AIBU to go to the pub 30 metres away with a video monitor.(304 Posts)
I live in a terrace of houses and ten doors down is a really nice pub that does great food. Would it be horribly irresponsible to leave the kids (8,4 and 2) home alone with a video (+audio) monitor watching the doors to the bedrooms, toilet and hallway? One of us could be home within one minute of seeing / hearing a child but in the mean time we could be sat having a couple of pints and a tasty meal with friends with a laptop/ipad on the table showing what's going on in the house.
I suspect this isn't ok and haven't suggested it to my wife yet but wanted to canvas opinions. You could get the kit to do this for ~ £100 which is what 4 baby sits would cost.
YABU - it is a ridiculous idea and I cant imagine your wife will agree to it.
Seriously, get a babysitter or stay in.
YABU! get a babysitter.
For the rice f a pub meal and a couple of pints you can get a takeaway and beers or meal for two with wine. Ts a ridiculous idea, don't suggest it to your wife unless you want a row.
YABU. And very silly.
I think you know you're being ridiculous.
I really hope this is a joke - if it isnt I wouldnt mention it to your wife if you value having one.
You are leaving an 8 year old in charge of a 2 year old - seriously!!. for goodness sake get a babysitter. you are going to need one for at least the next 4 or 5 years until your 8 year old is of a reasonable age so try and find a good one now. cannot believe that this is a serious post. wouldn't even leave an 8 yr old on their own let alone to be responsible for 2 other children. 1 minute is all it takes for a fire to take hold, a child to stick their fingers in a plug socket, a glass to get broken. really do I need to go on. glad you aren't my husband.
Actually, I can't believe I replied sensibly to this...it MUST be a wind up thread......
Sorry dreadful idea. How about having arrangement with a neighbour where you babysit for each others children? Wouldn't cost anything then.
How is it any different from sitting at the end of your garden, if it was quite a big garden?
It is certainly something a lot of our parents would have done years ago. DH remembers being put to bed and his parents going over to neighbours for bbqs in garden etc.
i do think we've gone too far the other way to be honest and OP you'll get a flaming on here unfortunately.
Eh? If you need to ask if YABU the answer is usually yes!
This has to be a wind up? If you wife has any sense she will tell you to get a grip as well! YADBU
So one day something happens and the house sets on fire - could you get in to get up to the bedrooms in time to save them?
Whats so earth shatteringly urgent about the pub that you simply must go?
Wondered how long it would take for Madeline McCann to crop up. The reason that was in the spotlight for so long is that it is very very unusual for a child to be taken like that. Practically unheard of.
No I wouldn't go out and leave an 8 yr old in charge of a 4 yr old and 2 yr old. And I wouldn't go to the end of the garden and do that either.
apart from the fact that its a really stupid idea, would you actually have a nice time in the pub if you were all sitting staring at a monitor?
Not worth it, either get a sitter or take the kids.
Not sure if this is canvassing opinions on an invention or a wind up?
I want to go on holiday for a week, but without the hassle of the kids my partner and I have created.
WIBU to leave them in the house alone? After all it will cost money to take them.
Well I wouldn't want to be the first to say it - but my immediate response was the same as angelos
This simp,y has to be a joke. And if not, then you are an utter idiot.
It's not about child abduction, this is about using some common sense.
I don't care if the OP could be home in a minute, they are kids and they require parents or a babysitter if the parents want to go out.
Also, think of the prison sentence should something go wrong and you not get back in time. Is it really worth it just to go out for a drink?
if you were my neighbour i would phone SS
Besides, isn't it illegal or something to leave kids under the age of 10 home alone? [unsure]
Oh, yes and what Vingear just said.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I think the general canvass of opinion is that you are a twat.
Wow, some pretty strong opinions here!
All the kids would be asleep and they all consistently sleep through.
It wouldn't be a case of leaving the 8yr old in charge, if there were any noises or movement one of us would dash home from the pub and be there in 90 seconds.
We've got smoke alarms that we would hear over a monitor.
I'm surprised how united everyone is against this idea.
Ask your local Social Work department what they think of the idea.
By the time you have heard the smoke alarm, registered that is what the noise is, ran home and managed to unlock the house can you really be sure they will all be safe?
Is it worth the risk for the same on a meal out?
Dear God. Why? Threads like this remind me how lucky I am to be married to a sensible man. This would never enter his head to do.
Assuming they will all be fast asleep (8yo is not actually in charge of two siblings running around) then this sounds like a great idea in theory.
In practice however, it will probably not work.
1: You would need three cameras - one for each and the ability to switch between them. This set up would presumably cost more.
2: You would be reliant on the bandwidth of wifi at the pub: if this is flakey you will need to abandon your meal and go home.
3: You and your wife will be paranoid for the whole evening and will not end up enjoying yourselves.
4: if one of the children wakes, one o you will be abandoned in the pub with two meals while the other is stuck at home - evening ruined.
5: Finally, of course there is the remote possibility of a tragic event leaving you forever wondering, 'what if I was closer/ in the house...?'.
Yes because kids never get sick or shout or have nightmares when they are sleeping. And how can you hear a child crying in a noisy pub?
Any parent who cares more about a night out in the pub than the welfare of their children is a disgrace (that means you OP)
To be fair to the OP, I think many of you have missed a really important point in his original post. This particular pub is "really nice" and does "great food".
Surely that should count for something!
Oh no, wait...
Hovedad I would take the fact that everyone is united against the idea as a 'no way should you do this' sign.
I actualy know someone who did this. They then complained to the landlord that people were being too noisey and they couldn't hear their baby monitor! Both held highly responsible jobs as well.
We had a fire that started at night, by the time the smoke alarm went off the youngest DC needed hospital treatment for smoke inhalation (sp). We were in the house with them and got them out as fast as was possible. I can't imagine what would have happened if we had been down the road at the pub...
please tell your wife your brilliant idea... then she can come on mn to tell us all about it and then we can all tell her to LTB!
If you can afford to pay all that money for equipment and go for a meal you can afford a babysitter FFS.
YABU, and it's not legal. If it's so important that you have nice food in a nice pub, pay a fucking babysitter.
I have to admit that we used to live opposite a pub. On one occasion we took the baby monitor with us and had a drink sitting outside the pub on a lovely summer evening. DS slept through. It was lovely.
However, given that we lived on a teeny tiny Victorian back street, we were closer to him than we would have been had we been sitting in our back garden. And we only did it once. 30 metres away would have been way too far for me.
You are an idiot to think this could possibly be a good idea.
I hope your Wife tells you you were being a prat too!
I wish I lived that close to a pub <old soak>
OP the night you do that will be the night sods law bites you on the arse. You will sit there with your great food, look at the monitor and see your 2 year old either dangling out of bed/the window or your 8 year old turning on the tv and watching something fascinatingly inappropriate that will give them nightmares and you earache and sleepless nights for months.
So not worth it. Still YABU, still silly.
Get a fucking babysitter, FFS.
Easy on the personal attacks here people - I'm a highly committed father of three and I spend a huge amount of time, energy, love (and money) on my kids.
I do a lot of reciprocal babysitting with other parents on our road, I just don't see how this is so different from an audio only baby monitor in the garden or a large house with brick walls/thick floors (I live in a tiny house with walls and floors like paper).
Really? It's an idiotic and selfish idea. I hope this is a wind up for your children's sake.
OK, fine. But accept that PEOPLE WILL THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA.
You can't just go to the pub and leave your young kids alone, even if you do have technology. You just can't!
You said it would take you 90 seconds to dash i.e. run. That is a LONG way away.
Seriously, I have to (for the sake of my faith in humans) believe this is a wind up.
Highly committed parents don't bugger off to the pub for a few pints, video monitor or not.
Stupid, selfish idea.
Ok mumsnet, you have served your purpose. It's a shit idea.
Because in the garden/house it's relatively quiet, you won't hear a child crying on a monitor over the general noise of the pub.
Also as others have said, you'll be so busy fretting you won't enjoy yourselves.
Oh dear god the sheer idiocy of some people.
Speechless that anyone would be dim enough to even consider that a good idea
Yes, OP, it is a shit idea.
Ninety seconds?? Hell, NINE seconds is the difference between 'Don't do that, it's sharp/hot/dangerous/wired to the mains' and an ambulance ride. Seeing a child do something stupid is very different from being on hand to prevent them from doing it. And all that aside, how scary would it be for a small child to wake up from a bad dream and find that you'd both gone out? Great way to set yourself up for all sorts of sleep problems!
If they are asleep it's even stupider frankly.
First of all, it's not illegal.
Second if all, it's a bad idea. Not because of fire or kidnapping but because you are relying on tech to protect your children.
Tech that isn't 100% reliable.
I'm torn between thinking this a wind up and this is a genuine question.
If it is genuine then yes it's a shit idea.
Actually I don't think it's genuine at all.
an audio baby monitor is for one baby. NOT three sizeable and mobile children.
and if it's in your garden, the kids know where you are and can find you if they have a problem. If you're halfway down the street, they can't. Are you beginning to understand?
So, OP, while your kids are 'safely' asleep at home under cctv, you and your DW are elsewhere at risk of being knocked over, in a pub fire, in all manner of situations that could possibly leave your children not only unattended but orphans.
FFS. It is a stupid idea, you know it's a stupid idea and your wife would tell you it's a stupid idea.
Tell her and let us know what she says.
Are you bloody serious?
No. Just no. Y. A. B. V. U.
You could take the children with you and leave them outside with a packet of crisps and a panda pop.
Oh, I just realised. It isn't the 70s anymore.
I thought this was a joke.
What don't you all go to a naice family pub with a beer garden and have a few shandys instead of beers.
MortifiedAdams - "you and your DW are elsewhere at risk of being knocked over, in a pub fire, in all manner of situations that could possibly leave your children not only unattended but orphans."
Are you sure you're not being a shade hysterical there? Are pub fires a regular occurence where you are? It's not a tradition that's made it down south.
crazy idea - and if you do it then it could be a slippery slope imo...
I really hope this is a joke thread
I don't think this is a wind up.
I live opposite a quiet pub that does excellent food. You can see into my kids room from it if i leave their curtains open. My eldest is 12, also have a 3yr old and a 5yr old. All my kids are well behaved and sleep well, I have on occasion left one of my younger ones for half an hour with my eldest if they are sleeping or ill to pop out for milk/do the school run etc.
BUT I would never do it to go to the pub. Dh has suggested it. But I can just imagine the headlines if anything did happen. The front of the pub is actually closer than the end of my garden too.
Some hotels do this don't they? You leave the child in your room and go to the bar/restaurant with a monitor.
Practically it would probably be fine. I think it's the symbolism of 'sodding off to the pub' that people are reacting to, rather than a real assessment of the risks.
Pub fires arent traditional. They are freak accidents that could happen to anyone. Stop thinking you above incident.
As for Maddie McCann, how often do you people think that happens? The fact that you can name the victims in your hysterical responses suggests not particularly often.
The chances of things happening may be low but the risks from those things are massive.
Why anyone would think it is worth that risk for a meal god knows!
MortifiedAdams - my wife and I could die when we go out with a baby sitter, I don't see how using CCTV affects the death rate of an evening in a gastropub that we don't even have to cross a road to get to.
Ah we're all hysterical now. Silly wimmin.
Nope; not often. True. Doesnt make it less traumatic and why risk it.
Unless your childrens lives mean so little to you?
OMG - YADBU!
sandyballs - yes I agree the McCann situation is practically unheard of but that would be irrelevant if you were the parent who had your child stolen. I was a child in the 60s and my parents would never have gone out and left us in the house without an adult.
BerryLellow - You're not all women, or hysterical - I wouldn't be interested in the opinions here if I thought that. McCann is an incredibly rare incident and the risks of opportunistic abduction are virtually nill.
Good grief what is so urgent about going to the pub that you are considering this, how bizarre.
Pay for a babysitter so you can go out and relax and enjoy your evening, which you wouldn't do in the unlikely event your wife thinks this is a good plan.
Oh, and 90secs at a run in an emergency is a very long way. We have a pub next door. Were I to do what you are proposing, I would be home in 5 seconds in an emergency. And I still wouldn't.
Hovedad if you and your wife don't make it home, a babysitter will call someone and keep the children safe while arrangements are made. Will your monitor be able to do that? How would your 8 year old cope to wake up and find mummy and daddy aren't there if you don't come home?
Oh but it's a nice pub that does good food...
If you do lots of reciprocal baby-sitting in your street ask a neighbour to return the favour or a sensible teenager and then go.
This is a terrible idea. Small children need supervision remember? Am also inclined to think this is a wind up.
Name sounds a bit similar to op of a recent very popular classics thread... or is that deliberate?
It also requires you or your wife to be watching the monitor at all times, not a v relaxing meal. What if 2 year old wanders out while you're not watching, leaving duvet sized lump in bed (and you said the monitor would watch the hallway not bed or I'm imagining sneaking past and unseen), child is then too far away to be seen or heard.
The difference between the risks if something happens to you while you're in the pub with your children or the children are with babysitter, are if you don't come home from a night out, there is no babysitter to alert authorities and ensure your kids are not left alone for a sustained period.
He only asked. He has accepted the consensus. Isn't this is what aibu is for?
I wouldn't do it, but friends of mine used to leave their baby in the holiday apartment and take the baby monitor with them to the restaurant, a good few minutes' walk away. And other friends of ours who live on the same road as us are always saying we should go for dinner with them and just take the baby monitor with us.
So op is obviously not the first one to have thought of it - others are doing it already - and I don't see why everyone needs to be so aggressive about it.
HoveDad, I wouldn't do it. I don't think it's a good idea, and you won't be able to relax properly. Just get a babysitter.
If you both died while a babysitter was in charge the children would be safe. A video system cannot keep children safe.
The chance of that happening is low. But the outcome if it did happen could be catastrophic. How is it worth the risk for a meal out?
I think a 12 year old is different to an 8 year old though.
We've had to delete a few posts for troll hunting. We have no reason to believe that the OP is anything other than genuine. Here's a link to our talk guidelines just as a reminder of our rools.
Does the pub have a beer garden? If it does you could you go earlier as a family.
Mine dc love playing in our local pub and I love the icy cold lager!
Well if the OP is genuine then he's a bloody idiot for even considering what he's suggesting.
And no, this isn't a hysterical response, it's just common sense not to leave children on their own whilst you go to a pub.
I knew a couple (both Oxbridge-educated, professionals - a doctor and a banker) that used to do this (although the pub was two doors down). They took baby monitor with them. The kids were fine.
Not sure it's something I'd necessarily do, but definitely don't understand the mass hysteria on this thread. Surely if you had a large house and garden, and sat in the garden with a G&T when the kids were in bed, you'd be running a similar risk?
Bloody hell guys! He asked, took on everyone's views and realised it was a silly idea - I don't get why he's being attacked?! And I agree, some are being a little hysterical....
I think the difference between going to the pub with a monitor and sitting in the garden with it is that (presumably) if you're in the garden, it will still be fairly light out. if a child wakes and wanders round the house, they will find their parents. and the parents will have heard them and will probably be on their way upstairs.
if the parents are in the pub with the monitor, the child will already be frightened that they can't find mum and dad by the time they have run back down the road.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Is this a wind-up?
Imho you shouldn't have any kids.
So glad my DH is responsible and sensible.
I find your idea disgusting [swearwords-galore emoticon]
And, yes, please tell your wife!
"I'm a highly committed father of three and I spend a huge amount of time, energy, love (and money) on my kids." That is not a highly committed father, that is just kind of what a father/mother does! part of the job.
I'm confused. On one hand you sound sensible and responsible.
But why are you asking us lot if you think it's ok?
If this isn't a wind up, you should have really thought about your social life before giving birth to 3 children!!!
If you cba to look after them and would rather neglect them to get drunk, you should have kept your legs closed.
Stop thinking of yourself and start thinking of the 3 lifes you created. They deserve more than this, you should feel very ashamed for asking or even thinking such a thing.
Sorry didn't realise you were a man, in that case you should have put something on the end of it.
Put your children first.
If you find a lovely babysitter then you can go out earlier rather than having to wait until they are asleep and you could go further than just the pub at the end of the road. If your children wake up and need assistance your evening won't be disrupted, anything worse and there is someone there to deal with it. It's just a better solution all round
Find a babysitter, ours has gone to university (how very dare she get herself a good education when my social life is suffering) I miss her.
I would love to know your wife's opinion on this!
I hope she's on here and sees this.
pumpkinsweetie, elQuintoConyo, BearsDontDigOnDancing that's a bit strong isn't it? - I'm not saying I'm father of the year but I get up with my kids every day, dress them, make them breakfast and lunch, work full time, get home and put them to bed with my wife every night, take them to the park all morning every saturday etc - I'm not some dead-beat alcoholic, like a lot of Dads my social life is by necessity a shadow of it's former self and I have no regrets. I think you've made some pretty broad and offensive assumptions here.
It's negligent basically, and the police would be involved if some busy body reported you or god forbid something bad happened in your complete absence!
I am amazed that you would even contemplate asking about it to be honest!
We also have a pub very close by. My DC's are 11 & 13 and I wouldn't leave them to go to the pub, mainly because I just wouldn't be able to enjoy it. I'd just be anxious for that 'just in case scenario'
There's something different IMO leaving them to pop to the shop over leaving them to go to the pub. It has honestly never occurred to me or my DH to do this once they're in bed.
I don't think it's that bad to suggest this, HoveDad. I hope this isn't too sexist (although I know it is) but I can think of a few men who would suggest this and/or think this is a logical idea. The situation varies.
A big hotel, leave the kids in the room & take the monitor.
A neighbour's house for a drink/dinner, take the monitor. etc.
I just don't think you should do it, it's so not worth it especially as social services are on the ball recently and you know, something really could happen. Also, there WILL be parents in the pub who have a babysitter & will see you with your monitor & be very judgmental and angry.
Couldn't you make a meal at home and have a few drinks with those same friends?
"there WILL be parents in the pub who have a babysitter & will see you with your monitor & be very judgmental and angry"
That's a very good point, based on people's reaction here we'd be lucky not to get lynched and prove MortifiedAdams right!
I think it boils down to the fact that its not a chance worth taking OP.
OP... Here's the link from NSPCC
It basically says that the law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an OFFENCE to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk. It's a gamble, isn't it?
One split second, and your lives are ruined... is it honestly worth it, just to save money on a babysitter?
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
"We also have a pub very close by. My DC's are 11 & 13 and I wouldn't leave them to go to the pub, mainly because I just wouldn't be able to enjoy it. I'd just be anxious for that 'just in case scenario' "
Really!? We often leave ours (of similar age) alone in the house while we go shopping etc, it just seems normal to allow them a bit of freedom and responsibility. We don't live near a pub, but if we did I would not have a problem having a couple while they were indoors.
Ok, maybe i should have put it across more politely but i didn't want to whitewash it in the case you proceed to go ahead with your thoughts iyswim.
Basically it's a risk you shouldn't take, especially with the younger two children.
Things can happen, they could wake up and walk out the front door looking for you and get run over or snatched.
They could scald themselves
There could be a fire
Something could happen to you and there would be no-one to respond to your children's cries
The could run a bath, drown
The dangers are there, and if the unfortunate was to happen you would be too far away to get to them in time.
Oh FFS. What hysteria.
OP as I said above I wouldn't do it because I don't trust the tech. If the tech was foolproof and I had a pub near by? I would consider it.
The rest of you should unclench a bit and look at the real risk.
Complexnumber" I do leave them to go to the shops etc, but wouldn't feel comfortable about the pub at night. Not sure why but I know I'd not enjoy it. As children we were frequently left on our own at night as my mum ran a restaurant and my dad was useless and always in the pub anyway. We were burgled one night when I was around 7.My Dsis would have been 14 DB 12 I think it probably stems form that. We were absolutely terrified and my DB tried to be 'the man' and chased him off with a hammer.
I wouldn't do it, not because of a child deciding to get up in the evening and run a bath but because it would be really scary for your kids to wake up and realise you're not there.
Besides, how on earth are you going to relax having to stare at the screen throughout your 'tasty' meal?
I do not think it is harsh at all no, just not sure why you felt the need to list what you do for your kids as if it is unusual i also " get up with my kids every day, dress them, make them breakfast and lunch" etc etc...as that is what a parents role is..it does not need listing as some sort of qualifier as to why you deserve a night at the pub while leaving your kids unattended at home on their own.
Your first post stated you could be home within one minute (which at the next post had changed to 90 seconds) of hearing or seeing anything. Of course that is if either you or your wife are sat glued to the screen and don't take your eyes off it, and are not involved in conversation with your friends, each other, eating, at the toilet etc. Which if it is going to be the case that you sit staring at a screen, you may as well not bother going out. 5 minutes can pass like 30 seconds in a social chatty setting.
So you can be home within 90 seconds of noticing something, which could already be too late.
Oh and if you are on here "canvassing" opinions from strangers, before mentioning it to your wife, then I think you already know that the suggestion will not go down well.
But it isn't hysteria Tee, in rl most people would see this as neglect and rightly so as that is what it is in black & white.
If something was to happen, op would be charged with neglect it is as simple as that.
I don't think it is hysterical at all to air on the side of caution, it's what you call being a good parent.
BearsDontDigOnDancing - If you read what I wrote I'm not saying I deserve a pat on the back, just that I'm not the dead beat that a lot of people seemed to have judged me as. I don't know why I included you on that now, you weren't being harsh.
There have been a lot of threads like this over the past few days.
So you say you could watch all 3 bedroom doors, the hallway and toilet? all on one screen? even if that is the case, what about the windows in the bedrooms?
Not surprised to hear you haven't run this by your wife, you wouldn't be asking if you had.
HoveDad Put the idea to your wife and let us know her response. I'm intrigued to know what it would be. Genuinely.
I have nothing further to add, I think quite a lot has been said already.
Hardly hysteria, my point is, you can go out with the best of intentions and say we will be home within 90 seconds of hearing the alarm, or noticing something, but really, if they want to out for a meal with friends, they are not going to be sat there with the laptop in the table keeping a close eye, they plan on having a cpl of drinks, so, they are chatting, eating away, drinking and they might have started watching the screen every 30 seconds or so say, but over the next hour, they are caught up in the "good food" the drink, the conversation and that 30 seconds stretched out quite easily to 5 minutes or so, without them even noticing.
My point is, he either cant keep as close an eye on as he intends, or he plans on doing so, at which point, it is not an enjoyable night out and there is no point really.
Did she don you in a flameproof suit before she sent you out here .
Just a thought but maybe your DW knows its a ridiculous idea and hence
threw you to the lions suggested you poll Mumsnet.
Oh look another one of these threads
To save time:
OP: Shall I do an utterly twatty thing?
MN: No. It's twatty
OP: You're all hysterical. I am fabulous.
As others say, HoveDad asked a question and accepted the answer.
There are many opportunities to be right about something here because the idea had many unwise risks to point out.
Those have been pointed out now. Normal Dad. Bad idea. Lesson learned. Ditch the additional judgements. Move on. Right?
bunch of lions
Or the nest of vipers!
It's not worth the risk.
It really isn't.
Especially for the sake of a pint in a pub.
Hovedad if pub is so close can't you go get food cooked and eat it at yours if its so nice? my local pub has done this for locals
Sorry, not trying to pile in when everyone else is doing so but couldn't help but respond......the reason so many people are answering you in such a emphatic way is that this goes against instinct and to many of us even thinking about it makes us feel ill. Yes, the risks may be "small" statistically but my god, what a price to pay for a night in the pub!
x post with fluffy, who summed it up.
Won't a babysitter be far cheaper than all this paraphernalia?
Anyway...you leave a 2 year old alone you run the risk of this..
I left my two in the living room on their own once for all of 2 minutes, and got back to my 2 year old having found a black permanent marker pen (lord knows from where) and had drawn all over herself, the floor, their little table, the fire place, the windows, the windowsill, the wallpaper.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to remove a black marker moustache from a 2 year old!! Nvm anything else, that was an expensive 2 minutes since we had to repaint the windowsills, re wallpaper that section of wall and we never quite managed to get it off the fire place surround!
And i spent a fortune on magic eraser blocks to get it off the floor.
Errrm what everyone else said, especially fluffy.
Also it seems a pretty expensive, complex audio visual enterprise.
If my DP came to me and said he wanted to rig up this kind of system for watching our DS I'd tell him he'd lost the plot. Completely.
It is hysteria. The likelihood of something happening (The 2 year old might run a bath? Seriously?) is tiny.
Life is risk. You take a risk every time you walk out your front door.
As I said, I wouldn't do it. But not because someone might kidnap my child or a fire might break out. Both of which are highly unlikely.
sounds like dad got kids for the day, 1 at school ,1 at pre school and 1 having a nap , hes bored so on here trying to wind all the mums up lol
Well I don't feel hysterical about it, just amazed that people think this is an acceptable risk to take with a 2yr old child. What are your own reasons for not doing it Tee? Of course it is unlikely that someone would kidnap your child or that a fire might break out....yet I wouldn't do it and apparently neither would you-why not?
I also think there's a difference between maybe doing this once in a lifetime -- there is risk but it is low -- and setting it up to do it regularly. I can definitely understand the temptation, and I confess that we've stayed in pubs where the rooms are behind a locked door, right above where the tables are, and where we could see the only exit, and have had a meal in the restaurant there (gasp!). With the monitor. I have friends, lucky friends, whose houses are big enough that were closer to the room than we would have been at their house - no one would doubt the safety of eating in the dining room of a large house, 30m from the childrens' room, maybe EVEN without a video monitor.
So it's kind of context-dependent. The fact that you're off your property seems to matter, but would it really be less safe than at the end of a 50m garden, say? And most people would be fine with that since it's not "public". I don't think the "public" comprises much additional risk, really, but why does it, or doesn't it? After all, you could have DC running a bath / walking out the front door/ turning on the hob / laundry marker havoc if you were eating dinner on your lovely stone patio 30m from your back door, with or without your video monitor. Or in your dining room with friends enjoying loud-ish conversation, if you had a large enough house not to hear the DC.
Anyway. I get why you're tempted. I wouldn't do it and I certainly wouldn't want to see someone set up the video etc system to do it regularly. Opinion here suggests you'd have trouble enjoying your evening. But: is the actual danger really more than sitting in a big house/ big garden, especially if to do that, we wouldn't think you'd need a monitor? If not, then maybe we should all be very glad we don't have big houses or gardens because we'd want to stay within 10m of our babies anyway
spd4 I wouldn't do it because most accidents happen in the home. they happen in a split second and usually when you least expect or anticipate them. it is unreasonable to the eldest child to leave them in charge when they don't have the where withal to know what to do. how would my eldest feel if the youngest had an accident on their watch. we have only just started leaving ours aged 11 - 15 because I feel confident that the eldest DC knows what to do in an emergency and the youngest understands safety.
For the amount this shit idea would cost you, you could afford a real human being to be there for your children.
My pet hate about technology is that some morons seem to think it's acceptable to interchange it for a person.
it is all to do with how you feel after...that is why people have an issue. The guilt factor. Even if you are in a big house, or at the end of a big garden, you are still on the same "property" so, if anything was to happen, you know that you were there. If you were in a different building, 5,10 however many doors down, and something was to happen, even if it was the exact same outcome as if you had been in the first scenario, the guilt would be more. That would be how it is different and why people say it is different than being at the other end of a large house or a large garden.
But I never said there was a chance that something completely out of the blue will happen, I just think that he is lying to himself about how close an eye he thinks he will be able to keep via a screen in a social setting.
I've already said, twice, spd4 that I wouldn't do it because I don't think the tech is trustworthy enough.
If I had a close by pub and felt comfortable that the tech would be 100% reliable? I'd probably do it.
But wifi, video feeds etc are subject to errors. I don't chose to take the risk I feel is inherent with the tech.
It has nothing to do with a hypothetical house fire or, FFS, drawn bath.
HoveDad, please will you let us know what your wife says to your idea when you tell her what you plan/planned to do?
If the technology was perfect and would work 100%, would the risk of something happening to the adults in the situation and no one knowing three children are home alone not bother you?
Nope, wouldn't do it. Too risky.
Also, am I the only one who is wondering how OP does his DC's breakfast, lunch and puts them to bed, but still works full time.
Really not sure if this is a wind up.
Great name for this thread btw.
Might namechange to *OiYouOPNoJustNoOK
I grew up in the 70's when this was acceptable and I can recall plenty of families who had a child that died as a result of a totally preventable (with supervision) accident, as well as remembering walking the streets with my 8 year old friend who had part of her finger crushed and being ignored by adults, there were lots of accidents, some with permanent injuries. I think water play is the biggest risk, I don't know why that is being discounted by many, it takes minutes for a child to drown, you would have to put buckets in their rooms and lock the bathroom, if you think children under 10 should be subjected to that in the UK in 2013, so you can go the pub, your children have bigger problems than the one's that you are proposing. I'm sure your 8 year old will be delighted to be in charge, in the house on their own. If you do, do this, tell everyone in the pub what you have done, if you are confident it is in any way acceptable.
No, MrTumblesTreasureMap because, again, the likelihood of something happening is minuscule!
Someone find me any news report of parents in a local pub that something happened and they never made it home. Just one. At any point in history.
And stop saying 'remember Madeliene'. We only remember her because it was unique. If it happened all the time it never would even made the news.
It doesn't even have to be something like a fire.
A wasp flies in, provoking upset? A child chokes on a bead or something equally daft they've put in their mouth? A child goes to the loo, locks the door, can't open it, panics, and you are where? The phone rings, goes to answer machine, someone keeps phoning, something as simple as that can be anxiety inducing.
I didn't just mean in the pub. I meant hit by a car or mugged or anything. I suppose the risk of anything happening and the children being left alone for ages is low though. But having a babysitter would reduce the risk that bit more.
Oh whoopy bloody shit that you take your kids to the park!
How could you explain to your two year old "oh, yes, you did have two older siblings, but your dm and I decided to go to the pub one night and a fire started. But I am a good df and spend time and money on you, so..."
So you find me a 'bit harsh'. That I can live with.
The kids would be asleep!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I can't believe this thread and the fucking unbelievable scenarios y'all are coming up with.
I have anxiety disorder and it would never occur to me to worry about a wasp while my child sleeps.
FOR FUCKS SAKE.
OP, I take it back. Do it. Have fun.
MN at it's worst.
OP...the thing you seem to be missing is that
a) if a very bad accident were to happen, the amount of time it takes to get back might make all the difference
b) Something could indeed happen to you & your wife whilst your kids are being babysat but in that case they're not suddenly in a risky situation, as the sitter is there. VERY different case if they're alone. Also, if something were to happen and the emergency services or such caught wind of your set up it would be reported to SS. Not what you want, right? Would not look good
Basically, it's not worth it & a bad idea.
Not sure you've really considered those points yet. No one's being hysterical. You just can't risk it for something like the pub. (Well, you can but if SS caught wind of it they'd certainly have something to say on the matter).
I'm sure you're not a 'deadbeat' dad, as you were aware this might be a god awful idea or you wouldn't have posted and you've not just gone and done it anyway. The posts that are along those lines are just a (justifiably) bad reaction to a very bad idea.
(basically...get a babysitter or just stay in. No unnecessary risks taken).
Ffs just go then.
It's clearly so desperately important to you this outing to the pub so go on then, just go.
Then if something happens to one of your kids you can make whinyarsed excuses
as to how you weren't at fault and if goes
without a hitch you can come back and
gloat and we'll all give you a great big pat
and tell you what a superior parent you
not. What a man
Kids never ever ever wake up until morning when they go to sleep!
HA HA HA HA
All this remember Madeline stuff is getting a bit ridiculous now.
As are the examples of fire, flood, children being left orphaned because their parents died in a freak pub accident, a 2 year old waking up in the middle of the night to run a bath or fry an egg.
I wouldn't do it because if any of the children woke up, it would probably scare them to be in a house alone, especially if they went to bed with mum and dad there and had no clue where they had gone.
I do however leave my children at night. I have a 15,14 and 9 year old. We tell them where we are going, they have mobile phones and neighbours to call on in an emergency. None of them have ever felt the need to cook anything or run a bath if they happen to wake up in the night and we are not there.
Mind you, they wouldn't do it if we were there either.
That's the thing though, Tee, you just don't know what could happen. I'm pretty certain Maddy's parents never thought in a million years that she'd be abducted from their hotel room but they took a risk and that must be a terrible thing to carry for the rest of their lives.
In all probability, nothing would happen. The kids would be home in bed but why risk it to go to the pub?
When we become parents sometimes we have to sacrifice some of that adult time because of the fact there are children to consider.
I'm surprised people think this is a wind up.
This is exactly the sort of thing my DH would come up with (also a very committed, hands-on father of 3).
And I would go "errrrr, no. Let's use the power of babysitting technology. I don't want to spend a rare night in the pub staring at a video feed of my children."
And fwiw having a babysitter in the house wouldn't stop the parents being mugged. Or run over. Even though according to the OP they don't have to actually cross a round to get there. But, hey ho. Maybe a runaway car might mount the pavement eh?
It's not abduction which would prey on my mind. But surely you just don't leave small children to go to the pub.
Tee, not all "happenings" are reported. I agree that it is more likely that one of the children will have an accident than the adults. There is no way that you can reasonably eat and socialise, whilst staring at a screen. This is neglect, the children are too young to be left alone, the 8 year old isn't old enough to be in charge of a house. There is no excuse for leaving young children alone, it would actually be safer if there was only one child, but three are unpredictable.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Sorry - leave them on their own that is. A babysitter is cheaper than rigging up a live satellite link to your house.
The OP's children are 8,4 and 2 apparently, bit different to 15, 14 and 9.
OP, just to say, I don't think you sound like a rubbish parent and I doubt anyone else here holds that view. Just, it isn't a great idea.
But you probably realise that now.
Summerblaze - I make their packed lunches.
Every toddler that I have come across has loved water play and if allowed to would run the taps all day, I'm "Up North" though, do you have a different breed of toddler Down South? Children instinctively know when they aren't being supervised.
In Glasgow ,when you park your car outside either Celtic or Rangers football ground on match day ,a little "scamp" will miraculously appear ,just like that, and say "pound to watch yer car ,mister" , my dad ,having had me dumped on him on one such day,had to take me (if a child you were lifted over turnstyle so no charge) i asked my father why he bothered paying ? he told me one of his friends said to little ruffian "no ,its fine, look ive left my dog in the car">child replied "can it phone the fire brigade then ,mister"?can your comp. system? ,and does it have a sense of smell too?if u see what i mean?
This is just ridiculous hysteria. I take it no one ever leaves their kids playing in the garden etc, through fear of them being abducted? Never let them play upstairs when you're downstairs incase a fire breaks out in the hall and you cannot get upstairs?. Seriously?
That said, it's not the best idea to leave them. Technology fails, what if the screen freezes and you dont notice or the sound dies or something. Better to get a babysitter.
That was my point donkey
That I wouldn't do it at the age because they would be likely to wake up scared. And that they need an older person in the house.
BTW, it's quite shocking that some people haven't considered that if something happened to the parents then the kids would be alone & no one may be notified for a while, leaving them alone & unsupervised for however long.
Small chance, I know. OP, could you honestly be ok with that outcome if something were to happen? I don't actually understand how any parent could, sorry.
The reason why there are so few ( though I haven't checked the figures, just taking Tee's word for it ) examples of small children coming to harm when left home alone is that very few parents are stupid enough to leave toddlers and small children alone to go to the pub.
We don't always hear of the cases where a fire broke out but the adult ay home managed to get the children out safely, or the burglaries where an adult called the police .
I make their packed lunches now I'm sure this is a wind up.
Well I'm going to say, Yes go for it.
You can now go and say to your wife, 'there was a woman on MN who said yes, so it can't be that much of an unreasonable request can it'
Then you can come on here and tell us all about your unreasonable wife and we can have a good old natter etc and woe is me and such like.
FFS OP NO, NO, NO.
I'll tell you what, you tell the kids when they are older what you did and say, when I'm old, infirm and mentally incapable (such as Alzeihmers (sp?)), you just 'pop down the pub' and leave me by myself and when I get distressed and worried, I only have to remember that you will only be 90 seconds away -oh no, you won't you'll panic and get upset because you have the ability, mental and physical function of young child.
Jeez, if you were my DH and you said that to me, I'd just give you my mummy stare
<<walks off shaking head>>
Ah well if thats the case you sound exactly like my Dh, some of my friends DH's and probably some of the DH's of MNers. None of whom would think this was a fabby dooby idea.
If MN "at its worse", is it giving the advice not to leave a 2 year old on its own whilst you go to the pub, then I hope it carries on down this track. Thankfully the Law has been changed from "Parental Rights" to "Parental Responsibilities" to safeguard children whose parents don't have a clue.
So, its not about fire, abduction etc.
It's just that you are the parent and they are children and young children at that, who are easily scared/forgetful etc.
fwiw OP you don't sound like a bad dad but it's not a fantastic idea really. If they were 5 years older I'd consider it as a teenager would be better equipped to deal with any potential emergency that may happen. If your 2 year old woke up for any reason, your 8 year old wouldn't have the first idea what to do and they'd just be scared.
All this 'what if' stuff is a bit hysterical though. We had friends over for dinner a few months ago for my birthday and half way through the evening my 3 year old ds was crying at the top of the stairs having just projectile vomited all over his bed. No apparent reason, he wasn't ill, he was absolutely fine the next day, but I keep thinking about what might have been had he choked in his sleep while I ate downstairs. Even with parents in the house, freak tragic accidents can happen.
It's not fair to put that responsibility on an 8 year old. Get an adult in to watch them. You wouldn't relax anyway, forever staring at a monitor.
Oh for heaven's sake. The main reason you would not do this, or pop down to the shop leaving them alone, or whatever is because as others have said, there is a possibility that something might happen to you and you are not able to get back. No-one knows you are out, no-one knows kids are unattended, kids wake up, no-one there. Perhaps a small possibility. But it is there.
And obviously,again as others have said, a babysitter would, if you did not return, try to find out what had happened (hopefully) and would not leave the children alone.
When DS1 turned one I went back to work and DH stayed at home to look after him. The very first day of my return to work I called at lunchtime to find out how they were, and discovered DH had popped to the shop leaving one year old in his cot. I was furious (after thinking at first he was joking); he like you hadn't considered the risk of something happening to him. But DH is lovely, and would never do anything to put the children at risk deliberately, so I haven't held it against him. You haven't even done this, you are just considering, so I think you are getting a bit of a hard time. A bit.
My four year old could get downstair and turn the cooker on without waking me up or find some beads and choke to death silently. Alot could happen while I was asleep.
Birdsgottafly - my 4yr old has a potty in her room she uses at night, I'm sorry you feel that infringes on her human rights.
andubelievedthat - you realise that kid was threatening to torch your dads car don't you? A baby monitor would pass through the sound of my smoke detector.
Most parents that leave their children unattended, lie about it when an accident occurs, they all deny it, but luckily, there are Child In Need/Protection Plans to deal with the one's whose story doesn't add up, that's why there are less deaths than there could be.
OP if you take your eyes off your children for a second the local pedophile and and his best mate Mr. MadAxe Man will be on your doorstep immediately and all of your electrical appliances will spontaneously combust.
Everyone knows that surely?
These threads might go better if the hysteria was left at the doorstep, no?
FFS. It's not the best idea in the world but, seriously, what a load of hysteria full of pathetic what ifs. For me the hysteria was compounded by the poster who wouldn't leave an 11 year old and 13 year old for a couple of hours. Really? Do you still wipe their bums and cut up their food too.
No, I don't think a wasp is going to fly in and abduct your kids. But I do think you're not going to enjoy yourselves because you'll be taking it in turns to stare at the monitor. Every time the 8 or 4yo gets up to go to the loo all conversation will stop and you'll both be staring at the screen going "He's been in there ages." "Could just be a poo." "Shall I go home and check?" "Leave it 30 seconds more and then I'll go." etc etc. At some stage someone will ask you what you're doing with a monitor and when you explain, you'll get a lot of grief. And, as someone else pointed out, sooner or later Sod's Law will take a big tasty bite out of your ass. Almost certainly sooner, because that's sod's law for you.
Birds what a ridiculous thing to say. My DD2 fell down the stairs when she was 4 and broke her arm. I was in the garden with the other children. Why on earth would I lie and say that she was not unattended when she was? She'd gone upstairs on her own (shock horror, call the police) to get something.
OP, a 4 year old with a potty is fine, if they can't wake up in time to make the toilet, completely different if an 8 year old is made to use it, so you can go to the pub. incidents such as these are what keeps me in a job and the JK show going. Appropriate age guidelines are there to protect a child's welfare, you haven't got three children, you have two children and a toddler/baby. Mama has just demonstrated that a child can suddenly need their parent at any time and would be aware that they had been left, once you came through the front door, its not nice to make a child feel as though they are not deserving of care. What you have gone on to say is because a child can have an accident if they wake up in the night it's ok to leave them alone from a young age? Don't discount the value of your presence, even when asleep.
Tee2072 "MN at it's worst"??? Leaving 3 kids including a 2 year old in a house unattended at night and people are objecting to that? Whatever is wrong with people?!
Yes. At it's worst. At it's over the top hysterical worst.
Do you never sleep? Pee? Bathe? Send your children out to the garden?
OMG THEY MIGHT GET HURT!!!!!!!!!! I MIGHT DROWN IN THE SHOWER AND LEAVE THEM FOREVER!! I'D BETTER STOP BATHING RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes. This: "That said, it's not the best idea to leave them. Technology fails, what if the screen freezes and you don't notice or the sound dies or something. Better to get a babysitter."
That's what would stop me. Not the slight possibility that I might trip over my own feet on the curb and get hit by a fucking car.
"FuckThis", my point was that many parents do lie, I have 3 children, they have had accidents, but you know when a story doesn't add up, with other factors. People don't admit to neighbours how things occurred, that is why most people are not aware what can go wrong. It's then about balancing the decision to go to the pub against being present when an accident happens.
Cherries, no-one is objecting to pointing out that it's not a great idea but the "OMG you can't do that. A random areoplane could crash into the pub you are in and kill you all and no-one would know the kids are alone and they'd starve to death forever, but not before some man eating rabbits break into the house and eat them to death in their sleep" type posts that are ridiculous and unnecessary and the very predictable McCann comments. The reason the McCann case recieved so much media attention is because of how very, very rarely things like that happen.
It's about risk perception isn't it? You balance the likelihood of the risk against the consequences if it happens. To me, even if the likelihood of "tripping over my own feet on the fucking curb and getting hit by a car" is small, the consequences of that happening while my children are unattended are so appalling that I would avoid a situation where that happens.
There is a risk that the children may go downstairs, try to cook french fries and burn themselves.
Well, that escalated quickly.
Yes, but Stella, if everyone went into 'risk perception' as deeply as some posters have on this thread then no-one would leave the house, or plug anything in, or walk up the stairs, or own an oven or take a bath....
It's not a great idea simply because if the 2yo woke up and started looking for his parents and found they weren't there he would be terrified and the 30 seconds it would take to get back to him would feel like an age to him. Plus the parents would be unlikely to relax properly anyway and the tech could fail.
That is all. It is simple. The house really is not going to combust just because the adults have left it and the children are not going to suddenly choke to death in their sleep.
The worst thing about this idea is that it doesn't solve the essential problem with children, which is that you are responsible for them.
Think this would be illegal apart from anything else?
Apart from it not being worth the risk of something happening to the children, for obvious reasons ...
... it's also not worth the risk of some small or large mishap occurring and then you spending days/week/years feeling shit because it happened because you were out at the pub!
If an accident happens while you are at home with the children, you deal with it as best you can - you try to put it behind you.
If an accident were to happen while you were down the pub having a drink with your kids home alone, against the majority of peoples advice, i'm sure it would eat away you. No? It would me.
Is it just soooo not worth it!
What troubles me is that HoveDad is continuing to defend the idea, as if he plans to do it regardless.
Unless of course this thread is one big wind up.
I have visions of the op sat in the pub with multiple screens Jack Bauer style in 24.
Terrible idea for all the reasons above, even the rather hysterical ones.
Don't believe OP had any intention of doing this, Ever!
TSO - At no point have I defended the idea, just myself.
But you and the idea are one!
HoveDad seems to be defending himself against the vitriol being spouted rather than defending his idea. He acknowledged several pages back that Mumsnet had spoken and it was a bad idea. Quite rightly so IMO.
I think it's a valid question and scenario to ponder but I think it's ultimately better to just get a baby sitter. I wouldn't want to keep an eye on the screen all night. I'm also not sure I'd be comfortable answering the question - so where are the kids - whilst in the pub.
HoveDad I'd sincerely like to congratulate you on NOT rising to the bait and trading insults on here. I think you've taken a lot of flak on this thread. Having said that I personally couldn't leave my children at that age in the house alone and asleep. Possibly when they were a bit older, say the oldest being 12, providing they were a "sensible" 12 year old. For now, get a babysitter or hold a dinner party at home.
According to OP's previous posts his youngest is still only around 16 months so basically a baby, not that it matters, leaving a baby or toddler alone at home is stupid. I only hope his DW has more sense.
Like hell you're not defending the idea, HoveDad! You're asking people if they don't think they're being hysterical, coming up with suggestions of how your children could come to just as much harm while you're at home and asleep, talking of the baby monitor re the sound of a smoke alarm as well as defending yourself against comments on here (some of which may not be justified but plenty of which certainly are!).
If my husband even asked me I would slap him with a halibut of reality and wonder who the fuck I married.
Ahh I see you admitted it was a bad idea now
I am glad you have changed your mind. I am sure you are a fantastic father, just didn't think this situation through and at least you ASKED for opinions instead of just doing it.
Tbh, it doesn't sound like the basis for a relaxed evening out, and I probably wouldn't have done it when mine were that age - I am a world-class worrier, and all the what-ifs, even the really impossible ones, would have kept me on edge all evening.
It is a lovely feeling when they are old enough to be left at home safely, though - mine are nearly 16, nearly 18 and nearly 20, and it is sometimes a total joy to swan out of the house with dh to enjoy some time to ourselves, over a cup of coffee and a sticky bun. But the baby/toddler years do pass (even though it doesn't feel as if they will, at the time) and it's not worth taking this particular risk, imo, until they are old enough.
That is the other thing. Do you want to have a nice evening or do you want to watch a screen all night?
I knew it!
My DH thinks this is a "reasonable" idea.
He says "on balance it's probably a bad idea", but I can tell he really thinks it's great but knows I would never go for it.
Birds yes, of course I understand that some parent will lie about such issues. However you said most parents who leave their children unattended will lie...
Of course my children were left unattended at times. I didn't follow them from room to room, down to the end of the garden, making them all stay in one place. My oldest child broke her foot twice in 7 weeks, same foot, broken in the same flipping way - jumping into the deep end of the pool. I saw one, not the other so I suppose one could say that she was unattended.
I'm removing all of your children FuckThisShit. Immediately.
It's quite scary reading the OP. my Ex (who was/is an absolute arse) suggested similar and totally believed that it was PERFECTLY reasonable) I, in the midst of an abusive, controlling relationship, didn't actually realise that my reaction of 'WTF? ' was actually a reasonable one
is noone bothered by the word rools????
I haven't read the fucking thread, but am imaging the OP has been called selfish/abusive/idiotic/bad parent *delete as applicable.
Fwiw, I don't think it is a terrible idea, for a one off. I don't think I would feel comfortable doing it on a regular basis, which is what you are suggesting.
I wouldn't really be able to kick back and have a good evening, cause I would be worrying that the battery had run out, or something wasn't working. I once had that happen with the babyphone and felt really bad when I realised DD had been screaming for ages.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Bloody hell, there's some prize twattery on this thread.
And I'm not referring to the OP.
Of course it's a rubbish idea, but honestly people get quite beside themselves with this kind of thing.
When, for example, people won't leave an NT 8 yo with a 2yo to go to the bottom of their own gaarden, it's hard to take them seriously.
Fuckthisshit if you read my post properly re the 11 &13 year old I said I do leave them to go to the shops etc but NOT to go to the pub.
I get a babysitter if I want to go to the pub so I don't have to think about the kids safety.
I also explained ( in my 2nd post) my reasons re not leaving them at night due to being burgled when I was home alone with my DS & DB.
I can't believe I am having to defend myself for NOT going to the friggin pub and leaving two kids at home on their own
"A tasty meal" sounds a bit scripted to me. Who actually says that in real life?
Have you told your wife about your idea yet?
This is the kind of thing I can imagine my DP, and quite a few other men (and maybe the odd woman) thinking is a good idea.
"Ohh lets get one of those CCTV baby monitors and them we can go out AND watch the kids sleeping AT THE SAME TIME!! Think of all the money we would save on babysitters, think how much better it would be being able to keep constant eyes on our little darlings..."
Then the DH tells the DW his amazing idea and she says "don't be so stupid" and he goes back to thinking up other amazing ideas.
I really don't get the hysteria? I'm not sure if I'd do it. Probably not at 2. Its not THAT terrible an idea though is it... I think we all need to calm down a bit!!
Before you even get to the safety considerations, you're hardly going to be enjoying your night out and your wife's company with one eye and ear constantly on your monitor, are you?
That's reason enough not to do it before you get to all the what ifs.
LOL @ this thread.
OP, I wouldn't do it. For a few reasons really, one being that you wouldn't be able to relax at all. Another being that loads of people would look at you like this And the most important one, that it's pretty silly and dangerous.
Having said that... the remarks about Madeline McCann and the MASSIVE hysteria have really made me laugh today.
<There is a risk that the children may go downstairs, try to cook french fries and burn themselves.
I do a lot of reciprocal babysitting with other parents on our road, I just don't see how this is so different from an audio only baby monitor in the garden or a large house with brick walls/thick floors (I live in a tiny house with walls and floors like paper).
Because those are unavoidable limitations of not actually being in the room with your kids, whereas going to the pub is not only avoidable but a dereliction of your duties as a parent.
When you have little kids you stay home and look after them or you get a babysitter. I don't think your jokes about what could happen to kids left alone are funny at all.
I had a friend who had a "relaxed" attitude to her Dd's safety from when she was very small. She frequently left her unsupervised including in a tent asleep (as a baby) while she was on the other side of a campsite not in sight. Then strapped in a car seat as a 2 year old while she wandered round an exhibition, her Dd got out of the car seat, out of the car and was found wandering round the carpark crying by someone else. Finally, at 2.5 she left her Dd playing in her garden unsupervised where she had an uncovered pond. Friend was upstairs at the front of her house and couldn't see or hear what was happening. Her Dd fell in the pond and it was only the neighbour hearing the splash and her subsequent struggle that saved her life.
Hideous and probably happened in seconds. No, you can't be in the same room as your Dcs all the time, you can't elminate every risk but you do not go down the pub and leave them in the house alone at night.
I can only assume this Thread is a wind up
well my tuppence worth is that, the OP is sitting having a good read and laugh at this nonsense.
convinced it cant be true, can it?
Pub is 10 doors away and your youngest DC is 2? Bad idea
Pub is next door and your youngest child is 8? Could work.
Some hysterical over-reactions on this thread. Having said that, I do think you're BU even considering this with a 2 yo. As some comedian or other said, having a toddler means being on 24h suicide watch.
I'm wondering what a lot of people on this thread do on a night out wrt babysitters.
Do you phone them every 5 seconds to check they have not fallen and cracked their heads open
or choked on a wasp ?
There's absolutely NO WAY on this earth that would be acceptable in any way, shape or form and no you shouldn't do it for all the reasons mentioned above.
I have to admit Madeleine Mccann was the first thought that popped into my head as well.
Not from the abductor side though, as the chances of that happening are slim. It popped into my head because the way I see it, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever in what the Mccanns did and what you're proposing to do.
Genuine question, now - why the outrage on this thread and cries of 'twat' and whatever, but when there was a Mccann thread you were not allowed to utter one single word against what they did, and lots of people were saying they did it, and it was just a tragic thing.
Why the fuck is it deemed OK when you're on holiday in a tapas road down the street from when you're staying in a foreign country miles from home, but not when it's the pub next door?!
If the OP did as he professed he was going to, and went to the pub a few doors down, would the response towards him be the same as the tapas lot who went down the street for wine and dinner? I doubt it judging by the responses and vitriol he's got so far.
Which is bizarre as it is the EXACT SAME THING.
Hovedad- being a 'hovemum', im more intrigued by which pub it could be that you're talking about? Terraced houses near nice pub with nice food- could it be the foragers/ the George Payne/ the bell? Please tell??
I don't see how it is any different to living on a big block of land (or a very large house) and being on the opposite side to the dcs.
I wouldn't feel very comfortable though mainly because of the McCann situation.
And I also would be embarrassed to be watching the monitor in the pub! And after reading all these yabu responses I would be worried that people would judge me!
But if those 2 worries of mine don't concern you then I think yanbu.
Read the title out to DH (IT professional) who thinks that he'd be v surprised if you could even receive the video signal that far. He also had raised eyebrows at the sheer suggestion
(Disclaimer - I don't have kids). I might consider doing this with a baby who was too young to get out of bed alone but not with older kids. You would have to be watching the monitor constantly and it would be a huge distraction from your meal to make the whole thing utterly pointless. You could easily miss a small child getting out of bed and wandering alone through the house if you were engrossed in your coq au vin.
Chrome - "I might consider doing this with a baby" - seriously??? Words fail me. Not a believer in cot death then? I think the current guideline is to keep a baby in the same room as you until they're 6 months. I think the current guideline also assume that you should be in the same building as them.
"I don't have kids". You don't say
Cot death cannot be prevented by being in the same house, what a ridiculous thing to say. You keep them in the same room for overnight sleeping not for the entire 6 months.
At least I never did.
Not that I'd leave a baby.
But more hysteria is not helpful.
Actually tee you keep them in the same room as you for all sleeps, naps included.
I am just astounded that anyone would consider leaving a baby alone.
And I'm astounded anyone kept their baby with them day and night for 6 months. I certainly don't know anyone who did.
Also that anyone is sitting around thinking "OMG THERE COULD BE A WASP!!"
But as this thread as proven, hysteria is live and well in the world.
As I said, I have anxiety disorder. Thank god my meds work...
tabbi I was wondering that too. I thought perhaps the Ancient Mariner.
Tee, as forgetfulmog says the recommendation is to have them with you for all sleeps up till 6 months. It's not actually that difficult, they just sleep in a pram where you are. (Admittedly I did feel I had lee way to go to the toilet while he slept, so not literally with me 24/7 if you're being picky).
Not anxiety, just following best practice.
I do find it hilarious that some of us that are opposed to the idea are getting confused with over anxious, over protective, ott parents that worry over everything when it couldn't be more far from the truth.
There is a difference between leaving children unattended and being in the garden or in the next room. Just because we don't think he should of done it, doesn't mean we are chained to our children and never go out.
Best case scenario: you get a night out.
Worst case scenario: something happens and you find yourself having to explain to Social Services why you left your 3 kids under 8 unsupervised so you can go for a meal and a pint or two... which might be followed by a nice Daily Mail headline: 'Kids left home alone while parents drank in pub'.
It is illegal to leave children of that age unsupervised, and a video monitor doesn't count.
Agree iggi. Anyway Tee I don't believe I said anything about keeping a baby in the same room as me 24/7, just that nap times & nighttime sleeps should be in the same room as you.
Why have kids if you can't be responsible enough to organise a sitter? When my daughter was 3 and had been in bed sleeping for an hour I nipped to the basement granny flat to wrap her Christmas presents. Granny flat directly below the house,I came back up after 10 mins to find the wee soul rocking back and forth sobbing as she had woken and couldn't find me! I will never ever get that image out my head...always get a babysitter!
But you wouldn't be watching the monitor the whole time. You'd keep glancing at it. Between glances any of the kids could get up but you wouldn't have noticed.
And there's no way youd hear a smoke alarm through a monitor in a busy pub.
And if nothing goes wrong the first time, then it'd turn into a habitual thing, adding to the potential risk.
'And I'm astounded anyone kept their baby with them day and night for 6 months. I certainly don't know anyone who did.'
Erm, aside from going in the garden for five minutes to feed the animals, with ds1 or 2 keeping an eye on him - we pretty much do this.
He sleeps with me, he's on my lap most of the day or at least in the same room/next room.
OP - you say your smoke alarm would be audible through the monitor but the thing is, if there was a fire, and the alarm went off, you would still need to run back home, enter the building, access all three children and then get them back out.
This could be the difference between their survival and their not surviving. If you were already nearby and in the building when it went off it would be much much quicker.
Well at this point it's obvious people haven't read the thread as you're repeating what's been said.
And said...and said...and said...
Tee you've repeated yourself many times, with very few people agreeing with you. But it's irritating for you if lots of posters agree with each other and reinforce the points made
It's not hysteria, it's just pointing out the what ifs.
I could go out in my car for the next year without wearing my seatbelt and be fine, but I still wear it as it reduces the risk.
That is what a lot of parenting is about, reducing the risk - helmets, stair gates, car seats, straps in prams, holding children's hands near the road.
We keep an eye on our kids to keep them safe.
I don't think anyone has said it quite the same way I said it and I have read the thread, I was on it from the start - I'm just replying to Hovedad's post about the smoke detector.
It's horrible when people start telling other posters to stop posting. It's not up to you.
Glad you've embraced the fact that its a shit idea OP.
I suppose some posters are just considering if you think that's ok, it doesn't bode well for your parenting in general. A complete assumption, of course.
But if I heard about a bloke who wanted to leave three kids alone in a house so he could go off to the pub armed with a video monitor, my first thought would be he had dodgy judgement as a parent.
I don't know anyone that kept their newborn with them for the entire 6 months either.
And that's pretty much all I am going to say, as the thread is so drenched in hysterical "what if your 2 year old decided to rewrite the electrics and the house caught fire and then the pub fell down and no one could get out and a wasp came in and ate everybody" it's quite pointless.
especially since the OP has already accepted its a bad idea and bowed out way up thread.
I'm pretty sure the entire thread was a wind-up anyway
And I also think it's horrible to call people hysterical for giving an opinion
Tantrums I don't know anyone (bar me) either. But that's because I have never asked anyone where their baby napped etc. Do you think the fsids guidance is on the same level as thinking your 2 year old might rewire the house?
no i dont. But I think the whole thing is bizarre quite frankly.
Its competitive disaster prediction. Im surprised anyone ever leaves their house. Or lets their children outside.
Not safe with kids at that age. Possibly ok with say 8 year old and 10 year old who can use phone.
I didn't tell anyone to stop posting. I did suggest they read the thread.
Also, if 10,000 people agree with you (general you, obviously) and only 1 agrees with me, that doesn't mean I am wrong, it means there are 10,001 people with an idiotic opinion.
I mean look at Hitler.
Oooh, Godwin's Law comes into play and Tee loses the argument.
Well then I might as well invoke the MN Addendum to Godwin's Law and also say, man do I feel sorry for some of your children and no wonder there's an obesity epidemic in the UK. The poor things aren't allowed to go any where or do anything because a wasp might scare them!*
*Oooh, also extrapolated helicopter parenting from what's been said here! I'll go hang my head in shame. After I eat this sandwich.
Ummmmmm Tee where on earth did I say that you're opinion was WRONG? I said you only had an objection to the same points being raised when it was the opposite opinion to yours, but you were happy to keep repeating yourself (ie you weren't supporting other opinions, just repeating yourself over and over)
Was this a wind-up?
Just come on to say that I've done worse and all my children are fine and accounted for. I did just have the 2 right?
Seriously, these threads come up all the time and I am not ashamed to say that personally I think it's fine to do that. So shoot me. (Or report me, whatever you wanna do).
I, lieke Rhurbarb have done worse.
We live in a close. 3 houses on one side, 4 on the other. We have garages in a block of 3 and 4 away f om the close. We leave our 2 and potter back and fort.
Phone SS !!
And I am the total opposite of OrlaKiely, who has not been seperated from her baby, but has her baby permanently attached to her. Maybe they forgot to cut the umbilical cord then ?
I went out for a coupe of glasses of wine, with my PN group quite a few times , in the first 6 months.
these threads are very odd in thier over-reaction.
It's a matter of culture perhaps.
We lived in France where parents would take their eldest to school leaving the babies at home in cots. When we asked neighbours over the square to babysit they turned up, set the baby alarm up and went back over to their house!
It's all a question of risk too.
For me the stats on babysitters who have abused their position are much higher than the stats on children who have been abducted. If your child is going to be abducted or abused then this is much more likely to be perpetrated by someone you know. Stranger kidnappings are so rare that people can still only think of Madeleine McCann who was taken from Portugal almost 10 years ago.
Fire risk - yes there is one but if a house is fitted with smoke alarms and everything is turned off then you have minimised that risk. To my mind, being 10 doors down is no different to being at the bottom of the garden. A smoke alarm would alert you to a fire way before you saw any smoke.
A good baby alarm doesn't just pick up sound, you can now get ones with video monitors and which record breathing. That also lessens the risk.
I would far rather have a video baby monitor on my child than hire a babysitter who I might not know.
But then I might consider other things to be a risk that other parents would happily do, like letting primary school kids have a sleepover with friends. I wait until secondary school before I start sleepovers. I wouldn't threaten those who have a different perception than me with social services though on the basis that their friends' parents might be child abductors.
Oblomov - harsh reaction to Orlakiely, I don't think you need to be so rude. Lucky you being able to go out when your baby was under 6 months - my dd is 7 mo & for the first 3 months I had to carry her in a sling everywhere as she would scream as soon as I put her down. Things are now a little easier but she still much prefers to be in the same room as me & still naps & sleeps on me.
I don't think it necessary to attack someone like that
yes because it would be wrong to "attack" someone posting about how they parent, even if you disagree with it wouldnt it................................?
I don't think it necessary to criticise a mum for not cutting the umbilical cord tantrums.
Hey, what do I know though
TheRhubarb - fires can take hold in seconds. I don't think fires are rare, I know three households who experienced a major fire, in two there were fatalities.
Hmm but your reenage baby sitter is a minor too.They should not be to putting themselves in any danger saving your Dc in a fire.Remember you are just as responsible for the teenaged sitter as your own children.
Meringue33, we can spend our lives being paranoid. I know of a fatal accident at a crossing I use every day involving a pedestrian and many more involving cars. It's a notoriously dangerous spot yet ds and I cross it every morning on the way to school and back again every afternoon. It's a risk I take. Others might decide that it was too risky and they would drive. Overall I feel the benefits of us both walking, getting fresh air and exercise outweigh the risks of us being injured by car accidents whilst we are crossing.
You would have to look at your own individual circumstances. If you were enjoying a BBQ at the bottom of the garden and heard the smoke alarm it would probably take you the same time to reach the house as it would if you were in a pub a few doors down. There would be seconds, not minutes, in it.
I would look at how many smoke alarms I had, what fire risks I had, etc.
Re the smoke alarm going off - the difference with being in the garden is that you'd hear it. Do you really believe you'd definitely hear a smoke alarm through a monitor in a busy pub?
Yes it's about weighing up risk - and I personally wouldn't risk being far enough away that I couldn't hear them or at least be with them IF something happened
eh? What did I say that was so appalling?
Ob, there was no need for that. I assume you thought I was criticising by default mothers who leave their kids in any way? No. Not at all - wish I could o the same! I was responding to a comment by Tee that said she couldn't imagine anyone staying with their baby all the time in the first six months.
That was all - no motive behind my post apart from to say that yes we exist.
My reasons aren't particularly idealistic - just I'm a SAHM, a single parent and he cries a lot.
(though it did mean a wasted cot! which ironically I passed on to you when we had finished with it...)
I think it is do-able.
The only risk that seems to me like a real risk is
A) You accidently get pissed and forget to watch the monitor
B) You tell people down the pub and get a reputation for not watching your children, thereby attracting the attention of those who would do wrong.
But as a once off if you will not get drunk - perfectly fine I think.
I don't understand. I am not supporting the OP on his original idea, I think it's a bit silly. However the reactions of people have been much worse...
So the child could get out of bed?
Yes, but this could happen with you in the house. This could happen while you're asleep and there would be nothing you could do about it. Surely it would be better to be watching on camera and actually see said event happen?
Surely all of the consequences mentioned could still happen? Just without the parents watching them?
But there's no way the parents actually WOULD be constantly watching the monitor while drinking and having a meal. And if a child got up and fell down the stairs while you were alseep youd hear them but if youve not been watching the monitor like a hawk then you wouldn't know it had happened til you got home. I know which is preferable to me.
As a slightly tipsy aside, do you want to hear what nasty fuckers wasps are? I once swatted a wasp when DS was a baby and pretty much mashed it. Stomped off feeling very righteous and mother-lion-ish, having protected my darling PFB. Came back an hour or so later to find the head, a few legs and some goo still crawling determinedly along the landing. Nasty, nasty fuckers.
Yanbu we go to the pub most nights and leave the kids 3 and5 on there own without fancy gadgets, £100 seems pricey for the gear that would get you 30 pints at our local
There you go, OP. Hafen's on your side.
Yep, it must be fine after all.
Quietlysuggests, it could be a one off though, OP said could get a monitor for price of 4 nights of babysitting, so would need to do it at least 5 times (at the same pub) to make it worth while at all..
I thought you were serious for a second then hafen! Bloomin eckers
I think it's a perfectly manageable risk as a one-off.
So you wouldn't hear a smoke alarm through a baby monitor? Methinks you would. So you would get pissed and not have the monitor in front of you? Quite presumptive there, not everyone goes out to get hammered, some just want a nice quiet meal with a glass of wine.
As I said before, I take my ds to school and bring him back every day crossing quite a dangerous stretch of road. Now I do that crossing 4 times a day, 5 days a week which statistically increases my risk (and I have spoken to our local councillor about making the crossing safer).
If you leave the children home alone with a monitor whilst you have a meal just a few doors down as a one-off, statistically the risks are much less. My ds is more likely to be injured on our walk to school than he is at home on the one occasion we might leave him.
It's quite mathematical really. The risk lies only in peoples perception of it. You think it must be more dangerous to leave them with a monitor and so this increases the risk in your mind. Yet if you think of all the worst case scenarios and take measures to prevent them whilst mathematically calculating the risk, you'll find it is in fact quite safe.
I would not do it on a regular basis but if a couple did this as a one-off, so long as they did a proper risk assessment. I don't think it's anything to get hysterical about.
TheRhubarb they have no intention of doing it as a one-off, as monitor costs price of 4 nights babysitting.
So the maths changes a little. And if it works once, why not do it every week?
and most risk stems from something thats a necessity - ie the school run is a necessity, crossing a road is a necessity, etc etc. Leaving them unattended to get a meal and a couple of pints is not.
I still dont believe for one second that all eyes and ears would be glued to a monitor if out with friends in a pub.
We shall have to agree to differ there. I have done this and it has been on a few occasions and yes, the monitor was there in front of us and one of us would nip out every half hour just to check on them and make sure the other person could hear clearly on the monitor.
It depends what kind of parents you are, what kind of pub you will be in, etc. Lots of factors.
And no, crossing a road is not a necessity. I could drive him and we would be much safer, protected by a steel cage. I choose to walk him to school even though I know that some of the walk is a potential hazard. I do all I can to keep him out of harm's way however.
Not every choice we make is a necessity. It's not necessary to go out and leave them at all really is it? It's not strictly necessary to get a babysitter - after all why leave them with a family friend when stats show they are more likely be abused by someone within the family? If we are to be paranoid here let's analyse the risks shall we? Babysitters pose more of a threat than abduction.
We take unnecessary risks every day. I let my 2 now aged 12 and 9 to walk alone to the shop and back. That is a risk as they could be abducted or get run over. I could go myself but I choose to send them so they can learn independence. I also let them play in the field where they make dens in the scrubbery. They could have an accident here or find some needles (there is a crack addict who lives nearby) but I choose to allow them to roam around because again, it provides them with skills.
I choose to take time out with my husband at times because this is good for our relationship and if we are happy as a couple then I believe we make better parents.
I no longer have to worry about going out and leaving them at home alone, but I have done so about 9 or 10 times in their lifetimes. As I said, in France it's more acceptable than it is here. Perhaps they have a different attitude or are simply not as paranoid.
I think if a parent has gone to the extent of buying video monitoring equipment then they are the kind of parent who would eliminate as many risk factors as they can, who would also check on their children and who would put a great deal of thought into that decision. Asking on Mumsnet for advice is another sign of a conscientous parent.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.