At what age should you be allowed to babysit a toddler?

13»

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 757
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But doesn't that raise other issues. The law states you are able to get married, and have children from 16 years old. So 16/17 year old young mum's and dad's could potentially fall foul and be prosecuted if the law said 18. It would only work if the legal age of consent (and marriage too I suppose) was raised to 18 as well.

    For me it would be 16, but that again raises issues about young mum's under that age caring for their own children.

    I thought the OP asked what age was ok to babysit? A 16 year old married (or not) would not be babysitting her own child.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I dont think we have all the information.....why did the police get involved, what was she charged with (it wont be the babysitting incident, it will be an issue relating to the 3 year old, something must have happened for there to be evidence of neglect) and why did she accept the caution.

    Story seems a little one sided.
  • Xela MXela M Posts: 4,710
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A friend of mine is leaving her 1-year-old son with a 15-year-old babysitter and I must say the 15-year-old girl looks after the boy better than his own mum would. It's because she has much more energy and patience to run around and play with him than an adult would. She now turned 16 and is still looking after him. The boy never even so much as scratched his knee whilst being in the care of this young babysitter.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 68,508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Taglet wrote: »
    I dont think we have all the information.....why did the police get involved, what was she charged with (it wont be the babysitting incident, it will be an issue relating to the 3 year old, something must have happened for there to be evidence of neglect) and why did she accept the caution.

    Story seems a little one sided.

    Presumably a neighbour reported them. There was clearly no evidence of neglect or it would have been a court case, not a caution. The mother presumably accepted the caution, as people nearly always do, because she was threatened that if she did not she could have been taken to court. It is very unfortunate, because it is almost unimaginable that a court would have proceeded with this terrible case.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Presumably a neighbour reported them. There was clearly no evidence of neglect or it would have been a court case, not a caution. The mother presumably accepted the caution, as people nearly always do, because she was threatened that if she did not she could have been taken to court. It is very unfortunate, because it is almost unimaginable that a court would have proceeded with this terrible case.

    On the basis of what has been written it makes no sense at all which is why I queried if we have the full story. I have worked in child protection for 26 years and you would be astonished at the way stories are presented in the press by 'innocent' parents which have no resemblance to the truth.

    She will have been cautioned for an offence and leaving a 14 year old babysitter in charge of a 3 year old is not an offence. The offence is neglect and the police will have had to show that the three year old was neglected and that cant be just by being cared for by a 14 year old.
  • thepuffinthepuffin Posts: 1,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Taglet wrote: »
    She will have been cautioned for an offence and leaving a 14 year old babysitter in charge of a 3 year old is not an offence. The offence is neglect and the police will have had to show that the three year old was neglected and that cant be just by being cared for by a 14 year old.

    Yes, if she had rejected the caution and gone to court the prosecutor would have had to prove this.

    The thing is, you see, the police don't actually need any evidence to threaten the lady with court and most people, terrified of going to court and poorly advised will simply accept the caution.

    Cautions these days are thrown around by police eager to improve their statistics. There is no burden of proof involved, simply the requirement that the "mark" is easy to intimidate and without legal advice.

    You only have to look at today's aquittal of a mother taken to Crown Court for alleged theft of £5.24's worth of children's shirts to see what happens when you decline to be bullied by the police.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thepuffin wrote: »
    Yes, if she had rejected the caution and gone to court the prosecutor would have had to prove this.

    The thing is, you see, the police don't actually need any evidence to threaten the lady with court and most people, terrified of going to court and poorly advised will simply accept the caution.

    Cautions these days are thrown around by police eager to improve their statistics. There is no burden of proof involved, simply the requirement that the "mark" is easy to intimidate and without legal advice.

    You only have to look at today's aquittal of a mother taken to Crown Court for alleged theft of £5.24's worth of children's shirts to see what happens when you decline to be bullied by the police.

    Yes they do the same with most offences but what I was getting at is surely they need some specifics in order to accuse her of neglecting the 3 year old. Merely leaving the child with a 14 year old babysitter is not neglect in itself.
  • thepuffinthepuffin Posts: 1,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    If they had evidence of neglect they would have prosecuted, simple as.

    This is just another example of the Police abusing their position and bumping up their crime stats by pressuring someone into accepting a caution.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    scoobie121 wrote: »
    I thought the OP asked what age was ok to babysit? A 16 year old married (or not) would not be babysitting her own child.

    Indeed, but if a law was put in place restricting babysitting to 18 year olds and over, would it not raise such issues?.

    Why would it be OK for the 16 year old mother to look after her own children, but the law would not deem her mature enough to look after the children of others?.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thepuffin wrote: »
    If they had evidence of neglect they would have prosecuted, simple as.

    This is just another example of the Police abusing their position and bumping up their crime stats by pressuring someone into accepting a caution.

    ..but surely to carry out a caution they have to have evidence of a crime and she has to admit to that crime. The question is, what was the crime?
  • RecordPlayerRecordPlayer Posts: 22,648
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    kim1994 wrote: »
    How did the police get involved anyway?
    seems OK to me dependent on the maturity of the 14 year old

    Yes, that's what I'd like to know. Who reported her?

    Loosing her job over this is going a bit far.
  • tenofspadestenofspades Posts: 12,870
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I was outraged by this story, as most people were. Of course a toddler can be left for 30 minutes with a 14 year old sibling. Good lord. Do these people have no experience of life at all? The unfortunate mother should never have accepted the caution - it would have stopped right there, as no court in the country would have looked at it for an instant.

    completely agree.
  • Pisces CloudPisces Cloud Posts: 30,239
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I was babysitting my niece and nephew from the age of 12, back in the early 80s. How times have changed.
  • Squealer_MahonySquealer_Mahony Posts: 6,483
    Forum Member
    when she was 15 my older sister was in charge of my new born younger sister at least once a week. I was no help.

    She'd tell my parents she couldn't handle it and they'd respond with "You're 15 years old of course you can look after a child!!"

    I babysat her loads when she was 2 and I was 14 (i did have to be bribed with doughnuts though) but it would never be more than an hour or two at a time.

    Once time when I was 12 they left me with her on my own, there was a 30 minute gap between when my mother had to leave the house and when my father would be back.
    The baby was asleep and I was told she "probably wouldn't wake" and to keep an ear out.

    As luck would have it, she woke up the very second my Dad put the key in the door so it looked like I had left her crying - but my Dad just kinda laughed and believed me when I said she'd just started.

    i'd never leave a 12 year old with a newborn though.
  • glasshalffullglasshalffull Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Wrong to leave 14 year old 30 mins with three year old...but okay to leave a group of under fives alone in an apartment abroad while you go off to a tapas bar?:confused:
  • thepuffinthepuffin Posts: 1,662
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Taglet wrote: »
    ..but surely to carry out a caution they have to have evidence of a crime and she has to admit to that crime. The question is, what was the crime?

    Again, they don't need to have evidence of anything. All they need is to offer a person a caution as an alternative to the possibility of court action at a later date (there is no requirement for papers to be laid with the court or evidence to be examined).

    As for the charge, it's stated in the bbc article:

    And, under the Children and Young Persons Act, 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". Punishment ranges from a fine to 10 years' imprisonment.


    There's pretty much a 100% chance of that charge not sticking based on the evidence we've seen published, but that matters not when the woman in question thinks that a caution is a simple way to end the worry.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,455
    Forum Member
    Wrong to leave 14 year old 30 mins with three year old...but okay to leave a group of under fives alone in an apartment abroad while you go off to a tapas bar?:confused:
    Good point.
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thepuffin wrote: »
    Again, they don't need to have evidence of anything. All they need is to offer a person a caution as an alternative to the possibility of court action at a later date (there is no requirement for papers to be laid with the court or evidence to be examined).

    As for the charge, it's stated in the bbc article:

    And, under the Children and Young Persons Act, 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". Punishment ranges from a fine to 10 years' imprisonment.


    There's pretty much a 100% chance of that charge not sticking based on the evidence we've seen published, but that matters not when the woman in question thinks that a caution is a simple way to end the worry.

    So if I am sitting in my car minding my own business the police can come up and accuse me of dangerous driving and offer me a caution without telling me why I was driving dangerously. Because of fear I would accept the caution rather than go to court?

    Its the same thing.

    I know what the CYP act says I have worked in Child Protection for 26 years. The important part is 'in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health" ........merely leaving a 3 year old child with a 14 year old for 30 minutes isnt enough.

    Had the three year old decided to climb out of a window onto a roof or wandered in the street while the 14 year old played on a computer game would be sufficient but something must have happened for them to decide to take the action that they did.

    If not then the whole thing is disgraceful.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 36,630
    Forum Member
    Taglet wrote: »
    So if I am sitting in my car minding my own business the police can come up and accuse me of dangerous driving and offer me a caution without telling me why I was driving dangerously. Because of fear I would accept the caution rather than go to court?

    Its the same thing.

    I know what the CYP act says I have worked in Child Protection for 26 years. The important part is 'in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health" ........merely leaving a 3 year old child with a 14 year old for 30 minutes isnt enough.

    Had the three year old decided to climb out of a window onto a roof or wandered in the street while the 14 year old played on a computer game would be sufficient but something must have happened for them to decide to take the action that they did.

    If not then the whole thing is disgraceful.

    Actually in some cases they can, if you were drunk and decided to sleep in your car, you can be charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, even if you did not have the keys in the ignition, and had not started the car. I believe (but may be wrong) you can even be charged if you are simply asleep in the back seat.
  • purplelinuspurplelinus Posts: 1,515
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I used to look after my three cousins (they were 9, 6 and 5) when I was 15 years old, everyday from 09.00-17.00 during the summer holidays. They regularly had a friend each over, 6 kids and I coped and was trusted.

    I guess it does depend on the teenager but it should be at the Mothers descretion when dealing with her own older children!
  • kookiethekatkookiethekat Posts: 2,867
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jane Doh! wrote: »
    The mother was treated harshly and unfairly.

    I would have had no problem with my eldest babysitting my youngest - there's ten years between them. My eldest is very sensible and knew what to do in an emergency.[/QUOTE]

    ^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^
  • TagletTaglet Posts: 20,286
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Actually in some cases they can, if you were drunk and decided to sleep in your car, you can be charged with being drunk in charge of a motor vehicle, even if you did not have the keys in the ignition, and had not started the car. I believe (but may be wrong) you can even be charged if you are simply asleep in the back seat.

    You've kinda missed my point.
Sign In or Register to comment.