Leaving children 'home alone' - what do you think?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

A parent is arrested for leaving their child alone every day, according to new research.

The law doesn't currently specify the age at which children can be left on their own - and charges in the last three months of last year involved children between the ages of three months and 14 years.

What do you think? How old were your DC when you left them 'home alone' - and would you like to see the age at which a child can be left unsupervised defined in law?

.. Well, personally I think it's justifying taking the easy option.

Actually I would say leaving them at home/letting them play out etc Giving them bits of responsibility is the hard option, keeping them 'safe' and with you all the time is the easy option. Allowing them to take the steps to independence is really hard and scary for a parent but imo is something that a parent needs to do. I was very overprotected as a child, I lived the life of a 21st century child in the 70s, not allowed to do anything, my mum always said the she would feel a lot better knowing that I was with her. It was all about what was best for her, not what was best for me. This theme is seen loads of times on threads like this 'I couldn't live with myself if something happened' 'I would be too worried' I will ever expose myself to being accused of.'. So, the posters who don't allow children small freedoms I would really examine your motives because personally I think it's yourself your protecting.

I looked at those legal guidelines recently as we are now leaving our nearly-11 yo DS1 for short periods whilst dropping off younger sibling etc. We have neighbours he could call on if any emergency and he is sensible enough to use the phone. If he's never left, he'll never get over that feeling of "oooh, I'm on my own , I can do anything now" and get used to being responsible for the house. When he goes to secondary school in Sept he'll need to let himself in for an our on a couple of evenings a week.

A poster above said -
I would hesitate to leave kids alone together until they are older however as squabbling can lead to poor judgement and the risk of stupid actions increases. This is completely true in our case, DS2 is not much younger but gets anxious and panicky and is a catalyst for trouble!

You're protecting

children under 12 are rarely mature enough to be left alone for a long period of time
children under 16 shouldn’t be left alone overnight
babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone

This annoys me. Are children on the continent miles ahead in maturity and capability then British children. This is so down to opinion, even of 'experts' do the NSPCC believe European parents are all bad for allowing children so much more responsibility.

How can babies not be left with a child under 16? Surely there are quite a few teen parents having babies themselves at 15, or even younger. The majority manage fairly well bringing their child up forever let alone one night

(if you have a baby under 16, you cant live alone ie just the two of you. there are mother-baby foster carers or you can live with another adult eg your own parents)

The law is the bit where it says 'parents can be prosecuted'. The bit in quotes on my last post is the law. The word neglect is theirs, not mine.

I would like to ask those who would leave their child at home to go to the supermarket whether they think it's acceptable to leave their child alone, for the same amount of time, to go to the pub?

No you can't live alone. But many 15 year old mothers will spend time alone looking after their baby.

I think the trouble with delaying the age at which they manage on their own, is that they still need to manage it all eventually but they have to learn everything in a very short space of time.

Eg if you don't let them home alone, babysit or make their own way around town alone until they're mid teens, they still need to learn these skills eventually. They'll soon be ending up a parties where people are getting drunk, negotiating BF/GF relationships, sex, etc - but at the same time they'll still be having to learn to handle the things they should have learnt earlier like knowing what to do when they miss the bus, are spoken to by a stranger, cut their finger, get lost, drop and break something, etc. I don't think you're doing your child any favours in the long run by not letting them learn self-reliance in an age-appropriate way during childhood, so that when they're already confident at those sorts of things before they also have to deal with all the teenage risks and new challenges.

sanfairy - you're right that teen parents don't live alone, but I would have thought they do look after their own babies alone at times don't they? Eg whilst their own parents are at work.

Yes I would think most do look after own babies 99% of the time.
Actually a friend at school had twins at 15. She lived with her boyfriends family ( they are now still together, married, 2 more children). But her boyfriend was at school also still (17), and worked after. And his parents also worked. She was alone with the babies for 12-16 hrs a day, and even when another adult returned she was still ' in charge' of the babies.

yes i think its ok for them to be alone with the baby, i'm certainly not opposed to that either. like everything else, it depends on how long for etc. the average 15 year old could easily babysit a neighbours baby for instance, but not have sole care while they went away on holiday.

the weird thing is the way a 16 year old is considered fine to live alone with baby, yet some posters wont leave a 14 year old alone. those two years between 14 and 16 they dont change that much

San- have any posters said they wouldn't leave a 14 year old alone?

i should add,
although as i dont think my opinions should be made law i have to add i entirely respect the parents decision if they feel their child could not cope with being left alone age 14. that is their choice

Flower, No that's not a law.
That's guidance.
You don't seem to have the legal skills to know the difference. We have all tried to explain it to you, but we have failed.

Chaise- you are not reading my post carefully. The law bit was the bit between ' and '. This-
The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.
Which is taken from the gov.com page.
Please don't accuse me of a lack of comprehension because you have misread my post.

Of course 14 year olds can be left alone. But I suspect the arrest is for a parent who has went on holiday for a few weeks and left a 14 year old alone. There have been a few cases like this in the media where a teenager is left alone in charge of younger siblings, and often without much food. Context is everything.

The 'law' quantifies it as if they will be at risk note the "IF". Plus in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health note the "LIKELY" and as per your parents can be prosecuted note then "CAN BE". None of that is a law and none of that is a definite.

Even those adults arrested as per the opening post, over half were released without charge - probably because the police/CPS couldn't PROVE risk/neglect/likely harm.

A parent is unlikely to be prosecuted if the child is fine, simply because some hand wringer thinks they shouldn't have been left alone. If a child is hurt whilst alone then yes, the parent probably would. But it doesn't happen very often.

Letting my 9 year old walk to the shop, or leaving her in the house for a short period whilst I go somewhere is unlikely to cause her any harm, and if it does, well on my head be it. It's still no-one else's business and doesn't cause any harm to anyone else outside my family.

In a couple of years she'll be getting on a bus on her own to travel to and from school, and she'll be at home on her own until I get in from work (assuming DH returns to work then). Getting her ready for that now is sensible forward planning.

Yes Eve. Hence my comment that if your child is injured or upset to the point where someone hears and responds you could be accused of neglect. That IS the law regardless of whether people on here wish to accept it.

Oh dear. OK, you win love. Yes of course that is exactly what you meant and exactly what you said. I concede.

SanFairyAnn, I was babysitting a 6 mth old overnight when I was 13/14. Plus his 6 year old brother. The parent were police officers! It didn't happen often, only when their shifts clashed and the commander wouldn't let them swap. Never had a problem, although I do remember sitting at the bottom of the stairs once with my head in my hands because the 6 yr old was determined to sleep in the dogs basket .

My (then) 13 year old DSD babysat DD a couple of times when she was 3/4 as well and didn't have any problems. However I wouldn't let 17 yr old D Nephew babysit because he's too immature.

It totally depends on the child. A blanket law/age would be a stupid idea.

Its mad the way times have changed so much, standards were different back a few years.

My mother left me on my own (with the placid dog) for a whole week whilst she went away, albeit only 1hr half away but still went away for 7 days. my care file shows the police, school and SS discussed but no action was taken and I was left to it and my mother to my knowledge never had any consequence from that.

I on the other hand have had ss round for allowing my oldest child go to the park round the corner from my house alone at 6 ( I live rurally with not a lot of traffic to put that in context), they took no action but they still came out and did a initial assessment

Regardless I feel I know best, I also know my children better than anyone else, nowadays I leave my sensible 9yr old(and more mature than my 11yr old) alone for 10 mins while my 5 yr old is fast asleep(and will have been for several hrs at the point)in bed whilst I pick up the oldest from a club that finishes late evening. he is fine, knows not to unlock and answer the door, cant get into kitchen as it locks with a lock that requires a key so no access to gas, cooker, kettle etc and just sits playing pc.
I wouldn't leave either oldest children with younger one if younger was was awake though.

I think its very dependant on the individual child, I completely understand why some people bauk at the idea of a 14 yr old alone whilst others are happy to leave younger ones. my middle child is far more sensible and wise than the oldest who is 2 yrs older, he doesn't take risks, hes very cautious, very safety aware, the oldest however is the complete opposite, risk taker, impulsive etc

I think a sensible approach is to think about it carefully when planning to leave a child alone, whats the worst they could do? what do they have access to? can they contact you?

It is exactly what I said Eve. I don't really understand the confusion to be honest. The law as it stands creates huge risks for parents (as the ones in the OP found to their cost) because of the lack of clarity. It's the notion that it's ok unless it goes wrong when it could become a criminal offence. If a child is left alone and accidentally falls down the stairs, for instance, then the parents will potentially face charges.
I think that if there was more clarity then actually parents who might make such choices would be better protected.

Sorry Smelly- did I read that right? You leave a 9 year old in charge of a 5 year old after SS have already raised concerns about your child being alone?

Not very helpful guidance really. How old is a young child? How long is 'a long period of time'? Any law would need to be a lot more precise than that.

yep you have that right. No ss did not raise concerns, some busybody did, hence an initial assessment and no further action.