Active discussions

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Parenting

For free parenting resources please check out the Early Years Alliance's Family Corner.

Original poster

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

349 replies

FrannyandZooey · 23/06/2006 12:07

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.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Set a reminder
hunkermunker · 23/06/2006 22:07

Am I not wanted then?

Original poster
FrannyandZooey · 23/06/2006 22:08

Hunker I said HC was not wanted

I meant you, and her name popped up instead

OP posts:
NotQuiteCockney · 23/06/2006 22:09

I think it's pretty high praise (if somewhat confusing) for TTGS to mistake you for her alter ego.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Families General parenting
hunkermunker · 23/06/2006 22:09

I getcha. I was joshing really

zippitippitoes · 23/06/2006 22:09

oh franny your ds sounds like me as a small person..

hunkermunker · 23/06/2006 22:09

Heavens, NQC, good point

saadia · 23/06/2006 22:15

Times really have changed and speaking for myself I think I am far more overprotective of my dss probably than my mother was of me and definitely more than MIL was of her dss.

Partly I think this is because nowadays having kids is a choice rather than a requirement so we feel we have to do everything perfectly and we have to take responsibility for everything that happens to them and try to solve all their problems.

For myself I would agree that as they get older (dss are 4 and 2) I will have to consciously back off and give them their independence but, in answer to the original question , I think that 3 is far too young to be starting this process.

I was always a model pupil at school and a very obedient child but at times did odd things, so I wouldn't put it past my own dss, or any other child, to do the same.

There are young children in many countries who are wage earners, who live on the streets, who have responsibility for siblings - I can't imagine my dss managing in those scenarios but I guess children are more resilient and resourceful than we think.

But when it comes to our own kids, as others have said, rationality doesn't come into it. Leaving young children alone feels to me like asking for trouble.

emsiewill · 23/06/2006 22:17

Does anyone agree with the NSPCC website (from ladyoracle's post 9:53:58), tha

"For example, most parents would think it?s OK to leave a sixteen-year-old alone for the evening, but to leave them for a week would be unacceptable."

I don't think leaving a responsible 16 yr old alone for a week is unacceptable - obv it depends on the child, but at 16 they can leave home and live on their own if they want.

This to me undermines the rest of what they are saying...

tamum · 23/06/2006 22:18

It does seem a bit bizarre given that they are old enough to get married, doesn't it? Not a great argument I realise, since if they were married they would be with someone...

NotQuiteCockney · 23/06/2006 22:19

Hmm, dunno about leaving a 16-year-old. My parents certainly didn't trust me at that age! Although I remember really resenting that ...

I think it would depend on the local community. If you had a neighbour who your child could easily call on, or who could drop in or keep an eye on things, then yeah, a week might well be fine.

SecurMummy · 23/06/2006 22:23

Love the idea of leaving a 16yo old alone!

If they were married I am guessing tehy would be in own house?

They sure as hec would not stay alone in mine (imagine teh mess)

emsiewill · 23/06/2006 22:26

Well, yes, I'm not talking about the desirability of leaving a 16 yr old in your house. But really, if your 16 yr old isn't capable of looking after themself for a week, I think that is a reflection on the parents...

tamum · 23/06/2006 22:26

I would certainly find the idea of leaving a 16 year old alone for a week in my house totally unacceptable, but not for the reasons the NSPCC think I ought to be considering, I suspect.

Elf1981 · 23/06/2006 22:31

the uk is full of contradictions. You can join the army at 16 but you cant vote til you're 18.

Elf1981 · 23/06/2006 22:38

anyway, as I said, my own opinion is probably clouded by what happened to me as a child (23 June, 2006 9:56:43 PM)

when my cousin was young, she used to stop at my grandparents house for a bit at night when my aunt worked nights. It was usually on a Sat, my granddad would go to the pub with my uncles, my cousin would be at home with my disabled grandma. I used to pop up some evenings and sit with them for a few hours and she'd go home with her dad when my granddad came home (they were playing cards not drinking). Anyway, when my cousin was about seven / eight, I remember her being absolutely hysterical one evening when I went to leave and she begged me not to leave her on her own. She said my gran could not protect her if something happened. I thought that was really sad.
Last year, just before she turned ten, she was with my grandparents when my gran was poorly. She was logical and really mature in her thoughts and she was the one who got my granddad to call for an ambulance while he was trying to call one of his kids for help instead.
I dont believe the maturity in the way she handled that came from being left 'alone' at an early age, I just think she'd reached that level of maturity, that most kids reach at some point

cazboldy · 23/06/2006 22:40

i was married with a 10 month old when i was 16

cazboldy · 23/06/2006 22:41

now am 24............ still married and mum of 4

1Baby1Bump · 23/06/2006 22:53

sorry, i dont want to put myself in the stocks here but i feel quite strongly....
i would never leave the house when my son was in bed alone in the house.
i chat on the doorstep but thats it!!

tooz · 24/06/2006 08:15

Bit of a horror story but I know a family that was devastated by the mum going out leaving two young kids. A fire started and the youngest child was so badly burnt that she lost her legs. The family have never recovered and the mum has been haunted by guilt ever since. I know it is extremely unlikely but why would you take the risk?

Caligula · 24/06/2006 09:35

What preposterous advice from the NSPCC.

A sixteen year old not old enough to be left in the house for a week? What sort of sixteen year old would that be then? One of the ones who was never allowed to be in the house on their own ever until they were 13?

But of course, if you haven't been given any independence at all, you won't be capable of being left in the house on your own. In fact, at 18 it will be too young to go to university. They won't be ready to go until they're 30 by the time our children have grown up.

Original poster
FrannyandZooey · 24/06/2006 09:56

My parents didn't trust me enough to leave me in the house alone when I was 16. In fact I think I was 17 when they went away and they still left 2 family friends there to look after me, which was hideous for all of us.

I went a bit off the rails when I finally left home, and do wonder how it would have been if I had been allowed more freedom when I was younger...

I still don't buy this "why would you take the risk?" thing - that's a terrible story, but do you not travel in cars, tooz? People get mangled and killed every day from car accidents; it's really quite common.

OP posts:
sowoffended · 24/06/2006 10:07

I think the mainstay of the argument (whether rational or not) is the bit about the child being with you (or another adult), even if something awful happens.

There's just something about a child being left alone, again this is not completely rational because often the parent will allow the same child to play out alone.

NotQuiteCockney · 24/06/2006 10:15

That was my thought F&Z - nobody seems to say "my neighbour had a horrible car crash, and one of their children was hurt/killed. And it was an unnecessary journey! I could never forgive myself if that happened".

My parents were really bad at the not-trusting thing. It was comic, really. When I was dating, at 15, they said we had to go to films or dinner, rather than just going for a walk in the park. Because people had sex in parks. Thanks mom! I hadn't thought of that before! (We were quite innocent at the point when she said that, but still ...)

edam · 24/06/2006 10:22

OMG Chandra that is a tragic story. Think it brings up an interesting point. We are talking about our own ability to assess risk as parents (and NQC's post makes an excellent point) but you have to think about the child's ability to assess risk too. Those poor children thought they were doing something that would make them safe... and the mother thought she was keeping them safe by locking the door.

Keep meaning to ask my local firefighters what message I should be giving ds about what to do if a fire breaks out. He's got a DVD called 'Here comes a fire engine' that ends 'if you discover a fire, get out and stay out and call 999.' He's not quite three so I'm probably worrying too soon, as he's never on his own, but what are children supposed to do after that? Can imagine some poor kid being so scared they run across the road, for instance.

My nanny's just been told by her NVQ teacher that she should be keeping a fire bag by both front and back doors, with nappies and our mobile phone numbers. Seemed a bit OTT to me - she's only here in the day time and you can always buy nappies - but I suppose mobile numbers are good because if she dropped her mobile, she wouldn't want to go back for it.

NotQuiteCockney · 24/06/2006 10:25

Children, by default, hide in closets and under beds, if there's a fire. At least they're close to the ground that way (less smoke), I guess, but they're harder for firefighters to find in time.

(My dad was a firefighter. At least one bloke he worked with was extra-good at finding kids.)