What constitutes neglect, or child endangerment?

[Deleted]

After talking about different attitudes to leaving kids unattended at the camps yesterday, I caught the end of a discussion on neglect on the news this morning, and it did make me wonder what other people with similar values to my own feel constitutes neglect, or endangerment where kids are concerned?

I don't agree that leaving a child unattended equals placing them in danger, and I think the distinction people draw between what is and isn't neglect can be very ridiculous at times. As an example, my little boy's grandparents have mentioned that my leaving him home alone to pop to the shop is neglecting him and placing him in danger - however, the shop is right next door and it takes me less time (usually 5 minutes at the most) to do that than it would to take a shower, during which unless he emitted a piercing cream right outside the bathroom door (and did it while I wasn't washing my hair) I'd be unaware of what was going on. That doesn't make any sense to me. I give him as many instructions for what not to do while I'm in the shower as I do when I'm leaving him in the house alone, and I don't worry about him any more when I'm in the shop than I do when I'm in the shower. I always know exactly what he's planning on doing while I'm otherwise engaged in both situations, and I know he'll stick to doing whatever we agreed and heed any things he's been told not to do while I'm not around.

My feeling on the subject is that as long as you're certain a child will not be in any danger, you're not leaving them unattended for long, and you've left them with instructions prior to leaving (and informed them how long you'll be, so they feel secure) it shouldn't be an issue once they're at an age where they'll follow those instructions and they're sensible enough not to stick their fingers in a plug or play submarines in the sink with the toaster.

What does everyone else think? Where do you feel the line is drawn between encouraging self-sufficiency and giving children too much responsobility/neglecting their safety?

[Craig]

We live in confused and difficult times. When I was a child, forty years ago, we had considerably more freedom than children do now. As a parent I am constantly having to plan my children's periods of freedom. For instance letting my eleven year old daughter go shopping in town with a group of friends for a couple of hours.

My children have been taught that they need to let us know where they are and when they are coming back when out playing. They know we will not unnecessarily restrict their movements, but that we may say no if the place, or their companions, or the time is inappropriate or risky in our view. They don't always like it but they have accepted it as a reasonable rule.

However, in the tragic case we see unfolding in Portugal, if I were the local prosecutor I'd be quietly drawing up a case of neglect against the McCanns. The resort they were in had more than adequate babysitting and evening childcare facilities. There seems to have been no need for them to not use these. The restaurant was 300 yards away and not in sight of the apartment. They checked on the children, so they say, every half an hour or so. Effectively the children were alone and the abductor could clearly see that, which is why s/he struck there.

However much one plans one cannot keep children 100% safe. But there is a level of risk management one must consider in each situation and these parents failed. I hope that it turns out well for them, but I seriously doubt it will.

[Deleted]

I'd agree with you there, as well as the risk of leaving a three year old unattended for at least half an hour and the emotional distress it's obvious a child of that age would feel at waking up alone in an unfamiliar place, it's pure common sense that some places are safer than others to leave your children. And the more public a place is, the less safe it's likely to be.

Thanks for posting the details of the news article Craig, I'd only caught the end of the programme where a social worker was commenting on abuse and neglect, so wasn't aware of what initially motivated it.

[littleraven]

Yes, it's the situation that everyone with children dreads the most. My daughter is nine and I'm still on tenterhooks until she comes back from the shop which is only 100yards away. But we aslo have to realise they are their own people and if you have brought them up in a way to understand the dangers then hopefully they will be well enough informed to avoid them.

As for Portugal, I simply do not understand how you could leave a three year old. Neglect is defined by the 'UN convention on the rights of the child', and this is certainly not a situation where the safety of the child has been primary in the parents actions.

It must be the case that unless you can assure the child is safe, you must assume the child isn't. It sounds obvious I know, but this simple point of view can dictate an entirely different course of action.

[Deleted]

littleraven said:

It must be the case that unless you can assure the child is safe, you must assume the child isn't. It sounds obvious I know, but this simple point of view can dictate an entirely different course of action.

Definitely, if you have even the slightest doubt it's better to play it safe. I wonder what it is that causes some parents to do otherwise, maybe a resentment of the role itself fosters a desire to reclaim the things they feel they've lost through becoming parents at any cost because those sacrifices don't feel balanced by the joys of parenthood?