Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To ask OH's parents to turn off their unguarded open-flame gas fire when LO is there?

116 replies

TuesdaySusie · 10/12/2011 17:09

Genuinely want to know what other people would do. It makes me very nervous when LO is running around in front of it whereas they seem to think its not a problem because they say they are always in the room with her.
It only takes a second though doesn't it?

OP posts:
Bunbaker · 10/12/2011 18:05

"I'm normally not one for childproofing the feck out of homes but open fires do need guards. The reason being, if she happened to just stumble in front of it, she would go straight into the fire. So it's not all about telling her not to touch it."

I totally agree.

"I would never have my children run around in the GP's house"

Woo hoo, well bully for you. Not all children are as biddable or will sit still for any length of time.

"Yes you can be 100% if you see your child go near them you either call them or pull them away. You teach them through words and/or facial expressions that they will get hurt if they go near it. Best way for a child to learn imo is either direct experience or being told of the experience."

What if the child trips?

I think you will find that ROSPA advise putting fire guards up. Here

pigletmania · 10/12/2011 18:17

Totally agree bunbaker and also Fire Officers who have seen the devestatation first hand of unguarded fires. No don't tell them to turn it off that is BU, but don't have your 2.5 year old there with an unguarded fire. Tell them to get the guard down from the loft, you buy one for them and they have to use it, or they cannot babysit. They obviously do not have your child's safety at the forefront.

Maryz · 10/12/2011 18:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

valiumredhead · 10/12/2011 18:44

Very easy to teach a 2 yr old not to trip! Get a guard OP, better safe than sorry.

CailinDana · 10/12/2011 18:50

YANBU. Toddlers are very unsteady on their feet. All it would take is for her to not be paying attention for a moment, stumble and fall onto the fire. I'm not keen on fires at all as I have very poor depth perception and I tend to trip a lot. If there's an open fire I feel very nervous and there's no way I'd have a small child around one without a guard. Even now in my parents' house I always put the guard up when they have a fire on to protect myself from it! I find it very odd that anyone would feel ok with a small child being around an unguarded flame.

Nanny0gg · 10/12/2011 18:55

I wouldn't have any young child playing in a room with an unguarded fire. It's an accident waiting to happen. And accidents are totally unpredictable even if the GPs were hovering over the child every second.
Get a guard or don't leave them there. If they refuse then they are being totally U.

FairyOnTheXmasTreeMcFlouncer · 10/12/2011 18:57

Only read first page. Simply say that unless they can 'find' their guard, you'll be bringing one next time. You don't have to explain further than that unless they're extraordinarily obtuse people.

charitygirl · 10/12/2011 19:02

Ha! What if GPs like their grandchildren to run around? As my parents are neither in their 90s, nor child hating wankers, they are quite happy for my kids to be active toddlers. They would not be so cavalier with their safety as to have their open fire unguarded. Sometimes I think you lot are on a wind up.

OP, yanbu.

NinkyNonker · 10/12/2011 19:04

Blimey, we always had a guard up even as teenagers, apart from anything else even with a hearth bits still get on the carpet.

Only solution is to take a guard with you and just put it up. If they take it down or cause a fuss, don't leave LO there alone again.

All very well saying teach them safety, watch them etc but the OP is leaving them there unattended. If they were lax towards it (which it sounds like they are, otherwise wouldn't they just get the bloody guard out?) how can she trust them to watch the dc?

Some children are more willful than others and take longer to learn stuff like this.

thepeoplesprincess · 10/12/2011 19:15

Is this thread a joke?!

Do some of you really believe you can just tell a two-year-old not to touch something dangerous and that's that?!

I genuinely worry for your (imaginary) children (clearly you don't have real children or you wouldn't be talking such bullshit)

Original poster
TuesdaySusie · 10/12/2011 19:15

Thanks everyone. Appreciate all your opinions.

OP posts:
pigletmania · 10/12/2011 19:18

thats right thepeopleprincess some people do not have a clue about kids, either that or they have perfect children who listen to everything that their parents say and act in the right way.

RomanChristingle · 10/12/2011 19:18

OP YABU imo to have left the child there if you were convinced they would turn the fire straight back on. Like others have said I would buy a guard but if you don't think they'll use it I would find alternative childcare arrangements.
I would love to know what planet these 2 1/2 year olds who never do things they are told not to do and sit and play quiet games all the time are from as I've never met one! DD was a VERY sensible toddler - there's still no way in hell I would have trusted her round an open fire at 2 1/2.
And there's no way the gp's will be with her all the time. If one of them nips out and the other needs the loo/to answer the phone or door are they going to drag a, perhaps resistant, toddler with them each time when they are happily playing. I doubt it. And as others have said an accident could easily happen while they are in the room.
I'm all for teaching about danger but at 2 1/2 they will have very little understanding of the very severe consequence of falling in the fire. It is a parents responsibility to protect kids until they are able to protect themselves.

RomanChristingle · 10/12/2011 19:20

And I agree with the pp's who have said that people need to stop this competitive underparenting bullshit. A 2 1/2 year old left to play near an open fire is being put in danger - there's no 2 ways about it.

pigletmania · 10/12/2011 19:21

I am Shock how many people would put their child at risk and not have a guard, as their toddlers should understand not to touch, and to stay away from the fire.

amerryscot · 10/12/2011 19:25

I think it is about teaching your child in the long run to manage risk.

I never did the reckless let-your-child-run-around-regardless balls to everyone else school of parenting.

They are actually quite amenable when you explain risk to them, even at 2 or 3 years old. And it pays dividends.

tasmaniandevilchaser · 10/12/2011 19:30

YANBU (but a bit U to ask them to turn it off in this weather!), I'd also like to know where all these toddlers are that just sit still, always listen to instructions, never run off, always do what they're told! It only takes a second for your DD to trip and fall and she could be scarred for life.

But having said that, I think it also depends on the layout of the fire / room, as my PIL have an open fire without a guard and I've never been too concerned. The reason for that is the fire is set back and raised up so it would be hard for DD to trip and fall in the fire. All the toddler grandchildren are taught not to go near it as well obviously.

I'd mainly be worried about tripping as that would be hard to stop unless you have Jedi reflexes. I'm not that concerned about her touching it, I'd hope she'll get her hand near it and realise that's a very bad idea.

BoulevardOfBrokenSleep · 10/12/2011 19:32

amerryscot, that would be all very well if we were talking about a burnt finger from lighting a match, or even a broken leg from climbing the furniture.

Bit difficult to get a 2-3yo to understand running in front of a fire => serious burns over a large portion of the body and the lifelong consequences that entails. Bit of a steep learning curve for the child, no?

You can still teach them not to touch the fireguard, which will be hot. Potential consequence - slightly burnt fingers. Isn't that a bit fairer to the child?

Sirzy · 10/12/2011 19:34

So again why does the OP leave the child there if so concerned thats what I don't understand!!

RomanChristingle · 10/12/2011 19:36

amerryscot it doesn't have to be either/or though. You can protect very young children who are unable to fully grasp the potential consequences of their actions while also beginning to teach them the consequences. Expecting a 2 year old to be responsible for their own safety around an open fire is absolute madness. A compliant toddler will listen most of the time but it will be more by luck than judgement if the child doesn't end up hurt.

SardineQueen · 10/12/2011 19:47

My parents have an open fire in winter and they went out and bought a sturdy fireguard when I had DD1. Mum in particular is nervous about the whole thing. So it's not a question of our geeration being more namby-pamby than previous generations.

We have a gas fire which we didn't have guarded when DD1 was small I admit although looking back that was a bit silly. It was out of action last year and this year if we use it I will be getting a guard. DD1 was terribly sensible but DD2 falls over at the drop of a hat and it would be asking for trouble.

OP I think you should buy a fireguard or offer to go up to their loft to get it or ask your DP to talk to his parents or go up to the loft.

microserf · 10/12/2011 19:55

YANBU. my kids are 1 and 2. how should i teach them to respect fire? i'm a bit amazed by those posters who apparently can do this with no risks. Hmm

this will be an issue for us over xmas, so definitely understand where you are coming from.

chipmonkey · 10/12/2011 20:02

YADNBU. I am shocked at how many people think it's a way of teaching children to respect danger.
FILs little brother fell into an open fire aged 3 and died. Do you all think that was a good way to teach him?

callmemrs · 10/12/2011 20:30

I would want a guard up . As the parents its your responsibility to ensure your Childs safety though. If you aren't 100% happy with the arrangements then I think you're wrong for leaving your dd there. You cant force your parents to do things differently. They may have been of a generation who had a different approach and they obviously genuinely think there is no problem. You can, however, find alternative babysitters and thats what you need to do if this situation continues

Bunbaker · 10/12/2011 20:37

"They are actually quite amenable when you explain risk to them, even at 2 or 3 years old"

Do you seriously expect a two year old to suddenly stop and think "I must not go near the fire" when he/she is running around playing with their sibling?

Swipe left for the next trending thread