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.

It's a turn off phrase rhubarb. You seem to think you've been subjected to abusive comments, I've not witnessed that.

It is great that so many of you feel so passionately about the welfare of children. I only wish that this passion was shared by all parents, the police will probably be more concerned chasing the parents who are passed out drunk whilst the oven and hob are left on and 3 children under 5 are unsupervised in the kitchen - case of mine last week.

But I do think we as a society are piss poor at risk analysis.

Do you eat your meals sat next to your sleeping baby? I don't leave my baby alone any more than someone who eats their meal in their dining room does.

Ahhh it's not about "getting away with it" it is a risk assessment - which is actually what SS do all the time. Their job is to assess risk and which kids are or are not at risk.

That's one tiny hotel!

Does this all come dowm to statistical risk.
Say we knew that the risk of something untoward happening to a child was 1/30, ie 1 in 30 times that someone did that, something untoward would happen, would the posters still do it?

If something happens whilst you're not there and the child is alone (monitor does not count remember) you will be viewed as and potentially charged as negligent.

When the NSPCC proclamations have the force of criminal law, I will be very interested in their views and factor them in to my decisions re child care.

Until that day, I am not that interested. Because I have a brain and I use it. I appreciate that by being a parent I often have to compromise my fun and happiness to makes sure my daughter is safe and well. But a life spent constantly helicoperting around my child 'just in case' some statistically negligible horrible event might happen, doesn't sound like much fun for either of us.

Go ahead ParadiseChick be my guest. Better inform them of the hotels which offer babysitting services.

Course, if someone did abduct my kids, I would be to blame and not the shit who took them just like the McCanns.

Were they prosecuted? No. Why is that do you think?
Several people said they should be but social services actually commented on that case and said that there was no case to answer to.

But you go ahead and blame parents whilst letting the perpetrators off the hook. How lovely a person you are.

It is getting away with it because you're not adequately selling after your baby if you're not there.

Off to put the kids to bed. Have fun arguing the toss about what constitutes a good parent. I already have some idea of what constitutes a good person and that doesn't apply to everyone on this thread.

The area becomes even more muddied due to different countries. Social services did visit the McCanns.

They did not comment on anything.

As I said it's a restaurant with rooms. I can link if you like and you can cut me to shreds about various other ways the bogey man can get my baby. When he's in a room on the floor above. And I can see him. And I can hear him. And he's too small to get out of his cot.

Not to you Buffy

Paradise, yes they did.

Stats have a role to play. At your 12 week scan you are given a test for downs. High risk and you can undergo further testing which may cause a miscarriage. High risk being 1 in 250. Low risk being in the 1000s. You look at the odds and you make a decision.

For instance, You could go for further testing, have a miscarriage then discover the foetus was healthy. Does that mean your risk assesment was wrong, no. You make a decision based on the information before you.

I don't need to call them, I know the answer. I am a social worker, I work in child protection.

I weighed up costs and benefits of my decision. I decided that with a clearly reputable and well run hotel, a baby who was not mobile and who slept through, who was not ill, who was well fed, the chance of a meal and a chat with a friend which I had not been able to do since she was born...

I was happy to take the risk. That is my decision and I would have been the one to have to live with the consequences if something awful happened.

I am not trying to persuade anyone else to do something they don't feel comfortable with. But I don't consider that I did anything 'wrong' and unless I am arrested etc, I don't think anyone here is going to convince me otherwise.

This is getting harsh, I think if there is a baby listening service and you are happy to use it that does not make you a neglectful monster equally not doing it does not make you a hysterical helicopter.

They cannot comment on cases.

Gerry said that they said that. Ss did not.

But it wasn't you taking the risk was it? Well it was but it wasn't you at risk was it?

Interesting paradise.

I am a family lawyer and have worked in public law proceedings for over ten years now.

We clearly have quite different perspectives. I would be very happy to represent a client who had done what I did and I would be very very surprised if any court found that this crossed the threshold into 'significant harm'.

But perhaps you can share some stats if I am wrong? I don't want to be giving unhelpful advice to my clients.

Statistics on what?