Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

16 month baby alone at home, neighbour with baby monitor

211 replies

hydrangea78 · 19/12/2016 21:19

Neighbour has offered to babysit.
My partner thinks we should put our 16 month old to sleep then let the neighbour babysit from the comfort of her own home (semi-detached property) and just hand her our video monitor. I completely disagree and WWIII has now broken out. AIBU?

OP posts:
merrymouse · 20/12/2016 06:28

You do realise that you have periods of deep sleep at night that would take you at least as long to rouse from and act on as an awake babysitting neighbour immediately next door!

That isn't true or alarm clocks wouldn't work.

BdumBdummer · 20/12/2016 06:39

No way. Irresponsible and stupid idea at best. Criminal neglect at worst.

Candlelight123 · 20/12/2016 06:41

Even the garage thing worries me. Popping into the garage for 10 seconds to get 1 thing whilst the baby sleeps, and coming straight back in = ok. Going standing in the garage i.e.: doing a job or a hobby for any length of time, even with a baby monitor = not ok.

Bananabread123 · 20/12/2016 07:47

That isn't true or alarm clocks wouldn't work

If I'm in a deep sleep then an alarm clock won't suddenly make me wide awake! There's a period of coming to.

Bananabread123 · 20/12/2016 07:57

Banana, you seem to be imagining that house fires and smoke are things that neatly and helpfully contain themselves in a room conveniently separated from all entrance and exit points until everyone is safely out of the house

You seem to be imagining that the Christmas tree type fire shown on the clip can't occur whilst parents are asleep...
I agree, the babysitter should be in the house, but imagining a worst possible case scenario is catastrophising. I could start a similar thread about driving... that any non-essential journey is reckless as there's a chance a drunk driver could slam into the car etc, and therefore any parent who does this is neglectful, and 'why take the risk?'

RubyRoseViolet · 20/12/2016 08:20

Imagine the conversation in the worst case scenario when someone asks you to explain your actions...

Where was the baby!
Upstairs asleep.
And where were you?
We'd gone out for the evening.
So who was with the baby?
No one.....our neighbour had a monitor.
But the baby was alone in the house?

Seriously? Does that sound acceptable or sensible to you?

BigChocFrenzy · 20/12/2016 08:34

It's ridiculous to claim that because you can't avoid normal everyday risks that therefore it's ok to take completely unnecessary risks.
Especially with a helpless baby. That's not your life to risk.

(and I'm from the free range 1950s / 1960s generation)

Even if you personally consider the risk acceptable....
If your baby is hurt in a car accident where you are not at fault, neither SS nor police would take action against you.
Family & friends wouldn't blame you.
Same for any other typical accident - when a responsible adult is actually present, even if asleep at nightime.

Now imagine explaining that you left your baby to be monitored from another property.
Confident they'll accept this ?

Also quite possible other neighbours or school would report you for such behaviour even without any accident. Personally, I would phone the NSPCC.

merrymouse · 20/12/2016 08:46

*I'm in a deep sleep then an alarm clock won't suddenly make me wide awake! There's a period of coming to'

You might be an unusually deep sleeper, but most people are awake within a few seconds, particularly if their brain is currently wired to listen out for young children. It doesn't take seconds to realise that something is wrong and go next door.

I could start a similar thread about driving... that any non-essential journey is reckless as there's a chance a drunk driver could slam into the car etc, and therefore any parent who does this is neglectful, and 'why take the risk?

The equivalent would be arguing that seat belts aren't necessary because most journeys occur without incident.

Young children and babies are particularly vulnerable because they are completely dependent on adults, in the unlikely event that something happens. If you are in a completely different house you are adding unnecessary steps to helping them in a potentially tragic situation.

Bananabread123 · 20/12/2016 10:06

A few issues here...
I'm not arguing that the babysitter shouldn't be in the house...I would want that myself. There's no point in creating an entirely unnecessary risk. I'm arguing that people's responses are totally disproportionate compared to the unnecessary (very tiny) risks they, and everybody takes with themselves and their children in everyday life, and that the vilification of the OPs DH is unfair, even hypocritical.

How many of us have installed proper fire shutting doors and full integrated fire alarm to sound throughout the house if a fire occurs in any room? If not, why not? Are the risks not sufficient to warrant you prioritising that over, say, a holiday? How many of us have Christmas trees knowing there is a small but nonetheless greater risk of fire as a result, but we have them anyway (without standing guard in the room whilst the fairy lights are on!) as the risks are too tiny to be of concern..... If any of these apply you are taking entirely unnecessary risks, albeit the tiny ones that are just part of life, and can therefore hardly accuse the OP's DH of gross neglect worthy of SS intervention!

Also, many responses are based on 'how would this look to others' as the main issue. How things 'look' isn't really a measure of neglect.

MrsDustyBusty · 20/12/2016 10:11

Well that's all grand, but it doesn't really deal with the poor baby being lonesome waking in an empty house.

merrymouse · 20/12/2016 10:12

I'm arguing that people's responses are totally disproportionate compared to the unnecessary (very tiny) risks they, and everybody takes with themselves and their children in everyday life, and that the vilification of the OPs DH is unfair, even hypocritical.

Peopje are responding just as they would if the DH had argued that car seats are an unnecessary fuss.

You could equally have listed all sorts of other things that are unsafe, and it would be equally irrelevant.

Trifleorbust · 20/12/2016 10:19

The risk is very minimal, it's true. But it is also completely unnecessary to take it. There is no real benefit. The neighbour could easily come over for a couple of hours and there would be no issue. So it is bizarre that the DH is pushing this.

toptoe · 20/12/2016 10:24

Every time someone asks if it's unreasonable to leave a baby alone in a house I am shocked at how many people think it's ok.

It goes against logic and natural instinct because it is wrong to do so. The chance of a fire is small(ish) as is the chance of someone breaking in. But if it did happen, then the baby is totally alone and unable to defend themselves and no baby monitor is going to help you in that situation.

We've had loads of these threads now. One couple wanted to leave the baby at home whilst they went to the pub, someone wanted to leave baby in the flat whilst she went to the shops to run some errands. Others talk about leaving a 3 year old at home (though that one was meant to be 'lighthearted').

I'm getting a bit sick of hearing it to be honest. Having been that child left at home whilst mum 'popped out' I can tell you it is terrifying to be on your own when you're little. Especially when you wake up and no one is there. It's simply terrifying. And that's without a fire or an intruder. I was also left with very young 'babysitters' who would also 'pop out', once when I had heat stroke and was delirious. I thought I was going to die.

I just don't understand anyone thinking it's ok to do this like the child doesn't know what's going on. Even at 16 months they'll know they are alone, trust me.

Anatidae · 20/12/2016 10:49

How bad would a fire be before she heard the smoke alarms go off

Fire spreads fast - and as pps have said smoke does too. A few years back our idiot fucking neighbour left her dogs in he flat with washing drying in front of a gas fire. Thankfully her kid was out wandering the close at the back (mum was an alkie, poor kid was often left locked in. Yes we'd called ss, no one seemed to care...) in 10 mins the flat had burnt back to the walls. Both dogs dead. The smoke was unbelievable- it took months to get the smell out of our place.
Thankfully it was a big old Edinburgh tenement with thick stone walls. A month later the new flats opposite caught fire - it burned for 15 mins and went through one flat above, the roof and both flats below.

You have seconds to minutes to respond to fire. The risk is tiny but the chances of you being able to get nextdoor, upstairs and back out are so much lower than if you were in the house

Threads like these pop up often on MN -and I'm always uneasy at how many people think it's ok to leave a baby somewhere. Accidents happen - but they happen more when we take short cuts.

Batteriesallgone · 20/12/2016 11:32

I don't understand the big house argument.

Surely no one who lives in a big house puts baby down and then deliberately goes and spends their time at the other side of the house. You'd want to be close by in order to respond quickly.

Also a parent hears baby crying - finishes stacking the dishwasher thinking 'ah they're ok I'll be up in a tick' and the delay in response is often not a big deal. But when it's someone else, a delay in response can be the difference between being able to effectively soothe them vs the baby getting too worked up and someone who doesn't know them that well struggling to calm them down.

xStefx · 20/12/2016 11:37

What's wrong with using a travel cot and your neighbour having your child there? I think that's an awful idea to babysit from another house, monitors sometimes switch themselves off or break!

Its all great until something bad happens

itsmine · 20/12/2016 11:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Italiangreyhound · 20/12/2016 11:46

YANBU

If neighbour cannot be arsed to be in your house with your baby (it have baby in carry cot at her house (if safe/non smokey environment wtc) then she isn't fit to babysit.

Your dh creating world war three over this makes me Think he is:
Potentially unstable
Not a very reliable person to leave a baby with

If anything did ever happen in this type of scenario, you would have to live with this the rest of your life.

Italiangreyhound · 20/12/2016 11:50

How very sad people are so proud of themselves for doing this and nothing bad happening.

KittyCatty20 · 20/12/2016 11:52

No way. Absolutely she needs to be in the same building as your child!

corythatwas · 20/12/2016 12:05

To me, it's the whole scenario of the neighbour having to open the door of a house on fire (against her survival instinct, as someone said) and navigate her way through an unfamiliar smoke-filled house. As opposed to grabbing the baby and getting it and herself to safety. It's worth listening to what firefighters, the people who know about actual fires, have to say here.

Either neighbour comes to your house or baby goes to hers.

fliptopbin · 20/12/2016 12:07

When my pfb was that agehe used to sleep in a carrycot downstairs til we went to bed snd inly then would we bring him upstsairs. I was too paranoid about cot death for tye first 6 months for him not to be in the same room.At that time I would have judged parents for not being on the same floor as their child, but I realise I had massive PND. But babysitting from next door..no way

Blueskyrain · 20/12/2016 12:36

This is definitely more about peoples perceptions of risk, rather than actual risk.

Blueskyrain · 20/12/2016 12:40

I dont get the burgular argument. If a burglar breaks in, then the baby is the person least at risk. A baby is likely to sleep through. A baby cant call the police. A baby cant identify anyone. And though I've worked with a lot of burgulars and a lot of sex offenders, I'm yet to meet a sex offender burgular.

An adult or older children would be far more at risk than any baby.

GettingitwrongHauntingatnight · 20/12/2016 12:45

I don't see the issue.