Would you leave your baby unattended in their buggy

[noblegiraffe]

...while you use the loo?

On another thread I mentioned not being able to get a buggy into a small cubicle and the suggestion was to leave baby outside.

Would I be overly precious in thinking 'No, I wouldn't do that'?

Here I would, as it's completely acceptable to leave a baby in a buggy, and child snatching is pretty much unheard of. Babies often sleep in buggies outside cafe's, and parents sit by the window to keep an eye on it. I'd rather not though, so would try to fit in a disabled loo instead.

If in UK, I would not, because a) potential dangerous people and b) someone would probably phone the social services on me. Would bring baby with me if desperate for the loo, either in a sling or in the uhm, "bed-part" of the buggy.

Dawndonnaagain. There is a difference between someone being bone idle and using the loo because the can't be arsed to walk another few steps, and those that are struggling with a large buggy, kids and shopping.

I am not discounting the need of your loved one (or yours olidus. What I am saying is that others have needs also. Theirs may not be as important as your loved ones, but they are still needs. Supermarkets have decided to cater for those needs with parent and child bays, and perhaps that would be an answer for the toilet situation. You will still get ignorant bastards that use them when there is no other reason than lazy ness as you do with the parking spaces, but with more facilities the more likely those that need larger spaces will find them.

With the matter of shared toilet and baby changing facilities I am sorry but they are shared. I would certainly let someone in ahead of me if it was a difference between making them suffer or not. But if they are set up as shared and someone is changing a nappy then your beef is with those that designed and approved them. Not the users.

Olidus. I meant to say earlier about my question about my step father and the disabled loo. He has no more need for the disabled loo than anyone else as he is perfectly capable of using a standard one. I don't see how you can say because he is registered disabled he should be more entitled to use it than anyone else as he does not need that facility. Am I missing something from your point. ? Thanks

"Theirs may not be as important as your loved ones, but they are still needs."

It's not that a parent's need are less important, it is that they are completely different. I can see that managing 2 or 3 small children is very difficult but it is not comparable to the struggles of a disabled person. While I appreciate that coping in a regular toilet with children and bags is a right PITA, it is not the same as a wheelchair user's challenges because that wheelchair user has no other option.

"Those that are saying they would be quite happy to leave their children outside the cubicle, would you also leave your child/ren outside a shop? Because both are equally the same."

They are not the same - they are not the same in distance, not the same in terms of where the child is, not the same in terms of time spent away from the child, and not the same in terms of visibility.

This definition of 'unattended' was dealt with, I thought, further up the thread. i pointed out that when a baby is in their pushchair outside a toilet cubicle where I live, a) the wheels of the pushchair are still visible, b) they are at the end of a long corridor of cubicles and no-one can come past, and can be heard from a distance when they do, c) they are usually close enough to wrap one foot around the pushchair wheel while I am on the toilet, d) the door is unlatched (the puschair is used to form both a physical and visual barrier across the door) and e) the time when the baby itself is not visible is probably 30 seconds.

I was then told 'no, that's not leaving them unattended' ... in which case, what is the argument about? That is the definition of 'unattended' relevant if someone leaves their baby (a child capable of standing can be in the toilet with you) while they use the toilet - so if that definition of unattended isn't a problem, then there isn't a problem per se.

Ouside a shop - your child is further away, in a public street, for longer, you can't touch the pushchair and may well not be able to see it, you cannot hear people approach: completely different situation. Even more ludicrous are those who make comparisons to the McCann fam ily ... in a restaurant far away from an apartment, for a long period of time, no wway of seeing, hearing or touching the bed the child is in...again, completely different. risk assessment has to take those differences into account.

"Theirs may not be as important as your loved ones, but they are still needs."

The pushchair-and-child scenarionusing a disabled toilet - that is a 'want' - 'I want to use that toilet because it is more convenient'.

The disabled person suing a disabled toilet - that is a NEED - 'I or my child needs to use that toilet because we have no alternative'

Wants and needs are different.

Ilovemyself

he cannot walk far without his feet and ankles becoming unbearably painful.

If the disabled toilet is nearer than the standard cubicles, he has every right to use it. If it's not, well, it might be less considerate for him to opt for the disabled loo, but he's still within his rights to do so. Because he is disabled.

There is a difference between someone being bone idle and using the loo because the can't be arsed to walk another few steps, and those that are struggling with a large buggy, kids and shopping.

Not when they are using the disabled toilet they are not entitled to use and you are the disabled person waiting on the other side of the door.

Theirs may not be as important as your loved ones, but they are still needs.

Yes. But their need (in this case struggling with shopping and a buggy) does not entitle them to use the disabled toilet.

Re: design ...then your beef is with those that designed and approved them. Not the users.

That's fine. That's what everyone has been saying, that the planners were stupid. But, the disabled toilets issue was brought up originally by those who use them without the need for changing facilities, because they were worried about the items from their pram being stolen (not necessarily because they were worried about their baby being abducted).

Well I've left all five of mine outside the toilet cubicle and when we lived in a village where it wasn't possible to take a pram in I've left them outside the shop too (and once forgot PFB and went home without him)
There aren't people on every corner waiting to abduct children it's just that when there are abductions by strangers they are widely reported and so it seems frequent. Mine are aged 10 to 26 and are unscathed by my laxity.
I do use the disabled toilet occasionally now as my two youngest have disabilities but I didn't when they were babes in prams because there was no need.

morethanpotatoprints my point is that it literally doesnt happen in the UK. Yes, it technically could happen but so could a lot of other things. I just think there are a lot of other legitimate things to worry about.

Would you monitor a baby every time it sleeps to help prevent SIDs? Or would you never give a child a child anything it may possibly allergic to? Would you always take your baby to the doctors when it has a temperature?

Candycoated. As I have already said, I would never discount what a disabled person has to go through in life.

But what you describe as a pita may for me be my nightmare that cannot be changed. I haven't explained it to well so I hope you get what I mean. I have no other option as I do not agree that leaving my buggy outside the cubicle is the gents is acceptable. And I can't get my buggy in a standard toilet as it is too large.

There is a need for larger cubicles perhaps its the next thing that news to be addressed

I don't understand why this even needs debating.

Disabled toilets are for those with disabilities. Being a parent is not a disability. It can be a right pain in the arse from time to time, sure, but it's not a disability. There will always be a way round problems like this when you are able-bodied and when your child is able-bodied. They may be awkward and irritating ways, but there are ways.

There are very few people out there who, without having a disability, have such a unique set of difficulties that they categorically cannot manage with something like weeing while in charge of a child. Those people would get considerably more sympathy if every other bugger wasn't trying to claim that their life is utterly impossible too. If people didn't habitually use the disabled facilities just because it's easier, those who do need to use them on odd occasions, wouldn't find themselves having to justify themselves. As it is, those in real need just get lost in the crowd of entitlement and faux-helplessness.

I was a child with a disability. Fortunately it was neither permanent or incurable, but I spent at least a couple of months of each year wheelchair-bound after operations. My mother was reduced to tears on several occasions, trying to cope. I am now fortunate enough to be an able-bodied parent of an able-bodied child. I have had a few stress moments, as most parent have, but I have never found myself weeping on the shoulder of sympathetic strangers because there is absolutely no way I can possibly get my child to the toilet/onto the bus/up the stairs, as I recall my poor mother doing.

There are so many difficulties faced by people with disabilities, and by their parents/carers, that those who have never been touched by disability would never even think of - surely it's no massive hardship for everyone else to avoid doing one little thing that has the potential to be just one more problem for someone?

Why I am boring, Ilovemyself? You do not have a need to use the disabled toilet, 3 kids under 16 months is not a disability.

Excellent post kungfupannda.

Teacherwith2kids. If you want to be like that there are NO toilets suitable for me to use because I do not believe it is acceptable to leave my children and my property unattended. Perhaps rather than use the facilities that are there and available I should make myself struggle and shit MYself. That would obviously make you happy.

Olidus. I am sorry but I think you are wrong. My stepfather is registered disabled because he can't walk more than half a mile or so without a problem. For him to use a disabled toilet when he doesn't need to is wrong as he does not need any extra space or special adaptation.

Nothing in life is simply black or white as it seems people are saying

I just do not understand how people can be so bloody, foot stampingly assured of their right to use a facility that has been campaigned and fought for by and for disabled people.

As I said earlier, I would not have left any of my dcs outside - not for fears of abduction, but because they were all screamers!

Oh FFS littlemisswise. I do not find it acceptable to leave my children unattended in the toilet. If I am on my own and I need a shit there is nothing else I can do other than shit myself.

I have never caused an issue if I have used them and the only time a disabled person need the loo I was very embarrassed I had held them up and they were fine about it.

Bluh

I see your point but we are all different and I believe that a child can be taken from anywhere at anytime. Although, I openly admit you can't keep an eye on them 24/7.

I also think it is wrong to say that you have good visibility from the cubicle. Firstly, somebody could take the child not the buggy. Also, by the time you had noticed finished up and got out of the cubicle they'd be gone just the same as if you'd left them outside a shop. There is no difference imo. Except if you were close to the door of the shop you would at least be able to see your child.

I would leave the door open so I could see my child, would never leave them.

Ilovemyself your stepfather is entitled to use the disabled toilet because they are always nearer. The reason for that is so that people like your stepfather do not have to walk further than needed because that is his need.

Don't 'FFS' at me, ilove. You say your step-father has no need to use a disabled toilet but in the next breath you think you do! Having kids in a pushchair is not a disability.

Jacks365. It's simple. He has no need for an adapted toilet and an extra 20 or 30 steps will not make a difference.

He doesn't use them because he feels he has no need. As I said, there is no black and wire in life, just multiple colours but some people are unable to see that b

20-30 steps for someone who can't walk over half a mile without problems is a big proportion of their ability. Yes its his choice not to but no one would ever have a problem with him using them.

As an aside every single baby change I have ever used has been in the disabled cubicle, which does somewhat suggest that the regulations applying to disabled toilet provision allow them to be shared by those with babies.

As for me, I wouldn't leave dd outside a cubicle. Not a chance. She's the most valuable thing in my life, far more important than my handbag, and I wouldn't abandon that outside either.

I will FFS who I like thank you. And I never said having my kids was a disability. I said that there are times when I need a larger than available cubicle.

I will not leave my children and belongings unattended in a toilet just as I wouldn't anywhere else. Perhaps you are happy to and that is your choice but I am not.