to wonder how with all the laws now a days there is still no law for what age a child can be left at home?

[Howsaboutthat]

You may be sensible and mature and just limit yourself to a glass of wine, but law states you cannot buy a drink until you are 18.

You may be sensible and mature and use precautions, but law states you cannot have sex until you are 16.

You may be able to swim 5,000 metres but you can't go in a pool at 7 without an adult, you may sink like a lead balloon but as long as you have had your 8 birthday you can go swimming on your own.

11 year olds are not allowed to leave a holiday care club unless they are signed out by an adult, but there is no law stopping that same 11 year old not being put in holiday care club and being left at home alone.

AIBU to think that some of the age laws are farcical (I haven't listed all the ones I disagree with here), but to have them while there is no law as to what age a child can be left at home (because parents are deemed in this one and only situation capable of knowing their own child) seems mad?

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Worra I don't get that one either or that the same pissed up 5yo could be left home alone all day.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Usually social services. In some cases the other parent of the child but mainly negligence resulting in harm to a child would be dealt with using child protection procedures that can often result in civil court proceedings.

[WorraLiberty]

I'm glad there's no law because children are so very different.

As long as they're not left in a harmful environment it should be up to the parents to decide.

However, I can never get my head around the fact it's perfectly legal to give a 5yr old child alcohol in their own home or any private premises.

That one does make my mind boggle

[ivykaty44]

Sock - who would bring a civil case though?

The police give cautions for such cases - which means you get a criminal record but don't go to court at all - you do not have to accept a caution and can state you want o go to court but I doubt then you would be taken to a civil court by the police - would you? as i was always under the notion they are not able to deal with anything civil.

Which then takes it back to a criminal court

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Hmmm no you weren't the main bulk of your post outright stated that naice middle class parents are a police officers and SW's wet dream.

Stop being silly and put your tongue back in.

[MoreBeta]

"...most negligence cases aren't not dealt with criminally they are dealt with civilly and in those circumstances its down to the parents or adult responsible to show they did not commit negligence because a harmed child who was unsupervised is pretty compelling and starts off as the evidence."

That is what I was trying to get across earlier. Do any of you really want to be in court trying to prove you are a responsible parent?

[IneedAsockamnesty]

The difference is when you start off with the default position of unharmed child that's how it should stay.

When you have harmed child involved in a freak accident where no neglect or lack of supervision occurred we call it a accident but the person responsible for that child is expected to show it was a freak accident and no negligence occurred.

Where a child left unattended has a accident that would have been prevented by supervision then its negligence.

And its only in criminal proceedings THEY have to prove beyond reasonable doubt, most negligence cases aren't not dealt with criminally they are dealt with civilly and in those circumstances its down to the parents or adult responsible to show they did not commit negligence because a harmed child who was unsupervised is pretty compelling and starts off as the evidence.

[pumpkinsweetie]

redskyatnight sums the reasons why to a tee.
If there were an age that was legally acceptable to leave a child alone, there would be too many scenarios where that particular age would not be acceptable, including maturity, sn, times or hours in which it wouldn't safe etc, etc.
It would be silly for a law to made surrounding leaving children alone as there would be some awful parents that would use it as an advantage to neglect their child!

[niceguy2]

I totally disagree Seeker.

It is up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you could have reasonably forseen the danger and did not act.

It is NOT up to you to prove you did not see the danger. A very important difference.

So. It would be difficult for the prosecution to argue that you could have reasonably forseen that your usually sensible 13yr old decided on a whim to go out against your instructions and got run over in the process. However, if your child was 5 then the prosecution would find it much easier to argue that you should have anticipated this as a risk.

We're all innocent until proven guilty.

[seeker]

You have to be as sure beyond reasonable doubt that your child will not be physically or emotionally harmed in any way.

Because legally,bid something does go wrong, that's he position you will have to defend.

[redskyatnight]

How would you define laws for leaving a child alone though?
If I leave my 9 year old home alone for 5 minutes while I pop out and post a letter is that ok? Probably.
If I leave my 9 year old home alone all evening and overnight, is that ok? NO

But at what point in the middle does leaving him alone move from being ok, to not? 10 minutes? An hour?

[Birdsgottafly]

Just to clarify the legal point, "Neglect" covers a child being left as there can be risk involved, so that would be what the parent would be accused of and could be prosecuted for. That is why Child Law is written the way it is, one word can cover nearly everything that can be inflicted on a child. You could go for "Child abandonment" as well, which was used recently in a case in Wales, were a toddler was left whilst her mother went out drinking and in a case in London were a child was left whilst her Mother went to work. In the working Mums case, she was a immigrant who didn't realise that she could get help with child care costs.

[Birdsgottafly]

Just to clarify the legal point, "Neglect" covers a child being left as there can be risk involved, so that would be what the parent would be accused of and could be prosecuted for. That is why Child Law is written the way it is, one word can cover nearly everything that can be inflicted on a child. You could go for "Child abandonment" as well, which was used recently in a case in Wales, were a toddler was left whilst her mother went out drinking and in a case in London were a child was left whilst her Mother went to work. In the working Mums case, she was a immigrant who didn't realise that she could get help with child care costs.

[Birdsgottafly]

"Exotic" unfortunately the LA has a duty in law to investigate every incident reported and so it should, in every serious case review that has been highlighted that reports were not followed up and professionals didn't pass on information. So your complaint would just clog the system up and cost the LA money, as the SW manager, who is overstretched has to be part of the complaint procedure.

[Birdsgottafly]

We don't need the legislation in place to make sure that parents who put their children at risk are supported to make better choices. It is rare that criminal charges are bought against parents anyway, you would be surprised at the extent of injuries that can be on a child and no-one is prosecuted. Most families that take risks, do need support, so the system is set up to deal with this. I hate the phrase that "there is no law...", being bandied out on MN, because the circumstances under which the child is left also taken into account and so it should be. I am a CP SW and I left my two youngest alone from an age that many on here haven't agreed with, but they were safe, other children wouldn't be, so I should have the right to make that decision. Child Law is written in a way that it is open to interpretation and deliberately has the words "responsibility" and "duty" in there, to cover all aspects of a child's well-being. We do not need this written in law, if you are in any doubt that a child is at risk, report.

[IneedAsockamnesty]

Niceguy. Its not always the lazy feckless parents who spoil it for everyone else its the up their own arse parents who think the rules don't apply to them because they are not 'that' sort of person.

You know the same ones who don't give a stuff about being charged £100 to take a child out of school.

You are much more likely to find a naice apparently none feckless parent who thinks its perfectly acceptable to leave a 3 yo home alone and go about it unhindered than you are a seemingly visibly feckless one.

[niceguy2]

But seeker. There needs to be a balance. We can't boil everything down to the lowest common denominator.

It's like the school attendance thing. We all get it rammed down our throats because a small minority are too lazy and feckless to get their child to school. Responsible parents can no longer take their kids on a holiday during term time now because idiots have ruined it for the rest of us.

And who is ignoring the rules? The lazy idle parents. So in which case how would introducing laws on leaving kids alone help? The parents who don't give a shit would continue not to give a shit whilst hundreds of thousands of law abiding parents are now screwed and have to look at giving up work etc.

[mrsminiverscharlady]

MoreBeta - after school childcare doesn't exist at secondary age. Should a parents give up their job to look after an 11 yo (once they have travelled home alone)?

[seeker]

But it is useful to have the legislation there so that those who really do put their children at risk can be dealt with.

[exoticfruits]

Exactly niceguy-if I wanted to leave my 8 yr old for 10 mins on his own, leave my 14 yr old for 30 mins with his younger brothers, have my 16yr old babysit for a friend I expect to be able to do it. I know my DCs and our situation-the state does not.
I am past SS getting involved but I wasn't scared of them and would have told them exactly why I was doing it, and would be complaining about them wasting time and money when they had so many cases that do cause concern.

[niceguy2]

Some of the age laws are stupid but as others have said, a lot of the examples in OP's original post are not laws.

Personally i like the idea that I as a parent can use my own judgement and in general I don't want a nanny state telling me that I cannot leave my perfectly sensible 14yr old child at home because some other (crap) parent hasn't been able to bring their child up with an ounce of common sense.

[exoticfruits]

No-but you can go away from home. I think the army would laugh at the fact that a 16 yr old couldn't cope with a toddler in bed and a parent at the end of a phone.

[marriedtoagoodun]

Just thought I would clarify a point; you cannot be sent to war at 16 if you are a member of the armed forces. You cannot be sent to an 'operational theatre' until you are 18 - still very young but not 16.

[exoticfruits]

You would get the most ridiculous situations if babysitters had to be older. It would mean that I would have an 18yr old DS at home and couldn't leave him with his brothers of 10yrs and 8yrs.
Once your own DC gets to about 15yrs you can't get them a babysitter-it is way too embarrassing for them.

[seeker]

You're right- I was too subtle. He probably thought I was agreeing with him.


Bollocks is much better.