To think it is safer for an unsupervised 11-year-old to be indoors than out

[Froggyfroggy]

Thought of this because there’s a thread relating to leaving babies alone for very short periods and didn’t want to hijack it. This is hypothetical and not a situation I’ve been in for many years, but it always made me wonder.

It seems to be the case that while many, if not the majority of parents feel that a child in the first year of secondary school – 11 or 12 - ought not to be left alone at home for a significant period, far more people are happy to allow a child of that age to go out alone and travel to school alone. The same seems to be even more the case with a 9 or 10-year-old, who in a safe area might be allowed to walk to school alone but is very unlikely to be left at home alone.

I’m not passionately arguing either in favour of the first or against the second myself – but why? Aren’t the risks for an unsupervised child from going out, especially travelling alone, inherently greater than those of staying at home? Not being goady, genuinely interested to hear what people think and the rationale behind their decisions.

Depends on kid/house setup, but for me it’s about house fires etc, or dangers from cooking etc.

When I was a child if my parents had to go out without us we were locked out of the house......so we couldn't invite friends in

I’m with you OP surely it’s safer for a child to be indoors? I mean a house fire is pretty unlikely as long as the child isn’t likely to try and cook, which if you leave snacks or whatever ready they’re not likely to? My 8 year old can’t wait until I’ll trust her to be left for short periods (less than half an hour) and frankly I doubt she’d leave the sofa and her iPad in that time. She’d be able to phone me at any time and have instructions not to answer the door or phone unless it was me. Can’t see the issue

When I was a child if my parents had to go out without us we were locked out of the house......so we couldn't invite friends in

I've heard of this before - children who are allowed in their own homes alone but only allowed outside if their friends are there. Sounded odd to me but I suppose it kind of makes sense - firstly you know your own child and can predict behaviour, but not other people's, and secondly the other parent may take a different view and you may be viewed as having been in loco parentis and been irresponsible leaving someone else's child.

Most people are decent, so a child out alone will have a number of decent people keeping an eye on them, whereas a child at home will have no-one. Most accidents happen at home.

Statistically I've no idea which is safer but my 11 Yr old is currently home alone from 9-3 whilst I'm out at work. He spends the morning at home and meets up with friends at lunchtime, checks in with me regularly via text. We also have location sharing on our phones so I can locate him if I need to. His grandparents are 5 minutes away if he needs an adult but currently shielding. Can't say I'm any more concerned whether he's at home or out and about but he's very sensible for his age and has had a fair bit of freedom for a few years now. He has never lied as to his whereabouts, been in trouble or been late home so I have no reason not to trust him plus I know his friends and their parents well and they're all pretty sensible kids.

I'd agree with you, OP.

A child mature enough to be 'alone and unsupervised' at all, should be safer in their own home than on the streets.

If they can't be trusted not to start doing things that are risky, that they've been told not to, then they aren't ready to be left.

children who are allowed in their own homes alone but only allowed outside if their friends are there.

That was ambiguous - to clarify, I was referring to children who were allowed home unsupervised but not allowed friends in the house unsupervised.

The agree. There are far more risks out of the house (crossing roads, strangers, getting lost/hurt, bored, etc) than staying in your own house with certain restrictions!

My older 2 are 12 and 13 and I’ve been leaving them home alone in holidays/after school since they started secondary (DD was just turned 11 as a summer baby) they have certain rules like not to have baths/showers, not to cook on the hob or oven (but can use microwave and toaster and kettle), not to answer door to strangers, not to go on trampoline. I text them hourly on our group chat and they know if they don’t answer within 5 minute I will call the houses if still no answer then I am 5 minutes away so would leave work and go home to check on them.
DS is very sensible and is very adverse to breaking the rules so I know he keeps DD in check, likewise DD is very practical, does scouts so is very good at first aid, cooking etc so she is better at common sense stuff/problem solving than DS eg if the electrics went out she would panic less than her older brother.
I also have a 9 year old who I do leave for an hour or so with the older 2 but don’t trust to behave for them all day yet.

Most people I know would leave a 10 year old at home alone for short periods. They wouldn’t be allowed to have friends in while on their own. You’d start off by letting them stay alone for a very short time , with the usual rules, and then work up gradually to leaving them longer.

Same with being allowed out on their own, e.g start with a short trip to a shop if there’s one very close by and work up from there.

My just turned 12 year old has been home alone between 9 -3 most days since April. I leave him snacks etc, although he can boil a kettle. He has home schooled and played in the PlayStation. He is locked in but has a key in case he needs to get out. Neighbours on both sides are retired so at home. I worry far more about when he walks to/from school what with traffic, less sensible friends, strangers etc.

I've just started letting my 7&9yos out alone, to the postbox for example. Considering the park (and going for a walk nearby). In these scenarios, I'm 'on call' as it were... If they aren't back in 10mins from the post box, I can go and look for them (it should take less than 5).

If I leave them home alone, I'm not 'there'.... Unless I only go the distance they are allowed to. I couldn't drive to the shop for example (but would pop to the corner shop- children aren't allowed in unaccompanied at the moment)

I do think the majority of secondary school children should be able to cope at home safely for a couple of hours (Obviously some SEN children can't for example, or some with physical difficulties) and that is what I'm working towards.

I think in most situations if you can allow a child to go over to the park or school, they would also be safe at home alone. And vice versa, in most areas, unless there were unusual outdoor dangers.

The reason I suspect is that f a parent is at home with the child walking to school, the parent feels they are still around to be found in case of necessity. Whereas if they go out to work or whatever they will be tied up.

The other issue as someone said is other kids. If I go out, my son, 10, can stay home, or he can play out with his friends. But he can't have them in or go into their houses. I just don't know what other kids might do, they might not be ready to be left alone, and don't want other parents to feel like they've been stuck with supervising.

My 10 and 12 year olds were at the park together this morning. My DD (12) did start getting the bus to school at the start of Y7. Many of her classmates do too. I’ve also dropped her in town to meet a friend for an hour or so. She is also capable of getting bus to, say, the dentist from school and meeting me there.

I’ve just taken my dogs out for a walk for 40 mins and left kids aged 10&12 at home because neither can be arsed coming.
I wouldn’t let my 10 year old DD go to park on her own but I let my 12 year old DS go off on his bike and meet mates in the park.