RISK you take with your children

[mylittleimps]

Xenia said: "Anything can be discussed. Start a risk thread. Namby pamby look after children all the time parents who don't let them go out alone, run in forests, ride horses and risk death damage their children hugely. ", she also said that the case of Madeleine McCann would not change her in as much she would still leave a similar age child alone and go out to dinner in similar circumstances. Xenia also said it was just the same as putting them to bed and going down stairs to have dinner.

i let my young children ride horses, play outside witha river at the bottom of the garden or at their grandparents with a lake. they have lived in a "construction site" since birth, i let them sleep on their fronts BUT i would never ever leave them alone and go out to dinnerb or even leave my rpoperty boundary. and it is not the same putting them to bed and going down stairs.

i believe now the McCanns have pubilically stated that the quilt will never leave them and the poor child is still missing this is a debate that should be had now as if some people can still say it's acceptable is worrying (to me) and I believe children are still at risk if this message is left unchecked

so where fdo you draw the line at risks wrt your children (we all know that as parents we have to take them)

But it would already be illegal to leave your 8 year old for 4 hours if he came to any harm because of it on a one-off occasion, or if you did it habitually.

there is No legal minimum age to leave a child home alone. The Crime is leaving a child at RISK of harm.

Go figure!!!!!

With babysitters if they are under 16 and something goes wrong the parents have to accept responsiblity.

There is a website that i got this stuff from but i have no idea how to put on a link.

But it is the www.ChildrensLegalCentre.com

As some of you have pointed out it takes into account maturity of the child, length of absense, how often left etc.

I don't really see the point in this argument. The very fact that we all use Mumsnet and that we are all contributing to this thread means that we are all conscientious parents. Arguing the toss over how far is too far to stray from your kids or what makes an "unfit" minder is a bit useless. None of us stands to be converted.

I accept that some of you are protective towards your young and don't like to let them out of your sight. There is nothing wrong with that and you should obviously do what is right for you as parents. I don't think anyone has the right to say "That's crap and it makes you a suffocating mother".

But neither do you have the right to say the opposite to those of us who aren't so protective.

I was brought up in the town. I was left playing out by myself for hours at a time. If my mother wanted me she would send one of my older siblings to find me. She didn't know where I was or who I was with, but I wasn't so different from all my friends who were brought up the same way. And that was in the midst of the Moors Murders.

Now I hardly see any kids playing out. They are all sat at home on their computer games where parents can see them. Just in case there happens to be a paedo round the corner who will snatch them.

And you know what? Whenever anything goes wrong, no matter what it is, it is always the mother who gets the blame. That is what really gets my back up. As if we don't have enough responsibility and people judging our every move! Honestly, if you feed your child a sausage roll you'd have a thread on Mumsnet condemning you.

We all love our children dearly, so why can't we just leave each other to get on with parenting the way we each see fit? And instead of blaming the mother when things go tragically wrong, why can't we have a heart and give them all our love and sympathy instead? Or is that too much to ask?

Great post Rhubarb

I've hesitated adding a posting on this for fear of appearing trivial in the light of the McCann tragedy but I'm with Mumemma when she talks about how holiday companies should structure their provision for parents in future. Surely there is a bigger question here about why parents can't go on holiday and enjoy themselves and provide good care for their children at the same time?
I'm a bit of a paranoid/anxious mother and so personally don't choose to trust hotel baby-monitors and therefore my dh and I have spent more nights than I want to think about in darkened hotel rooms, talking in whispers while sharing a sandwich from the bar, while our daughter sleeps. Surely, in this day and age, hotels can do a bit better than this?

As for the wider debate about risk assessment, perhaps as parents we just have to try and balance our own need to protect our children with the effects that those choices will have on that individual child. For example, apart from horse-riding, I tend toward the anxious/what if type child-rearing, which means that my dd will probably be less confident than many of her peers. I'm not happy about this and it probably won't be the best thing for her in the long run. So I'm trying to strike a better balance. Failing currently but trying!

I don't think this is just me but i must ask! Do you let your 2nd child take more risks?

I don't mean than older siblings now, but, eg. 1st born tries to climb a couple of steps in the garden you are there waiting ready to catch, 2nd born comes along reaches the 'try to climb' stage and you sit there and watch saying "oh she'll be fine, let her try!".

Or is it me?

mota - definitely.

You're just not as uptight about them imo. You've seen child 1 fall and bash his head and nearly break limbs, and you know she'll probably be all right.

Also she tries to keep up with him, so will attempt things he never did, because he wasn't watching an older role model.

Countingthegreyhairs, I'm not sure that there is a simple solution. Children aged 1-2 may sleep say 11-12 hours (at least mine did) whereas I sleep for 7-8 hours. Children who are older sleep for somewhere inbetween. It is rare to find 2 fmaileies which have identicial homelife routines so not that surprising it is hard for holiday companies to meet everyone's need. Some people have said that they want the option to eat with thier toddlers at 5 say, but I prefer to eat with my husband later in the evening which is our usual routine. We migth eat earlier occasionally eg if we're havign a day out, but I wouldn't want to eat early every day for a fortnight. Different people find what works for them. Mark Warner won't suit many, but they suit enough to grow their business. There are loads of holiday destinations and plenty of hotels to choose from.

where have i said i let them play outside with a river at the bottom of the garden /lake in the grounds ON THEIR OWN? i haven't.

I think all 2nd dc get more freedom.

people are still mixing up what is meant by leaving young children alone, confusing things by suggesting this means being in the house when they are in the garden (or vis versa) and how old young children are (talking pre-schoolers) and providing what they deem adequate cover 9and hence why a parents role is so special as no-one can/should care more about your dc than you.

i do/have taken risk in my ds's lives but if anything happens then i am comfortable accepting the blame i certainly don't think i would ever be in the position to say that i don't believe i couldn't have done anything differently to prevent it happening because hindsight is a wonderful thing and it's not the parent that pays for the mistake it is always the child.

but i don't believe in wrapping your dc up in cotton wool until they are 21 but i just would not leave my ds's alone day or night (perhaps easiest to say out of earshot) until they are older as independant as they are, they are just not mature enough at preschool age to deal with events life can throw up at you. and to force them to in my mind is neglect

i'll leave you with this -

everyone is entitled to make their own choices but with that freedom comes consequences.

for instance,

I fully accept the consequences of starting a thread - it leaves me open to attack from the "talk gestapo", therefore people who leave their very small dc's asleep alone in a strange place at risk from a multitude of events/horrors and such one horror occurs leave themselves wide open to the consequences of that choice - be it comments from parents that don't ever see leaving young children alone an option or requests that something is done to ensure people wake up to their responsibilities as parents (to very young children who are very very dependant on their parents for their needs being looked 24/7.)

you might gather from this that i have limited sympathy for errant parents as it is the child that suffers and this is all that matters/concerns me - adults are big enough to look after themselves.

i'm with you on that sentament.

I find it strange that you refer to a "talk gestapo" when you are the person dictating how other people should care for their children. I also think that you find it difficult to accept that parents who don't leave their children unattended may not share your views with regard to how other parents look after their children. As has been pointed out several times on this thread already (but maybe has not sunk in)no one has a problem with the way in which you raise your children re. choosing never to leave them alone, not using babysitters etc. Completely up to you.

You said you were interested in getting the opinions of others. Now you have them. If people get shirty with you it may be because they find your attitude judgemental and sanctimonious - and might be just a bit irritated that you started the thread under false pretenses. That certainly sums up how I feel anyway.

by the "talk gestapo" I'm refering a previous thread which was deleted after being hijaked and bumped to oblivian because certain people didn't think it was allowed to be discussed. they also had been v v rude and derogatry.

why say i have taken offense? - everyone is entitled to say what they wish and i am glad that they have

and I did not start the thread under false pretenses, when the thread has developed my thoughts have developed as a result of reading other people's posts and, like you of mine, i have been perplexed at some people's attitudes (to leaving their very very young children at 'home' alone)

so i really mean it this time: i'll leave you with this -

everyone is entitled to make their own choices but with that freedom comes consequences.

for instance,

I fully accept the consequences of starting a thread - it leaves me open to attack from the "talk gestapo", therefore people who leave their very small dc's asleep alone in a strange place at risk from a multitude of events/horrors and such one horror occurs leave themselves wide open to the consequences of that choice - be it comments from parents that don't ever see leaving young children alone an option or requests that something is done to ensure people wake up to their responsibilities as parents (to very young children who are very very dependant on their parents for their needs being looked after 24/7.)

you might gather from this that i have limited sympathy for errant parents as it is the child that suffers and this is all that matters/concerns me - adults are big enough to look after themselves.

Saying the same thing twice won't change what people think. I don't know anything about your previous thread that was deleted.

I don't think anyone has dictated how other people should parent, and i do beleive that all parents are free to make what decisions they see fit. But on the other hand they must also accept the consequences of there actions.

Excuse me while I splutter

I'm liking the cut of your gib, plummymummy

What a very offensive expression "talk gestapo" is.

Very difficult to converse with someone who has tunnel vision.

Hope you're not going down the road to post any letters giantsquirrel

The thing with risk is down to how you manage it.

I see children & parents who take risks everyday. Eg letting a child with long hair go to school with it down - risk headlice - assess easily removed. Or driving without kids in car seats, risk - potential death if in accendent. Now some might say the chance of having an accent is small so worth the risk. Others may argue that it is irreponsible and neglectful as your duties as a parent to let your dc travel without restraints.

What i am saying is don't expect me to sit there saying poor mr & mrs X lost poor jonny in a car accendent, when they hadn't strpped them in properly. It was there choice.

LOL

Sorry about the spelling, passed my bedtime!

ANother handy idiot-detector is: people who think that the answer to everything is to have the Government make another law about it. This mindset has led to useless bullshit laws like the dangerous dogs act, the handgun ban and the wretched carseat law - now you expect this gruesome band of superstitous control freaks to exhibit anything like common sense over childcare?

OMG OMG OMG why why why why are they useless? i didn't think i'd be drawn to post again but here we are -

they all save lives because some people are so selfish they can not act responsibily and the law needs to be able to act on these selfish people - have you seen what dogs do to children? how children fly through windscreens? and death by a gun?

i would much prefer anarchist society (ie without the need for laws/police etc) but most people haven't the capability to govern themselves.