to be furious at dh for leaving DD (7) and DS (3) at home for 5 mins?

[toomanyeasterbunnies]

DH popped out to end of road in car to get some bread. He made sure DD knew how to call him and he went out for no longer than five mins. I am furious. He thinks I am over-reacting. Am I?

[Crinkle77]

YANBU It might be ok to leave a 7 year old. It would depend on how mature they were but deffo not ok to leave a 3 year old. Like another poster said what if something had happened to their father and he was more than 5 mins?

[pooka]

7 year old - fine.

7 year old and 3 year old - not fine.

It's the three year old - I have dcs 9, 7 and 3. The 3 year old wouldn't be left with the older 2.

[PopMusic]

I wouldn't do it. Not worth the risk. Especially as he was driving. He could have had an accident.

[LovePickles]

I don't think there is any point scoring going on here, its been made quite clear that people understand its up to you how you raise your children.

I don't understand how you can't see any risks, though.

I'm not saying how you do is wrong, it's just never occurred to me that this happens because I've never seen it, and it didn't happen to me.

[AllDirections]

A 3 yo? I would be more than furious, I'd divorce him! Me too!

[AllDirections]

olgaga I can't believe you left a sick 4 year old in the house alone while you went to the shop.

[LouLouH]

It doesnt really matter what peoples personal opinions are. Social services and child protection/safeguarding does not condone leaving children unattended in the home regardless of duration.

[kinkyfuckery]

What AllDirections said.

olgaga Why would you leave a 4 year old alone for nearly 20 minutes? Bread and milk are NOT essential.

Wonder where OP has gone though.

[aufaniae]

"What exactly do people think might have happened that would be so catastrophic??"

Um, a car crash perhaps - what were the DCs to do if their DF didn't return home? Or the 3yo choking on something - the Df couldn't have got home in time to save him/her. Or some other accident.

Yes, it's unlikely but that doesn't stop it happening! A&E and the morgues are full of people who had unlikely things happen to them.

That the OP's husband was just popping out for bread, not an emergency suggests it might be something he's in a habit of doing, and that increases the chances of something awful happening as a result of his negligence.

This kind of thinking annoys me tbh. People say things like "we took ourselves to school aged 5, it didn't hurt us". Well yes, you lived to tell the tale. My friend lost two young siblings on two separate occasions to RTAs on the way to school.

Allowing very young DCs to be unsupervised raises the risk of something happening to them, fairly obvious, isn't it?! Yes DCs should be encouraged to be independent, but the OP's example sounds like this was about the Dad's needs / laziness in not bothering to take them to the shops, not about the DCs' needs.

[SwishSwoshSwoosh]

Olgaga - genuinely shocked you did that, and you didn't 'have to' you chose to.

[5madthings]

There is no legal ruling on how old children have to be to be left. So if a case is reported then ss and police have to believe the child was at risk to report them.

Even if there was an accident if the parents show they took precautions and it was undue risk then its fine. Ie leaving a ten yr old for 20mins if you prep them, they can call on a neighbour or phone you etc. If they happened to have an accident whilst you were out it would be investigated but not nevessarily seen as neglectful or a concern to ss.

[livinginwonderland]

i think it's better to teach young DC's responsibility in non-emergency situations. i would rather know my seven year old can be left at home for five/ten minutes before an emergency happens, so that in the horrible event it does happen, i know they'll be okay to be left while i sort it out (call the police, or go to a neighbours because they're ill, or whatever).

you can argue until the cows come home about how it's innappropriate or dangerous, but there's no law against it. if you don't like it, don't do it. parents who do it know the risks and know there is a chance that the police MAY press charges IF the situation is deemed dangerous. that's their decision.

[crashdoll]

LoulouH "If it was a childcare professional that popped out it would be a whole different story so why should it be any different for a parent?!"

You're trying to compare apples and oranges. A childcare professional has to be CRB checked, a parent does not. A childcare professional has a limit to how many children they can care for, a parent does not. And I could go on.

For it to be a safeguarding issue, the professional must believe the child has suffered from significant harm or is likely to suffer from significant harm. The word 'significant' is key here. This has to stand up in court too.

[ReallyTired]

A three year old needs an adult in the house at all times. Anything less is neglect.

A seven year old may well be able to look after themselves for 5 minutes, but not a younger child.

People have been prosecuted for less.

[FuckThisShit]

I would if it was literally 5 minutes, as long as the 3 year old was closer to 4.

[kinkyfuckery]

Its not about leaving a seven year old home alone, or even leaving a four year old alone, imo. It's about giving a seven year old the responsibility of caring for a year old, for no good reason. Not acceptable.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Most police officers would always consider a child left alone under a certain age as at risk, the only difference would be the age.

Over 7 subjective and could be different for everyone who needed to decide under 5 only a fucking idiot would think it was ok but if your in the habit of leaving kids that age alone then you need to be referred to ss.

[BigBoobiedBertha]

A 7 yo left for 5 minutes - fine provided they know not to answer the door, etc. they have to be trusted not to do the things you ask them not to do though.

Leaving a 3 yo not fine.

Going out in the car - not fine. A car journey is more dangerous, he probably went further if it necessitated a car to do the trip in 5 minutes and there is more risk of delay. Walking would have been preferable if it had to be done which it didn't.

I do think though that a child of secondary school age (11+) ought to be capable of being left alone for short periods if they don't have any SEN. I am always surprised on these threads that there are people who won't leave children of that age.

[LouLouH]

crashdoll You're trying to compare apples and oranges. A childcare professional has to be CRB checked, a parent does not. A childcare professional has a limit to how many children they can care for, a parent does not. And I could go on.

Im sure you could go on. But childminders are basically regulated to be the 'perfect parent' giving children a safe, healthy, enabling environment.
Why do you think the government give free places to under privileged children?!

It is included in child protection training courses about the risks of leaving a child/children home alone.

[coralanne]

First off, I can't see why he couldn't have taken them with him.

Secondly, if it was only 5 minutes. 2.5 minutes there and 2.5 minutes back then I don't think any harm has been done as long as he understands not to do it again.

We cannot live our lives on "what ifs".

I have heard stories of mothers collapsing in the home and 3 and 4 year olds being capable of ringing emergency services and telling them that their mother was ill and being totally calm until emergency services arrived.

I think we underestimate how sensible small children can be. If (there's that word again) something had gone wrong, I'm sure the 7 year old would have been able to contact someone.

If not, then now is the time to teach them emergency numbers, relatives phone numbers, emergency escape routes in case of fire etc.

[LouLouH]

coralanne im glad you said that as we have a list of emergency numbers on our fridge. Our 8 year old knows our full address and home telephone number by heart and has done for a couple of years now. Due to my profession we also have an emergency escape plan and do drills of it. Plus first aid kit is kept where 8 year old can retrieve it.

[CremeEggThief]

If it had just been the 7 year old, I'd agree with your DH.

However, as it's a 7 and a 3 year old, I agree with you.

[MrsMelons]

I have a 7 year old who is very sensible and would be able to be left for me to go to the shop but I wouldn't actually do it as if the shop is 5 mins away then why would I not take him. Maybe next year once he is at juniors I will start as it would be fine I think.

I would NEVER leave a 7 year old in charge of a younger child, however sensible they are they are not responsible enough to look after a young child. I was looking after my friends 8 YO and 2 YO the other week and she had said to me if I need to leave the room etc just tell her eldest and he will watch the 2 YO (he is a live wire and we don't have stair gates - he can climb the stairs but has a tendancy to trash stuff thats all!)

I needed a wee and said to him watch his little brother for a minute, I had literally shut the bathroom door when I heard the little one coming up the stairs. Now that is not a massive deal as its only the stairs but was only in a matter of 30 secs as the eldest childs attention had been distracted by whatever and at the end of the day he is 8 and not a responsible adult/babysitter!

I just cannot see why anyone would take unneccesary risks for the sake of not having to stick the kids in the car or take a short walk with them to the shop. I would be pretty cross with DH if he did it - livid in fact!

[muminthecity]

Those of you saying that the DH might have had a car accident- surely in that case it's better that the children were safe at home rather than being injured/killed in the car accident with their father