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?

exoticfruit puts it well: if you follow same basic rules as at home that should cover the safety aspect. I would never leave paracetamol within reach of young children at home, so I wouldn't do it in a hotel either- risk eliminated. I would always leave children with a means of contacting an adult and instructions on how to do so- so I'd do the same in a hotel.

also about what the child wants: I wouldn't have left my young dcs (i.e. under 8) alone in a hotel room because they would not have liked it and were poor sleepers; otoh they have always been fine with late nights so no reason not to take them to the restaurant

IngridBergman I am afraid your mother was either misinformed or telling you porkies; there has never been such a law in the UK, in fact when our generation were young, children commonly had far more independence than they do now. The only thing that might involve the law is if anything happens- then you might be held negligent if the child was very young; but the whole point of leaving children alone at any age is that you have weighed up the risks and decided they are negligible.

I've done it with a baby (with a monitor and didn't leave the hotel) but not stayed in a hotel since.

With an older child, what's the difference between leaving them in a hotel room and putting your child to bed at night at home? I presume none of us sit in our kids' bedrooms after they've gone to bed in case they are sick so why is a hotel room different? Again, I wouldn't leave the hotel but going to the bar/restaurant within the hotel I would do with no hesitation.

it depends on how big your home is, Christine...and how big the hotel is. If you're in the next room eating without your children or about ten seconds' walk away, within earshot and passing by their room fairly regularly, then of course, it's equivalent to being at home, except that if the child does wake it will be less accustomed to the usual layout or hazards therefore at increased risk of an accident especially as it will likely be tired or sleepy.

Children often can manage to contact you in your/their own home if something is wrong or you would notice because your house isn't divided by thick walls and fire doors, presumably. more likely all rooms leading off the hall and stairwell/landing with doors open.

There are marked differences between being in a hotel and being at home.

Much of the point is that a hotel stay changes all the usual patterns - layout, even a sleepwalking child knows the way to their own toilet - can come to get you etc. but in a hotel that pattern/internal map is lost or disarranged.

doors may be confusing or heavy; corridors may be all the same, a child coming to find you in a sleepy state could easily become lost or distressed.

Isn't this stuff just obvious?

I'm thinking about the hotel I have stayed in with my DS when he was a baby - there were about 20 rooms and I'd asked for a ground floor room so I was very close by. If it was a huge hotel then that's different. I hate staying in hotels though so I doubt the issue is going to arise :o

I've stayed in a massive house with friends which was subdivided into apartments and ate downstairs as we all did. None of the children got up in the night

I wouldn't leave mine (age 3.5 and nearly 2) in a hotel room now. We have monitors in their rooms at home, and DS1 has proved more than once that he can get out of his room and downstairs without us hearing anything on the monitor. As someone else said, the logic of small children is different to adults. However much you've talked about what to do / what not to do, you can't predict what will seem sensible to a suddenly-awakened child. So, we do self-catering at the moment.

However, I certainly envisage that I would when they are 15+ depending on circumstances. I agree that family hols are time to spend together, but that doesn't have to be 24 hrs a day. On holiday, I wd like to have some time alone with DH. Also some time alone with each child (while DH with other) - one to one time is as important as group time for kids.

On the sliding scale between 3 and 15 - i think it's hard to tell until your kids are that age. Very dependent on the particularities of the children, the hotel etc. Certainly from 13+ I wanted some time on my own on family hols - we tended to do self-catering so perhaps that is what will happen this time round too.

No that sounds a bit less worrying Christine. I don't stay in hotels either so not an issue here either...the thing is, I can't imagine leaving a baby in another room for more than about half an hour, and would certainly want to stay well within earshot for that half hour too.

I always co slept with mine and indeed still have my nearly four year old ds in my bed at night. So I just can't imagine it!

I still co-sleep with my 4 year old but I do make him go to bed before me, wherever we are! Yes, I think I would be a bit more cautious if there were people I didn't know wandering about. Not that I think that my DS is going to be abducted but it's more pissed up people who might be mean to him/trip over him

OP, to answer your question, I think (a) is fine at any age, and (d) from about age 10-11. The middle options are equivalent to me (don't think the snatching risk is high) and would depend a bit on whether dc(s) are solid sleepers.

Am very much in the benign neglect camp here. I would want an evening out away from small dcs. Surely that is one of the benefits of a hotel holiday?

Probably from when oldest is 12/13 and youngest 10/11 - as long as I was downstairs in hotel and not leaving the premises

Never

I expect that yours are quite small TroubledPrincess and you haven't any DCs over 6ft! You may change your mind.

Re Cory's and Ingrids discussion, re 'law', is is true that there is no 'law' on when children can be left alone. But the 'Home Alone' is recommended for 12+, once you have considered possible dangers. The NSPCC ( which is often considered to be more cautious) recommends 13, rather than aged 12.

So for those saying you would never leave a child alone in a hotel room, it does seem unrealistic.
You have to decide the age , a child can be left safely at home. And i think we all agree 'at home' is different to hotel, because children feel more comfortable/safe at home.
But children must be left alone. Else it does end up with uni students who are totally unwordly wise.
Which bakcs up the cotton woll thing that Expat took such exception to. (Although I didn't undersand her objection).
I do not see those that leave their children alone as stupid or lazy. I call it good parenting.

Agree with Exotic - it does seem a tad naive to say 'never'. A savvy early teen would be able to cope in a hotel room when parents were enjoying a cocktail downstairs or early dinner for an hour or two. To suggest otherwise is helicopter parenting in the extremis!

Oblomov Thu 21-Apr-11 15:18:53
"Re Cory's and Ingrids discussion, re 'law', is is true that there is no 'law' on when children can be left alone. But the 'Home Alone' is recommended for 12+, once you have considered possible dangers. The NSPCC ( which is often considered to be more cautious) recommends 13, rather than aged 12."

Yes, but this does not mean that society at large is actually paying much attention to these guidelines.

Secondary school children are expected to make their own way to and from school; this means at least some children under the age of 12.

Most secondary school children I know are also allowed out with mates.

During dd's field trip to Belgium they slept in a hotel room without an adult per room- staff ratios simply wouldn't have been up to it, apart from the obvious problems with making pupils share bedrooms with teachers.

I have had SS and CAHMS suggest that I was overprotective for having
(disabled) dd attend childminder at age 12; dd had to explain that she went partly for the socialising, partly because she found it difficult to manouevre wheelchair into the house on her own. They were fine with that, but otherwise clearly found it worth commenting on.

I am not sure what 'never' is supposed to mean. I just wonder if the person who says it it just completely in the mind set of small DCs and can't see beyond 12 yrs or whether they really mean never while a DC.
I'm just not sure how my DS and his girlfriend would have managed to go abroad, alone, at 18yrs if I had refused to leave him alone in a hotel room at 15/16/17yrs.
We went to Club Med one year and one of the reps was 18yrs and off to Oxford to do languages in the October (he got his A'level results while we were there)he was very good at his job -I bet his parents had left him in a hotel room alone before launching him off to be the one in charge!
Never seems a very big word and too vague to be meaningful.

Agreed Cory.
Hopefully most parents don't need to know the 'guidelines'. Hopefully , they are using, now, whats it called again, oh yes, that's it. common sense. God forbid.
Bet most MN'ers would have phoned SS by now !!
Many parents at our school let their children walk to school, in the last year of primary. School encourages this. Seems fine to me.
Bet most MN'ers would be horrified at that !!

I'm sure most schools would love yr 6s to walk to school on their own.

Erm, as far as I know most of our y6 children walk on their own if they live near enough. Why do you think most MNers would be horrified at that? what a strange thing to say.

'I do not see those that leave their children alone as stupid or lazy. I call it good parenting.'

surely that would depend on the children's ages and other circumstances?

and to suggest most MNers would have phoned social services is just really patronising. Do you really believe that?

We have had plenty of posts in the past suggesting that allowing children of Yr 6 age to walk alone is neglectful. Not at all uncommon on Mumsnet. But rather less prevalent in RL.

I must have missed them, Cory.

My nine year old walks to and from school on his own (or with friends). We live less than ten minutes away, its as safe as can be. Today he went off with a packed lunch and a comic on his bike to the woods for an hour. I don't think anyone will be calling social services. Maybe its different in Ireland.

No, not patronising Ingrid.
I have seen many many threads over the years of MN'ers saying something was neglectful, or abusive, when it is not. And many suggesting phoning ss, at something that later tunred out to be, not warranted.
I have seen this many many times on MN. I feel that sometimes people are a bit too trigger happy to ring police/ss etc.
How is that patronising ?

I see them walk to school everyday around me, but it is very common on MN to think it neglectful, in the same way that a 10yr old can't boil a kettle, make toast, use a sharp knife or stay in their own home alone for 10 minutes in case the house burns down.