Babysitting and The Cotton Wool Generation

Log in to stop seeing adverts

Status
Not open for further replies.
From when I was in the top year at primary school I walked home, with other children, as did most of my friends. There would always be neighbours around if you needed help and my mum normally arrived soon after.

My daughters were asked to babysit from 14 /15, usually for neighbours' children (never babies though- I wouldn't have allowed that) so they knew they could easily get hold of us if there was a problem.

My eldest (who had gone with a friend) once called me as she thought someone was trying to break in. It turned out the parents had forgotten to tell her that they had put their cat out and in order to let them know that it wanted to come back in it had developed the habit of jumping up at the glass door and scratching its claws down it.
 
If you kids are bigger than your wife and more than capable of looking after themselves if there is a fire why can't they answer the door? :102:
It's a personal thing. I was traumatised by Chitty Chitty Bang Bang........

childcatcher-431x300.jpg
 
Right, nobody has answered this, but with a baby on the way I need to know. Where are these cotton wool kids, will mine be born as cotton wool and how do I find one to babysit if not?
 
Right, nobody has answered this, but with a baby on the way I need to know. Where are these cotton wool kids, will mine be born as cotton wool and how do I find one to babysit if not?

If babies were born in cotton wool it would at least reduce the amount of mess.
 
Agree with your overall point about molly-coddling the youth of today, Han, but leaving a three year old child in the care of a 14 year old is just common or garden neglect of the highest order

I Believe the important issue, is not the age of the Baby sitter, but the age of the Baby. Three is in my opinion too young to be cared for by an average 14 year old, But an average 14 year old should be able to look after a 6 year old for example.

Not wishing to upset anyone or be rude...there has to be a line in the sand so to speak and in my opinion it should be 16.

In order to control something there needs to be a control point, in this instance (and in my opinion) the minimum age should be 16.

I Think the 'line in the sand' should be set by the parents, who should take responsibility to check that whoever looks after their children is capable. If the parents aren't capable of making those decisions in the best interest of a child, they shouldn't be looking after them, themselves
 
Three is in my opinion too young to be cared for by an average 14 year old

To get to an average you have to have above and belows.

There shouldn't be an arbitrary age for this sort of thing, it should be left to the parent(s) to decide whether or not their 14 year old is up to baby-sitting their siblings.

Crikey, it wasn't that many years ago (well, maybe it was) that people could work full-time at 14.
 
We let our 14-year-old neighbour babysit our baby, her dad was on hand if she needed him (next door), and she has had plenty of experience of looking after babies - she has 4 nephews, and she is a sensible grown up 14year old and we wouldnt have any qualms about letting her look after him again, although would much prefer if one of her parents were on hand just in case
 
So a 14 year old is deemed incapable of looking after a 3 year old sibling......yet a 14 year old mother is ok to look after a baby unsupervised?

Plus(and it's going off-topic slightly) it's al lwell and good folk going on about leaving 14 year olds(and under) at home and saying it shouldn't be allowed, but it's perfectly ok for a 13yearold to be out at 7am in the morning doing a paper round?

It's like common sense isn't allowed to be used anymore...


I used to babysit the neighbours kids from about 13/14 and never had any problems. It did help though that there were adults about in the houses around us of course, but how can society have changed so much for that not to be acceptable anymore?

Surely nowadays, a 14 year old is far more aware of any sort of dangers(whether it be in the home or from outside) than they would've been 20years ago(showing me age now!:icon_sad: )
 
To get to an average you have to have above and belows.

There shouldn't be an arbitrary age for this sort of thing, it should be left to the parent(s) to decide whether or not their 14 year old is up to baby-sitting their siblings.

Crikey, it wasn't that many years ago (well, maybe it was) that people could work full-time at 14.

As i stated, i agree the parents should be responsible for the decision, i was just stating my personal opinion, based on most 14 year olds i'v met. I wouldn't want someone making that decision for me.

So a 14 year old is deemed incapable of looking after a 3 year old sibling......yet a 14 year old mother is ok to look after a baby unsupervised?

Plus(and it's going off-topic slightly) it's al lwell and good folk going on about leaving 14 year olds(and under) at home and saying it shouldn't be allowed, but it's perfectly ok for a 13yearold to be out at 7am in the morning doing a paper round?

It's like common sense isn't allowed to be used anymore...


I used to babysit the neighbours kids from about 13/14 and never had any problems. It did help though that there were adults about in the houses around us of course, but how can society have changed so much for that not to be acceptable anymore?

Surely nowadays, a 14 year old is far more aware of any sort of dangers(whether it be in the home or from outside) than they would've been 20years ago(showing me age now!:icon_sad: )

You raise some very good points. I would expect though that if the 14 year old was the parent, there would be a greater sense of responsibility, and i would hope more thorough training from the parents (of the young parent) and possibly social services in how to care for the child?
 
So a 14 year old is deemed incapable of looking after a 3 year old sibling......yet a 14 year old mother is ok to look after a baby unsupervised?

Just on this point, I believe it to be easier to look after a baby.

Only the insane would leave a baby unsupervised whether you're 13 or 94 yrs old. A baby stays relatively 'static' too.

Now a three year old would be running about everywhere, touching everything etc. You have to keep them entertained.
 
Just on this point, I believe it to be easier to look after a baby.
Only the insane would leave a baby unsupervised whether you're 13 or 94 yrs old. A baby stays relatively 'static' too.

Now a three year old would be running about everywhere, touching everything etc. You have to keep them entertained.

Let me know when you're free, you can come round and look after the little one whilst I go out. :icon_lol:
 
Let me know when you're free, you can come round and look after the little one whilst I go out. :icon_lol:

I don't think that's for the best. I am 22 but act like I am 12 when I am at home.

Easy was the wrong word to use. Your time is occupied regardless but with a baby, it's less effort once you beginning to learn how they work in keeping them happy.
 
I don't think that's for the best. I am 22 but act like I am 12 when I am at home.

Easy was the wrong word to use. Your time is occupied regardless but with a baby, it's less effort once you beginning to learn how they work in keeping them happy.

To be fair it has been easy so far - ever since he's been at home I've pretty much been at work!
 
To be fair it has been easy so far - ever since he's been at home I've pretty much been at work!



****ing Hell! Thats the calm before the storm! You will be paying for this big time in the near future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Log in to stop seeing adverts

P Pld Pts
1Liverpool1128
2Manchester C  1123
3Chelsea1119
4Arsenal1119
5Nottm F1119
6Brighton1119
7Fulham1118
8Newcastle1118
9Aston Villa1118
10Tottenham 1116
11Brentford1116
12Bournemouth1115
13Manchester U1115
14West Ham1112
15Leicester1110
16Everton1110
17Ipswich118
18Palace117
19Wolves116
20Southampton114

Latest posts

Back
Top