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?

Lazycow - ds is on only child, which, you are right, probably also contributes to our positive thoughts about Kids Clubs.

As ds gets older, we are seriously considering paying for one of his friends to come on holiday with us, as he wants other kids to play with. That is even though, like you, I am a WOTH mother and want to be able to spend more time with him - but I also want to make sure that he enjoys his holidays as much as possible.

It is all about your own risk assessment: for example, we have been going to the same wee hotel on a tiny island in greece for the last three summers. It is a small family run hotel, where we feel comfortable leaving ds to sleep in his room while we finish our meal - even in the first summer when he was only 4 (nearly 5). (He starts his meal with us and then would go up to bed).

I also look back to the freedom/laissez fair attidure that my parents brought us up enjoying - and try hard to follow in thier footsteps. Maybe I am just a child of the 60s and think my parents brought me up very well to be independent and confident and I want to pass that on to ds.

Prettycow - I understand what you mean about the lassiez-faire attitude and it's good to nurture independence. I think the risks that children face today are different to those faced in the 60's. I'm sure there were paedophiles etc about in the 60's but the issue was less publicised then.

Kewcumber - hopefully not a barking statement but perhaps not very well put - if you leave your child unattended and they come to harm you need to be prepared to accept any negative consequences. If I choose to park my child underneath a palm tree and they are injured by a falling coconut I need to be prepared to accept the consequences. I think what you are saying is that not all risks can be accounted for, such as if I didn't realise that there was a coconut tree above? But we all know what the potential though unlikely risk of leaving a child alone in a hotel room could be.

Sorry prettybird, got you mixed up with lazycow! No offence intended!
Would you still leave your son to sleep alone in the Greek hotel you know well after learning about the Madeleine case? Her parents obviously felt comfortable leaving their children, but look what happened?

no geisha that isn;t what I meant - I meant no paretn in their right mind surely thinking oh well if the worst comes to the worst then I'll accept the consequences. You make the decision based on the fact that you don;t thinkthere will be any consequences.

You don;t cross the road with you child thinking "OK there is a 5% chance that we will get hit by a car but I'll accept the consequences of that" You don't think you will get hit by a car because you take reasonable precautions. What is "reasonable precautions" varies ie I would leave a child in a hotel room I deem to be secure if I were a short sdistance away and not in a separate building - you obviously wouldn't. Your "thinkof the consequences" is in effect saying - "your child could die and if you are prepared to accept that then by all means go ahead and leave them" it would be more honest of you just to say - I think leaving them in a hotel room is too risky. Which I think is what you are trying to say rather than do it but accept the consequences.

Yes I was and am still happy to leave ds in the hotel. The last time was in July this year.

The risk of something happening has not changed - only our perception of the risk. And having made my own assessment of the risk where we stay, I am comfortable with what we do.

In the same way, I don't believe that ds is ay any more substantive rsik from paedophiles now than I was in the 60s. It is only the way that such risks are now dramatised the mdeia. The real risk of child abuse was and reminas much more significnat in the home/from people you know.

only read OP.

yes its fine...if your eating downstairs and your children are upstairs.

if you are not in the same building what is the point? if you see the room alight you can watch your children die of smoke inhalation or burn to death?
If someone breaks in you can watch them look at your children?
if one of them wakes up you can sit and watch as they get more and more worked up until you get there?

It is not the least bit sensible and yes, incredibly selfish.
if they want a holiday where they can have activities without teh children either take a nanny along with you or leave them at home with a friend.

Kewcuber- I am being totally honest. Yes I do think in the majority of circumstances I do think that leaving a child alone in a hotel room is too risky. As mentioned in an earlier post not just becasue of the unlikely risk of abduction, but because of the risks posed by fire, hot water, baths full of water (my children are able to achieve this on their own), electricity, gas cookers, cords and cables (on necks) etc etc. I also think if for whatever reason a parent deems these risks worth taking they should be prepared to live with the consequences. How can you be sure there will be no consequences?

"gas cookers" - what kind of hotel rooms do you stay in!

your judgement is obviously informed by the age of your DC's mine certianly couldn't reach the taps much less run a bath. Of course I don't no that there are consequences - I'm saying you're statement is in fact saying you disagree, you don;t need to wrap it up in "but you have to live with the consequnces" - thats true of vitrtually every decision we ever make.

in fact he's currently still in a cot he can;t climb out of.

Gas cookers in self-catering holiday apartments is what I am think of? Didn't think that was too wierd?

My girls are 2 and 4. Both reach taps and the eldest can put the plug in the bath.

I think it is too risky and in my opinion if a parent is willing to take that risk, they should be prepared to live with the consequences of their action, just like we all do with every decision we make everyday (which both you kewcuber and I have now pointed out). That is exactly what I mean.

Maybe I should add both are in beds

Ds could theoretically climb out of the window, over the baclony, ontot the roof below and then fall off the edge of the roof. He could do that at home too - I don't watch him every second of the day. What I have doen is make sure, as soon as he could do these things independently, is make sure that he kinow not to do them.

Now, I'm not saying ds is an angel - but he is fortunately quite a sensible kid. He even knew (from an early age) not to go out of the (open) driveway when he played in the garden. A different child, a different character, I might have a different view. I've made our risk assessemtn on the child we have and the specific environments we encounter.

we'll just have to agree to disagree about your phrasing - you always have to live with the consequences of your choices (or commit suicide I guess), I don;t see why its particularly relevant to this situation just because you don;t agree. But this is a pointless argument so I'll but out.

and no I wouldn't leave DS in an appartmetn with a full functioning kitchen if her were able to get out of bed and turn the cooker on. I was dicsussing leaving a child in a hotel room to go down to the hotel restaruant.

geishaGoing out of your front door is a risk . We all take risks every day of our lives.

I personally think that the risk of anything bad happening to ds if I leave him asleep in a hotel room upstairs and eat dinner downstairs is very remote. I think it is pretty certain that he will be OK. I am not 100% certain as there is very little I can be 100% certain of.

As Kewcumber says (made me lol as well) I could choose to take ds out for the evening and a coconut could fall on his head and kill him or he could be snatched from my hands by a tsunami which he may have been safe from if I had left him in his 4th floor bedroom.

sorry the coconut was a silly analogy but I confess the "but take the consequences young lady" reminds me of my bleedin grandmother, I'm bound to kick back. I'm imagining it said in a diaspproving tone with pursed lips.

I would rather my child be caught up in a Tsunami with me than killed by a maniac in a hotel room on his own.

Iwill never,ever 'get' why some peple would want to go and have dinner on their own on holiday. They could get a sitter or wait till they get home rather than 'sneak' downstairs on their own.

you'd rather leave a stranger locked in a bedroom with your child!

couple on holiday with us last year had a sitter who had ingored their one year old being ill. They had to take her to hospital when they arrived back at the room if they had been checking on her themselves they would have realised there was a problem much quicker.

I didn;t 'sneak' anywhere - I got DS off to sleep then walked downstairs to have dinner... just the same as I do at home I get that you don;t agree but there's no need to exaggerate for effect - you can disagree without it.

sorry Ruby I had mistakenly thought you were being sarcastic - I'll presume less Kewcumber like attributes to you in future

Although I do partly take your point - a hotel bedroom is not public in the same way a park is public. Though I know we disagree on this.

I personally would never leave them with a sitter on holiday either, but its better than leaving them on their own.

I must stop posting on this...

my DS would freak far more to wake up with a stranger in the room than to wake alone in the room.

And whats so odd about eating without DC's I do it all the time at home