To say don't let your young child go to the toilet alone

[1Veryhungrycaterpillar]

Today in a fast food restaurant I saw a lady with a child of around 3/4 who wanted to go to the toilets that were situated upstairs she said she didn't want to go (she had no other kids) with her and let him go alone, am I BU to say I wanted to shake some sense into her?? I suppose I'm more aware of it as I've seen cases of assault on young children in public toilets through my line of work but I would've thought most people wouldn't do it, I am ready to be corrected!

Can someone Google and link to news stories of all these cases of abuse in public toilets? They come up time and time and time again, but I honestly don't think, despite lots of posters asking, that anyone has posted a link.

When my boys were 3/4 I took them to the toilet, but probably when DS2 was 3/4 he went in the mens' with DS1 who would have been 5/6 while I waited outside.

By the time mine were 12 I was bunging them £15 and they were going half an hour on the train to the nearest cinema to watch a film, having a Maccys then coming home. Not once did I worry about them using a public bog!

I have allowed my 5 yo to go into the gents in our local leisure centre on his own. I waited outside the entrance though. I know they have special low toilets and hand baisins, and the doors are easy to lock/unlock. Plus it was quiet, and had he been more than a couple of minutes I would have called through/asked a staff member to check.

I don't think I was bu.

It depends on the place and the child I think, it's not clear cut.

There was a case of an older boy being attacked in a McDonald's loo a couple of years ago. I have never heard of a case of a toddler.

And a 14 year old in Debenhams, also a few years ago.

And a poor little girl was murdered in Dheli recently.

Can't find anything else.

How do you post a link? The case in McDonalds only came to light when the boys mum wanted to take them to McD's for a treat about 3 weeks after incident and they broke down as didn't want to go and that is when it came out. I agree with a lot of posts and think of course they have to be given some freedom but not at 3 surely, I wouldn't trust my 3 year old to wipe her bum!

I read of a little boy who was sexually assaulted in MacDonalds. Why would you take the risk with young children

Very hungry I thinks it's the same story sounds very familiar

Veryhungrycaterpillar- you said 5 cases.

Exactly at 3/4 it s way too young on their own

saying there isn't risk elsewhere, just that it left a really deep impression on me and I proceed cautiously in that situation as a result. This is the awful case whe have heard about.

The other 4 cases?

Sorry. link

What are the other 4 cases?

I think by the time they are older you have to give them freedom or rather than protecting them you will stunt their development but a 3 or 4 year old is vulnerable and basically thinks everyone is nice.

I don't need someone to prove or disprove how many toilet related assaults there have been - I did my own risk assessment and decided effort from me v guilt I would feel if something, however unlikely, did happen made it worth me moving my lazy lardy arse and accompanying them.

Caterpillar has seen "around 4" - so multiply that by the country, then add all of those which were not reported (probably way more)

Like I say - mine are older now so I have to give them freedom - if something happens I will be very unhappy but I will not feel I have been negligent.

Curlew - you are coming across as being a bit odd - why do you need proof?

Hang on Curlew, where exactly did I say they were toddlers! I think I said young children didn't I, the child I saw today was a toddler. 3 of the cases took place in supermarkets and one in McDs I think the youngest child was 5

Youngest child 4, sorry

BlueSkySunnyDay Mon 24-Jun-13 15:18:21

"Like I say - mine are older now so I have to give them freedom - if s omething happens I will be very unhappy but I will not feel I have been negligent."

yyy to this

But there are cases of it happening to teens etc. So what age is safe? As i saif from 5/6 i think its ok depending on location to let them go in on their own but stand nr the door.

In terms of abuse they are statistically at much (much much much) greater danger from relatives or family friends. Are we to expect your next thread to be "Today in a fast food restaurant I saw a lady with a child of around 3/4 and she let him go off with her brother. Today in a fast food restaurant I saw a lady with a child of around 3/4 who wanted to go to the toilets that were situated upstairs she said she didn't want to go (she had no other kids) with her and let him go alone, Am I BU to say I wanted to shake some sense into her??" Because that woman would be running a much greater risk.

I wouldn't let a child go to the loo alone at 3, no. But I do and will continue to let them go unaccompanied younger than 9/10. Statistically they are very very very unlikely to be assaulted in the process. If I spend their childhood hovering over them in an attempt to protect them from every single remotely possible source of harm (because there are a lot of things that are tiny risks but "why would you take the chance even for a tiny risk?") then I am not doing them any favours given that my goal is to turn them out as well-balanced and independent adults.

Gah. Cut and paste fail, but you can (I hope) see what I meant to say.

I think it's what BlueSky said: there isn't an age that is safe- middle-aged people get assaulted too, but there does come a time when their need for safety has to be balanced against their growing need for freedom.

I don't think you damage a 3yo's need for independence by insisting on accompanying them everywhere. But a 13yo, yes you probably do.

... I just went to download a free PDF of Jodi Picoults book referred to above and infact got porn!!

I digress .... I would have allowed dd from about 6 to go alone BUT only if the door was in sight, they're too precious to risk, not just strangers but dangers. Getting lost, injured etc.

Also the cleanliness of public loos ... Gag ... Bit different too in play places where there's control on the doors so only paying customers and children are there.

Also a teen girl was raped in Sainsbury toilets.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1512308/Girl-11-raped-in-toilet-at-Sainsbury.html

I'm not sure 5madthings, think I would wait os the door if I couldn't go in from around 5/6 but I'd probably open the door to let them go in and say 'Im just outside if you need me' just in case the boogeyman was listening in! I'm always going to think 3 is too young

childpredator.blogspot.co.uk/2011/02/two-young-boys-raped-in-mcdonalds.html#!/2011/02/two-young-boys-raped-in-mcdonalds.html When this case happened, my DSs were about the same age. Sometimes I let them go to the loo (not in McD!) on their own, but it depends on the circumstances.

I would say 6 or 7 is an age where kids should be going to the toilet on their own, in the correct gender room etc.

I don't think that 3 year olds should go to public loos on their own either- but that's because of getting stuck or it being disgustingly dirty or not being able to reach the taps.

It exasperates me when the received wisdom becomes that, for example, young children are at risk of being assaulted in a public loo, and people talk about lots of cases, and it turns out, as it has on this thread that there was one case. An awful case, obviously, but one. That's how our view of risk gets skewed. And we start thinking our children are in danger, and before we know it we get threads about not waiting them to go to cub camp or on school trips.......