A heavy heart

[Guest]

 

3. One friend put this point forward and I agree with him....how many of us would tuck our 3 tiny children in to bed and then leave them completely alone and go to dinner with people 4 or 5 doors away? Hands up all forum members who would do that.

 

Mmmmm...

and hands up those who would tuck them in and then go down the bottom of the garden for half an hour to clean out the eglu??

 

Phil

 

PS.. the legal situation for leaving children is far from clear - i am not sure that it is against the law... you can be prosecuted for neglect - but it is only if something goes wrong usually - there is no legal age at which you are "allowed" to leave children unattended. people assume it is 14 - but there is no such age set down legally as far as I am aware...

 

not saying it is right - but i don't think that it is technically "against the law" to leave young children unattended

[The Dogmother]

I've heard the 14 years age bandied around too Phil, but I'm not sure whether it's a law.

 

I will often potter in the garden while Rosie is in bed, but we have a small garden and I always ensure that the house is secure. As I am on my own, if I didn't do this, I'd never get anything done I would never consider popping to the letterbox, which is 50 yards away, or next door though.

 

Egluntine - the observation about social groups is spot on!

 

Still no news on the situation whern I went home for lunch

[Egluntyne]

Found this: CLICK HERE

 

Worth a look, especially in the light of Madeleine McCann's abduction.

 

Quote from above link:

 

"The law is not clear because it does not state an

age when children can be left alone. But parents

can be prosecuted for wilful neglect if they leave

a child unsupervised “in a manner likely to cause

unnecessary suffering or injury to health”

 

Have edited it as I'm not sure that the link was clear before.

Edited May 9, 2007 by Guest

[red]

As a matter of interest -

 

I think the 14 year thing comes from the Children and Young Persons Act 1933

 

Section 1 (cruelty to person under sixteen) reads at sub para (1): -

If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the responsibility for any child or young person under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him or causes or procures him unnecessary suffering or injury to health ... that person shall be guilty of [an offence and liable to max penalty 10 years]

 

at sub para (2) (a) it says that

 

a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person ... shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, or if having been unable to provide [it] he has failed to take steps to procure it

 

section 107 is the interpretation section and says that in the Act :

 

"child" means a person under the age of 14

"young person" means a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years

 

The above is taken from Stones' Justices Manual.

[The Dogmother]

Ta muchly for enlightening us Red

[Guest]

As a matter of interest -

 

I think the 14 year thing comes from the Children and Young Persons Act 1933

 

Section 1 (cruelty to person under sixteen) reads at sub para (1): -

If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the responsibility for any child or young person under that age wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him or causes or procures him unnecessary suffering or injury to health ... that person shall be guilty of [an offence and liable to max penalty 10 years]

 

at sub para (2) (a) it says that

 

a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person ... shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, or if having been unable to provide [it] he has failed to take steps to procure it

 

section 107 is the interpretation section and says that in the Act :

 

"child" means a person under the age of 14

"young person" means a person who has attained the age of fourteen years and is under the age of seventeen years

 

The above is taken from Stones' Justices Manual.

 

thanks Red

 

I have heard that quoted before - and I suspect it could/would never be used in the circumstances that Egluntine described. I wonder if that was used when (famously) parents have gone off on holiday to spain and left young children to fend for themselves?

 

also - it seems only to apply to boys!

 

Phil

[Egluntyne]

also - it seems only to apply to boys! Phil

Revnev!

[Rhapsody]

Blimey! That was some thread to wade through, good to know that we all agree about who should be first up against the wall

Re abduction of Madeline-I just wanted to add that as someone who has been on 6 or 7 Markwarner holidays with my 2 sons it is quite normal to leave kids in the rooms at night! There is babysitting available but it has to be booked in advance and is limited, but every night there is a 'Nanny Listening Service' where the in-house nannies patrol the resort at 15min intervals, going past every room on that night's list. If a child cries or is calling out, they radio back to the desk and come get you at your table immediately. Its a great service and we always used it.

However I understand that this partic resort is quite unusual in that it is part of the town and not a separate site like all the others, which makes security much harder.