Is it Ok to watch your children sleep on a video monitor whilst you go out to dinner

[Jzee]

Whilst on holiday? I can't really believe that someone I know seems to think this is an Ok thing to do? Personally, I think it's pretty selfish and when I've been on holiday we've allways taken DD out with us either for an early dinner or taken the buggy so she can sleep. In the light of recent news events I can't believe some parents are prepared to take these chances?

carmen - my post wasn't aimed at you! You sound like you have similar holidays to us. I just can't stand the 'parents shouldn't want to be on their own' type thinking.

I think i would feel really embarrassed to if anyone asked where the kids were!

We always get really friendly with the staff and they get to know and chat to the kids, dont they? If they were to say 'Where is your ds?' i think i would feel ashamed to say hes in bed while we enjoy our meal.

Look at the stick the McCann's got from the Portuguese? Especially as babysitting service available.

Years ago, i worked at Butlin's and i actually worked myself as a babysitter in the evenings to earn extra cash. It was a great service. We were police checked and everything. The parents got to have a night out, they would usually put the kids to bed before they went out and i got to eat all the nice goodies and watch the telly

No muffin. I aint like that one bit!! Im with you on that one!

Hate people who act like their lives are over cos they have kids

"I think social services would probably think that an 8 month child, left unsupervised would be in danger. I know, lets ask." - I'll ask DS's social worker when I next see her.

Gotta laugh at that one kewcumber! Maybe you might ahve one after this thread. lol.

he does have a social worker, we get visits every 6 weeks - I was serious - I will ask her. Honest!

Im not martyr. Im responsible. ALL the time. That is what happens when you are responsible for innocent, vulnerable children.

I do have a life. I have great family who will babysit, and sometimes we use a registered childminder, who sometimes does evening in your house babysitting. Most of the time, we take the kids EVERYWHERE we go.

We go out for dinner as a family, sometimes in very nice places, once a week or so.

Life cannot stay the same once children enter the equation. Its impossible.

Glad you are asking your social worker. I would be interested to see what she says.

Call me uncool, say my life is boring, I really dont care. I KNOW my kids are safe all the time, and that matters to me more than having a dinner alone with dh while my kids are upset, alone and in danger.

Mummoomin, let me just pick up those points:

1. "They are in danger." No they're not, the odds of them being abducted at all are less than 1 in 1,000,000. The odds on them being abducted from a hotel room are actually far larger than that. Your child is in far far far higher risk of death or serious injury whilst travelling in car with you. Your child is at far higher risk of burning to death in the room next door to you whilst you sleep. Your child is even at higher risk of being killed by lightning or dying of an insect sting that being abducted from a hotel room. If you were serious about keeping your kids safe, you'd certainly never let them play in the garden or ride in your car.

1. "They're upset". If they wake up and even squeak, that's why you have a monitor. It takes less than a minute to get to your hotel room in most hotels. That's probably less time that you would leave them to cry if they were upstairs at home.

1. "They're alone". Well of course they are. They're asleep. Unless you have your child strapped to your side 24/7 and co-sleep every night they do tend to spend time alone in their rooms at night.

I would agree with you mummoonin if I also thought my child was "upset, alone and in danger". But I didn't and don't.

a) he always slept through within minutes of being put down (yes, I know we were very lucky). Even if he had woken up, he was never bothered by new or different environments - which I can assert by his reaction on waking up in the mornings. So he wasn't upset.

b) he was no more "alone" than he would have been at home: indeed, he was checked on every half hour - which is more than he would have been done at home. SO I don't consdier he was "alone" - anyomre than he would have been at night at home.

c) I disagree about him being in danger - which I know we won't agree on. I refuse to live a life fearing that everyone you come across is dangerous. I prefer to beleive that most people are good and to trust them. And guess what - most people are good! As cestlavie (I think) has already pointed out - the statisitcs are that most accidents and injuries happen in the home. So I don't conder he was in danger.

I've already told the story of ds being whicked away frome our table one lunchtime and being entertained, a large part of it out of our sight, by the staff at a resturaunt in SOuth Africa. I didn't know these people from Adam - they could have been kidnapping him for all we knew. However, instead it was a wonderful experience for him (unfortunately not one he will remember as he was too young) and the sort of thing that I am sure has contributed to him being the confident, indepedent wee boy he is today.

It's moving on to another topic, but we had a argument disucssion with someone while we were on holiday in Greece (in that hotel where ds sleeps in the room a few yards away ) where they said "surely you would want to know that your ds' rugby coach was CRB checked" and dh answered "no" - what was more important was that we knew the coaches involved, were involved with both the club and the children - and that ds knew whar was acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. And nay, the CRB check is only as good as the time it was done - and whether anything has been reported/convicted.

I had a discussion with my dad a wee while ago and the current "parent blame" culture and the fact that we some people are scared to allow kids to do what we used to be able to do without question. He pointed out that the difference now is that in the past, if, for example, a child got knocked over walking to the shops to do an errand - or even walking to school, it would have been the driver that was blamed. Today it would be the parents that would be blamed for having let the child out.

Cestlavie - we corss posted! It took me a long time to draft my response (in between doing some actual work! )

moomin - do you not think everyones life here has changed having children? Do you really think that having dinner without your DC's on holiday a few times - even assuming you go on holiday twice a year (which I don't) thats maybe 10 evenings in 365 - is beahving as if you don;t have children and trying to live your life before you had them?

I understand that you see danger where some of us don't (or not significantly more danger than most situations) but trying to paint parents who don't see the risk in the same way you do as people who are desparately trying to cling onto child-free lives is a bit far off the mark.

"I KNOW my kids are safe all the time" - and that can't possibly be true. Sorry but it can't.

I see there has actually been no further progression on this subject, understandably people from different backrounds, social circles, "class" are going to view things differently, I am viewed as being one of the boring OTT mums who acts as if her life is over because she's had a child and the funny thing is that while I sit here reading all these posts I find only one thing lacking - respect! I do not expect everyone to be as over protective as I am (and I am) all I would say is be aware of the dangers our children face, how you decide to cope with these at the end of the day, is your decision, if you can live with the measures you have taken should anything go wrong then that is what you should continue to do, but god forbid you are left thinking you were to blame. We do the best we know how and our experiences play a large part in how we deal with various situations. Live and let live!!!

bikermom, I completely agree with you. People should do whatever they feel comfortable with. Personally, I like spending some evenings as a couple and am perfectly happy to use a baby-monitor. Equally, if people prefer spending evenings as a family, that's entirely up to them and their choice. I think the reason people have got their backs up is that (leading on from the OP) the explicit or implicit tone from one side has been that should you leave a child in a hotel room whilst they sleep you are a "bad" parent whose child is "alone, upset, in danger".

I have plenty of respect for the way other people parent within their own comfort levels/beleifs etc. I don't think you will find a single post form me saying anything different - i have even repeatedly said that I do understand other people feeling uncomfortable with it but my assesment on the rare occasion I have done it was that it was perfectly safe. I have continued my posts (ad nauseum) because I object again everytime someone tries to imply that anyone who does this is a terrible parent and how could they possibly enjoy themselves with their child locked in a garrett and besides its against the law (no, its not) and... it's not a bloody class thing! What class do you think I am? How can you tell (whatever you think it is)?

I really strenuously object to being painted as some kind of good tiem parent who won't compromise going out having a good time for their DC's. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case (and I suspect in the vast majority of cases wehre people are prepared to argu their case on MN) - I gave up more than most in order to have DS and don't regret it. Going out for dinner wihtout him a few times a year doesn't make me a bad parent. No-ne wants to listen to the statistics that a child is far more likely to be absued by a baby stter tan they are by a random paedophile in a hotel room. I understand that too but it still doesn't make me a bad parent if I chose to assess the risks logically and to not leave my DS with a babysitter ever but to occasionally leave him asleep in a room about 2/3 minutes from me.

But I shall give up the uneven fight about that.

"I understand that too but it still doesn't make me a bad parent if I chose to assess the risks logically and to not leave my DS with a babysitter ever but to occasionally leave him asleep in a room about 2/3 minutes from me."

I haven't read the whole thread so I apologise to all the others who have undoubtedly made these points before.

What about these risks:

(i) Fire
(ii) Choking/illness
(iii) Night terrors - waking up - no parents - unfamiliar surroundings
(iv) As (iii) with the added refinement of coming to find you - with all the attendant risks
(v) Waking up and playing in a hotel room which may not be childproof "Oh, what's in this fridge? Let's drink it"

I honestly think anyone leaving their children in hotel rooms or a la McCann is bonkers. And I thought so before the Madeleine incident too. Have never left them alone ... It's not safe ...

My last words... I give up. No point reiterating everything again, its getting dull.

Kewcumber, my last post was not aimed at anyone in particular.

Quattrocento, might be wise to read the whole thread as this has all now been covered extensively.

I repeat "live and let live" and another favourite "judge not lest ye be judged yourself"

I agree Kewcumber. I give up.

Quattorcentro should indeed read the whole thread, as her points have been covered a number of times.

NSPCC guidelines

Never leave babies or young children home alone (whether sleeping or awake), not even for a few minutes.

Until the age of about 13 most children are not mature enough to cope with an emergency and should not be left alone for more than a very short time.

If children do have to be alone, give them clear instructions about what to do if there is a problem. Leave a list of people you trust who they can go to or telephone for help, such as a neighbour or close relative. And remember to put all obvious dangers out of reach before you go (eg. medicines, chemicals, matches or sharp objects).

No child or young person under 16 should be left alone overnight.

Authorities are investigating a mobile home fire that killed two young children who were home without supervision.

The Harnett County Sheriff's Office said Friday they found the bodies of 20-month-old Kaliyah Simmons and 3-year-old Ariana Squire Simmons. A 6-year-old child, Janaya Squires, escaped the flames with minor injuries.

Investigators said the children's mother had left the home late Thursday night to drive her mother to her house two miles away. Twenty-four-year-old Echo Simmons returned to find her home on fire.

Authorities are investigating the cause of the fire.

Police: Parents Left Children Alone In Newington Hotel Room. Two parents were arrested after police said they left five children alone in a motel room on the Berlin Turnpike.

Just a quick google turned up pages and pages of child left alone, got killed in fire, child left in hotel room, parents arrested/child hurt type stories.

I still cant agree this is a matter of choice, or perceived fear. Just willful naievity

The law is vague precisely because children are different and I agree that you need to make judgements based on your child and their maturity.

My 13 year old dd is very mature, however my 12 year old ds is not so mature but my 9 year old dd is. They are all different and always have been.

I would not leave them when they were younger but do now and make sure my neighbours know and are in and all three know where my dad is (round the corner). I take a mobile and they phone. I am more worried about them rowing with each other than anything else.

They also go out together on their own to the shops in our town, to the park and to the swimming pool.