To be furious that hubby left toddler home alone?

[Tinaland]

My husband left my 18 month old home alone while he went to buy cider. It was 9pm and DS was asleep in his cot (he can't climb out) but was restless as he's got a cold. Hubby was only gone about 5 mins but I am furious and feel a bit sick that he left him.

It is absolutely stupid to bring Madelaine McCann into it. But I knew someone would.

I disagree seeker but that's your opinion. I would never leave my children at home alone for fear of a kidnapping, an accident, a fire. All it takes is a minute.

These sorts of threads (leave small child alone in the house for 5 mins, leave small child alone in the car while doing the weekly shop, etc) tend to go the same way: most posters say, OP YANBU....your DH was stupid going out of the house, leaving the property, walking 2/3 minutes down the road to a shop, buying a load of booze, walking 2/3 minutes back to the house and drinking the load of booze while leaving his 18 month old child alone in the house. And then quite a vocal minority pile in and start saying, oh well - you're more likely to be knocked down by a bus, etc. It is total and utter bollocks.

Perhaps it makes those posters feel better about themselves. Who knows?

Well, frankly, I think a child is significantly safer asleep in her cot for 5 minutes in a locked house than screaming herself into hysteria in the name of "sleep training"

Which many people are perfectly happy with. But you can pretend that sleep training is for the benefit of the baby( it's not- it's to benefit the parent). You can't pretend that buying cider benefits anyone but the parent!

I am not pretending anything Seeker. It would seem that you may have an agenda on 'sleep training'. Bringing controlled crying into this thread is totally irrelevant.

No it isn't. People on here said "what if she wakes up and cries?" it's one of the main arguments for not leaving a child alone ( and the only one, incidentally, that I find convincing) . But people also say " it's fine for them to cry" if it's sleep training. There is no difference in the impact on the child- it's only the context that's different.

A child could be screaming itself into a hysteria in the 5 minutes their dad is out getting cider. That would be unpleasant but not the worst thing that could happen. So I don't see how sleep training is worse or even relevant.
Luckily the main problem I have with my kids sleeping is getting them to get up in the morning they are lazy like me but I have a friend whose child 'doesn't sleep' and he has constant bags under his eyes and is permanently ratty. I think he would benefit from having it sorted tbh so I wouldn't say kids can't benefit from sleep training.

Yes, I see your logic there, seeker.

But I think the whole thing does bring up the question of how responsible OP's DH was/is. Not to mention a certain desperation for alcoholic beverage. Perhaps some lessons to be learned ?

My main reason for not leaving a baby would be safety rather than them crying alone...

A sleeping baby will knot come to harm if left alone in the house of 5 minutes. Honestly. They won't. I wouldn't do it- although I will happily go out into the garden or put the bins out- but there is no logical reason why I shouldn't. None.

I have read the thread, but have missed the post from a social worker - can someone point me to it, please?

I am astounded - I have called SS because of disclosures made by young people, and in contravention of our own safeguarding policy have been obliged to release children into a situation which is clearly not safe (being violently abused to the extent of broken ribs, not fed and not given bedding etc) because SS have nowhere else to put the child and deem the child not to be in immediate crisis. So I would be very surprised if they would do more than tell a parent of an otherwise well tended child to not leave it alone in future.

It's not the best thing, to leave a child unattended, I have a natural resistance to it (but I did do it, once or twice when DS was tiny, asleep and ion cot) and for a genuine 3 or 4 mins as the shop was 2 doors away(probably to buy a bottle of beer of a bar of choc, possibly milk). But rationally I think the actual risk is miniscule.

When DS was crawling I picked him up and carried him to the loo as I was afraid of leaving him unaccompanied in the bedroom - and tripped on the landing stairs and catapulted him headfirst into the bannisters .

I think the amount drunk, if it was 3 litres, rather than a total of 750mls, and trip out for more is more of a basis of a conversation that I would be having than the principle of the 5 0r 6 mins alone in a cot.

I don't think it's great, but I wouldn't kick him out as a DH and father over it!

It was a great post for the social worker Blu - it was almost as if she was lying.

Oh, found it - BirdsGottaFly's post.

But she says those things would happen if anything happened. And that the police would take the children if they found them alone. Which if they arrived and the child was actually alone, would make sense.

Which isn't quite the same as SS hearing after the event that it happened, to no ill effect, and the child was otherwise very well cared for.

I agree with Seeker here. I wouldn't leave my child in the night either but my main reason for not doing so is I wouldn't want to get into trouble if it came out. I actually there is very, very little risk in leaving a child for just a few minutes. And I have popped out to take bins out, get shopping from car etc where risk is actually similar. I always go to my child if they cry too but sometimes I've left one for five mins crying if I've been doing something with other one (eg potty) and can't leave them. If the OP's DH had gone to shop right next door to get nappies or Calpol or something I would actually think he was a good parent. In the event I think he's a below average parent but his decision is still a rational one.

seeker you can't state that as fact. If there was a fire they could come to serious harm. It is irresponsible to say that it is not possible for them to come to harm.
Why do you think you would be in trouble for leaving your child if it is perfectly safe?

"A house is not going to burn down in five minutes. "
maybe not but a fire can start and generate enough smoke to kill you in 5 minutes. I know this from personal experience.

What this thread also shows is how much some parents love to martyr themselves. I bet they get anxious if they are not actively depriving themselves of something.

The SW said that would happen in a range of circs, only one or two posts specified "if anything happened" - the others were more general and encompassing situations where nothing happened:

"I was just explaining what would happen, if an accident had occured, or a neighbour made a phone call to the police or SS."

"To those that leave their toddlers alone, if one of your neighbours call the police, you child will be removed under a Police Protection Order or Emergancy Protection Order, no if or buts. That is alot to put a child through, just to 'pop the shops' for a non essential item. Read my ealier post, you would be looking at around three months minimum to get them back."

"Him- state the time period that you are talking about. The CP system changed dramatically after the 2004 Children's Act. From what i have seen and done as a CP SW, it isn't about adoptability. You would lose residency in a case like this. Admitingly SW's were told to back off and allow for 'cultural differences', but that is no longer the case. "

I think that is outrageous scaremongering, personally.

And it's not the first time.

And then SW come onto threads and say they can't understand why people are scared of them / wary of reporting others.

And I am sure that SS and the police will not turn up and remove your children on the basis of a report that you have nipped out for 5 minutes one night while they were asleep. I mean, it's ridiculous.

"seeker you can't state that as fact. If there was a fire they could come to serious harm. It is irresponsible to say that it is not possible for them to come to harm.
Why do you think you would be in trouble for leaving your child if it is perfectly safe?"

If a fire started upstairs when I was downstairs they could come to serious harm too.

If SS are so busy capturing parents in the local shop no wonder they are too busy to find a safe place for a young teen with broken ribs

For me I would only deprive myself if I didn't already have whatever I wanted. After a couple of times doing without I learnt my lesson, became more organised and had decent supplies in in future. I don't see how avoiding leaving your baby/toddler alone is martyrdom.

Oh I am a martyr all right - I do not hide the fact. I haven't had a dump with a sleeping baby in the house for ohh, nigh on 4.5 years. I am so organised, I only go to the loo when the DDs are awake and with me or in the care of high paid professionals.

It just depends really. My friend lives downtown in a small apartment with her husband across from a diner, a video store, etc. If I lived there, I would have no problem locking the door and running over for a DVD while my kids were sleeping. But it's a very small, safe town, and you can see the door and windows of the apartment from any of the aforementioned places.