ForumGarden

Snitch

AnneBoleyn;1466237 wrote: Snitch
Exactly, but can you imagine the situation if something had happened to the Mother, with the kid left alone in the house.

When I spoke to the Mother I did tell her to tell her daughter that she had behaved very well & grown up on the phone. I then heard her telling her "Then man said you were very good & grown up", followed by a little giggle & "Thank you".

Sounds as if it was fairly regular, the child being left on her own while mum went out somewhere, maybe shopping, or in this case maybe to fetch some medicine. The child's confidence in answering the phone and talking to strangers indicates that you weren't the first one ! Perhaps a word in your colleague's ear about that, when she returns to work, may produce a possible reason for the child apparently being on her own in the house at times ? :-3

FourPart;1466234 wrote: a little girl who must only have been about 5 years old - really sweet.


So, how old was she?

Everyone is jumping to conclusions with no idea of her actual age.

It could simply be that mum was in the loo. I always told my children not to say that I was in the bathroom if they picked up the phone whilst I was

I don't really see the problem. By the time I was six, I was caring for my baby brother and sister while Mom ran errands and such.

There were strict orders to not open the door for anyone and not to go outside while mom was gone, no attempts at cooking, or moving furniture, stuff like that.

Of course that was a long time ago, too.

Sure, if you called several times over a week or so, and never talked to the mum, it might be a different story.

She could have been In the toilet having a really big poo.

I admire your concern but people are too quick to jump to conclusions.

Oscar Namechange;1466265 wrote:

I admire your concern but people are too quick to jump to conclusions.


Exactly right.

Oscar Namechange;1466265 wrote: She could have been In the toilet having a really big poo.

I admire your concern but people are too quick to jump to conclusions.
I totally agree. It's just a matter of official policy regarding Duty of Care.

The chances are that 99% of the time it would be perfectly all right. But can you imagine the furore that would be stirred up when claims get made in the media about authorities knowing about a child alone at home, and nothing getting done about it?

FourPart;1466284 wrote: I totally agree. It's just a matter of official policy regarding Duty of Care.

The chances are that 99% of the time it would be perfectly all right. But can you imagine the furore that would be stirred up when claims get made in the media about authorities knowing about a child alone at home, and nothing getting done about it?


Yup. That is, of course, the other shoe waiting to drop.

I don't discount your concern, at all. It is a different world we live in these days.

FourPart;1466284 wrote: I totally agree. It's just a matter of official policy regarding Duty of Care.

The chances are that 99% of the time it would be perfectly all right. But can you imagine the furore that would be stirred up when claims get made in the media about authorities knowing about a child alone at home, and nothing getting done about it?


Are you saying it's a law in the U.K. that people snitch on each other, make assumptions about each other, poke their noses into other people's lives? If you admit that "99% of the time it would be perfectly all right" then are you saying the U.K. involves itself in private matters that are none of their business 99% of the time? That an innocent family is given undue stress 99% of the time? That social services are overburdened & have over expenditures 99% of the time?

AnneBoleyn;1466296 wrote: Are you saying it's a law in the U.K. that people snitch on each other, make assumptions about each other, poke their noses into other people's lives? If you admit that "99% of the time it would be perfectly all right" then are you saying the U.K. involves itself in private matters that are none of their business 99% of the time? That an innocent family is given undue stress 99% of the time? That social services are overburdened & have over expenditures 99% of the time?


I have to agree with this... there Is a world of difference between seeing a child arrive at school with fresh bruises every day or seriously under fed and this scenario.

The UK's Social Services are like Rottweiler's. We had a case not that long ago where SS's removed children because their parents were UKIP supporters. To put what might me two perfectly decent parents through that kind of Intrusion, scrutiny and grief based on a hunch, Is reckless.

It is a matter of law that a child cannot be left alone under the age of 14. of course, one question has to be, what constitutes being 'left alone'? Five minutes...? An hour...? Where do you draw the line?

The point is that by the very nature of our company, we deal with vulnerable people all the time - both Adults & Children, so we obviously have to have strict policies in place.

FourPart;1466305 wrote: It is a matter of law that a child cannot be left alone under the age of 14. of course, one question has to be, what constitutes being 'left alone'? Five minutes...? An hour...? Where do you draw the line?

The point is that by the very nature of our company, we deal with vulnerable people all the time - both Adults & Children, so we obviously have to have strict policies in place.


Yes It Is the law but however many strict policies you have In place, does not give you the right to Involve the authorities and bring grief to a family based on a hunch.

You said In your OP that the child said her Mother would be back In 5 minutes. She did not say, Mummy's been out all day and I am all alone... has It occurred to you that when the child said her Mother would be back In 5 minutes, there could have been other older children In the house or even an adult? You are assuming that because she just said her Mother would be back In 5 minutes that she was home alone. Yet, you didn't know that. You did not know who else was In that house... you guessed she was alone and gues work Is no basis to bring In the authorities and cause decent parents Intrusion and grief.

Of course I did. If it had been otherwise I should have called the Social Services regardless. The point is that I was concerned for the well being of the child, and I'm sure you agree that that must come first & foremost. You should also remember the reason why I was making the call in the first place - to rearrange an appointment that an adviser had to cancel at the last minute, due to sickness, and I was worried that her Mother may have already left for the appointment, leaving her daughter alone at home.

FourPart;1466314 wrote: Of course I did. If it had been otherwise I should have called the Social Services regardless. The point is that I was concerned for the well being of the child, and I'm sure you agree that that must come first & foremost. You should also remember the reason why I was making the call in the first place - to rearrange an appointment that an adviser had to cancel at the last minute, due to sickness, and I was worried that her Mother may have already left for the appointment, leaving her daughter alone at home.


I know you had the childs best Interests at heart, I'm not saying that but SS's are Rottweiler's. I'm just saying that caution before Involving authorities.

FourPart;1466234 wrote: I was put into a bit of a quandry at work yesterday - or very nearly.

One of the advisers had called in sick, and I was given the task of phoning everyone on her diary to rearrange appointments. One of those I called, however, was answered by a little girl who must only have been about 5 years old - really sweet. I asked to speak to her Mummy, but she told me that she would be back in about 5 minutes, so I asked if she could write down a number to call me back on (which she did - in a very grown up manner, reading it back to me to confirm it was right). Fortunately her Mother returned whilst I was talking to the girl.

It was obvious by the way she had handled the telephone call that she had been raised well, but if she hadn't returned I would have been bound by Duty of Care to notify Social Services - and I would have really felt rotten about having to do that.


Common sense prevailed.

Let me be a lone voice in thanking you for considering the dangers resulting from leaving one so young alone.

If only others were to be as vigilant and aware, the list of tragedies that occur far too frequently might be shortened.

Oscar Namechange;1466316 wrote: I know you had the childs best Interests at heart, I'm not saying that but SS's are Rottweiler's. I'm just saying that caution before Involving authorities.
I know there are Social Services that are like that, but I've found that they do tend to vary greatly between different Council Authorities. As with many things, you can't tar them all with the same brush.

FourPart;1466321 wrote: I know there are Social Services that are like that, but I've found that they do tend to vary greatly between different Council Authorities. As with many things, you can't tar them all with the same brush.


When you have people like this In SS's, I myself, would not bring them to anyone's door unless absolutely sure.

Social worker gloats on Facebook over breaking up a family | Daily Mail Online

Well, the Daily Mail aren't exactly known for their unbiased reporting, but even that article demonstrates that it isn't typical behaviour & is simply not acceptable.

FourPart;1466338 wrote: Well, the Daily Mail aren't exactly known for their unbiased reporting, but even that article demonstrates that it isn't typical behaviour & is simply not acceptable.


There are other sources to that story on the net.

Sorry but It may not be ' typical behaviour' but It Is rife. That's why cases are dealt with In secret courts.

Legal aid lawyer, secret court and social workers ‘colluded’ to adopt boys | UK | News | Daily Express

Where is this Law that you can't leave a child alone until 14?

Betty Boop;1466358 wrote: Where is this Law that you can't leave a child alone until 14?


The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.

https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone

Oscar Namechange;1466360 wrote: The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.

https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone


Two people stated it was law on this thread. I knew it wasn't. Glad that's cleared up then.

Oscar Namechange;1466360 wrote: The law doesn’t say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it’s an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.

https://www.gov.uk/law-on-leaving-your-child-home-alone


Actually, that has really surprised me. I was always of the understanding that it was illegal to leave children alone under the age of 15. I was even more surprised to see that similarly there's no minimum age for anyone to act as a Baby-Sitter, the only rulings being those of N.S.P.C.C. advice.

Yet the note at the bottom says:

Parents can be prosecuted if they leave a child unsupervised ‘in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health’.
This in itself seems very vague & subjective. Just what is determined to be "In a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health". Just think of all the potential hazards in the everyday home which cane cause 'Injury to Health'.

If there isn't a law to cover this, I reckon there should be.

FourPart;1466364 wrote: Actually, that has really surprised me. I was always of the understanding that it was illegal to leave children alone under the age of 15. I was even more surprised to see that similarly there's no minimum age for anyone to act as a Baby-Sitter, the only rulings being those of N.S.P.C.C. advice.

Yet the note at the bottom says:

This in itself seems very vague & subjective. Just what is determined to be "In a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health". Just think of all the potential hazards in the everyday home which cane cause 'Injury to Health'.

If there isn't a law to cover this, I reckon there should be.


No there shouldn't. Why can't a parent decide what a child is capable of. Every child is different, has different maturity levels and has different coping mechanisms.

If such law had existed I would have had to have gone to work with my Mum every day. She had about six different part time jobs through the week, three of which were every day of the working week, certain jobs I helped with when I went but others I couldn't help with and I spent my time bored to tears. By around eight I was being left at home whilst she went to work, nothing ever went wrong but then I was a sensible child.

My daughter has been left for short periods of time for a while now, she is twelve and has always been sensible. There are rules of course, leaving a child should always be discussed and through that discussion you can generally determine if they are capable of dealing with things that may crop up. My eldest son however was a lot older before he was left on his own but that's due to him having Aspergers.

Each child is different and it should remain at the parents discretion.

FourPart, you don't have children do you? Why don't you get some of your own & be a bother to them instead of worrying about everyone else's?

AnneBoleyn;1466390 wrote: FourPart, you don't have children do you? Why don't you get some of your own & be a bother to them instead of worrying about everyone else's?


Great idea. I'll pop down Tesco's first thing & get a couple.

FourPart;1466392 wrote: Great idea. I'll pop down Tesco's first thing & get a couple.


You might get one free if they're on offer

There Is no way on Gods earth I'd leave an 8 year old alone In the house however mature she was.

Oscar Namechange;1466400 wrote: There Is no way on Gods earth I'd leave an 8 year old alone In the house however mature she was.


It would depend on the 8 year-old, I think.

I have a granddaughter that is now 19, and I would hesitate to leave her in my house unattended, even now. On the other hand, I have another granddaughter who at 6 displays more maturity and common sense than her cousin ever has, or probably ever will.

LarsMac;1466408 wrote: It would depend on the 8 year-old, I think.

I have a granddaughter that is now 19, and I would hesitate to leave her in my house unattended, even now. On the other hand, I have another granddaughter who at 6 displays more maturity and common sense than her cousin ever has, or probably ever will.


It's not the maturity of the child that would worry me. It does depend on where you live but the world today Is a dangerous place.

Freak accidents such as electrical appliances catching fire, strangers knocking on the door, etc etc

I am glad that I grew up in a time where folks had less to worry about.

Oscar Namechange;1466412 wrote: It's not the maturity of the child that would worry me. It does depend on where you live but the world today Is a dangerous place.

Freak accidents such as electrical appliances catching fire, strangers knocking on the door, etc etc


And then of course there are the paranoiacs.

When it comes to children's welfare, is it better to be paranoid or to put them potentially at risk?

FourPart;1466429 wrote: When it comes to children's welfare, is it better to be paranoid or to put them potentially at risk?


Better to know the child and treat each one as an individual.

Part of any child's welfare is encouragement to be self reliant and responsible, hoping to make a child aware of possible dangers without making them as paranoid as the parents. That is why they shouldn't be discouraged from climbing trees, skateboarding etc. responsibly.

We live in a world with virtually instant communication, where advice is a phone call away.

It is an old chestnut but the saying goes "You teach a child to talk, they tell you "No", you teach them to walk and they walk away"

As a parent I hope my children walk and talk boldly and use their common sense with an awareness of the world they live in.

FourPart;1466429 wrote: When it comes to children's welfare, is it better to be paranoid or to put them potentially at risk?


It's never good to be paranoid. Cautious is the word you seek.

LarsMac;1466408 wrote: It would depend on the 8 year-old, I think.

I have a granddaughter that is now 19, and I would hesitate to leave her in my house unattended, even now. On the other hand, I have another granddaughter who at 6 displays more maturity and common sense than her cousin ever has, or probably ever will.


That's a strange story, unless your 19 year old has severe emotional or physical problems.