Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
itsmine · 20/12/2016 12:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MissStein · 20/12/2016 12:58

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

This definitely. And fwiw I know families who have left young children alone (think 2 & 4 year old under care of 8 year old) at home alone. SW became involved on a tip off but no further action was taken as all the children were well cared for and not deemed at risk. But then considering i know children living in alcohol/drug riddled houses with domestic violence and SW have yet to remove them, being alone in a relatively safe house doesnt probably even show up on their radar.

MissStein · 20/12/2016 13:02

when you risk assess you assess what could happen not what will. but again its all relative. There is more risk of being involved in a car accident that being murdered by a random burglar, but ill be damned if im walking everywhere. If you are gonna do a proper risk assessment then you need to take into account the statistical chances of anything happening .

Batteriesallgone · 20/12/2016 13:08

It's like betting your house in a gamble where you winning gives you a nice night out, you losing means losing your house.

The chance of losing your house is oh I don't know, 1 in 2 million, very remote...but if you lost your house you lose your house.

No night out would be worth that for me. It's not that I can't adequately assess risk, I agree the risk is low. It's more that I don't have the appetite for the risk, and that the potential gains aren't significant enough for me.

And this isn't a house you're staking - it's a child. With the consequences ranging all the way from unnecessary distress to death in a fire. Even if the risk is infinitesimal, it's only a night out. I just can't see how it's worth it.

MrsUnderwood · 20/12/2016 13:16

Why does he not want the babysitter in your house??

Bauble16 · 20/12/2016 13:42

Remind him of the case of Madeline mcann hmm

Bananabread123 · 20/12/2016 13:50

The chance of losing your house is oh I don't know, 1 in 2 million, very remote...but if you lost your house you lose your house.
No night out would be worth that for me. It's not that I can't adequately assess risk, I agree the risk is low. It's more that I don't have the appetite for the risk, and that the potential gains aren't significant enough for me.

But you take 'risks' every time you go out... every plane trip abroad (might crash or be hijacked), every car journey you take (might crash) footpath you walk down (car might plough in to you), every night out (Berlin last night) wherever the babysitter (they might have an accident and fall unconscious). We all take risks that are strictly unnecessary in the interests of quality of life. Unconsciously we evaluate risk all the time, and we take them when we judge the odds are high enough, balancing the safety of ourselves and children against non-essential activity. I don't have an issue with people saying they wouldn't want the babysitter next door, it's that people are disingenuous about the risks they themselves take daily, fooling themselves they live in risk-free bubbles whilst castigating those who they believe don't without seeing the irony.

itsmine · 20/12/2016 13:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Anatidae · 20/12/2016 13:59

Everything is life is risk. i don't think I live risk free - I try to mitigate where I can. So I wear my seatbelt. I drive defensively. I don't speed. I have smoke alarms.

Leaving a child - a 16 month old who cannot even rationalise why they are all alone in a house is not a good idea. I've actually had this argument with my innlaws, who thought it was perfectly ok to leave a similar age baby in (just) monitor range and get pissed in a local bar on holiday. Baby wasn't even in a securely locked room. Anyone could have walked in off the street and taken them.
Needless to say they aren't high on my babysitting list ... and apparently I'm unreasonable and paranoid.

Original poster
hydrangea78 · 20/12/2016 14:25

Thank you for the responses. We have discussed these. Partner concedes that this will never happen.
Being the stubborn sort he now says he won't bother suggesting we ever try and go out for a meal again Hmm.
Am perplexed that this idea of leaving a baby alone even came to him. Hey ho.

OP posts:
Batteriesallgone · 20/12/2016 14:35

I do not believe I live in a risk free bubble Hmm

I am well aware of ironies such as in the year after 9/11, more Americans died in travel related accidents than in the year before (including 9/11). Because road travel is far far more dangerous than plane travel, but people became scared of travelling by plane and took many many more long distance journeys by road. And lots of them were seriously injured or died as a result.

That is not understanding risk. Doing a journey you know you will do anyway, via a more risky means, because of your emotional reaction to one specific event.

What we are discussing is not really about understanding risk, it is as I said before, about appetite. They could ask the babysitter to come to their house. The DH doesn't want to. He wants to deliberately increase their risk without increasing the gains. I find that unpalatable tbh.

BowiesJumper · 20/12/2016 14:39

I doubt it is even legal apart from anything else.

Anatidae · 20/12/2016 14:39

Being the stubborn sort he now says he won't bother suggesting we ever try and go out for a meal again hmm.

That's not stubborn. That's childish dramatic hyperbole/sulking.

Is he always such a pain when he doesn't get his own way?

LouiseBrooks · 20/12/2016 14:52

Ok I have (skim) read TWFT but I still don't understand why she can't come round to your house?

But absolutely not, no way would I do this.

he now says he won't bother suggesting we ever try and go out for a meal again

And tell him to grow up.

Bananabread123 · 20/12/2016 14:52

They could ask the babysitter to come to their house. The DH doesn't want to. He wants to deliberately increase their risk without increasing the gains. I find that unpalatable tbh.

I agree with this... However, suppose she needed to stay at home for a good reason (delivery) and she was literally next door, a burglar alarm adding to the video monitor ensuring a Madeline McCann incident wasn't feasible, she was reliable and trustworthy who would go round immediately if the toddler awoke, there were no alternative babysitters, the video monitor was reliable (I.e. Have loud alert when not transmitting) and the parents were going out to an evening they had planned for weeks.... should the parents cancel? Most in here would say 'yes' based on the responses, irrespective of the fact that the parents are very probably far more likely to die to, at or coming from their event than the child would be at home. That is my point on people's skewed perspective of risk.

MrsDustyBusty · 20/12/2016 14:56

Well you're free to see it that way, obviously. But I have never can not imagine locking a door with my 1.5 year old alone on the other side regardless of the circumstances. It's unthinkable to me, just a line you don't cross.

xStefx · 20/12/2016 15:01

Your DH was silly making a mountain of a molehill, the neighbours are probably absolutely fine and expecting to babysit with the child in the same house as them, he was just making thngs unnecessarily awkward. Typical bloke response "I wont bother anymore" haha such children aren't they, my DP does that stroppy kid thing too

Bauble16 · 20/12/2016 15:25

It's definately not legal. Tell him to stop stropping like a toddler and get advice from social services if he's that confident.

What if the video monitor failed , a fire started, a burglar etc. Yes it is probably more likely the parents are at risk going out, but this isn't about probability. It's a parents duty to ensure their child is safe, what he is suggesting is neglect.

RubyRoseViolet · 20/12/2016 15:33

MrsDustyBusty explains it perfectly. Unthinkable and crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.

GreatFuckability · 20/12/2016 15:35

Mumsnet catastrophising never fails to amuse me. He GOES TO THE SHED- LTB IMMEDIATELY!! Grin

Blueskyrain · 20/12/2016 15:56

Itsmine, in a 4 year peiod analysed in the usa, there were 0 deaths from.burglary victimes, although there were over 3.2 million burglaries in that period.

Burgulars want to get in and out wuirtly, babies are no threat to them. You are far more at risk from a burgular than a child. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a baby is more at risk from.a burglar if you are there than you are not.

Blueskyrain · 20/12/2016 15:58

wuirtly = quietly

TheLegendOfBeans · 20/12/2016 16:18

OP, your partner sounds like an ocean-going, ten megawatt bellend.

itsmine · 20/12/2016 16:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Alb1 · 20/12/2016 16:53

Glad your DH gave in OP, even if he is being a bit of a baby about it.
Some of these arguments are stupid - it's pretty much ok if someone breaks in because they won't hurt a baby? Nether mind the obvious fact that a house is less likely to get broken in to if there is an adult clearly inside it... And as for the big house argument, for one thing I doubt that many parents deliberately place there children right at the other side of the house anyway. And even so, if your house isn't huge, that's not a worry you have so its a mute point, no need to throw the extra risk in there just because other people have bigger houses.

I'm admittedly quite over cautious having lost a baby to stillbirth (which was preventable, but all medical professionals ignored me as I as 'low risk' so the chances of something so rare happening were really low), but I don't go into the garden or garage while DS is asleep, I also like to physically go upstairs and peek in and check he's ok, regardless of what the baby monitor says. There's just no sense in taking lazy, unnecessary risks just because you 'have to live your life' or, well what are the chances of that happening? Because you can never take these things back and I for one would rather be thorough and take life a bit slower while my kids are tiny, it's not like this time lasts forever!