... to think that a 5 year old looking after a 3 year old is a bit dodgy?

[joannabaranna]

Just found a very slight acquaintance's 2 kids (5 and 3!) playing in the street with their front door open. Said their dad had just gone out to the car and they'd been waiting for him to get back. They trotted off to the car park to look for him (leaving the front door wide open) but he was nowhere in sight. My 2 year old started playing with them on the pavement and I asked the 5 year old whether he had any older brothers, sisters, mum etc at home - no, mum was away and he was the oldest. After about 25 minutes I thought I'd leave a note on the door for the dad and take them to our house just up the street for tea (it was 6pm). They got me a paper and pen and I left a short note saying "Kids are at [address] - they weren't sure where you were - found them in the street!" As I was leaving the note on the door the dad got back, pretty pissed off to see me there, tore the note off the door and said "he knows he's not supposed to go out of the front door". House, by the way, was a tip. He had told them he was going out to the car and had gone to the shops instead.

I'm inclined not to do anything about it but it makes me uncomfortable... Any thoughts?

The NSPCC is a charity, it has no more authority than you or me to 'take action' itself!

the legal statutory duty lies with sw to assess and if necessary intervene.nspcc compelled to pass on all potentially vulnerable child information received

how do you know for sure that there wasn'r someone in the house eg grandparent ?

Their is no law, as to what age babies/children can be left unattended at home.

As the children were fine, and no harm done, SS will not do anything.

This is a moral issue and not a SS issue!

Joannabaranna, I'm really pleased you reported it to someone. I hope everything turns out to be ok and the family just needed a little bit of support.

LittleMrsHappy, the point is that the kids being left alone could be symptomatic of a bigger problem - the kids may not be 'fine' at all.

Not sure that's true about it being a moral issue, LittleMrsHappy. Safeguarding law includes neglect e.g. leaving them unsupervised without taking adequate steps to prevent them from falling into harm. Technically, that's any child under 16.. but in reality, of course, there's a huge difference btw a 15 year old and a 5 year old. I know for a fact that we have been asked by our Safeguarding team in our PCT to phone the police in situations where we suspect a child has been left in a house on their own. In this instance, you are talking about very young children left alone in a situation where they could get out of the house. Unsafe = SS issue, not about 'morals'.

none of us can pre-empt what sw would do in such circumstance.if they did assess then the circumstances would be looked at. you dont need to wait on actual harm before intervening.safeguarding is a sliding scale response

I only read OP, so excuse, their maybe, who knows, its all assumption, if you feel the children welfare is being neglected is someway, other than leaving them unattended for 30 mins, then yes phone SS, but the OP, alone will not warrant any SS visit.

mrsbean, their is NO LAW AT ALL IN LEAVING CHILREN UNATTENDED, the NSPCC has put GUIDELINES into provision for children being left unattended at home, however these are not LAWS, and in this case this is NOT neglect. (by going by the OP)

The way i see it, i would be thinking about how i would feel if i didnt say anything to someone in authority and something happened to one of the children.

Joannabaranna, I think you did the right thing. This was a case of children left alone by a man shameless enough to be angry with you for caring about the welfare of his children, and goodness knows how he treated them when you had left, for leaving the house and thus letting others in the community know about his irresponsible ways. I hope SS will get involved. I don't think the tip-ness of the house is a red herring either.

but one could apply under the Children and Young Person (Scotland) Act, 1937 it is an offence for anyone over the age of 16, who has responsibility for a child under that age to willfully assault, ill-treat, neglect abandon or expose the child. This may include bullying, frightening or causing suffering or injury to the child's health. there is precedent for applying legal framework

you'd struggle to argue its ok to leave children alone in circs described. any competent practitioner would need to know more

in england and wales Children and Young Persons Act (1933)could be applied.it states that parents can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised ?in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health?.

Littlemisshappy, please don't shout. It's rude.

Also, see scottishmummy's post.

Thanks scottishmummy, you saved me the cut and paste .

In my child protection training it states to add up the worrying factors in a situation and form the bigger picture, so the messy house may not be a red herring but indicative of part of the bigger problem i.e not coping or actual neglect. I am inclined to suspect the latter in this case. The Father's reaction is very telling also.

Please follow up OP and keep an eye open. You can contact SS directly to check.

Actually NSPCC does have a mandate to act where they are set up to undertake child protection work. They do this less and less now but they can do it.

SM, that bill, only concerns physical abuse, and even then the part you quoted, does not have provision to have force of law in Scotland. (United Nations convention on the right of child)

and even when in place, it only affects Scotland, not England, so does not affect me, in my practice!

As you have said yourself and I quote "wilful neglect if they leave a child unsupervised ?in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health?, These children were not come to any harm, were not physical abused, or neglected in a way that represents any ill or willfully safeguarding or welfare regarding the law!

Children's law is very complex and each law is not a one, two, three, set in stone, as some acts do not represent the individual case.

I will say again, this man has not broken the law, he left his children unattended, and they were fine, no harm, no physical or emotional abuse. This is not against the law!

I do know what I am talking about this is my professional, and I do this for a living, and have done SO FOR the past 10 years!

Actually NSPCC does have a mandate to act where they are set up to undertake child protection work. They do this less and less now but they can do it.

A mandate is not a law, it is a document giving official instruction, this instruction does not have to be followed as a law, only as a guideline.

The NSPCC have legal powers under the Children Act and can apply for statutory orders in its own right.

I accept mandate is not a law. Wrong choice of words. However NSPCC do have that legality - only charity to do so I think.

Whether he has broken the law or not is not really the issue is it? He has potentially placed the kids at risk of harm.

LMH,as a practitioner you must know that you cannot conclusively say "they were fine,no harm,no physical or emotional abuse" based upon a typed post.you cannot make an assessment based upon the op,and cant make a definitive statement about children being well.no competent practitioner could.am suprised that as a practitioner you are willing to make such a statement

"The NSPCC have legal powers under the Children Act and can apply for statutory orders in its own right".

Yes, but to only investigate, their is also no mandatory for them to report the findings, (except Northern Ireland, where it is a offence to not report a arrestable crime).

As I said children's law is very complex and widespread.

I never said it was a issue either, and as I said beforehand, if their is any other concerns, the contact SS, but on this OP itself, SS will not do anything, trust me on that one.

I can only go by the OP, as the OP has said herself boys were fine, then I will use my judgement by a Internet website and see it as face value and believe her what she has said in regard to the law, I have also said if this is the only issue then SS will not do anything, other then report the incident on file, BUT if any other issue were concerning OP, I have repeatedly stated contact SS.

I have not conclusively said anything, I am taking the OP post at face value!

op sufficiently worried to report to nspcc given what she saw.LMH you have made a very definite assertion "they were fine,no harm,no physical or emotional abuse".my contention is that is untenable.yes im suprised any practitioner would be so definite in absence of full info and other supporting evidence of the situation.maybe the desire to assert your pov on a internet discussion is clouding your judgement.

By going by the OP on the topic on hand, concerning the LAW! scottish muumy, I have come to my conclusion, on what the OP has said!

I have never said once it was conclusive, so if you please mind stop being so personal, I am commenting on the OPENING post, and in this incident as the OP said herself, they came to no harm!

Now I cannot have full info, now can I so stop being so idiotic in getting personal, when I can merely only base my opinion on the OP, its rather idiotic of you, to think I know all the facts as it is very evidently I dont, AND CAN ONLY GO BY THE OP!

SAID CAN BE SAID FOR ANY THREAD ON HERE, WE ONLY HAVE ONE SIDE SO BASE OUR OPINIONS ON THAT! (oops sorry caps)

Im off to bed, as Im not making a definite assertion on anything, as you put it, we all base our opinions on the information given.

I understand this is a emotive subject SM, but no need to be rude and personal.

you called me idiotic,now that is rude.i have contested your point i ahve not resorted to name calling as you do.nor do i SHOUT.so do ease up on the protestations.is a bit lame