to have tealights burning in reach of my toddler?

[BayLeaves]

He is 2.5 and I have told him not to touch them. They are on the coffee table which is not in the middle of the room so they can't be knocked over by accident (although they could be knocked over on purpose).

He has come to look at them and I've told them it could burn him or set his clothes on fire, he seems to understand and is leaving them alone.

(The reason I want them on is because it helps make the room nice and warm. )

I'm sure this is really terrible and dangerous through hence the AIBU?!

[SpaceUnicorn]

Is this for real?

Can't be. No one is this fucking thick. It's an attempt to whip MN up and get into the Daily Twat.

'AIBU to have fire in easy reach of my toddler?' Yes, that's a genuine question if ever I heard one

[Witchend]

Does depend slightly on your child. I could have done this with dd1 as she was the sort of child that said "if you go near this you'll be hurt" would probably have avoided going within 3 feet of it. She's still like that as a teen!
Dd2 would have done to look closely and ds would have had to prove that it was dangerous, so I couldn't have done it with either of them.

Having said that, I still wouldn't have with dd1.

[TemporarilyLost]

No no no! Someone in our family was horrifically burned by a candle as a child. Surely you just wouldn't risk it?

[Plornish]

What concerns me about using tea lights like that is that they are in the background, not the focus of your attention. So even if you're supervising your child - and I'm not suggesting that you aren't - it's easy to forget about the naked flame, until the accident happens.
As cory has said, things like candles on a Christmas tree or toasting marshmallows over an open fire are less risky precisely because the adults are focussed on them; the fire is the centre of the activity.

[MrsTerryPratchett]

Fear of heights is hard wired into children. Google it. Some risks are hard wired and develop at the age they are useful. Clearly a fear of cars, for example, isn't.

Your toddler isn't 'risk aware' because they are scared of heights, they're simply a human. I don't know if a fear of tea lights is hard wired and I wouldn't risk it.

[BoopTheSnoot]

I have a two year old. I wouldn't have lit candles anywhere within his reach. Far too dangerous, and at that age they have very little impulse control.

[EmilySunshine]

tea lights within reach of a young toddler.....this probably isn't going to end well. bin the candles and get some little electric ones. or a string of fairy lights hung up very high where toddler can't possibly reach?

[GiddyOnZackHunt]

Two things.

1. If you ask my school age ds what will happen if he doesn't look when he crosses the road, he will tell you. 99% of the time he holds my hand or waits for my OK after looking and saying it's clear. And randomly he forgets himself and runs across our quiet estate road. You cannot rely on a 2 yr old to think logically.
   

1. Do you have appropriate First Aid eqipment and training? A fire blanket?

[Wayfarersonbaby]

My sister does this kind of thing and then goes on about how she is teaching her children to manage risk and how I'm far too neurotic.

What's actually the case is that she's trusting to pure blind luck rather than doing any real assessment of risk. She has always had a "nothing bad will happen to me" mentality.

She's bloody lucky nothing awful has happened so far. Doesn't mean it won't.

[SuckingEggs]

Idiocy. FFS.

Right: are you on glue?

[Manumission]

Contrarians and militants as far as the eye can see red

[Redglitter]

Some of the threads on here recently beggar belief

How could it so much as cross anyone's mind that it's in any way reasonable to have candles in reach of a toddler

[Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost]

Are you for real. He's 2.5. Telling him not to touch them isn't going to mean, anything. To him and every 2 year old baby. Every thing is an adventure. Every smell, sound, texture and object.
Please please. Get rid of them or at least put them out of his reach. If anything happens to him. You won't be able to turn back time.

[TeacherBob]

That's ok. I don't need reassurance from a group of keyboard warriors.

I worry about you as a parent though

If you cant understand that it is ok to let children be near fire when supervised, and taught the risks, there is no hope.

Shouldn't you be off trying to ban the cubs? They could prick their fingers doing the sewing badge!

[corythatwas]

Tanith Sat 01-Oct-16 16:56:18

"Ginger, that doesn't seem to happen. The question is why not?
Scandinavian nurseries are better able to teach children the risks"

Ime they supervise them like hell when anything dangerous like candles is around. I have met very few Scandinavians (any?) who believe that you can trust to the obedience and understanding of a 2yo. Yes, they teach them about risk, but they expect it to take many years for the teaching to sink in, and in the meantime they watch them like hawks.

[Basicbrown]

why shouldn't I tell people they are wrong? This thread, hell this whole forum is full of judgemental people telling others they are wrong, why should I not, just because you disagree?

Did you not read my post. It is about individual RISK ASSESSMENT.

I seriously worry that you are a teacher.

[Tanith]

Almost exactly the same accident accident as happened to Claudia Winkleman's daughter occurred in1939, when a 4 year child-actress, Caryll Ann Ekelund, unfortunately died. Shocking that were they still manufacturing flamable costumes all that time.

[Tanith]

Yes, exactly, Cory: they manage the risk, they don't remove it.

"One accidental bump & a child ends up in a fire pit? One toy lobbed across the room & a tea light gets knocked over." Ginger, that doesn't seem to happen. The question is why not?
Scandinavian nurseries are better able to teach children the risks and to ensure that, even though their approach to H&S would have a British nursery throwing their hands up in horror, they don't seem to have the accidents you might associate with them.

[Squirmy65ghyg]

A child that age doesn't have enough awareness to think "if I run/jump/spin etc I might crash into that table with the tea lights."

That is my point. Yes they can be in a car park and recognise there are cars but they can't be responsible for their actions.

[mumeeee]

YABU. It's very dangerous to leave tea lights burning in reach of a toddler

[GingerIvy]

My dcs are 7 and 10, and we use battery powered candles in the evening if we want that "candle look" in the front room. I sometimes light candles, but not until after they are in bed and asleep.

They both understand the flame is hot and can burn. But both get active and tend to fling dress up clothing about, and that is a nasty burn waiting to happen. We will continue to use the battery powered candles for awhile longer yet.

[JellyBelli]

A tealight is a pan of melted wax, and can cause a severe burn that will need hospital treatment.

[UnGoogleable]

My rule with risk is this:

If the worst happened, could I say that I'd done everything to prevent it and the accident was unforseeable. If the answer is No, and a child was injured or died, I couldn't live with myself.

So in your case, imagine the worst - your child gets badly burned, or starts a dangerous fire. You ask yourself 'Was this forseeable'? The answer is Yes. 'Did I do everything I could to prevent it?'. No. What were the reasons for me ignoring the forseeable risk and not preventing it? - I think tealights are pretty.

Could you live with that?

[HardcoreLadyType]

Yes, it's true, Bob, that fences around swimming pools mean that children are more likely to be supervised while swimming in them. But that's not what your post said. You said that children in Australia were made aware of how to swim safely; supervision was not mentioned. And a 2 yo is too little to have been taught safety around water or flame, unsupervised.

I agree that if children are supervised near danger, and are taught to safely use potentially dangerous tools, partly by adults modelling safe use of equipment, then it is beneficial for them.

But your post really didn't make that clear.

(Also, I get pissed off with people holding up some Australian policies as paragons of pragmatism - Australian points based immigration, for example - without having a clue about the actualities of how they work or often don't work, in practise. Which is my issue, and nothing to do with you!)