Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

What would you do - possible neglect

64 replies

AppleHEAD · 03/08/2009 18:50

I have a friend who is ill and yesterday her husband took their 2 children out aged 10 and 7. He wanted to train so he took them to a lake where he swims. He left them by the side of the lake by the car (with the keys) for in all about 3 hours. He checked on them each hour but couldn't see them. I am appalled and want to tell her

OP posts:

NotanOtter · 03/08/2009 22:30

neglect?? dont know
knob head definitely
cant go three hours without 'training'
dick head not a dad

tell her

NotanOtter · 03/08/2009 22:31

imo three hours is AGES

Spero · 03/08/2009 22:34

It would depend entirely on the children in question. As has been said, if they are sensible and water aware, i can't see any problem at all.

It doesn't hurt children to know that they can't possibly be the centre of their parents' lives every single waking second of their day.

Sometimes you have to do boring things/be bored. if it happens every weekend, its a problem but as a now and again thing, what is the problem?

NotanOtter · 03/08/2009 22:36

i am from the benign neglect school of parenting

I really believe in NOT watching over children all the time

i would not expect my teens to stay in one place waiting for me for 3 hours let alone a 7 and 10 year old

RumourOfAHurricane · 03/08/2009 22:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

janeite · 03/08/2009 22:41

I totally see your point, Notanotter. I wouldn't do this and think it's really, really appalling parenting (in fact, I don't think children should be just 'hanging around'at any point and certainly not whilst their dad has fun and they have to wait for him) but I still think to call it neglect is an over-reaction.

I have worked with many children who are neglected and they probably wish that three hours of boredom was all they had to contend with.

NotanOtter · 03/08/2009 22:41

i am not thinking of the safety thing
its just selfish

leave them at home next time with their toys

GlastonburyGoddess · 03/08/2009 22:47

I dont think its neglect as such. But I think leaving two relatively young children by a car WITH the keys NEXT to a lake, is extremely irresponsible and potentially very dangerous

Stayingsunnygirl · 03/08/2009 23:09

I come from the benign neglect school of parenting, but this bothers me somewhat. Yes, 10 years old is old enough to be expected to be sensible and stay safe, and to take responsibility for a younger sibling for a while. But I think 3 hours is too long a time to expect the 10 year old to be in charge when out by a lake (had the 10 year old been left in charge at home for that length of time, I'd have been less worried).

Also, 10 is still young - young enough to get carried away having fun, or to fall out with the younger sibling (and the younger sibling is equally or even more likely to get carried away or have an argument), in which case things can go from fine to disaster very quickly.

All it would need would be for a game of tag to go wrong and for one of them to fall in the lake and get into difficulties. 10 years old is too young to be expected to be a lifeguard, let alone 7. Or they have a row and the little one runs off and the older one can't find him/her - cue huge panic and upset on both parts.

For their father to say that he had to go and train for 3 hours sounds supremely selfish unless he's a professional athlete - imo he should have either found someone to have the children for an hour or two so he could train, or should have postponed his training session.

I have activities that I am committed to - like my art group, where I have my closest friends up here and where I get a lot of pleasure, but I wouldn't dream of putting my need to do my painting ahead of the boys' needs.

gingerbunny · 03/08/2009 23:13

stupid man, completely irresponsible and potentially very dangerous. they are 7 and 10 for god sakes, they are still young children who need more supervision that a quick check every three hours.
I'd def drop it into conversation with her, something like, 'if you're ill again and your dh wants to go swimming in the lake, i'll have the kids for you, then your dh won't have to keep getting out the water every hour to check on them.'!

Spero · 03/08/2009 23:19

Crikey. clearly I have very different views from a lot of people about what is 'dangerous' for children.

but I think it is an overreaction to call it dangerous, unless you know something about these children that makes them particularly vulnerable. 10 and 7 ought to be old enough for this to be safe. Or we are raising some very odd 10 and 7 year olds.

WriggleJiggle · 03/08/2009 23:55

Why would it be a problem to leave them with the keys? Surely that was a good thing - they would be able to come and go as they wished. If they were watching dvds in the car I suspect they would have needed the keys, our car radio only works for an hour without the keys in.

The water bit doesn't concerm be either. 10yrs and 7 yrs is definitely old enough to be trusted not to go in the water.

I could drive a car very confidently at 10 yrs old. I was also trusted to go canoeing with siblings.

I presume they weren't doing anything quite so dangerous.

KTNoo · 03/08/2009 23:57

This thread just reminds me once again why we left the UK for less paranoid climes.

Merrylegs · 04/08/2009 00:00

Not really neglectful, but terribly self-indulgent. Who does he think he is? Flipper?

NotanOtter · 04/08/2009 00:28

merrylegs i do love your name

dp has a client at his surgery with the same ( he is vet!)

Tee2072 · 04/08/2009 06:07

spero I am with you 100% on this.

Also, if he's training at this lake, maybe there is a beach at this lake? With a lifeguard, other parents, etc. We really don't know because the OP hasn't said. Everyone seems to be assuming they were just left at the edge of the lake with nothing around.

Or even explained how she knows he left him there...

tatt · 04/08/2009 06:47

Be concerned about some 7 year olds but not most 10 year olds. Children mature at different rates so I'd have to assume he knew his own kids best. Think you''re over-reacting.

At 10 my friend and I used to leave the house for a long bike ride with sandwiches and a bottle of water. We'd come home 4 or 5 hours later when we were hungry again.

MmeLindt · 04/08/2009 07:04

I regularly go to the lakeside playpark with my DC and sit in the cafe opposite (almost) out of sight. My DD is 7yo, DS 5yo.

DD is NOT a strong swimmer and the temptation of the lake is great so I would never leave her there alone. Even with an older child. And it is a busy spot where there would be someone around to help them if they got into difficulties.

If they were playing in a park with no lake nearby, then it would have been not so bad. 3hours is a hell of a long time though, who trains for 3 hours, fgs.

It is extremely unfair on the 10yo to expect him to look after his 7yo sibling (not to mention the fact that it is too much responibility)

OP
I don't think that it is neglect, but it is irresponible and dangerous parenting. I am normally one of the posters saying that I am glad I am not in Paranoia Uk but in this case I think that you have a point.

dollius · 04/08/2009 07:07

Another vote here for Massive Overreaction.

It's good for kids to be left to their own devices - it's how they develop their imaginations.

Not neglectful in the slightest IMO.

cancantcan · 04/08/2009 08:55

If the kids can swim, then I dont see a problem with this - at 7yo I was out playing with my friends from breakfast till my mum dragged me in for bed. She frequently wouldnt see me for more than 10 minutes in as many hours when I came in, bolted lunch and went back out again. I spent my days climbing trees and pretending to be robin hood, hiding in the barley fields and making dens etc. Generally having a whale of a time. I didn't call it neglect then, and I wouldn't now. Really sorry if this sounds awful, I dont mean it to be rude, but sometimes, you just have to let kids be kids and get on with it.

gingerbunny · 04/08/2009 10:01

regardless of wether the children can swim or not, it's still not safe. even children who can swim can drown.

Tee2072 · 04/08/2009 10:32

Yes, ginger and so can adults.

screamingabdab · 04/08/2009 10:39

I am also finding it hard to get worked up about this.

We don't know what the children were doing, and how they felt about it.

Perhaps the children found a nice game to play together ?

screamingabdab · 04/08/2009 10:41

Oh, and I also had a similar childhood to cancantan

JemL · 04/08/2009 10:52

I agree that there is too much paranoia nowadays re:children's safety, that I used to go out for hours on end, no mobile phones, etc, generally have much more freedom AND my siblings and I were left in and by cars while parent buggered off to do other things BUT they NEVER left the car keys behind. That is stupid and irresponsible, and I'm also fairly certain it is illegal to leave non drivers in a car with keys (according to my old driving instructor!)It isn't neglect though.

Flip

1 2 3