To leave DD in library whilst I go to work

[LoveandPeaceGonk]

DD is 10.5

I've been a SAHM since she was born. I've managed to find a part-time job 30 minutes drive from where we live (rural location so no jobs locally).

They want me to start in July which is when DD breaks up for 7 weeks.

We're going away for one week and I've booked her in a sports club for another but am struggling with other weeks

There is a really nice library close to where I'll be working. Would I BU to leave her there for one morning/afternoon a week i.e. 3 hours? She's a bookworm so could amuse herself on that plus the computer.

And there's a cafe next door she could pop into. Plus she'd have her phone with her.

What do you think?

Exactly. If the OP was telling her dd to ask one of the staff to bring her across the main road when she wanted to go to the café, or somesuch then I would agree she was foisting her child on to the staff for free childcare.
But all she's doing is allowing her daughter to spend three hours in the library reading and using the computer, and not making any demands of the staff other than the normal ones.

Sorry, my response was to nokids post.

Do they often stay in the same shop for 3 hours with no where else to go until you collect them?

Also sort out a plan with dd about what to do or where to go for potentially a couple of hours if she does have to leave the library.

Are your work ok with you checking your phone a lot?

Yes op I hope your new job goes well listening to your dd and using public facilities is not a crime.

There's a lot of responsibility and variables requiring decisions for a 10 year old to be nmaking.

I'm quite surprised so many people are ok with this.

My ds is ten and has lots of appropriate responsibility, shop, school and even the library on his own but it's miles away from putting him in that position for over 3 hours.

That is perfectly normal sovery

No

Sounds perfect to me.

Silly, the child will have a phone and will be able to contact her mother over anything she's unsure about. I don't really see all the decisions she has to make. She will be sitting quietly in a library reading, and will pop into the café next door if she gets hungry.

The fact is that mum will be close by and contactable, the Dd has suggested it and it is 3 hours once a week for a few weeks. What is so troubling about 3 hours when 2 hours is acceptable? Seems very arbitrary and blinkered to decide 180 minutes is child neglect. No consideration of the individuals and the particular circumstances.

I don't have kids as a disclaimer. I was a bookish library child, but was always taken by my Dad. People are saying about the 'no child under 8' council policy but how do you determine a child is over 8 with no ID? I would find it difficult to differentiate between 8, 9, 10 year olds. Independence is important before secondary but IME that's walk/bus to school, park with friends, going to the shops. Maybe going to take out books at the library then coming home to read, but not being stuck there.

I understand the library being close to work, but surely it would be easier to get home quickly than stop at the library, call/text to find out where in the library the child is, then get back in car/on public transport to get home. I'm looking to volunteer at my city's biggest library and there's an amazing selection of things to do there, a great upgraded children's section too but I always see parents or guardians. I'm signing up to volunteer and honestly I would worry if I saw a child always on their own for a few hours. Not calling social services of course but I would feel an urge to 'babysit' just in case.

But that would be your issue (meant politely and not cuttingly.) If the library has an over-8s rule, and the child is almost three years above that, then any urge you have to babysit is purely your own issue.

she's ten, not two. At 10 mine were getting a bus without an adult and going into the shopping centre in the next town. The first time I got a bus on my own into the (large and busy) city centre was the end of my first year in primary school, I went to buy something very specific that I had been given the money for. It required a lot more decisions and variables than deciding which book to read and where to sit to read it I'd been doing that for a while in our local library anyway.

The circumstances here being the parents are neglecting to provide adequate child care and are opting to leave dd in a library.

She can not just leave when she's had enough. It's not about the difference between 60, 120 or 180 or more minutes it's the fact dd will have to remain there until a parent collects her. Through experience very few children choose to spend over 3 hours in a library unless they've been told to stay put.

I wouldn't leave a ten year old at home alone for that length of time either but that's maybe just me.

So the consensus seems to be that library staff should not give a shit about children on their own for hourson rend.

I would expect anyone to be concerned about a child left for "hours on end"; I don't feel once a week for three hours falls into that category.

Library staff should check that the child is over 10 if that's the rule and treat them with exactly the same considerations as any other customer.

If a parent has deemed their child responsible enough to be left at the library alone then its not the librarians job to question that. If my child was misbehaving I would expect them to be told off or sent home the same way as any other customer. If they were reading, on the internet, in the café or just browsing then I would expect them to be able to do that unhindered by other people.

8, 9, 10, 11 - it's still young and they do need a bit more attention than your average user and because I'm human I would feel a bit more responsible for a child that age in my branch than I would a capable adult.

But there are loads of people who need more attention than the average user. That's what "average" means. When I was in the library the other day, there was a man who seemed very unfamiliar with computers trying to use one, and the librarian was spending quite a bit of time with him. He needed a lot more attention than your average user. Should he have been chucked out?

People keep saying that OP is planning to use the library staff as cheap childminders: she has made clear that she isn't. She doesn't expect them to watch her child any more than they would any other library user, and she expects her child to sort herself out with getting books, using the computers, and going out to the café etc. Staff have a duty to supervise all library users. If they feel the need to have a quick look at OP's daughter occasionally, how is that any different?

People also suggest that three hours is a long time for a child to spend reading. I am one of those who could and did easily spend that amount of time buried in books as a child. But, again, even if this child doesn't want to do that, she has the facility to use the computers, go out to the café, play games on her phone, or indeed bring in paper and pens in order to write or draw pictures.

It's worth drawing a comparison with the time children spend in travelling to school. By law, the maximum travel time should be 1 hour 15 minutes each way. At secondary level, most children go to school on their own. Therefore it is deemed entirely acceptable for 11 year olds to be out on their own in public on the roads, buses and trains for 2.5 hours a day. 3 hours in a library is an easy option by comparison.

Right, so staff are expected to be concerned but only after how many instances?

See the situation this creates?

No unaccompanied children under 8 does not mean fron 9 and up leave them for as long as you want.

Although many, many do.

So would it be equally okay to drop her at soft play for 3 hours?

If you'd have said 'dd wants to go to library for 3 hours once a week'
I would have thought that was fine.
What is not fine is making inadequate childcare arrangements.

Seriously imagine if we all did this?

but why cant they stay as long as they want? I don't understand the problem? If they are happy reading and browsing why does there have to be a time limit on it?

No one is talking about chucking her out. Highly unlikely to be the case if she's behaving.

Silly - then to turn it around, why, very genuinely, do libraries indicate children over 8 are fine unsupervised if, as you seem to indicate, they actually are not?

I'm struggling to understand why anyone would have an issue with this.

If a child came from a home where they were sent out 12 hours a day 7 days a week, I'd just be grateful they were somewhere safe and warm. Libraries are really important to so many people - quiet, warm, safe, centre of the community and with books.

Why deprive anybody, including and perhaps especially, a ten year old of that?