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

Of course I went to my son Singsongsung, as I was there.

I don't "drop them alone at a park" and "hope for the best". I live very near the park. In a village. He doesn't stay in the park unless there is someone he wants to play with. The other kids all know where we live. If there were a problem, they would let me know. As I live nearest, I've often had a bashed child in my kitchen for a quick rest and a glass of squash. Usually before the relevant parent has even replied to the text the child has recovered enough to start playing Minecraft/eat biscuit/go back out for more football.

I love the way they all look after each other. They are not just gaining independence; they are also learning to be responsible. And the age group playing together is often 7-11 which is really nice.

The biggest threat is from cars or from people they know, not from playing in the park with their friends.

Do you think then Boov that having lunchtime supervisors at school is unnecessary? Why do you think schools employ such people?

What is the point you are trying to make Singsongsung?

Schools are in loco parentis and have specific legal duties.

Singsong, the school supervise yes. By they are supervising children of all ages. An they don't go rushing over normally. A child would come to them an ask for help. They might not be able to even see a rescheduled immediately. They'd go looking for one. The same as in a park, they'd find help.
In the OPs situation we don't actually know how far away help was. For all we know the kids aunty could have live ten seconds away :/

Rescheduled? Teacher

Schools are in loco parentis Boov, yes. They are acting parents. Legally they have to supervise your children, aged 7, because they are acting parents. Can you see what I'm getting at now??

No...

You seem to be overlooking the fact there was a 9 year old there. You are assuming there was no known adult close by.

Many 9 year olds would walk to school with their 7 year old sibling. A child can be left alone at that age an in charge of younger siblings for short periods, assuming they're mature enough.

Actually 001, legally they can't and 9 is still primary school age. A 9 year old is most certainly not an adult and is far too young to have the responsibility of not only looking after themselves but looking after someone else too.
Let me put it another way. If your primary age child had an accident/got bullied at lunchtime at school and you later discovered that the staff, including lunchtime supervisors, were all off site BUT there was a phone in the office with a list of numbers to contact them and a house nearby where there might/might not be an adult available, would you be ok with it?
I'm guessing not. At school you would expect your primary age child to be supervised. Why not have the same expectations for yourself?

There are no laws saying what age a child can be left.

Do in guessing you supervise your 9year old 24 hours a day, and they are ner left alone.... ever? They don't go round to neighbour s to knock for a friend? They don't stay in the toy aisle whilst you do a quick shop? You don't send them to the shop for a loaf of bread? You don't send them to the loo on their own in a shop?

No 001. I don't do any of those things. I look after my child. She plays in her room alone when I'm in another room sometimes but I'm always no further than a shout away. You didn't respond to my question about school. Would you be happy?

The example of the school isn't the same as the park. It was comparing Apple to oranges.

Wow, I look after my children too. But at 9, they are allowed to go to the loo on their own in Tesco!

as kids we were left to our own devices for 3 hrs at a time during school holidays- we were 6, 7 and 9. mum went to work at 9 and came home briefly for lunch and then came home at 3.
we lived on an new build estate in the 1970s that was full of great places to play- scaffolding, huge excavations etc.

When i was 9 and my sister just 8, she fell off a makeshift swing and broke her arm. It made no difference to it happening, the fact that my mum was at work- we would have been out of sight playing. But having to get her home, white in pain and stopping to scream every now and again, having to phone my mum and convince her that it really was serious and wouldn't wait until the end of work and then having to sit with her until she came home (and then go to the hospital) really was not something that your average 9 year old should deal with.

Why wouldn't you let your 9 year old go to the house three doors down to knock for a friend?

Totally agree Green.
Why is it different? Why is it apples and oranges? We're talking about playing in a school playground unsupervised v playing in a non-school playground unsupervised! Hardly apples and oranges. You're ducking the question!

The difference is the expectation of supervision.

You would expect there to be supervision at a school, because of numbers, becasue hey are supervising children that a are 4 years old an above. So to find out there was no supervision would be an issue.

In the OP situation - all we know is the parent was not supervising for a period of time. We do not know that there wasn't a known adult close by. We do not know the maturity/experience of the children. we do not even know how 'dangerous' the park is.

So, apple sand oranges. Both fruit. Both 'unsupervised children' but different situations.

No ducking.

Now you can answer my question :) no ducking allowed ;)

001- The difference is the expectation?? Personally I would expect children of primary school age to be supervised wherever they were. You say this is because of numbers. Does that affect your decision to leave them at a park alone then? What is your optimum number I wonder? Do you give your children instructions to return home if there's more than 20 there? There are some schools where I live that have not many more than that on roll- they still supervise their children at breaks. Schools supervise children because they have a duty of care, just as a parent does. The only difference is that a teacher would be reprimanded for not doing duty whereas a parent gets the choice.

No ducking required here thanks. On your question, to be honest it's a moot point for us as our nearest neighbours don't have children. However, if they did I would question the need for your question. If she was going to a neighbour's house to play I would stand at the door and watch her go- give a wave to the neighbour to acknowledge the hand over of care. She wouldn't have need to "call on them" to go to the park or whatever as if she were going, at 9, I'd be going too. We'd call together.

Yes, the differenc eis expectation.

If I said I was taking your 9 year old out for the day - you would expect me to be with him all days, so If it turned out I'd left them to it, you'd be justifuiably angry.

If I said "doe syour 9 year old want to go to the park with my 9 year old whilst I am at the swimming pool" there wouldn';t be the expectation of supervision.

Now, that would affect your decision. Rightly so.

But in the first example, you expect there to be supervision,. Just as you expect there to be supervision at a school

so... apples and oranges...

You choose not to let your 9 year old out of your sight unless in the house or supervised by another adult.

That's your choice.

However, it doesn't meant that all unsupervised children suffer "neglect or abandonment" because they were at a play park unsupervised.

Now, my nine year old is more than capable of crossing a road alone or Going to the park or knocking for friends etc. Yours might not be ready for that, but to assume that EVERY 9 year old is incapable is short-sighted.

And to accuses people of neglect and abandonment is really quite a hyperbole.

I walked my 5 (almost 6) and 7 (almost 8) year olds to the small park 2 mins away from our house, then walked home and put tea on, the walked back for them the other day. It was the first time I had done it. but bloody hell...a 9 and 7 year old! I would say yes that is fine for a short period.

mine play out all the time on the green across form my house, unsupervised. They love it!

001- I'm sure my daughter would be more than capable. She's very bright, works with children two years older than her at school most of the time as she is so able. Very sensible. No issues there at all, but she's 9. A primary age child who at school would be supervised and at home will be too.
I'll say again, it's not me who would call it abandonment should the worst happen- it's the law, which I have already quoted on this thread.

Must just ask 001 as I'm somewhat bewildered by your comments about expectation, do you believe that's the only reason that teachers supervise children at school then? Because of expectation? If they were to write to you and say that they would no longer be around at break times but the phone would be there and the neighbour next to the school might/might not be, would that be ok then? You wouldn't be expecting supervision then would you?

And you didn't answer my questions about numbers...