to leave my children in the car? Doctor who did this now on police and SS register...

[robberbutton]

My friend told me today about a doctor who was placed on the police and social services register after leaving his 8 year old in the car while he went to the bank - HERE.

I was absolutely horrified - according to the story he did leave his kid for 20 mins, which was a long time and I've never left mine for that long, but I have left them - popping into the library to drop a book off, post office car park to pick up a parcel, chemists to pick up a prescription, petrol station to go and pay...

This is not horrendous, neglectful, social-services-warrenting behaviour, right? I have vivid childhood memories of being left in the car to wait while mum did similar errands, and of pushing all the buttons on the dashboard...

(PS - I know this story is a bit old, apologies if there's another thread about this, did look but couldn't find one.)

My sister and I used to take a (normal, public) bus home from school every single day from the ages of 4 and 7, respectively, with no adults accompanying us. The journey lasted about 30 minutes. Several other children (from 3 or 4 schools) used to take the same bus, to one of three villages. The bus was often full; sometimes it didn't even stop because it was so full, and we had to wait for the next bus which didn't go to our village, and trust that our mother would drive there to collect us.

And we were left at home every morning from that age while our mother drove our father to the station. She was out for about 15 minutes.

It really was very low risk to do that stuff - and I gained hugely in independence.

I am prepared to put my neck on the line and say that this is just not true. There MUST be more to the story. It would dreadful if anybody changed their behaviour as parents, or curtailed their children's freedom even more because of the worries produced by stories like this.

There is absolutely NO WAY the 'authorities" would put at whole family on any sort of "register" because a 8 year old was left in a safely parked, cool car playing a copmuter game while his dad nipped to the bank. No way.

Seeker, the Devon and Cornwall police spokesperson says:

"To safeguard their welfare when an officer has any contact with a youngster they have a duty to make sure there are no underlying concerns for their welfare.
"An officer will submit a report that outlines the circumstances around how the young person came to their attention. This then allows information to be shared with our partners for the protection of that child and their siblings in the broadest terms.

I think this (along with Sidge and Sixtyfootdoll's posts) explain perfectly how this happened and why (arse covering, as SFD puts it).

So, unless there is more to this story than we are being told, I presume the report they sent said "Some interfering moron told us there was an abandoned child locked in a boiling hot car. We had a look - he was fine. Bloody timewasters. Had a word with the dad - DrX of Privet drive. Reminded him that cars get hot in summer - also that bears sh*t in woods - he was aware of both facts. No further action" Or words to that effect.

seeker - i think you are about right

I leave my children in the Car when i pop into the Chemist or the Garage but only if i can see them atall times and the Car is always locked and Alarmed.

They are 2.9 and 4.11 yrs and sometimes if DS2 is asleep its just not fair to wake him up if im constantly popping in somewhere.

my kids (aged 8 and 9) walk on their own to school. As do 95% of the kids at the local school (one busy road with ped. crossing). In fact, they walked on their own to Kindergarten from age 5. So if they are considered safe to walk on their own, so unsupervised and out in the 'big bad world', why on earth is it considered unsafe for them to be quietly sitting in the car or at home? How can being out and about on their own be ok? OK, I understand this is not the norm any more in the UK but it is In Germany and Switzerland for example.

I used to get the bus alone to school (easily 30+ minutes) and back again (in the 70's) from age 6 or so.

A world gone mad.

If he insists on going on time-travelling adventures, he should at least sort out some proper childcare first. He could get taken out by a dalek or something and then the child would be left in the car indefinitely.

The whole CRB thing is getting out of hand.
The info is supposed to be used wisely by recipients, but it often isn't. Because everyone is afraid of liability, the covering our arses / 'better safe than sorry' attitude. There is no such thing as rehabilitation, any more.

On the one hand, people end up getting critical notes added in as part of their CRB enhanced check, because they got reported to SS once for something trivial (and which was normal only a generation ago).

I know people who did something daft as teenagers (a single caution for shop-lifting or drunk and disorderly incident), and now in their mid-30s or older, and decades of only socialy acceptable behaviour, they won't sign up for any type of volunteer work so that they don't have to explain.

Ironically, some of the best people to become drug counsellors are ex-drug addicts themselves; who because of the nature of their past, are among the people most likely to have a criminal record.

at gagamama!

"The whole CRB thing is getting out of hand.
The info is supposed to be used wisely by recipients, but it often isn't."

Do you have any examples of this?

Only first hand, which experience naturally is limited.
I used to do CRB checks for a charity organisation (preschool children). I explained the CRB code of practise in one meething, but the other trustees obviously didn't truly get it.

I could tell that in their minds that ANY criminal infringement, such as a caution or police investigation, no matter what or how long ago, was an automatic bar to employment. Some people were obviously shocked that I could suggest otherwise.

"Ironically, some of the best people to become drug counsellors are ex-drug addicts themselves; who because of the nature of their past, are among the people most likely to have a criminal record. "

this is fanciful fantasy. former drug users have their own issues/weaknesses - worked in Comm Drug Team when they were rolled out (1986) - having former users was a liberal/radical notion v. quickly dumped.
Where do you get your info from, alardi??

This incident just serves to highlight the petty beuracracy(sp) that we society is subjected to on a daily basis.
Everything has to be recorded, every encounter 'justified'.

There is a balance to be had isn't there, sixtyfoot?

Many years ago I was a police officer, at the time of PACE coming in, and prior to that there was soo little accountability - police, education, SS etc got away with really sloppy and discriminatory stuff it was appalling.
Having said that having police sat in a station writing endlessly is no answer either.

THere should be
But everyone is so scared of doing the wrong thing
Even if the PC felt that submitting a referral to SSD was unecessary you can bet that a supervisor would have told them that it had to be done, because that is procedure.
I have been in the Police 16 yrs and the job has changed so much.

"Everything has to be recorded, every encounter 'justified'. "

Good!

I have relatives who are ex-druggies, many of their counsellors had a history of drug abuse themselves. Maybe they were generally the worst possible counsellors, I wouldn't know the details. But in some cases it was personal experience that seemd to make that job of helping others into a heart-felt vocation for them, not just a job.

indeed - personal experience is often powerful, though this is usually slanted and negates the required professinoal detachment. IME.

I think it's odd when this arguement comes down to the high risk of walking across a petrol forecourt with your child as opposed to the seemingly low risk of leaving a baby/toddler/child in the car and them being taken.

Has this risk ever actually being calculated and surely it is in fact the reverse. I have never known or heard of someone (a child) being run over in a petrol forecourt where people are driving about 5mph! Where as I have heard/read of cars being stolen from forecourts many times, in which case leaving your child in the car carries a greater risk.

I think both are small risks but statistically the accidental or purposeful taking of a child left in a car seems more likely!

fayrazzled - The law is open to interpretation. This is precisely why anybody could theoretically be prosecuted/reported for anything that most would consider ridiculous - leaving a 15 year old to pop into tesco, to anything most would consider dangerous - leaving a young child to go on holiday.

What the parents or the general public think is or isn't abandonment is not very relevant. What I was trying to say is that if someone in a position of authority/a member of the public wants to report/prosecute a parent using this law they can. The matter would have to be investigated and a judgement would have to be made by someone in authority, not by the general public or the parent.

Personally I would rather not run the risk of having to prove my children had not been abandoned after I had been reported so I wouldn't do it in the first place. If I did I'd accept that someone else might think my children abandoned and I'd be ready to prove why they hadn't been and that I had made a reaponsible decision considering all the things which could happen.

The law is deliberately open to interpretation where abuse is concerned because abusers/neglecters/abandoners mostly don't see that that is what they are doing.

Before you all start on me, I'm not saying what I personally think is abuse/neglect/abandonment or that I think any of these situations you are describing are abuse/abandonment. What I am saying is that it doesn't actually matter what any of us think just that the law is ambiguous (deliberately) and that theoretically you could be prosecuted/reported if someone else thinks you are abandoning your children whether you think so or not.

But it does matter what parents (& the general public) think is or isn't abandonment - because we are as parents doing our best and making these decisions on a daily basis.

It is really alarming that 'a person in authority' can choose to make such a draconian judgement, which may then have far-reaching implications for that family.

When I read some of the views on this thread I truly do not recognise the world I am living in. A few generations ago children would, apparently, play out all day, with no supervision. Now it is a police matter if an 8 year old is sitting alone in a locked car.

I realise that some parents spend a lot of their lives in a state of anxiety about safety/monitoring etc. It amazes me.

Has this risk ever actually being calculated and surely it is in fact the reverse. I have never known or heard of someone (a child) being run over in a petrol forecourt where people are driving about 5mph!

that's because people leave their kids in the car. Locked. It is not uncommon for adults being hit (despite them being asier to see than kids) which is why PFS attendants always wear yellow gimp vests.

if only people did stick to 5mph at petrol forecourts - they often pull away at speed!