Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is kind of a morbid topic so I apologize, but was curious to hear opinions, since the topic of hovering overprotective parents and free-range kids comes up on here often.
There was recently a tragic event that happened in my parents' town - a three year old boy was killed by a heavy tv set falling on top of him when he tried climbing up on the dresser where it stood. The boy's mother was in another room at that moment, studying. My mom knew the family, and after this happened she called me freaking out, because we have a five year old and for the last while I've been letting him get up and play on his own while me and DH snooze some more. I've never been a morning person and I'm pregnant with our second so I'm extra tired and DS is starting school this fall so I know the days of sleep are coming to an end. I felt that he was mature enough to handle an hour or so on his own around the house - usually he'll play in his playroom or downstairs in the family room. Our house is reasonably child-proof, with alarms on doors, medications put away, heavy furniture attached to wall, windows safety-latched etc, however there is still definitely dangerous stuff he could get into if he put his mind to it - climb up to top cabinets, turn on the oven or the microwave, try to plug in some appliance. I've warned him repeatedly not to go into the kitchen until we're up, though he still did a few times. After hearing about the boy though, my parents have been on me that at five DS still shouldn't be without constant supervision for more than 10 minutes or so at a time, and they believe in the boy's case it's entirely the mother's fault for not being there to supervise - even though she was just in the next room. I disagree - of course the mom blames herself but I think it was a tragic accident, and while a three year old certainly needs to be supervised, you should be able to leave them in the next room for a bit without hovering - of course the TV should've been better secured or not been there but that's a different issue.
I'm extremely risk-averse when it comes to kids and safety, but a line should be drawn somewhere. To me, the risk involved in letting a 3-5 yo play on his own at home is equivalent to letting them climb on a high playground structure - they could always slip and fall and get seriously hurt, but you just pray for the best.
What do you think - at which point does a kid no longer need constant physical supervision at home? When do you accept that measure of risk? Was the mom at fault in the case of the TV? Am I putting my son in danger in the mornings?
I think it's great your son is independent and willing to play on his own at 5. My kids werent and I wanted them to be. If you have done all you can/should to keep him safe, he should be allowed to roam free as possible. It's good for him.
At five years old, I was walking 4 blocks to and from school, crossing a major intersection (with a crossing guard on duty). For the first few months of kindergarten, my mother walked with me, for the next month or so she walked a half block behind me.
This poor toddler was a victim of a horrific accident. I don't mean to sound callous, but accidents happen to all of us, at all ages, all the time. In five years, if a ten year old in your parents' area is hurt in a bicycle accident, will she demand your son not be allowed to ride a bicycle? It's not healthy to hover over our kids every moment of every day.
The TV....like all heavy and tip able furniture should have been anchored to the wall. This is something many parent over look.
But I can't imagine not letting a 3.5 year old play in a suitable room in the same house and by age 5 they certainly don't need to be attached to a parental hip all the time.
At five years old, I was walking 4 blocks to and from school, crossing a major intersection (with a crossing guard on duty). For the first few months of kindergarten, my mother walked with me, for the next month or so she walked a half block behind me.
This poor toddler was a victim of a horrific accident. I don't mean to sound callous, but accidents happen to all of us, at all ages, all the time. In five years, if a ten year old in your parents' area is hurt in a bicycle accident, will she demand your son not be allowed to ride a bicycle? It's not healthy to hover over our kids every moment of every day.
The TV....like all heavy and tip able furniture should have been anchored to the wall. This is something many parent over look.
But I can't imagine not letting a 3.5 year old play in a suitable room in the same house and by age 5 they certainly don't need to be attached to a parental hip all the time.
The only thing I might add to your list of precautions is to make sure that your son knows not to answer the door while you're asleep.
Grandparents worry a lot about things they didn't worry about when they were raising their own kids. Thank your mom for the advice, shed a few tears together over the tragedy if you want, and then tell her your tv is anchored to the wall.
The TV thing was a terrible accident, but we can't live our lives in fear of freak accidents and we shouldn't parent from a base of fear. The TV should have been secured though.
But most 3 year olds should be able to play in another room for a while without being constantly supervised and I definitely think by 5 a kid should be ok in their own home (especially as you say your home is reasonably child-proofed).
I'm firmly of the opinion that its good to let kids play unsupervised, teaches them independence and responsibility for their actions. They need to learn how to assess risks and manage them. My kid is 4 now and I've recently allowed her to play outside completely out of my sight. A freak accident might happen but its more likely that it won't happen and instead she's having a great childhood, being able to play freely with other children without adults interfering all the time, and learning to deal with small issues herself.
(Funnily enough though, last night she was pretending to be on the phone to the police, calling about seeing "a child walking outside without a mummy or daddy"!!)
My mom's point is it's better to be safe than sorry when it comes to these things - like the price of spending some extra effort to keep an eye on them is nothing compared to the potential devastation if something happens that could've been prevented. I sort of see her point, and I can definitely see how absolutely horrific it would be for the poor mother in that situation to think that she COULD have prevented it if she was there. Apparently even her own husband blamed her and would not even look at her.
At the same time, you just can't prevent everything, and you can't let yourself think of every single 'what if' or you'll go crazy. This is something I find so hard about parenting, deciding where to draw that line, you want to keep them safe yet need to let go somewhere. Especially as SAHMs, you're told 'it's your job to keep them safe, that's the only thing you do' - and if you fail to do that, how do you live with yourself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
