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?

I'm a little surprised that anybody would think it's safer driving around it cars than at just being at home, but I don't have any numbers on it so you could be right, driving round in a car is the safest place for a child. Another stat that might be interesting to see is playing out, as the home is seen to be such a dangerous place, do you think your child might be safer playing out on a close with their friends?

Fake, on that have a look at the article I mentioned further down re road safety and the risk to children out alone as opposed to with an adult.

So I just looked at the Royal College for Pediatrics and Child website where it states:

After the age of one, injury is the most frequent cause of death; over three quarters of deaths due to injury in the age bracket of 10-18 year olds are related to traffic incidents.

Rates of child mortality are significantly higher in the UK than many other European countries, so I don't think that the extreme risk aversion is really creating a safer childhood. If the UK wanted to introduce legislation to improve child safety, a ban on parents leaving children alone below a certain age is not likely to be very effective, much better to tackle road safety or adolescent mental health service provision.

www.rcpch.ac.uk/improving-child-health/child-mortality/child-mortality#A

Or all three Nooka?

Why, when there is no need to make any changes? The law as it stands addresses neglect already, really no need for anything else, even if a formula could be found that most people agreed was sensible and that didn't further circumscribe childhood. British children are already amongst the unhappiest in the world according to various surveys, with significant mental health and self harm issues. Denying them independence and insisting on constant supervision is harmful, not helpful.

Is it Nooka? There's actually some compelling evidence that children left alone can become depressed because of loneliness etc-

"length of time left alone can bring forth other negative effects. In one study, middle school students left home alone for more than three hours a day reported higher levels of behavioral problems, higher rates of depression and lower levels of self-esteem than other students".

"Loneliness, boredom and fear are most common for those younger than 10 years of age"

The second quote, as the first, is referring to being home alone in case that's not clear.

Here's an interesting quote too related to child welfare. It's from the US but still relevant-

Richardson et al. (1993) surveyed nearly 4000 ninth graders and compared mean scores for substance use, risk taking, grades and depressed mood by type of after school care and find that youths who were not supervised by adults after school had significantly greater problem behavior than those who were.

Middle school is less than 13 right ? 3 hours a day-jess wept. Who in their right mind would think that was a good idea ? I am leaving dcs (11&8) now for 20-30 mins while I go for a run. I will have my phone with me. 90 minutes would be my absolute limit (for the 11 yo,8 yo won't be left) and not daily.

Hang on 9th grade is year 10. So 14-15. Not so mad then. At that aged I babysat younger dcs.

This is why I say to my kids ,"Don't be scared of monsters, be scared of CARS because they are a lot more dangerous".

If I were Prime Minister, one of the main things on my to-do list would be to introduce a national scheme of cycle lane design, so it was logical and didn't vary from area to area. Cycle lanes would be separated from the road by a kerb wherever possible, I'd take VAT off children's cycle helmets, and schools would receive funding for cycle sheds. I would want the first port of call for school runs to be cycling or walking, and I would state explicitly that the expectation should be that children from KS2 upwards should be considered able to do this without their parents (i.e. no demonising, but if people want to accompany their children that's up to them), and I would organise a safety campaign to support this, as well as safe routes to school funding and support for local authorities to encourage it. Quite a lot of these things happen already but they are not joined up which means people do not receive a clear message and the downward spiral of anxiety continues, when it's quite unnecessary.

I am by no means a Cameron fan but when he said, "Britannia didn't rule the waves with armbands on" in response to the nonsense from local authorities about needing public liability insurance for street parties during the Jubilee, I thought that was his finest moment.

The next thing I would do is to introduce First Aid training for all children from Reception. It would start with simple things like avoiding electrocution and running burns under the tap, pressing on a bleeding wound and so on, and by the time kids were 16 they should be fully trained first aiders able to carry out CPR, immobilise a broken limb, put a patient in the recovery position (or know when not to) and so on. Children would also be taught about how to help classmates with epilepsy, those having asthma attacks, those suffering from diabetes and so on. It would raise awareness about chronic conditions and make children a lot more self-reliant if they knew this stuff. It could easily be linked to fire safety and road safety as well.

Ultimately we need to make a decision here about designing a world where children over seven can move about freely and experience independence, without separation trauma and minimising any unnecessary risk (on the principle that there is always risk in life). If we do this, we will find it is safer for everyone and the next generation is a lot healthier, physically and psychologically. Cooping our children up and supervising their every move is making them unhappy and obese and we need to recognise that and get back to the more balanced approach that exists in most of Western Europe and Scandinavia.

Oh ye gods this is ridiculous.

Flower do you know how ridiculous your failure to understand the statistics you are throwing around makes you sound? Safer in a car than at home? You have utterly failed to take into account the amount of time children spend in a car as opposed to at home! To interpret the statistics on how many children die in car accidents versus at home you need to do some maths to work out which location is safer.

I knew I shouldn't have looked back at this thread - it's descended into utter nonsense. It asked people's opinions but FG has taken it upon herself for some incomprehensible reason to shout everyone down with random quotations and numbers she clearly doesn't even understand

MrTumble TBH I keep wondering why I come back to it as well. These threads always go nuts. It's like being with my bonkers neighbour of the bad driving - you end up in circular arguments that have no basis in logic whatsoever as people outdo each other on the supposed 'I am a better parent than YOW' front. Bloody hell.

MrTumbles- I do wish you'd avoid the personal attack. My assessment of the data was based on the data itself and the statement that "most accidents happen at home" given by RoSPA, and also the statement that children in properly fitted car seats are very safe taken from a website focussing on car safety. My interpretation is based on those facts. Upon which facts have you based yours?
I note the lack of comment re the stats on depression further down. Is that my faulty interpretation too?

Boffin. In many ways I'd support your campaign for PM but I would ask why you'd set 7 as the age where you expect children to be independent? It seems very young to me.
I am also unsure why you're so desperate for kids from KS2 to walk to school alone (although I agree that walking should be the means of transport for most- don't forget that in some rural locations distance is a factor). At my daughter's school there is a real sense of community. Most parents walk with their children to school and chat in the playground. Teachers and the head are around so can be spoken to about any concerns etc. Parents need to be pro-actively involved in their children's education and one of the ways of helping with that is to be around the school at the start and end of the day.

Yes ! Because you are taking everything out of context!

It'snot a personal attack to point out that you transparently don't understand what you are quoting.

Most accidents happen at home because children spend most time at home, not because it's most dangerous. If a child spends 14 hours out of 24 at home and 30 mins in a car, and both places are identically safe, they are 23 times more likely to have an accident at home. That is very, very basic maths and logic which you (deliberately, I assume so as not to insult your intelligence) failed to take into account when asserting a child is saferIin a car than their own home.

Your depression statistics assume children left for 3 hours every day THREE HOURS every day - and you are using them to back up your argument that leaving them for 10 mins to half an hour ooccasionally is dangerous.

At best it's comparing apples and oranges.

It is not a personal attack to point out that at least 25% of the posts after the first few pages are you shouting people down without of context quotations and unprocessed statistics which do not support your argument because you are not applying them in context.

MrT- there are people on this thread who have stated that they would leave 12 year olds for 5 hours.

The stats on accidents at home or accidents in cars make no mention of time spent in either location. In fact, there are 2 million children injured from being in cars during a crash but NOT in a properly fitted car seat but 'only' 1 million from accidents at home. Once a properly fitted car seat is in the equation that statistic changes enormously. Hence I stated that I was comparing children in decent car seats to accidents at home. Time has nothing to do with it.

Why has time got nothing to do with it? You cannot compare safety without taking into account time spent in each location, otherwise youcan spout any old mmeaningless nonsense and claim no children died white water rafting in the UK last year so white water rafting is the safest activity for children in the UK

You keep moving your goal posts and who you are addressing (without stating which specific posters or situations ypu are talking about) so it is impossible for anyone who isn't making a full time job of it to address, or unravel, all your arguments.

Your opinion is clear but your scattergun response of showering undigested and quotations and statistics all over the thread isn't proving anything to anyone.

You're really starting to come across as quite unhinged now Flower. If I were you, I'd step away from the keyboard. You've been on this thread for hours and hours every day since it started

MrT- really can't be bothered to go over this again but please read my last post to you and think about the 2 million v 1 million and the effect of car seats.
To be fair MrT the comparison is ridiculous anyway (it wasn't me who initially compared the two- I was directly asked my opinion so gave it. Really can't be bothered to scroll down to find who that was so apologies if that causes offence MrT). In truth, no parent who safely strapped a child into a car seat then got into an accident would ever be accused of neglect (unless they were drunk or driving crazily or such). A parent who left a child at home who then suffered an accident could well be. That is how it is, regardless of how 'unhinged' you believe me to be Odd.

In truth, no parent who safely strapped a child into a car seat then got into an accident would ever be accused of neglect (unless they were drunk or driving crazily or such). A parent who left a child at home who then suffered an accident could well be.

Yes that's true and it's a real problem with our society, cheered on my people like you. In fact statistical analysis may we prove that the child at home was LESS likely to come to harm and the parent accused of neglect had actually made the safer choice for their child. See example up thread on Britain and Sweden.

Also, deciding it is safer to take a sensible 10 yo, out with you than leave them at home watching TV for 5 mins because it's a modern car and car seat. What if it's a shit car, mum's had a crap day, kids crying in the back because they're missing Blue Peter, it's winter, rush hour, pissing down with rain and there's black ice on the road?

No don't tell me, I can guess your answer, the mum who left the child at home should still be prosecuted.

Oh no don't tell me you could call your ever helpful neighbours (that we all have) and explain the 'dilemma'

Either that or try to keep a lid on your paranoid feelings and try to get a proper grasp of risk management

You'd get my vote boffin

Please don't leave the thread flower I haven't come across anyone as nuts as you in ages.