This Maddy McCann saga

Unknown · May 2007

Is it not illegal to leave children of this age alone?

<center>GT Zaskar LE
GT Ruckus
Me!
MYSPACE<hr noshade size="1">Park Tools - help and instructions for all general bike fixes
Sheldon Brown - info about anything and everything</center>

guilliano · May 2007

I am thinking about what i am saying, and I THINK that leaving 3 kids alone at night in a flat 200-300 yards away from where you are enjoying a night out is just as irresponsible as putting them in a car and driving it when over the legal limit. Any number of things could have happened that night, and unfortunately something did, which would not have happened had the children had adult supervision at the time. It's not their fault it happened, but they should not have put the kids in that situation in the first place.

Kids playing out in the street is different, as they are awake, able to run/cycle away and scream out if something happens, which will be heard by others as well as the parents. They will also be playing out with other kids, who can then say what has happened. On top of this I personally wouldn't have a 3 year old kid playing in the street unsupervised, especially not hundreds of yards away from me. Again I would expect to be judged as irresponsible if I did this.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Unknown · May 2007

People cycle and play sports because the reward far outweighs the risk. I cannot see this being the case here. The parents made a huge mistake, took a massive risk and are now paying dearly. A sympathetic judge may think they have suffered enough.

<center>GT Zaskar LE
GT Ruckus
Me!
MYSPACE<hr noshade size="1">Park Tools - help and instructions for all general bike fixes
Sheldon Brown - info about anything and everything</center>

guilliano · May 2007

A sympathetic judge wouldn't be as sympathetic if it wasn't a middle class, well educated, high earning family

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

guilliano · May 2007

Navigation menu list for sections above the current page
NSPCC Home
Parents and carers
Parenting news
Search I am... Choose from list... worried about a child a parent or guardian a child or young person a fundraiser a campaigner interested in donating a volunteer a journalist a childcare professional a teacher doing research a corporate partner a job seeker an adult abused as a child a policymaker a regular donor Leaving children at home alone
What the law says

The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk.

How do you decide if you can safely leave a child alone?

There are many important things to consider before you decide to leave a child alone. These include:

the age of the child
the child's level of maturity and understanding
the place where child will be left
how long the child will be left alone, and how often
whether or not there are any other children alone with the child.
For example, most parents would think it's OK to leave a 16-year-old alone for the evening, but to leave them for a week would be unacceptable.

Many young children play outdoors with other children without suppervision but most people would agree that this is an important part of growing up.

You are the best judge of your child's level of maturity and responsibility. Read our "Home alone" information leaflet for more information:

Home alone (PDF, 149.1kb)

If you do leave a child alone, remember:

If possible, leave a telephone number where you can be contacted, and be available to answer it immediately.
Talk to your child about keeping safe at home and point out the potential dangers. Tell them not to answer the door to strangers.
Give clear instructions about what to do if there's an emergency . All children left alone should be able to phone the emergency services.
Leave a list of trusted people they can contact.
Put obvious dangers out of reach of children, eg medicines, chemicals, matches , etc.
Make sure that the child is happy about the arrangements and confident about being left .
Tell the child when you'll be back, and make sure you're back on time.
Talk to him or her about it afterwards .

Choosing a babysitter
When deciding to use a babysitter remember to:

Follow your instincts - if in doubt don't use them.
Ask for at least two references and contact the referees yourself.
Choose a babysitter over 16 years old.
Listen to your child . Talk to your child about any issue of babysitting that they are unhappy about.
If your child is unhappy about your use of a particular babysitter, find someone else .
Only use registered childminders . A list of local registered childminders can be found from your local authority children's information service.
If you need any further advice or information about leaving children alone, contact our Helpline on 0808 800 5000 at any time, or download our "Home Alone" information leaflet below:

Home alone (PDF, 149.1kb)

Would Maddie (as the oldest of the 3 kids left alone, have been capable of calling someone in an emergency?

Was she briefed in what to do should an emergency arise?

Was she happy to be left in charge of her younger siblings?

If the answer to any of these questions is NO then the parents were irresponsible and deserve to be charged with wilful neglect

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Hamishwmb · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano

I am thinking about what i am saying, and I THINK that leaving 3 kids alone at night in a flat 200-300 yards away from where you are enjoying a night out is just as irresponsible as putting them in a car and driving it when over the legal limit.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Well at least we know that the situation is clear but in your mind. Fortunately the legal system isn't quite as generalised as your opinion and takes lots of things into account.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Kids playing out in the street is different, as they are awake, able to run/cycle away and scream out if something happens, which will be heard by others as well as the parents. They will also be playing out with other kids, who can then say what has happened. On top of this I personally wouldn't have a 3 year old kid playing in the street unsupervised, especially not hundreds of yards away from me. Again I would expect to be judged as irresponsible if I did this.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Absolutely. In the same way children who are asleep frequently stay asleep for a while and don't wander out in front of traffic or bump into kids like Jamie Bulger did or suddenly die in their sleep.

There is risk involved with all of the above situations but you need to view them individually. You're making a lot of generalisations. That's what I'm taking issue with.

Let us not forget that they were, to a clearly debatable extent irresponsible, but they weren't directly responsible for what happened to her. Whoever snatched should be tried for that crime. If she'd instead woken, gone for a walk and fallen from a balcony breaking a limb then they'd rightly be investigated and receive, hopefully the appropriate sentence/outcome, whatever that is. This is a similar situation but it no doubt seems to be a much more serious offence given the tragic nature of what happened.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano

A sympathetic judge wouldn't be as sympathetic if it wasn't a middle class, well educated, high earning family
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Another generalisation. What a surprise. [;)]

--

"Hamish, that is one of the most sensible posts i've read on this forum!" - Futureboy 21/05/2007 06:31:46 

Some of my biking photos flickr - The Flying Pie my bike

guilliano · May 2007

I'm allowed to generalise.... I'm great! Seriously though, I honestly believe they wouldn't be getting the same sympathy from the media or police if they weren't the people they are. That's my honest view on the authorities in the UK.

See my post above quoting from the NSPCC website with regards to whether the parents were negligent

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

guilliano · May 2007

I'm not saying they were directly responsible. I'm saying they were negligent in caring for their children. Directly responsible would be selling or murdering the child. Negligence is not ensuring they are adequately cared for.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Hamishwmb · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano

I'm allowed to generalise.... I'm great! Seriously though, I honestly believe they wouldn't be getting the same sympathy from the media or police if they weren't the people they are. That's my honest view on the authorities in the UK.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I think we are all in agreement with that.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
See my post above quoting from the NSPCC website with regards to whether the parents were negligent
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

"The law does not set a minimum age at which children can be left alone. However, it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk."

Well that makes it perfectly clear... [sigh]. How can someone not be at risk? It's technically impossible.

Everything else that you posted is simply advice from the NSPCC to help parents, not the law. How can we decide whether they have broken the law when we only have one vague statement regarding the actual law? You state:

"Would Maddie (as the oldest of the 3 kids left alone, have been capable of calling someone in an emergency?

Was she briefed in what to do should an emergency arise?

Was she happy to be left in charge of her younger siblings?

If the answer to any of these questions is NO then the parents were irresponsible and deserve to be charged with wilful neglect"

The answer is: If they are found to have broken the laws required in order to be found guilty of wilful neglect then they should be charged and receive the appropriate sentencing. Unless I'm missing something and we've handed our legal system over to a registered charity.

--

"Hamish, that is one of the most sensible posts i've read on this forum!" - Futureboy 21/05/2007 06:31:46 

Some of my biking photos flickr - The Flying Pie my bike

guilliano · May 2007

As the NSPCC say, it is an offence to leave children alone if they are unable to do any of those things.

Remember that anything is only a crime if "in the eyes of the law" an offence has been committed. Things are always open to enterpretation Hamish, whether that be the enerpretation of the law, the enterpretation of evidence by a judge/jury, or the enterpretation of the public/media.

Would you personally say a sleeping 3 year old is capable of calling the emergency services if something happens? Or that a sleeping 2 year old is capable of assuming that responsibility if something happened to the 3 year old?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Hamishwmb · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano

As the NSPCC say, it is an offence to leave children alone if they are unable to do any of those things.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Er, I must have missed that bit. It doesn't actually say that. It says "it is an offence to leave a child alone when doing so puts him or her at risk". The rest is to help guide parents. As you say it's open to interpretation in a court of law. Never mind.

I'm not going to get into debates over individual situations. It's frankly pointless and starting to get a bit repetitive. Let's just say that they are not completely irresponsible and this should be investigated at an appropriate time. I'm not sure what the sentence for wilful neglect is, but I doubt it's anything like the burden and guilt from what has happened to them. If their children are still at risk then action should be taken. If that's not found to be the case then what good will it serve?

--

"Hamish, that is one of the most sensible posts i've read on this forum!" - Futureboy 21/05/2007 06:31:46 

Some of my biking photos flickr - The Flying Pie my bike

Unknown · May 2007

I think you have to be rather insane to believe that leaving a 3 year old with two babies is a responsible act. they are at massive risk at that age and have no ability to look after themsleves.

<center>GT Zaskar LE
GT Ruckus
Me!
MYSPACE<hr noshade size="1">Park Tools - help and instructions for all general bike fixes
Sheldon Brown - info about anything and everything</center>

guilliano · May 2007

It would serve the same purpose as taking a child away from a drug addict, which happens regularly. Children of drug addicts are not necessarily "at risk", but are judged to be so frequently. I personally know one woman who had her children taken away from her when she was a heroin addict. She has now been clean for 5 years, is a drug councillor helping others get away or stay away from drugs, but is still only allowed supervised visits with her children. It is for the courts to say what is in the best interests of the children now, but as the parents are intent on keeping this issue in the public eye they should expect people such as us to voice our views on the subject and my own personal view is that they have proven themselves negligent parents and as such should be taken through the judicial system to prove whether they are capable of looking after the children they have left, regardless of the stress and grief they are going through at the moment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Unknown · May 2007

I suppose in considering how much of a risk it was leaving them alone, we'd have to have some idea of how often people leave their kids unsupervised for half hour periods (they said that't how often they went back). And how often that goes horribly wrong. I am aware that the consequences of that risk were very high, but on balance, I think the risk is actually quite low.

You Beauty
Very Cross
Twenty Too
It is big and it is clever

Well, it is in that they both wish they were Irish

Hamishwmb · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano

my own personal view is that they have proven themselves negligent parents and as such should be taken through the judicial system to prove whether they are capable of looking after the children they have left, regardless of the stress and grief they are going through at the moment
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Fair point, but they don't actually need to be tried in a court of law. The social work services can investigate whether their children are at further risk and take action appropriately, including the courts. I wouldn't be surprised if they were doing that just now.

I think, however, that they reserve the right to some privacy with regards to any such investigation. I can't help feeling that, given the tragic nature of the case and the high amounts of media exposure, there is a feeling that they should be made an example of. I find that unsettling personally.

BTW - The incident occurred on foreign soil. Any lawyers out there know where the UK authorities would stand if they did decide to charge them? Would UK law be applicable?

--

"Hamish, that is one of the most sensible posts i've read on this forum!" - Futureboy 21/05/2007 06:31:46 

Some of my biking photos flickr - The Flying Pie my bike

Capt. Jon · May 2007

Lets not forget the incident took place in Portugal, UK law, nor the NSPCC has jurisdiction there (i presume).

TyMBR

Support the UK bike industry
If you don't like what i've posted assume there is a winking smilie next to it you simpleton ;-)

guilliano · May 2007

You'd then also have to check CCTV footage and question the staff at the restaurant to see if the actually were going back every 30 mins to check on the kids. If this was proven to be wrong then that would influence and judicial hearing and stop the courts being able to prosecute on the grounds that any jury would be biased

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Hamishwmb · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Capt. Jon

Lets not forget the incident took place in Portugal, UK law, nor the NSPCC has jurisdiction there (i presume).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hah. Beat you to it (see prev page).

[smug grin]

--

"Hamish, that is one of the most sensible posts i've read on this forum!" - Futureboy 21/05/2007 06:31:46 

Some of my biking photos flickr - The Flying Pie my bike

guilliano · May 2007

UK law has the same jurisdiction as long as the authorities abroad are happy to extrigate the people involved. Unless the family decides to move to Portugal, which as EU citizens they are allowed to do, in which case Portugese law, and the EU court of human rights would become involved. Either way, I still can't see how they can justify leaving a sleeping 3 year old in charge of 2 sleeping 2 year old children whist they went out for the evening

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Hamishwmb · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano

You'd then also have to check CCTV footage and question the staff at the restaurant to see if the actually were going back every 30 mins to check on the kids
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I don't remember any mention of that being the law? Is 30 min checks okay? I thought that was deemed as being irresponsible earlier on in the thread. Is it okay now? Someone could stop choke and die 10 times over within that time interval. Should we now ask for clearer definition of negligence in these type of cases featuring both the MacAvennie distance and the Gulliano acceptable time check interval? [:p]

Immature, I know. I'm bored and spaced out having just finished a week of night shifts. This is starting to get very muddled though. [;)]

--

"Hamish, that is one of the most sensible posts i've read on this forum!" - Futureboy 21/05/2007 06:31:46 

Some of my biking photos flickr - The Flying Pie my bike

guilliano · May 2007

I was responding to Frankie's post. I'm not saying it's OK, just that if they were going back every 30 mins this can be proven or disproven

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Capt. Jon · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano
I still can't see how they can justify leaving a sleeping 3 year old in charge of 2 sleeping 2 year old children whist they went out for the evening<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You just did.

TyMBR

Support the UK bike industry
If you don't like what i've posted assume there is a winking smilie next to it you simpleton ;-)

guilliano · May 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Capt. Jon

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by guilliano
I still can't see how they can justify leaving a sleeping 3 year old in charge of 2 sleeping 2 year old children whist they went out for the evening<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You just did.

TyMBR

Support the UK bike industry
If you don't like what i've posted assume there is a winking smilie next to it you simpleton ;-)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

How?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Capt. Jon · May 2007

Because they were asleep - nobody was in charge of anybody else.

TyMBR

Support the UK bike industry
If you don't like what i've posted assume there is a winking smilie next to it you simpleton ;-)

guilliano · May 2007

That means there is no justification, and leaves them incapable of looking after themselves

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Anonymous · May 2007

Latest is they are to meet the POPE!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6698215.stm

OMG I can't beleive how much the media has got hold of this and run & run & run with it

<center>Nothing is more conducive to peace of mind than not having any opinions at all.</center>
<center>My Spesh</center>

Stealthwmb · May 2007

Wow, just trawled through all 7 1/2 pages of this so I feel I can now comment.

I was listening to a radio show the other day discussing this and the presenter had been on a Mark Warner holiday. He explained that these holidays leave you feeling extremely safe and secure to the point that you may act differently to how you would at home.

I have two kids who have managed to make it to 13 and 14. I am certain that over their short lives I have made my fair share of errors of judgement, whether that be driving at 140mph with them in my Impreza, having a flat packed bed fall over and just miss one of them, or the first time you're out shopping and they slip away from you. That feeling of sheer panic followed by the relief when it's all ok.

The jury is still out on whether I am wise to let the oldest into her bedroom alone with her 15 year old boyfreind.

Most of those who have passed judgement will have left their child with a babysitter. Do you know what the sitter does while you're enjoying your evening? Do they pop out? You actually don't have a clue.

Of course for most of us these errors of judgment don't haunt us for the rest of your lives. We all make our decisions about our children based on what we know about them and about our own experiences.

I feel for these parents terribly and for anyone who has lost a child through abduction or runaways. I just hope it's never me.

Stealth

guilliano · May 2007

No controversial opinions or berating/support for the parents? Disappointed! The thread is obviously burning out.

If that's the case then I will have to reingnite the flame....

The parents are arrogant, self important people, trying to distract people's view from the fact they left their child alone, unprotected and vulnerable. It has recently been pointed out in the news that the children's bedroom window was also left OPEN, but again it's ignored and all the press are reporting is "poor parents". Where are the other 2 children while they are off making all these "publicity" visits? Not with the parents that's for sure. If I was in that situation I'd be communicating through others whilst holding my other children close to me at all times

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

Unknown · May 2007

The parents have been advised that they need to keep this story on the front page of as many papers as they can for as long as possible. That is what all their 'publicity stunts' are about, whether you agree with what they did or not I don't think they are now trying to cash in on an extended holiday.

Edit G, by posting your 'controversial' opinions and keeping this thread alive you are actually doing exactly what they need you to do. Now you're stuck, post or don't post ?

guilliano · May 2007

I'll post.... if only to be an annoying barsteward. It's not going to help them find the daughter I believe they have lost forever partly due to their own negligence. I can't believe they actually had "an audience" with the pope, who is also trying to get positive publicity from the situation. Where is the pope when Catholics are dieing in Iraq due to the incompetance of the US army?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/guilliano/

This Maddy McCann saga

Comments

Categories