Leaving kids to play at a park = child endangerment?

[draco664]

Link

I'm interested in other peoples' take on this. Basically, a father left his 9 & 6 year old children at a suburban park for a couple of hours to play while he did some stuff. A 'concerned mother' called the police, who charged the father with child endangerment.

At what point does letting your children play alone become acceptable? At what point is it still criminal? Obviously you can't leave a newborn alone, and just as obviously you can't (or shouldn't) hover over an 18-years-minus-one-day 24/7.

Thoughts?

[Seifer]

I'd say once a child hits about 15+ they're alright to be left alone. At least at 15 you could fight off a would-be attacker, or know how to contact someone for help. The children in the above situation were way too young to be without adult supervision. What's to stop someone from tricking them into a van/car with promises of candy or some other gift? Young children don't understand that those dangers exist. Even if they do, a 9 year old can't do much against a full-grown adult.

Young children can also get injured if they're left alone. What if they eat a poisonous plant? What if they fall off some playground equipment and break an arm? You need an adult there to handle the situation and possibly get help. Leaving that situation up to a child is neglect and downright abusive. Kids can't handle those kinds of situations/decisions and they shouldn't have to.

[AdminAssistant]

Cue the, "I played all day by myself and I didn't get hurt/poisoned/kidnapped/murdered" crowd.

[Gravekeeper]

Cue the, "I played all day by myself and I didn't get hurt/poisoned/kidnapped/murdered" crowd.

...Well I did frankly and I was 6. Long as I told my mom where I was and came back by dinner. The park was but one possible destination. But these were the days before "OMFG THINK OF THE CHILDREN DON'T YOU KNOW EVERY MAN ON THE STREET IS A RAGING PEDOPHILE??!!" crowd took over.

Despite the fact said crime rate has actually gone down since I was 6. Nothing has changed except the hysteria level.

[AdminAssistant]

It's just annoying to read all the comments like, "Things were better when we didn't have all these child safety laws and playgrounds were made out of rusted metal and concrete! We broke our arms and got tetanus and it was awesome!!" Besides, it's not just like they were at the park a few blocks from their house. Dad was miles away on a Wal-Mart run. At the very least, he should have told someone who lived close by, "Hey, my kids are at the park, is it okay if they check in with you periodically?" Or something.

[Anthony K. S.]

About the crime rate :

Look, here's how I see it. If I left my child unattended in a public place, and my child actually was kidnapped ...

What would I be thinking to myself? Would it be ...

"Well, statistically, the chances of that happening were very, very low. So I don't feel that I made a mistake in leaving my child unattended."

... Um, no, I don't think I'd be thinking that.

I hear people complaining about "helicopter parents" and "paranoia" ... but to me, it's not just about how low the mathematical probability is. It's also about the potential consequences if it does happen.

I'm not a parent, and I'm not about to tell anybody how they should raise their children. But in my opinion ...

You only need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time once, and you have to ask yourself if the risk is really worth taking.

[draco664]

Cue the, "I played all day by myself and I didn't get hurt/poisoned/kidnapped/murdered" crowd.

Taken straight out of the "OMFG THINK OF THE CHILDREN" playbook.

[Seifer]

...Well I did frankly and I was 6. Long as I told my mom where I was and came back by dinner. The park was but one possible destination. But these were the days before "OMFG THINK OF THE CHILDREN DON'T YOU KNOW EVERY MAN ON THE STREET IS A RAGING PEDOPHILE??!!" crowd took over.

Despite the fact said crime rate has actually gone down since I was 6. Nothing has changed except the hysteria level.

Not all kids can be trusted to be by themselves. Some kids are too mischievous, too curious, too trusting, or, well, too stupid to keep themselves out of trouble. Unfortunately, not all parents are able to gauge how adept their kids are at taking care of themselves. Hell, some parents don't really care either way - they just want their kids out of their hair. It's because of those parents that child endangerment laws exist, and why they're upheld.

Edit: Also, the liability issue comes up, too. I'm sure an idiot parent would try to sue any establishment where their child was injured, no matter if the child was left alone or not. "It doesn't matter if my child was alone! YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO WATCH THEM!!1!"

[blas87]

My parents trusted my brother and I to do our own things as kids. But, they always knew where we went. I went to the candy/ice cream store nearly every day after school (when I was in 4th and 5th grades) with a dollar or two, but it was just blocks from the school. I'd have candy or ice cream with my friends and go right home after that or to one of their houses.

[draco664]

About the crime rate :

Look, here's how I see it. If I left my child unattended in a public place, and my child actually was kidnapped ...

What would I be thinking to myself? Would it be ...

"Well, statistically, the chances of that happening were very, very low. So I don't feel that I made a mistake in leaving my child unattended."

... Um, no, I don't think I'd be thinking that.

I hear people complaining about "helicopter parents" and "paranoia" ... but to me, it's not just about how low the mathematical probability is. It's also about the potential consequences if it does happen.

In your example of kidnapping, the chance of it happening is vanishingly remote. Seriously, it's around the "winning the lottery" range of probability.

I mentioned before that my job focuses a lot on risk management. And A LOT of what people do is based on what they perceive the risk to be, as opposed to what it is.

A couple of years ago, a kid got his arm bitten off by a shark. Suddenly, every single shark attack was NEWS. Every shark sighting got coverage.

Yet the actual number of shark attacks was lower at that time than in previous years. But, because of the saturation coverage, people perceived it as being common.

So, saying you shouldn't leave children unattended in playgrounds because they might be kidnapped is akin to saying that kids shouldn't be driven anywhere because of all the children that die in car accidents every day. It's an emotive decision that is not supported by rational data.

However, playground injuries are a different matter. They are common, and young children may not be able to cope with the sudden, situational stress to make the right decisions to get help. (How many times have you seen kids run away from someone being hurt because they're afraid of getting in trouble?)

I will ensure my kids have supervision in playgrounds until I'm sure they are capable of making rational decisions in the event of an injury. Once they have shown themselves responsible enough to play without adult supervision, I'll still make sure they have a phone to contact me.

I'm not a parent, and I'm not about to tell anybody how they should raise their children.

Ooo, I sense a 'but' coming...

But in my opinion ...

Yep, there it is.

You only need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time once, and you have to ask yourself if the risk is really worth taking.

I refuse to let fear dictate my life. I will make rational decisions based on logic and risk assessment. Not emotion and paranoia.

[Gravekeeper]

You only need to be in the wrong place at the wrong time once, and you have to ask yourself if the risk is really worth taking.

Considering you have a higher chance of being truck by lightning twice than being kidnapped as a child, you'd best keep your children inside at all times then. Just in case there are clouds outside.

Not all kids can be trusted to be by themselves. Some kids are too mischievous, too curious, too trusting, or, well, too stupid to keep themselves out of trouble.

I knew not to talk to strangers or get in anyone's car or anything stupid like that. That was standard kid curriculum. Hell, these days, when half the kids have cell phones and every witness in the area probably has a camera on their phone, it'd be even harder to just randomly grab someone off the street.

Actual crimes against children commited by complete strangers are very very very rare. Most children are kidnapped/molested/abused by family members or friends.

It's because of those parents that child endangerment laws exist, and why they're upheld.

But thats beside the point. No one's arguing child endangerment laws are bad or anything. Just that this FOR THE CHILDREN crap is being taken to an extreme in modern times.

[Andara Bledin]

So, saying you shouldn't leave children unattended in playgrounds because they might be kidnapped is akin to saying that kids shouldn't be driven anywhere because of all the children that die in car accidents every day. It's an emotive decision that is not supported by rational data.

I will ensure my kids have supervision in playgrounds until I'm sure they are capable of making rational decisions in the event of an injury. Once they have shown themselves responsible enough to play without adult supervision, I'll still make sure they have a phone to contact me.

I refuse to let fear dictate my life. I will make rational decisions based on logic and risk assessment. Not emotion and paranoia.

Pretty much all of this.

The whole "Stranger Danger" meme is overblown. The vast majority of abductions are by family members, and the majority of the remaining cases are by friends. You're only negligibly less likely to have your child abducted if you have a sitter than if you leave them unattended.

The issue of potential problems arising from other issues, however, is more notable. I agree very much with the phone sentiment, and I actually read the article looking for the children having a phone for at least someone else to contact him should there be a need. The fact that they were left to their own devices with no way to even reach a responsible adult that they knew was a far greater issue than them being alone in the first place.

^-.-^

[Racket_Man]

from ages 7 or so until HS my friends and I would roam a WIDE area of our area of the city. up to 4 miles away. and I remember very very very few child abductions back in the 60's and 70's.

/scarcasm on
now it seems that there is a preditor or pedophile around every bush, tree, car, front porch, crack in the walkway, stopsign, telephone pole, nd bird that flies throught the air
/scarcasm off

This sounds too much like the case of the 9 or 10 year old walking 4 WHOLE blocks to scocer practice and the parent was arrested for child endangerment (I think the story was poste here some time back).

[HYHYBT]

How many times have you seen kids run away from someone being hurt because they're afraid of getting in trouble?

You know that scene with countless variations in old TV shows like "Murder, She Wrote" where, say, an adult, for some innocent-but-unprovable reason drops by work when everything's closed up, discovers someone lying on the floor, kneels down and checks on them, and just as they're realizing they've walked into a murder scene the police show up?

Kids don't want to wind up in that position either. Moreso if they really were doing something they shouldn't have been.

Anyway... six years old is old enough to do OK without a parent just often enough to fool the parent into thinking you'll be fine. It's not just kidnappers, and not even just innocent injury. What if they get bored with the park and go look for something else to do and get lost? (They'll almost certainly turn up, but still, you and they and who knows who else will sure be worried over it in the meantime.) Or: what if they come up with other things to do which are harmful either to themselves or to others? It's not just whether they're alone, but whether there's someone available they know to go to, too. When my brothers and I were around that age, we played in the woods behind and next to the house, usually with nobody watching... but always with somebody home who knew we were out there, and who one of us could go to if another was hurt... and also, usually just us, and *never* with anyone we (and our parents) didn't know. (Come to think of it, we were also taught well, for example, not to take dares, long before we knew anyone who would have dared us to do anything dangerous.)

I'm rambling again. Sorry. Some of that is probably relevant, anyway.

[SongsOfDragons]

I'd say it depends on the individual child, the attitude of the parent, and the proximity of safety. When I was eleven I was going to town on Saturday with my dad then walking to the library to read or go on the computers. (Microsoft Musical Instruments and Haunted House FTW ^^) The librarians knew I was all right doing my own stuff and that dad was in town somewhere; I think he had a good rapport with them before he let me read/play by myself in the mornings. I also walked to the local garage for sweeties too at this age. But dad was pragmatic and nearby in town, and the garage was 15 minute's walk on obvious roads; I was an only child and was raised just as pragmatically.

So it's not quite a 'I was able to do this at 11 and I was fine!!'; I hope it's an example. Every child is different and while the parents have a responsibility for their safety they also have a responsibility to teach their child social behaviour, which includes independance.