UK Dopers: Does the parents' behavior in this story strike you as typical?

[elfkin477]

Sadly, a four-year-old British girl is missing (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/help-pours-in-for-missing-british-girl/20070514110109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001), and her family is trying to find her. Hopefully they'll find her soon, safe and sound.

However, this part of the article struck me as really off and I'm not even a parent:
Madeleine McCann vanished May 2 after her parents left her, and her brother and sister, both aged 2, alone while they went to a nearby restaurant within their hotel complex at Praia da Luz, a vacation resort in Portugal's Algarve region.
There was nothing in the article to indicate that anyone thought this was at all abnormal. In the US there are pretty decent odds that the parents would have been charged with a crime for leaving the kids alone.

Is it considered acceptable to Brits to leave your preschooler and toddlers in a hotel while you eat dinner? I realize they said they "periodically" checked on them (see photo captions), but apparently not frequently enough!

So what do you think, was this couple astonishingly lax or are Americans overprotective?

[Baron Greenback]

This is really big news here at the moment. I don't think that leaving children like that is at all typical. There has been muted criticism of the parents, but the tabloids don't seem interested in a pile-on given the circumstances.

[GorillaMan]

As Struan says, it's a big story here (with new developments in the last few hours).

The restaurant they went to was something like 50 yards from the apartment. Little different to going down to a lower floor of a high-rise hotel. Or putting them to bed in their own rooms at home and spending the evening in another part of the house.

[Ximenean]

They were only 100 metres away, and IIRC they said they checked on them every half an hour. Doesn't seem criminally negligent to me.

[Cunctator]

Little different to going down to a lower floor of a high-rise hotel. Or putting them to bed in their own rooms at home and spending the evening in another part of the house.Yes, it seems reasonable enough to me.

It's quite a big story here too. Today's (Tuesday's) paper carries a story (http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/anguished-parents-struggle-in-sea-of-despair/2007/05/14/1178995077373.html) from the Telegraph in London that's pretty damning of the investigatory efforts of the Portuguese police.

[Lobsang]

Is it considered acceptable to Brits to leave your preschooler and toddlers in a hotel while you eat dinner? I realize they said they "periodically" checked on them (see photo captions), but apparently not frequently enough!


In my mind - Absolutely not. This struck me as odd too. I was surprised to hear that the parents had left the kids unsupervised.

It's especially surprising that it was in a foregin country. Nothing against foreign countries but the very fact that it is foreign suggests it's level of enlightenment in the area of personal security is unknown or less known to holidaymakers.

I sincerely hope the abducters of abby have not mistreated her and that she's still alive.

[Martha Medea]

There has been muted criticism of the parents, but the tabloids don't seem interested in a pile-on given the circumstances.
I get that sense from the UK press too.

I've noticed European parents doing this in enclosed resort complexes, taking baby monitors to the pool or the restaurant. Personally I think it is a little strange to do this where toddlers are concerned, because they are mobile enough to wander off.

A tiny bit off-topic but I can't help thinking this is getting such a huge amount of attention because the little girl happens to be so photogenic.

[Askance]

It's especially surprising that it was in a foreign country.Except that it was in an area of Portugal which is essentially Little Britain, with cobbled streets and little cottages. Hardly any actual Portuguese live there. It's quite understandable that they acted as if they were home.

[GorillaMan]

In my mind - Absolutely not. This struck me as odd too. I was surprised to hear that the parents had left the kids unsupervised.
What, you think they should have stayed in the room with them from the moment they were put to bed? If not, then what counts as 'supervised'?

[CairoCarol]

What, you think they should have stayed in the room with them from the moment they were put to bed?

Well... yes! Or else hired a babysitter; any resort will gladly provide one for a price.

Toddlers are essentially perpetual threats to themselves: old enough to be mobile, inquisitive, and energetic, but young enough to be totally clueless about danger. I realize these kids were sleeping, but that doesn't preclude their waking up.

The situation is obviously not analogous to putting your kids to bed in a different room of the same house: first, when you are home you hopefully have control over/notice who is going in and out. These parents obviously did not notice someone entering and leaving the hotel room. Second, at home you can usually hear your kid (if the layout of the house doesn't automatically make that possible, you get a baby monitor). Obviously, these parents could not hear their kids either.

No parent deserves the price they are paying for their negligence, and I am glad the press is keeping quiet on the issue, but count me among those who cannot understand how they thought their children would be safe with so little attention being paid.

[chowder]

They left their 3 kids ALONE while they went for a meal.

Fucking disgraceful given the number of perverts hanging around these days. Would they have left the kids alone while they went shopping?.

I sincerely hope the kid is found unharmed but I tell you if she was mine I would never have left her alone......EVER!

[ScareyFaerie]

I heard some interesting comments on this from another source, apparently the parents are generally regarded as being over-protective of their kids - the info comes via someone who knows them from a doctor's e-board thing. Anyway, it also appears that the whole 'leaving their kids unsupervised' angle is being seriously played down because it will detract from public sympathy.

If anyone remembers the Jamie Bulger case from many years ago, the very same reasoning was used to downplay the fact that Denise Bulger was apparently in the shopping centre on a shoplifting spree using Jamie's pushchair as a store for her stolen-to-order loot. The fact that they were petty criminals from a council estate was largely left out of media reporting just because it was felt the public wouldn't feel so strongly for the family if they knew their real circumstances.

Just sayin', as they say around here.

[Malacandra]

Denise Bulger was apparently in the shopping centre on a shoplifting spree using Jamie's pushchair as a store for her stolen-to-order loot.

I did not know that!

[ScareyFaerie]

Neither did I until today!

[Pushkin]

When I saw the map at the bottom of this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6652937.stm) BBC article, I thought that they had to be taking the piss.

Another building, where they are quite distracted enjoying themselves, is not somewhere they should have been when they had their three young children under their care. A trip over every half hour isn't remotely comparable with being downstairs in your own home.

[Staggerlee]

I have only seen outright criticism of the parents from the Letters page in newspapers - I suppose it is one way the paper can print the otherwise unprintable.

I don't think I can blame the parents too much myself. Presuming the child has been kidnapped, it must surely have been premeditated. Maybe if she hadn't been taken then, the perpetrator would have simply chosen another opportunity.

The news today is this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6656451.stm) I haven't read the tabloids today, but I'd wager they are strongly suggesting that Robert Murat is involved with the abduction. Middle-aged man, single, living with his mother? Must be something wrong there...guilty? :(

Then again, maybe he is.

[jjimm]

Back in the 1970s, this was totally normal. My parents used to go to a party in the same street and check back on us every half-hour or so. During my wedding, my sister left her young kids in the hotel room, and checked back every half hour or so. Someone determined enough could have grabbed us in either circumstance.

The shutters of the little girl's room had been unscrewed from the outer walls. If the parents had been in the room watching TV, they still might have lost the little girl, and nodoby would be blaming them. No parent is so paranoid that they sit in the same room as a kid all night.

chowder, if your post is serious, I believe you're falling prey to the exaggeration of predatory paedos in society. It's the same as it ever was.

[One And Only Wanderers]

This is really big news here at the moment. I don't think that leaving children like that is at all typical. There has been muted criticism of the parents, but the tabloids don't seem interested in a pile-on given the circumstances.


In my view the reason there has only been muted criticism, is that the parents have co-operated with the press so they are selling plenty of papers. If the parents had tried to keep the press out of it, I think they would have been portrayed as negligent monsters. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the press.

[jjimm]

In my view the reason there has only been muted criticism, is that the parents have co-operated with the press so they are selling plenty of papers. If the parents had tried to keep the press out of it, I think they would have been portrayed as negligent monsters. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the press.There'll be a backlash soon, mark my words. The press always eats its 'trusties' in the end. I don't doubt there are tabloid journos digging in the McCanns' wheely bins at the moment, waiting for the right time to pounce.

[CairoCarol]

Back in the 1970s, this was totally normal. My parents used to go to a party in the same street and check back on us every half-hour or so.

When you were TWO YEARS OLD?!?!?!? My parents got a babysitter.

[Baron Greenback]

In my view the reason there has only been muted criticism, is that the parents have co-operated with the press so they are selling plenty of papers. If the parents had tried to keep the press out of it, I think they would have been portrayed as negligent monsters. I don't have a particularly high opinion of the press.

I think the fact that they are a young, presentable, professional couple hasn't hurt either. If they were Wayne and Waynetta from some estate...I don't have a high opinion of the press either, obviously.

[jjimm]

When you were TWO YEARS OLD?!?!?!? My parents got a babysitter.Yes. As I say, it was normal within society at the time.

Anyone remember that Norwegian woman who got prosecuted for neglect in the US a few years ago for leaving her baby in a stroller outside a store while she went in to buy something? It was normal for her too.

[Noone Special]

So what do you think, was this couple astonishingly lax or are Americans overprotective?Both.

Although I'd go with just "lax" rather than "astonishingly lax."

When the oldest child is 4, leaving them alone (and in another building) for 30 minutes at a time is a bit much, IMO. When my kids were that age I would never leave them alone for more than about 5 minutes on the outside, and that only if I *absolutely* had no choice.

OTOH, the notion that an 8- or 10-YO cannot be left alone for 2 minutes (as I sometimes have seen posted about American-centric cases) strikes me as going too far in the other direction.

Regardless, I just hope she's OK, and that she will be found :(

[si_blakely]

I must be a terrible parent

When my kids were two and three, I'd put them to bed - and then I'd go to sleep for 7 or 8 hours. They were unsupervised. No-one was watching them. And I don't wake easily - I certainly don't hear much over the sound of my own snoring.

The point is, the McCanns know their own children, and whether or not they would stay asleep. They knew the resort, and they were not very far away, and checking regularly. The apartment was conventionally secure. In most situations, it would have been perfectly safe. But it would appear that Madeline was probably targeted, so there would have been little more that the parents could do. Even if the parents were in the apartment, the child could have been taken, and the loss may not have been noted till much later - probably the next morning.

So, I don't believe that the parents did anything wrong at all.

Si

[Dead Cat]

When I was about 10 or 11 my parents would leave me with my 4-year-old brother in a hotel bedroom while they went to have a meal in the hotel restaurant. I think the differences are relevant, though: they were in the same building; there was a baby monitor in the room which was constantly listened to by the hotel reception; the door to the room was secure and the window was almost impossible to reach from the outside, being on the second floor. The fact that the room Madeleine was in was apparently not secure is the key factor, I think. Given that, I'd say the parents were somewhat negligent.

In general, that was the only time I or my brother were left alone until the age of about 13 - until then it was either a babysitter or tag along with them. But I agree one can be over-protective of one's children.

[chowder]

jjimm:Maybe it is the same as it always was, it's just that these days there is more focus on it than before.

Was I serious? you betcha

[C3]

I mentioned on another thread on this topic that the British mothers on a parenting board I belong to are shocked that these kids were left alone. To me personally, it's not so much the fear of predators but the fear of the kids (especially the younger ones) seriously injuring themselves. I don't even leave my kids alone in our apartment to go get the mail (our mailbox is about the same distance from our apartment as that restaurant was from their hotel room). I'm not worried about someone grabbing them; I'm worried that they'll pull furniture onto themselves, fall off the couch, stick their head into the toilet, etc. Those kids could have easily woken up and gotten into serious trouble in an unfamiliar, presumably non-childproofed hotel room.

This is very nasty of me, but I think the parents are in some way involved.

[Rilchiam]

The news today is this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6656451.stm) I haven't read the tabloids today, but I'd wager they are strongly suggesting that Robert Murat is involved with the abduction. Middle-aged man, single, living with his mother? Must be something wrong there...guilty? :(

Then again, maybe he is.

I wonder how they got on to this guy. The article says he was assisting with translations, but not what suddenly made him a suspect.

[WhyNot]

I must be a terrible parent

When my kids were two and three, I'd put them to bed - and then I'd go to sleep for 7 or 8 hours. They were unsupervised. No-one was watching them. And I don't wake easily - I certainly don't hear much over the sound of my own snoring.

The point is, the McCanns know their own children, and whether or not they would stay asleep. They knew the resort, and they were not very far away, and checking regularly. The apartment was conventionally secure. In most situations, it would have been perfectly safe. But it would appear that Madeline was probably targeted, so there would have been little more that the parents could do. Even if the parents were in the apartment, the child could have been taken, and the loss may not have been noted till much later - probably the next morning.

So, I don't believe that the parents did anything wrong at all.

Si
No shit. I would have brought a baby monitor with me to the table, but that's the only thing I'd have done differently. They were asleep! I've never been to that country but here hotel rooms are very sparse and I travel with outlet caps - there's no more babyproofing to be done once I close the bathroom door. Not to mention my 2 year old can't climb out of a crib.
This is very nasty of me, but I think the parents are in some way involved.
I suspect so, too, unfortunately. I always do in such cases.

[Wee Bairn]

You could be 100m away from your kids in the same house, so no, I don't think it negligent.

[Flutterby]

I'm not worried about someone grabbing them; I'm worried that they'll pull furniture onto themselves, fall off the couch, stick their head into the toilet, etc. Those kids could have easily woken up and gotten into serious trouble in an unfamiliar, presumably non-childproofed hotel room.

Or opened the door and wandered off looking for their parents. My son is about Madeleine's age and is a little monkey, as most kids are at that age. In a strange place, I wouldn't put it past them to wake up and wander off. Velociraptor woke up and came looking for me every night we were away from home last Christmas, even the last couple nights where by now it was a familiar place (Dad's house). I'd think he was asleep and 10 minutes later I'd hear 'Mooommy' from up the stairs.

It's also been noted elsewhere that the resort had a place you could drop off the kids in their PJ's and pick them up after your supper. I would've used that, I mean.. why disturb your supper every half hour to check on them when you can just sit and enjoy your supper while your children are supervised? Much more relaxing.

ETA: I wouldn't mind seeing pictures of the apartment from the bar. The diagrams give us an idea of distance but are there trees or anything that could block the view from the restaurant/where they were sitting?

[Kalhoun]

Back in the 1970s, this was totally normal. My parents used to go to a party in the same street and check back on us every half-hour or so. During my wedding, my sister left her young kids in the hotel room, and checked back every half hour or so. Someone determined enough could have grabbed us in either circumstance.

The shutters of the little girl's room had been unscrewed from the outer walls. If the parents had been in the room watching TV, they still might have lost the little girl, and nodoby would be blaming them. No parent is so paranoid that they sit in the same room as a kid all night.

chowder, if your post is serious, I believe you're falling prey to the exaggeration of predatory paedos in society. It's the same as it ever was.
Our parents would leave us AWAKE (prolly 7 or 8 years old) and would go to the neighbor's 10 houses down. That was in the 60s. No one thought anything of it.

[C3]

Our parents would leave us AWAKE (prolly 7 or 8 years old) and would go to the neighbor's 10 houses down. That was in the 60s. No one thought anything of it.
There's a huge difference between leaving a 7-8 year old in a known environment, versus a 4 year old and two 18 month olds in an unknown environment that has public access.

[pulykamell]

There's a huge difference between leaving a 7-8 year old in a known environment, versus a 4 year old and two 18 month olds in an unknown environment that has public access.

I grew up with Eastern European immigrant parents who were fairly old-fashioned in their child-rearing approach (spankings, belting if you're really bad, letting us cry out crying fits, no choice when to eat and what to eat, etc.), but I cannot ever recall them leaving me or my brother alone before the age of maybe 10 or 11.

I'm not a parent, but leaving a 4-year-old and two 18-month-olds strikes me as something in the "not a good idea" category.

[romansperson]

Back in the 1970s, this was totally normal. My parents used to go to a party in the same street and check back on us every half-hour or so. During my wedding, my sister left her young kids in the hotel room, and checked back every half hour or so. Someone determined enough could have grabbed us in either circumstance.

The shutters of the little girl's room had been unscrewed from the outer walls. If the parents had been in the room watching TV, they still might have lost the little girl, and nodoby would be blaming them. No parent is so paranoid that they sit in the same room as a kid all night.

I haven't read a whole lot about this case, but what I have read seems to indicate that it's quite possible that someone was just waiting for a chance to grab one of these kids, so the parents could indeed have been there in the apartment and still have had this tragic thing happen.

There's several cases here in the U.S. that I can think of just off the top of my head where children were taken from their homes, with a parent or grandparent present in the home - Polly Klaas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Klaas), Jessica Lunsford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lunsford), and Elizabeth Smart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Smart_%28abductee%29), for instance. I know there are more. Only Elizabeth survived her ordeal.

I don't think the parents that are the subject of the OP were particularly negligent - if someone is determined to take your kid, then unless you never let that kid out of your sight they have a good chance of being successful, unfortunately.

[Foxy40]

When you were TWO YEARS OLD?!?!?!? My parents got a babysitter.

Yes, growing up in the 70s my parents didn't leave us alone until I was 11. Old enough in their minds to watch my younger siblings.
I can not fathom leaving toddlers in a hotel room and going to dinner. Even if the restaurant was on the other side of the hallway. Young children need to be supervised.

[GorillaMan]

When you were TWO YEARS OLD?!?!?!? My parents got a babysitter.
Another 'me too', and that was the 80s.

For those saying the parents were negligent in leaving the child in a situation where an abduction was possible, what about the case in the north-east a year or two ago where a kid was taken from the bathroom while the parents were elsewhere in the house? Were those parents to blame, too?

There's a huge difference between leaving a 7-8 year old in a known environment, versus a 4 year old and two 18 month olds in an unknown environment that has public access.
See jjimm's earlier post. This wasn't 'public access', it was breaking & entering.

[C3]

Another 'me too', and that was the 80s.

For those saying the parents were negligent in leaving the child in a situation where an abduction was possible, what about the case in the north-east a year or two ago where a kid was taken from the bathroom while the parents were elsewhere in the house? Were those parents to blame, too?


See jjimm's earlier post. This wasn't 'public access', it was breaking & entering.


First, I wouldn't say these parents are "to blame"...obviously the person who took the little girl is to blame, unless the parents were complicit in the abduction. I would say, and so would the legal system in many jurisdictions, that leaving children that young, unsupervised, is negligent. And, yeah, I don't think that was very smart of your parents and, IMO, they got lucky that nothing happened. Saying, "Well, my parents did that and I'm fine" is akin to a person born before child seats saying the same thing. It doesn't mean having free reign of the backseat while barrelling 70 mph down the highway was a good idea. Just because there was a case of abduction where the parents were home does not negate the fact that you're putting your child at less risk by supervising than by not.

Let me reiterate that I don't think the threat of abduction is what they should have been worried about. The chance of a child injuring himself when unsupervised is huge. That an abduction happened is horrific, but it would have been less likely to have happened if they had been there.

Per "public access" - a hotel has public access. Anyone can generally walk through it, many people have keys to any given hotel room (hotel employees), strange people coming and going are not notable. A totally different situation than someone's house. Also, is it known that access was gained through the window or is that speculation?

[GorillaMan]

Can we clarify what you really mean by 'supervised', if it's not being in the same room? Next door? Within earshot? Something else? It's certainly my opinion that it's crazy to insist children should be under constant supervision.

[C3]

By supervised, I mean that you know what they are doing. So, if you're in the same house, you can hear them or see them. If you can't, you're checking on them frequently enough that they're not going to have much chance of getting in trouble. As they get older and their judgement develops, obviously the supervision lessens. What's key in this story, though, is that these were very little kids. Four years old...maybe a little less supervision is needed. The two eighteen-month olds, though? They are babies. Even if there was no risk of abduction, what could happen? The four year old could decide to lift the babies out of the crib and drop them, the babies could awaken and decide to jump out of the crib (even if a child has never done this before, there's going to be a first time), the four year old could go to the bathroom and leave the door open long enough for the baby to get in trouble (it doesn't take long for a baby to drown in the toilet), the kids could awaken and decide to go looking for Mommy & Daddy...the possibilities are numerous. My fourteen month old is adept at dragging stuff over in order to scale furniture. Even in our own house, where I have tried to minimize dangers, there are a thousand ways a very small child with a few minutes on his hands could seriously injure himself. A child does not need to be constantly supervised until they are eighteen, but babies and toddlers absolutely do.

[Flutterby]

To me, with my 3 and a half year old, supervised is within earshot.

He is not always with me and in my direct line of sight, in fact he often plays outside in the front (fenced in) yard while I am inside.. with the door and curtains open so I can peek outside at him and hear him if he is calling for me (or opening the gate or talking to people, he is very friendly and says hello to everyone passing by, which can be a high number of people due to where we are situated). It also means I can hear if he is too quiet, which as any parent would tell you is often the first sign they have gotten into something you don't want them to that has absorbed their attention (drawing on the wall, dropping small things down the radiator, climbing the cupboard to get cookies, taking the kid next door's water pistol and shooting him with it to use personal examples from the last month).

Thus, 40m away in a seperate building with no baby monitor is, IMO, unsupervised.

[Aspidistra]

The shutters of the little girl's room had been unscrewed from the outer walls. If the parents had been in the room watching TV, they still might have lost the little girl, and nodoby would be blaming them.

No, they'd be saying the parents muct be complicit, because how could a predator unscrew the shutters without them hearing? :(

(note - I don't say I believe this, but I bet that's what they'd be saying)

[Bites When Provoked]

You could be 100m away from your kids in the same house, so no, I don't think it negligent.Live in a castle, do we? :D

[CairoCarol]

I think the distance thing has been overplayed a bit. Sure, the precise distance is somewhat important, in that if you are 20 meters away from your kid when you see them starting to tip the bureau over, you can reach them more quickly than you can if you are 100 meters away.

But the real point is, can you see/hear your children (and the overall environment that they are in) enough to keep them safe? A dad in a drunken coma 1 meter from his kids is not taking care of them; someone 100 meters away with a baby monitor and line of sight is. Obviously, these parents could neither hear nor see their very young children.

People who say that "the kid would have been snatched anyway, so the parents weren't negligent" are missing the point in three ways that I can see:

First, if the opportunities had been minimized, perhaps the child would not have been snatched. We'll never know.

Second, from the unquestionable fact that "bad things can happen even when children are properly supervised" it does not follow that "we may as well not bother with proper supervision."

Third, most of us who think the children were not given adequate supervision think so because children are a danger to themselves, not because we are insanely paranoid about strangers.

[Cicero]

.

If anyone remembers the Jamie Bulger case from many years ago, the very same reasoning was used to downplay the fact that Denise Bulger was apparently in the shopping centre on a shoplifting spree using Jamie's pushchair as a store for her stolen-to-order loot. The fact that they were petty criminals from a council estate was largely left out of media reporting just because it was felt the public wouldn't feel so strongly for the family if they knew their real circumstances.

Just sayin', as they say around here.I remember the case quite well, but that is the first time I had heard that aspect. Not that it makes the crime any less horrendous. However I can understand the view of the media.

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

When my kids were two and three, I'd put them to bed - and then I'd go to sleep for 7 or 8 hours.


:eek: :eek: :eek: Monster!

I can't see the problem to be honest. I'd say leaving the kids alone while they're asleep to go out for a meal a short distance away isn't terribly uncommon.

[Baron Greenback]

I heard some interesting comments on this from another source, apparently the parents are generally regarded as being over-protective of their kids - the info comes via someone who knows them from a doctor's e-board thing. Anyway, it also appears that the whole 'leaving their kids unsupervised' angle is being seriously played down because it will detract from public sympathy.

Just hearsay then? Well have I got some baseless gossip for you...

If anyone remembers the Jamie Bulger case from many years ago, the very same reasoning was used to downplay the fact that Denise Bulger was apparently in the shopping centre on a shoplifting spree using Jamie's pushchair as a store for her stolen-to-order loot. The fact that they were petty criminals from a council estate was largely left out of media reporting just because it was felt the public wouldn't feel so strongly for the family if they knew their real circumstances.

Just sayin', as they say around here.

The kid was called James - Jamie was a tabloid construct.

[ScareyFaerie]

Just hearsay then?
No, not hearsay, it was the parents' own comments.

[Dead Cat]

Not to mention my 2 year old can't climb out of a crib.Well, you only know that until they do it for the first time :).

[Baron Greenback]

I heard some interesting comments on this from another source, apparently the parents are generally regarded as being over-protective of their kids - the info comes via someone who knows them from a doctor's e-board thing. Anyway, it also appears that the whole 'leaving their kids unsupervised' angle is being seriously played down because it will detract from public sympathy.


I heard some interesting comments..another source, apparently..generally regarded...the info comes via someone who knows them from a doctor's e-board thing....Anyway, it also appears that the...

Forgive me if I don't find this terribly authorative (authoratative? autheratative?, whimper...why can't I spel.~)

Or indeed to fashion a sentence that doesn't involve that damned word.

[Swallowed My Cellphone]

Back in the 1970s, this was totally normal. My parents used to go to a party in the same street and check back on us every half-hour or so. During my wedding, my sister left her young kids in the hotel room, and checked back every half hour or so. Someone determined enough could have grabbed us in either circumstance.

The shutters of the little girl's room had been unscrewed from the outer walls. If the parents had been in the room watching TV, they still might have lost the little girl, and nodoby would be blaming them. No parent is so paranoid that they sit in the same room as a kid all night.

chowder, if your post is serious, I believe you're falling prey to the exaggeration of predatory paedos in society. It's the same as it ever was.This is what I was thinking too (also raised in the 1970s). And - Oh, dear Jeebus! -- when my sister and I were babies, our parent's didn't even have a baby monitor! Egads! Shameful! What negligence!

[CairoCarol]

I'm sorta surprised someone hasn't beaten me to it, but anyone who thinks that leaving a toddler unsupervised is acceptable needs to link to this thread for an example of what can happen if your attention wanders for even a moment from a small child.

[Askance]

I'm sorta surprised someone hasn't beaten me to it, but anyone who thinks that leaving a toddler unsupervised is acceptable needs to link to this thread for an example of what can happen if your attention wanders for even a moment from a small child.So what, the parents take it in shifts to not sleep until the child gets to 12 or so?

Any thoughts on what psychological damage it might do to a child to never ever be let alone for 12 years?

[Plan B]

The parents screwed up. Once my SO was away on business and I was alone with the kids. When I walked the dog I stayed right in front of the house and when a neighbor came by to chat I said sorry I have to go back in to watch the kids. Now. Once my SO and I went to an antique store with a baby sleeping in the car seat. I parked the car practically touching the store and ran out to check on him every five minutes. And I'm getting nervous just thinking about those two times. And on one trip by my SO I dropped her at the airport, then came home in the rain with a baby and a toddler. Could have double parked for a few minutes and thrown them in bed, then drove several blocks to park the car. Instead I parked the car and carried the two of them back to the house in the rain, just so they wouldn't be alone for 15 minutes or so. 100 meters? 30 minutes? No way.

[Plan B]

So what, the parents take it in shifts to not sleep until the child gets to 12 or so?
It's about lowering the probability of risk, it can't be eliminated 100%.

[C3]

So what, the parents take it in shifts to not sleep until the child gets to 12 or so?

Any thoughts on what psychological damage it might do to a child to never ever be let alone for 12 years?
Once again, with feeling...there's a difference between a 12 year old (and a 10 year old and an 8 year old) than a 4 year old and two 18 month olds. I'm pretty sure no one in this thread said a child, up to age twelve, had to have a parent standing over them at all times. I would say for children this young, especially for the 18 month olds, a parent should be completely supervising them. Yes, that means even when they are sleeping, a parent should have some way of hearing when they wake up/leap out of their cribs/cry out in their sleep/throw up in their beds. Yes, it is sometimes hell on the parent's sleep schedule and/or social life. No, I'm not saying the same level of supervision is necessary as a child gets older and their judgement and ability to attend to their own needs grows, and obviously that happens at different points for different children. I have never, however, seen a child under 2 who was capable of being alone for long periods of time.

[Risha]

And - Oh, dear Jeebus! -- when my sister and I were babies, our parent's didn't even have a baby monitor! Egads! Shameful! What negligence!And yet, I somehow suspect that they were still in the house with you and could hear when you hurt yourself or woke up sick.

My two cents (as a non-parent, so that might be all it is worth) is that there were BABIES in the room. I might - might - have given them the benefit of the doubt if the four year old was the only child. But, yes, someone needs to be constantly (day and night) within ear shot of a two year old. Hire a babysitter for your night out, it's not that expensive, or if you can't afford that, you eat a romantic dinner in your room.

Saying that the four year old would have still been kidnapped is a straw man. It might be true, but has nothing to do with it being bad parenting to have left the children alone.

[WhyNot]

The parents screwed up. Once my SO was away on business and I was alone with the kids. When I walked the dog I stayed right in front of the house and when a neighbor came by to chat I said sorry I have to go back in to watch the kids. Now. Once my SO and I went to an antique store with a baby sleeping in the car seat. I parked the car practically touching the store and ran out to check on him every five minutes. And I'm getting nervous just thinking about those two times. And on one trip by my SO I dropped her at the airport, then came home in the rain with a baby and a toddler. Could have double parked for a few minutes and thrown them in bed, then drove several blocks to park the car. Instead I parked the car and carried the two of them back to the house in the rain, just so they wouldn't be alone for 15 minutes or so. 100 meters? 30 minutes? No way.
That sounds, forgive me, nearly pathologically anxious to me, and I've been diagnosed with an Extreme Anxiety Disorder. I'm sure you're not alone in it, don't get me wrong. This thread shows you're not alone, and I'm in fact in the minority (or the silent majority). It just gets me incredibly pissed off at the media and mommy magazines for convincing so many people that our children are At Substantial Risk asleep in their own beds inside a locked house, or snug and secure asleep locked in their car seats (assuming it wasn't a hot day, of course). They are simply, statistically, not at great risk in those situations. They were probably more at risk of reducing their immunity to a cold virus by being chilled in the night rain than they were of anything happening to them warm and snug in their beds.

[CairoCarol]

It just gets me incredibly pissed off at the media and mommy magazines for convincing so many people that our children are At Substantial Risk asleep in their own beds inside a locked house, or snug and secure asleep locked in their car seats (assuming it wasn't a hot day, of course).

Risk management has two dimensions: one is probability. You are saying that the probability of something bad happening is extremely low. This is true enough. But you are forgetting the other dimension, which is: how good/bad would the consequences be if that low-probability event actually occurred?

[CairoCarol]

Darn it all, caught out by a hasty click and the five-minute edit rule -- here is what I MEANT to post:

Originally posted by Why Not:
It just gets me incredibly pissed off at the media and mommy magazines for convincing so many people that our children are At Substantial Risk asleep in their own beds inside a locked house, or snug and secure asleep locked in their car seats (assuming it wasn't a hot day, of course).

I for one, and I'm sure many other posters who agree that the children under discussion were inadequately supervised, don't think that children are "At Substantial Risk" when tucked into their own beds inside a locked house. I don't think I'm "At Substantial Risk" if I drive three blocks on a quiet street to the grocery store without wearing a seatbelt either, but I still buckle it.

Risk management has several dimensions: one is the probability assigned to varying outcomes. You are saying that the probability of something bad happening is extremely low. This is true enough. But you are forgetting another dimension, which is: how good/bad would the consequences be if that low-probability event actually occurred? And yet another part of the equation is: what are the costs involved in changing the probabilities of each outcome?

It is a low-cost step to buckle a seatbelt or hire a babysitter in order to minimize the chance of being mangled in an auto accident or having something awful befall your child.

[casdave]

I have serious doubts that these parents were actually checking on their children every half hour or so.

Imagine your child is missing, you know that is bad enough, but you tell the police 'I was only nearby and I was checking', you sure as hell are not likely to say, 'I went out for three hours enjoying myself', anyone with the slightest imagination knows that kind of reaction that last would get.

Ours is a society of excuses and no blame (in the UK), its always someone else's fault, not lack of personal responsibility, that's why our prisons are full at record levels and the numbers are going up(and why my job is pretty secure)

I just do not buy it, and there has been plenty of implied criticism of Portuguese police, not too much of the parents.

Placing blame at this stage of events is probably fruitless, but most parents I know of would never leave a child alone at that age, an awful lot can happen to a child in half an hour, but I think that the 'half hour' was an awful lot longer than that.

This time claim also changes the investigation too, making detection more difficult.

[Ximenean]

I presume the police would have verified with other people in the restaurant how often the parents really did leave their table. If it was substantially different from what they claimed, I think it would have been leaked by now.

[gfloyd]

When I was 18 months old, I nearly drowned due to a moment's inattention from my parents. We were at my grandparents having a cook out. I decided that I wanted to go swimming, I guess, and ran into the pool. Luckily someone noticed and pulled me out. But want if the kids in this case had thought of that?

[Quartz]

Ours is a society of excuses and no blame (in the UK), its always someone else's fault, not lack of personal responsibility

ITYM 'always someone else's fault, not their own personal responsibility'. With which I agree entirely.

[Lust4Life]

In the part of England where I was raised it most certainly was NOT normal to leave three toddlers alone in the house (the oldest for gods sake being three years old),not even for a quick visit to a neighbours house let alone anything else and those Ive talked about it to recently share the same opinion though thats not a scientific poll I know.

I was under the impression that doing so was against British law.

You may know your kids but you cant say for definite that they are going to stay asleep particulary in a strange apartment in a foreign country.
They might have caught a local gastric bug ,they might be excited or disoriented,they wake up in unfamiliar surroundings and when nobody comes when they start crying they may well start wandering around looking for mum or dad.

As another poster has said there is the risk from falling,pulling things down on top of them ,fire,drinking cleaning chemicals, gas,electricity,sharp cutlery or managing to get outside the apartment just to name a few potential hazards.

You dont have to stay in the same room as them all of the time you have a sense of hearing and a sense of smell apart from anything else.

I think any potential abductors would be very heavily deterred just by knowing that even one of the parents would be in the apartment when the kids were there.
Was leaving them alone a regular occurance on this holiday?
Was leaving them on their own a regular occurance back home?

I hope to god that she is found safe and sound and I do feel extreme pity for her parents and what they are going through it must be hell on earth.