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.

[shewhowines]

I think this thread shows just how distorted perceived risk is, compared to actual risk. It's been very interesting.

[Spero]

Talking of perceptions of risk, a friend had laser eye surgery ten years ago - it was a bit unnerving looking at the clinic's leaflet as four out of five doctors pictured there were wearing glasses....

[Lambzig]

Ok sorry, if an inappropriate example. I was just trying to say that perhaps people's risk perception changes when they are away from home, particularly overseas and varies so much. I am sure the couple in that example love their DD and thought it was fine whereas I was horrified.

[prettybird]

I've been told my eyes are a good shape for laser surgery. Still won't have it done though - irrational fear and I'm fine with contact lenses.

[Spero]

ooo! that books been in my huge teetering guilt inducing pile of unread books for some months now. I keep getting distracted by re-reading Terry Pratchett for the umpteenth time.

I am old and my brain is tired.

[Fenton]

I'm with you on the laser surgery prettybird - and I have a very close friend who's had it done.

Still too scared to do it though.

Maybe I'm just scared of a lot of things generally.

[Spero]

Lambzig - but hot cars are killers in any country. If parents can get 'distracted' by fact they are on holiday and do that, then they aren't fit to be parents in any country.

I am glad you were concerned about it, it sounds a horrible and dangerous situation.

[yamsareyammy]

Spero, I find your client case interesting.
It seems to mean, to the social services on this country, that leaving children like your cliient did, adds up together with other things, to a problem in social services eyes?
Which rather ties in with ParadiseChick from last night?
And why I recommended to check with social services if a parent fosters.
Is that a fair surmise would you say?

[Spero]

If this pile gets any bigger it will fall and kill me as I reach once again for some superior chick lit.

Or is that your intention Buffy?

Still not forgiven me for sarky comments about academics eh?

[Spero]

Yams - I think SW just like many of us are swept up in ill considered and often OTT misperceptions of risk.

I still remember the couple threatened with care proceedings when they let their two children ride their bikes to primary school.

I am aghast that I cannot let my 8 year old walk to school - 10 minutes, only one road to cross. School will just not allow it.

When can I start trying to give her independence? What is going to happen when she starts secondary school? Do I have to walk her everywhere until she is 18?

University should be fun, if so.

My point about my client is that an OTT reaction to 'risk' coupled with a poor perception of the mother generally (based in part I am sure on her social background/accent) led to a decision that I didn't agree with.

Unfortunately the court did.

Maybe I would think twice about some of my parenting decisions if I came from a rough estate and didn't have the vocabularly and the assertion that I do.

I think that is a seperate but equally interesting debate.

[Spero]

But my point was and remains that to issue care proceedings on the basis that a child was left for two hours in a monitored hotel bedroom would be incredible and I would be very confident of successfully challenging that in court.

[prettybird]

Spero - re "risk" - there is a spike of RTAs amongst 12 year olds. One of the reasons behind that could well be because kids are now "free" to walk to secondary school on their own, having never been given the chance to develop road sense on their own

So are such rules actually making our children safer?

Fortunately, ds' school never had any silly rules and he was walking to school on his own at the end of P3(=c.Y2, aged 7.5) (10-15 minute walk, lollipop man on only significant road) and was allowed to walk home on his own at the end of P4. Started cycling to school unaccompanied in P6 and was allowed to cycle home unaccompanied in P7. There was still a right turn that I wasn't happy with, but I (with a nervous gulp) took the view that he was only going to learn to judge the road if I let him do it on his own.

[yamsareyammy]

Spero. So it may well be one rule and judgement for one parent who does it, and one rule and judgement for another.
It seems to be a bit untested, court wise?

[Spero]

Buffy, it should be clear to you that I have NO time for your feminist whimsy, what with running a v tight ship at home and constantly contributing insightful and provocative postings to various on line debates.

Yams - in the long run it may have been the right decision to remove my client's child. She was finding it hard. I just thought using this five min trip to get cigs as the trigger to removal was unjustified.

I would have done the same.

SW are just human like the rest of us, subject to the same prejudices and quirks. They should be better trained than most of us and try to put prejudices to one side but no person, or system is perfect, just as no risk is ever entirely absent.

And as I said, the Judge supported the decision to remove. So they were not permitted to make a unilateral and permanent decision. So I don't accept decisions are 'untested'.

And just because I disagree with it doesn't make it wrong.

(that was quite hard to type)

[Spero]

Prettybird - quite a chilling example of law of unintended consequences. By trying to save our children from dangers of cars we actually make them MORE likely to die by refusing to allow any opportunity to develop road sense in a relatively safe environment.

[yamsareyammy]

Ok.
So to answer the op better, the op's friend is taking more of a risk, legally wise, if she is already known to social services?
Because if something did happen, and she was already known to social services, there could be serious repercussions.
I think I meant, untested, as in untested monitor wise. Not sure now. Cant quite remember.

[yamsareyammy]

Yes, love Spero's answer Buffy

[Spero]

Yes, I think that would be fair to say. If you already have a history, then even further minor slip ups are likely to be viewed more harshly.

This may well be fair enough. But as ever, it depends so much on the circumstances of each individual case.

[Spero]

May I qualify my earlier answer to say that disagreeing with me does set up a presumption that you are in fact wrong, but I may grudgingly allow you to rebut that presumption on provision of very compelling evidence.

[Spero]

I am in fact supposed to be WORKING or at the very least re-writing the kitchen health and safety policy in light of yesterday's appalling slip up re correct placing of open milk carton, so I am going to have to turn my computer off now as I clearly have no self control at all.