Dh went to the toilet whilst Dd was in the paddling pool

[Pleaseenterausernameok]

I didn’t feel well the other day so went upstairs for a lie down when Dh got back from
work. Dd was asking to go in the pool-large blow up one, deep enough for me to sit in and move around, deep enough for Dd to swim. I said I wasn’t feeling well and was going to go for a lie down when daddy was back and she could go in then with him (he sometimes goes in or with him sat outside watching obviously)
I went upstairs, heard her in the pool chatting away to Dh. After a bit I realised I couldn’t hear her (she’s very chatty) but didn’t think much of it, a while later I heard her calling to Dh and him calling back from the downstairs loo.
Dh had gone to the toilet and left her, when he went to the toilet it wasn’t for a quick wee, but number two and for those he can be in there for up to an hour, no joke.
Aibu to think this is completely irresponsible to leave her in the pool unattended?

I'd be fuming about this.
She should be the most important thing in his life and he should treat her as such and prioritise her safety, always,

@Pleaseenterausernameok Dd was asking to go in the pool-large blow up one, deep enough for me to sit in and move around, deep enough for Dd to swim. I said I wasn’t feeling well and was going to go for a lie down when daddy was back and she could go in then with him (he sometimes goes in or with him sat outside watching obviously)
I went upstairs, heard her in the pool chatting away to Dh.

Deep enough for DD to swim. And she's 6. She shouldn't be left unsupervised ever, not for a minute.

oddly i would almost say it's parental neglect to NOT teach a six year old how to be safety conscious in or near water. if you feel your child is that irresponsible in a pool you shouldn't have it in the yard.

A child who tried to get out of the pool to see where the heck daddy had gone, slipped, fell, and hit her head might not stand up.

He should have taken her out of the water or called the OP to let her know he had to go to the loo.

If it is very similar to the photoshop job OP posted, the 6 year old would probably be fine. That image has clearly been made to appear deeper than it is to encourage sales. How deep a pool are they going to send you for less than £60. Its dimensions are 300cm by 75cm including the inflatable support ring. Deep enough for a level of buoyancy sufficient to stop the slip and head bang scenario. Shallow enough to stand up in. I doubt hitting the inflatable support would be hard enough to knock anyone out.

It cannot be more that 50cm deep or it would overflow and/or collapse with anybody in the water.

I think OP is pissed off at her DH and looking for ammunition to throw at him from posters here. I suspect some slight exaggeration.

Is the child perfectly fine. I strongly believe nobody would be jumping on to mumsnet for opinions if the child was harmed.

If there's an issue communicate with DH that you don't want him doing that again.

Yes, dangerous.

Yout H is a feckless eejit.

But you do have to gradually let go, else he’ll be following her into nightclubs at 18

I would have got her out myself, but she couldn’t have slipped in that depth of water so realistically it would have been some feat to have come to harm

@theduchessofspork there's a huge difference between a 6 year old and an 18year old one is a child one is an adult

It's worrying just how many people here are taking the tale described in the OP as a statement of fact. Frightening in fact. I get that there's this element of "yes all men, he looks the sort, misandry isn't real, possession of a dick and balls with intent to exist = worse than Chairman Mao's lovechild with Stalin", I get that and you know what? None of us are as perfect as we make out (myself included, as much as I dislike owning up to) we all have some kind of bias or another, and sometimes, especially when we're on an anonymous internet forum with a group of like-minded peers, sometimes these things can get the better of us. Can we not read between the lines and think critically though?

If I (in case it wasn't obvious I'm a bloke) were to make a post saying I've just had a blazing row with DW because I fancied a snooze but she threw DD in the fishpond and left her there for an hour while she ordered clothes online, what might the reaction be? Would it be fair to expect some "er, froggie, are you sure that's exactly how it happened, you're not embellishing the story at all?", or would all the replies be the same as they are here just with the gender flipped?

For the record, I never have and never will say anything even remotely negative or even neutral about my DW online, because if I felt that was ok to do I wouldn't have married her in the first place. That's a 'me' thing though, not something I'd expect others to go by.

Its not about you though is it. And there's been many posts from men posting things their wife or partner has done asking if reasonable or whatever and in the main I find most posters are fair regarding gender.

This thread is peak AIBU, I can’t believe there are posters on here arguing that children can’t drown because they should just stand up! Who needs lifeguards in that case!

I think if you worry like that, you need a smaller pool.

It is how young children, toddler/preschool age and younger drown is very shallow water. Because their heads are heavy they can't move to the side like an adult or older child would. There is no panicking or splashing, they silently lie with their faces in the water and hope someone will save them. Which is horrible to think about. But people don't realise this is why a puddle can be the cause of drowning.

I imagine at six this is less of a risk though.

Because MOST drownings are in the sea or in a pool when a child is out of their depth. Of course, there'll always be the freak accidents, where a child drowns in a puddle or a very shallow pool even, but they're not making up the majority of deaths. Probably less likely than a child falling back off a swing, cracking their head and dying.

As I've said upthread, I'd have taken her out the pool if I was out of earshot, but I do understand how others wouldn't. I do agree there's exaggeration from the poster - on the depth of pool and amount of time her DD would be left for. You don't need to make things sound as bad as possible if you genuinely already think they are.

What could she have caught her leg on?

That's not how drownings happen. Usually it's from a fall, hitting your head and being unconscious or too groggy to get up. You can quite literally drown in a few inches of water that way.

She could hit her head on the ground underneath it. The bottom of an inflatable pool is as hard as the ground under it is.

How is she going to hit her head if she's in water that's apparently up to her shoulders? Think about it!

Ñot the point of the thread but how is it possible to spend an hour on a shit? Is he squeezing it out from his head??

I read years ago that it should take no more than 1 minute - ever since then I've always waited until I'm properlty 'ready' to go 😄

laws of physics mean she’s not going to hit her head on the bottom
yes she could swallow some water and slip under but that’s pretty unlikely too. I would have thought that most children are left unsupervised in the bath for short periods by the age of 6 and the same could happen there.
What could she get her leg caught on?
yes it’s off for her dad to spend a long time in the bathroom when he should be supervising her but we don’t actually know that he was going to do that this time.

contrast this with the other tread full of people being blasé about 2 13 year old boys sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night… people have very different perceptions of risk.

I'd say the bath is more dodgy as then they actually could slip and bang their head!

I don’t think he’s wrong necessarily as long as DC is able to stand and is sensible. I’d leave my 6 year old for to make a cup of tea or go to the toilet as they’d be in a pool like that for hours! People do risk assess differently.
Of course drownings can happen so I understand the other side of the coin. I do find it interesting that the majority seem to find leaving their child for a moment unacceptable however building up ‘risk’ for kids builds resilience. In the olden days she’d probably be out with friends swimming in a river or cycling without a helmet for hours. Not saying that’s safe but wrapping kids up in cotton wool until 18 then sending them out and expecting them to risk assess is unrealistic

How would she get her leg caught?

At six, and ]by herself I wouldn't have left her in 6 inches of water i a pool for more than 2 minutes. That might be just because when I was a child someone at school's cousin was in the paddling pool slipped and drowned. Parents thought that because the pool only had a few inches of water there was no way it could happen. So no I wouldn't think you are unreasonable.

Perhaps not caught, but leg cramps occur.