Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be furious that hubby left toddler home alone?

428 replies

Tinaland · 10/01/2012 15:48

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.

OP posts:
seeker · 12/01/2012 18:35

If you would go out with the bins there is no logical reason at all why you would not pop next door to the shop. No logical reason at all.

SecretMinceRinser · 12/01/2012 19:20

I take it you have a smoke detector seeker? You wouldn't hear it at the shop - you would if you were downstairs.

everlong · 12/01/2012 19:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SecretMinceRinser · 12/01/2012 19:34

Also where does the op say the shop was next door? She said he was gone for 5 minutes. Much longer than it takes to wheel your bin out of the back door.

seeker · 12/01/2012 20:00

Ok. It actually takes me at least 3 minutes to do my bins.

It's just bizarre to think that the house is going to catch fire the very second you leave it. My house has never caught fire in its life- and it's been alive since 1905. There have been 3 house fires in my circle- one in 1923, when a chimney caught fire, one in the 1960s and one in 1990 which was widely thought to be an insurance scam. The chances of my house catching fire in the precise 5 minutes I am out of it are so small as to be not even worth of consideration.
if this bloke had popped out for milk or nappies the would have been half the condemnation.

everlong · 12/01/2012 20:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SecretMinceRinser · 12/01/2012 20:20

I would have posted exactly the same had it been for milk or nappies. And I did post exactly the same on the thread last week, when the the op was asking if people thought it would ok to nip out for 5 mins to the hospital across the road to collect her friend who had had an operation, while her baby napped. There were similar responses on that thread as to here so I don't think that the fact the man was buying alcohol is an issue.

I don't think my house will catch fire the minute I leave it - quite the opposite - I think it's a very low risk. BUT it's a completely unnecessary one when you don't need to leave them in the house/go out.
Similarly I don't strap the kids in their car seats because I think we will be involved in an accident - I've never been involved in a car accident - I do it just in case.

If not taking completely unnecessary risks that bring little/no benefit makes me a martyr in some peoples eyes I can cope with that. To me it's just being sensible.

Pugsypuggy · 12/01/2012 20:23

Yesterday my ill screaming baby took hours to get to sleep for his nap.When he finally got to sleep it was time to pick my toddler up from pre school.My husband(very clever man btw)said to me from work on the phone 'don't be so silly leave him in the cot and pick 'toddler' up come on do you honestly think in 20 mins the little one will be kidnapped?Nothing will happen etc'..
Btw I woke him up and picked ds1 up..nevertake chances..it only takes '5 mins' for them to choke/have an accident/your house be burgled/burn down etc etc..of course this most probably will never happen but why risk it?
(Of course easier said than done!)

seeker · 12/01/2012 21:21

"Seeker it's not about the house combusting. It's not about someone breaking in and absconding with the child.

It's about being responsible and putting them first. You may call it martyrdom."

I don't call it martyrdom. And i do put my children first. But if it's not about fire or abduction, what is it about?

SecretMinceRinser · 12/01/2012 21:23

It is mainly about fire as far as I'm concerned.

seeker · 12/01/2012 21:26

See my earlier posts re fire.

everlong · 12/01/2012 21:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker · 12/01/2012 21:37

So you never take them out in the car?

everlong · 12/01/2012 21:45

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker · 12/01/2012 22:51

No. You said about not exposing them to any risk, however small.

I said well, you obviously don't take them out in the car then, do you?

It is much more dangerous to take q child on a car journey than to leave her asleep in her cot for 5 minutes while you pop to the shop.

And if you're going to come back with "but car journeys are necessary", this one isn't. It's a car journey for the mother to meet a friend in Costa for a capuccino and a brownie.

Ghoulwithadragontattoo · 12/01/2012 22:51

Every time you take your kids out in the car or indeed cross the road you are putting them at (actually quite serious - or at least relatively serious) risk. But you decide the risk is worth the benefit. It's not bad parenting to take that risk.

I leave my kids downstairs watching TV while I shower. That isn't risk free but I have childproofed and think the benefit (me having a shower without the kids screaming the house down) is worth the (v. small) risk.

Popping out to the shop for 5 mins when small child is asleep in bed is low risk and if you needed formula or nappies is a risk a reasonable parent might well take.

seeker · 12/01/2012 22:59

But popping to the shop for a bottle of wine is? Inteesting.

It is objectively far mor dangerous ( but actually not very dangerous!) to take your child with you in the the car to meet q friend at Costa than it is to leave your child asleep in her cot while you pop to the shop next door for a bottle of wine.

But one is ok and the other isn't. It just goes to show how very bad we are at assessing and interpreting risk.

everlong · 12/01/2012 23:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

seeker · 12/01/2012 23:06

Actually, I don't, everlong. I genuinely don't understand why you would perfectly happily take q child on a non essential car journey but not leave the same child asleep in q cot for 5 minutes. I don't understand why I also feel that the leaving is worse than the driving when intellectually I know it's the other way round!

everlong · 12/01/2012 23:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TillyTellTale · 12/01/2012 23:21

Hmm. I do actually know of a mother who left her toddler alone. I don't know the exact details, but it was discovered before she came back, and the child was removed.

Ghoulwithadragontattoo · 12/01/2012 23:22

Nope - popping to shop for a bottle of wine is exactly the same risk. It's just I think the benefit of getting nappies or formula is more clear cut so tips the risk / benefit analysis in favour of the hypothetical parent.

seeker · 12/01/2012 23:29

That's why I cited a trip to Costa for the mother to meet a friend. You don't hove to do that. It'e purely for the selfish pleasure of the parent. Not essential, no benefit to the child. But OK. While the 5 minute trip to the shop while the baby sleeps is completely beyond the pale. Do you see my point?

Xenna · 12/01/2012 23:50

Under no circumstances you leave a child at home alone, let alone to go and buy alcohol! It was a big mistake and hope that he isgenuinely mortified and won't do it again. However, if it was me, I don't think I could ever trust him again alone with the child.

doradaisy · 13/01/2012 00:20

Just to say, I feel sick at the thought it this.

I have 16 month old DSs - it doesn't bare thinking about.

I'd dump his ass big time!!

Swipe left for the next trending thread