To leave Dd alone in hotel room?

[Shelby2010]

More of a WWYD really. We are going to be staying with Dd (18mths) in a hotel next month on holiday & then overnight for a wedding in July. How safe do MNetters feel it is to leave their sleeping DC in the room with either the listening service or a normal baby monitor while eating in the hotel restaurant or attending an evening reception?

Am I being very PFB to worry about how many members of staff could access the room (especially with programable card keys)? The fact that hotels do offer a listening service suggests that many parents are ok with this. I'm torn between thinking I'm paranoid and thinking that they always tell you not to leave valuables in you room except in the safe..... Help!

LeQueen is talking sense, dont take the risk, it isn't a risk that NEEDS to be taken

The baby of a close friend of SIL died several years ago, left alone in a hotel room while the parents had dinner (suffocated himself).

Id be just concerned that they would wake up and be scared tbh,no scare mongering here just concern for my child really.
Also what if something happened to you and nobody knew the baby was alone.
I think if something happened to your child the guilt must be terrible enough without knowing you werent there to prevent it.

I have to say though that Iwas on my own for years and took dc all over the world so they were well adapted to late nights in the bar or watching the hotel shows etc. They slept in the buggy or joined in with the fun so it was easy to still socialise. My dc 5 though who is a ginger hurricane would possible not cope as well (we shall see in august) but Im pretty sure I wouldnt leave her alone just because I think life is pretty unpredictable and have learned that shit does happen. I kind of like the kids with us for the whole holiday as well as we all rarely do that at home. We are lucky though to have plenty of time to ourselves at home with lots of available sitters (benefits of big age gaps ds1 2 and 3 can babysit the sisters

I don't understand why the risk of leaving your child in a hotel room, when you have taken all the safety precautions you can like making sure they are in a cot they can't get out of, that they are locked in and windows closed, that you ahve a good reliable monitor, that your room is close to the bar, is percieved as greater and more unnecessary than any other thing you might do.

I don't NEED to let my dd sleep alone in her room while I am asleep in another as she could burn to death if a fire started in her room and I wouldn't be aware-but I do.

I don't NEED to allow her to play on her swing in the garden while I cook tea inside and can't hear her, she could be abducted, or fall and kill herself, but I do.

I don't NEED to sit downstairs watching TV in the evening while she sleeps upstairs, without a monitor (she is 6) as she could choke on her own vomit, set herself on fire, stick her fingers in the plug sockets, but I do.

etc.

If we only took risks with our children when we needed to we would all lead very different lives indeed. I think the risks with leaving your child are much greater in some parent's minds than the actual risk, and think it is down to your perspective of the situation as to whether you would leave them or not. Of course, if you don't feel happy doing it then don't, that's up to each parent to decide. But I think it those people who are telling others who do, and that they are wrong and neglectful for doing so, that are causing this argument to perpetuate. The fact that so many hotels offer a listening service, which is monitored and regulated by the fire service shows that it is actually a common practice among parents, and not limited to the irrational few that this thread would lead you to believe.

LeQueen, with due respect though many families live in a 3 storey town house and in the summer they may decide to have a few drinks in the garden. If a fire started on the top floor, presumably they wouldn't be able to reach their children in time.

In a hotel, not only does it have to undertake an annual risk assessment but their smoke alarms have to be sensitive and are located in every single room and along the corridors. They also have fire doors and sprinkler systems.

You know what? I'd be more uncomfortable leaving my children asleep upstairs in a 3 storey house whilst I sat in the garden than I would with a video monitor in a hotel.

Because to me, having looked sensibly at the risks, I would see one activity as being more risky than another.

And to dismiss this as us just tottering off to the bar to have a few cocktails is also insulting. It makes it sound as though we just want to get smashed. A huge presumption there and not a fair one.

You get offended at being called paranoid and I have not done that, yet I am disappointed and surprised that you can still imply that parents who do this are being irresponsible and selfish and not see the offence that causes.

I don't need to have a few drinks more than a woman with a good income from her husband needs to go to work. Both of us choose to do so because we still treasure our independence. One woman goes out to work every day leaving her baby in the care of a nursery or childminder, and I've already spoken about the rare incidents of abuse there. The other occasionally (3 times a year?) would leave her children in a room with a monitor for a couple of hours.

Do a proper risk assessment on both of those, weigh up the risks properly. Don't just go off what happened to you once or just a gut instinct that it might be wrong, do it properly as you would do if you were doing it for a business. Then come back and tell me what your results are.

Isabelle they are silly comparisons. Those are situations that basically need to happen, because of course you cant be with them all the time

1 - you obviously can't have the child sleeping with you for the rest of its life, common sense.

2 - You cannot stop her from playing outside, that's part of being a child.

3 - You cannot be by her side 24/7 when at home, it's not practical for one and it's not natural, the child would end up with separation issues.

These all carry risks, which is your point, but these things need to happen for the health of both you and the child, and for practicality. You leaving them in a hotel room while you go for drinks DOES NOT need to happen. It simply doesn't. So why take THAT risk?

I'm fully aware of the fact that parents need time to themselves and bloody deserve to let their hair down, but leaving a child on its own in a relatively strange and different place doesn't sit well with me. Babysitters are available.

Your comparisons are like saying, I won't lock the doors of my home because a burglar could smash the windows anyway.

It is very simple for me.

All parenting has risks. Life has risks. But if your child died would you know you did all you could to keep them safe. If not, then it is a risk not worth taking. And quite frankly only I have to justify what I do with my own child. Only I will suffer if I took a risk and they died. And DH of course. The child wouldn't suffer. They would be dead and they wouldn't know anything else. I would be left feeling

LeQueen - I am sorry you had such a terrifying experience.

"I am disappointed and surprised that you can still imply that parents who do this are being irresponsible and selfish and not see the offence that causes."

I don't think you'll find the validation you're looking for Rhubarb. I understand that on a tolerant forum, as in a tolerant society, we should all respect one another's choices. But life isn't like that, is it?

As individuals and parents we weigh up alternatives all the time. And if someone else chooses to make a choice that we ourselves have deliberated and decided not to follow, then an implicit judgement follows. We may not (and I hope we don't) make that judgement consciously, but subconsciously there is the feeling that that parent is less careful than we are. Perhaps it even less caring.

That's why wohm vs sahm threads always degenerate into bunfights. That's why this thread is a bunfight too.

wohm and sahm both make sacrifices for their dcs and i have never understood why there is bunfights on that matter as a wohm cares for her kids exactly the same as a sahm- most people have to work to bring in a decent sum of money to live off but im luckily enough to be a sahm but i dont see myself as any better than a wohm but how can that be compared to leaving a child in a hotel room on its on?

I once went next door with my husband (for a curry with the next door neighbours) and took the baby monitor to listen in on dd1 who was about 18 months old at the time. Am I going to hell in a handcart?

peanutbutter- i actually don't know which is worse-leaving dc alone in a hotel room whilst you dine or going next door?
Going next door is probably the worst out of all of these threads because you are not even in the same building! So the chances of something happening are probably much worse- what did the neighbours think?
Obviously as a child gets older they could get up to anything-some mumsnetters are even endorsing leaving a 6 year old alone !

I wasn't remotely worried and neither were the neighbours! (semi detached house in corner of cul de sac, so no different to sitting at bottom of garden with monitor on)
In real life, nobody worries as much as they do on the interweb.

Hopefully yes you are right, but oh the irony of those being offended by the label "hysterical" when they themselves have called us "irresponsible", "selfish" and that we didn't deserve to have kids. I wonder which of those labels is worse?

Here is a risk assessment for you:

Hotel, baby on second floor, parents in bar. 2 staircases located through double doors either side of the bar. Parents sitting nearest to the staircase which has the easiest access to the second floor. Baby monitor picks up baby's breathing with sound and lights. Hotel has fire doors, smoke alarms in every room and sprinklers.

Recommended that either parent check on child every half an hour. Parent should enter room silently whilst other parent checks that the sound is picked up clearly by the monitor. Risk of fire low. Rescue access high - 40 seconds to get from bar, up one flight of stairs to door of room.

House, 3 storeys. Baby on top floor of house. Staircase located at front of house. Parent sitting outside in garden. Bedroom window is not visible as it's at the front of the house. Baby monitor picks up baby's breathing with sound and lights. House has smoke alarms on the landing of every floor.

Risk of fire low (non smokers and not cooking) but rescue difficult. 1min 30 to get from back of house to front and up 2 flights of stairs.

So which of these is the riskier situation and why?

I am not asking for people to agree with me. I am not out to change your minds. I am here using common sense, using logical arguments, statistics, risk assessments, examples of monitors to help posters understand why some parents choose to use baby monitors in hotels.

They can still disagree with their use, they can still prefer to use a babysitting service, but I don't understand how, after everything I have said, they can totally gloss over my posts as if they were never there and insist that we are being selfish "for a few drinks at the bar". Er no, for some time with your partner, alone. Whether or not you have a drink is besides the point.

Personal examples can highlight what happens when things go wrong, but we all have personal examples we can use to illustrate any point we like. Because bad things can happen from time to time. However this is about assessing the risk of that and making a sensible decision. 1 hotel fire compared to hundreds of house fires seems pretty low risk to me. When was the last time a child was abducted by a stranger in the UK? Again, seems pretty low risk to me.

You use the same assessment when choosing a nursery for your baby so you can go back to work. You know that some nurseries have had members of staff who have abused children, but you know that this is very rare and so you are prepared to take the risk and trust your child to these people. Same with babysitters no matter how qualified - there is always one willing to abuse that trust, but you know that the risk is low so you are prepared to take that risk to have some time to yourselves.

I actually lived in that type of house you describe TheRhubarb and sold it precisely because I never felt safe in the garden with ds asleep three floors up. I had the monitor, although it was 8 years ago so not as high tech as they perhaps are now. I don't think sitting in the garden does make parents feel all that secure really, certainly not the parents who also would hate to leave their kids in a hotel room alone.

My house was built in the days when staff used the basement and the family lived in the two floors above. I think one floor between your kids is more than enough for most of us anxious types .

I sold that house to move to a flat so that I could see/hear ds with more ease and also I had health issues and was glad to be rid of the stairs.

The bar/quiet meal is one thing. I remain unconvinced of the wisdom of a monitor on a table at a wedding. There is no way anyone can relax and enjoy themselves, taking full part in a function, chatting and giving people your attention whilst having full sight of a monitor. It's just not possible unless you never leave the table and never give people your full attention/eye contact.

Everyone on here that does do this- do you actually feel comfortable in doing it and do you 'relax' honestly?

the nursery comparison doesn't work, a lot of people HAVE to work, noone HAS to have a child free meal/drink

I don't actually know anyone who lives in a 3 story house I can hear DS in his room if he cries when I'm in my sitting room without a monitor, and can be with him in seconds

"I don't actually know anyone who lives in a 3 story house "

? They do exist

Maybe it depends where you live - more townhouses in cities than countryside (hence the name )

well lucky you were in a position to sell up and move, many people are not and also many people asses the risk and are able to rationalise it.

i have friends that live in a big old farmhouse, only two floors but that layout is such that you essentially have to go almost outside to go through another door and then go upstairs, its just the way the house was built and short of doing major remodelling works (not allowed as its a listed building) there isnt much they can do about it. but its a gorgeous house, in a great location, loads of space both inside and out and i would love to have that much space!

we are just in a regular mid terrace, but we sit int he backgarden with friends in the summer and we may have music playing as well (not too loud so as not to annoy the neighbours) we do have a baby moniter but many people stop using them once their children are over 2 or 3 and loads of people do sit out in their garden etc and distance wise i woudl be nearer to my childrne in the hotel setting than in the garden, and if anything when i stayed in the hotel and used the baby moniter i was more alert to the moniter than i am at home so any little cough or noise and i would go and check they were ok whereas at home i woudl be more likely to wait for them to actually cry of cough persistently etc.

and lequeen sorry to mention your post again but you said you could have used a recomended babysitter but didnt feel comfortable, fair enough you took them to grandmas? but in doing so you said you had a 60mile journey which again is taking a risk, you have good carseats and you drive safely etc but there are nutters on the road and you just never know what is going to happen, so in order for you to have a night out you took the risk to drive them somewhere so they could be safely looked after, but it was a risk to drive them and you could argue that it was a non essential drive, you didnt have to go out or you could have used the recomended babysitter? you did what you were happy with and if i was choosing between a teenage babysitter and a grandparent i would make the same choice as you.

but we all take risks and you can argue that some are 'needed' more than others but many many car jourenys especially are not essential or needed, people can walk or get public transport, you could argue that you dont need to go to your local shops and supermarkets as you could just buy online? anyway we arent going to agree and thats fine, but as rhubarb has said the insinuations that we dont care or are negligent is what i find offensive.

No monkey, not everyone has to work and a lot of women these days go to work because they see their careers as a part of their individuality, as an instrinsic part of their lives. They work because they choose to.

And monkey, as perfumedlife demonstrates, some people do. Even if you just lived in a 2up and 2down and had drinks in the garden - many people do this without a monitor thinking they would hear their baby if he/she started crying but if their room is at the front and you are at the back, then no you can't.

Yes pumpkin, when we did it we did actually relax. I wasn't on edge all the time thinking that dd would wake up with every noise. I didn't feel conspicious in the bar with a buggy next to our table with a blanket thrown over it. I didn't worry about getting her back to our room without waking her.

there aren't any where I live, or in the last 3 towns where I live, anything bigger than 2 floors is an apartment building, but I'm sure they do exist! , in Bath maybe?

but those people don't HAVE to sit down the end of their gardens drinking either do they? that's still not like choosing a nursery which lots of people HAVE to do, again it's not a risk you HAVE to take