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.

Still nobody has explained to me why a selfish trip in the car to Costa is OK while leaving a child asleep in her cot in a house for 5 minutes isn't, when the first is by any objective standard riskier.

I just cannot see that leaving a child asleep in a cot for five minutes is a hanging offence. Personally, I would not do it but I would (and have), for instance, get something out of a car parked across the road. I guess that would take 2 mins, and maybe some would think that is also a terrible thing to do. Aside from the ludicrously low risk of the house catching fire, there are no other real risks? They wake up and cry? Well, they cry for 5 mins, not the end of the world. And, as for choking to death?! How many parents have rescued a choking child from a cot? What would they be choking on? Getting out of their cot in their own room with a closed door? Conceivable but highly unlikely and then they are on the floor of a child proofed room for 5 mins.

On the other hand, I do think there is something rather sad about being on one's own and getting out of one's head on a mixture of cider and beer. Ever heard of reading a book or watching TV? But maybe I am just more sensitive to the alcohol dependency angle.

Getting out and about during the day is good for a parent's mental health which in turn is good for the baby. I would expect someone to take precautions against harm to the baby thereby reducing risk eg using proper child seat and using it properly, keeping to the speed limit and obeying road signs etc. If the baby is older than a couple of months the parent going out and meeting a friend also offers them some social interaction and the stimulation of different sights and sounds so would benegit the child directly.

What I would regard as abandoning your baby is a whole other level of selfishness. IMHO.

"Getting out and about during the day is good for a parent's mental health which in turn is good for the baby. I would expect someone to take precautions against harm to the baby thereby reducing risk eg using proper child seat and using it properly, keeping to the speed limit and obeying road signs etc. If the baby is older than a couple of months the parent going out and meeting a friend also offers them some social interaction and the stimulation of different sights and sounds so would benegit the child directly."

Ah. So going out for a coffee is a purely unselfish act which is of huge benefit to the baby. Even though it involves the single most dangerous thing any onus ever do with our children- which is put them into a car.

While doing the much less risky thing of leaving them asleep for 5 minutes to go and buy chocolate, or milk or even beer is "abandonment"

Yes I do view leaving a very young child alone abandonment. Have never done it, never will.

I didn't say it was purely unselfish act actually and I also said that I hadn't done that either.

But can't you see how the relative risks weigh up?

There are risks to staying inside 24/7 and with lack of human contact. You will not encourage me to leave my children in the house alone, nor will you encourage me to feel comfortable with the concept of leaving them alone.

Then I am the Best Parent of the fucking lot of you because I don't own a car. So I never take the awful selfish self-indulgent risk of putting my child in a car whether that's to go and nurture the aged poor or to go and buy myself a lipstick.

This thread is just a huge testament to people's inability to gauge risk properly.

The nipping to the shop thing wouldn't be the issue for me, what he went to the shop for is, could he really not do without a drink?

No, I don't just like to argue the toss. But I am constantly amazed by people's complete inability to assess risk. And that inability makes people make bonkers choices sometimes. For example, we were on holiday with my sil once. She wouldn't let her boys- then aged 8 and 10 go to the loo alone on a family campsite because it was "too risky," but saw nothing dangerous in letting her non- swimming 8 year old fo chest deep into the sea at a beach with an infamous undertow.

I am saying that the most dangerous thing we ever do with our children is take them out in the car. I know that loads of journeys are essential.

But if you compare a non-essential car journey with leaving a sleeping baby in a cot in a locked house for 5 minutes , the first is much more dangerous (even though it isn't very dangerous at all!) but it is perfectly acceptable. The second is not dangerous at all- but is perceived as a real risk.

I wouldn't leave the baby either. But I know that it is completely illogical, and I would try very hard not to judge anyone who did. They are the ones assessing risk properly.

Everlong- that's awful, and it's perfectly natural for you to feel the way you do. I had a really bad riding accident as a child, and I can hardly bear to watch my dd on a horse. I would so love to stop her!

seeker I have seen your posts re fire including the one where you implied being downstairs in earshot of your smoke alarm was comparable to being in your local shop.
Risk analysis for me is about weighing risk against benefit. Popping out to the shop for cider, milk or anything wouldn't be of benefit enough to me to justify ANY risk of fire when the potential consequences are fatal. I would just go without a cider/cuppa til the next day and really wouldn't be that bothered at all.
Yes you can be run over leaving the house but the benefits of fresh air, natural light, socialising, being able to buy things I need and not being forcibly housebound every day for the rest of my life outweigh that risk for me.

But your house is not going to spontaneously combust. Fires happen because people leave gas rings on, light candles and fall asleep, forget to put q guard on an open fire- that sort of thing. They don't just happen.

Fires can happen because of previously unseen/unknown electrical faults. And because of human error; someone forgets they have left soemthing on. And that's the whole point - they have forgotton they have left it on.

Fires do just happen though. No one has to leave anything on for a fire to happen due to an electrical fault. If you think fires only happen to careless people you are being dangerously complacent.

But the chance of a fire happening in that particular 5 minutes is so small as to be not even worth considering. Honestly. We really need to learn how to think about this stuff.

You might not think it was worth considering and I might not think it was worth considering if I needed to leave the house in an emergency. But for the sake of a pint of milk/a few bottles of cider that I could easily pick up the next day it's not a risk I would take - however low it is.
I don't think I need to relearn how I think. I don't need to shop while my baby's asleep so I just don't do it. It has in the 4 years I've had kids caused me no problem whatsoever. If a risk you are taking is completely unnecessary it really doesn't matter how low it is. Some risks are in life are unavoidable but this one is very easily avoidable. So I avoid it.

Where is the op btw? [grin}