Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

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

769 replies

KateMumsnet · 27/03/2015 09:31

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?

OP posts:
fakenamefornow · 01/04/2015 18:01

I think it's really sad the we have raised a nation of fat, miserable children.

As children's freedoms have been curtailed obesity and unhappiness has gone up. I think the two are connected.

NaomiCole · 01/04/2015 22:47

Whoa! Flower girl mum! I'm just reading through the stuff that's been posted since I did and have only read up to page twenty of thirty so apologies if you've come to a place of peace in the next ten pages. I left my eight and six year old alone together for ten, maybe even as much as 15minutes but at no point was my 8 year old 'in charge' of his sister. They are a little team (bless them!) And to be fair, DD is more reliable than DS! That said, they are both, very sensible kids and they get on really well. They were left with the instruction to stay where they are (on the sofa playing a game of guess who) and not to answer the door unless it's grandma =) the shop is a three minute walk away at the end of the block .... Good grief! Why am I justifying myself to you?! I know my kids. I know the situation they are in and they are FINE. They grow as individuals by being given the opportunity to be left alone for a bit. As for phoning the shop before I sent my 8 year old, I only did that because I know what the daily mail would say ;)

Mytholmroyd · 02/04/2015 00:53

have read the thread with growing amazement at how suffocated some children seem to be. but i am now beginning to understand perhaps why so many of my students are unable to cope with life at university if they have never learnt self reliance.

I have four kids - eldest was confidently bussing around town at ten and thought it hilarious that no one in her class at secondary knew how to get on a public bus. Didn't do her any harm - walked into a dream permanent job straight out of university part of which involves organising and taking under 18 athletes to competitions and training camps around the world. DD2 graduated and now happily working in another continent.

my youngest is nine and he plays out, climbs trees, whittles himself bows and arrows, sometimes stays home alone with dog for short periods during the day, walks and feeds the (very obedient) dog, makes toast and porridge, sets and lights the fire, posts letters, rinses his swimshorts in the washing machine, walks home from the school bus (admittedly safe quiet village) - I could go on.

The point is, like my other children, he does these things because he wants to and because it makes him feel secure, self-reliant and safer knowing he knows how to - i decide when and how much to loosen the apron strings - he is constantly pushing to do more but never ceases to amaze me how capable and responsible he is. I would be doing him an injustice not to give him these lifeskills. Still sleeps with a nightlight though! Wink

ChaiseLounger · 02/04/2015 07:22

I am really laughing at AlwaysFrank and her teachers 20 silk cut. Ha ha.

I parent like she does. And I was shocked that someone had the audacity to call her neglectful.

fakenamefornow · 02/04/2015 07:32

And I was shocked that someone had the audacity to call her neglectful.

Criminal levels of neglect that she should be prosecuted for!

ChaiseLounger · 02/04/2015 07:53

Neglect?
I disagree.

ChaiseLounger · 02/04/2015 07:54

And should be prosecuted for?
Do you think a prosecution would be achieved?
What would your case be?

fakenamefornow · 02/04/2015 08:01

No, no, no, read my posts, I'm in the 'stop this suffocating madness' camp. I'm just reflecting what a couple of posters up thread think.

Alwaysfrank · 02/04/2015 08:29

Fake - criminal, really? Which bit?! I thought you were being tongue in cheek!

I am quite laid back as a parent but I don't consider any of it neglectful let alone criminally so.

Hanging out washing - dont think so
Mixing formula with cooled water - that was the advice at the time
Leaving children in car on forecourt - still far safer IMHO
Small hotel restaurant with children asleep and listening in on monitor - still fine with that
Mark Warner - already said I wouldn't do that again but that arrangement was the basis of the Mark Warner business model of the 90s/early 00s and if I was being criminally neglectful I was certainly in good company
Postbox for two mins - nope
Taking twins in and out of house individually - nope

So which bit exactly should I be prosecuted for? Easter Shock

MrTumblesBavarianFanbase · 02/04/2015 08:34

Oops what's happened - fake was echoing a mad point of view incredulously not adopting it as her own!

Alwaysfrank · 02/04/2015 08:36

Missed a couple out:

Babies in own room - pretty sure 18 years ago when I had my first there wasn't the same advice about being with your baby constantly. By the time I had my last I did what I had always done and wasn't aware if advice had changed. Even if I was aware, I would probably still have done the same

Free range children on campsites - nope

Sending 10 year old to shop (actually he asked to go) - nope

I'm pretty sure my liberty is safe.

Alwaysfrank · 02/04/2015 08:39

Have I misunderstood fake? Thought you were now saying that yes you are in the "relaxed" camp but really do think I was criminally neglectful!?

Am confused Easter Confused!

oddfodd · 02/04/2015 08:45

Fake is supportive of you Frank! I think she was just expressing incredulity that anyone could accuse you of being neglectful.

Still I got called a man. Still not sure why Grin

fakenamefornow · 02/04/2015 08:46

Yes you have Smile

I think my post at the top of the page sums up how damaging I think paranoid, helicopter parenting is. We would all be in prison if some posters had their way though.

Alwaysfrank · 02/04/2015 09:14

Phew - I wondered if social services with police reinforcements were going to come knocking having got my details from MNHQ. Sorry for misunderstanding you fake! Obviously being a bit dim this morning.

MehsMum · 02/04/2015 09:55

Frank, just read your long post upthread.
You sound a very sane, balanced parent. I also had ishoos with the safety police at my DCs primary school. I dared send DC3 (then 5, incredibly sensible and astute for one so young, and dead keen on getting into her classroom as soon as possible) up the drive with her elder siblings. I was 99.99% certain that she wouldn't come back down, and 100% certain that if she did, someone who knew her would field her and point her back in the right direction (there were always people chatting on the pavement long after the bell, anyway).

That was Not Good Enough. I had to escort her to the door of the classroom: not the school gate, not the infant play area gate, the door.

I could have accepted the playground gate as a compromise (to which some parents tenderly escorted their 11-yr-olds) but I thought the door was lunacy. I probably said so, since I felt it important that the school should know that not every parent thought its policies were 'all for the best' and 'to keep our little ones safe'.

The point of growing up is not to be 100% safe. It's to learn to deal with the very not-safe situations adult life will throw at you without anyone to help you. Some of that learning you can do under the eye of a parent or other carer. Some of it, thb, you can't. Things like, Is this road safe to walk down alone, now, this evening? If you have practised making that kind of assessment with your friends on the way back to the station from the cinema at 16/17, you are better equipped to make it at 18 and suddenly stranded in a university town, than if your parents had always collected you from said cinema by car.

It's about learning to make your own decisions rather than either expecting to look for or receive guidance.

And it's also about freedom and having fun.

Alwaysfrank · 02/04/2015 10:18

Oddfodd - interesting that your school is more relaxed about parent CRBs. When I was class rep a few years ago I did ask what had changed that they now required CRBs for absolutely everything, and I wasn't even given the courtesy of a reply. The real answer is of course that the (new at the time) head is being very risk averse and just making it a blanket requirement so she can tick the right boxes without applying any common sense or judgement.

It made it very hard to get volunteers for things, and believe me our school needs a lot of volunteers - driving children to sports events, walking to church services and concerts, walking to tennis courts the list goes on and on. What's more they ask parents to pay a fee for the privelege. They did respond to that query, when I asked why there was charge for free volunteer CRBs - that was because the LEA imposes a fee for applying on their behalf!

I am afraid I never did get one done and I haven't helped with anything since, as a consequence. I don't have anything to hide, BTW.

oddfodd · 02/04/2015 11:04

I think it must be down to the individual head. The head at DS's school (it's a junior, rather than primary so the children are at least 7) is just 40 and very pragmatic about these things. As I said upthread, children are also allowed to leave school on their own if they have a parent pass. Parents are not allowed past the school gates in the mornings either (unless we're going to the office).

They don't ask for homework or check that children have taken homework home either. At first, this was a bit of a shock but DS (who has SN) has coped much better than I thought he would (although I have to intervene quite often!) and NT kids really enjoy being given responsibility for managing that sort of thing themselves.

Myth - self-reliance is great way of describing it. That's what it is, not pushed independence for the convenience of parents as some posters have alleged, but teaching our children self-reliance :)

Mytholmroyd · 02/04/2015 19:01

Yes oddfod! Grin i don't think we should underestimate the risks of infantalising children - it does (most of) them no favours and does not make happy relaxed and confident teenagers and young adults - self esteem is a much underrated gift to give your children and the one thing i swore i would give my daughters having had every last shred ripped away by my father. took years to get it back and conquer my crippling fear of failure. See it in my students all the time - it sucks the joy out of learning and life.

of course it's necessary for boys as well but haven't had to work at it with DS yet - he appears impervious and (often overly) confident in his own abilities! Tis a joy to watch him grow though.

BoffinMum · 04/04/2015 08:21

Just want to say that the practice whereby some schools were asking for blanket CRB checks of all adults was, in fact, illegal. This stopped when the processes were tightened up, and head teachers reminded of the fact that asking for a CRB check for someone who was not in fact involved in a substantial role with children/vulnerable people, which involved being left alone with them, would potentially be subject to a criminal conviction, custodial sentence (!), and/or £5000 fine. Suddenly that concentrated their minds and it did not seem so important to screen all and sundry.

This was because schools (and other organisations) were using them as a kind of cheap employment screening process or marketing tool generally, for example for gardeners and the like, or in the case of some independent schools in particular, so they could say their school was better than the next one because 'everybody was screened', and consequently the system practically keeled over at one point. It was never designed for that.

BoffinMum · 04/04/2015 08:23

I often wonder, by the way, whether if we taxed CCTV at, say £1000 a year per camera, that a lot of the arguments about them being VITAL and CENTRAL to a safe society would wither away Wink

Highlowdollypepper · 04/04/2015 08:32

Just read through this thread (or some of it at least) and find some of the misconceptions worrying.
On this last topic, CRB doesn't exist any more. It's called DBS now and the law on it is pretty broad. It says this...

DBS checks are required for unsupervised volunteers and staff involved with your organisation that have direct access to, or work directly with children or adults at risk.
The following list gives some examples of people who require a DBS check, but is by no means exhaustive:
Instructors, teachers, coaches, activity leaders, healthcare workers, dental staff, social work staff, child minders, unsupervised volunteers, anyone working in a school, nursery, children's home, childcare premises, anyone providing healthcare, personal care, or who assists with the managing of someones affairs or finances.

You'll note the phrase "anyone working in a school". Really not sure where the idea that schools could be fined for having too many people checked has come from!!

It's like some of you just want your children to be at risk or something.

Highlowdollypepper · 04/04/2015 09:15

I've spent a few minutes searching for information about this £5,000 fine Boffin and the only thing I can find is £5,000 fines or imprisonment for FAILING to adhere to the DBS rules. If you have a link to back up what you've said I'd be interested.

BoffinMum · 04/04/2015 09:24

It does not apply to DBS, that is a completely different scheme brought in around 2010.

BoffinMum · 04/04/2015 09:31

Here re CRB checks Employers face fines for over the top vetting

Swipe left for the next trending thread