the loss of a child I am certain.

My mother, stepdad, 2 sisters, son, 2x dil's live within 5 minutes walk of my house.. about 20 seconds run for some of them.. they could be at my house before an ambulance and whatever their job was they would come if I needed them.. as proved when I rang the fire brigade and my stepdad arrived as they did.. I can see how the migration and dissolution of families provide lack of support. I am very glad to have my huge PITA family at times and being in my position it is hard to think of not having them available.. but I guess some people don't

valk_scot

Yes, because of necessity only

pigpen wrote: »

My mother, stepdad, 2 sisters, son, 2x dil's live within 5 minutes walk of my house.. about 20 seconds run for some of them.. they could be at my house before an ambulance and whatever their job was they would come if I needed them.. as proved when I rang the fire brigade and my stepdad arrived as they did.. I can see how the migration and dissolution of families provide lack of support. I am very glad to have my huge PITA family at times and being in my position it is hard to think of not having them available.. but I guess some people don't

I would say most folk don't have a family as big as yours living as close. I've got one sister, she lives in another city. No grandparents alive and my OH has no living siblings left either. Family support = zero in my case, and I bet my situation re family is more common than yours, especially when you factor in the proximity.

I've got friends that live locally though, and neighbours that though we're not close, would help out if they could. I've only got one friend who would walk out of her place of employment during the working day to help me in a crisis though and it really would have to be a crisis before I'd ask it of her. But again, not everyone is as lucky, some folk simply don't have helpful neighbours and it takes time to link into the local mothers network. If you don't have family or availible friends or neighbours, who do you ask for help in an emergency?

FBaby

Spendless wrote: »

BTW since the poll gives the most votes to 'not unless it was a dire emergency' that indicates that most people WOULD leave their 9 yo at home. Take the reason out of the equation as surely the risks of stranger abduction, house on fire, plane dropping out of the sky are exactly the same regardless of WHY you've gone out. An emergency to me suggests that something crucial has come up with little notice, something that requires immediate action with maximum attention. Do most people think clearly in these set of circs, I know I don't. So I actually think leaving my 9yo as an emergency had come up would actually be more risk taking than it being discussed/thought about as I would be less likely to give detailed instructions about rules whilst I was out, due to timings and my mind on the emergency.

Totally agree with this post. If the issue its worry that a child couldn't cope with an emergency because of their age being left with little planning surely is putting them even more at risk.

It sounds like this thread is much more about the parents then the kids.

poet123

No, not unless it was a dire emergency

I left out the "no under any circumstances" for reasons already given but I suspect those who used that option would really have to be pushed to leave their child. I can't think of any reasons when I wouldn't be abe to arrange emergency care, but I realised others may not be as fortunate. Ironic that lack of judgement should be twisted to suggest that actually most would leave their child. I don't believe that is an accurate representation of that vote.