Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

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

this is so not good

59 replies

sheena1 · 19/03/2009 10:58

Yesterday I went to a child protection meeting and was shocked at what i learned
here goes

There is no leagle age for a child to be left on there own if they are sencible and mature.

Take a 9 yr old boy for example if you pop to the shops and tell ur friend across the road ur going they pop in and out to make sure boy is ok and he can go across at anypoint
the social dont have the right to enter ur hoe and snatch a child they phone the police they enter get child

ur charged with neglect goes to court and is chucked out becauss u have a procedure in place ie friend across road knows boy is on his own

is it just me or is this utterly rediculas .

i am in scotland btw

OP posts:
Trinityrhino · 19/03/2009 10:59

I always knew this
why would he child in your example need taking?

Original poster
sheena1 · 19/03/2009 11:01

if someone reported child home alone to the social and no one was with him in the house

OP posts:
KingCanuteIAm · 19/03/2009 11:01

Why wuld a 9yo with a strategy for you popping to the shops need taking by SS?

I am very confused!

Hassled · 19/03/2009 11:02

I don't understand - why would a 9 year old boy in those circumstances need SS or the police to take him? Why would it need to go to court? Why is it neglect? What's ridiculous?

KingCanuteIAm · 19/03/2009 11:02

But they are home alone for a limited time - do you really think that wuld happen? Or that it would need "dealing with" beyond making sure the strategy was in place?

cheesesarnie · 19/03/2009 11:03

why would they have a right to take the child?

Original poster
sheena1 · 19/03/2009 11:03

i was mearly stateing thet why would anyone leave a child home alone from any age i was shocked that there was no legle age plus the same aplies if a child is left for 2-3 hours .

OP posts:
RubyrubyrubyHareb · 19/03/2009 11:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Trinityrhino · 19/03/2009 11:05

they cant put an arbitrary age
as then some very immature kids would be left home and some very mature younger kids wouldn't be able to

I'm also against a nanny state

Hassled · 19/03/2009 11:05

My strategy for leaving 10 year old DS2 home alone while I pop to the shops is a) I'm not far away and b) he knows how to dial my mobile.

You seem to be implying that a procedure like that is neglect - is that what you mean?

moopymoo · 19/03/2009 11:05

geez

MarmadukeScarlet · 19/03/2009 11:06

Ahh, but if the child comes to harm during that time, am I right to think one can be prosecuted?

Trinityrhino · 19/03/2009 11:06

so sheena, you aren't going to leave your kids alone untilt hey move out

Trinityrhino · 19/03/2009 11:07

yes if the child comes to harm then you will be prosecuted

mrsruffallo · 19/03/2009 11:08

I would leave a sensible 9 yr old home whilst Ipopped to the shops. Not for hours, but a short while

moopymoo · 19/03/2009 11:08

Child protection services aren't some vigilante organisation poised to make judgements whilst mum is at the shops. We have the Daily Mail for that.

hippipotamiHasLostNinePounds · 19/03/2009 11:09

Sorry, I don't understand the OP (could be the text speak and spelling though)

You have a problem with children being left home for short periods? Is that it?

KingCanuteIAm · 19/03/2009 11:09

It is simple, it is down to you to decide if your child is capable. If something happens to your child then you were obviously wrong and so get prosecuted.

It has always been like this, in fact it is one of the last remaining elements of life child-rearing that is not dictated to us by the government/government agencies - which is a good thing!

thumbwitch · 19/03/2009 11:11

good post moopymoo.

christywhisty · 19/03/2009 11:11

What age do you think they can be left alone then Sheena?
I left my dc's aged 11 and 13 at home for longer than that. They are sensible and I am usually within 15 minutes walk away.

TheCrackFox · 19/03/2009 11:13

I think SS have got much bigger fish to fry than a 9 yr old boy left alone for half an hour whilst his mum popped to the shops.

beanieb · 19/03/2009 11:15

I was left at home from a young age, younger than 9. It's not something social services would need to investigate TBH. Am also confused. I don't understand the OP ...

"There is no legal age for a child to be left on there own if they are sensible and mature."

what does this mean? That there is no age restriction in place in Scotland for leaving a child at home on their own for short periods of time?

"Take a 9 yr old boy for example, if you pop to the shops and tell your friend across the road you're going - they pop in and out to make sure boy is ok and he can go across at anypoint"

seems safe enough to me, particularly for a 9 year old!

"social services dont have the right to enter your home and snatch a child they phone the police, they enter and get the child"

I am sure this is right. Social Services don't have the right to snatch children and that's a bloody good thing. The Police don't have the right to Snatch anyone either though.

"your're charged with neglect, it goes to court and is chucked out becauss you have a procedure in place ie friend across road knows boy is on his own"

sounds sensible enough to me, infact I would be surprised if it made it to court on the basis of a 9 year old child being left alone for a short while.

"is it just me or is this utterly rediculous. "

I'm not sure if it's just you but I think if you are asking is it rediculous that Social services can't snatch children or that these kinds of cases get thrown out then, no - it's not remotely rediculous.

cheesesarnie · 19/03/2009 11:17

moopymoo -good post!

cory · 19/03/2009 11:17

sheena1 on Thu 19-Mar-09 11:03:30
"i was mearly stateing thet why would anyone leave a child home alone from any age"

Well, "from any age"- that might be to teach them independence before they go to uni

Trust me, it's not a good idea to arrive at Fresher's Week at the other end of the country having never been responsible for your own safety before.

Most people gradually start teaching their children independence some time between the ages of 7 and 13. At first, this can be very small things, like allowing them to walk to the post box down the road, then gradually slightly more responsible things, like walking to school on their own, or staying at home for a short time. You want them to have coped with the basics for some time before they are old enough to go clubbing or hillwalking or (heaven forbid!) travelling through the Malaysian jungle on their gap year.

Around here, all 12yos (except disabled ones) are expected to make their own way to and from school, which often involves travelling across town on public transport (it's a reasonably big city). Many of them are also allowed to go shopping with a friend at this age on a Saturday morning. This is perfectly normal, they need to learn responsible independence before they get too old to listen to safety instructions.

Now these are fairly big things, so lots of parents think it's a good idea to build up gradually. I have started by letting my 8yo walk home from junior school (10 mins) and stay at home on his own for a very short while while I trot down to the shops. He is sensible enough to know what to do in case of fire, to understand how long I can be expected to be and what to do if I do not return within a certain time (ring Daddy at work).

Hassled · 19/03/2009 11:24

My understanding is that you would only be prosecuted if they had come to harm as a direct result of your neglect. And the neglect would have to be proven. I imagine a lawyer would struggle to prove that leaving a mature 9 or 10 year old in a child-proofed house for a couple of hours max was neglect.

If the child fell down the stairs in the parent's absence, I don't think that would be neglect because the injury wouldn't have been the result of the parent's absence - i.e. it could have happened at any time. If the child severed an artery because the parent had left a carving knife in easy reach, that could be neglect.

Swipe left for the next trending thread