Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Original poster

to let my DD have play dates at a friends who is a single father

157 replies

KTlee · 25/08/2015 15:18

My DD is 7 years old and going in to year 3 in September. DD and two other girls in her class are best friends and regularly have playdates. There have never been any issues.

Myself and the two other parents, know each other quite well and will often go out for coffee during term time. I have no issues with either parent.

However, we have been taking it in turns to host the playdates for our DD's, DD has been to both of her friends houses many times. Each time one of DD's friends is invited over to the other girls house however her mother will make excuses for why she can't come. She is always fine coming with her DD coming over to my house. The mother will always say she is busy when the other parent offers. Earlier when I was discussing with her a suitable time for our DD's to go, she came out with that she doesn't allow her DD to go to this house because the parent is a single father and there is no adult female present. She thinks I should be the same and is shocked I let DD go.

As I said all three of us are pretty good friends and meet often during term time. Myself and mother to DD's friend often talk about what a good dad the other parent is to his children so I don't get the issue. He volunteers so has a CRB so that can't be the issue.

AIBU to let my DD freely go to playdates around her friends house where her father is a single parent or is the mother of DD's other friend being Unreasonable not allowing her daughter on playdates unless a female adult is present?

Should add that the playdates are for a few hours - a day, not sleepovers. Not sure if that makes a difference.

Hoping that the other parent is being unreasonable as DD loves going to her friends house and he is a genuinely lovely guy who just happens to be the sole carer for his children and currently have no girlfriend.

OP posts:

Itsmine · 25/08/2015 17:26

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

NotYouNaanBread · 25/08/2015 17:26

I know a few SAHD's and they are BIG into playdates as a perfectly sensible, sociable way of occupying their children after school. My smaller child's "best friend" in nursery has a SAHD and he is brilliant for playdates. Would happily dump my offspring on him for weeks on end. It would never enter my head to think "Oooooh - but his WIFE isn't there to stop him attacking the children!"

I don't think that the idea that all men are just waiting to rape us (or our children) the minute we take our feminine eye off them is particularly helpful.

MsTargaryen · 25/08/2015 17:29

Muslim family comparison is a bit poor. There's a difference between how likely radicalisation would affect a visiting child versus how likely child abuse would affect a child.

APlaceOnTheCouch · 25/08/2015 17:34

From the OP, no-one mentioned that the other mum was scared of sexual abuse. The OP seems to have jumped to that conclusion but it may not be that at all. We have no way of knowing why she is against the playdates.

Also, I'm struggling with the logic that says if you are friends with someone, then you have to let them watch your DCs. DH has a friend who is lovely and kind but I wouldn't let him watch my DCs since he assesses risk completely differently from me. So does my DSIS. That's ok but since I'm ultimately responsible for the safety of my DC then I wouldn't let DH's friend or my DSIS watch them.

Itsmine · 25/08/2015 17:36

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Reubs15 · 25/08/2015 17:37

If you thought someone was a genuinely serious risk to your children, why on earth would you be friends with them?!

serialworrier · 25/08/2015 17:37

How sad for any father who loses the mother of his children when they are still young, to know that mothers won't let their children play with his, because he "must" be a sex pest. So they better move in with their mother or their sister or aunt or find a new partner quicksticks.

I suspect that most people who were abused in their youth were abused by men but abetted by women - how many mothers know about the abuse but do nothing. Quite a few. So the risk is no greater whether or not there is a mother/adult female in the house.

Glitteryarse · 25/08/2015 17:38

I've not seen a thread like this on here in a few years and after the recent coverage of historicle abuse id have thought that posters would be more sympathetic or have had their eyes opened some what - clearly it hasnt. People still believe it only ever happens to other families.

when somebody else other than you looks after your kids they are never 100% safe. You do not know people. You take an informed chance/risk every time. I like to err on the side of caution. Sometimes they are bad choices sometimes times they are good choices. My parents made a bad choice -twice. And neither time was it my father. It's not them that have to live with it it - it's me. I wish they'd been a little more hysterical Or paranoid

If you choose to take that chance that's fine. But to ridicule other posters that are more cautious (perhaps through their own experience) is ugly .

Neither of my girls are frightened of men.

I'm off the thread.

CatMilkMan · 25/08/2015 17:46

Add message | Report | Message poster Gymbunny1204 Tue 25-Aug-15 17:18:33
Catmilkman, that is not judging. I'm saying that in my opinion victims of abuse would not be using Peado on every corner and kiddy fiddler as a comment. How on earth is that judging or dangerous confusedconfused.

I think it's dangerous to presume anyone that has said these things hasn't been abused, it feels like you are saying every abuse victim has one certain way of thinking or opinion.

TabithaTwitchEye · 25/08/2015 17:55

Maybe she just doesn't want her kid playing in mud?!

Nottodaythankyouorever · 25/08/2015 17:56

Maybe she just doesn't want her kid playing in mud?!

BertrandRussell · 25/08/2015 17:57

"If you thought someone was a genuinely serious risk to your children, why on earth would you be friends with them?!"

This.

Itsmine · 25/08/2015 17:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TabithaTwitchEye · 25/08/2015 18:01

Why the nottoday?!!

Nottodaythankyouorever · 25/08/2015 18:03

Where did the 'not wanting her kid playing in mud' come from, or have I missed something which is likely

TabithaTwitchEye · 25/08/2015 18:04

Yes, the OP said that her girl comes homes with great stories of how much fun she's had with this dad, usually involving mud!

I wasn't being randomly sexist

wannaBe · 25/08/2015 18:06

this thread is surreal. So, if someone had snakes the type of which once killed children on a sleepover the owner of said snakes is dodgy? What about if someone owns a type of car in which children have been known to have been killed when the car crashed? Or if someone lives on a particular road where there once was an accident where children were killed, Why bother having children in the first place if you are going to perceive everything they may encounter as a risk you need to protect rather than educate them against.

Fwiw I had a friend at school whose parents refused to let them visit anyone they didn't know. This was a boarding school, so going to each other's houses for the weekend was commonplace. The excuse given was that they didn't know the parents so couldn't be sure they wouldn't abuse their child. Turns out the father had been abusing her for years, but hey, at least the mother was protecting her from all those perverts around the corner eh.

Reality is that you can never be sure that your children won't come into contact with an abuser. But you can teach them that they have the right to say no, and they have the right to tell you about anything that makes them uncomfortable. By wrapping children in cotton wool they are far more likely to become victims because they haven't been given the tools to deal with a situation which makes them uncomfortable...

Dolly80 · 25/08/2015 18:12

I think as parents we need to be informed about possible risk and ensure our children know about how to keep safe. I'm unsure whether I would agree with your friends risk assessment in this situation but it's hers to own.

Interestingly, the NSPCC stats referred to earlier are from a study into child maltreatment. They state that 65.9% of children/young people who reported 'contact sexual abuse' were abused by another child/young person (0-17yrs).

ArendelleQueen · 25/08/2015 18:13

"but you might want to spare a thought for all the people who have very good reason to be "paranoid" or "overprotective" based on their own experiences, and be both thankful you don't and a little more understanding."

I find this sentence both patronising and offensive. Fuck off with "be thankful" assumptions. I worked really hard to overcome my issues surrounding my past to ensure they don't affect my children.

Glitteryarse · 25/08/2015 18:15

wannabe honestly your posts are ridiculous.

Do you really think that abuse victims dont say no?? Do you think the go happily along? By wrapping children in Cotton wool makes them more likely to be abuse victims ? Really ? You really think that? You think a three year old can be tought the tools to get out of a situation that makes them feel uncomfortable? What about babies? What about children that are so fucking scared they don't know what to think? That's kind of touching on victim blaming.

Honestly you really have no idea do you ..

Hiding thread

ImperialBlether · 25/08/2015 18:16

I wonder whether she would be the same if he was widowed.

That poor guy, having people make assumptions about him.

Gabilan · 25/08/2015 18:18

It was a python that killed two boys in Canada. No idea what bearing that has on anything mind you.

Nottodaythankyouorever · 25/08/2015 18:23

I find this sentence both patronising and offensive. Fuck off with "be thankful" assumptions. I worked really hard to overcome my issues surrounding my past to ensure they don't affect my children

Thank you for saying this. As experiencing absence as a child I really hate it when people, no matter how good intentioned, speak for me. Everyone is different.

Nottodaythankyouorever · 25/08/2015 18:24

*abuse not absence

wannaBe · 25/08/2015 18:25

glittery but these aren't three year olds or babies, these are school age children. frankly your posts are ridiculous and hysterical. if there is a perceived risk from this actual individual then anyone would want to protect their children from that, but on the basis that someone has a penis is not a perceived risk it is a hysterical unfounded prejudice.

How many of the hysteriamongers on this thread have sons? Are you raising them in the knowledge that they are a risk to future children?

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 7