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?!

Teacherbob

You seem to have no concept of risk assessment. You have risk assessed it as a risk worth taking, the rest of the thread have risk assessed it as too risky.

To tell everyone they are 'wrong' is just nonsense.

For me lighting a load of tealights in the lounge of my house is too much of a risk, even in the absence of children. You might feel differently.

You're cracked 😁 Two tea lights are not going to 'warm up a room' one bit. Yes, they might look cosy but that's it.

We went through a phase of having a candle on the dining table when the youngest was about that age. He got a bit of a thing about it after having one on a table when we were out. It helped speed up dinner time too because I'd blow it out if he was faffing too much! Because he was sittng in his chair, it was on a hard table & no carpet, paper etc I felt it was just fine, but a bit of a pain if I wanted to go into the utility or go to the sink etc. I was glad when the nights got too light to see it!

I wouldn't put tea lights on a coffee table like that though. Toddler height, soft furnishings, too easy to forget if the door/phone goes. It's positively asking for trouble. It would be so easy for him to start a fire, set his clothes alight or burn his fingers. Tea lights are very hot & melty. You could easily be looking at skin grafts. Could you live with that?

I would always hold his hand or even carry him in car parks and so on. So I am not like your acquaintance.

My child is risk aware to a certain extent. Another example is walking downstairs, physically he would be capable of walking down without holding on, but because he is aware of the risk of falling he walks carefully, holding on to the railing and taking one step at a time.

Having read your updates Op YANB

I love.forest school - it's great seeing the teenies toasting marshmallows over a fire and banging in real nails with a real hammer and using saws

I think some on this thread would faint had they seen the group of six year olds all whittling with knives...

It makes me mad when parents believe their young children are responsible and risk aware. It's complete bollocks.

He's not risk aware. Argh.

Of.course they are!

I suppose it depends on if you want to stake your child's life on them 'seeming to understand'.

I'm a children's intensive care doctor. I've seen lots of awful things. One of the worst experiences of my career so far was of trying to resuscitate a toddler who had burns over about 70% of her body and who'd had weeks of going back and forth to theatre every other day, on full life support and in multi organ failure the whole time, til she finally died of a severe infection. Was several years ago and still haunts me. She'd done similar to what Claudia winkleman's daughter did, her clothing brushed against a small naked flame and caught fire.

No to naked flames. Yes to toddlers learning not to touch hot things though.

Fire guards, oven doors, oil heaters, and radiators ect., are all things which are hot to the touch but are unavoidable round the house. (very hot drinks are a different matter - should be out of reach).

We burn pillar candles inside Moroccan lamps (lattice metal). Lamps get hot to the touch but the naked flame is untouchable. DD (2.5) knows what hot means, says 'ooh hot' and doesn't touch them.

Two tealights won't warm a room

My child is risk aware to a certain extent.

He's TWO-AND-A-HALF!

Another example is walking downstairs, physically he would be capable of walking down without holding on, but because he is aware of the risk of falling he walks carefully, holding on to the railing and taking one step at a time.*

That is nothing to do with being 'risk-aware', it's being not-entirely-sure so he's taking it carefully. And as they get a bit older they get far less reckless for a time anyway.

I cannot believe you are actually stupid enough to leave any form of candle in reach of a child whether you are 'supervising' or not.

And as for the thought of two tealights warming a room...
Words fail me.

OP sounds like she hasnt been around children that much considering she has one.

You can tell a child not to do something all you like but we all know children dont always do as they are told. In the case of a 2.5 year old expecting them to remember not to touch them or obey you.

One of my nieces is that age. You cant have anything out you dont want her to touch as they dont get it. Even my laptop. She keeps tryin to play with it when I am using it, leaning over and pressing all the keys. You take her hand away, tell her no she is not allowed to touch it and she keeps on doing it. That is what they do.

There's been lots on MN recently about "cool wives"...now there seems to be a new breed of "cool mums"...a strange one upmanship on who's the most lax with their DC...oh look at me, I'm so cool and easy going I let my children use a chainsaw whilst dashing across a motorway and juggling fire..it's fine, they soon learn!

I don't think anyone is arguing that 2 years old have no risk awareness but most of what appears to be risk awareness is just learnt responses to stimulus. The child who grabs hold of Mummy's hand when a car comes has possibly learnt that when cars come Mummy grabs your hand and says 'be careful, cars are dangerous' but that doesn't mean that they have the actual, full understanding of what that actually means. In fact, it has (apparently) been proven that a child doesn't have full road safety understanding until age 5. That doesn't mean that they haven't learnt to stop at a kerb, but it means they don't fully understand what damage cars can do and what being hit by one could actually entail.

You will of course get some children who are better at following instructions and remembering them for other times, and are better at repeating things that are said at that time but it doesn't mean that they are better at understanding exactly why and what that actually means.

Interesting one!

I once read an article about a very good Scandinavian nursery that had tea lights around the rooms and an open fire pit. The article was about our perception of risk.
Their view is that children should be exposed to these things and the risk managed, not removed.

Laist until the day she does. Or pokes a teddy bears hand in, or a piece of paper. Don't kid yourself it's not a naked flame simply because it's in a lamp.

Why bother asking if you already have all the answers OP?

YABVVVU

Weird OP post, should we ring SS? Surely no-one is this daft and irresponsible?

Genuinely puzzled, unless it's a joke in poor taste. Children below the age of reason shouldn't be deliberately put in harm's way. Toddlers can't follow or retain safety instructions.

Tanith. Your idea of 'very good' is my idea of 'fucking nuts'. One accidental bump & a child ends up in a fire pit? One toy lobbed across the room & a tea light gets knocked over.

Fuck me. I'm on the 'lax' end of parenting, but Jesus wept some of these are just bonkers.

BayLeaves I have a two year old too and she does similar things to your DS (holding banisters when going down etc). She does these things because she nervous and feels fear, which is NOT the same as understanding danger. For example she might cry if I leave the room for a minute to go to the loo and leaves her with someone she doesn't know, as even though she's perfectly safe, she still feels nervous. She would however happily play with a kitchen knife or razor if I let her (obviously I don't before anyone becomes concerned)!

If I were to have tealights I'd put them well out of the way, such as on a high mantelpiece if you have one. I'd never put them on a coffee table in reach of either toddlers or pets. It's asking for trouble, isn't it?

I have candles. I only light them when the kids are in bed. My youngest is 7 and fairly sensible but if I light a candle she has to go and stand very close to it and waves her hand around it. No amount of telling her how dangerous it is stops her so I just don't use them while she's around. My friend uses old coffee jars for her candles. She accidentally knocked one over while pissed. Had I not gone back to pick something up and seen it her house would probably have burned down. So I don't trust drunk adults with them either. :o

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?

You are right, a lot of people on this thread have said it is wrong. But some of the finest schools/nurseries and education systems in the world actively enourage working with naked flames. Like I said, I build fires with my classes and the children love it.

If you cant supervise your own child with a couple of candles, then maybe you should reassess your parenting, and not mine?

Surely your 2yo could possibly burn himself? I'm unsure if this is a serious post. Surely you could have candles on when your child is in bed? I would no way have candles especially not shitty tealights insight of my children.