Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To leave 8year old DS home alone?

513 replies

Dailybastardmail · 26/12/2017 17:23

After relocating for my STBX and him promptly leaving me and DS, we have no support network at all, really struggling for money and I have to find new employment (had been freelance)

Firstly, DS is a really sensible boy and has no problem fending for himself when I’m working (from home), has lots of indoor interests he busies himself with and knows what not to do.

Basically my AIBU is how unreasonable would it be to leave DS in bed on school holidays only, go to work for 6am (job is 15min drive away) and be home for 11am?

He will be asleep for at least 3 hours and has no issue with the idea himself.

OP posts:
RoderickRules · 28/12/2017 13:22

Fear monger.

No one is saying child protection workers are ‘all’ in the wrong.
What has been said is that they do not necessarily know better than a parent.

Risks have to be balanced. There is no such thing as no risk. Preventing all risk tips over into over protection and is not healthy.

Stop quoting anecdata and look at the facts. The risks are minuscule.

swingofthings · 28/12/2017 13:30

The NSPCC advise that children under 12 are rarely mature enough to be left alone for a long period of time
But rarely doesn't mean never, so there's bound to be some 11, 10 or even younger who are mature enough, but according to the 'expert', the parent would be automatically prosecuted.

I love that there are social workers, people who work in family law and child protection who have come on and said it's not ok
But they need to explain why and link their explanation to specific laws.

My boy at 8 was taking a public bus for 1/2 hour journey every day. The council run holiday club allowed children over the age of 8 to leave and get home alone (without checking how they got home or where). So I really would like to know how the law decides what is ok and what isn't without hearing specific circumstances.

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 13:31

What has been said is that they do not necessarily know better than a parent.

What has been said by those who work in the field, is that if the police attend they will take the child into custody, and the concerns will be escalated.

You thinking parents know best isnt going to insulate the OP or her child from that trauma

Whether you think it right or wrong, people working in the field have unanimously said that this scenario would be considered neglect. You disagreeing with the morality of that wont change the outcomes of this for the OP.

suzy2b · 28/12/2017 13:32

from the age of 10 i had to look after my younger sister 7 years younger left home at 15 , i could leave my 9yr granddaughter at 9 and come back at 5 and i bet she wouldn't have moved from the seat in the kitchen playing her computer( not that i have )have only left her to go to the shops, but when she is here she gets up about 7 i get up at 10 so she is down stairs playing on the computer

OptimisticHamster · 28/12/2017 13:39

So much depends on the child. Generally it's a no but I'm sure lots of people who feel they have no other choice do similar.

My son is 7. Left to his own devices, he would wake 8-9. get himself some cereal and play games/watch youtube until 11 without moving. I wouldn't leave him but then I'm not in a position where it feels like it's the only choice, so I'm not going to judge.

Middleoftheroad · 28/12/2017 13:47

My DTs are 12 in April but I will only leave them rarely in the day, together, for 2 hours max.

I wouldn't contemplate your plan and there are two of them 3 and a half years older than your son.

A neigbour was burgled during the morning rush once. The burglar was inside their house as they left for work and school. What if DS also woke feeling poorly? There are too many risks at 12 let alone 8.

swingofthings · 28/12/2017 14:00

So let's assume that DS's has received training in regards to how to handle a fire (I think they show these at school?). He wakes up to the smoke alarm, and do exactly what they say to do on the video. He goes straight out of the house to his neighbour and they call the fire department. He is praised by the fire department for having acted exactly how they would expect anyone, including grown up adults to have acted.

Are professionals saying that because the police was called, his mum would automatically end up in jail because he was left alone? If that's the case, then no surprise so many think the whole system is messed up. There are enough vulnerable people who are being neglected by SS for being overstretched if they punish parents of children who've reacted more maturely to a situation than some adults might have done!

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 14:02

Are professionals saying that because the police was called, his mum would automatically end up in jail because he was left alone?
No. They said the CHILD would be taken into protective custody while neglect concerns were investigated.

RoderickRules · 28/12/2017 14:03

The law is not that black and white, otherwise it would stipulate ages.
It doesn’t, because it recognises some children in some instances are capable enough to look after themselves for periods of time.

The OP would only end up in court IF something was to happen and the child was found to be at risk of significant harm.

Which is very unlikely!

At 12, my daughter was taking care of her brother while I worked in the school holidays, without incident.
Every child is different huh?

RoderickRules · 28/12/2017 14:06

The law understands that the best place for the child is with the family, the whole act rests on that principle.

I suggest, if there is no incident, there would be a phone call and possibly a meeting to clarify.

Stop fear mongering.

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 14:08

The OP would only end up in court IF something was to happen and the child was found to be at risk of significant harm. It doesnt have to be both, can be just the latter

And the "individual circumstances" wouod be considered AFTER the child was taken into protective custody if police attended, not before.

"Every child is different". Not really. Every child would find that PROCESS traumatic, even if the eventual outcome decision was to let the mum off the hook.

Graphista · 28/12/2017 14:09

Absolutely STUNNED at the arrogance of certain posters in the face of clear posts from those working in the field saying it WOULD be considered neglect and if caught it's highly likely op would then be subject to investigation and possibly even arrest!

However sensible an 8 year old many COULDN'T cope with sudden serious illness, accident or emergency (which btw doesn't need to necessarily be their "fault" fires and gas leaks happen due to poorly maintained properties - inc the neighbours' - etc) Jesus most adults panic in a crisis and do daft things!

Seriously op don't do it, get financial advice so you have the money to pay for childcare, get support who may well be able to signpost you to childcare too, so NOT put this burden on your son.

As a pp said it's also very stressful "keeping the secret" which makes a child even more reluctant to ask for help.

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 14:11

*I suggest, if there is no incident, there would be a phone call and possibly a meeting to clarify.

Stop fear mongering.*

Professionals in the field stating what actually happens in practice is not fear mongering

How does it help the OP for you to rabbit on about how in your opinion every child is different or parents know best or whatever if you're not going to be one of the attending officers making that on the spot decision?

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 14:16

And you can trot out "fear mongering" all you like. Doesn't cancel out posts you disagree with.
You might not agree with the way things are done, but that doesnt make it less likely to happen to the OP and her son!

swingofthings · 28/12/2017 14:35

No. They said the CHILD would be taken into protective custody while neglect concerns were investigated.
Why in protective custody and not another parent/grand-parent? I don't have an issue with the matter being investigated, but I'm sure one of the professionals did say that the parent would definitely be prosecuted a few pages back, unless I read that wrong.

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 14:42

Why in protective custody and not another parent/grand-parent?
Why?
Because the other parent/relatives are not there, the child is ALONE. It takes a little bit of time to find/ sort out an alternative relative, and theyre not going to walk away and leave the kid in the house alone again while they sory all that out and investigate

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 14:46

Down the line the kid might be with relatives or back with the mum with support or conditions or a rap on the knuckles....but in the short term the child would be leaving with the police.

Frequency · 28/12/2017 14:51

How friendly are you with the neighbours?

I'd not be pleased at being asked to get up at 6am but I'd be more than happy to provide a phone number in case of emergencies and breakfast once he's up and dressed if you were my neighbour.

If you can't a neighbour to listen in, I wouldn't do it. It's too long and too young. In all likelihood everything would be fine, there'd be no fires or accidents or local axe murderers popping round for morning tea but would you really be able to focus at work?

RoderickRules · 28/12/2017 14:53

They would always try and locate a family member first.

Anyway, it’s all hypothetical isn’t it.
The child is not neglected.

Re a neighbour popping in, that introduces further risk.
I would prefer my children were on their own.

BitOutOfPractice · 28/12/2017 14:58

I've noticed that the "I was babysitting at that age" threshold is moving ever lower. But I think, OP, to say you were babysitting at 8 is pushing it just a tiny bit far.

Next we'll have the "i was running a house and had a mortgage and 2 kids" brigade claiming 14 or so

I'm quite relaxed op but I think what you're proposing is a bit too much. You need to pay for some childcare unfortunately. I know it's shit and really tough do I do sympathise

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 15:03

They would always try and locate a family member first.
Nope. They make the child physically safe first. THEN look for a suitable relative.
You thinking it should be the other way round still doesnt make it happen that way in practice...

Firesuit · 28/12/2017 15:07

So my takeaway from this thread is that it doesn't matter if it can reasonably be called neglect, some social workers/police officers/lawyers think it is, and if they think that, the truth won't matter.

It is dangerous, because society thinks it is. The danger is not the house burning downing or an opportunistic child rapist/murderer breaking in, it's what society will do when they find out.

RoderickRules · 28/12/2017 15:12

Your thinking a child would be whisked away from a competent stable parent against their wishes and the wishes of the child doesn’t make it so either.

The principle of the act means that SS would be continually trying to identify and remove the barriers that prevent the family from being together.

All hypothetical fear mongery , in the case of a mature nearly 9 year old spending mornings alone for two or three mornings a week over a period of six weeks.

The law does not state an age.
Stop pretending it does.

GingerbreadMa · 28/12/2017 15:13

Firesuit one of the issues on this thread is that some peoole define neglect by intent, not result.

Neglect isnt always the result of an incapable or uncaring parent

Neglect is still neglect if the parent is doing their best in a difficult situation where they dont feel that besr practice is an option available to them

Neglect is about the effect/potential effect on the child, not the intent behind the neglect

So posters who are saying that professionals are wrong to call this neglect are misintetpreting what they mean by neglect. It doesnt mean that the child is un loved or un cared for or that the parent isnt doing their best.

RoderickRules · 28/12/2017 15:14

Well said Fire and your analysis has been researched and proven in the US!