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 followed 3.5yo DD in those circumstances too, and would have continued hovering while she was round the corner just to keep an eye on her. You didn't know the other children or their parents so no knowing if they would play well with little ones. Also, horses can bite, especially when being fed by children's little munchable fingers - and some horses are snappy and will stretch over a fence deliberately to bite people, so I would want to make sure DD didn't play right next to the fence.

Your title question is a bit different from your opening post.
I can think of situations where my dc wouldn't be in my sight when they were 3, and I'd have been very comfortable with it, but the situation you describe in your OP is one where I too would have gone to check. Well, not to check as I would have been bringing them back, as the rule at that age would be they weren't to go where they couldn't see me.
I'm generally pretty lax in these things on MN threads.

YANBU - you checked on him without interrupting - as you say, probably exactly what your DP's mother did with him.

I didn't see my 5yo for dust (or rather, more accurately, mud) at the village fete this weekend - she was with her mates though, and there were other adults (who know her) supervising, particularly anywhere near the pond. I knew roughly where she was (on a bouncy castle, basically, for 5 hours!) and she knew where I was (manning a stall) and I periodically sent DS(9) to check (without interrupting her) that she was not being a PITA OK. That is the extent of freedom she generally has when we are out.

You go to keep an eye on your 3.5yo from a distance when he runs out of your sight, and your DP thinks you're being overprotective? Is he an advocate of the 'Darwin Awards' school of parenting?

Hes only 3. You are right.

I'm another person who thinks it is easy to put the rose-coloured specs on when describing a childhood spent in the country. The fact that your DP didn't come to any harm from having unrestricted freedom at the same age as your ds is probably down to luck as much as anything.

I don't believe that there's a paedophile around every corner either but at 3.5, children haven't got a very well developed sense of risk and it's also unreasonable to assume that any unrelated older children will assume responsibility for them. So I'd have done exactly what you did, OP. It's not a question of urban -v- rural but a question of commonsense, surely?

I suspect that your DHs memories of being allowed out to wander date from when he was older. I certainly don't have many memories of being three and my memories of "what it was like when I was little" are actually dominated by memories of being 6 or older. For example, I have no memories of having a nap in the middle of the day.

Yes very good point Kirsty, my earliest memory is when I was about 4 and a half, so a year older than the OP dc.

OP, I bet your DH "memories" of freedom are from when he was older too!! Probably from the age we are talking about kids being more able, say 5/6/7. Bet he doesn't remember much of being 3 really!! Would be interesting to get MIL memories of this age?!

I grew up in the country and I know what we got up to when we were out of our parents' sight, which is one reason I would have checked...

More generally, if I knew the field and the area and knew it didn't go far round the corner and that there weren't any hazards like open water I probably would have let a 3.5 yo wander round the corner without checking, but definitely not in a field/area I didn't know well.

That's funny, I'm a big city girl & we played out unsupervised from 4 or so.
I would mostly keep an eye on him, too, though, in situation OP describes. Maybe relax once I knew the area well enough.

My 3yo would land in a nettle patch or a pile of cow poo. Countryside definitely has its own hazards.

and he remembers having lots of freedom to explore as a boy, without any adults about

Not at the age of 3 1/2 I suspect!

YANBU and I say that as a non-hovering parent who grew up in the country and spent my days across the fields with friends building dens and looking for tadpoles from the age of about 8 (definitely NOT at 3 1/2). At an older age I used the fields for drinking cider and snogging boys

Yanbu. I had this reaction from DH's family when I wouldn't let DD1 (age 2.5 at the time!) go and play unsupervised in a play area at the back of a pub we were eating in with her cousins age 8 and 6. They had to walk through a car park to get there! Everyone said the 8 year old would look after her, my point was an 8yo shouldn't be given that responsibility.

YANBU in those circumstances

and I say this as a mother who allows a 1yo to roam the garden out of sight

I am pretty laid back with my dc, esp by UK standards - my dc walked alone to Kindergarten at age 5, they often play out for hours etc, but in that situation I would have checked, and if they had been gone a while (a couple of minutes) I would also have had a discreet peep at my 11 and 12 yr old, never mind my just turned 4 year old. Still the case that if they are quiet you need to be suspicious! Just to know what's round the corner.

Sounds like yr dp is being a supercilious arse.

I was a country child, and remember clearly being 4 and playing in fields on my own. My mother def wasn't in sight, she didn't keep an eye on us (my older sister would often be playing elsewhere), her only rule was that we came immediately when she called. She, however, was extremely lax about safety, has very little understanding of risk, and thinks she was the perfect parent! she left the dog babysitting my sister in the car at 3mo while they went out to supper

If I lived in the sticks, I'd probably let DS play at a distance unseen if I knew there were fences etc and IF he understood he wasn't allowed past them. Otherwise I'd prefer him to stay in sight. A lot depends on the common sense of the child - I was a very sensible child, doesn't guarantee my own child will be!

In your pub situation I think you were 100% right to keep an eye on him - unknown surroundings, unknown children - and your DH needs to have a bit of a reality check. You were hardly helicoptering!

Your description makes me think he hasn't spend much time in sole charge of small children - the speed at which they can get themselves into trouble, sometimes serious, is incredible!

YANBU he could have fallen in a river and drowned, or anything. They are so fast at that age, and you are right to keep him in view all the time. Imagine if he disappeared (or worse) and you hadn't been watching him? Hardly bears thinking about.

Thanks for your replies everyone, very useful.

The last time I asked you lot to arbitrate between DP and I, DP won pretty much hands down, so it's nice to know IANBU this time!

(Mind you I don't accept that I was BU last time, it's just that I held a minority opinion )

Seriously though, this is useful, thanks.

Just one other thought - I'm not saying this is the case with your dp, but to watch out for, is when one parent holds a very different viewpoint, in your case that he is more country, laid back and cool, and you are OTT, ime this can lead to the other person going further in the opposite direction to prove their way is right. In this case, my concern would be twofold - that your dp sees everything you do with caution, even totally reasonable as in your OP, it will fall automatically under the OTT umbrella and he could see everything you do to be OTT, iyswim and also he will be even more lax w. dc, esp when you're not there.

An example is my sil who is totally wonderful, but can be a bit emotional/worrier. My fil now writes her off as being OTT and won't tell her stuff, even big stuff like cancer scares, even though, actually, she is great and quite level headed but he now puts everything under OTT and it leads to problems.

Hope that ramble makes sense., and that your dp can accept your POV.

God no, must be watched at all times x

ErnesttheBavarian speaks very good sense. I have seen this happen too.