to think that you should be able to see your 3.5 yo at all times when out?

[motherofallhangovers]

We went to a lovely country pub for Sunday lunch yesterday. It had a large field out the back and there were loads of DCs of all ages. DS made friends with them and they had lots of fun playing together, he was in his element :)

At one point, a group of the DCs ran off to far side of the field and round a corner where we couldn't see them, with DS in tow. He was the youngest in the group at 3.5. The rest were between 5 and 11ish. I had no idea what was around the corner or whether they'd continued running off or were just there.

I felt nervous that I couldn't see DS, so I went to see what they were doing - from afar. I didn't interrupt their game, i just checked on them from a distance. They were happily playing, just round the corner of a hedge. There were horses leaning over from the next field and they were feeding them grass.

DP is now taking the piss out of me. He thinks I'm overprotective.

I'm from inner London. Definitely an urban child, and one who wasn't allowed to play out. Not being able to see my son at all times when he is so little, makes me nervous!

DP's from a part of the world with lots of open green space, and he remembers having lots of freedom to explore as a boy, without any adults about.

Although, knowing DP's mother, I suspect she did know exactly what he was up to at 3.5, even if he wasn't aware of it!

So, WIBU to check up on him? Should I have just left him to get on with it?
DP's point is that there were older DCs with him, I need to let him have a bit of freedom to explore. Fair enough I say, but he's only 3.5! Neither of us actually knew what was around that corner, nor did we know the other DCs although they all seemed lovely and their parents were sitting at the next table.

I would have checked too - he is very young and was with older children who would have more freedom and could go further afield. Not overprotective at all

I think you did the right thing, you didn't make him come back where you could see him, you just made sure he was safe from a distance so he still felt he was having his independence. I let my 3.5 year old go out of site if I know she's in a safe place, if I don't know the area then i'd want to watch for a while to make sure.

YANBU - yes he would more than likely be fine, but he is only 3.5.
The thing is the other kids could forget about him and run off - and although he may be just around the corner he could get very disorientated and upset.

I was at Serpentine gallery with DD1 4.5 yesterday. In the summer pavilion. We got up to leave & DD1 ran off one way while I walked the other way with DD2. She fell over (it was made of cork so she wasn't really hurt) but she looked up for me, I wasn't there, and she got completely disorientated and freaked out. I was only 5 meters away, but it just goes to show how a small shock or fright can have a huge effect on little ones. She was fine after a big hug but it was possibly the most upset she has every been - the momentary loss of orientation and feeling lost.

You're not over protective in the least . Out of sight with a group of random children he doesn't even know?
Even allowing for the eldest being 11, it shoudn't be assumed that they would or could take responsibility for someone else's toddler.
I'd be astounded (and bloody angry) if my DH reacted like yours.

Yanbu. I have a 3.5 year old and I'm not remotely over protective. When we went to the playground on Saturday I was quite happy to let him run and play while I sat on a bench and chatted to my friend! But if he went out of sight then I would go and check on him every few minutes. Your DS did have freedom to explore, as you didn't interrupt him just checked on him. IMO over protective would have been making a play within a few feet of you all the time. Letting him go, but checking on him is just sensible!

Of course you should have checked and that's got nothing to do with where you were brought up...it's just sensible parenting of a 3yr old.

If anything, he could have been bitten by the horse.

I would have checked and I don't keep my dc in view point at all times but would have checked that. I would have wanted to know that he hadn't gone further than just around the corner.

Has your DH never heard of Jamie Bulger? Of course YANBU given you didn't know the children.

I do hand signals to DD1 - so she can roam off within limits, but she has to stay where SHE can see ME (that is two fingers pointing to her eyes & two fingers to mine) :) We live in London so going around corners/out of sight usually isn't an option - too many people around.

We have a good thing going with the hand signals!

I think you title is BU. What about at a soft play place? Or other safe environment?

I grew up in London and played out lots BTW.

However the environment you describe, I would like to keep tabs on a child that small because; there could be a hole in a hedge leading to a road, a stream or drainage ditch, or someone could come around with a loose dog, or as you didn't know the other kids they could just "forget " about your LO.

Now I would have sharp words with your DP for his lack of respect for you. Because overall what is worse? You being a little overprotective and checking things out? Or him allowing your child to wander off into unknown danger?

It isn't about being an urban child, children drown in shallow water etc.

Unless you know that an older child is looking out for a toddler and will run and get you if there is an accident, then you are not being overprotective.

It is fine to ask one of the older children to do this.

Thanks all. I'll show this thread to DP when he gets in :)

DP's taking the piss specifically because I'm urban. He's implying that I just don't get country life.

Can I ask, at what age would you feel comfortable with letting your DCs play out of your site in the situation I described?

*sight!

There could have been a river / pond out of sight which could become a danger; the children could be not as friendly as they seem; there could have been a road/lay by etc there.

You did the right thing in going to check he was safe there and even better that you didnt interrupt the game or make him feel 'watched over'.

I think at about 5 / 6 I would let mine 'roam free' a bit more in the situation yuou describe but that's because at that age I think you can impose clear boundaries which will be understood - "if there is x,y or z round that way, I want you to come back", "if anyone is mean to you, come straight back", "don't go off the grassy areas and no going through gates or over fences". That sort of thing.

Thanks Gnocci that's useful.

Oh - do children not get run over by cars or drown in ponds in the country then.
Silly man.

YANBU, at all.

About over 5yrs, but depending on the child.

Because a child over 5 will be at school so there will be times, in the playground etc, where they are unsupervised (yes, there are supervisors, but they can't see everyone all the time) and that is generally ok standard for most people.

The child must be 'old' enough to ask for help if they need it, hopefully not tolerate others hurting them without going for help etc & be physically capable of doing so (big enough), IMO.

I would have checked in that situation, and I DO let DS2 3.5 out of my sight.

I wouldn't be able to give a definite age when the situation described would be OK. I'd probably still get up for a look at what it was like round the unseen corner for DS1, 5.5. I'd want to know if there was a pond, road or similar that I couldn't see, guess whether they'd be in earshot, and also see what kind of thing was going on - were they behaving 'sensibly' or lots of shenanigans going on.

Would also depend on whether I knew the other children, whether they knew DS, what the group dynamic looked like, what the wider surroundings were like, etc.

With both DS, I tend to call them back and then agree rules for the situation (eg - you can go as far as those trees, you can play at the back of the building but not go round to the front, get a grown up if anyone is having a problem, I'll be sitting in place X, etc)

I tell my three and a half year old dd that if she can't see me when we're out together then it's a problem.

I grew up in the countryside and I like you would have wanted to see what my dd was upto unless she was with trusted children that I knew.

x-post with Gnocci!

Yanbu.

Your DH is looking back at his past with rose tinted specs I think, I bet his Mum did just what you did, checked on him without him knowing!! Your little one is ONLY 3 and a half, much too young to understand dangers, much too vulnerable. As others have said, what if there was a tractor/pond/road round that corner? It's not just inner city weirdos that can damage little kids!!

DS is 6 we live in a village, fairly rural and very "safe" but he still has rules, no further than the field at each end of the street and must come back when yelled for!! And that is only this summer, cos his common sense has improved after first year at school (Scotland). Las summer he wasn't allowed off our street and I hovered a LOT!!

I hope your DH gets a reality check from this.

"Your DH is looking back at his past with rose tinted specs I think" I suspect so.

He's being a tit, I'd have checked around the corner too. and I live / grew up in Cumbria. !

YANBU he is 3 years ol, far too little to be allowed out of your sight with children neither of you know, on open land you are not familiar with. I'd have followed my DD to make sure she wasn't going to get into any trouble and she's nearly 5!

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. DSS2 (6) is still told to stay within sight or shouting range of DP, me or DSS1 (13) when we're out & about - the main thing with DSS2 is that he's tall for his age, so it's easy to mistake him for being a couple of years older if you don't know him, and he sometimes tries to do things that he's not old enough to do because other children his size (but 2-3 years older) are doing them.

At 3.5, I would be watching them like a hawk if I didn't know the area.