AIBU 9 & 7 yr olds shouldn't ge left alone??

[eeyoreandpooh]

AMIBU to think it's not right to leave a 9yr old and 7yr old alone playing in a park while you go to the shop? Said shop is a car drive away - not just round the corner or over the road

Wouldn't bother me. But I am a lax parent and trusted my two from quite an early age as they were always fairly sensible.

Sometimes a parent that wasn't ours would even dish out a box of lollies to all of the other kids that weren't theirs .

#creepy weirdos

Sometimes a man will walk within 3 miles of our park

#paedo

I remember being left to go to the local park (across a road, down the path) with siblings (1 and 5 years younger) from about 7 or 8. All my friends were allowed, so they came most of the time.
Really depends on the child, how long you're gone for, etc. However if I was hurt it was a big area with nan/aunties close to the park.

As I've said already the views of some on MN never fail to amaze me. You're fine to leave your child at the park, at home, anywhere you like above whatever age you consider a "young child" to be. 5? 5? No problem. No one will question you.
However, if you are considered to have left that same child "at risk" then that will be considered to be neglectful (as it should be). If you leave a child alone and they are hurt/injured/lost etc etc then they were clearly at risk weren't they and that is where you're exposed to potential questioning.
That's not opinion. That's the law.

And of course no one is saying that they won't fall over if you're there (although some obvious risks will be radically reduced if you are there). If a child is hurt at the park you, their parent, will be there to look after them. Most children of less than 10 would probably be grateful that you were.

Singsong yes - but a child getting hurt in a park and the parent not being present will not put a child "at risk" in the eyes of social services.

00100001 I couldn't have said it better myself! Hear hear!

I really do think some on MN need to get a grip about what constitutes abuse. It's actually extremely disrespectful to children who actually do suffer abuse. I work with these children. I know.

001- please read my post again and reflect on the actual words I've said. Really can't be bothered to repeat myself on the law again.

"However, if you are considered to have left that same child "at risk" then that will be considered to be neglectful (as it should be). If you leave a child alone and they are hurt/injured/lost etc etc then they were clearly at risk weren't they and that is where you're exposed to potential questioning.
That's not opinion. That's the law."

I read your post. You seem not to understand that there is a difference between a child being in a risky insinuation and a child being at risk of physical, mental emotional abuse or neglect. None of these are happening with a 9 year old playing in a park unsupervised.

Also.

What's the law? What law?

If it were true that "If you leave a child alone and they are hurt... you're exposed to potential questioning" then a child is at risk in every situation in life where hey aren't being watched 24 hrs a day. You'd have to get SS involved if you let them climb the stairs on their own. Or get dressed. or wander into a kitchen or trip up over a rug or when they're asleep in bed!

001- the law says that parents are likely to be prosecuted if they leave their child alone 'in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’ ie in a situation of risk. The suffering they refer to doesn't just mean physical. It encompasses emotional suffering too, so if a child is left alone and cries a lot then that is considered to also be 'emotional suffering'. I would imagine that a young child, alone at a park who gets hurt and doesn't know where their parent is, gets upset about all of this etc etc would most definitely fit into this definition of the law, wouldn't you?
It is unfathomable to me that you can't see the difference between a parent being in another room of the same house to a parent being a car journey away from a child. And the OP here is talking about pretty young kids. 9 and 7 year olds.

A child at a park that hurts himself once and cries and is not comforted fora few minutes would not be emotional abuse. It would be a shame, but as an isolated incident, not abuse.

As many people have said, plenty of 9 year olds are mature enough to cope with being in a park alone for ten minutes.

You are suggesting that anytime a child gets.upset and the parent isn't their to respond immediately means the child is being emotionally abused and they're breaking the law and could be subject to investigation.

That is a huge exaggeration and is why people get scare the SS at going to take their kids away if they happen to break this a in.an accident.

Many children are sent to the shops at 9 years old.any kids walk to.scholars alone at 9. They can be left unsupervised for short periods. They do not need an adult with them.at.all times.

001- I have never said that SS would take a child away! Where have you got that from??
And to remind you, the OP is about a 7 and 9 year old, not just a 9 year old and relates to those two children being a car journey away from their parent. Do you think that's ok?

Must just add, I have never stated or suggested that a parent who is in another room or has left a child with another adult etc etc would ever be accused of anything because they wouldn't!
I haven't 'suggested' that a child who is left alone and comes to harm may invoke investigation from SS. The law has stated that. I have merely copied and pasted it. If you have an issue with that you'll have to take it up with someone far more powerful than me.

It depends on the child and a parent will know if their child is responsible or sensible enough. It also depends on how long they will be left.
Its daft to be constantly thinking negative things and imagining the worst all the time. The odds are in your favour that the kids will be ok.
Personally I think being wrapped in cotton wool is far more damaging.

These threads never surprise me with the age people will leave their children. Mainly because all friends have children aged 8-12 and they all vary in ability and the age left alone.

What always crosses my mind is the number of times the recommended age of 14yo crops up.
It shocks me that in a country where pupils can't get into their nearest school easily and travel up to 20 miles at times, on a bus pick up at a certain point - are not supposedly safe to be at home alone.
A country where it's expected parents go back to work once children hit school age, where they finish secondary school earlier and earlier (2.30pm) in my local secondaries - children shouldn't be left at home alone.
Yet it's not recommended that travelling alone up to 3 miles to school is deemed a danger?

Personally I would have thought being at home was the safest place to leave a child?

I also don't think the parent here was being U as just because they drove to the shop doesn't mean it wasn't close.
I'll drive to aldi less than a mile away for a few bugs leaving 10yo DS at home (20 minutes). I wouldn't walk it because I wouldn't leave him alone for an hour.

Being at home is the least safest place to leave a child

More accidents happen in the home than anywhere else and a child left alone with the cooker/fire/candles/people knocking and calling at the door/people phoning/things in the house going wrong like floods or electrical fires is going to be in greater danger than in a park or playing out with their friends.

If you couple that with the mixed messages we give children at home 'don't answer the door/phone' versus 'how to get another adult to help when things go wrong' - no wonder we leave them at home later and later.

It takes a particular skill set and maturity to be left at home. You need to know for sure that they won't try and cook 'to be helpful', that they know how to open the door and which adults to get help from, how to deal with emergencies etc.

I left a 14 year old once for an hour and I thought I'd covered everything - I didn't cover the Gas board knocking on the door and being very forthright at getting people to turn their electricity off - the 14 year old didn't know where the fuse box was and was unnerved by the big blokes pushing the furniture out the way to get to it.

Anything can happen at home.

Obviously that same 14 year old had been going off by themselves for years and for hours perfectly safely with only himself to think about.

If you're in a house you feel responsible for what's going on in the house.

That's interesting Laurie thankyou.

Children are at far greater risk from people they know, usually family members or friends of the family than the mythical stranger predator in the park.
I live near a park and I have let my children play there unsupervised since they were seven.
It's essential they learn how to be independent and they play out without parental supervision. Quite frankly even if I were in the park now (instead of at home preparing their tea) I would be sitting on a bench chatting to the mums who live further away or have younger children. I would not be following my children around as they moved from playing football, walking along walls, playing on the slides & climbing frames and generally running around like mad things.
You can't see everything that happens, and you can't necessarily stop it anyway. Last time I was in the park one boy jumped off a climbing frame onto my son. They were both sore but even though I was actually there I couldn't stop it happening.
I know the other kids would bring my children home if they were hurt, as mine would their neighbours. They learn responsibility.
Let's have more freedom for children to play out alone.

TheBoov- when your son got hurt, what did you do? Did you stay on the bench chatting because "it's essential he learns to be independent", or did you go to him, look after him, help him? I suspect the latter, and I imagine your child was glad you were there to do so. It's not about preventing accidents, it's about being there to help, and 7 really is very young. I can guarantee to you that your 7 year old will be supervised at playtimes at school, even though I suspect that the school agrees about developing independence.

There are many many ways to help a child to become independent. Dropping them alone at a park and hoping for the best really doesn't have to be one of them.

home is the place most accidents happen because it is the place people spend most of their time. it is also the place with access to phones and people they know (if you know your neighbours anyway)

the park is safer for kids than teens (boys) imo. a 14 year old friend's son got beaten up by a group of older teens last week in a park. teenage boys and young men are most at risk of being victims of violence

it's just hard letting them go but its part of growing up

Ds1 is 7 and I wouldn't personally.

He's the age where I know he needs to have a bit more independence but I'm struggling to loosen the apron strings.

There's a park literally just outside the school gates but out of sight (on the same side so no roads to cross). When ds2 has football training in the school grounds, I've recently allowed him to go to the park alone. That's about as far as I'm happy with atm tbh. I don't think you need to be minutes or a drive away for them to have some independence.

Very interesting about the fuse box.

I have 4 kids, and wouldn't be happy to let them out to the park alone till about 13.

I don't think they have the sense to cope with the unexpected till then. And that's where the problems lie - they can cope perfectly well if a trip to the park etc goes smoothly - but if they injure themselves, or a stranger tries to influence them in some way I don't think they'd have the wherewithal to cope with that at a young age.