Child neglect? Should I report it?

[Toffeefudgecake]

Have twice met a little girl (7) on her own in a local playground attached to some flats. The first time she was with her four-year-old sister. The second time she was on her own. On neither occasion did she or her sister have an adult with her. She became very attached to me and my son (4) and we spent a long time with her. She was cold so I lent her my cardigan to wear. She told me that she was allowed to play out alone till 9pm.

On the first time, I left her and her little sister playing alone in the playground, which went against all my instincts. On the second occasion (when she was alone), I walked her back to her flat because she said she was frightened of going up the stairs on her own. I heard her mother greet her as she walked in. However, as I walked away, I saw her come out again.

She was a sweet little thing and I felt very protective of her and worried that she was vulnerable. I think she knows a lot of people in the flats, but even so she did seem very exposed. Also, she attached herself very quickly to me and even sat on my lap. Obviously, I am no risk, but someone else might be.

I don't know what to do. I don't think she is the only child allowed to play out alone at such a young age in this environment. I don't agree with it myself, but lots of parents around there seem to do it. I don't want to mess up her family life, but I don't want a child to be so vulnerable either.

What would you do? And if there are any social workers or other childcare professionals out there, what would you advise? I know which school she goes to, incidentally, so I was wondering if I should approach them.

i would be tempted to talk to the school if you know what schhol she goes to. they might know the family situation

I have probably made my point clear but I don't think that there is anything wrong with a child of 7 playing unsupervised.

However if you think this a small issue within a wider context of neglect and I can see how the other issues you raise might be problematic then best to do something - why not call the NSPCC and see what they think?

Or perhaps next time the situ arises you could start with taking the little girl back knocking on her door and saying to her mum "Hi I'm X I was down in the park with my children and Y mentioned she was scared of the stairs so I thought I'd walk up with her and wanted to say Hi". You might make a new friend.

what nancydrew just said.

A child of 7 with a child of 4, Nancy? Remember that the first time I saw her, she was with her younger sister.

Yes, unless there is something else in play, I think that is fine.

They are in the immediate vicinity of their home in a place they are familiar with where they know a lot of people. I wouldn't be happy with them being out in the evening but that is because I would be concerned about supper time/bed time.

Nancy - But their parents can't even see them. I don't understand how any parent could leave their four- and seven-year-old children out of sight in a public place for so long. I would worry about them having an accident or talking to strangers or being led astray by older children or wandering into the road and getting knocked down. I know I am a typical modern parent and we are all said to be overly protective these days, but I would rather be that and keep my children safe.

Toffee just because some people do things differently doesn't mean they don't have an interest in keeping their children safe

It comes down to what the actual risks are and what are the potential outcomes.

My opinion is that a 4 & 7 year old playing in a park in the immediate vicinity of their home where people know them is not much of a risk.

Unless you tell me that the playground is in fact on a roundabout in the middle of a major A road; littered with broken glass and syringes or is venue of choice for the local paedophile ring's coffee morning I think the risk is acceptable. You don't. It is a difference of opinion that is all.

if your proud to be a helicopter parent and are happy to admit that you are over protective, then nothng anyone says to you is going to make any difference.
i am proud to be the complete opposite of a helicopter parent. i grew up when i went out int he morning and came home for my dinner, int he summer holidays.
I love the idea that are son is able to enjoy that freedom, in this day and age. that is one of the reasons why i love our campsite, that we are going to this weekend incidentally. it gives ds1 the freedoms that dh and i had, which seem to be so lacking these days.
so OP, maybe you would like to answer the question i put to alouise, about campsites. yes ds1 could hurt himself. so ? so what ? he knows where our caravan is and doesn't get lost. a child can fall over and hurt themselves anywhere. if they are on their own or if they are velcro'ed to your hip.
because my son is left to play unsupervised all the time.
i do this deliberataly, on purpose. you do not. but don't criticise someoen for doing something. not unless you've got good grounds.

the girl in the op plays in the playground, and it is a playground, an enclosed space, ATTACHED to her block of flats. maybe she is very responsible and when he mum lets her out she goes only there and straight back. she might. you don't know what boundaries are in pace and what she and her mum are comfortable with.

Having said that I absolutely guarantee you that more people will agree with you than they will with me so I wouldn't worry.

i agree with nancy. this is a difference of opinion on parenting.
you are over protective. i am the polar opposite.
don't you think its telling that you took her up the stairs to her falt and within seconds her mum had sent her back out to play.
the girl may possible being neglected. but some of the reasoning you give is not evidence of neglect. some of it maybe. but some of it is just your over protectiveness.
"But I would never ever allow my young children out unsupervised. "

so now were getting to the brunt of it. you object to her being unsupervised. but is thta the same as neglect ?

thats true nancy. op will get lots of support.

Agree completely with Oblomov and Nancy.

Allowing independence doesn't have to mean neglect, but even if you disagree and think allowing independence IS always neglect that is still just two different opinions. There is no basis for saying one opinion shouldn't be allowed.

I found this sad too. I understand the thinking behind it, but think in the long run this is pretty awful.

when my sons play in the communal garden, is it sometimes just them. other times there could be up to 8 of them. 13 children have access to it.

camping, ds1 would be surrounded by maybe 40 other children. a few adults wandering around, playing football, frisbee, or trying to locate jimmy because lunch is ready. riding around on bikes, playing football in the big goals, playing in the huge playpark that is part of the site. most mums and dads sit in their chairs at their caravans and tents. ds1 also goes and plays at peoples caravans and tents, outside. but only say at the 3 or 4 where we have met the parents and we are all comfortable. i have 2 play tents beside our caravan, and have kids jumping in and out of them. kids get offered a hot dog, once they've checked with their mum its o.k.

do i paint an idyllic picture op ?
because it really is like that. but maybe you want total supervision ? don't you like the sound of the freedom picture i give to my children ?

I'm with Oblomov.

see, I agree with Oblomov and Nancy wrt unsupervised play but i do think there have to be limits. For me there is a very clear leval of distance beyond which i do not feel it is safe, and there are situations and localities in which i do not feel it is safe to let a child remain unsupervised.

I let my children (5, 4 and 18 months) play outside our house unsupervised, and outside friends houses as we all live in the country and the children know to stay close at hand, know to call us if anything happens (in fact my daughter broke her leg at a friends house and the children she was playing with were fantastic... they sent one child to go get the mothers and the rest stayed with her) and all the children know to come and get an adult if a stranger approaches (be it postman or tv licence man or random loon)

However i do not let my children out of my sight in public places such as towns, shops and parks as there are too many variables. They also know never to go further than a certain distance away from me as i feel it's important that i can get to them quickly if there is an emergancy.

As with everything.... there has to be a happy medium... neither the 'helicopter parents' nor the 'free rangers' are completely in the right... at the end of the day children are accident prone and gullible and remain so until well into their teens (or beyond) and to presume they have the self preservation skills of an adult is just foolishness, however they will not develop those skills without being allowed some freedom in order to learn them.

A cautionary tale; my parents let me run wild.... even Oblomov would probably be at quite how unsupervised i was and before i was 10 i had the following happen to me:

A woman tried to drag me into a white van and when i broke free and ran set her dogs on me (age 6)

A man flashed at me (age 9)

A dog attacked me (age 7)

I was hit by a van (age 8)

I was threatened with rape (age 9)

I on more than one occasion almost got stuck in a bog (grandmother lived in west of ireland and i was allowed as much freedom there as anywhere)

I swam out to sea in portugal and got caught in a tide... was gone for 2 hours, washed a mile up coast and by the time i got back my parents had only just realised i was missing

There are many more... it's a wonder i survived my childhood tbh.

Agree with nancydrew and oblomov. The mother in question does seem to have a rather, ahem, laid-back approach, but that doesn't automatically make it neglect. And if you define neglect as failing to meet a child's needs, then helicoptering - this compulsive desire to have 100% control over your child at all times - is most certainly neglect, because you are ignoring your child's emotional and physical need to develop independence (as I said, however, in this case the mother is taking independence further than I would, and the child should not be getting cold in any case). If someone lets their child become overweight that's certainly neglect, because you are endangering its health. But would you call the police then? Probably not. I don't see the difference, though.

Social services are massively overstretched, and it doesn't help when they have to investigate all these 'tip-offs' from concerned members of the public, meaning there are less staff to investigate cases where there is solid suspicion of sexual, physical or emotional abuse. If you're that worried phone the NSPCC, who can tell you honestly whether you're making a fuss of nothing. But please don't phone the police without getting their professional advice.

My almost 7 year old goes to the park alone with her 8 year old friend and the friends 10 year old brother.

We can see most of the park from our house but not the part where the swings are. Many children of that age play there alone. There are no roads to cross and the park is visible to the public from all sides so I doubt very much that a paedophile could snatch a child unnoticed. Plus they rarely 'snatch' children off the streets anyhow. They abuse children within their own family instead

She is not allowed to take her younger sister with her. And she is not allowed out until 9pm. But perhaps this girl is not allowed to do either of those things? Dd1 has tried to break dd2 out and take her to the park, but I caught them before they got to the park. Her friends have also told me they think it is incredibly unfair that dd1 is allowed to watch 18 rated DVDs and has no bedtime . Children lie and do things they are not allowed to do.

I'd have a chat with the mum and go from there. If the girl is allowed out until 9pm and is allowed to take her younger sister then let SS know what is going on.

SummerRain - Gordon Bennet woman, you've had a most unfortunate childhood, if I may say so. I had a pretty free-range childhood, but way out in the Welsh countryside, and nothing like that ever happened to me. Kids frequently broke their arms falling out of trees, and one on occasion some boys dared each other to eat the poisonous red berries (cue stomach pumping), but apart from that there was no attempted rape, abduction, flashing or whatever. We were however all fit and healthy and reasonably independent.

Obviously you adapt the level of care to fit the circumstances. We live in the suburbs of a big city and my kids consequently have a lot less freedom than I did. But that's apparently a lot more than is allowable in the UK these days.

Shiny - you've made a few good points. Kids are rarely in danger in public (unless you're Summerrain), except from traffic. And yes, children have vivid imaginations and this child might well have invented the 9pm thing.

If this discussion were on a German forum pretty much everybody would be telling the OP not to be silly, what's the problem, etc.

i don't consider myself a 'free ranger'. like the phrase though. is that what its called ? i am very very strict. ds1 wandered off in sainsburys the other day, dh found him in the toy eisle. dh went mad and told him in no uncertain terms that this was very very dangerous.
i have limits. i think i am very sensible and quite middle of the road', to be honest.
agree with blauer. poor ss are stretched to the limits. trying to deal with cases or real neglect and abuse. if they weren't bothered with having to follow up on twonks who report every little .... then they might stand half a chance of saving a victoria c or baby p.

I let my dd2 out to play at 7 - she went around the corner to play with two friends - no park though so then when finished playing with two friends she walked aroudn the corner back home. dd1 was out playing in our own street at 5 years old and the backgate open for her to let herself in and out.

Parks are made for children of 7 years old to play in - at 7 I would take myself off to the park with my dolls and pram to paly, Ihad to cross two roads and go over a foot bridge to the park - then come home again.

i let my children out to play and soemtimes they go up to the park - crossing one major road - dd2 has been allowed up there since the age of 9 - as I see it parks are for chidlren to play in

Why would it be neglegt to let a child go form the home across the road and play in the park alone?

The biggest danger is cars.

Name me 5 children in the last 5 years that have been abducted by strangers?

can any of you name 5 children taken by strangers in the last 5 years?

Did you know that over 5000 children have died in car accidents in the last 5 years......

Mine all used to play on the green across the road from about 7 ,and in the little swing area round the back of our houses ..never realised people would consider it neglect

I'd say go with your instints. However when I was seven I was allowed to go out and play till it got dark without supervision as were most of the neighbourhood kids....

I guess you have to trust your instincts. However, where we live all 7 yrs go out to play, some of them accompanied by younger siblings.

I think it does make a difference if this is normal in that area. If most of the parents allow this, it won't be seen as neglectful, and may well not be since there are more likely to be other children about. Before I moved to our current location I'd have been quite uncomfortable about allowing my children out unaccompanied by an adult. But that is what parents do round here. And as a result there are usually plenty of kids to play with, older children to watch out, and younger ones to be watched out for. And other parents will keep any eye too. It's like a big unofficial creche.

I'm not saying that is the case with this little girl, but I think that looking at it from an outsider's perspective may not be entirely fair.

Mine have lots of freedom (they are older than this child) but when they break the rules they get told off and punished. Because there are so few rules about going out and about, the ones there are are vital and not to be broken.