to think it's wrong to leave a baby/toddler sleeping alone in a hotel room?

(766 Posts)
strawberry34 Sun 07-Jul-13 14:03:22

When you have a monitor and are still in the premises?my friend says she does it when on holiday, she goes to the bar/restaurant and responds to the monitor if her 2yo dd wakes, I was shocked and said I wouldn't ever want to, I stay in the room and read a book/have a bath. Aibu to think what she's doing is wrong? I don't want to refer to famous cases but to me there's too much risk.

LookingForwardToMarch Sun 07-Jul-13 14:06:54

Yes she is wrong and may I add a fucking moron.

Has she timed how quickly she can run her selfish ass back to the room?

If it's over 30 seconds she may as well turn off the baby monitor for all the good it is going to do her.

SoupDragon Sun 07-Jul-13 14:07:50

I don't want to refer to famous cases

And yet you have, with that statement.

SpooMoo Sun 07-Jul-13 14:08:36

Yanbu - I wouldn't. The example someone always gave to me was what if there's a fire alarm and they won't let you back in the building to collect your child?

NoComet Sun 07-Jul-13 14:11:03

It takes longer to get from DHs workshop attached to the house, or even his study than to some travel lodge rooms we have had.

Hobbes8 Sun 07-Jul-13 14:13:30

Would that happen? They wouldn't let you back in to get your stuff out of the room, but to collect a child? I'd like to see them stop me.

That said, I still wouldn't do it. My son would be frightened if he woke up in a strange room without one of us. Once he's asleep he's not bothered by noise so I'd have a glass of wine and watch telly.

ChestyNut Sun 07-Jul-13 14:16:26

YANBU

These threads normally don't go we'll though

<grabs popcorn>

Jan49 Sun 07-Jul-13 14:16:46

It's wrong. If the toddler wakes s/he could get up to mischief or wander off without the parent knowing. If there's a fire the child may be trapped. If the parent leaves the bedroom door locked, it restricts the number of people who might get in and the toddler from wandering but may mean they're trapped in the case of a fire. If the door is unlocked, the child might wander or a stranger might go in. Locking the door doesn't keep the child safe from strangers anyway as so many staff will have keys.

I think the biggest risks are the child wandering or doing something dangerous in the room and the risk of fire, rather than strangers.

apostropheuse Sun 07-Jul-13 14:19:12

YANBU It's wrong.

grobagsforever Sun 07-Jul-13 14:20:45

Idiotic. Apart from anything else DC would terrified if they woke up alone! It's not worth the risk, you can't be sure a room you are unfamiliar with is truly childproof. As for 'I'd like to see them stop me' statement - right you're stronger than several other people combined are you? Don't be foolish.

Yabu its dependent on the situation.

She isn't asking you to do it so leave her alone.

And hmm at the famous cases, ooh like you didn't realise what your implying. Have a little conviction and actually make your point instead of hinting at it.

I think its to prevent the usual post of "two words - madeleine mccann"

We did it once, would never do it again

catgirl1976 Sun 07-Jul-13 14:26:06

YANBU

I have been trying to explain to my DSis that when later this month we are staying over night in the same hotel as her and her DP for a family event DH and I cannot "leave 19 mo DS sleeping in his room and get pissed in the bar with her"

To be fair she doesn't have DCs so doesn't really get it but honestly hmm No.

antimatter Sun 07-Jul-13 14:27:02

ask her if life and safety of her son is more important than money she saves

also this---vvv
It takes longer to get from DHs workshop attached to the house, or even his study than to some travel lodge rooms we have had.
IMHO making that a usual practice doesn't make it right

miffybun73 Sun 07-Jul-13 14:29:01

YANBU, of course it's wrong.

I just can't imagine anyone of sound mind doing this.

Cornishpasty2 Sun 07-Jul-13 14:32:13

Anyone remember the Butlins/Pontins child watch scheme from the 60s/70s/80s when you registered your room number and a member of staff listened outside your chalet for babies crying (every 20 mins I think it was)? If they heard anything your room number would be flashed up on a sreens round the camp so you could return to see to your child/children? It seemed 'normal' then and most parents did it - but nowadays...? Has the world changed so much? Sad to say, but it has.

jacks365 Sun 07-Jul-13 14:32:52

Surely the size of the hotel makes a difference and the location of the room. In some small hotels my dd would be closer than she would at home. I've never done it as I've not had need to but I could see it being done in a small hotel but not a big one.

Personally I think I would do it, if the monitor reaches you can get therein no time.

Chunderella Sun 07-Jul-13 14:42:21

I really wouldn't, and can't imagine why anyone would. Perhaps I am pfb.

Exactly, its the size and layout of the hotel, the age and temperament as well as sleep patterns of your child, the design of the room and what they're sleeping in, the destination, the place where you are and what you're doing while they're sleeping etc etc etc ....

Forgetfulmog Sun 07-Jul-13 14:54:07

Um isn't this exactly what happened with Madeleine - left in apartment room (ok apartment not hotel but still), whilst parents went for dinner. No difference surely?

badguider Sun 07-Jul-13 14:54:08

Too many variables - IMO it can be fine and it can be very irresponsible depending on lots of things - I'd judge each evening on its own. I have friends who've done it with a video monitor in a very small hotel to have dinner with me.

Drhamsterstortoise Sun 07-Jul-13 14:59:06

Cannot believe people would seriously consider doing this.

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 14:59:56

So if you happen to live in a large house, you stay next to your toddler's bedroom all night do you? Just in case?

There is no difference between being on the ground floor of a 3 storey house with the toddler on the 3rd floor than being in the bar of a small hotel.

Euclase Sun 07-Jul-13 15:00:51

No chance.

monicalewinski Sun 07-Jul-13 15:01:14

I did it once, back when my eldest was about 1. It was at a small hotel and it was a private party with a group of mums and dads (one of whom's parents owned the hotel). We were in the bar bit and the rooms were just up the stairs, we all had our baby monitors and the kids were in cots so couldn't get out and wander.

This was in 2003 (if my memory is right!) - I never did it again though as I felt very 'not right' about it, and definitely Madelaine McCann has often made me think again with regards to a certain degree of complacency that you can have when things have 'never happened to you'.

I think that there is an awful lot of molly-coddling goes on with regard to older children getting out to play etc, but leaving a child on their own whilst you are on the piss? Something I wouldn't do myself again.

catgirl1976 Sun 07-Jul-13 15:01:54

The difference is the amount of unknown people in the hotel.

ComposHat Sun 07-Jul-13 15:06:25

I would be worried they'd drink the mini-bar dry and spend the evening watching the one handed channels.

TidyDancer Sun 07-Jul-13 15:07:29

No, I would never do this. I'd also be really unhappy if DP did it (he never would) or anyone taking care of our DCs.

There are too many reasons not to, and the only reasons to do it are selfish.

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 15:09:33

Nope, never have, never will.

AuntieStella Sun 07-Jul-13 15:11:30

It depends entirely on the layout of the hotel. One where you have a ground floor room which you can reach in seconds and from which the monitor indubitably works is a whole different consideration from being several floors away.

Nadalsballs Sun 07-Jul-13 15:11:56

We went to a family hotel recently and everyone did this. The hotel even provided the baby monitors and everyone had them on their tables at dinner.

I think it does depend on the size of the hotel. This was a small hotel and the DCs were as close to us as they would have been at home. We tested the monitor and it was very sensitive. You could hear the DCs breathing and the monitor lit up if there was any additional noise - eg when DS rolled over.

We went to different family hotel and our room was further away so we hired a babysitter who was recommended by the hotel (most people used the monitors here too). In some ways that made me less comfortable as I didn't know them from Adam (although they were from an agency and had been CRB checked etc).

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 15:12:09

Oh, it's an every stranger's a paedophile thread.

TidyDancer Sun 07-Jul-13 15:13:20

Is it curlew? I would disagree.

Celador Sun 07-Jul-13 15:13:24

No way, not ever - DS would be scared if he woke up without DH or I. I'd live without the night out or take him with us.

Cases like Madeleine's also make me uneasy, as rare as it is.

AuntieStella Sun 07-Jul-13 15:13:59

And I'm not sure the McCann case is terribly relevant here, as OP wasn't describing leaving the premises totally, nor lack of continuous monitoring via alarm.

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 15:15:43

I don't think that's the case at all curlew.

There are many reasons that prevent me from leaving my child alone. A random paedophile just happening to be in the vicinity is way down the list.

To imply not wanting to leave your babies alone in hotel rooms makes you think enough to assume every stranger is a danger is quite insulting.

TidyDancer Sun 07-Jul-13 15:22:15

I agree Stella. The McCann case involved the parents leaving the building unlocked (and open?) and going to another place. There were long periods of time where the children were unmonitored and a parent could not have known there was a problem.

I still would not leave a child unattended in a hotel even with a baby monitor, but what the OP proposes is not what the McCann group did.

AuntieStella Sun 07-Jul-13 15:22:38

The likeliest risk is that the child leaves the bed and encounters a hazard. This can be mitigated by continuous monitoring with a good quality alarm. But you won't know if the signal path from the room is good enough until you test it out. So unless you always go back to the same hotel, you can't know until arrival, so is hard to rely on.

A ground floor room which you can reach in seconds means you can attend to your (monitored) DC as quickly as you would do at home. Ditto for scenario of hotel fire alarm (or home smoke alarm) going off. Being on a different floor loses time, and you may not be permitted up the stairs.

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 15:25:42

How much fun can a meal be either you are constantly watching and listening to a box on the table?

Drhamsterstortoise Sun 07-Jul-13 15:28:58

You don't know who has access to the room.Its completely different to being in your own home.

SueDoku Sun 07-Jul-13 15:36:39

Anyone remember the Butlins/Pontins child watch scheme from the 60s/70s/80s when you registered your room number and a member of staff listened outside your chalet for babies crying (every 20 mins I think it was)? If they heard anything your room number would be flashed up on a sreens round the camp so you could return to see to your child/children? It seemed 'normal' then and most parents did it - but nowadays...? Has the world changed so much? Sad to say, but it has.

Can't believe that we used to do this quite happily when DS was a baby shock. A real case of 'If I knew then what I know now'.....!

2old2beamum Sun 07-Jul-13 15:41:01

WE have 3 adults with SN and 2 DC's with SN there is no way we would leave them on their own. Sod our sex life grin we sleep in rooms separately me girls him boys.
Regarding meals we all go or eat in room

SmiteYouWithThunderbolts Sun 07-Jul-13 15:47:03

I'm surprised that the consensus is overwhelmingly against. I thought it would be more of an even split.

Tbh, we've done it. Only in tiny hotels where the restaurant is about a minute's walk away and taking it in turns to nip back and check every 10 minutes, but it was that or sit in the room with them in the dark without making a sound! They were a bit older than toddler age then though. I wouldn't do it in a big hotel or with a child under the age of 3.

megsmouse Sun 07-Jul-13 15:49:49

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

janey68 Sun 07-Jul-13 15:50:55

Curlew - pointing out that a hotel has public access and you don't know who may be working or staying there is not tantamount to suggesting every stranger is a paedophile.

You made the point that it's no different to being downstairs in a large 3 storey house, and people were simply correcting you, that there may not be a difference in distance, but a hotel is totally different to a private house where you know who is in it

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 15:52:24

And these people are going to get into your locked hotel room exactly how?

Willdoitinaminute Sun 07-Jul-13 15:53:01

My DC recently had seizure in his sleep while we were staying in a hotel. He was in our room and we woke with a start when he fell out of bed. So glad that we have never been tempted to leave him to sleep on his own in hotels. Very scary experience. It was his first and hopefully only seizure.
If we hadn't been there the outcome could have been very different.
I doubt that a monitor would be very effective in a noisy bar!

Forgetfulmog Sun 07-Jul-13 15:53:52

Umm with a hotel key curlew, it's not exactly rocket science. Could be knicked from the parent or anything.

It's not worth the risk IMO, but each to their own.

antimatter Sun 07-Jul-13 15:54:15

so parents who are not agains this do it with a full knowledge that someone else has access to that hotel room?
i.e. spare/emergency keys for hotel staff?

LookingForwardToMarch Sun 07-Jul-13 15:55:14

Haha have you never been broken into?

Unless.it's an alarmed lock I am sure it wouldn't pose too much of a problem.

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 15:56:13

So the hotel staff are paedophiles?

Chunderella Sun 07-Jul-13 15:57:00

Curlew here are a short series of problems with your comparison:

1. Probably the vast majority of people do not live in houses that are the size of even small hotels. Hell, a fair minority of the population live in flats, and that's before we consider the little two up two downs.

2. Probably the vast majority of hotels are bigger than even large houses.

3. Even in the small percentage of situations involving people who are staying in hotels that are smaller than their houses and , the hotel is likely to contain more people they do not know than their house is.

janey68 Sun 07-Jul-13 15:57:29

Keys curlew. Those things hotel workers have.
Another key difference between a hotel and a private house is that most parents in a large house would probably leave the bedroom door ajar. They certainly wouldn't lock it, which slows down access in the event of an emergency

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 16:00:01

So you won't leave your sleeping child in a locked hotel room with a monitor because the hotel staff (who are the only other people with a key) might be a paedophile.

Or there might be an unspecified emergency. And it would take you 15 second longer to get into the room than it would at home.

LookingForwardToMarch Sun 07-Jul-13 16:00:09

Depends which hotel you are at.

It's not like they crb check bell boys is it!

And before you start I am not suggesting that ALL hotel staff are pedos.

But ofcourse there is a risk.

It just boils down to whether you, as a parent, are willing to take it.

(and no it is not like just at home hmm unless your house is full of strangers you don't know from Adam and all there is is a flimsy lock.on your door)

janey68 Sun 07-Jul-13 16:00:28

I'm beginning to pick up that you have an obsession with paedophiles curlew.

Look: hotel staff have been known to steal from hotel rooms. An unknown person entering the room would be extremely scary for a child.

(I am aware of course that fire, theft, medical emergency are all unlikely events; I am just suggesting to curlew that there are a variety of reasons why parents wouldn't feel comfortable, and trying desperately to distract him/her from the paedophile obsession )

LookingForwardToMarch Sun 07-Jul-13 16:01:38

Lock on your *childs door

prettybird Sun 07-Jul-13 16:06:45

Smites - the reason could be 'cos most people who would be ok with it can't be bothered coming onto threads like this.

People have already made up their minds and are quick to judge those who make different choices.

primallass Sun 07-Jul-13 16:12:13

I have done it twice. Both times he was in a travel cot so could not climb out. Was before the Madeline McCann case though. Everyone did it when I was small, hotels had a listening service.

TSSDNCOP Sun 07-Jul-13 16:14:31

I wouldn't do it. Not because of the paedophiles hiding in the maids trolley, but because my over active imagination means I wouldn't relax.

MM went missing about 3 weeks before I had my first DC. Would I have been different if she hadn't? Maybe. But I can tell you that although I'm fairly chilled about most things, leaving the DC unattended on holiday isn't one of them. Sad but true.

janey68 Sun 07-Jul-13 16:14:58

Primallas- yes, there's also the issue of them getting out of bed. God knows what my 2 year old would have got up if he'd found himself alone in a hotel room ...

phantomnamechanger Sun 07-Jul-13 16:26:47

I have to disagree with those saying that a child upstairs in a hotel room is no different to up a few flights of stairs in your own large house.

For example - in the event of a fire alarm or other emergency, YOU would then be trying to battle your way through the crowds of people coming down the stairs to get back up to your frightened child, and having to waste precious time explaining yourself

I have also found a neighbours child sobbing in the street at 730 one morning not knowing where her mum was - mum as it turned out had popped down the road to another friends house for a few minutes thinkg DD would not waken. I know someone else who drove their Dh to the station leaving 2 pre school children asleep in their beds every day and thought this was fine as they were in a very rigid sleep routine and would not waken in the 1/2 hour she was gone. Of course she knew she would never break down or be delayed or involved in an accident. hmm

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 16:30:25

Curlew you are being deliberately obtuse in asking people to explain their reasoning then twisting it.

Would you leave your passports and money on the bed of your hotel room? There's a reason hotel rooms have safes. I don't use one at home but sure as hell do in hotels purely for the reason that that any number of people have access to keys.

So for the same reason I agree as hell wouldn't leave my dc. But, as many people have said, there are numerous reasons why it's a stupid thing to do v before you even get to the paedophile with a key.

You seem quite quick to belittle people who choose to our their children's well-being over dinner in peace and quite quick to deny the fact there are dangerous people out there. It's not a myth. Rare, thankfully, but not non-existent. No one was being hysterical, you seem keen to imply they were though.

Why is that?

farewellfarewell Sun 07-Jul-13 16:32:05

yanbu. I can't imagine doing that even with a slightly older child, but her baby so totally her decision

catgirl1976 Sun 07-Jul-13 16:37:48

Curlew - fear of abduction etc is a long, long way down the list of reasons I wouldn't do this

The top reasons are probably

Wouldn't feel right
Wouldn't be able to relax
Worried DS would be unsettled in unfamiliar surroundings
Concern over DS getting out of cot and having some sort of accident
Concern over fire in a place where I don't know they layout as well as home

etc

janey68 Sun 07-Jul-13 16:42:58

Id also add to catgirls list: my 2 years olds bedroom was child- friendly, so when he did climb out of his cot/ bed, he couldn't do much harm to himself or what was in the room .
Not so with a hotel room

defineme Sun 07-Jul-13 16:46:54

I did it when ds1 was a baby several times (he's 11 now). Always with baby monitor. Usually in very small hotel, but once ot twice in a large one. I wasn't happy in the larger ones-so never went out for long. By the time we had the twins ds1 was old enough to wander so we just sat outside the room til they went to sleep and then read our books in the room with them.
Tbh I'd never considered the fire scenario and I always was very open with hotel staff and no one ever said anything. We used a baby listening service once in a very chic boutique family hotel-I thought it was a crap idea because ds1 only cried if he was upset and he's be hysterical if he'd been left to do it for 20 minutes. So I bolted my dinner and went back to him very quickly.
Would I do it now? Probably not because I'd feel uncomfortable, but I don't think it's logical. When my kids are in the back of a villa and we're in the garden or when they're in the tent and I'm in my friends gazebo the next tent along I don't really think anything about it.
There was a thread on here once about letting your dc camp out in the back garden-I said I wouldn't because there's been burglars in my back garden 3 times that I know of-lots of people thought I was mad.

McNewPants2013 Sun 07-Jul-13 16:52:00

I wouldn't do it, we tend to take the buggy on holidays ( DC don't need them anymore) but it provides a place for them to sleep.

zoraqueenofzeep Sun 07-Jul-13 16:59:29

They are far more likely to harm themselves than come into danger from a stranger which is reason enough not to leave young children unattended, in saying that I wouldn't leave my most expensive jewelry/credit cards/passport/bank details on the bed while I went on the piss for obvious reasons. There are bad people in this world and it's the parents responsibility to be there to protect their young children from them. There is no excuse for leaving children unattended, if you can't get a babysitter or take them with you, then stay with them.

prettybird Sun 07-Jul-13 16:59:59

Ds was always a good brilliant sleeper, so we had no issues with doing this.

Travel cot when he was 2 (which he never tried to climb out of), villa holiday/holiday with family for the next couple of years and then for the next 7 years, the same small family run Greek hotel where ds would sometimes sleep on the floor under our table (having gone up on his own shock to his room to get a pillow) and sometimes (or later) up in his room while we were still downstairs.

As parents, we all make our own differing judgements as to what is appropriate or safe. I'm comfortable with the decisions we made but am not going to judge other people for making different ones.

thebody Sun 07-Jul-13 17:05:49

Not my way but not judging( for a change)

I think it all depends on specific circumstances as well to be honest. Size of hotel, room location, etc.

Certainly not abroad as its lovely to sit outside with a wine and a sleeping child in your lap.

katydid02 Sun 07-Jul-13 17:05:58

YANBU. It is wrong, totally and utterly wrong.
Curlew, there is every difference. You are in the same building, you would hear smoke alarms going off, you would have much more chance of hearing somebody breaking in.

Absolutely no chance.
Leaving my hotel reception shift at 11pm once, I found a 2yo wandering the car park looking for his parents. Poor thing was distraught.
Found said parents pissed out of their heads at the bar.

He could have been run over, taken, fell into the river. Shudder to think.

Drhamsterstortoise Sun 07-Jul-13 17:06:52

I've stayed in hotels several times where people have accidentally come into the room.Once someone was given the wrong swipe card.Another time as teenagers we had a separate room to our parents and someone came in during the night.Another time a man came into my sisters apartment.There was a security man on the front door who gave him access.Luckily he was just a drunk idiot and they weren't harmed.I'd bring a babysitter for peace of mind.

miemohrs Sun 07-Jul-13 17:12:14

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

I wouldn't do it, personally.

Nornironmum Sun 07-Jul-13 17:25:44

To be honest, I really can't understand how this is even legal? I mean really, you make a choice when having children, they don't ask to be born, you must know things are going to change when you have them? I just can't understand how having a few drinks or having a meal, is worth risking you children's safety.
Either take a baby sitter, or take the kids with you.
Yes I would totally judge any one how did this, and I think it's one of the most selfish things a parent can do, and I have seen so many struggle to even have DC, that when I hear of people that would do take this risk, that is purely for selfish reasons, I just feel sad.

GoldenGytha Sun 07-Jul-13 17:39:59

My DC were young long before the MM case,

It never entered my head to leave them alone while on holiday, a night out is not more important than my DC.

Sometimes XH would stay on in the bar, and I went back to the room/caravan with the DC, but leaving them alone was never an option.

No one has to justify why they wouldn't do this, it's just common sense and decent parenting that your kids come first.

mrscog Sun 07-Jul-13 17:51:14

No I wouldn't do this. The only exception I can think of is if they were an age where they definitely couldn't escape from their cot and if I were staying in a proper 'home from home' B&B where it's literally the same size as your house and the 'staff' are the owners and no one else(absolutely no more than 4/5 bedrooms), then I can't see how it is any different from home. I personally probably still wouldn't leave DS though.

badfaketan Sun 07-Jul-13 17:51:17

I wouldn't do it.
Apparently my in-laws used to leave their 4 year old in charge of 2 younger ones though and go for dinner in the restaurant with no monitor!

fluffyraggies Sun 07-Jul-13 17:53:39

I didn't do it and never would. My kids were all born in the 1990's, so like you golden, not a case of 'hysteria' because of the MM events here, but instead a case of just feeling of not wanting to take the risk for something so non essential as a few drinks.

Kids are little for such a short while. It's a privilage to raise a child. 3/4 years of your life curtailing evening social activities a bit in the name of keeping your child secure and happy is no big sacrifice surely? I survived it OK.

Jan49 Sun 07-Jul-13 17:55:32

My ds was a teenager when Madeleine McCann disappeared so obviously it didn't influence what we did when he was little. I had never considered leaving him alone in a hotel bedroom when he was asleep. One of us would always stay in the room. I'm not sure whether I was most concerned about him waking or wandering or strangers or whatever, but it would never occur to me to do anything except stay with him. In your own home you remained in the house and in a hotel or B & B you remained in the room. It's part of what you do when you're a parent IMO.

When my ds was 8, someone booked us 2 twin rooms in a B & B instead of a family room and they assumed that our ds would sleep in one room and we'd sleep in the other. We considered it but decided he might wake and not know how to find the toilet as it wasn't in the room or might get lost getting back from the toilet or might call us and we wouldn't hear him and we couldn't leave the bedroom doors open due to strangers staying. So I slept in the room with him and his dad in the other room.

Jan49 Sun 07-Jul-13 17:57:50

Sorry that last sentence isn't clear. I slept in the room with our ds. His dad slept in the other room. So we didn't let ds sleep in a room on his own in a B & B.

TiredFeet Sun 07-Jul-13 18:07:53

yanbu.

I grew up in a very large family house but this is totally different from even a small hotel. my parents knew who was in the house and we knew where we were, etc. in a hotel you have no idea who else might have a key and what else might be going on in the building

this is why since having DS we no longer stay in hotels, and do self catering instead. we have found some lovely cottages where you can buy in really nice home made meals from the farm house. or we do self catering in a big house as part of a big family group / group of friends so we can still socialise in the evenings.

Wouldn't bother me at all if it was close enough. Really wouldn't consider that a random weirdo would molest them. It just wouldn't happen. It particularly wouldn't happen if you had a baby monitor and could hear everything.

ChocsAwayInMyGob Sun 07-Jul-13 18:31:12

I wouldn't do it.

Nothing to do with perceived paedo paranoia. It's more to do with things like what if they fall off the bed? or fall over on the hard bathroom floor? or wake up scared thinking they've been abandoned? or pull on the kettle lead? or hurt themselves? Unlike their bedrooms at home, hotel rooms have not usually been babyproofed.

I couldn't enjoy a meal or a drink knowing that.

Face it, when you have kids, there are a few short years where they come before your need for a meal or a drink in a hotel bar.

MortifiedAdams Sun 07-Jul-13 18:35:15

Those who are saying that the hotel room is closer than their bedroom at home......do you usually have 200 strangerd wandering around your home, some.of which have keys that allow them directly into the bedroom?

yanbu. It shouldnt be done.

If we can afford to stay in a hotel room, we pay the upgrade to a suite.

ChocsAwayInMyGob Sun 07-Jul-13 18:45:33

Really wouldn't consider that a random weirdo would molest them. It just wouldn't happen. It particularly wouldn't happen if you had a baby monitor and could hear everything.

It's not just about " a weirdo" it's about safety in general. And anyway, who says a baby monitor is a guarantee of safety?

beals692 Sun 07-Jul-13 18:45:35

When I was about 2, my parents left me in the hotel room while they went down to the hotel restaurant. I managed to flood the place in their absence grin

phantomnamechanger Sun 07-Jul-13 18:46:04

LFC - for goodness sake, random weirdos is not what its about. There are numerous reasons mentioned on here already why it is selfish and irresponsible to leave kids in hotel bedrooms. It is an unnecessary RISK - ok, so take that risk if you want, but don't say there is no risk.

and before folk start saying even a car ride or crossing the road is a risk, yes they are, but they are managed risks with the parents looking after the child, not leaving them to do it on their own and out of sight and earshot.

mumofthemonsters808 Sun 07-Jul-13 18:46:34

No, never.

McNewPants2013 Sun 07-Jul-13 19:05:44

What if the baby monitor fails.

Actually 'random weirdo' is the main reason given so far. confused

If you have a baby monitor and can hear them breathing or turning over and you're as close as you would be at home then it's as good as it gets.

Whole different kettle of fish if its a different building, if you have no baby monitor, and there's no fire alarms.

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 19:08:11

Actually, I don't think anyone has said what all these dangers are. People have talked a lot about people you don't know walking around the hotel, some with keys. If the concern is not "random weirdos" what is it?

I did.
Run over. Taken. Fell in a river.

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 19:11:07

You'd hear them waking up on the monitor and you'd be there within seconds of them falling out of bed or falling on the bathroom floor- just as you would at home. And presumably you've had a quick scout round and locked anything potentially dangerous in the wardrobe?

catgirl1976 Sun 07-Jul-13 19:12:14

It just doesn't feel like responsible parenting. It doesn't require a statistical analysis of what the risks are and how likely they are to occur. It just feels wrong, therefore I wouldn't do it.

DS would probably, statistically be ok to do a carefully calibrated for toddlers bungee jump. I still wouldn't be comfortable watching him hurl himself off a bridge.

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 19:14:47

Well. Nobody's forcing you to do it, obviously.

But not wanting to do it yourself, while understanding that your motives are irrational (nowt wrong with that- loads of the things we do as parents are irrational) is one thing. Saying that other people who do it are putting their children in danger is quite another.

HarumScarum Sun 07-Jul-13 19:15:00

I would do this IF the child was old enough and responsible enough to come and get me if there was a problem. So not babies, not toddlers and not even small children. About ten years old? I don't know, I only have a six year old and wouldn't dream of leaving her alone in a strange place. She'd be distraught if she woke up and nobody was there. Unlikely, but people do sleep worse in unfamiliar surrounding.

Ragwort Sun 07-Jul-13 19:15:24

I'm surprised that the consensus is overwhelmingly against. I thought it would be more of an even split. - I think those of us who have left our babies in hotel rooms wouldn't mention it on this thread because of the flaming grin.

I have done it, even without a monitor shock - one of us checked every 20 minutes or so, it was fine.

We all make a 'risk assessment' about every aspect of our life - yes, there is a very, very small risk of a fire or 'random weirdo' but to me that risk is incredibly small.

HarumScarum Sun 07-Jul-13 19:15:46

Actually, not sure I would even leave a ten year old. I mean, fire is a small risk but if it did happen and I couldn't get to my child I would never forgive myself.

JollyShortGiant Sun 07-Jul-13 19:20:09

DS is 2 and does not sleep in arms or on laps or in buggies. He can climb out of a travel cot. This is why we've just come back from a holiday in a cottage. It was much more appropriate for our family than a hotel.

If we left him alone in a hotel room:
He'd likely be scared if he woke up.
If he wasn't scared, he'd
a) Climb something
b) Open the door and wander out
c) Switch on some appliances
d) Empty clothes all over the room
e) Switch on the taps
f) Find something inappropriate on the tv
g) Try to open the window
h) Break some decoration

This is clearly not an exhaustive list of dangers, but I'd be far more worried about DS damaging something or himself than I would be about a paedophile or child snatcher getting him.

babybarrister Sun 07-Jul-13 19:20:21

Have done it - a week after a certain other 'case' - and would again dependent on nature of hotel. What is the actual risk statistically rather than the fear factor? If the risk of getting run over with a pushchair is higher are all of you going to stop crossing roads with your DC?

HarumScarum Sun 07-Jul-13 19:23:30

The risk of leaving your small child alone at home in a safe child-friendly room is probably pretty low. Would you do that?

coney77 Sun 07-Jul-13 19:23:46

YANBU it's wrong and stupid.

HarumScarum Sun 07-Jul-13 19:24:27

And crossing roads is a ridiculous comparison. Nobody can live without crossing a road. Everybody can live without leaving their small children alone in a strange environment.

phantomnamechanger Sun 07-Jul-13 19:26:41

just some of the reasons given on this thread, other than random perverts molesting your DC, are as follows -

fire safety - being unable to access your child in the event of a fire or similar emergency - child being too young to make own escape

child wandering off/getting lost or injured coming to try and find you

kettles and other objects - trouser press, razor, medications, open window etc! that DC would not normally have in their safe bedrooms at home

them being scared when they wake up in a strange setting

them being scared by a thief coming into the room, or even a member of staff coming in with legitimate reason

them being scared eg by row in next door room, or rowdy drunks in corridor

the main point given though is just that it is selfish not to put your kids well-being above your own sense of being entitled to child free time to enjoy your evenings. If you want child free time - either don't have kids, or book them into grannys so you get a weekend alone with DH.

trackies Sun 07-Jul-13 19:26:43

Maybe how you assess the risk depends on personal experience as well. DH was nearly abducted when he was 10 whilst out playing with his brother, so we are both v wary of leaving our kids anywhere. So no I wouldn't leave child in hotel room where wide variety of people have access. DH also drank from bottle of bleach when he was a kid resulting in tum being pumped in hospital. So would i leave my child on wn with potental safety hazards ? no. The risk is small but I'm not prepared to take it. If other people do, it's their kids and up to them

prettybird Sun 07-Jul-13 19:39:34

Ragwort - that's what I was intimating earlier grin

I too have done it without a baby monitor, like you checking regularly and knowing my own child (and how well he slept) and the risks in the room he was in.

He would have had to be a very precocious 2 year old to wake up (which he never did), get out of the travel cot (which he never did) and learn to unlock the door (which he never did) before he came across any other risks.... hmm

And when he was older and we were letting him go up to his room on his own to bed, the hotel we go to has one entrance and we having dinner on the patio area outside it (through which all the guests have to go to get into the hotel), so I wasn't bothered about the idea of "random weirdos".

He's 12 now, but even if I were able to have another child (too old now), I'd not change that particular aspect of bringing up a child.

But everyone who knows me knows what a bad and uncaring parent I am not grin

javotte Sun 07-Jul-13 19:41:03

One of my earliest memories is waking up at night because my newborn baby brother was screaming. I didn't know where my parents were and I had no idea what to do. I was terrified. I was 5, my brothers were 3 and a couple of weeks old and my parents had thought it was OK to leave us.

Itsaboatjack Sun 07-Jul-13 19:42:46

We did it with dd1 at a family wedding about 7yrs ago, pre Madelaine McCann. It actually didn't occur to me not to. It frightens me now, looking back, how blasé we were about it.

I wouldn't do it now.

louisianablue2000 Sun 07-Jul-13 19:44:24

The fire risk is the scariest. It's all very well saying you'd go back to the room but the reality is in that case you'd probably both be overcome by the smoke before you ever get near the bedroom.

prettybird Sun 07-Jul-13 19:48:20

That reminds: one of my earliest memories is standing with my brother (aged 3.5 and 2 respectively) on the stairs crying 'cos mum and dad had popped out to neighbours and there was no-one in the house and mum and dad arriving home.

Obviously didn't scar me though! wink

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 19:48:55

Competitive negligence. A new low.

cleoowen Sun 07-Jul-13 19:49:55

Interesting debate and very relevant to me. We're going to a family wedding in October and ds will be 10 months. Was debating with hubbie what to do for the evening reception. We discussed leaving him in the travel cot with the monitor on. No chance of him getting out, hurting himself at that age but I was worried about loosing signal. We ve not decided what to do.

phantomnamechanger Sun 07-Jul-13 19:52:07

of course personal experience does come into it too -

my judgement is affected by the death of my 3rd baby, the loss of 4 cousins in a housefire, being in a B&B when the fire alarm sounded at 6am, a local school burning to the ground in a very short space of time, a neighbours TV catching fire in the middle of the night, a friends child choking to death doing his own breakfast while they had a lie in, another local child accidentally strangling themselves, several drownings and numerous other personal/local/national tragedies

for these and other reasons I am still very cautious about not leaving my children

JakeBullet Sun 07-Jul-13 19:55:14

cleowen we had a similar situation when DS was about the same age. What we did was plan things so that nearly all the family took a turn at spending half an hour in the room with him over the evening. It worked well and meant nobody missed out on the fun but that DS was safe and had someone nearby if he work.

phantomnamechanger Sun 07-Jul-13 19:55:54

cleo - DD stayed up till 11pm at a wedding reception with us when she was just 6 months - if your baby would be too crabby/upset by the change of routine, surely family members would do shifts for you - say 20 mins each - so you and dp still get to enjoy some free time without worrying?

phantomnamechanger Sun 07-Jul-13 19:56:32

x-posts with jake

Lweji Sun 07-Jul-13 20:00:35

Unless she's 2 doors down, she's unreasonable.

Hotel doors are not that difficult to open.

Hell, my front door with security features was not that difficult to open by the locksmith with plastic card.

Plus fire risk.

Surely the hotel should be able to arrange a baby sitter for a couple of hours.

HearMyRoar Sun 07-Jul-13 20:02:54

I might do it if the place was very small. I'd take our video monitor so we could watch to make sure she was OK, just as we do at home. We don't drink alcohol so hardly getting pissed in the bar. Just might want an hour reading in the lounge before bed rather than sitting in silence in a dark room from 7pm.

We are going away in a couple of weeks. Its our first holiday with dd and I hadn't even thought about what we would do in the evenings. Not sure why it hadn't crossed my mind at all.

ivykaty44 Sun 07-Jul-13 20:04:18

How many feet or metres must you be near to your baby or small child - and how far is that limit or put another way what distance is unsafe?

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 20:06:07

IMHO YANBU.

The fire risks and getting back to the room against a tide of evacuees has already been explained.
A child could fall out of bed, become disoriented in the strange room.
Leave the room (easily done).
Ppl underestimate the time it takes to get to an hotel room.
The hotel is open to strangers who might want to enter your room for any number of reasons.

I also dislike the suggestion that parents who might dare to worry about "random weirdos" molesting or taking their children are irrational and hysterical. It does happen. Rarely, but it does happen.
Risk analysis is made based not only on the likelihood of an event but also the degree of harm in the event of the risk occurring. I don't think a meal in the hotel restaurant or drink in a bar is worth it personally, but obviously we're all different.

I grew up in the era of "baby listening services" in hotels.
Just because ppl used them doesn't mean that it's ok now.
There were also no seatbelt laws (babies travelled in cars on mum's lap in the front seat or in a carrycot on the back seat) and very lax drnk - driving laws at that time. Should we go back to that?
No thanks. Not for me.

Each to their own though.

There's more to it than distance though, isn't there? Or was that your point?

sunshine401 Sun 07-Jul-13 20:07:06

anyone else remember Butlins and the lovely people with torches who would do "rounds" on the camp to check on the children.. of course whilst the parents were watching the shows blush

Bowlersarm Sun 07-Jul-13 20:07:44

We did it a lot.

It was pre-'famous cases'. I don't know whether I would have done it after that. Probably, in some circumstances.

catgirl1976 Sun 07-Jul-13 20:08:33

I wouldn't judge anyone else who did it curlew

I might even envy their relaxed parenting style

I just don't feel comfortable doing it myself, rational or not

Lweji Sun 07-Jul-13 20:08:56

I have once left DS asleep to take his babysitter home. That took about 10 min round trip.
He was 6 or 7 and I had told him beforehand that if he woke up and I wasn't in, that I had just popped out for a few minutes, left the phone by him to ring me and left the front door unlocked. And the flat has a fire alarm.

I wouldn't have done it if he was younger.

And once a baby or toddler are asleep you can have a light on in the room. At least a reading light, or the tv on.

KingRollo Sun 07-Jul-13 20:12:03

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

VivaLeBeaver Sun 07-Jul-13 20:12:39

I've done it in Esprit hotels, they're a family ski company a bit like Mark Warner.

The hotels are fairly small and exclusively for the use of other Esprit customers. Kids aren't allowed for adult dinner so you have no choice but to leave them in the room if you holiday with them. We always used a baby monitor and locked the door, never had any problems.

Since Madeleine Mcgann they now have a member of staff on every corridor.

At one of their large (4story) hotels the fire alarm did go off during dinner. It was the week before we were there so I didn't see it myself but a member of staff told me they told all the parents to evacuate and that the corridor staff would evacuate all the kids (30 rooms per floor maybe so I dunno how two staff could evacuate potentially 60 kids). Apparently all the parents ignored staff telling them not to go and get their kids and there was a stampede of parents up the stairs!

LadyIsabellaWrotham Sun 07-Jul-13 20:14:59

I've left the DCs in a room with a baby monitor while staying in a big 8 bedroom holiday rental with mates. I might consider doing the same in a similar sized family hotel/B&B, if I had a baby monitor that was working well enough to hear a ticking clock in the room.

The random kidnapper/fire risk is real but tiny. I might equally look askance at people who drive for hundreds of miles on dangerous (ie not British) roads just because they fancy some sunshine.

nethunsreject Sun 07-Jul-13 20:16:50

No way. It's not on.

Lweji Sun 07-Jul-13 20:17:37

dangerous (ie not British) roads
hmm

So no accidents on British roads?

charitymum Sun 07-Jul-13 20:17:43

Each to their own. I wouldn't do it-would struggle to relax. Friends have. As people said lots of variables might
make it more or less safe.

But I do do wonder on the legal point. If you left a child at home alone at two - say to have a drink next door and you had monitor etc I suspect a charge of neglect possible - unlikely if nothing went wrong; quite likely if there is accident.

What are chances of neglect charge if child left in hotel room?

ivykaty44 Sun 07-Jul-13 20:21:52

I don't think there is a safe or unsafe distance, I used to leave mine upstairs to sleep and go out int he garden -this was at my parents house and without a baby monitor I wouldn't have known whether they were asleep or awake and yes it was the size of a small hotel the house next door had been split into 4, three bedroomed flats. I wouldn't leave the same building as my dc were in asleep for me that would be to far away, for others though popping next door would be ok and that is fine.

i dont' think it is the same as seat belt laws either - many many more small people were killed due to not wearing a seat belt, I can not think of more than half a dozen abductions leading to a dreadful end in the last 6 years. Drunk drivers have also killed far far more children and IMO it is not the same as using a monitor in a hotel room.

i have stayed in hotel rooms where we have slept on the ground floor three bedrooms from the bar - I don't see it as a problem to go and sit and have a drink and have done.

LadyIsabellaWrotham Sun 07-Jul-13 20:23:30

British roads are not guaranteed to be accident free, but are pretty much the safest in the world bar Sweden and a couple of places with 10 mile an hour speed limits. Once you venture onto the roads of Continental Europe (let alone anywhere further afield) then you are taking a significant additional risk with your DCs lives just because it might rain in Norfolk.

Drhamsterstortoise Sun 07-Jul-13 20:28:05

I don't know any of my friends or relatives who would leave a 6 year old alone in the house.Could the babysitter not have stayed the night if you were forced into that position.Completely agree with paradisechick.

cleoteacher Sun 07-Jul-13 20:34:11

thanks guys for the suggestions. Not sure family members would be up for it as my sisters both have their own 2dc's who are very close together in age to worry about, my aunt and uncle's daughter is the one getting married so don't feel I could ask them. My cousin (sister of bride) is more likely to help with bride's ds than mine and again wouldn't be fair to my sisters. My mum probably wouldn't as then she would then need to do the same for her other 4 grandchildren to be fair and then would miss quite alot of the wedding.

I think I will probably put him in his sleepsack and try and keep him with us as long as possible, maybe trying to put him in his pram to go to sleep, and then just try and pop him in a corner near us so we can hear and see him, but might be too noisy for him. Or keep him up as late as we can and then when he goes to bed take it in turns with dh to supervise him or just go to bed when he does.

My sister has a ds2 who is 7 weeks older so it will be interesting to see what she is planning to do as she's a very cautious parent. Before anyone suggests, I don't want them in together as her ds wakes up several times in the night for bf's and mine sleeps through so I think he would just wake my ds up, plus would probably wake up trying to move him to another room once we went to bed.

Lweji Sun 07-Jul-13 20:38:07

Having experience of roads outside the UK, if you drive carefully they are not that dangerous.
They are dangerous mostly for the many drivers who dangerously overtake and go over the speed limit, or drive dangerous cars.

Drhamsterstortoise Sun 07-Jul-13 20:42:12

Tbh any weddings I've been at the couple have got a babysitter or shared childminding duties.Brother in law got married recently and I looked after dd for the day and then had an early night-was pregnant and had hg.Bit of a pain missing out on the fun though!

LadyIsabellaWrotham Sun 07-Jul-13 20:42:30

And for the people who cross the paths of the many dangerous drivers Lweji. Most people will indeed survive a taxi or hire car ride from Malaga airport - but it's not the same risk as a taxi from Heathrow.

Lweji Sun 07-Jul-13 20:43:58

The border between hovering parents and neglectful parents is not that easy to define. smile
We all end up taking risks, one way or another.
Each person is comfortable with different risks and less comfortable with others.

HoratiaNelson Sun 07-Jul-13 20:44:02

I have left kids in bed whilst going downstairs in family-home-sized B&B, but normally whilst on holiday, we just keep the kids up. Small ones can sleep in their buggy, larger ones join in with the meal, all go up to room at the same time.

As for wedding in hotels, I have always taken the baby in buggy approach, slightly older ones have been known to sleep on a pile of coats under a table, or stretched out ona row of chairs...that's if they're not still dancing with the rest. I accept I am a very laissez-fairs parent...

Lweji Sun 07-Jul-13 20:46:17

LadyI, the risk of meeting a dangerous driver exists, as it does in the UK, but it is not that high. I was talking of us driving ourselves, not being driven. You can rent a car in Malaga.

So, you never leave the house?

Tanith Sun 07-Jul-13 21:16:42

I remember, Cornishpasty2. They'd write the chalet number up on the board. Some of them were up for a very long time sad

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 21:24:13

"I also dislike the suggestion that parents who might dare to worry about "random weirdos" molesting or taking their children are irrational and hysterical. It does happen. Rarely, but it does happen."

Name me one instance where anything like that has happened from a locked hotel room with locks windows and the parents downstairs in the same building listening on a baby monitor.

LadyIsabellaWrotham Sun 07-Jul-13 21:24:16

You may have missed my point Lweji

We stayed in a hotel in Disneyland Paris with a 2 year old DD1 a couple of years ago.
We put her down in the travel cot, sat outside until she was asleep then went back inside to read until we were tired.
While we were reading, our door clicked & someone tried to open it. We had bolted it from the inside. They kept rattling the door & DH finally went & opened it.
It was 3 chambermaids who when we asked them why they were trying to get into our room at 9.30pm said they were wanting us to tip them. We didn't & after that experience would not leave my DC in a Hotel room unless the door was always visible.

ivykaty44 Sun 07-Jul-13 21:31:04

Lady I doubted your statement about roads in Uk and accidents so went and found this I was surprised

A roads though was a total shock - how bizarre

Xmasbaby11 Sun 07-Jul-13 21:37:31

YANBU. I'd never do that.

ceramicunicorn Sun 07-Jul-13 21:46:40

Dh and I do this once a month for our 'date night'. We gi to a local restaurant with rooms. 10 mo ds is in his travel cot in the room. We have a lovely meal downstairs, monitor on table, pressure mat on, nothing can go wrong. Can't believe some people would consider us bad parents for doing this.

LadyIsabellaWrotham Sun 07-Jul-13 21:46:42

The spin they've put on some of those numbers is questionable Ivy, (because of their particular bias) and they've chosen the most flattering version of the stats, but yes the picture is broadly correct.

I'm not actually saying that nobody should ever get a taxi in Portugal, but it is my go-to example when confronted with the rhetoric of infinite risk avoidance. (As opposed to "I just don't fancy it myself" or "I've thought about it and I think this particular risk outweighs the benefit") Nobody ever says "Why are you selfishly putting your DC at risk by driving to France rather than going to Norfolk?"

Doubtfuldaphne Sun 07-Jul-13 21:51:26

No way. Ever. How do you know your child is safe in unfamiliar surroundings? The thought of it fills me with dread.

blimeyohriley Sun 07-Jul-13 21:54:36

I would never do this but know plenty of people who do.

I personally would just not be able to relax so what's the point?

I am naturally very anxious and particularly anxious concerning my DD, I also think that once you have children you should not carry on as if you don't have them and that means you stay in the room with them if you all have to be in a hotel together.

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 22:04:22

Ceramicunicorn I can see the more you do this and do it without incident the safer you think it is. You are being naive, at best.

Your baby is only 10m old? And you feel the need to do this on a monthly basis. Why? Does your need to have a meal with your husband trump your baby's basic needs? Why nit save the cash and get a babysitter and go out and relax properly?

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 22:09:38

Curlew why do I need to name a time when that has happened? The point is that bad things can happen even when we least expect it.
In an hotel a locked door is not really "locked" for me when any number of ppl have access to the key.
Property is stolen from hotels all the time, even from locked rooms. I don't want my child in that room.
I'm not sure that it's your intention but your posts appear quite aggressive.
I have made my point and expressed my view on the op's question. It obviously differs from yours. I'm ok with that.

laineylou Sun 07-Jul-13 22:12:32

Ok. I did it once. Friends small pub/bnb. We were only downstairs and figured if dd woke up she'd be ok older ds was on the room too. Had monitor in bar but didn't hear dd wake up and get out of room. Another guest found her in the corridor crying and very scared. I never did it again and now I can't believe I was so blasé.

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 22:12:39

And others have made the reasonable point about not being able to relax. I concur. How enjoyable is a meal or drink if I'm staring at the monitor all the time. I might as well sit in the hotel room.
DH and I could sit in the bath together and raid the peanuts from the minibar.

LookingForwardToMarch Sun 07-Jul-13 22:14:09

Why do some of you even have children?

If adult time is so precious that you would happily consider putting your child at even a minute risk of harm then why give it up in the first place?

Fine, it's your kids, do with them as you will. Doubt any of you would be able to live with yourselves if anything actually happened.

No-one thinks it will happen to them.

curlew Sun 07-Jul-13 22:16:22

Emily, you stated categorically that it has happened. "It does happen. Rarely, but it does happen."

That's why I asked you for a case where it had.

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 22:18:14

Yes. "it" being the taking or molestation of children by "random weirdos".

ivykaty44 Sun 07-Jul-13 22:20:56

so you get a couple of hotel rooms with interconnecting doors, do you sleep in your rom or the dc rooms?

If you want to have rooms service then order room service and have the meal brought up to you.

If you are comfortable with going to the bar and having a drink then do so.

but don't try to scare monger people to do what you do as you think it is the only way to do things - it isn't the only way or the best way

VestandKnickers Sun 07-Jul-13 22:22:31

I think all the talk of strangers and unforseen dangers are red herrings. Bottom line is it is selfish to leave a small child alone in unfamiliar surroundings. Have date night at home so that if your child wakes up he/she sees their familiar things and you can be with them amost immediately to comfort them. Surely that's what being a parent is all about.

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 22:23:43

Even if you trust the fact that you can see them with the monitor as a safeguard you can't guarantee reception throughout the hotel (we have one family house that has no reception on the monitor when in the kitchen but does in the other rooms due to the thickness of the walls).
When does the monitor get switched on? As you leave the room?
What if the child leaves the room? You can't see them.
I may be over protective but the concerns are really not that outlandish.

JBrd Sun 07-Jul-13 22:23:55

We are currently staying in a hotel for a friend's wedding. Forgot to bring the baby monitor. DS (2 years) is sleeping safe and sound in our hotel room (ground floor, I should add), and we go and check on him every half hour throughout the evening. This is the third day we're doing this. It has worked brilliantly.

The only reason I won't be doing it again is that he will outgrow the travel cot very soon.

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 22:26:03

I don't think anyone's scaremongering.
The op is asking if ppl would leave their dc in hotel room while they were in the bar.
Some ppl are saying "no" and giving an explanation for that.
Some ppl are young they would be ok with it and explaining likewise.

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 22:28:16

I think I agree vestandknickers

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 22:28:59

In fact of baby is such a good consistent sleeper that you are comfortable leaving it alone then surely you're able to get a meal at home without being disturbed?

blimeyohriley Sun 07-Jul-13 22:30:12

Vestandknickers has it spot on

ivykaty44 Sun 07-Jul-13 22:31:56

lookingforwardtomarch is scaremongering plain and simple, how would you live with yourself comment is a classic

Emilythornesbff Sun 07-Jul-13 22:34:52

Sorry, not young I meant saying

kali110 Sun 07-Jul-13 22:35:31

Not ever. It just isn't worth the risk. If anything happened the only person i would blame is myself. You don't leave valuables out so why children. There are too many things that could go wrong. Not everybody out there is a weirdo, but they aren't labelled. If there was a fire what would happen then? If child got out of bed and hurt themselves, the thought scares me. I would never be able to relax. Plus if anything did happen i don't think the authorities would be happy

Never, why would you.

trackies Sun 07-Jul-13 22:36:54

No-one thinks it will happen to them

Exactly.

I do find once stuff (any traumatic stuff) happens to people, they become more cautious about alot of things that they previously wouldn't have worried about. e.g. sudden very early death of family member caused me to realise how fragile life actually is and that shitty things do happen.

My less cautious friends are those who haven't yet experienced loss and therefore have a more carefree attitude towards risk. Not saying that it's wrong, but different.

Spero Sun 07-Jul-13 22:38:46

Depends on so many things - the size of the hotel, the type of monitoring arrangements, the personality/mobility of your child, your own temperament and attitude (if you couldn't relax or enjoy yourself away from child, seems pretty pointless to even try), the distance you are going, the amount of time you will be away, etc, etc.

I have done it. Enjoyed a nice meal with a friend, we were gone for two hours. Baby slept whole time in cot. Had hotel listening service.

I analysed the risks and benefits and found them all acceptable to me.

If you don't feel comfortable, don't do it. But a blanket 'it is simply wrong' is not something I agree with.

prettybird Sun 07-Jul-13 22:40:43

Paradisechick 's attidude is exactly why most people who have assessed the risk that it is negligible acceptable don't post on these threads - because they get judged aggressively.

I did choose to drink occasionally while I was pregnant (but not during weeks 6-10), I stopped eating unpasteurised cheeses but did eat foie gras once while I was pregnant, on the other hand I never got drunk when I was in charge of ds, I breast fed him till he was 13 months old, never gave him formula, we chose not to use stair gates, instead teaching him how to go up and down stairs safely (and he never fell; in fact the only child I know of who ever had an accident on stairs was one whose parents nearly always had stair gates in use), we taught him to cross roads safely from the age of 2 (yes, in company), so I was comfortable letting him walk to school on his own from age 7 and cycling to school on his own from age 9 and from school age 10 (differing risks according to the direction), didn't let him stop using a car seat till he was 150cm tall, much to his disgust, conversely, did use a taxi occasionally when overseas when we were not able to use a car seat, drove cars in South Africa where other people would consider that there was a risk of car-jacking (but we always hired a Japanese car rather than a BMW), went walking in Stellenbosch when other tourists would tell us to be scared, let ds walk to a football ground the other side of the village in Greece we were staying in on his own, age 10 , let ds, now aged 12, cycle around Glasgow (as long as we know roughly where he is) as he goes out for training rides .....

Some of these "risks" other people would consider acceptable, other's not. We all have our own judgement of perceived risk.

The one time ds was at risk was when he was 17 months old and had just learnt to walk. He managed to get himself out of the house via the (sort of) cat flap shock and walked (having only just learnt to walk) to the house next door at 7 am, where dh finally found him. Totally my fault, as I had left the house at 6am and not closed the storm doors behind me in the pouring rain. Did I feel guilty? Yes. Did I let it make me paranoid about other risks? No.

prettybird Sun 07-Jul-13 22:47:37

My mother died as a result of a cycling accident where she fell and hit her head, even though she was wearing a helmet. Despite an initial recovery over 2 years, she then declined and it took another 3 years for her to die. It was horrible. sad

Despite that, I have not been out off cycling - and in fact, ds is now obsessed with it. Ironically, I'd rather he played rugby (in which he is also showing talent) as I think it would be safer! shock But I'll support him, whichever sport he chooses.

I'm not going to constrain my life - or his - by worrying about "what if's".

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 22:50:38

Pretty none of those scenarios you mentioned a are tangible with expecting an infant to look after itself.

Ragwort Sun 07-Jul-13 22:59:07

No one is expecting an infant to look after itself - the initial scenario mentioned was leaving a baby/toddler in a room with a monitor - therefore the parent would be able to check with the monitor if the infant woke up and could then return to the room - for many people the 'risk assessment' is that the child could easily be reached quickly, yes, there is the rare chance that the room might burn down or a 'wierdo' enters or the monitor doesn't work, but these are not 'expecting an infant to look after itself'.

I am amazed that some of you even leave your child to sleep in its own room alone at home, you must be so worried about all the 'risks'. hmm

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 23:08:44

Which begs the question, if you are relying on looking at a monitor looking at your sleeping child whilst having a relaxing meal... well what's the point?

ParadiseChick Sun 07-Jul-13 23:13:22

FWIW I don't have a monitor at home.

But I do have a small house. The first time my son comes out his cot he was 18m old. He did it with ninja like silence. God knows how long he'd been out his cot playing in his room right above my head when we found him happy as Larry at 10pm.

Assuming most people are talking about monkeys for sound only... well what use would that have been?

He was fine as he was in his own room. An unfamiliar room? J dread to think.

cory Sun 07-Jul-13 23:13:36

I would judge that the risks are probably a little bit higher in a hotel:

At home I don't leave my house keys hanging in a public space which is something left unmonitored when reception staff are called away.

At home nobody else has a master key which they might leave unattended in a public space.

At home I myself can check that fire alarms are functioning, all escape routes clear and easily opened etc.

In the event of a fire, at home I would have a free route up the stairs and not be competing with terrified strangers trying to get down the same stairs.

mymatemax Sun 07-Jul-13 23:14:03

would & have happily done it, some hotels also offer a baby listening service in reception.
Its great!
But then I also was one of those toddlers/children left in the chalet in pontins in the 70's with nothing more than someone cycling around the camp listening for a child crying & the chalet number to be flashed up on the screen in the Ballroom.

prettybird Sun 07-Jul-13 23:14:18

No - I'm not expecting a child to "look after itself" - I'm expecting him to sleep - the way he does every night and has done since he was two weeks old . If I had had a child who woke up during the night or who constantly needed attention, I might then have made a different judgement.

expatinscotland Sun 07-Jul-13 23:23:30

Kidnap her child. No parent should be drinking in a bar when they are parents. EVER. Or hire a hitman to take out this so-called mum. You are much better than she is.

Do people not let their children sleep in pushchairs anymore?
Obviously older children would be different but we've just been in holiday and our DS (2yo) slept in the pushchair every evening until we got back to our room.

stopgap Mon 08-Jul-13 01:09:47

No way. I was surprised when, last year, we stayed at a country hotel that offered a listening service. What's more, we were in outbuildings and separated from the main building by about 150-200 yards.

stopgap Mon 08-Jul-13 01:11:40

throughgrittedteeth my 22-month-old son won't sleep anywhere but his cot (even night flights don't send him to sleep).

We either take my parents with us on holiday, and have them babysit while we go out as a couple, or we eat out early as a family.

morethanpotatoprints Mon 08-Jul-13 01:24:53

I haven't done it nor would I.
But it does depend on many factors whether it is wrong or not.
To me though its not home and whilst you can be in the bar which is really close to your childs room, there are probably a lot more people than at home who can also be close to your childs room.
you would never forgive yourself.....

janey68 Mon 08-Jul-13 06:34:37

Prettybird- of course it's a case of weighing up risks in any situation. But there's a vast difference between accepting an element of risk for the sake of advancing independence and life experience for your child. Being able to confidently navigate stairs. walk to the shops on their own and cycle round town ( at appropriate ages) are important skills for the child. And I'm the first person to cringe when I see kids so wrapped up in cotton wool that they Display learned helplessness

But what benefit to the child is there in being left alone in a hotel room? It's not advancing learning or fostering independence. It's a totally unecessary course of action . The only possible benefit (?) is the parents get to sit in a hotel bar with a baby monitor... What a bizarre idea of an evening out

IcouldstillbeJoseph Mon 08-Jul-13 06:44:07

I wonder if, whilst you were away at the hotel, you won the lottery and had to keep the winning ticket safe - would you allow that to stay in your hotel room whilst you went out. No, you'd probably keep it with you because it was so valuable and lucky.
But your DC, yes, leave them.
An overly simplistic analogy I grant.

janey68 Mon 08-Jul-13 07:33:26

Oh and before anyone replies to my last post with 'well what's wrong with benefiting the parents?' - there's absolutely nothing wrong with parents protecting their own adult time ; indeed, I would say that part of being a good parent is not losing sight of your own needs. I'm the mum who spent a week madly expressing milk for our month old first baby so we could go to a long awaited gig we'd bought tickets for a year before. But we did it with proper babysitting arrangements.

Having time as a couple, and ensuring your children are properly supervised are not mutually exclusive you know. It just takes a bit more effort to set things up- oh and money to pay for a babysitter, which is, oddly, the stumbling block for many people, who think nothing of spending on a bottle of wine in a bar, or on a night out, but resent the idea of a few extra quid to pay someone to supervise their precious child. Truly bizarre.

icklemssunshine1 Mon 08-Jul-13 07:58:01

No way I could do this just for pure fact it wouldn't feel right. We've been away countless times with DD now 2 & depending in where we stay we have different plans. Family holiday in France - private villa - one if us would stay behind. Hotel room in Dublin - DD in corner with lights off, DH & I reading/watched TV with lamp on. Family wedding - DD slept in buggy with ear defenders. I don't drink so its not really a sacrifice but even if it was we chose to have her. I'd hate for her to wake & feel scared & alone.

IShallCallYouSquishy Mon 08-Jul-13 08:08:41

YANBU.

I wouldn't pop over to the corner shop while DD was asleep in her cot so why would I leave her in a hotel room? Christ, if I have to get something out the garage (not attached to house) i won't even do it while shes napping. Maybe I'm PFB but I hate to think of my child alone.

Only last weekend out next door neighbour had a BBQ/party in the evening. The monitor would work easily in their garden but my DH stayed at home while I popped over for an hour.

loopyluna Mon 08-Jul-13 08:21:00

A few months before MM hit the headlines, we were at a wedding in a small country hotel. My mum's wedding. We had a room with our 3 DC, then aged 6, 4 and baby. I planned on leaving reception at about 8-9pm and staying in room with DC but mother kicked up quite a fuss and we ended up spending the evening dashing back and forth from 9pm -11pm when I couldn't stand it any more.

It was -me in room with sleeping DC for 10 mins, leaving room (ground floor), crossing reception and into dining room, pretending to socialize merrily for 10 mins, then sending DH off to room... It was exhausting and no fun at all. I felt awful leaving kids, guilty leaving party, mean sending DH off...

Never again. This year on holiday, DS (now 13) had a strop and wanted to stay at the hotel while we went out for dinner and I wouldn't let him!

It's all about your own conscious I think. If it doesn't sit well with you, just don't do it. If you are able to relax, guilt-free then your call...

LadyIsabellaWrotham Mon 08-Jul-13 08:28:08

You wouldn't let your 13 year old stay alone in a hotel room shock.

RoadToTuapeka Mon 08-Jul-13 08:30:11

I remember in early 80s when I was 9 my parents left me & my sister aged 7 in an Amsterdam hotel room while they went out. They went after we were asleep. Completely insane, they are non drinkers very sensible normally. We woke up, were terrified, managed to get out of the room to look for them, locked ourselves out, & ended up being put back in room by hotel staff. Dreadful experience for us.

Would not leave children in a room on their own in a hotel!

Nicknamefail Mon 08-Jul-13 08:34:12

I recently left my 6mo asleep and went and ate in the hotel restaurant downstairs with the monitor on. I would do this again. I wouldn't leave a toddler who could get out unless I was in a tiny tiny hotel and I wouldn't leave a baby in a big hotel.
Am shocked most people wouldn't leave babies. I agree with the pp who talked about a 3 story house. We live in a weird tall thin place and the baby is 4 floors up at home and at the hotel restaurant we were much closer.
We always ask to be close to the restaurant.
Can we please clarify that people are not talking about leaving babies and going on the piss, just a nice meal.
Also, The mm case did periodic checks, think monitoring and video monitoring is safer.

curlew Mon 08-Jul-13 08:34:58

A 13 year old! shock

And there is a bit of a difference between leaving a sleeping baby to go downstairs with a baby monitor and leaving 7 and 9 year olds without telling them to hit the nightspots of Amsterdam!

Abra1d Mon 08-Jul-13 08:39:15

I have done this for a very quick meal in family-run hotels, where we know we are only a few flights of stairs away. Including in the same resort in Portugal, 16 years ago. We are not big drinkers and had a monitor and left the table every fifteen minutes.

I can imagine circumstances where it would be perfectly safe to leave a baby or dc. I just wouldn't enjoy whatever I'd left them to do, because I'd want to keep checking that they were OK, so what would be the point, really!

I think in your own home, however large and many floored, is different because you control that environment totally, whereas in a hotel, you don't.

Drhamsterstortoise Mon 08-Jul-13 09:51:23

'shocked that people don't do it'?This was the first time I have ever heard of people doing this.Its so selfish.Why would you not get a babysitter or stay at home or have your meal early?Just makes no sense.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 10:02:42

In all honesty I can't believe people still do this. Its like smoking in cars , I thought everyone was more clued up these days.

Imo its very irresponsible parenting.

curlew Mon 08-Jul-13 10:10:00

"Imo its very irresponsible parenting."

But why????????????

If it doesn't feel right to you don't do it. But why is it irresponsible??????

Ragwort Mon 08-Jul-13 10:10:39

Is one of the reasons people get so indignant about this is because it is the thought of the parents having a drink or meal shock whilst their child is alone? If you were doing something more 'worthy' would you still be so uptight about it?

My DS was the sort of baby/toddler who slept through and never, ever woke up - it was entirely the norm for him to have a two hour nap every single day after lunch until he was 3. We used to have elderly neighbours who often needed a hand so I would pop over and help them whilst DS slept - yes, leaving him totally alone in the next door house. I made a judgement, we lived in a very rural, low crime area - no doubt I would still get flamed for leaving him?

Drhamsterstortoise Mon 08-Jul-13 10:13:10

I don't think it's ever right to leave your child alone regardless of whether the activity is 'worthy' or not.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 10:13:21

Oh here we go again, the pearl-clutching brigade at their finest on yet another 'how bad are those parents?' thread.

See how strong the reactions are, using the words 'idiot' and 'moronic' and 'selfish'.

That 'famous' case - why not say it? Madeleine McCann. How long ago was that? 8 years? And that is the only case you can remember which wasn't even in the UK. Can anyone else remember a recent case of anything happening to a child left in a hotel room?

No?

Yet I can tell you plenty of stories of abuse that has happened with the babysitter.

Statistically your child is more likely to be abused by their babysitter than abducted or otherwise harmed in a hotel room. That is a solid fact.

Most hotels are safer than your homes. They have excellent fire alarms and sprinklers and whoever said that they wouldn't let you go back into your room to collect a child is talking about of their arse. Of course they bloody would! But health and safety is such a priority in hotels that fires are rare. Very rare. Look up the statistics and you will see that house fires are still in their thousands whereas hotel fires?

So if we are talking about fires, you are safer in a reputable hotel chain than in your own home.
Abduction, again statistically speaking your child is safer without a babysitter than with one.

Many hotels offer babysitting services which is just the same as having a baby alarm in your room. Would they offer that service if they felt it was irresponsible? No they wouldn't as they know that if the shit hit the fan they would have their arse sued off. So there's another reason why your child is safe in a hotel - the hotel would have had to do a complete risk assessment and be insured in order to offer a babysitting service.

Then there are the sophistication of baby alarms. Most alarms now are very sensitive so you can hear every breath your child takes and even see their breathing light up the monitor. If you want to, you can even watch your child via a little monitor.

I really do not see what is so selfish about two responsible parents, assessing the risks and spending a little quality time together whilst ensuring that their children are as safe as if they were at home. Which they are.

These knee-jerk reactions really are very very dull.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 10:14:40

Curlew

I would have thought it obvious, anything can happen. Its an unnecessary risk and for what a quick meal? senseless.

curlew Mon 08-Jul-13 10:15:43

I think you're right. You're not "sacrificing " enough.....

Oh, and it's magical thinking too. I can't actually protect my child from the real risks in the world- but that's too scary to think about. So I will protect them from the imaginary risks and that'll make me feel better......

curlew Mon 08-Jul-13 10:18:18

"Curlew

I would have thought it obvious, anything can happen. Its an unnecessary risk and for what a quick meal? senseless."

Oh, I had forgotten about that scary "anything". Absolutely. Boa constrictor. Escaped tiger. Zombie.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 10:22:28

Curlew lol at imaginary risks.

I was a nurse in A & E in the 90's and then jumped ship retrained and worked in local government law, including spells in child protection. I think I have more insight than most at what can happen. There are reasons there are safes in hotel rooms.

I guess sometimes ignorance is bliss.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 10:25:42

Hamilton75 so how many children did you see who had come to some harm in hotel rooms?

Compared to those who had been abused by babysitters?

curlew Mon 08-Jul-13 10:26:22

Ah. Could you share some of your experiences of babies brought to a and e after being left sleeping in a locked hotel room while their parents are downstairs with a baby monitor? At last- somebody who can actually tell me what "anything" is!

FreudiansSlipper Mon 08-Jul-13 10:28:00

ds just slept in his buggy

no i would not do it, i am on holiday with ds so it is not quite the same i accept that but it has never stopped me doing things it is just done differently

PeppermintPasty Mon 08-Jul-13 10:28:28

I have done it just the once when I was throwing a party for my dp at our local pub. The kids stayed up late and then I put them to bed in a room at the pub where I was also staying the night of course. Myself and dp did "every 10 minutes" checks. I wasn't drinking and he drank later at the after party at our house with his mates.

The checking only lasted an hour or so as I was so knackered I went up to join them. (Always my intention as I am such a lightweight with late nights). The children were 2 and 5 at the time.

I felt it was ok as the pub is staffed by friends, full of local people known to me in the main, and I was confident I could get up the stairs in a flash. The staff put the monitor on the bar for me too which I was listening to 90 % of the time. I did find it a bit stressful, and couldn't relax much, and wouldn't bother again ie I wouldn't leave them at all.

I wouldn't do it in a place I was unfamiliar with. It wouldn't feel comfortable or right to me. But I have to say, I would not condemn any parent who left their child having assessed the risks and taken appropriate precautions.

Ragwort Mon 08-Jul-13 10:31:11

THERhubarb - the voice of reason (not for the first time smile).

I would not condemn any parent who left their child having assessed the risks and taken appropriate precautions.

I also wouldn't do it personally, because I just don't seem to be of a character that is particularly relaxed when I can't be there in person. But I agree with Pasty on this. ^^

Drhamsterstortoise Mon 08-Jul-13 10:41:34

As regards the babysitter situation -I agree as my mum was abused by a close family friend.I am lucky enough to have a lot of relatives who are childcare professionals and would trust them completely.Wouldn't leave the children with anyone but them.We usually stay in family hotels when we have gone away and have our meal early.I don't feel hard done by that myself and my partner can't have a meal alone.We do this at home during the week when the girls are in bed.Thats just life when you have young kids isn't it.In a couple of years things will be different.

I don't know anyone who has had a child molested at a hotel. I do, however, know several people that have had their stuff robbed from their room while they were out of it. They didn't have children, but if they had, they would have terrified!

I wouldn't do it. I have stayed in small and large hotels, and even small ones tend to have a bar so it's not just people staying there.

I also have heard tales of this happening to friends when they were children, and waking up terrified in a strange place and no one there.

Also, all three of my sons have been able to get out of cots by age 1, so I wouldn't feel confident that if they woke up and weren't scared, that they hadn't trashed the room by the time I got back!

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 10:47:20

Right, so when you are in a hotel room with a baby monitor, say even a standard one which picks up every little sound and illuminates with their breathing - you would consider that too dangerous because someone might sneak in, make off with your child and you would never hear them?

I also know of people who have been burgled at home whilst they were all in bed, does mean that they now all sleep together in a padded cell?

I said it before and I'll say it again - do you honestly think that hotels would offer a babysitting service if the insurance company did not cover them?

As for waking up alone in a strange place - well how about when you wake up anywhere that isn't home? Do your parents always sleep in the same room as you? This is why we have baby monitors, so we can hear when they wake up.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 10:47:52

JackieTheFart course you wouldn't hear that on a baby monitor would you? hmm

rainbowfeet Mon 08-Jul-13 10:48:10

Not wanting to flame a debate... But my personal opinion is it is not responsible parenting & I wouldn't do it... hmm

Crowler Mon 08-Jul-13 10:50:19

I think it is, strictly speaking, probably as safe as having your child sleeping in their own bedroom at home.

However, I think your child would be pretty upset to unexpectedly wake in an unfamiliar environment and not have a parent immediately on hand. I suspect it would probably take longer that you'd like to get back to your child to comfort him/her.

I don't think it's a huge deal one way or another. Madeline McCan was a freak occurrence.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 10:52:58

Curlew, you didn't respnd to my earlier post asking why, when there's no hysteria going on, are you always so keen to paint people as hysterical and deny all risks?

For the millionth time, it's not about the random weirdo lurking, it's about not abandoning your child to just to get a meal in peace.

It's that simple.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 10:53:48

Rhubarb

2 proven cases of abuse (different venues), one a staff member. Involvement in other suspected cases not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

From a casualty perspective, countless incidents (including some where parents said they were still in the room). Mostly blind/window related
next to cot/others toppling objects. A couple of deaths unfortunately and several cases of brain damage.

I haven't been involved with any cases of babysitter abuse in comparison but many with family involvement. From the abuse perspective yes I agree the risk is greater from family involvement however this does not negate the fact that there is a risk from leaving a child alone sleeping in a hotel room.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 10:54:30

THERubharb see my earlier post about my stealth ninja 18m old who got out his cot at 18 months old in the room right above where we were sitting and made not a single sound!

LadyBryan Mon 08-Jul-13 10:54:43

I wouldn't do it.

Not because I have any thought for a minute that someone would get into the room and snatch her, but more because if she wakes up in strange places she gets a bit upset if we're not close.

To me the argument of a three storey house doesn't wash. We live in a large house - but if she wakes, she knows where she is and where mummy/daddy are likely to be.

And, if we go on holiday it is to spend time as a family so we do just that.

THERhubarb you are right, of course. I still wouldn't do it, personally. Even if we make a rational assessment of risks, people are still allowed to make their choices based on how they feel about something as well. Even if statistical analysis shows that feeling to be misplaced.

Perhaps the difference between me and the people you seem frustrated with is I wouldn't necessarily judge people who decided that they felt their child would be safe enough...?

melika Mon 08-Jul-13 10:55:35

Talking to an older generation, say in their 60s and 70s, it was pretty normal to leave kids in hotel rooms, chalets etc. Places like Butlins had a baby listening service.

Personally, I have never done it, never felt it was the right thing to do.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 10:56:27

And how clearly can you hear a moniter when in a resturant with the general hubub and chat.

And again, I ask the question, how 'relaxing' is that meal going to be when you're straining to hear a baby moniter? Why bother?

Room service sounds much more appealing!

FreudiansSlipper Mon 08-Jul-13 10:57:59

I would judge people who do it either

but why are some tetchy about others simply saying it is not something they would do

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 10:59:33

I do would judge.

Drhamsterstortoise Mon 08-Jul-13 11:01:04

I would judge too.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:01:26

ParadiseChick with all due respect, being below your child's room is not the same as having a baby monitor in there. I cannot hear my child breathe when I'm downstairs but I can with a monitor. If I can hear them breathe then I can also hear other things, such as their regular breathing becoming irregular (some monitors have their breathing lit up and an alarm sounds if the breathing stops), them climing out of their cots, etc.

hamilton75 hotels are bound by health and safety rules to keep any blind cords tied up. Your home is not subject to such strict risk assessments and so a child is more likely to hang themselves on a blind cord in your home whilst you are downstairs watching TV than they are in a hotel room where you are monitoring their breathing.

As for it being irresponsible, there are many parenting practices I might deem irresponsible that other parents may do on a regular basis; such as allowing a young child to walk to school alone; allowing a young child regular access to the internet alone; etc.

Your child is more at danger by being left unattended with a computer than in a hotel room.

I might, I might not.

I don't think I'd feel comfortable doing it. You obviously think I'm irrational for thinking that. That's fine.

There are risks, and scoffing about those parents that would rather err on the over-cautious side is as rude as those saying it's moronic.

Fwiw, we haven't been in the situation before so it's all hypothetical anyway.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:03:21

Straining to hear the monitor? You don't have to. Most of them are lit up and most have an alarm which sounds if the child stop breathing.

You don't have to hear anything, you just watch the breathing patterns go up and down.

I wonder how such a thread would go if I said that I both judged and condemned parents who let their primary school kids have mobile phones and access to the internet.

Some people have a skewed notion of what constitues a risk.

vkinski Mon 08-Jul-13 11:04:01

Absolutely no way I would ever dream of doing this. Why can't they just eat at a time when their 2 year old isn't sleeping and therefore can join them, or why can't the 2 year old crash out in a buggy beside them? All I can think about is all the things that could happen i.e. someone going into the room and taking the child, would happen in the blink of an eye and doesn't bear thinking about.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:05:37

Jackie I do not think that anyone who chooses not to leave their child alone with a baby monitor is over protective. I have not said that and I never would say that. I would respect your choice.

What I object to are the insults which are aimed at posters who say they would.

I HAVE done this and I WOULD do this again. Yet I am very strict about the internet and never allowed my kids to have mobile phones until they were in secondary (with ds not yet). I perceive that to be a greater risk to the safety of children.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:05:38

Which again begs the question - are you really going to hear all those minute sounds over a moniter whilst having a meal and even if you do, how much fun is your meal going to be whilst straining and listening out for these minute sounds during that meal?

DS (9) has access to the internet (wifi only) on his iPad that he bought himself with 2 years and 2 Christmases worth of money shock

He mostly watches Minecraft 'how to' videos. Oh, and plays Minegraft grin

See, we all have different standards of what we are comfortable with and what we are not.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:07:18

So you sit looking and listening at the monitor for the whole duration of your meal? How relaxing.

themaltesecat Mon 08-Jul-13 11:07:44

I couldn't. It's not "pearl-clutching," it's being a loving mother.

Ok.

I just asked DH and he also said no, but it was all based on paedo-hysteria. He reads the DM too much confused

ItsAFuckingVase Mon 08-Jul-13 11:08:49

As an ex hotel manager, I've dealt with more incidents than I'd like to remember. One involved the master lock defaulting, so each door could be opened by any card. One involved a guy getting over the unmanned reception counter during the night and taking a key. The key wa for a room occupied at the time by 2 children. The guy was a pissed up idiot looking for his own room. I've dealt with a full evacuation during the night - and nobody would be getting back into the building in that situation! There've been the many slips and trips etc

I wouldn't do it. I can control the environment at home, but in a hotel there are too many variables to consider.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:09:35

It's simply not comparible with the risks assessed as children get older.

We're talking about leaving babies and toddlers alone to go out for a meal.

ItsAFuckingVase Mon 08-Jul-13 11:13:41

Oh yes we were insured, but that isn't a safeguard against accident!! You might have your home insured, but that doesn't mean you should forego fire safety, or not bother to lock your insured car!! Insurance is there to alleviate the pressure after a trauma - it isn't a safety net! Generally, risk assessments will cover the minimum activity to reduce risk - not eradicate it!

I was always amazed at how many parents handed their baby monitor to a member of my staff and asked them to let them know if there were any problems. I mean, I had no issue with my staff but for a stranger to trust them with the safety of their child was just insane!

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 11:14:00

I love my child.

The fact that I am also comfortable with leaving him in a hotel room in a place where I have assessed the likelihood of harm and judged it to be negligible is not mutually exclusive.

I am still a loving mother.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:14:28

Tell you what, judge away.

In our case the first time dd was 6 months old. We went to Malta and tried taking her with us to eat. She was tired and cranky, most restaurants didn't open until late and so when we tried to have a meal at 7pm she would scream the place down so we didn't enjoy our food and spent the time alternating her between myself and dh whilst the other was able to quickly stuff a bit of food in.

So we put her down in our hotel room the third night and put the monitor on. She went to sleep at her usual time, peacefully and happy. Dh went downstairs to listen to the monitor just to check that he could hear it. During this time I crept about the room just grabbing a few things before heading out. He heard all of this.

We stayed in the hotel and had a lovely meal in the restaurant. Every half hour one of us would just double check our room. It was a much more relaxed experience.

We have done it with both a couple of times since.

I also spent 2 years living in France where their attitude is completely different. We would pick up our kids from school every day and I knew some of the mothers had young babies but they would arrive to pick up their kids without the babies. When I asked where they were, they would reply quite casually that they were at home asleep.

I would not go this far, but to these mothers that was perfectly normal and accepted.

I think that unless you are in that situation you cannot judge. As parents we all take a few risks every now and then but not without making sure that risk is an acceptable one. For me, the risk was acceptable because we could hear her breathing and could hear every sound when one of us went up there to check on her, including the door being opened, footsteps etc and that was us being really really quiet so as not to wake her.

But according to some posters this makes me an unfit mother and on one of these threads I have been told by a couple of posters that they would report me to social services. Yet here I am, calmly and rationally explaining why it's less of a risk to me whilst other posters clutch at their pearls and condemn all those parents who do so to the pits of eternal bad parenting.

I wonder who is the more reasonable?

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:18:43

ItsaFuckingVase why do hotels offer babysitting services then? And tbh the last thread I was on I was told to book a babysitter from an online service - is that not entrusting my child to a stranger?

And I'm sorry themaltesecat are you implying that I am not a loving mother?

Take a look at the disgusting comments on this thread, take a look at which side of the debate is doling out the, quite frankly, appauling accusations. I have come across this level of vitriol time and again and yet some of these posters will be allowing their child to talk to strangers over the net.

Perhaps the key is to assume that other parents are equally as caring* and intelligent as oneself and have had the sense to weigh up the pros and cons of their actions? I really don't see why people need everyone else to agree with them so that they feel validated in their choices.

In your situation Rhubarb I'd probably have got food an eaten it in the room, but that just makes me a less relaxed (about that issue) person who would probably have enjoyed their holiday less. Our dc would have been equally safe.

I don't get the judging, I really don't confused

*obviously, exceptions exist and we shouldn't ignore one

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:24:24

So let's do a risk assessment.

I would assess the quality of the hotel, i.e it's not a dingy Guest House in a dodgy area. I would assess how far it is from our room to the bar/restaurant (that would exclude Premier Inn, so we are talking a hotel with a restaurant on the premises). I would check the sensitivity of the baby monitor. I would then book a table for the earliest time, so say 7pm when it is quiet. We would be away from our room for around 2 hours and in that time we would check in on them every half hour. The monitor would be sat on the table in the restaurant and we could see the breathing monitor lit up quite clearly. We would not have to focus on it all evening.

That, to me, is far preferable than having to deal with a screaming, over-tired child who is disturbing everyone else (and there have been threads on Mumsnet about diners having their meals disturbed by screaming children and judgements about those parents too so you can't win) whilst you get more frazzled and upset.

Contrary to popular belief, a holiday is not just for the children but also a time when mum and dad can re-connect with each other too.

I'm not sure if that one was to me? I'm not really enjoying this discussion and it seems I'm winding you up. So, I'm going to stop posting now after concluding with:

I wouldn't do it, but I assume that others who do are perfectly loving and intelligent parents who have considered the risks and minimised them as we all do in every situation in which we make parenting decisions.

smile

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:28:03

I am in that situation every time we want to eat out or go on holiday. It's not a situation.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:28:54

Buffy I agree.

FWIW that first disasterous night the waiter actually did bring our meals up to our room for us but we were under the impression that this was an exception rather than the norm and sitting on the ends of our bed eating a meal isn't quite the same!

I have spent a fair amount of my time in a darkened hotel room with dh from 7pm just sat there waiting for them to sleep. You cannot turn the light on as it will waken them, you cannot watch TV, you are doomed to retire at the same time as them unless you can afford adjoining rooms. We've even squatted in the bathroom with a glass of wine before now, trying to catch 10 minutes together.

I do not know how other people can go straight to their hotel rooms at 7pm with the kids. What do you do? Can your kids sleep with the TV on? Because mine never could! Do you go to bed at the same time as them? What on earth do you do?

Yes I'm sure some would say "take them with you!" but my kids had a routine. By 7pm they were tired and wanted to go to bed. Staying up late came when they were older and more able to handle it. As tots they just got over-tired and grumpy and would scream and scream.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:29:16

And again, you've 'got away with it' so many times you think it's ok.

It's not.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:29:58

x-posts Buffy, no it wasn't aimed at you at all. You are one of the voices of reason and one of the posters who is able to remain civil even whilst having a different opinion.

PeppermintPasty Mon 08-Jul-13 11:30:36

Don't worry about it Rhubarb, you don't really care if people judge you, surely? wink People do have skewed values, this is no different.

I do think as well, that we should all remember that this only lasts a few years, then it's all change. Ooh wait....I can feel a MN phrase coming on....This too shall pass .

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:30:54

ParadiseChick so many times? How many times do you think I have done it?

I can count them on one hand.

It's not ok to you no. There are lots of things that are equally not ok to me either but I manage to remain polite and pleasant about them.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:31:37

You suck it up.

They sleep in buggies, you book bigger hotel rooms so there's space for them to sleep, you book a room with a balcony or one that opens out onto space you can enjoy that. You stay in villas.

You don't keep doing the same thing and expecting peace - adapt! There are a million options before leaving your babies alone.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:34:30

Peppermint I clearly don't. I have been on loads of these threads, they always turn nasty and it's always those who think it's appauling behaviour that are the nastiest. Implying that you don't love your children? That's pretty low but also pretty standard for these threads. I'm sure they would have our children taken off us if they could. They don't seem to understand different opinions or different ways of parenting. They just have a black and white view of things. I'm glad I'm now older and wiser because attitudes like these, back when I was new at parenting, anxious and incredibly sensitive these comments would probably have destroyed me.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:36:31

ParadiseChick yeah because everyone has the money to get a bigger hotel room with a balcony.

Meantime, in the real world where most hotel rooms consist on just one small room with a bathroom you have no choice but to either retire at 7pm or adapt as you said, and we did adapt. You don't like our adaption, so suck it up yourself. It's none of your business frankly. Just like your parenting skills are none of mine.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:37:16

Maybe when people are telling you it's wrong you listen?

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:39:02

If that's what you require froma break and you can't afford it you don't go!

A caravan would be better suited to your needs.

Your adaptations result in infants being left alone and you talk about it like's it's a valid alternative - it's not.

It's very black and white.

I do not know how other people can go straight to their hotel rooms at 7pm with the kids. What do you do? Can your kids sleep with the TV on? Because mine never could! Do you go to bed at the same time as them? What on earth do you do?

My dc were similar to yours Rhubarb they couldn't stay up late and needed silence and darkness to sleep. So not much fun!

We either got holiday cottages or self catering type affairs. Mostly though, we've not bothered with holidays because up until now they've seemed like doing all the work of parenting small children, just in an unfamiliar place with less of the stuff you need! Not relaxing in the least sad

Better now they're a bit older though.

PeppermintPasty Mon 08-Jul-13 11:40:37

Well, yes, I take your point about being younger. I would have been scared to death by some of the views on here!

Carry on!

Oh ParadiseChick nothing, absolutely nothing is black and white. I can't abide this business of telling other people that they're wrong and obviously they should done this or this.

Seriously, what possible business is it of yours how people parent their dc?

themaltesecat Mon 08-Jul-13 11:42:23

THERhubarb

No need to apologise. I don't want a bunfight with you. It's too hot.

I get that you've left a very young baby in a hotel room alone and it worked out. That is all well and good. I'm sure you love your kids and did what you felt was right.

In my case, being a loving mother entails being there when the baby wakes up, as my daughter has always been an appalling sleeper and cannot be easily calmed if she wakes up alone. She is just one of those very needy babies, and the complete opposite of my little cousin, who could probably sleep through a nuclear war and wake up, giggling, 12 hours later.

So no, I wouldn't leave my kid alone, and indeed do not go further than a room away during her naps. Paedophiles don't enter into it.

THAT SAID...

A certain number of paedophiles and child murderers do exist. Fanny Adams wasn't the first victim and April Jones won't be the last. In these times, when 99% of parents seem to be rather over-protective of their kids (endless safety devices, taking kids to the school gates in an armoured car, monitoring their SMSs and internet usage), such sickos as do dwell among us will be targeting the kids whose parents are more relaxed about things. If only one out a class of twenty primary school children walks home alone from primary school, that child is slightly more vulnerable now to the tiny number of paedophiles that there are.

Because you cannot really judge someone by appearances, and because I don't want my kid to be the only one "available" to someone who did have those tendencies, I will be very cautious about her as she gets older.

You are completely right about the internet thing, by the way- many anxious parents drop the ball there completely.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:43:07

ParadiseChick why should I listen to people who condemn my parenting skills and imply that I don't love my kids?

Who are you to tell me how to book my holidays? Seriously, who the hell do you think you are?

Do you let your kids watch TV whilst you are out of the room? How many hours of TV do they watch? Did you breastfeed until they were one? Did you do baby-led weaning with your kids? Do they have internet access? Mobile phones? How about I pull you apart on one of your parenting decisions?

Telling me to book a caravan! Sod off!

Maybe when people are telling you it's wrong you listen?

FFS! What qualifies you to tell people they're wrong? Why should your opinions be listened to above others? Gah! biscuit

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:44:57

I'm someone who wouldn't leave my babies sleeping alone to fill my face. I'm someone who puts their need to be looked after over my need for a lasange and a glass of wine.

It's that simple.

Babies on their own is never right, therefore it's wrong. HTH.

Oh what absolute tosh.

HTH

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:46:29

It's not an opinion, it's basic stuff about looking after the offspring your produce.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:47:35

It's unjustifiable. I've yet to see a justification worthy of leaving babies or toddlers alone at night in a hotel.

Which is the issue in hand.

I can't even be bothered to demolish your 'argument' Paradise smile

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 11:48:54

Please do, I'd be very interested to hear you justify it.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:51:37

themaltesecat I get what you are saying and thank you for putting it so reasonably in a way that some are incapable of.

Your baby was different to mine. So no, it would not have suited your baby but mine followed a routine. She was a good sleeper and needed her bed at 7pm or she'd become very ratty.

I knew that if she woke up, I would be there within minutes. We have stayed in enough friends houses where, if she had woken up she would have had to wait for me to go into her room anyway so I don't get the terror of waking up in a strange room with no parents. That could happen anywhere, even in a caravan in the middle of the night and it might take you a while to crawl out of bed to reassure them.

Your children are more at risk from someone they know. So being a protective parent makes no difference. April Jones was playing out with a friend, not far from home as a treat for getting a good result at school. She got into a van with a family friend - a friend of her mums. How on earth could that have been prevented?

My friend sometimes picks my dd up on her way back from school if it's pouring it down with rain. Am I to be so paranoid as to ask her not to do that?

I may seem relaxed on some things and yes I do believe in giving my children freedom so they can play outside and these days they venture a little farther, so perhaps to the shop and back. I don't believe in keeping them indoors glued to a TV set. But on others I am very strict and I would not ever allow a stranger or neighbour to babysit whilst they were young. I still get uncomfortable about sleepovers and that never happened until dd was at secondary.

Like you say, we all make different choices and we have a different attitude to risk. In my mind, I did everything I could to ensure my kids were safe and if there was a greater risk, I would not have taken it.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 11:52:57

I think people have an irrational fear. Nobody would even cross a road if you looked at the actual risks.

Having said that, you do need to risk assess and do what you feel comfortable with, whilst thinking rationally. There have been times when we have booked cottages villas etc for this reason. Also, we have sat in the corridor of a hotel with our backs to the door, waiting and listening for the kids to go to sleep (they wouldn't settle if they knew they had company), then gone back in and watched tv. And once - yes I admit, we left a one year old in a room while we had a special anniversary meal. I phoned the hotel in advance and asked for the room next to the restaurant and used a baby monitor.

Whilst I would try to avoid leaving them if possible, I have also used common sense at times.

TBH, I judge parents letting their small children stay up till midnight, when they obviously need their bed, more than I do parents who risk assess and use baby monitors, in places where they could get to easily and quickly.

MM's case is different. Too far, unlocked and no constant monitoring. I do think it has induced so much paranoia that it is unhealthy though.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:54:27

ParadiseChick get over yourself love.

Do you sleep in the same room as your children? Do you leave them alone in the evenings whilst you go downstairs and watch TV?

My children were safer than yours because I could not only hear their breathing but also monitor it on the screen. It is not possible for you to hear your child's breathing from downstairs with the TV on and I'll wager you don't have a monitor that allows you to see it either.

I did. Therefore I had a far better idea of what was going on in that room than you could.

BeCool Mon 08-Jul-13 11:55:50

My 2 DC sleep very heavily. When they are asleep they are asleep and very very unlikely to wake.

In a small hotel, under the right circumstances I'd probably be OK with going downstairs to bar/restaurant with a baby monitor. I'd have to see how I felt at the time though & would listen to my instincts.

With a toddler I'd be more likely to get them asleep in a buggy and take them with me & in fact I've done this many times.

It would not be a holiday for me to sit in a hotel room from 7/8 pm every night. And for this reason hotels really don't appeal. Which is why we do glamping/camping/holiday cottage holidays, so when the DC are in bed we can relax the garden with wine etc and everyone is happy.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 11:58:30

shewhowines exactly that - common sense.

This is not something we would do all the time and if we could have afforded a villa or apartment we would have got one. We obviously would not have them dd or ds if we didn't have to but in certain instances, it was either that or take them with us and have them scream the restaurant down or retire to bed at 7pm.

This culture of paranoia is unhealthy and it restricts children. How many kids do you see playing out on the streets these days? Even during the holidays you hardly see them because most are shut indoors watching TV or given access to the internet where they are more at risk.

And yes, forcing a tired child to stay up until late whilst parents stuff their faces and drink copious amounts is much worse imo.

OK then, in a nutshell:

The yardstick against which you are judging the behaviour of other posters is opinions, not facts. Your opinions are not objective.

You say you should never leave a baby alone to 'fill your face' (nice use of neutral opinion language, for your social intervention). How close must one be to one's baby when one eats? Should there be walls between you? How thick should they be? What about being on different floors? What about external noise levels? Does the surroundings of one's house make a difference? Does it depend upon the size of the hotel? If it's not just your snap judgemental opinion, you should have detailed and specific answers for all these perfectly reasonable points of clarification, otherwise how will people wanting to follow your parenting school's diktats know if they are doing it wrong?

Yada yada. Don't stick your nose into other people's business.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 12:06:31

You don't leave your babies alone in hotel rooms. It really is that easy.

It's not your home, it's not comparible.

Babies gain nothing from being alone in a hotel room whilst mum and dad have dinner - it's not comparible to letting a 6 year old out to play or watch to much TV - which you seem intent on bringing up even though it bears no relevence to this thread.

None of my business? True, they aren't my babies being left alone.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:07:06

Buffy speaks sense.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 12:08:33

I've still to hear a justifcation for this behaviour.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:09:54

So ParadiseChick since you seem so intent on judging others to be unfit parents, tell us about your set-up then.

Where do your children go to bed? Upstairs? Right above your living room? And do you have the TV on downstairs whilst they are in bed or are you sat there quietly, trying to hear them? How old is your house? How thick are the walls? Have you ever gone outside in the evening, even if just to put the bins out whilst they are asleep?

Come on, you've judged me so now let me judge you. I've been honest and told you of my individual situation so the least you can do is to tell us all yours.

ItsAFuckingVase Mon 08-Jul-13 12:10:42

Honestly, hotels offer it because it attracts families and the more relaxed and comfortable those families feel, the more money they spend. Hotels are businesses and unfortunately the bottom line is always the most important thing.

Also, I've never mentioned getting a babysitter!

I honestly think people will do what they feel best, an I doubt many parents leave their children to go off clubbing. It's just not something I would do, for the reasons already stated.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:11:12

Who are you? The Secret Branch of Social Services? Why the fuck should I justify anything to some rude stranger on the internet?

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:13:53

ItsAFuckingVase again, thanks for a more reasoned response.

Yes I understand why hotels offer the service, but if anything went wrong surely that would leave them open to being sued by the parents? So if the risk was so great, many hotels would refuse to do it?

The fact is that a number of hotels do offer this service still. Personally I would rather trust my own baby monitor than a member of staff with a connected telephone to my room smile

<links arms with Rhubarb even though we have different opinions about whether we would leave our own children in a hotel room to eat an evening meal downstairs>

We oppose ignorant judgementalism together!

themaltesecat Mon 08-Jul-13 12:14:58

THERhubarb

You're right- generally- about stranger danger. Actually, it sounds as though we are hold quite similar views in general. Who knows? If I had had a baby like yours, who followed any semblance of a routine and didn't launch herself from mild whimpering to full-scale hysterics within five seconds, perhaps I'd have considered acting as you did. Of course, you judged the risks and it's very, very good that you judged correctly.

Re: April Jones, nothing could have protected that poor wee mite from that man, and I hope it doesn't appear from what I said that I think her poor parents were slack. I think, in that case, all the circumstances colluded so that she was available at that particular time when he was ready to pounce. Should they not have let her ride her bike as a reward for a good report, on the off-chance a murderer came past? No, how daft that sounds. Will I let my child ride her bike out of eyeshot? Not a chance. I'd be just as concerned by other risks such as her darting into the street- but again, it depends on the child. My farmer friend was riding a tractor when she was three, and I couldn't manage a bike on the road till I was about twenty blush, so it's impossible to extrapolate from one kid to another!

There is a vast difference between wrapping them in cotton wall and wilfully exposing them to danger, and the poster who suggested it's a "black and white" issue perhaps hasn't thought it through enough.

LookingForwardToMarch Mon 08-Jul-13 12:16:09

I think the best post was about the lottery ticket.

I can't actually think of anyone who would leave a jackpot lottery ticket in a locked hotel room in plain sight...

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 12:17:21

None of that is the same with leaving a baby in a hotel room, it's just not.

But, seeing as you asked, they go to bed in their bed rooms. I have a 2 bed house, built circa 1960 (give or take a few years), I sometimes have the TV on, sometimes music, sometimes nothing. I sometimes sit in the garden (back, their window is at the back too, lock the front door) and even put the bins out - crazy behaviour in my own home isn't it?

I'll get back to you on the thickness of the walls, I have not a clue.

I'm not 'trying' to hear them, I hear them when they need me, I am up and down the stairs for various reasons (loo, my room etc) and I'm there.

Can you say the same when your baby is in a hotel room and you're in a resturant? You're not there.

But, once again for the hard of hearing reading, it's not a comparision you can make because that's my home, their home.

musicismylife Mon 08-Jul-13 12:18:53

Why won't people learn the lessons from history?

If the disappearance of Madelaine STILL doesn't make people realise that you just cannot do it, then I really do fucking despair.

Elouie Mon 08-Jul-13 12:18:56

Absolutely not, we stayed in a small hotel recently and I put DD to sleep in the room whilst DP and DS had a drink so I could get DD to sleep better. Once she was asleep I locked the door and ran to DP to say she was asleep and they could come back and then ran straight back.

The cafe was 5 doors away from the room, but just the art of locking my daughter in a strange room turned my stomach and I couldn't bring myself to leave it unlocked, I couldn't get back there quick enough.

Leaving her their to have dinner??? Absolutely no chance.

sherbetpips Mon 08-Jul-13 12:19:43

didnt this one get shut down last time?

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 12:20:42

You've taken a stance and I'd like to hear why. Whhere that reason is there that makes it ok in your head to leave your baby to go eat a meal?

Where along the line does a meal become more important?

I bet your valuables were in the safe.

sherbetpips Mon 08-Jul-13 12:21:33

Interestingly there was a lady on another thread who couldnt even sit in her own garden when her kids where in bed because she was so terrified that someone could come in and take them.

Anyone remember being left in the car whilst your parents had dinner if you where naughty?

<takes notes>

Right, right. So, in order for it to be ok, you have to pop back frequently. How frequently, exactly, would you say that you pop upstairs to check your children? Can you define "there" more fully, please?

...I recognise that this is silly, by the way. I am attempting to show how easy it is to judge a decision that somebody else makes in circumstances where they can weigh up a great many details that are specific to that situation and you can not. D'ya see?

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 12:23:33

If the disappearance of Madelaine STILL doesn't make people realise that you just cannot do it, then I really do fucking despair. But we are not comparing like for like. Think ratiionally. If you are close by and can hear everything on a baby monitor then you are supervising your kids, probably better than most people do in their own homes with windows and doors open.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 12:24:34

There, as in there, as in not in a resturant god knows how far away eating my dinner.

In my house.

That easier to grasp for you?

themaltesecat Mon 08-Jul-13 12:24:53

*cotton wool not cotton wall (unless it's Pink Batts, for any other Kiwis on here).

Damn heat.

Val007 Mon 08-Jul-13 12:25:35

Totally wrong. We don't leave our 17 month old on his own at our own house even if we have to go to the loo. There is always someone with him in the room. On holiday he would sleep in the pushchair next to us - regardless of where we are. The lay flat position is invented for a good reason wink

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 12:27:38

oh god - now we're not even allowed to leave them on their own while we go to the loo in our own homes! single parents are doomed.

themaltesecat Mon 08-Jul-13 12:28:54

oh god - now we're not even allowed to leave them on their own while we go to the loo in our own homes! single parents are doomed.

I was also trying to figure out this one, shewhowines. What is the answer? A catheter bag?

No paradise sorry. If you are right, because you are right damn it, then I must have more clarity. Otherwise how will I know whether I am making the correct parenting choices?

So, it's OK if you are in the same building eating, even if you are in different rooms, provided you are "there" and you pop back quite often (but we're not sure quite how often) then it's OK? That doesn't sound too different to what Rhubarb described, other than the building was a small Greek hotel and not her home...

I'm going to stop now, because I don't think I'm succeeding in getting my point across and I don't want to irritate you so much I ruin your day smile

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 12:31:44

Kids of today are going to grow up with so many hangups and even if you've had a relatively normal upbringing, chances are you're going to be in a relationship with someone completely paranoid about all and nothing. I feel sorry for todays kids.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 12:32:44

You have no point, that's what's irritating.

Your home =/= hotel

Hotel =/= your home

musicismylife Mon 08-Jul-13 12:32:53

For goodness sake, your child is less likely to be snatched if there is somebody there with it, as opposed to the child being left on their own.

Please stop saying that you cannot compare, yes you can compare.

FFS

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 12:33:06

It just depends on the situation, surely? I have left DS (when aged 8 months or so) in his cot in a hotel room while we ate dinner downstairs with the monitor - but literally down the stairs, in a hotel the size of a large house. I could hear if he made any noise, I could get back into the room in less than 30 seconds, windows and doors were secure. I would not do it in a larger hotel and I would certainly not leave the premises. But in that situation I think he was just as safe as when I leave him in his own room and eat in the garden with the monitor. Which I am doing all the time at the moment.

I do so have a point, it's just that I'm obviously not making it very well smile

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 12:34:33

Yeah I feel sorry for them too, not being left in a strange room as a baby when mum and dad eat god knows how far (because lets face it, how close are you) away from them must be so restricting to their freedoms.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 12:35:02

Exactly donttell Judge each situation on it's own merits

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 12:36:42

Nobody is advocating leaving them any distance paradise .

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:39:43

ParadiseChick I am not answerable to you so I don't believe I have to justify anything to you. I described one of the circumstances in which I left my child in a hotel room.

FWIW in that hotel restaurant, which was one floor away from our room, our monitor meant that we could hear her. We would hear if anyone went into the room. We heard her breathing and saw it flashed on the monitor. We were also checking in on her every half hour - in case you missed that? So I fail to see how that is less safe than you being sat downstairs with your music on whilst your kids sleep upstairs.

If they got out of bed, you might not hear them. If they opened their window, you might not hear them, if they were sick, you might not hear them until they started crying. We would be able to hear all of this.

So in those two comparisons, my child would actually be safer on that night.

And yes I have left money in hotel rooms. I have never used the hotel safe. I do not have valuables, if I did we would have booked an apartment. I have had things stolen from my person twice. I have never had anything stolen from a hotel room. But then I don't tend to frequent hotels, for us it's a one-off; a special occasion.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:41:26

I think people are getting hysterical now and the thread is getting stupid.

Next thing you know someone will be stating that aliens might descend on the hotel and make off with them!

BeCool Mon 08-Jul-13 12:42:44

I think this thread shows just how very far we have moved, as a society, from intelligent and reasonable parents being able to make a reasoned rick assessment and decision re their DC, without hysterics judgements and scorn from the "But what if" brigade.

Clearly, we should all just stay home forever, and clutch pearls quietly, and without wine or gin, in front of our own televisions (which if course are no further away than the room next door than that our sleeping babies).

<<capitalism and the world as we know it falls apart>>

BeCool Mon 08-Jul-13 12:43:18

riSk

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:47:49

There will always be a What If? And that is individual to the circumstances.

If I feel that my child is safe in a hotel room with a baby monitor whilst we have a meal in the same establishment, having consulted with each other and done a risk assessment and with other alternatives having been explored then I retain the right, as a parent to make that decision.

It is not illegal and it is not defined as child abuse. It is up to the discretion of the individual parents involved and anyone else can suck on it.

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 12:49:49

Tragedies happen - but the odds of them happening are miniscule.

The odds of being killed or injured in a car accident are much higher. None of us need to drive. We could choose to live close to where we walk and never need to get in to a car. Yet we judge the risk of driving to be acceptable - and no-one judges other parents for driving their kids places. confused

I for one do not think it is healthy - for the parent or the child to live life constrained by what might happen. But I accept that everyone makes different judgements as to what is acceptable risk.

I am trying hard not to be shock at the refusal to let a 13 year old to stay in a hotel room on their own - he may, for example have special needs or be particularly badly behaved

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 12:53:36

becool Don't you mean we should be in the same room as our sleeping babies watching tv with our headphones on. If we make the picture dark the light shouldn't disturb them too much. We mustn't eat anything though or we may choke and then won't be there for them in an emergency. Oh no wait, using the tv might cause an electrical fire. Perhaps we should just sit quietly in a dark room. But of course we wouldn't actually be able to see our babies then...

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 12:55:56

exactly prettybird

melika Mon 08-Jul-13 12:56:00

It's just wrong. End of.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 12:59:19

Being abusive to other parents who make different judgement calls is also very wrong. End of.

Look at your standards of parenting before you criticise others. I'm damn sure if you were to reveal some of the choices you had made, we could all have a good judge and condemnation session of our own.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 13:06:06

I think everybody is just reacting from the gut without any real basis for the fear so long as each risk is carefully assessed. Understandable, because it is scary having to bring up kids in todays world of many dangers. But overprotecting them can cause them damage, just in an emotional rather than physical way.

There has to be a happy medium.

TheCraicDealer Mon 08-Jul-13 13:06:40

DT and I were brought up by parents who wrote the book on "benign neglect", but they would have baulked at this.

Ok, so you've got a baby monitor sitting on the table, and you're sure if anything did happen you'd be able to dash up the stairs and attend to your DC as quickly as possible. But what if it's too late? What if they've already pulled something over themselves, stumbling about in a dark unfamiliar room? What if a staff member coming in to turn the bed down scares the crap out of them? That's before you even consider the risks of someone entering for nefarious reasons; Micheala McAreavy was in a "nice" five star hotel and was killed when she found her room being burgled. I don't think her killers would have thought twice because it was a 4 or 5 year old instead of a grown woman.

We take risks every day, but for me, I don't think it's worth it. It'll be an early dinner and a bottle of wine on the balcony for us.

LookingForwardToMarch Mon 08-Jul-13 13:11:00

Ah no ones answering that one!

Please, anybody its a genuine question.

If you had a multi-million pound winning lottery ticket would you leave it in a locked hotel room in plain sight?

LadyMacbethWasMisunderstood Mon 08-Jul-13 13:11:29

I think you are wrong curlew and that there are many differences.
(1). Your toddler will be familiar with it's own room and less likely to be frightened on waking
(2). Strangers will not be in your home. Nor have keys to your child's door.
(3). You will have ensured that your child's room at home is 'childproof'.
(4). In the event of a fire or other emergency there will not be anyone in your home preventing you from going back to the room.
(5). In any event very few ordinary homes are as big as even a small hotel.
I cannot understand why parents would take such a risk.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 13:14:56

But that's exactly my point about judging the situation for yourself. In the situation I described, my DS couldn't have pulled something over himself - I checked there was nothing in reach. He couldn't have stumbled about - he was 8 months old. There weren't any staff going in to the room - the hotel was run by a couple who knew where he was and where we were.

It might be too late to reach your child in any number of circumstances, surely, including in the home? Risk assessment is the key and we all undertake hundreds of risk assessments regarding our children's safety every day, as others have said.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:17:26

Looking yes.

TheCraicDealer if they pulled something on themselves then what does it matter how near you are? If you have a baby monitor you might hear things that you would not hear if you were downstairs with the TV on and the kids in another part of the house.

What do you not get about baby monitors? This baby monitor is one of the cheapest. "Five LEDs on the MBP8 baby monitor indicate the level of sound activity in the room, letting you keep an eye on your baby's activity by a simple visual representation." So if your child stood up and started to pull something over (terrible parents for leaving something having over their cots) then you would hear them better than if you did not have a baby monitor.

Many people are burgled so let's not leave our homes unless we are burgled. Oh but they can burgle us whilst we are asleep! Panic rooms, it's the only answer.

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 13:18:26

It wouldn't bother me. I'd make a risk assessment and if, for some reason, I couldn't keep it with me confused, I'd put it in somewhere not so obvious in the room and lock the room. I also leave my jewellry in the room without worrying.

I do however go through life assuming that most people are actually good and nice and that nasty things won't happen. I find it makes for a happier life. smile In 52 years, that approach has served me well. smile

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 13:19:24

"that's exactly my point" was following on from TCD, by the way.

In response to your question, LookingForward: I can think of circumstances where the ticket would be safer not on my person. If, for example, I had just won the lottery, and I were going out in a foreign city for dinner (risk of mugging or losing ticket somehow), then I might choose to leave the ticket locked in a room instead. It's not a good analogy for childcare imo.

But if I had a multi-million pound-winning lottery ticket, I would upgrade to a hotel room with a safe smile

LookingForwardToMarch Mon 08-Jul-13 13:21:14

Because you might say oh a lottery ticket has nothing to do with my parenting style...but answer me this.

If you know that you would not leave that object, which would be precious to you (hell its a winning lottery ticket whoohoo) in a locked hotel room in plain sight, because of the chance that someone you don't want to could enter your room.

If you would keep it on your person to keep it safe until you got home (not representative but everyone I have asked today has gone for this option)

If you would keep the ticket with you, but consider it ok to leave your kids in said hotel room...

You need to get priorities straight.

Ragwort Mon 08-Jul-13 13:22:00

We don't leave our 17 month old on his own at our own house even if we have to go to the loo. There is always someone with him in the room. - seriously hmm - you never, ever leave a 17 month old on his own - do you take turns at staying up all night so someone is always awake? I cannot begin to understand how your child will cope when (if) he goes to play group/nursery or school? Surely you want to encourage independence and being able to amuse himself?

MortifiedAdams Mon 08-Jul-13 13:23:44

I think the lottery analogy is perfect.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:24:14

LadyMacbeth

a) I take it that you do not take your child away then? Not to a villa or apartment as they will wake up in a different room and you will be in your room.
b) Fair point although hotel security is pretty beefed up atm thanks to the high risk of the hotel being sued for not providing adequate security. In many hotels this includes CCTV cameras on all corridors and sophisticated card locks.
c) Most hotel rooms are also childproof again because of insurance requirements. In fact they are safer than many homes because they don't have little knick knacks lying around that might be picked up and blinds are pretty much prohibited in hotel rooms.
d) We have already established that it is a myth that you will be prevented from getting your child in the event of a fire and many hotels are safer than homes because again, of insurance. They are required by law to have smoke alarms, fire blankets, fire extinguishers and sprinklers.
e) Yes hotels are bigger than many homes but you are not occupying the entire hotel, you might be on the same floor as your child or just up the stairs which is comparable to someone being in their garden and having to clear their garden furniture and living room furniture to get to their child - presuming that is that they have heard the crisis unfold which they would have if they had a baby monitor. smile

whatsthatcomingoverthehill Mon 08-Jul-13 13:25:01

These sort of threads are interesting to look at people's understanding of risk. It seems much of it comes down to a gut reaction, whereas other risks are more accepted.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:27:57

Mortified and Looking it is not a perfect analogy.

You are comparing a thief with a paedophile. If someone was to enter your room, you are presuming that they would be after stealing your child.

There are problems with this.

1) You would hear them on the baby monitor.

So the question you should be asking is: Would you be ok leaving a lottery ticket in plain view in a locked hotel room with a baby monitor.

My answer is an emphatic yes. If I had valuables and I was that concerned about them and the hotel did not have a safe, I would simply put the baby monitor on.

I think, for the sake of your own arguments, you are completely bypassing the merits of a monitor.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 13:28:32

OK, so if someone happened to enter your locked hotel room for an unexpected reason and saw a winning lottery ticket on the bed on the spur of the moment, there is a risk that they will take it - if they are predisposed to theft.

If someone entered your locked hotel room for an unexpected reason and saw a baby in a cot, there is a risk they will take or harm it - if they are predisposed to child abduction or abuse.

If you can protect your child by using a monitor and being within very close reach, then you are mitigating adequately against an already small risk, imo. I would say again that it's best to judge on individual circumstances - age/ mobility of child, nature of hotel, quality of monitor and proximity of parents being the key factors. Whereas the lottery ticket is a temptation to anyone who might see it, a child is a very different sort of 'precious object', surely?

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 13:31:14

I'd be more concerned about me losing the ticket than it being stolen. That's the only reason I'd keep it on me. grin

With the one exception I have never lost ds wink. At 2, he was safely constrained within his travel cot and sound asleep. Just remembered another occasion when we did when we were at a wedding and he was about 9 months old. Never had any qualms.

I honestly don't think that there are people waiting around the corner looking for an unattended lottery ticket child to steal. I honestly don't.

TheCraicDealer Mon 08-Jul-13 13:32:32

The point I'm making is that the surroundings are unfamiliar; you might know what the hazards are in your own home, but a hotel room you've potentially only been in for a number of hours is completely different. Most people would take reasonable steps to baby/toddler proof their own homes, but you cannot expect all hotels to take the same precautions. At least if you're in the room you can say, "darling, it's not a good idea to pull all the drawers out of that unit to reach the telly".

Many people are burgled so let's not leave our homes unless we are burgled. Oh but they can burgle us whilst we are asleep! Most peoples' homes do not have keys or key card entry that can be accessed quickly and without difficulty by literally tens of people in close proximity. You can have the whole room full of baby monitors if it makes you feel better, but unfortunately the people who might wish to access your room wouldn't know this and would still try to get in, if that's what they want.

I dealt with a fire in a hotel recently with work; it was an electrical fire in a laundry, completely unforeseeable. All rooms in the vicinity suffered smoke ingress, the corridors leading to the rooms were caked in smoke residue. After seeing that, and imagining how difficult it would have been to access the bedrooms in that area with that level of smoke without breathing apparatus, I wouldn't take the risk. If you're in the room already at least you can try to get the kids out through the window or something. I wouldn't do it.

LookingForwardToMarch Mon 08-Jul-13 13:33:48

I'm not comparing a thief to an abductor.

I was talking about the risk of anyone entering your hotel room that you did not want to?

Whether it is a thief or the other it would scare the crap out of your children and obviously put them at risk.

I fail to see how a monitor would prevent this?

I was just wondering. Because when its something like a winning lottery ticket people become a ton more concerned about a stranger entering their room.

I was just wondering why it was risky for the ticket but acceptable for children to be left in the open in a locked hotel room.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:34:04

Leave a bag of cash in the street and chances are someone will take it. Leave a child in the street and chances are someone will report it.

In the cases were babies have been abandoned by their mother, either in the toilets at Gatwick or on a doorstep, those babies have been handed in to the police.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:35:22

Looking a monitor would enable you to hear someone enter the room. Now if they were quick, they would snatch the lottery ticket before you were able to get there. A baby is a little more difficult to just snatch away, particularly in a hotel full of people.

You are also forgetting that many hotels have CCTV.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:40:29

TheCraicDealer ditto. Monitors do not prevent crimes from happening but they do enable you to hear if someone has entered the room.

Why do you think hotels are full of baby snatching paedos by the way?

And yes, fires do happen. I'm not denying that. But I am saying that hotels have a far better system of dealing with fires than your average house.

The risk of your hotel setting fire is miniscule, the risk of a paedo entering your hotel room and snatching your baby is less so.

A fire could happen here at home. I do not have sprinklers or fire extinguishers or fire exits. My smoke alarm is not connected to the local fire station.

My children could die in their sleep, I would never know. When younger they could have got out of bed and choked on a Lego brick and I would never have known. They could be sick in their sleep and choke on it and I would never know. Yet I still chose to put them in their own rooms at night whilst I sat downstairs watching TV.

And fwiw I never childproofed my house. My kids learnt. Shoot me now.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:42:45

See this baby monitor? It has a video on it and is less than a hundred pounds.

If you were that worried about your lottery ticket, with this set up I'm sure that even the most paranoid person would be happy enough to leave the lottery ticket in their room and dine downstairs.

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 13:43:54

Actually, leave a bag of cash in the street and the chances are that someone would try to find who had left it or take it the police.

I have chased after someone who left the bank counter without picking up their £100 (a fortune over 30 years ago - and I was an impoverished student), losing my place in the queue. I have had a dropped purse returned to me. People help me to find the diamond in my engagement ring when it popped out in Lidl.

But as others have said, a breathing crying wriggling child is a totally different proposition.

And in terms of drawers, plugs, blinds, windows, the risk inside a travel cot is the same whatever room that travel cot is located.

IsabelleRinging Mon 08-Jul-13 13:44:19

If you are using a monitor then you will hear everything untoward and return to your room!

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 13:44:57

actually the biggest risk would be leaving your unattended lottery ticket near your child

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 13:47:42

you would hear the child destroy the ticket via the monitor but it would be too late to stop them

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:49:14

Or even worse, you would SEE your child destroy the ticket on the monitor.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 13:51:30

I would say that if you take your child out to eat in a restaurant, the odds are greater that they are run over or have an accident, than if they are safely asleep in the locked hotel room with the baby monitor on, and parents in close proximity.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 13:52:20

and then they would choke on the ticket before you could get back to the room

TheCraicDealer Mon 08-Jul-13 13:53:11

Why do you think hotels are full of baby snatching paedos by the way? I don't. In fact, I have been careful to avoid making comments like that because the chance of that happening is small and suggestions that there are paedophiles lurking around every corner are ridiculous. However within our family, we have had our hotel room accessed using a key to gain entry (either by a staff member or mugger) three times. The first was when my Mum's bag was pickpocket'ed when DT and I were 20 months old; they got in and cleaned the room out. If DM and D had left us to go for dinner in the interim, well, I think we probably would have been a bit scared to say the least.

I have dealt with three hotel fires within a comparatively small geographical area in the last 18 months. They aren't as rare as you think. You can't compare fighting your way down a long, unfamiliar hotel corridor and a domestic property which you could navigate around blindfolded. Unless you live in Sandringham, or something. Anyway, I'm not having a go, clearly it's worked for you. I'm just saying I wouldn't do it.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 13:57:07

* The first was when my Mum's bag was pickpocket'ed when DT and I were 20 months old; they got in and cleaned the room out. If DM and D had left us to go for dinner in the interim, well, I think we probably would have been a bit scared to say the least.*
Probably not as surprised and scared as the intruders. I should imagine the vast majority would beat a very hasty retreat.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 13:59:53

You have been unlucky TheCraicDealer I have never had such an experience but like I say, with a baby monitor you would have heard the intruders and would probably have been there before they left with your valuables.

As for fires. I still state that a hotel is less of a fire risk than your home because of all the safety measures they put in place. I'm not talking about 1 star hotels but reputable hotels. Because they ban smoking, because all the electrical wiring HAS to be checked and certified; because they have to do these checks regularly; because they have a fire plan; because they have sprinklers and smoke alarms and fire extinguishers.

If you were staying with relatives or a friend you cannot vouch for the safety of their homes. What if one of them smoked? What if they had a real fire? What if the batteries were out of the smoke alarm? What if the wiring was faulty? Yet I bet that almost every poster who has condemned me would happily stay at a relative's house with their child and not even think of the fire risks.

I got my MIL a smoke alarm because I did think of the risks, that's how irresponsible a parent I am.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 14:02:25

Rhubarb

You've heard actual instances from myself and another member who worked as a hotel manager. If you choose then to dismiss this risk then of course that is your choice. Some mothers still smoke around children/whilst pregnant etc.. there is only so much people can say to get others to appreciate the risks and prioritise the wellbeing of the child. It appears to be this type of scenario here.

I think its perfectly understandable that people would judge as especially in light of the infamous case (and in a similar sort of vein to smoking) the majority of people have greater awareness and are not as complacent these days.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 14:06:08

It's completely different from smoking in pregnancy!

Smoking in pregnancy = quantifiable, demonstrable, proven risk to child

Leaving baby in hotel room with provisions that seem adequate to parent in the individual circumstances = uncertain risk

What we are arguing about, surely, is the degree of the uncertain risk. It's ridiculous to suggest that those of us who argue there are circumstances in which we would take such as risk are no different from people who consciously put their baby at a known risk through smoking.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:09:14

Would you still justify the risks you took if something did happen to your child while they were left unattended in a hotel room?

Could you look people in the eye ever again and say I did the right thing by leaving my child in a unfamiliar place because I did a risk assessment?

I'm sure MM's parents did a risk assessment and felt it was the right thing to do. If nothing bad had happened that night maybe they'd still justify their decision today but I'm sure they regret it looking back.

I know I'm a slightly cautious parent but that's mainly because I have suffered with anxiety for several years. My brain often plays me images of terrible things happening to my kids. I will follow my instincts as much as possible on whether something feels 'right' and this just doesn't to me.

TheCraicDealer Mon 08-Jul-13 14:09:47

because all the electrical wiring HAS to be checked and certified; because they have to do these checks regularly Ya think? They have to for liability to engage, but it's not checked up on as often as you'd hope. And a good proportion of hotel fires (at least in this neck of the woods) are deliberate; if an accelerant is used sprinkler systems and fire extinguishers will do frig all, the best bet is to get everyone out safely and wait on the appliances to arrive. The level of smoke is unreal, seriously.

I'll concede your point about the domestic housing situation, but leaving young children in a hotel room on their own is not on a par with being in their normal room, in their own home.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:10:38

I think it is grotesque to keep comparing this to Madeleine McCann, esp when you won't even mention her name. Completely different scenario and those poor parents will always be blamed. It's disgraceful.

hamilton75 I never came on here to have my opinion changed dear. I came on to speak common sense, to put facts and stats on the table and explain why I chose to do what I did. I did not think I would change anyone's views either but I did think that those who were making terrible comparisons and hurling abuse about might actually stop to think.

Greater awareness - did you know that child abduction cases have decreased? And that the majority are by someone the child knows?
Did you also know that hotel safety is now much better thanks to strict health and safety laws? When you say greater awareness I say greater paranoia.

Sorry but you have come up with ridiculous hypothesis time and again which fly in the face of common sense.

TheCraicDealer Mon 08-Jul-13 14:11:44

Oh, and I couldn't give a rat's arse about the valuables, it would be the point that strangers got in to our room and scared the kids without me being there to protect them, that would put the shitters up me.

Emilythornesbff Mon 08-Jul-13 14:14:05

Not judging here. Honest.
I'm in the "wouldn't do it" camp as I've said.
I think there are some reasoned arguments on each side and also some spiky comments from both camps too tbh.

But.
The fire.
Definitely more risk in a hotel than is being suggested.
Plenty of ppl smoke in their rooms. Secretly.
Appliances are left on in unfamiliar surroundings
Nobody smokes in my house.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 14:14:36

thecakeisalie, if something happened to my child while I had left it alone in a hotel room, I would, obviously, feel dreadful. But my point is that we have to do risk assessments all the time. As it happens, there are very few circumstances in which I would leave my child alone in a hotel room. But I think it is bonkers to act as though doing so if a form of low-grade child abuse in itself.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:14:51

WITH A BABY MONITOR

It is so so so convenient for you lot to keep leaving that out isn't it?

WITH A BABY MONITOR FOR SHIT'S SAKE WITH A FUCKING BABY FUCKING MONITOR!

We can hear what they are doing. We can see what they are doing and yet you still think someone will come in and carry them away?
You still think that they will pull a ton weight on their heads and die?

thecakeisalie many parents whose children have died from sudden death syndrome and in many other ways think that all the time I am sure. What parent wouldn't? I would never let my child out of my sight if I thought that way and that would do more harm than good to my child.

Your arguments are all based on hypothetical risks and emotional guilt trips. I am so glad I don't know any of you. You would infuriate me to the point of explosion.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 14:16:20

Would you still justify the risks you took if something did happen to your child while they were left unattended in a hotel room? Could you look people in the eye ever again and say I did the right thing by leaving my child in a unfamiliar place because I did a risk assessment?

But you could say exactly the same if you fell down the stairs carrying your baby on the way to the hotel restaurant or if the waitress spilt hot coffee on to your child. Would you say that you should have left them sleeping in their hotel room?

There are risks in everything you do in life. Some decisions are just judged more even though the actual risk is slight.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:16:24

I apologise for using MM and not mentioning Madeleine McCann by name it wasn't deliberate just typing quickly. I personally think its a legitimate example of what is being suggested. Its one of those times where everyone thinks it'll never happen to me and unfortunately it did.

You say they will always be blamed but in all honesty can you say if they had been in the room with her that night it would have still happened?

I think if you are fully happy with your decision you don't need to spend time on here justifying that decision.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:20:06

TheCraicDealer

So a hotel carries some fire risk? Do you think I didn't know that? I still say a hotel is safer as regards fire than a house.

Let's just say you took your baby to your parents-in-law and you had separate rooms. Your baby wakes up in the night in a strange room without you there and starts to cry. Do you feel guilty about that?

No? Then why should I who was in a hotel restaurant and who heard my baby rouse and was there before she started crying properly.

Let's also say that your PIL live in a old house with faulty wiring, but they don't know that and neither do you. Do you insist on seeing the wiring certificate? No. Neither do I in a hotel but I can be sure that the wiring would have been checked more often than in a domestic house.

Let's also say that your PIL had an open fire, lovely in the evenings but when was the last time they had the chimney swept? What if there was a chimney fire? Also, you can see the one smoke alarm downstairs but what about upstairs? And do you ask them if they have checked the batteries recently?

I am guessing you would not do any of these things let you would take an acceptable risk and you would allow your child to stay overnight in that house. You might even have a meal downstairs with your PILs whilst your child slept in a strange room upstairs.

HelgaHufflepuff Mon 08-Jul-13 14:20:17

No way would I do it. It's nothing to do with paedo paranoia either hmm - it's just what's called basic, responsible parenting. Leaving kids alone while you swan off for a meal and drinks is neglectful parenting.
Taking away from the abduction, or boa constrictor analogies on here (FGS) How do you think your child would feel if they woke up in a strange hotel room, all by themselves and not a clue where their mum and dad have gone? Or when, or indeed if, they'd be back? Minutes would seem like hours. They'd be terrified.
Or is that acceptable for them to feel that way?
All for the sake of a child free evening. If you want 'adult only' evenings on holiday - leave the kids at home with their grandparents. Or take another trusted family member with you to be babysitter on evenings.
If not possible, suck it up and remember you're a parent now. It's the kid's holiday too. Not just yours.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:20:31

No shewhowines - what you have described there are potential accidents in everyday situations not an example of leaving a baby unattended with just a monitor in an unfamiliar place.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 14:21:10

It wouldn't have happened with a baby monitor!! They would have known someone was in the room. Anyway they were too far away and the room was unlocked.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 14:21:46

But the McCann case is not the same at all - see Rhubarb's point about the monitor. And there are other factors - proximity of parents, size of hotel, whether you leave the actual building, as I stated upthread. Surely you can see that risks have degrees? Your child could be hit by a meteorite and it would be "one of those times where everyone thinks it'll never happen to me and unfortunately it did". But it's really bloody unlikely isn't it?

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:22:22

I am not justifying that decision. I am not asking for anyone's acceptance. If I had to do it again I would.

The judgemental attitudes on here are making me wish I bloody well could do it again, live on Mumsnet so you can all have a good pearl-clutching moment.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 14:23:00

I don't agree that it isn't comparable as in light of the M case I don't see how anyone can argue there isn't a known risk. People who would choose to leave their baby alone in a hotel room are consciously making that very choice.

The risk may be small but it is a real risk (as I am aware of through my professional experience and as other members have shared through their experiences).

Not every baby whose mother smoked has suffered harm so to that extent its an uncertain risk but most people wouldn't take that risk with something so precious at stake. Same goes for leaving a baby alone in a hotel room.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:26:02

Unlikely but not impossible - with a monitor or not.

Accidents happen, bad people exist and so on - all I was saying was personally I could not justify my decision in the unlikely event that something did happen and I was curious whether those people with a different stance would maintain there stance if something bad were to happen. Its how my mind works - if the worst happens do I feel I did the right thing.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:26:35

*their not there

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:26:45

How do you think your child would feel if they woke up in a strange hotel room, all by themselves and not a clue where their mum and dad have gone? Or when, or indeed if, they'd be back? Minutes would seem like hours. They'd be terrified.

Am I talking to myself?

THEY. HAVE. A. BABY. MONITOR.

Which is what the couple in the OP had. A. BABY. MONITOR.

Shall I type slowly for those too dull to understand? Do you realise what that does dear? It monitors your children for you, clever isn't it? Technology these days eh? You see, when your children wake up, you either hear them or with these clever ones, you can even see them and return to your room.

See also the post about them waking up anywhere strange without you. Say, a holiday apartment "Ooooooh no strange room!" or a relative's house "Argh, strange room!"

If you are that worried about them waking up in a strange room then just make sure you never go on holiday. Stay at home. Lock the doors. Unplug everything. Don't eat or drink.

Paranoid parenting at its best.

TheCraicDealer Mon 08-Jul-13 14:27:34

Bloody hell, I'm just saying that these reasons which make staying in a hotel "safer" aren't necessarily true. You say you're making an informed decision and then when someone who knows through having recent professional knowledge of same says, "well hold on...", you bite their head off.

I'm not judging you; your kids, your rules. But as I've said before, due to my personal experiences (NOT the imagined threat of paedophiles or kidnappers) I wouldn't do it.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 14:27:40

No shewhowines - what you have described there are potential accidents in everyday situations not an example of leaving a baby unattended with just a monitor in an unfamiliar place.

But in either scenario the baby could potentially be harmed, and avoided by taking the other course of action.
Why is one risk worth taking but the other not?

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 14:29:43

And the reason I am justifying my decision is because it seems important to emphasise that there are different degrees of risk in this scenario as in all situations.

I am not advocating shutting my child in a strange room and buggering off to the bar seven floors away. I am saying that I would leave (and have left) my baby in a cot, in a locked room, with a monitor, while I sat downstairs, less than a minute away, for the time it takes to eat a meal, in a small hotel where there were no keycards/ unknown staff wandering around, and where people could not get in from the street. This is totally consistent with basic, responsible parenting.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:31:41

Because carrying your baby up and down stairs or being around hot liquids is fairly unavoidable.

We live a lifestyle where we choose holidays where we can be with our children but still relax (holiday cottages and so on) I can eliminate the risk of leaving my child in a hotel room but I cannot eliminate the risk of falling or hot liquids.

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 14:33:05

Helga - those points have already been addressed.

a) You are using unnecessarily emotive language be saying "swanning off" for a meal,

b) A child waking up in an unfamiliar room. Presumably that means that you wouldn't ever go to a friend's and have a meal while your child sleeps in another room hmm?

c) A number of people (me included) have pointed out they are/were (ds is now 12 so no longer an issue) comfortable with this because their child was a sound sleeper who never woke up.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 14:33:45

Well when my DS was a newborn I literally never had a hot drink while I was holding him because I knew someone who scalded their baby that way and I was paranoid about it. However, when I met friends and they drank coffee whilst holding their newborns, I did not think any the less of them as parents.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:35:59

donttellalfred - and you feel happy with your decision and the risk you may have taken that's fine. I am not judging I was just posing the question of continuing to justify a risk if the small risk turned into a reality.

I am an anxious person anyway so I wouldn't be able to relax so it makes my choices quite simple however I was just applying my irrational way of thinking to this scenario.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:36:01

My dd had an accident once. It was in Ikea. We had left her in the baby section that is set up so that they care for kids whilst you go shopping. One of the other girls had an accident. We don't know what happened but she sustained quite a bad head injury. Our dd fainted.

We weren't there and neither were the other parents. The staff handled it badly. No tannoy or anything. We returned to see blood all over the floor and our dd being comforted by a stranger. Not a member of staff but a stranger - another parent who had taken it upon themselves to help out whilst the staff ran around.

Now do you think we blamed ourselves? No. Shit happens and we were fortunate that the parent was kind and responsible.

We make decisions concerning our kids every day and sometimes those decisions don't work out. Sometimes those decisions involve risk, like allowing them to go on school residentials in primary school. Would the teachers care as well for your child as you would? Probably not. But you allow them to go anyway because you realise that in the long run it's for the best.

In the long run we all have relationships we need to manage and being a parent is a strain on even the best of relationships. A holiday is not just for children, it's also a chance for you to unwind as parents and re-connect. I've seen many occasions when stressed parents are trying to control an over-tired child and nobody looks happy or looks like they are enjoying themselves. That's not a holiday, that's an endurance test.

We chose to have a meal by ourselves in order to reconnect as a couple. Because we were finding it all very hard. We lacked family support and so were pretty much muddling through as best we could, but we also needed that time to be together, to re-charge our batteries.

In the long-run our relationship benefitted from us both making the decision to spend some time with each other.

I do not regret it for an instance and if the worst had happened I would not blame myself because sometimes shit happens even to the best of us and playing the blame game helps no-one. That is why I refuse to blame the McCanns even though their situation was different and not one I'd be comfortable with. A child was going to be kidnapped that night, if not theirs then someone else's. It was planned.

The risk of a stranger abducting your child though is so rare it's negligable and therefore that does not really compute as much of a risk on my radar.

shewhowines Mon 08-Jul-13 14:36:10

Anyway I have to go and do some housework. My head is sore from all the banging my head on the desk.

We are all in agreement about not leaving children if there is a realistic alternative. People are saying, in very close proximity and with a baby monitor, that they may sometimes do it. We are arguing on a very smalll window of risk. Some will take no risk and some are prepared to take a tiny risk. Nobody is advocating taking big risks on a regular basis.
I don't think that makes any of us bad parents.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 14:37:19

Rhubarb

We can debate until the cows come home but you can take a horse to water and all that...

You can say that you've come to put the facts and stats on the table but the difference is I've lived it. I've had to break news to hysterical relatives and on the other side of the coin seen parents lives destroyed where they have been dragged through trials etc... The guilt they feel is insurmountable.

I do wonder though if your defensiveness stems somewhat from an amount of subconscious awareness that its not right thing to do. I don't want to get dragged into anything too personal though so I'll leave it at that.

donttellalfred Mon 08-Jul-13 14:41:59

thecakeisalie - I take your point. Yes, I would still defend the decision I made if something bad had happened. That does not mean I would not regret having done it.

BeCool Mon 08-Jul-13 14:42:24

My baby monitor was 2 way so you could talk to the baby.

So if toddler woke up terrified at 9pm (unlikely but lets say they did) terrified/confused/upset/crying, I would see the lights flashing on the monitor and my P could talk/sing to the child via the monitor for the 60-90 terrifying seconds it takes me to rush up a flight of stairs and get to the room.

Just like what would happen if we were staying at a friends place.

I imagine it would take no longer to get to toddler than if I was on the toilet.

BeCool Mon 08-Jul-13 14:43:29

nice summary shewhowines

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:44:16

I sometimes wonder if guilt is the reason people heavily defend their parenting decisions too - aimed at no one in particular I swear.

I try to take as few risks as possible because of the way I would feel in the event of something happening. Having said that I still drive a car, let my children go swimming and a whole host of situations where they could be harmed.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:45:01

hamilton75 bless your little cotton socks! Yes of course I am subconciously aware that you with your judgemental and hysterical attitude are right and I am completely and utterly wrong. Would you like to call social services or shall I?

It seems to me what when people can no longer hang onto the argument for common sense, they lose it completely and turn to personal goading and highly emotive remarks instead. It's really no way to engage in a debate.

shewhowines yes, I would be happy with that but I don't think the opposing team are willing to show such reasonableness.

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 14:45:07

THERhubarb - all we can do now (with children who have got beyond the baby monitor stage and be trusted ish to be left on their own) is ensure that our children have same approach to risk assessment that we have grin

I read the book Paranoid Parenting but even before then, I had asked my mum and dad to tell me if they ever saw any manifestation of paranoid parenting.

My dad once pointed out that when DB and I were young, if a young child were abducted on an errand to the local shops, then the outrage would be directed at the abductor. Nowadays, the ire would be directed at the parents who "let" them go out unaccompanied. hmm

Emilythornesbff Mon 08-Jul-13 14:46:35

Rhubarb.
I don't think that shouting and swearing at "all of you" is fair really.

I get that using a baby monitor is different from not using one.
There may even be a time when I'd consider that action. (leaving child in room etc.. Bla bla)
But I stand by my earlier reasons for not wanting to do that.
I haven't said that anyone is a bad parent for leaving a child in the circumstances you've described.

Not everyone who would choose not to do it is hysterical and over protective, or judging you either.

We're pretty much all just mothers trying to do what's right for our most precious gifts. Sometimes our opinions differ. Debate is great.
But slinging insults back and forth (of neglect or pearl clutching) really is the darker side of mumsnet.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:47:05

I wonder if such smugness and sheer arrogance shown by some posters comes from actually feeling less than confidence with their own parenting skills?

But that lowers myself down to their level, which is very below the belt and not very nice.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:48:48

I see what you mean prettybird about paranoid parenting. I certainly wouldn't wish the way I think on anyone else. Sometimes I think the statement ignorance is bliss makes sense. Living life wondering 'what if' isn't healthy but there are times where risks do not need to be taken so I personally don't take them.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:50:40

prettybird victim blaming is all over Mumsnet atm. If someone gets raped then she should never have put herself in that position. If a child is kidnapped, the parents were obviously neglectful.

It's a sign of the times.

And apologies for the shouting and swearing Emily but when posters deliberately ignore a major factor like a baby monitor for the convenience of their own arguments time and time again it does feel rather like you are banging your head against a brick wall.

The baby monitor makes ALL the difference yet they keep on harping about how the children are in a locked hotel room, all alone and potentially setting fire themselves whilst you are dining. Do you see how this would not be possible with a baby monitor?

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 14:52:40

Sorry Rhubarb I really wasn't being passive aggressive and aiming my post about guilt at you.

These threads often lead me to wonder if its guilt induced because people will argue for hours and lets face it second guessing yourself and guilt come as part of package of being a parent surely. I know I second guess myself and certainly wouldn't label myself arrogant.

Not everyone is trying to make this debate personal or degrading to other's.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 14:57:18

thecakeisalie that's ok. We all carry some burden of guilt around, that's just what parents do.

I have to pick my kids up now from school before they are abducted or set fire to themselves. I would let them walk home alone but who knows what might happen to them!

I bet if someone suggested that a child who walked to and from school on their own and got hit by a car, was as a result of neglectful and irresponsible parents, there would be a huge kick-off and rightly so.

Getting kids to walk alone is a huge risk in today's world of fast cars and arrogant drivers yet the government encourage it as do other organisations. It's a great thing to do and it carries less risk than them being in a hotel room with a baby monitor once in a blue moon.

Emilythornesbff Mon 08-Jul-13 14:58:55

It really is ok to disagree though.
And I love a good swear wink.

The trouble with aibu is that I think any of us can become too focused on trying to have others see things the way we do.

That's when the insults start flying.
Anyway. I'm off to watch ds in the garden and find a wedding thread to chill out over

yamsareyammy Mon 08-Jul-13 15:00:00

I wonder what social services and nspcc take on all this is.

thecakeisalie Mon 08-Jul-13 15:00:32

Just to say also those breathing monitors (which we used both times) are not fool proof as we were told while at A&E with both our boys (ds1 stopped breathing and the alarm alerted us to it at 6mths old, ds2 had breath holding related seizures at 10mths old onwards). We were told that a baby can still become ill while on a breathing monitor and you shouldn't rely on them over natural instinct. Lets face it technology isn't a human being with the ability to assess a situation.

For example if ds2 was having a seizure he would still be moving/twitching but not breathing - he also doesn't make much noise. I guess his medical history also affect our decision making. I still worry about him at 2 yrs old having an extended seizure in his room and us not knowing about it.

prettybird Mon 08-Jul-13 15:04:03

Actually, I never used a baby monitor - but that's 'cos I never used one at home either. With a child who never woke up, we never saw the point.

If he were crying loudly enough, we would hear it. He did it once, age 6 months, when he had a D&V bug.

The preference to think the best of people meant that when he was 13 months old, we were able to enjoy a lunch in an empty restaurant in South Africa, while the staff took him off to explore the kitchen, the grounds, not sure where else..... grin He went out of sight and we let them take him shockwink He ended up lording it on the bar counter, being fed crisps by adoring staff, both black and white.

1Veryhungrycaterpillar Mon 08-Jul-13 15:08:18

Wow this is an angry thread! I wouldn't do it but don't care if others do. I haven't read much about Madeline but weren't her parents in a restaurant separate to the hotel?

HelgaHufflepuff Mon 08-Jul-13 15:14:27

*THEY. HAVE. A. BABY. MONITOR.

Which is what the couple in the OP had. A. BABY. MONITOR.*

No need to get defensive with all the shouting. hmm
If a baby monitor is used as in the OP, no I still wouldn't do it. It's nothing to do with paranoia. It's called common sense.
You wouldn't leave passports, all your money, your home address and house keys out on full view in your hotel room, would you?
So why is it suddenly OK to do that with your children? No, nothing's likely to happen.Why willing to take the risk though?
If you had to vacate the premises quickly (eg) fire alarm. (Yes, yes, very unlikely to happen but it could.)
Exactly how quickly are you expecting to get upstairs in seconds if everyone else in the building is currently pouring DOWN the stairs and out of the building instead of up and in?
It's not scare mongering. It's common bloody sense.

See also the post about them waking up anywhere strange without you. Say, a holiday apartment "Ooooooh no strange room!" or a relative's house "Argh, strange room!"

Most people's houses are nowhere near as bloody big as hotels with hundreds of bedrooms (or maybe they are where you are.)
Slightly different scenario. Especially when there's not hundreds of other families/staff/ and many floors to navigate when need to get them.
If they are points already made, well it's obvious they need saying again then as some choose to ignore valid points.
Why take kids on holiday with you if you just leave them behind to enjoy going out? You take them with you. Or leave them at home. Not take them on holiday and then leave them by themselves.

hamilton75 Mon 08-Jul-13 15:24:11

Rhubarb you are just proving my point and the only person becoming hysterical would appear to be you. We both know that given my background your argument was never going to stand up. You are happy with your choice, I genuinely hope for your child's sake you are never in a position to regret it.

yamsareyammy Mon 08-Jul-13 15:36:53

Rhubarb. I could be wrong, but I think you may be a foster parent.
If I were you, I would check with ss on what their policy is on this.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 15:59:04

Fuck off! Foster parent?

Threatening me with ss?

I would say more but my post would be deleted.

This is getting out of hand. I am not a foster parent.

You want my name? You want to report me? Go ahead.

I find some of you posters are disgusting pathetic people.

You goad with your accusations that we do not love our children as much as you love yours. You goad by telling us how irresponsible and idioitic and moronic we are. You goad by suggesting we would be reported to the NSPCC (neither they nor social services have any policies on the use of baby monitors in hotel rooms) and then when we eventually bite, as anyone would do then they are subject to such continued personal abuse, you call us hysterical and tell us that our reaction proves your point.

This is not a debate. This is an exercise in goading and a shameful one at that.

I have answered every poster I could. I have answered the question about the lottery ticket and valuables and stated that it is not comparible as you'd have the baby monitor watching over them. That was not answered. I made the point about child abduction cases statistically going down, not up. That was not answered. The lottery and valuables point keeps coming up even though I have said more than three times now that you would need to ask that question with a baby monitor watching them for it to become close to comparable.

People have even continually made points about the McCann case which again is not comparable because again, there is the issue with the baby monitor which is a point again that is ignored. And the case was over 8 years ago.

Most of us have been reasonable and polite but there are a shameful few who goad and goad until they get what they were looking for - an emotional response which they then interpret as parental guilt which proves them right.

hamilton75 you will not get your reaction.

yam go back to detective school. I am not and never have been a foster carer. And fwiw there is NO policy about baby monitors and hotel rooms but good luck in trying to get social services, who have better things to do, to take you seriously.

If you want to continue to threaten me then go ahead. It says a lot about the type of people you are.

I'm sure you all love your kids as much as I love mine. I'm happy to leave it at that.

The valuables argument doesn't stack up. I'd leave my children in an unlocked car while I paid for fuel while taking my bag with me. It's not that I love them less, but the chances of there being a bag snatcher at any given place at one time must be about 10,000x higher than there being someone who is willing to snatch a child.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 16:09:51

The danger is the gained from doing this a few times. Ah well they were ok that time in that tiny hotel that was just like our house hmm to 'Oh it will be ok this time we're only down the stairs, and along a bit and we'll take the moniter (that doesn't do anything for you by the way, it's meant to be used as well as not instead of parents being present) to 'Ah it's only a flight of stairs, we'll jump in the lift - we still get a signal on the monitor - it'll be fine' and so on and so forth.

Rhubarb you're starting to sound quite bizzare. You keep making comparisions that are totally irrellevent.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 16:11:46

Stealth someone said that I believe but your point, as valid as it is will be ignored and instead someone will make a different point which will have also already been answered and ignored. Our frustration with this will be interpreted as defensive and we will be told that we somehow love our kids less and that if social services only knew they would have been taken away from us.

There are some lovely posters on here today hmm

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 16:14:21

You see ParadiseChick is one of them. She is guilty of goading and actually the comparisons I just made are all ones that have been made by herself and other posters. I was merely answering them.

You see how this thread works? They want a reaction so they can tell us how bizarre we sound because surely any mother whose parenting skills and love for her children has been questioned should still be capable of patiently answering every single critic and every single point no matter how ridiculous or how repetitive. We clearly have nothing better to do.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 16:14:46

You're right, there are no laws about leaving children alone. It's not black and white, as an issue as a whole.

There are however guidelines which you can read up on here

As you will see a baby cannot possibly be left home alone safely.

Baby monitors never have been or never will be a substitute.

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 16:15:49

I think the defensive reaction prove

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 16:17:14

*Proves people aren't comfortable with the decisions they have made.

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 16:17:57

Yes because leaving a child home all by itself is comparible to leaving it in a hotel room? And I'm the one with irrelevant comparisons?

Do you really think that guidelines about leaving a child in a house alone is akin to in a hotel room with a baby monitor?

THERhubarb Mon 08-Jul-13 16:20:18

Yes you said that ParadiseChick they are not of course reactions to posters implying that I am a foster carer who ought to be careful if I don't want to be reported? Or that I love my children less than they do? Or that I'm irresponsible and neglectful? Oh no, they have to be defensive because of the decisions I have taken.

Thank you so much for your psychological analysis of my state. Please do tell why some posters react with such arrogance, superiority and downright nastiness? I'd love to know. Is it because they are not comfortable with the decisions they are still making?

ParadiseChick Mon 08-Jul-13 16:20:37

Absolutly relevent.

If you wouldn't do it on home you sure as hell don't do it on holiday.

But people forget that all the time on holiday. They drink too much, carry to much cash, eat to much, forget to lock away their valuables... oh and willfully abandon their children.