Why can't I go out and leave my 3 year old asleep on his own in the house?

[FrannyandZooey]

Don't worry, I am not about to do this. But I have been musing about risk and safety recently and I am wondering if this really is as terribly unsafe as we all think it is. He doesn't wake up and will be asleep for 90 mins or more. Even if he did, he is a sensible child and is not going to fall down the stairs or drink bleach or anything. He would be worried that I was not there (which is my main reason for not doing it).

I know the argument is "what if there was a fire?"

But there isn't a fire, is there? How many fires start at random when there is no-one in the house but a toddler, fast asleep? I can see there is a small risk here - but it seems tiny to me. How does it compare with taking children out in the car? Crossing the road? Air travel? Being savaged by a dog?

As I say, please don't think I am about to go out and leave him - I'm not. But can someone explain to me why this would be absolutely unacceptable for me to do so, because I'm not getting it.

Franny, I agree with you. Nothing happened to us, but as the saying says "Nothing happens until it happens". Yet... we are definitivelyt far more paranoid than our mothers were, could be the media, the times have changed or whatever but I still wonder if not allowing our children certain "independence " may end up causing some problems in the future... I feel that we are not allowing them to grow up and become responsible for themselves until they are quite old...

Franny I really really get this. My sister was in Copenhagen recently and saw (more than once) rows of buggies/prams with sleeping babies in them outside cafes whilst the mums were inside.

Risk assessment is strange: we're all totally sensitised to the point of hysteria about stranger danger but actually the risk is far far greater from family members and friends.

I leave ds outside in the car asleep whilst i unload the shopping on a regular basis. I often let him play in the car whilst i unload.

I don't want a fearful child and I'm trying very very hard not to be a fearful parent as I do think that that is destructive. Bad stuff happens, but in terms of actual risk, I would be far better off never driving ds around in a car than not leaving him alone in the house: the risk is infinitely greater.

Do you think it was bollocks, tamum?

I thought it was so lovely...

Actually I think the MNLS stories are just perfectly observed, the most beautifully drawn characters and situations. MNLS is different ages in the different stories IMO - in one she is clearly a baby, in another she is about 1 and a half.

I do take your point though - the stories with the rambling 3 year olds are a bit further removed from reality (and embarrassingly full of exceedingly jolly dark-skinned people)

The trouble will come when our children are suddenly let loose in Thailand on a gap year without the skills and judgement that they will most certainly need

yes there has to come a time but at three years old, I think no.

Dont get me wrong, I'm not going to be like a shadow on my daughter until she gets married (), but I just dont think that a child at three like the OP is stating is old enough to know exactly what to do if something should happen.

I agree, and some will do fine some other will take unnecesary risks... we are making childhood far longer than it should be.

englandflag, I think it's not just our parents, but is probably rooted way back in the whole business of litigation and suing people when something goes wrong. That in turn has led to a huge industry of risk assessments and a culture of blame, and I suppose it's inevitable some of it rubs off. Safety standards in labs has changed beyond all recognition in the last 20 years. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but it's an illustration of how rapidly health and safety stuff has evolved.

Oh no, F&Z, sorry, not bollocks. I'm just not convinced that people were quite that different in the 70s. Maybe you're right about MNLS, it's really just that how well she speaks doesn't always fit with her other skills, IYSWIM. I absolutely love the books though, I feel bad now

Can I just spoil everyone's image of MNLS? When I was a child, I thought I was the naughtiest child alive - my mother made me feel that way and I never made me feel loved by her - cue violins I know, but I just want to say this. Anyway, she bought MNLS and used to read it to me, and I honestly thought at the time that she was reading it to me as some sort of precautionary tale, along the lines of a sermon "If you carry on as you are, you will end up like this". As a consequence, I hated the stories and although I bought one oif the books at a charity shop once, I have never actually brought myself to read it to my dd.

Yes and so you should, tamum

Prostrate yourself at the feet of Ms Edwards

(the Joe and Timothy stories are a bit barking, honestly. I think she was getting on and losing her marbles a bit, perhaps)

Sorry for my garbled last post. Just MNLS makes me emotinal still. I should have written "She never made me feel loved by her".

DG, how sad I am sorry. I always assumed it was Auntie who was being discussed, I was sure it was my mother's own words.

Yes, that's a good point tamum. I feel torn when I hear some reports on the radio - something dreadful has happened to a child, for example, and the parents are interviewed saying they want to ban the offending item, quite understandably. But if we always err on the side of caution, where's the fun? Where's the adventure?

And I think the children who are suffering the most from our overprotective attitudes are boys. How many boys do you see or hear about that could seriously benefit from going off with their mates on bikes for the day and climbing a few trees or damming a river or two? Rather than cooped up playing PS2 because it's "safer".

FrannyandZooey - I appreciate that there are risks in every day life, I'm not pretending I live in a rosy world. BUT if something bad happened to my child in an accident with a responsible adult (inc myself) it would be horrifying but I'd know it happened with a responsible person and accidents happen. If she fell off a slide, again, accidents happen, as awful as they are.
If I came back after leaving my child alone and she'd injured herself, it's my fault. My choice to leave her and my fault that she's hurt / injured / crying / looking at me and crying because she did not know where I was.

Oh good lord DG

I am really sorry to hear that

The thing with risks is, that even if the chance of the thing happening is teeny weeny, the part that makes you do it or not is if the thing that might happen is so catastrophic that is just isn't worth that teeny weeny risk. True, if you go out you might get burgled, but although it is really unpleasant, if it happens it isn't totally the end of the world (apologies to those who've had a really nasty experience, I'm just talking really generally). However if you leave your little one and the house burns down the end result doesn't bear thinking about.

Yes I do see your point there Elf, that's a good explanation.

But car accidents can be pretty catastrophic kitbit. And are much more common than house fires.

Thats OK F and Z. My mother would say (with her usual lack of kindness towards me) that that perception was a sign of my own immaturity. I am sure they are lovely stories really

englandflag - I dont see how you can possibly believe that leaving a three year old by themselves gives them the skills they'll need to go on a gap year.

I would hate for my daughter to be sitting on mumsnet in 20, 30 years time saying "my mother let me do what I liked, when I liked, left me alone in the house when I was a child, I didn't know where she was and I didnt feel safe".

I'd much rather her sit there typing "my mum installed good common sense, knew when I needed help, was there for me. I felt loved and secure as a child and she taught me the things I need to know to get by, she didn't throw me in the deep end and expect me to swim"

I suppose the other issue is what it is you are doing when you are leaving this theoretical child- if someone had had a car smash just up your road and you had to go and help but didn't want the child to see the blood (improvising wildly here) then that's a different situation from nipping to the shop for a paper. The child would be in the same position though, it's just that the risk/benefit calculation would be different.

Elf, aren't we teaching our children to be fearful though? By being so fearful?

I do think our perception of risk is really all about anecdotes. We didn't evolve to accurately evaluate statistics, did we. We evolved to watch what happened to the people around us, and make decisions based on that.

So now, when we read a horrible story in the paper (child abduction and murder, paedophilia, house burning down), it feels like it's something happening to someone we know. Particularly when the story is very detailed.

So lots of other risks (e.g. kids run over by cars, or family paedophilia) don't seem as risky, because they're under-reported, or at least not reported in the same gory detail. Often because they aren't news, because they are so common!

Chandra, taht is so sad

Oh, but Elf, I do think we should be paying attention to what our kids want. The people here talking about leaving (older) kids alone, are doing it when their kids would rather stay home than come out. Which is surely a bit different.

Although, of course, kids can have loads of fears and worries that we as parents just don't know about. I know I certainly did.