7yo often home alone in the morning, WWYD? If anything?

[Hufflepuzzpig]

I genuinely don't know. Neighbour's DS (nearly 8 but acts very young for his age) always goes in the car with his mum in the evening to pick up his dad from work, and he's not allowed to stay home/on the shared front lawn on his own while his mum goes.

In the mornings though, DH has noticed the DS is never with them, so the mum comes back and then takes him to school. I guess he must still be asleep or just doesn't get dressed on time or doesn't want to go.

Is that ok at that age? I wouldn't leave a 7yo home alone, but I expect many do and I don't think it's as terrible as DH does. He is generally more paranoid/helicoptery than me though. I know it's a really subjective issue, and the age at which parents let DCs be home alone varies massively.

I'd be happy for him to just come over for that time (about 30mins) in the mornings, even if he's in his PJs, should I suggest it? We don't know the parents that well, they are lovely but very shy and his mum in particular struggles with English. I could suggest it to the DS though, he likes it here.

I guess what I'm basically asking is - is nearly-8 old enough for this to be absolutely none of my business and I (and DH!) should chill because it's fine? Or is it a bit young to be home alone even for a short time?

Christine it's not contradictory at all. Children need to get themselves to and from school, it is part of what is necessary for life. It's safer with two or more travelling together, wherever you go, whatever your age and, for most normal people, pleasanter too. "No man is an island" and all that. I find that the emphasis on travelling alone, as an end in itself, faintly perverse, that's all. It's like people are trying to "prove" something and the only people who need to "prove" themselves are insecure in some way, imo

No, it really isn't. She wanted to go travelling, her friends couldn't afford it or didn't want to go. So she went alone. That's not trying to prove something, that's not letting the fact that you have no one to go with preventing you from doing something.

"Seeker, want, need, whatever. Trying to think back to your original post, you used to leave your DS to take your DD to the bus? He asked to be left alone? At 7 years? Don't actually see the "need" if, at first, you were getting him up anyway, "

Didn't need to at all - he could have kept coming in the car. He asked if he could stay home - I saw no reason to say no. Late on he asked if I could leave him asleep (he's a child that likes his sleep!). Again, I saw no reason to say no.

And I see nothing perverse in wanting to travel alone. I did it loads.

Why do people think you have to leave a 7 year old on their on for them to become responsible and independent?

I don think that at all. In my case I would have been quite happy for him to keep coming with me on the early morning bus run. But he asked to stay at home - adn I saw no reason to say no. It's not a training exercise!

I suspect that for some of the mothers who are outraged at the thought of leaving a child alone in the house for a short time (even when asleep in bed) - it is in fact their own peace of mind which is uppermost in their thoughts. Not necessarily what is best for the child.

And why is leaving a 7 year old alone in the house what's best for it?

I would actually, prefer it if my ds came with me. But I know that is an irrational feeling - and I try very hard not to give in to irrational feelings.

If the child would get more sleep by remaining at home, that may be considered better. (See seeker's posts above.) Obviously this all depends on individual cases.

I think fear of consequences is a natural reaction in our current society. We are bombarded with messages about child safety, neglectful parenting etc. It would be surprising if parents hadn't internalised this and become worried about what they could be accused of if they leave their child alone and something happened.

I worry about it and yet I am one of the least helicopeterish parents you could find. Ages ago I read a report about children's safety skills and age. It showed children do best when taught at a young age how to handle danger appropriately. The report gave some examples of children as young as 3 using knives correctly and showed how much more capable they were and far less likely to have accidents than children of 6 who had ben kept away from knives up until that point.

My 4-year-old DC can use knives, make toast, get their own drinks (all under a watchful eye obviously, and because they want to). I let them get on with it at the park, rather than hovering under the climbing frame. They are very independent and I am often complimented on this at nursery. Even though I live in a rural area so I drive everywhere, I am already showing them how to catch a bus. I They will have no problems coping when they leave home, I am sure.

And yet even though I'm fairly positive my 7-year-olds would be ok left at home for 30 mins, I wouldn't do it. Not because I don't think it's ok, but because I would worry - about the risk of something happening (however small) and about that visit from SS.

Between NSPCC guidelines (which seem to place a very high age limit on things IMO), the fact that you can claim WTC-childcare element until your child is 15, and various reports on the news about families being investigated, the message we're receiving about 'home alone' is very clear I think. It's made even more disturbing by the fact that the consensus is that children are ok to play outside alone after the age of 8. It's all totally inconsistent.

I can?t believe that I have just written a huge long post and lost it! So frustrating!

Seeker and exoticfruits, genuine question, it has been said by (I think) you two that 7yo kids can be left regularly for a "short time", but why not for a long time? If you don't believe they're in more danger without an adult with them, why do you say a "short time" is all that's acceptable?
Leave them water, sandwiches, snacks etc, you don't ever need to be with them.

You have missed the entire point of all my posts!

I agree with LilyBolero and my job as a parent is to prepare them for adult life. I think it very poor parenting to wrap them in cotton wool, it is nice and easy for the parent as it gives peace of mind but I don?t think this is best for the DC.

I wouldn?t leave them for a long time, with food, because I am gradually building up. Even if I started at 11yrs I would start with the 10 mins and build up. Some people believe in teaching to swim by throwing in the deep end-it isn?t my way. I would start slowly, with water confidence so that eventually they take off in a natural way without fear. Giving them responsibility and independence is the same. I am not doing it for my convenience but to benefit them.

I can?t believe the number of people frightened by the ss! If you are frightened it means that you think you are doing something wrong. I don?t believe that I am doing anything wrong so I have no fear at all.

If you wait until you are completely off the hook as regards being responsible (in eyes of ss) you have to wait until the day they are 18yrs old! You are then free to let them loose on the world and ss can?t get you! However you then have a DC who has to travel to university using 3 trains (in case of my DS), find their way around a strange city, get to bed at a reasonable time, make sure they do the work, meet the deadlines, walk around a large city at night (with the possibility of too much drink) ,cook for themselves etc etc etc. The irresponsible parenting would seem to me to not start preparing for this 10 yrs before hand so that you get to the point naturally.

The goalposts have never changed from OP, he was never a young 7 ?he was always 8yrs in a few weeks and we have no idea at all what safeguards his mother has in place.

It's all totally inconsistent.

Don't you think that it is inconsistent because it is stupid?!

If asked they have to give safe guidelines so they can't be sued! I am a responsible parent, I am doing it sensibly and in the DCs best interests-that is my interpretation-if they say this is OK someone who wants to spend 2 hrs in the pub and leaves their DC with no rules and contact numbers could say 'but ss said that you could do that with a 10yr old?' They have a blanket response.
Therefore they said that the poster with the 9yr old couldn't walk herdog for 15mins in the morning and leave him in bed-privately she must have known it was OK -but she can't risk getting quoted for it in case of an accident.

Even if you leave a 16yr old at home, or you have a 16yr old baby sitter, you are responsible for when you are not there. If something goes wrong is it any comfort to say -it wasn't my fault? What is wrong with being responsible?

To be sensible you have to start leaving them by 14yrs-still against 'official guidelines'-the alternative is that you keep your peace ofmind and you wrap them in cotton wool and on their 18th birthday you say 'right-Ive done my bit-you are the adult-do what you like'!

Since they can get married at 16yrs, have sex at 16yrs, join the army at 16yrs, get a job at 16yrs, drive a car at 17yrs it seems irresponsible to wait until they are 13/14yrs before you trust them out of your sight!

Most children, unless kept under lock and key till their 18! get to a point naturally anyway, it doesn't have to start at 7, by the time they are at secondary school they make their own way to and from school, the area where their friends live widens so they are travelling further from home to meet with people, they catch buses together go to the pictures bowling, youth clubs etc this is all done naturally over the course of secondary school, my eldest wasn't left alone and didn't walk himself to school until he was 10 yet he is quite capable and has been for a few years ( he's 16 now) of traveling around by himself. He sorted out bus time tables and routes to college when he had interviews, can cook dinner for all of us and is generally very self sufficient, I don't think leaving him at 7 would have made him any better equipt for life than he is now

It doesn't have to start at 7yrs-who said it did?
All I am saying is that it isn't bad parenting to start at 7yrs. It is up to the individual-in my case I think 8yrs for 10 mins-but that is just me. Parents are adults-they should risk assess for themselves-not ask someone else for guidelines.
If people haven't brought themselves to do it, change to secondary is an obvious watershed.

exotic - yes I do think it's stupid. Very much so. But it's reality in the UK.

It doesn't matter that your DC are sensible and that you've made an informed decision - if SS intervene because you've left your 7-year-old alone, nothing you can say will justify your decision to them because it is so far below guidelines ages. Witness the furore recently about SS intervening in a case where parents let their 8-year-old DC cycle to school (and that wasn't breaching the guideline of 8 to be allowed out unaccompanied).

And we live in an age where everyone is increasingly accountable, where significant pressure is placed on schools, doctors etc to look out for children's welfare and where we experience mass hysteria in the media about child abuse cases. The chances of an ordinary family having SS called on them now are greater than they have ever been at any time in history. In itself, that's not a bad thing, but I think it might help us as a society to have a discussion about the dividing line between safeguarding and overprotection.

When my DC are in secondary school, I will start ignoring guidelines much more confidently because at that age I can make a much stronger case as to why my decision can be justified because of my individual children's behaviour/abilities. At 7, even if I had the next Einstein I couldn't see that holding much water with SS.

sunshineandbooks - common sense and intelligence are not always connected IME

It is really a grey area that no one has tackled. Every thread like this someone pops up and says 'it is illegal'-but it isn't.
Babysitting is a huge grey area. I think it all needs clarifying.
It would be a minefield to clarify it so I think it is just avoided. They play safe-the parent is responsible if under 18yrs, and so to be absolutely safe you take no risks and you don't leave them without an adult ever.
I don't think it is a good thing.
I took the responsibility when not there-refused to live my life in fear of authority- but to be perfectly fair nothing went wrong and it would be a different storyif it had.

The whole subject needs to be tackled.

Coming to this thread rather late to say that 35 years ago aged 7-8 I was regularly left in charge of my 4 younger brother and sisters while our parents were out, often for hours. I'm not saying that's a good thing (in fact it has been overwhelmingly a bad thing in my life even though my siblings are all fine and dandy), but how has it come to the stage where people would not trust a nearly 8 yo alone on their own for 20 minutes? They would have to be very immature not to be trusted for that short a time, barring SN.

exotic, I did understand the points youve been making, but most people who have said theyd leave a 7yo alone said theyd do it if they had to, i.e it was about necessity rather than teaching the child to become more responsible. There have also been so many comments saying that a young child is at no more risk whether they are alone or with an adult, hence why I questioned why an adult ever had to be present.
Similarly, a sleeping baby could be left alone, but I'd hope no-one would actually go out for 30 mins each morning leaving a baby asleep in bed. The risks are probably lower than leaving a 7yo.

I think Duchesse makes a good point. My mum went back to full time teaching when I started school - I was 5; DB was 9. We walked home together and put the TV on/played with toys when we got home. She got home as soon as she could. Nobody thought it was weird or wrong. Lots of kids did it. Sometimes a friend came round - we played. We never damaged the house, set fire to it, broke any bones or caused permanent injury to anyone. We probably argued - but we did that when our parents were around too.

You wouldn't leave a sleeping baby however low the risks! You only do it if:

a. the DC understands what is happening and is happy.
b. They will follow rules and know what to do in case of emergency.
c. You are easily contactable, not far from home, and there are alternate contacts.

The baby cannot do any of the above. therefore you would not leave them.

7yrs is about the youngest and I would wait for 8yrs (unless a summer birthday, possibly, i.e. is sensible and in a class where more than 90% of DCs are 8yrs). Some people will wait until older, but IMO it is lazy parenting not to start by 11yrs-just so that you can have peace of mind.
I would start long before 7 yrs by leaving them in the house to put washing, dustbins out etc.

Duchesse is right in that this is what all DCs used to do (or all that I knew)-it wasn't thought irresponsible and it was the norm.

I don't think it is only DC who will lose the ability to risk assess-I think some adults have already lost it!

The risks of a 7 year old left alone for 20 minutes coming to harm in a way that they wouldn't if there was an adult present are vanishingly small.

The risk of a baby being woken by the door closing and crying alone for 20 minutes while you're out are really quite high.

The risks of a 7 year old left alone for 20 minutes coming to harm in a way that they wouldn't if there was an adult present are vanishingly small.

But you're now missing my point entirely. I don't think (m)any people have said that they will come to harm because there's no adult present. Yes, it does increase the risk, but as you say most kids of 7yo will be playing without an adult present a lot, mine has also been left for longish periods while hanging out washing, he's alone every morning while I get showered and wash/dry my hair. However, my point has always been that IF something out of the ordinary happened, wouldnt your 7yo get upset? A previous poster mentioned that the mythical axeman did attack someone she knew, and killed the parent who was there. HOWEVER, if this happened and there was NO parent present, would ANY of you say "Ah, well, I couldnt have done anything anyway, so it made no difference that (s)he was alone"? Doubtful. The point is, if you WERE there, you might be able to comfort your child, or try to calm them even a little bit, from the absolute terror they were facing.

The thing is, seeker, I agree with most things you're saying - a child SHOULD be encouraged to be independant.

And youre right, a sleeping baby cannot contact someone in case of emergency, eg a fire. Oh, hang on a minute, neither can a sleeping 7yo.