Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Parenting

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

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

248 replies

Jzee · 19/02/2008 17:14

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?

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
Kewcumber · 21/02/2008 22:34

actually it was the IOW - for two nights for a family celebration. I laughed merrily, he didn't wake. A good time was had by all.

prettybird · 22/02/2008 08:49

Kewcucumber - I don't think you are in as much a minority as you think. It's just that no many people are as prepared as us to "admit" to doing what we do.

sailingduo · 22/02/2008 08:57

no, no nofor a start it is illegal to leave a child unattendedyou would (quite rightly) be referred to social work services in the uk if some-one turned up and found child unattended even if there was a video link. you could also be arrested (if it happened in uk) for child neglect--and there are precedents for that happening.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about these subjects:

Bridie3 · 22/02/2008 08:57

Exactly.

Lazycow · 22/02/2008 10:00

Kewcumber - you can join me in the supposedly negligent parent club if you like. I take the view that we do what is best for us and our children.

I have (as already said) occasionally left ds in some circumstances to go and have dinner with dh. In other holiday circumstances I have chosen not to.

I can't be bothered to explain all of them, just to say the decisons were all based on a combination of the type of place we were staying in and ds's temprement at the time and what I thought was best for him and us.

I have sayed in 'family friendly' hotels where they were specifically set up to have children's tea at 5/6pm and then adults dined at 7.30pm where children under a certain age were not encouraged. They offered a constant listening service instead. This was in the UK by the way. I really feel that if this were illegal then our prisons would be full of hoteliers and parents who did this.

Dh and I did use this hotel as we thought it might be OK and it was fine but we decided that we would have preferred to have the choice whether to eat with ds or not so chose not to go there again.

As ds is now older (over 3 years old) I do prefer to eat with him most of the time anyway unless he is really over-tired.

I have found however as he gets older Iwe are more

Blueskythinker · 22/02/2008 10:22

We left our 1yr old DD sleeping in hotel room and ate in downstairs restaurant with baby monitor. It felt absolutely right and reasonable at the time, but this was before the Madelaine McCann incident.
Would certainly think twice now, but if you spend all evening in the same room, surely you are going to wake the kids?

cestlavie · 22/02/2008 11:18

Slow morning so thought I'd research this a little as this is almost certainly a case where perception over-rides the reality, similar to a fear of flying. More accurately, how rationale/ irrationale is it to be scared of leaving your child in a hotel room with a monitor for fear of abduction or death?

So, how many children in total do you imagine are actually killed by strangers or burned to death each year versus other causes of death? Having quickly looked at the Office of National Statistics, in 2004 the number of children under the age of 14 who died:

  • as a result of smoke/ fire: 23
  • as a result of a traffic accident: 166

The number of children of the same age group seriously injured as a result of a traffic accident, incidentally, was 3,700. Your child is almost 8 times more likely to be killed by a car than by a fire. More than 2 million children (according to the BBC) end up in hospital each year as a result of road traffice accidents.

Looking through reports it seems likely that in the case of deaths by fire and smoke inhalation, the majority, if not all, were at the family home with one or both parents there with other family members also dying in the fire (typically multiple deaths in a single incident which push up the numbers). Looking through Google I can't see one news report of any British child dying in a hotel fire anywhere in Europe.

In terms of the number of children under five killed by a stranger each year, between 1987-1993, the average was one per year and this has remained largely constant since then. In 1997, the total number of children under the age of 16 killed by a stranger was 11 but a stranger" is simply defined as where "there is insufficient information to determine the relationship to the victim". So for example, one teenager stabbing another would probably come into this category - given the very very low level of children under five killed by a stranger, it's probably fair to assume this type of violence (i.e. school/ gang related) accounts for a fair proportion of the 11.

How many children do you suppose are abducted each year? Well, this looks a bit more complex as 'abductions' include abductions by parents, other family members, boyfriends, revenge kidnappings, grooming and other exploitative relationships. Looking at 0-2 year olds as the simplest (they're unlikely to be groomed, abducted by boyfriends etc) the total number of attempted abductions in 2003 was 14. Every single case involved an attempt to take the child from direct control of its parent, i.e. there were zero abductions in the McCann sense.

To put it further into perspective with a population of that age group of 11 million, the odds on your child being killed by a stranger are, let's generously say, 1 million to 1 (although the odds of them actually being taken from a hotel room by a stranger and killed is probably several multiples higher). The odds on them being killed by fire/ smoke are about 500,000 to 1 (although technically the odds on them being killed by fire in an unattended hotel room is probably several multiples higher - and bear in mind how many children die in house fires whilst their parents are in the room next door or just downstairs). The odds on a toddler being successfully abducted by a stranger is technically zero whilst the odds on even an attempted abduction from its parent is also about 500,000 to 1. The odds, on the other hand of: your child being killed in a road accident are 66,000 to 1/ seriously injured 3,000 to 1/ hospitalised 5 to 1. To put this further into perspective, the odds of someone being killed by flooding are 150,000 to 1 and someone being killed by lightning are 80,000 to 1.

It seems to me certainly the case that, like fear of flying, that the fear of leaving you child in a hotel room with a monitor isn't irrationale in that it's simply not supported by the evidence. Or to put it another way, if you consider it to be rationale, you'd certainly never drive your child anywhere, let them cycle anywhere or indeed walk anywhere near a road.

DarthVader · 22/02/2008 11:30

I think this is a class issue.
Leaving your kids alone on hols is generally viewed as acceptable by the middle classes.
This is however viewed as unacceptable by the working classs. I am working class, would never dream of doing this and do not view it as normal. Maybe your friend is middle class?

Lazycow · 22/02/2008 11:34

exactly cestlavie

The thing is though I think people think irrationally about this sort of stuff and what the decisions are based on really are that IF (however unlikely) anything happened then it has to be something the parent couldn't control, otherwise they wouldn't be able to live with themselves. i.e struck by lighting - parent could maybe live with themselves as it wasn't in their control, left in a hotel room and abducted then they would blame themselves somehow.

This in itself is OK because each person makes their own decisons about what they can live with.

Where I get annoyed is when they then go on to make a judgement that someone else who doesn't make the same choice as them is somehow a bad parent.

cestlavie · 22/02/2008 11:39

Well, yes, lazycow. If you don't want to leave your children in a hotel room because you're scared of something happening to them what you should really say is "I know it's irrationale but..." rather than suggesting that people who do so are taking risks with their children (and hence being a bad parent).

Blueskythinker · 22/02/2008 11:55

I was accosted / attacked (standing over me screaming in my face ) by a stranger once when I was 37 weeks pregnant for leaving my DD 2yrs in a locked car for 2 minutes when I went into a shop 10 metres away and had her in my full view all the time.

He reported me to social services!

People just have different opinions on what is acceptable.

Luckily social services recognised he was a complete wanker, and that he was trying to bully a visibly vulnerable woman.

Blueskythinker · 22/02/2008 11:56

Actually, just thinking about that incident has made me go all wobbly - and it was almost a year ago. He was such an abusive man [wobbly lip]

carmenelectra · 22/02/2008 12:11

Erm ,actually the MAIN reason i wouldnt leave my children is not because i think they may come to any harm its because i just dont feel its right to go away and leave them while we do something else.

I wouldnt leave them in bed and nip for a coffee in the cafe round the corner at home, so why would i want to do it on holiday? I think its absolute tosh when people compare it to your own house. Yes of course it is

They come with us so we can have fun together, not so i can have a peaceful meal for 2 with dp.

The places we stay, would, i am convinced, be very safe to leave a child whilst we went out, but i still wouldnt do it. One particular, lovely, family run hotel in Turkey springs to mind as the kind of place i could have left ds. I may have considered it in the daytime if he wanted to sleep whilst we sunbathed. In fact one Turkish couple did just this, with baby monitors with them, but i believe they were family of the owners. But i wouldnt have gone down at night, not for safety reasons at all though. We all go out together. We arenot at home, were on holiday, so why would i want to act like we are and put kids to bed and relax by ourselves.

I really think parents who want to do this(like the McCanns ) Should stay at home till their kids are old enough to sit with them(whenever they think that may be). It makes me cross when i hear them bleating on how they were so close to Maddie while dining, when it looks like at least a block away to me.In another building!

prettybird · 22/02/2008 12:38

The MAIN reason I leave ds is because I don't want him over tired. He goes to bed at 7.30/8 pm at home and although he has a certain amount of additional leeway on holiday, he does still need to go to bed before we, as adults, would wish to. It's not a case of "not wanting to spend time with him" - it 's a case of him as a child having different needs to us as adults.

And I genuinely don't understand the difference between leaving them unattended (but checked on) in a small hotel (one floor away) than at home (unattended but checked on) - more than one floor away.

...... unless you spend each and every night staying awake, whether at home or not, in relays sitting in the bedroom watching over your children in case something happens?

carmenelectra · 22/02/2008 12:43

I just said its not about something happening.

I dont take him away with us to put him in bed at normal time and carry on with our routine! We are on holiday. Disruption in a routine(which we always have at home) wont kill him for a week or two!

Well, weve done this since he was a baby and hes 8 now and its worked fine. He has survived the 'tiredness' and we survived without dinner and drinks on our own. We did it with my stepson too and will do it with ds2.

carmenelectra · 22/02/2008 12:46

Our ds needed(as a baby) and now still, to go to bed before we would like to on holiday as well.

So our choices were, babck then, to either stay out later with him asleep in pushchair(which is what mostly happened) or go in and relax in the room when he went to bed. There wasnt a third alternative of putting him bed and going out!

prettybird · 22/02/2008 12:59

When ds was 11 months old, and we were staying in a self catering apartment, we also took him with us when we went out for meals and he slept in his push chair. However, as they get older, that stops being an option. Keeping ds up later than he wanted to be would just result in tears and temper tantrums - from all of us .

That is why I like (small) hotels: so I can feel comfortable about him going back to his own room and having the sleep that he wants/needs, while we are still close by.

carmenelectra · 22/02/2008 13:03

I Found it sort of easier when he little and slept in buggy. He stopped doing this at about age of 4. But then by that age, with an afternoon kip and evening one too he would just stay up with us till we went in. Harder in some ways cos had to keep him more occupied, but we often stayed and still do, in big hotels with entertainment, which usually starts at 7PM ISH till abot 11pm. hE loved(and still does) watching the shows, then we would go in.

Pitchounette · 22/02/2008 13:20

Message withdrawn

prettybird · 22/02/2008 13:23

Ds stopped using his buggy at the latest aged c2.5. We have never stayed in large hotels with entertainment - it's not something that would have have appealed to us.

We did have lunch once in a place in South Africa (when ds was 13 months old) where, when ds started crying, they took him away and gave him a tour of the kitchens and grounds before bringing him back and having hm hold court on the bar, while we finished our lunch in peace!

prettybird · 22/02/2008 13:27

Actually, to back to the OP, I have never used baby monitors (listening or video). I alwyas felt that they would make us worried about every snuffle.

The closest I ever came to using a baby monitor was when we were going to visit our neighbours for a New Year Pary (house donstairs - orginally a single house, long since sub-divided) and we had worked out that wecoulduse the intercom on our phone to "hear" anything upstairs, as it was still in range. In the event, dh didn't feel well and didn't go.

carmenelectra · 22/02/2008 13:46

No i dont mean you shouldnt go away until children are older. Well i wouldnt anyway. We ahve always taken ds on every hol with us, abroad, in the UK and camping too.

However, what im saying is, if you cant or wont take your child out for the evening then i dont think their should be a 3rd option of leaving them in the room!!

I am still very interested(genuinely) in whetehr this is catually 'allowed' in hotels?

Do people who do this ask the hotel if this is ok to do this?
I am going to make it my mission to ask my hotel manager this yr if he would think it acceptable to leave our children in the room when we go for dinner.

Also, big hotels with entertainment are not my cup of tea as such and i probably wouldnt stay there if i didnt have kids. But i do have them!

Children love shows in hotels and dancing and joining in and thats why we have often stayed in places like that. Although we dont always as our ds1 enjoys himself and mixes well wherever we go.

Actuaaly prettybird, i think you have hit the nail on the head with what you have just said about big hotels. That they dont appeal to you. I think you are trying to have an adult holiday, ie eating alone etc.

carmenelectra · 22/02/2008 13:47

excuse spellings!

cestlavie · 22/02/2008 13:52

Carmenelectra: that's fair enough and if people would rather have their children with them in the evenings/ want to eat together then that's a personal preference. Personally, I prefer to spend some evenings eating together as a couple but each to their own.

The OP, on the other hand, was saying that it's actually dangerous/ risky to leave your child in their room whilst you have a monitor which is another argument entirely.

carmenelectra · 22/02/2008 13:55

I would maybe like some evening eating as a couple too, but it sometimes just aint possible with kids, hence the need to go to different places than a family with no kids!

I do slightly agree with OP too, that it could be dangerous to leave a child in a room. But that wouldnt be my only reason.