Son in trouble - advice appreciated

elsien

Newly_retired wrote: »

Whilst I totally agree with all the advice that has been given so far, I find myself wondering in general why it is that we are nowadays so much more protective.?
My children played out with older friends on the lane ( no cars) out the back of my house, I myself walked to school and back by myself or with friends and was allowed half an hour in the park on the way home.
What has changed is the amount of traffic. People are the same, good and bad. There are still areas when everyone knows everybody else and you feel safe, and there have always been !!!!!philes and violent people around. Why would Social Services today consider this parent negligent? I am just asking. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t let a 5 year old out without an adult now either.

The traffic free lane out the back of the house isn't quite the same as heading round the corner to the far more open park.
I think another difference is that years back adults would be more likely to intervene if children are in trouble or being silly. Nowadays people are more scared of either getting a mouthful back, or of being accused of Lord knows what when parents decide they're interfering.

JReacher1

Newly_retired wrote: »

Whilst I totally agree with all the advice that has been given so far, I find myself wondering in general why it is that we are nowadays so much more protective.?
My children played out with older friends on the lane ( no cars) out the back of my house, I myself walked to school and back by myself or with friends and was allowed half an hour in the park on the way home.
What has changed is the amount of traffic. People are the same, good and bad. There are still areas when everyone knows everybody else and you feel safe, and there have always been !!!!!philes and violent people around. Why would Social Services today consider this parent negligent? I am just asking. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t let a 5 year old out without an adult now either.

Social services wouldn’t consider this negligent and they have more serious things to worry about.

spirit

Newly_retired wrote: »

Whilst I totally agree with all the advice that has been given so far, I find myself wondering in general why it is that we are nowadays so much more protective.?
My children played out with older friends on the lane ( no cars) out the back of my house, I myself walked to school and back by myself or with friends and was allowed half an hour in the park on the way home.
What has changed is the amount of traffic. People are the same, good and bad. There are still areas when everyone knows everybody else and you feel safe, and there have always been !!!!!philes and violent people around. Why would Social Services today consider this parent negligent? I am just asking. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t let a 5 year old out without an adult now either.

I'm sure that Sarah Payne's parents/grandparents thought the field behind their house was safe too.

KittyHawk

Utter, *utter* nonsense. Social Services may well consider this prima facie negligent, and will undoubtedly do so if this unpleasant situation with threats being slung about, and the child afraid to leave the house for fear of reprisals, continues to escalate.

KittyHawk

And if you'd been supervising your child properly, you wouldn't have to wonder what had been said or done to him, nor speculate if he had the upper body strength or gross motor skills to smash a car window - you'd know. I'm stunned that you think this is acceptable.

stripeyfox

I think 5 is a bit young to be walking to the park on his own. I'm 46 and grew up in a different time, also in a quiet cul de sac in a small village but I don't believe I was walking round unsupervised even then,

I'm not saying he did it, but you weren't there so you don't know. Either he did it (accidentally or otherwise) and she saw him and rightfully is bringing it to your attention or he didn't do it - she discovered her window broken and decided to find a nearby unsupervised FIVE YEAR OLD CHILD to blame it on?

This has got to be a wind up surely?

Kim_kim

Strange title - I was expecting a post about a teenager.

peachyprice

Newly_retired wrote: »

Whilst I totally agree with all the advice that has been given so far, I find myself wondering in general why it is that we are nowadays so much more protective.?
My children played out with older friends on the lane ( no cars) out the back of my house, I myself walked to school and back by myself or with friends and was allowed half an hour in the park on the way home.
What has changed is the amount of traffic. People are the same, good and bad. There are still areas when everyone knows everybody else and you feel safe, and there have always been !!!!!philes and violent people around. Why would Social Services today consider this parent negligent? I am just asking. For what it’s worth, I wouldn’t let a 5 year old out without an adult now either.

I'm not sure they are. But there's allowing your child to play out with older friends and there's letting what OP lets his child do.

My children were allowed to play out at around 5-6, but only either at the back or front of the house where they could be heard and seen in an instant.

To let a 5yo go to the park, completely out of sight of the house to play with 10-11yo children who are is just plain stupid and irresponsible.

peachyprice

Ben6112 wrote: »

We allow our son 5 to go to the park safe in the knowledge that he is well enough known to be safe............I have no idea what was said to him or done to him etc before I arrived but he’s bloody terrified begging me to lock the doors incase they come.

Enough said.

You have no idea what it happening to your child at the park, do your job as a parent.

hazyjo

Most 3 years olds are still described as 'toddlers' (Maddie McCann certainly was). I really don't think that a 5 year old would have gained that much more knowledge, responsibility or maturity in those two years. When you say 'some might not agree...' - damn right.

I would not let anyone under the age of about 14-16 (depending on their maturity) babysit. It's not because I don't think they are capable - it's because I would HATE for them to be put in a vulnerable situation if something awful did happen like a break in, a fire or choking, etc. Not sure why you would put that responsibility on a few random 10 or 11 year olds in a wide open space like a park where they cannot possibly be watching two 5 year olds all that time. Anyone wanting to take your child will just do so. Might think twice about doing so with an adult or teenager - but children? No chance. They could literally just grab and go.

How do you know the 10-11 year olds can be trusted? There have been horrific crimes by children. They could be saying and doing all sorts to your child - and it was probably them who told him to do what he may or may not have done. Babies/toddlers/children are so incredibly vulnerable, wanting to please, trusting and naive. They don't exactly sound like a great crowd!

I'd worry if this story were about a 15 year old. I'd be saying they're in with the wrong crowd, get them away, blah blah blah - but 5? Seriously?

And I am not saying today is any less safe then when I was young. It's just more publicised - we have access to the internet (for one) which has made a huge difference to what we hear.

Only hoping it's a wind-up so some I]insert word - I can't think of a nice enough one to use[/I can sit and laugh at all the replies.