Parents, how do you feel about risk?

[KateMumsnet]

Hello all

We've been exploring the idea of a Mumsnet podcast for a while here at MNHQ, and we thought we'd have a bash at a pilot to see whether the idea's a goer. It's going to be based very loosely on the theme of 'Risk', and we'd love to hear from you if you'd potentially be up for contributing.

We're going to come at the subject from as many interesting angles as possible, so do let us know if you've got strong feelings on any of the following topics that have come up over the years on MN - or indeed if you've thoughts on other subjects/experiences which are risk-related...

• How do we protect children from risk while allowing them to grow up (and without life grinding to a halt)? For eg, is it okay to leave a sleeping baby with a baby monitor while you pop next door for dinner, or to let the kids walk back from school aged 6, as they do in some other countries? How about letting 13 year-olds go off camping alone?
• How does society view mothers who take physical risks in the careers or sports they pursue? Are there - and should there be - different 'rules' for mothers and fathers?
• Alternatively, have you ever had to weigh up big, life-changing gains against similarly life-changing losses? Or taken a big risk on someone or something which paid off - or went disastrously wrong?

Do add your thoughts here, and let us know whether you'd be happy for us to get in touch for a research chat?

Thanks

MNHQ

I was allowed to take far more risks as a child than my dcs are and I really benefited but I cannot bring myself to allow what my parents did and I feel guilty about it.

Gosh, I didn't realise that walking to and from school was such a high risk activity or that naice parents don't allow it

Mine walk to and from the bus stop as a little posse. It's a 20 min walk through a nice area but there are no pavements. I allow the three youngest to walk back alone from the bus stop in the evening but I would walk down in the morning to ensure they caught the bus OK as it's an hour journey. If the 16yr old biter is with them I will let them walk to the stop alone. Truth be told though, we have quite a lively chat en-route in the morning and the tiddler holds my hand all the way cos she's cute so I usually walk regardless.

I think my 'usually sane parents' and teens with mixed-sex (note the hyphen) parties may not have been clear enough. Seventeen is absolutely an age where you have whether you like it or not as a parent to trust that what you have instilled in your children as regards self confidence, self respect and respect for high-inducing substances has been adequately processed and trust their judgement.

At 13,14 and 15 however, I believe that as a parent you should be protecting them from themselves. The raging hormones and social instability of young teens combined with alcohol, drugs, (there's always someone who brings something naughty-things haven't changed that much I'm sure) peer pressure, camera phones and sleeping 'wherever' together unsupervised is, to my mind, a receipe for disaster that I would rather did not involve my children (boy or girl).

That said, sleepovers where I have chatted to parents are fine, the occasional beer/ glass of wine with a meal is fine, going out with your friends somewhere and either being inconspicuously picked up or getting yourself home at an appropriate time is fine too. Small, bite sized chunks of independence, where, whilst there is scope for stupidity you hope trust that they will 'do the right thing' and hence progress onto the next, bigger chunk unscathed iyswim.

Highly negative consequences combined with very low likelihood can equal high, moderate, medium or low risk, it all depends on how you set up your matrix, a matter of risk appetite (ie how much risk you are comfortable with).

For example to me the risk of my child being kidnapped is so low that I do not even really consider it to be a risk because the probability is so very low. If I felt like bringing my work home with me and making a risk register that's not a risk I'd think worth recording. Of course if I had a dangerous family member or lived somewhere were kidnapping was a real possibility then I'd need to reevaluate.

Of course one of the interesting things about risk and our children is what is the risk that we are taking/running and what is the risk that they are taking/running and when does the decision making move from us to them.

Also if we're looking at threat vs opportunity then what potential benefits are worth what potential losses/harm? Plus if I'm wanting to really apply risk management fully then I need to think about my objectives as a parent or my wishes for their childhood as they will be more than just keeping my children safe, but also things like making sure they have a fun childhood, that they develop the skills then need for adulthood, and also that parenting is manageable. Balancing those different factors (I'm sure there are a few more too) is one of the more interesting risk management challenges.

In practice, like most parents dh and I mostly go on our gut feelings!

Cote with your calculation though, the risk of kidnapping is only so high because you give an extremely high value to death/kidnap. Actually a value so high that nothing can compare to it (seen that the probability is extremely low, to give it such an importance to it you have to give a value out if the scale compare to other things).
However the probability of a car crash is high. The consequence is high (death is clearly one if them, the 1st reason of death in children I think) but somehow we all seem to think this is an ok activity.

I believe this is much mure about what us seen as acceptable. Taking RISK by taking a car is normal. We all do it everyday. Taking the same risk by going climbing/mountaineering/whatever other activity isn't because it's not a 'normal' activity.
And you need to add the issue of 'responsibility'. Nothing us just an accident anymore (apart from at accident maybe). It's all someone's fault. And whose fault us it if a child is kidnapped? The parents if course. Not the kidnapper but the parents to not have 'protected' their child enough.
And that is something else that is making the 'consequence' so high in your calculation. The risk for the parents is too high because on the top if the worry etc caused by such an event you also have to face the disapproval from family/society.

This us very different from the risk for the child though.

Eg a very anxious parent might consider taking the bus on your own top risky because the consequence for them is high (level if anxiety very high) but the risk would be low for the child (consequence is getting lost which is a low consequence).

Which then means we need to ask another question. Who us it risky for?
And what is the risk for the child of NOT doing the activity?

I think I lack courage that my parents had and there is no peer pressure for me to loosen the reins.

I'm risk-averse when it comes to my DSs, probably made worse because of DH and MIL's much much slacker (IMO) attitude to their safety.

DH can't see risk until something has happened, whereas I can see the potential for it beforehand.
So DS1 fell out of the trampoline chin first onto concrete, because DH hadn't considered the possibility, and therefore hadn't closed the zip on the net. AFTER it happened, of course, DH was adamant that the zip should be closed every time as I'd told him beforehand
DS1 could have drowned in the lake aged 2 or 3 because MIL decided that she was quite able to take him out in the water by herself while DH was fishing on the jetty - except that he was baiting his hook and not watching when she slipped and lost her footing, submerging herself and holding Ds1 just above the water - luckily for all concerned, DH didn't take too long baiting his hook, turned round and saw the problem, so flung himself into the lake to rescue them, ruining both his rod and his phone. I'd also told DH that MIL wasn't to take DS1 in the lake by herself because of the risk of her slipping. She has never done it since.

I'll let DS1 walk to school by himself when he's older - he's 7 now - because he has 2 very large main roads and 3 side roads to cross. No way is he doing it now.

DS1 nearly choked on half a grape when he was around 1 - so I cut them into quarters for ages. DS2, however, has always been a chomper, but also a face-stuffer, so I cut his grapes into quarters too. Not now he's nearly 3 though, even though there's still the risk he could choke - he's far more able to chomp them so I think that's less likely.

I prefer them not to run down hill because it causes me anxiety, but they both seem fine with it and do it anyway, unless it's a complete scree slope.

I prefer them to hold my hand when walking on the oyster rocks at MIL's place, but DH and MIL don't bother, so they regularly have chunks out of their hands/ knees from falling when I'm not there. I don't mind them falling over elsewhere, just oyster rocks are bloody sharp and can get infected like coral cuts.

I know I'm a bit too precious over them, but I'd rather that than blame myself for letting them do too much and then have something awful happen. They're not wrapped in cottonwool, though - mostly covered in cuts, bruises, bangs and scrapes from playing outside (and in!) - but generally in one piece.

I may still refuse to countenance either of them ever getting a motorbike though...

Actually you make me think about something else. Mainly, if you have discovered a risk (eg the grapes) how do you deal with it?
I look at the probability of it happening (very low) and the consequences (high) and them wondered what I could do. My answer was to do a first aid training to deal with the emergency should it happen (very unlikely) and reduce the consequence.
On the other hand, our school asked us to cut grapes and tomatoes in half incl for the Y5~6 because of one child who died (not in our school) with a grape he was eating on the playground whilst running.
The action taken to 'protect' the children was disproportionate AND didn't actually solve the real issue (eating whilst running).

I think this applies in a number of cases. Sometimes, the answer is very straight forward (like closing the net!). Sometimes though we can reduce the risk greatly wo stopping our children from doing things.
IMO that's what we should be doing rather than a blanket 'you don't do xxx'.

Kevin - re "the probability of a car crash is high. The consequence is high (death is clearly one if them, the 1st reason of death in children I think) but somehow we all seem to think this is an ok activity."

Probability of having a car crash in any given year is very VERY small. Some people go their entire lives without being in a single car crash.

Even when a crash happens, it will most probably damage the bumper a bit (or a lot) but not hurt the passengers. Death by car crash is such a low probability, for child or adult, that it makes the news every time. And that very rarely.

You would calculate the risk to a child of transportation by car as follows (where P is Probability and C is Consequence):

Risk = [ P(death) x C(death) ] + [ P(grave injury) x C(grave injury) ]+ etc if there are other eventualities you are worried about in addition.

The calculated risk would be very low. Also note that the Probabilities in the above equation are not actual statistics but each person's own estimation of his abilities - "I'm such a better driver than everyone else that if death by car is statistically 1/1,000,000 then my probability must be 1/10,000,000" etc.

But Cote the probability of being kidnapped is surely even smaller - plus like the car crash you need to take into account that the large majority of kidnappings in the West are by family members, mostly spouses and the children are not harmed. Why do you discount one because it's improbable but not the other? I assume that's because your risk appetite makes you think that kidnapping really is a possibility and that it is as you said worse than death. Others will make different judgements.

Of course people make different risk calculations because they assign different values to both Probabilities and Consequences.

You need to read beyond the first paragraph of my post. Yes, I said Probability of a crash is low, but I also said its overall Risk is even lower because death is not its only outcome. In fact it is a very VERY unlikely outcome of a car crash.

Also, as someone else said, you can drive safely, have your kids safely secured in a good child seat in the back, drive a solid car with multiple air bags that come down side windows during a crash (not fantasy - I have this) to even further reduce the probability of injury or and death. You can do very little to manage the risk of kidnapping.

I think it is important to allow children to take some amount of risk from a fairly young age, building it up gradually, rather than never allowing them to do anything then suddenly they are 16 or 17 and expected to know how to manage pretty big amounts of risk.

My 9yo DD walks to school and back without an adult (either by herself or with a same aged friend) every day. She has actually been walking to and from school without an adult since she was 7, but until this year she had at least one of her older brothers in the same school and so they walked with her. School is around half a mile away, but in a quiet village and there is paths or a pavement the whole way. She also runs errands to the shop for me, which is a similar distance. She goes to the park with friends without an adult.

My 11yo DS2 does everything DD does plus can catch buses into town (a 5 mile journey) by himself to meet his friends. He has a door key and is allowed to be in the house for a couple of hours at a time by himself. He and DS1 usually get home from school before I get home from work and let themselves in.

My 13yo DS1 does everything that the other two do, plus frequently takes himself by bus to sports training and matches etc. He is very independent. But he has got there by having risk and responsibility introduced gradually.

Good subject - I think risk is something that is massively understood, especially by parents.

The classic one is the 'should I leave a child in the car while I pay for petrol'? I've heard parents say 'NO WAY, I would NEVER take that risk', whilst not appreciating that there is a risk involved in crossing the forecourt with the child. People fixate on one sort of risk, without realising that their action to avert that risk creates another.

Like the person who is afraid of flying, but is probably at more risk in the car on the way to the airport!

There are 2 types of risk I think - necessary and un-necessary. A car journey may often be necessary, but playing on a railway line is un-necessary. Similarly there are high consequence and low consequence risks.

WRT the children, I think managed risks are the way to go - leaving the children home alone for the first time is a risk, but you give them the tools to cope - e.g. ensuring a neighbour is in, or mobile phone contacts etc. Again, I've heard people say 'I would not take the risk of leaving a child under 16. But then you have not equipped that child, and so they are actually at MORE risk, because they don't have the tools to cope in the case of emergency.

yy, I agree - and I would classify a lot more risks as 'necessary' than many people I think - because they are necessary in order to let a child develop independence iyswim.

One thing that seems to have been overlooked so far is experience. Lots of oh I'm pretty lax snd my dc are fine. But nobody saying I'm pretty lax and one of mine is dead or paralysed from walking to school across a busy road/ diving/playing in the park by themselves etc but I still let my younger dc do it because it's good for them.
Yes many of us are disproportionately focused on certain risks but that can sometimes be because something has changed something from vanishingly small probability into an actual event. If your friends dc dies in a spontaneous car fire would you leave yours unattended in a car? If your neighbour's dishwasher catches fire would you leave yours on while you were out?

"If your friends dc dies in a spontaneous car fire would you leave yours unattended in a car? If your neighbour's dishwasher catches fire would you leave yours on while you were out?"

I hope so.

I nearly died in a riding accident when I was a child. And a boy in ds's class was knocked off his bike and killed. I still let mine ride and cycle. It's hard, but you have to do it.

Giddyon - I have to agree with Bertrand with the examples you've given.

But if you'd said "a child at your child's school is abducted by strangers while walking home from school, would you still let yours walk home by themselves?" Then my answer to that would be "Hell no!" Because that is something that someone else is choosing to do, not random 1-in-a-verylargenumber chances of something going wrong.

Cars very rarely spontaneously catch fire. Dishwashers more often - and perhaps if my neighbour had the same make and model dishwasher as I did, then I'd be more wary of when I used it - but still not that often.

Accidents happen, freak accidents happen a lot more rarely - but when there is a wrongdoer around, then it makes sense to be more wary yourself.

Burglars in the area - make even more sure that everything is locked up safe.
Car thieves in the area - buy a steering lock, make your car less attractive.
Child abductors in the area - don't let your child out alone.

Different types of risk.

"But if you'd said "a child at your child's school is abducted by strangers while walking home from school, would you still let yours walk home by themselves?" Then my answer to that would be "Hell no!"

Well, presumably "hell no" until the abductor is caught.

Sorry, yes, that should have been added as a rider. Of course until the abductor is caught.

The problem is that, although a child being abducted on the way home from school by a stranger is something that just does not happen, many people live their lives as if it is likely.........

I worry about how risk averse we have become as a society and how much we are limiting ourselves and our children, often due to overestimated, perceived risk rather than real likelihood.

I am a risk taker, and live to tell the tale

My DCs have been left asleep in their cot while I nip to the shop (corner shop, 2 minutes away), they have been encouraged to practice good road-safety awareness from a young age, they have been encouraged to balance on walls/climb trees/get dirty, they cycle without a helmet when not on the roads etc etc.

I think stranger danger is being over-emphasised - I don't see the alleged paedophile who lives in our street (no idea whether it's actually true) as a potential risk and chose to trust my DCs teachers/coaches/friends' parents. I hope I have taught them about trusting their instincts and being able to speak up if something is 'not right' or uncomfortable wrt how others treat them.

I think constant 'risk assessments' about every activity encourages to NOT look at what could be gained by taking a risk.

The local new built high school is about 100 yards away from a major river - people were up in arms about all the drownings that were to happen. So far, none. The banks of said river have been a popular meeting and drinking spot for teens around here for generations. Yes, there is a risk, but it's always been there and managing it surely is more around encouraging responsible behaviour, rather than where exactly the school is places?!

Anyway, I sometimes am made to feel quite insane for my stance on this, but hey ho.

I understand what you are saying but that's sort of my point. That these things are rare. Children aren't abducted very often. I know nobody who has been. But I do know of those things happening (actually know the people) so to me they aren't abstract risks.
Now do I try to make sure that my dc are unaware of my fears and don't feel restricted. We live practically in sight of the school and when DD wants to walk home she can. I have at 8 left her at home alone for short periods of time.
It's a bit like popping over to the pg after mc threads and telling them that their risk of mc is the same as it was before their mc so they're daft for worrying. Once it's happened you can't put it out of your mind 100%