to think it's wrong to leave a baby/toddler sleeping alone in a hotel room?

[strawberry34]

When you have a monitor and are still in the premises?my friend says she does it when on holiday, she goes to the bar/restaurant and responds to the monitor if her 2yo dd wakes, I was shocked and said I wouldn't ever want to, I stay in the room and read a book/have a bath. Aibu to think what she's doing is wrong? I don't want to refer to famous cases but to me there's too much risk.

*their not there

How do you think your child would feel if they woke up in a strange hotel room, all by themselves and not a clue where their mum and dad have gone? Or when, or indeed if, they'd be back? Minutes would seem like hours. They'd be terrified.

Am I talking to myself?

THEY. HAVE. A. BABY. MONITOR.

Which is what the couple in the OP had. A. BABY. MONITOR.

Shall I type slowly for those too dull to understand? Do you realise what that does dear? It monitors your children for you, clever isn't it? Technology these days eh? You see, when your children wake up, you either hear them or with these clever ones, you can even see them and return to your room.

See also the post about them waking up anywhere strange without you. Say, a holiday apartment "Ooooooh no strange room!" or a relative's house "Argh, strange room!"

If you are that worried about them waking up in a strange room then just make sure you never go on holiday. Stay at home. Lock the doors. Unplug everything. Don't eat or drink.

Paranoid parenting at its best.

Bloody hell, I'm just saying that these reasons which make staying in a hotel "safer" aren't necessarily true. You say you're making an informed decision and then when someone who knows through having recent professional knowledge of same says, "well hold on...", you bite their head off.

I'm not judging you; your kids, your rules. But as I've said before, due to my personal experiences (NOT the imagined threat of paedophiles or kidnappers) I wouldn't do it.

No shewhowines - what you have described there are potential accidents in everyday situations not an example of leaving a baby unattended with just a monitor in an unfamiliar place.

But in either scenario the baby could potentially be harmed, and avoided by taking the other course of action.
Why is one risk worth taking but the other not?

And the reason I am justifying my decision is because it seems important to emphasise that there are different degrees of risk in this scenario as in all situations.

I am not advocating shutting my child in a strange room and buggering off to the bar seven floors away. I am saying that I would leave (and have left) my baby in a cot, in a locked room, with a monitor, while I sat downstairs, less than a minute away, for the time it takes to eat a meal, in a small hotel where there were no keycards/ unknown staff wandering around, and where people could not get in from the street. This is totally consistent with basic, responsible parenting.

Because carrying your baby up and down stairs or being around hot liquids is fairly unavoidable.

We live a lifestyle where we choose holidays where we can be with our children but still relax (holiday cottages and so on) I can eliminate the risk of leaving my child in a hotel room but I cannot eliminate the risk of falling or hot liquids.

Helga - those points have already been addressed.

a) You are using unnecessarily emotive language be saying "swanning off" for a meal,

b) A child waking up in an unfamiliar room. Presumably that means that you wouldn't ever go to a friend's and have a meal while your child sleeps in another room ?

c) A number of people (me included) have pointed out they are/were (ds is now 12 so no longer an issue) comfortable with this because their child was a sound sleeper who never woke up.

Well when my DS was a newborn I literally never had a hot drink while I was holding him because I knew someone who scalded their baby that way and I was paranoid about it. However, when I met friends and they drank coffee whilst holding their newborns, I did not think any the less of them as parents.

donttellalfred - and you feel happy with your decision and the risk you may have taken that's fine. I am not judging I was just posing the question of continuing to justify a risk if the small risk turned into a reality.

I am an anxious person anyway so I wouldn't be able to relax so it makes my choices quite simple however I was just applying my irrational way of thinking to this scenario.

My dd had an accident once. It was in Ikea. We had left her in the baby section that is set up so that they care for kids whilst you go shopping. One of the other girls had an accident. We don't know what happened but she sustained quite a bad head injury. Our dd fainted.

We weren't there and neither were the other parents. The staff handled it badly. No tannoy or anything. We returned to see blood all over the floor and our dd being comforted by a stranger. Not a member of staff but a stranger - another parent who had taken it upon themselves to help out whilst the staff ran around.

Now do you think we blamed ourselves? No. Shit happens and we were fortunate that the parent was kind and responsible.

We make decisions concerning our kids every day and sometimes those decisions don't work out. Sometimes those decisions involve risk, like allowing them to go on school residentials in primary school. Would the teachers care as well for your child as you would? Probably not. But you allow them to go anyway because you realise that in the long run it's for the best.

In the long run we all have relationships we need to manage and being a parent is a strain on even the best of relationships. A holiday is not just for children, it's also a chance for you to unwind as parents and re-connect. I've seen many occasions when stressed parents are trying to control an over-tired child and nobody looks happy or looks like they are enjoying themselves. That's not a holiday, that's an endurance test.

We chose to have a meal by ourselves in order to reconnect as a couple. Because we were finding it all very hard. We lacked family support and so were pretty much muddling through as best we could, but we also needed that time to be together, to re-charge our batteries.

In the long-run our relationship benefitted from us both making the decision to spend some time with each other.

I do not regret it for an instance and if the worst had happened I would not blame myself because sometimes shit happens even to the best of us and playing the blame game helps no-one. That is why I refuse to blame the McCanns even though their situation was different and not one I'd be comfortable with. A child was going to be kidnapped that night, if not theirs then someone else's. It was planned.

The risk of a stranger abducting your child though is so rare it's negligable and therefore that does not really compute as much of a risk on my radar.

Anyway I have to go and do some housework. My head is sore from all the banging my head on the desk.

We are all in agreement about not leaving children if there is a realistic alternative. People are saying, in very close proximity and with a baby monitor, that they may sometimes do it. We are arguing on a very smalll window of risk. Some will take no risk and some are prepared to take a tiny risk. Nobody is advocating taking big risks on a regular basis.
I don't think that makes any of us bad parents.

Rhubarb

We can debate until the cows come home but you can take a horse to water and all that...

You can say that you've come to put the facts and stats on the table but the difference is I've lived it. I've had to break news to hysterical relatives and on the other side of the coin seen parents lives destroyed where they have been dragged through trials etc... The guilt they feel is insurmountable.

I do wonder though if your defensiveness stems somewhat from an amount of subconscious awareness that its not right thing to do. I don't want to get dragged into anything too personal though so I'll leave it at that.

thecakeisalie - I take your point. Yes, I would still defend the decision I made if something bad had happened. That does not mean I would not regret having done it.

My baby monitor was 2 way so you could talk to the baby.

So if toddler woke up terrified at 9pm (unlikely but lets say they did) terrified/confused/upset/crying, I would see the lights flashing on the monitor and my P could talk/sing to the child via the monitor for the 60-90 terrifying seconds it takes me to rush up a flight of stairs and get to the room.

Just like what would happen if we were staying at a friends place.

I imagine it would take no longer to get to toddler than if I was on the toilet.

nice summary shewhowines

I sometimes wonder if guilt is the reason people heavily defend their parenting decisions too - aimed at no one in particular I swear.

I try to take as few risks as possible because of the way I would feel in the event of something happening. Having said that I still drive a car, let my children go swimming and a whole host of situations where they could be harmed.

hamilton75 bless your little cotton socks! Yes of course I am subconciously aware that you with your judgemental and hysterical attitude are right and I am completely and utterly wrong. Would you like to call social services or shall I?

It seems to me what when people can no longer hang onto the argument for common sense, they lose it completely and turn to personal goading and highly emotive remarks instead. It's really no way to engage in a debate.

shewhowines yes, I would be happy with that but I don't think the opposing team are willing to show such reasonableness.

THERhubarb - all we can do now (with children who have got beyond the baby monitor stage and be trusted ish to be left on their own) is ensure that our children have same approach to risk assessment that we have

I read the book Paranoid Parenting but even before then, I had asked my mum and dad to tell me if they ever saw any manifestation of paranoid parenting.

My dad once pointed out that when DB and I were young, if a young child were abducted on an errand to the local shops, then the outrage would be directed at the abductor. Nowadays, the ire would be directed at the parents who "let" them go out unaccompanied.

Rhubarb.
I don't think that shouting and swearing at "all of you" is fair really.

I get that using a baby monitor is different from not using one.
There may even be a time when I'd consider that action. (leaving child in room etc.. Bla bla)
But I stand by my earlier reasons for not wanting to do that.
I haven't said that anyone is a bad parent for leaving a child in the circumstances you've described.

Not everyone who would choose not to do it is hysterical and over protective, or judging you either.

We're pretty much all just mothers trying to do what's right for our most precious gifts. Sometimes our opinions differ. Debate is great.
But slinging insults back and forth (of neglect or pearl clutching) really is the darker side of mumsnet.

I wonder if such smugness and sheer arrogance shown by some posters comes from actually feeling less than confidence with their own parenting skills?

But that lowers myself down to their level, which is very below the belt and not very nice.

I see what you mean prettybird about paranoid parenting. I certainly wouldn't wish the way I think on anyone else. Sometimes I think the statement ignorance is bliss makes sense. Living life wondering 'what if' isn't healthy but there are times where risks do not need to be taken so I personally don't take them.

prettybird victim blaming is all over Mumsnet atm. If someone gets raped then she should never have put herself in that position. If a child is kidnapped, the parents were obviously neglectful.

It's a sign of the times.

And apologies for the shouting and swearing Emily but when posters deliberately ignore a major factor like a baby monitor for the convenience of their own arguments time and time again it does feel rather like you are banging your head against a brick wall.

The baby monitor makes ALL the difference yet they keep on harping about how the children are in a locked hotel room, all alone and potentially setting fire themselves whilst you are dining. Do you see how this would not be possible with a baby monitor?

Sorry Rhubarb I really wasn't being passive aggressive and aiming my post about guilt at you.

These threads often lead me to wonder if its guilt induced because people will argue for hours and lets face it second guessing yourself and guilt come as part of package of being a parent surely. I know I second guess myself and certainly wouldn't label myself arrogant.

Not everyone is trying to make this debate personal or degrading to other's.

thecakeisalie that's ok. We all carry some burden of guilt around, that's just what parents do.

I have to pick my kids up now from school before they are abducted or set fire to themselves. I would let them walk home alone but who knows what might happen to them!

I bet if someone suggested that a child who walked to and from school on their own and got hit by a car, was as a result of neglectful and irresponsible parents, there would be a huge kick-off and rightly so.

Getting kids to walk alone is a huge risk in today's world of fast cars and arrogant drivers yet the government encourage it as do other organisations. It's a great thing to do and it carries less risk than them being in a hotel room with a baby monitor once in a blue moon.

It really is ok to disagree though.
And I love a good swear .

The trouble with aibu is that I think any of us can become too focused on trying to have others see things the way we do.

That's when the insults start flying.
Anyway. I'm off to watch ds in the garden and find a wedding thread to chill out over