to think it is unacceptable to leave a 12 year old and 9 year old home alone with a 12 month old baby

[PinkElephant73]

It is half term this week and someone I know went out during the day, leaving their 2 older children age 9 and 12 alone with their 12 month old baby sibling who was asleep having a nap while the parent was out. The parent was out on 2 separate occasions for a period of about 30 minutes, but says they were no more than 10 minutes from home either time and the older children could have contacted them on their mobile phone if there was a problem. They do not seem to think there is anything to worry about with the above scenario.

Is it just me or is this totally irresponsible? what would you do if this was your friend?

I don't thinknit does depend on the 12 year old. I think it depends on how the 12 year old has been brought up. So it depends on the parents, really.

Maryz, sleep is a necessity, i always kept my bedroom door open, his half open, and he was waking regualry anyway, i don't think that is a valid argument, it is quite a facetious view.
I always had a morning shower whilst my DH looked after DS in the mornings, and i didn't get to go to the toilet by myself for about 3 yrs! !
I also had him out with me putting washing out in the summer, door was always locked, or chained up, and his bedroom window has an upper section, where he is unable to reach and if anything did happen i was there, that is my main point, i ( the parent, the adult ) was there to take control of the situation.

An adults judgement and childs judgement of a situation are completely different.
I am not just emphasising the potential damage that might happen to the baby being watched, but the possible emotional trauma that might be inflicted upon a younger child if something happened to a child in their care.

Most people seem to be skimming past that i can assure you some things you can not forget, like the sight of your little sisters hand almost melting away.
I wouldn't want someone to wait for something horrible to happen like that before they understood why it is not a great idea.

I am also legally still held responsible for the saftey of my children if anything were to happen if i left my children with an under 16yr old.

Sounds like you are rather over-protective, which is entirely your prerogative, but means you aren't in a good position to judge everyone else.

I have also said maryz, that horrific accidents happen with 2 parents in the house, which kind of makes my point, if it can happen with the supervision of an adult, it can certainly happen with a child babysitting, the problem is what each would do in the aftermath of an accident, i think we can all agree a competent adult would be best suited to dealing with that.

maybe paranoid, but im not OTT, well i am but im not!, i don't mollycuddle my ds, if he falls over and i can tell its not serious i don't rush over to him, i try and make him take little accidents in his stride.
I don't really respond excessively to his moaning or crying unless it is 'that' cry, which i think every mum knows what i am talking about.

I also don't get het up when another child bites, or hits him, only once did i really react when he was 2 and the other child was 5-6, but really, i am not a helicopter parent.

I understand that if people have had q horrible experience they might be over protective. But that is all the more reason for your experience not to impact on your own parenting. I nearly died in a ridingbacident as a child- I would love to stop my children riding. But I don't- because they are them not me, and it would be very wrong of me to let my experience colour their childhood. So I smile through gritted teeth and wave them off. Because that's what parents have to do, however hard it is.

Off course not maryz, but children can learn how to take care of siblings whilst still in the vacinity of a parent, ie, taking charge, supervising at a park, or in the garden.
Or even whilst mum or dad are just next door having a coffee with the neighbour, you can't really believe that i think all 16 yr olds automaticaly become able to babysit after their birthday
But i also think there are safer ways of older siblings learning how to deal with younger children, and gain responsibilities.

"Off course not maryz, but children can learn how to take care of siblings whilst still in the vacinity of a parent, ie, taking charge, supervising at a park, or in the garden."

And presumably by the age of 12, the older sibling has already gone through that process?

I agree seeker, i had my left thigh ripped apart by a dog when i was 10, however, i have never dragged my son away from dogs in the park or street.
And encouraged him to be friendly, stroke them the right way when i know the dog and owner.
But that is a different senario to what we are discussing here, you wouldn't be responsible for anything a horse did whilst your dds were riding, that is weighing up the experience to risk, it is a benificial experience in the presence of an adult.
It is impossible to protect your children at all times, however,
I am saying i don't think a 12 yr old, however mature, should be responsible for a 9 and yr old baby, and that the only one who benifits from this is the dad that had a child free 30 mins.
The children were exposed to a potentialy dangerous outcome, with no feasable benefit to balance that out with.

Yes, we know what you are saying. With respect, you've said it 47 times now. And 20 people have told you why its fine with them. What else do you expect from this thread?

But the parent is still legally responsible for anything that happens whilst a 15yr old or younger is looking after younger children.

I think you'll find that in the very rare instance of something untoward happening, few people will care about the legal situation. And its not illegal anyway, unless you can be proved to be neglectful, which having a sibling babysitting is not, in and of itself.

I think i actually agree with you paranoid, i don't need to bang my head against a brick wall, i already have a headache!
I just like to understand, it bugs me when my head can not rationalise a point of view, sorry!
Well, i guess thats the end of it then i will leave the thread alone.

"The children were exposed to a potentialy dangerous outcome, with no feasable benefit to balance that out with."

Honestly, it is not dangerous to be in your own house for half an hour. And their dad got his run. The 12 year old did his/her dad a favour by watching the younger ones, and felt trusted and responsible. Win/win in my book.

Sudden question- do you have/ know any 12 year olds.

I know what i just said,
But i didn't say it was illegal to leave an under 16 yr old in charge, i do know that.
I said that i the parent would be legally responsible for anything that would happen if i had an under 16yr old looking after my children.
I would be held accountable for it.
I know it is rare, but there was a lady in my county who was given a caution for leaving her 14yr old son looking after his younger brother for 30 mins.
I don't know the situation regards to why it was given, but it does happen.
Right, thats it, im gone!

I don't run my life according to one bonkers interpretation of the law. And thank fuck for me I don't live in the cotton-wool wrapped UK anyway!

why do you make me come back?

"I know it is rare, but there was a lady in my county who was given a caution for leaving her 14yr old son looking after his younger brother for 30 mins."

Prove it.

why would i make that up??

And your link is competely irrelevant- it's about babysitting by someone not a member of the sitee's immediate family.

Cos I'm a niggly fucker?

Thats a standard leaflet. Legally you can be held responsible if any harm to comes to your child left with an under 16 year old, ok. But like I said, if you believe you've raised responsible children, you're not going to be concerned about that.

I refuse to believe that the police would waste time on a 14 year old looking after his little brother if there was not more to the story. How did they find out about it, for a start?

Why is it a problem to be legally responsible for what happens to your children? Surely that is fine? The parent is morally responsible anyway, and I'm sure would hold themselves responsible.

You're only going to leave your children alone if you believe they will come to no harm anyway.