So when do you leave them alone in a hotel room?

[meditrina]

with the holiday season coming up, I was wondering what is the MN consensus on when children can be left alone to sleep in a hotel room, say in these scenarios:

a) you are staying in a hotel with a "secure" perimeter (everyone has to pass reception to go in or out, fire doors cannot be opened from outside and are alarmed), you aren't leaving the hotel and there is continuous monitoring eg baby alarm?

b) same, but it's occasional phone monitoring, or the child has to ring down to reception for attention?

c) same, but perimeter not secure

d) you want to leave the immediate premises, even if it your destination is nearby?

Hi Meditrina. We've left our ds, fast asleep, in a cot in the locked hotel room whilst we sat outside at the hotel bar (underneath and in sight of room window) and with baby monitor on when last on holiday. The hotel room was tiny, had no balcony and ds was flat out by 8pm. We were happy we could see the room and hear him snoring inside it whilst we had our dinner. I would do the same again in exactly the same circumstances, but once he is out of a cot and into his own bed - no way!

Seeker your post last night about leaving them watching dvds/with room service makes sense to me, and by the time my youngest is the age ds1 is now (7, ds1 will then be 13) I can see we might do similar. Just for the one night. Like I've said I think family holidays should be just that, but if they're having fun too it doesn't really matter that we wouldn't be there! Hell maybe by the time they get to that age we might actually be able to afford to do it

I think my 'problem' is with leaving sleeping babes/younguns alone - that they'll wake up not knowing where anyone is/get up to untold mischief/not be able to raise the alarm in the event of fire or emergency etc.

It's interesting to read this thread in juxtaposition with other threads about home alone (lots of people saying a 10 year old is fine), and playing out (somewhere between 7-10 fine). It's made me wonder why, when home has more hazards than a hotel room and playing out more than either, there are so many people who say never, or only late teens.

Another example of a double-standard, I suppose.

Or perhaps just different people, meditrina?

Or different reasons?

A fair few of the people saying never have stated it is because they all eat together on holiday- which seems fair enough to me.

Also children may feel more nervous about being left alone in a strange place, particularly if they do not speak the language.

After a lot of cross-examination of the hotel, we recently had ds and dn (aged 2) in travel cots in their own hotel room, with me and dp down the hall, with a baby monitor - we figured they almost certainly couldn't get out of the cots, and we'd hear if they tried, or if anyone else tried to enter the room (only one other room on the corridor). It meant we managed to have a nice lie-down while they giggled madly in their cots rather than napping. In the evening we went to the hotel bar with rest of the family, and listened to them on the monitor. If there were a fire it wouldn't be any further than them being upstairs at home, with much better fire doors!

Once they're out of cots, though, it'll be much harder - will probably stick to self-catering places until they're old enough to have sense. Probably 8ish for one child, older if there's two together to egg each other on.

I wonder if people who would never leave their children in a room are the same ones who won't leave a child in a pushchair outside the toilet cubicle while they pee?

Cory - could well be different people (I'm afraid I rarely notice who's who).

Different reasons - would be interesting to know what they were.

Not actually contemplating leaving them because they have no need - fair enough (though no one ever seems to go on home alone threads to say it's wrong to leave children - of any age - home alone or playing out because we'd never choose to do that).

Nervousness - I'd have hoped would be generally covered in the "how old" part, rather than just being a "never".

A fair few of the people saying never have stated it is because they all eat together on holiday- which seems fair enough to me.

We'll eat together when the time difference means that they're able to stay up. My children are grotty by 6 and asleep by 7. Last holiday (in Europe), dinner served at earliest 6.30, by which time they were beside themselves. Not fair to them to keep them up.

One in a bed (a very sensible little girl), one in a cot, monitor downstairs, locked door, fire alarms, sprinklers etc. and hotel staff knew us. Was not nervous in the slightest and would do it again like a shot.

I have never understood why people would leave their children in hotel rooms alone. I would just be too neurotic about it. I want to be able to see them/be very near them when we're staying in a strange place; is it really so important to have dinner on your own that you have to leave your children up in a hotel room while you're in a restaurant/at the bar? What if your child feels ill, or scared, or just needs you for one reason or another? (I'm talking babies, toddlers and young children here).

I can think of one good reason not to take young children with you to the restaurant: I took dd out in Berlin when she was two and she scoffed my lovely chanterelle pasta, leaving me with the blooming kiddie's meal. Still haven't forgiven her to this day [anger]

I would not leave them.

I have 4 dcs and am a pretty relaxed parent, let 3 of them (7, 10, 12) go to the local park on their own (DD4 is 4 so still glued to me at all times), and the two eldest sometimes are left on their own at home for up to 2 hours during the day but in an unfamiliar environment I jus would not.

I do also think the family holiday IS a family holiday , therefore meals are taken together.

Have never left my kids alone in a hotel room - now aged 6.5 and 2.5. We have had babysitters arranged through the hotel (about one night per holiday) and they normally sit in the other room (as a family of 4 we have 2 interconnecting rooms or a suite) and keep an ear out for the kids. We always ask the hotel where they get their babysitters (agencies normally or local primary school teachers) . The kids normally come to dinner with us though and we eat earlier than usual, home by 9.30 or so in time for me and DP to have a nightcap on the balcony. The late night for the kids means a later than usual morning (ie 7am rather than 6am )

Nope, the same would apply as at home but possibly with the caveat that we wouldn't know the area/people/neighbours in a hotel, so they'd have to be even older.

Isn't there a law about leaving children alone? Don't they have to be 12?

Sounds like something I'd never do. And it's because hotel rooms are NOT secure.

I hate hotels because of somebody coming into my room at 7am. It made me realise how vunerable I was relying on the hotel to keep the door locked.

A completely different hotel, at a conference and a colleague goes up to his room to throw in his bag. He opens the door and starts to fling his bag in the general direction of the bed and realises there's a couple in the room. The room was double booked.

Card keys are even less secure than old metal keys as they can be programmed for many rooms.

IngridBergman Thu 21-Apr-11 08:25:10

"Isn't there a law about leaving children alone? Don't they have to be 12?"

Absolutely no law, and if you think about it an 11yo child is likely to be at secondary school and making his own way home on public transport/going out with his or her mates/be allowed to walk around in groups with other children on school field trips, so hardly likely to come to much harm if sat at home (or in a hotel room) in front of the television for an hour or two. There is an NSPCC recommendation of not leaving them alone until the age of 13, but ime even SS recognise that this is totally unrealistic, seeing that there is not much childcare provision for children this age.

We left ours (2 and 3) in a hotel room this winter while we were downstairs in the bar.

It was a kindherhotel with a room listening service. We we directly downstairs in the bar (about 1 min away).

The system worked by calling our mobile every time there was a noise in the room. We tested it by coughing in the room and DH's phone rang straight away so we considered it sensitive enough. We still popped up and checked on them every 15mins as well.

To be honest, I was more worried about them waking up and being scared when they couldnt find us than someone creeping into the room to take them. However, after a day on the snow, an early dinner together and a play in the hotel's indoor play room, they were so wiped out that it would have been a miracle if they'd woken up. Also, if either of them had started crying, we would have been in the room within minutes anyway.

It's a good point though, as would however be the law of the destination which applied and it may not be the same as UK law.

"We still popped up and checked on them every 15mins as well."

Hving to keep my eyes on my watch to make sure I or Dh goes and check regularely would most definitely spoil my meal, I'd much rateher not go out or take them with me.

'To be honest, I was more worried about them waking up and being scared when they couldnt find us than someone creeping into the room to take them.'

Well yes, same here. It means I wouldn't want to leave them in case they woke and were scared!

Thanks Cory for clarifying the legal position, I'm sure there used to be a law, or that's what my mother told me when I was about 12.

Oh, I have done it, kids were 5 and 7. I told them if they'd wake up, all they had to do was ask for us (hotel listening system). We were in the bar for an hour or two.

It was a hotel in Cornwall.

I am a careful parent, but not a paranoid parent IYSWIM

Haven't read the whole thread but my parents left me + two younger brothers in a hotel room while they had dinner downstairs - not sure re age but young, poss 5/3/2ish. Anyway, we redecorated the room fairly comprehensively with my mum's lipstick. Not sure whether they did it again ...

(They also drugged us for an overnight ferry crossing!)

I'd also be worried if they were ill or something...not that it's incredibly likely but what if one of them was sick in their sleep, or fell off the bed and was knocked out, or found your paracetamol from your handbag and started eating it...it wouldn't necessarily register on a listening device, I just couldn't take the risk. Older children yes - maybe a 10 or 12yo - but any younger than that and it would be too worrying.

I would say that you follow the same rules that you would at home. If they are too young to leave at home, they are too young to leave in a hotel. If you would leave them for half an hour at home you can leave them half an hour in a hotel-likewise if you would leave them 2 hours at home etc. By the time they are teens, and you would leave them all day at home, you can leave them all day at a hotel if they don't want to come out with you. It makes it simple!
As at home- they have to be happy about it, know what to do in an emergency and know your rules.

My attitude is very different from that of most posters. I think it all depends on what your child is like, how well they sleep etc and how you feel.

The likelihood of them being snatched is so low it is ridiculous to base decisions on that. People do far more risky things with their kids all the time than leave them asleep in a hotel room and no one bats an eyelid. look at the queue to criticise the McCanns, which in my view is despicable when they have suffered the worst thing I can possible imagine happening. For some reason we have a distorted and smug view of this whole area.

Anyway back to your question, I would do what you feel comfortable with. There's no point in getting a night out if you then worry and can't relax. Personally I have left my daughter in hotel rooms several times in various sets of circumstances and think it's absolutely fine to do so as long as your child is a sound sleeper and/or old enough to understand where you are and what to do if there's a problem.

I think you've been lucky, Wyke, that she didn't take it upon herself either to do what Dita did with the lipstick or similar, or to come to any harm through illness or accident. Other people will have done exactly the same as you and had cause not to do so again.

The stranger-stealing-child thing is so unlikely it's almost not worth arguing about, but the possibility of a child becoming unwell or having an accident or doing something stupid is far higher.

and it's obvious that people would have criticised the Mccanns because when we witness misfortune we want to distance ourselves from it, find a cause, find someone to blame. It's the human condition.

The death of a child however it came to pass is an awful thing and I am sorry for them.

Sorry, that ought to say the likely death.