Mom left 7 y/o walk to the store alone during rush hour

[sherrz]

Police discovered the girl alone trying to cross West Market Street during rush hour Friday, police said. The girl was taken home, and the mother said she was "resting" and gave the child permission to walk to the store alone, police said. The mother said she did not go with the girl because she was on the phone with a friend, police said.

http://ydr.inyork.com/ci_12028530?source=most_viewed

West Market is CRAZY during rush hour, I didn't even like crossing the street there during rush hour and I'm 23 years old lol. At least the little girl is okay and wasn't harmed. The mom's a lazy bitch though.

[seductress]

I don't know where this area is, but does mom not think about all the crazies of the world? Who knows what can happen to the child?

[Insomniac]

This fucking idiot should have put the phone down and went to the store herself.

[Pixie]

I don't know about this. I went to the store at 8 all the time. Yes - one road I crossed was busy & I know Market St. in York - so I know it's busy - but maybe mom was just reaching from her own childhood. My sister would make me get her cigarettes pretty much daily. (She's 9 years older)

Now - that's not to say I would let my 9 year old, I would not, but I've been accused of being overly protective.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. Bad judgment - yes - but I'm not sure how badly I feel toward mom.

[sherrz]

I don't know where this area is, but does mom not think about all the crazies of the world? Who knows what can happen to the child?

Crazies in that area, yes.. But all of that aside, that is a really dangerous street to try and cross unless you're at an intersection that has pedestrian signals. Like I said, I even hate crossing that street.

It says where they live, but not where at on Market Street the kid was trying to cross... The YDR is a vague newspaper at best. Good thing the cops were swift in getting her off the street and back home. Cause like you said, anything could have happened to the child.

[Special2bme]

I wouldn't have let my 7 yr. old go to the store, some nut job may follow her, take her to the nearest side street rape & kill her. You never know what may happen this day & time. Mom's lazy ass should have gotten off the phone and they both go together and get some exercise.

[silvahalo68]

Yes, there are a lot of crazies in this world, including crazy mama's. I think 7 is too young to be sending a child off alone to the store and crossing a very busy street. But then, I'm the paranoid, anxious type....I guess the Police found this not so safe either or we wouldn't be reading this story.

Glad little one is O.K.

[LocalCelebrity]

I dont care how the world was when us adults were growing up, it is obviously not that same world these days. Anybody that breathes can see that. I cant believe this mother. My little girl doesnt even go play in our back yard alone....its just too risky these days. Shame on this lazy mother. Glad the little one is ok.

[El Supremo]

I dont care how the world was when us adults were growing up, it is obviously not that same world these days. Anybody that breathes can see that. I cant believe this mother. My little girl doesnt even go play in our back yard alone....its just too risky these days. Shame on this lazy mother. Glad the little one is ok.

Sad but true, LC. When I was 7 or 8, my parents had no problem with me wandering around the city or riding my bike down to the local comic book shop for comics and candy. Unfortunately, had we been living 30 years later, (i.e. present-day) I think they would have been a lot more concerned.

[Pixie]

I guess the Police found this not so safe either or we wouldn't be reading this story.

Well, maybe. York cops don't have much to do.

[Pixie]

I dont care how the world was when us adults were growing up, it is obviously not that same world these days. Anybody that breathes can see that. I cant believe this mother. My little girl doesnt even go play in our back yard alone....its just too risky these days. Shame on this lazy mother. Glad the little one is ok.

Is it? Or do we know more now? I agreed that she was irresponsible - but just how awful is she? I'm not sure I would consider this criminal. Stupid - but not criminal.

[LocalCelebrity]

Is it? Or do we know more now? I agreed that she was irresponsible - but just how awful is she? I'm not sure I would consider this criminal. Stupid - but not criminal.

Because the little girl is ok... What would we be saying had the little girl come across some sick pervert? The mother needs to be charged with SOMETHING. Otherwise, just like so many stories we have read before, we will be talking about how somethng should have been done. I mean, to let a 7 year old walk to the store, cross a busy street by herself?...all becasue mom was on the phone? WTF? I don't have much tolerance for that shit.

[sherrz]

Well, maybe. York cops don't have much to do.

HAHA true is true... They're too busy at York College busting all the underage drinkers when there's shootings and robberies downtown all the time...

[sherrz]

Because the little girl is ok... What would we be saying had the little girl come across some sick pervert? The mother needs to be charged with SOMETHING. Otherwise, just like so many stories we have read before, we will be talking about how somethng should have been done. I mean, to let a 7 year old walk to the store, cross a busy street by herself?...all becasue mom was on the phone? WTF? I don't have much tolerance for that shit.

She was charged with endangering the welfare of a child. It says it in the article.

[Pixie]

Because the little girl is ok... What would we be saying had the little girl come across some sick pervert? The mother needs to be charged with SOMETHING. Otherwise, just like so many stories we have read before, we will be talking about how somethng should have been done. I mean, to let a 7 year old walk to the store, cross a busy street by herself?...all becasue mom was on the phone? WTF? I don't have much tolerance for that shit.

Couldn't that also happen to a ten year old? Maybe I'm playing a little bit of the devil's advocate here - but I'm really kinda on the fence on this one.

[sherrz]

The only thing that I'm a little confused on is exactly where on W. Market she was trying to cross, because if she lives on Highland Ave., there's a stoplight on Highland and Market. If she was crossing there, then at least she was trying to be safe about it.

It still doesn't excuse the mother leaving her go by herself, especially if she was just sitting on the couch on the phone.

[LocalCelebrity]

Couldn't that also happen to a ten year old? Maybe I'm playing a little bit of the devil's advocate here - but I'm really kinda on the fence on this one.

It could happen to a child of any age. I think a 10 year old is a little young to be walking to a store and crossing a busy street ALONE too. Maybe at 10 yrs old with a couple of friends....to a very close store. I just think parents should be more aware of the world we live in. Call me overprotective but, I like to know where my little girl is at all times...and it is NEVER alone...anywhere...God forbid a child end up hurt and in the headlines becasue of a parents stupidity and laziness.

[Pixie]

It could happen to a child of any age. I think a 10 year old is a little young to be walking to a store and crossing a busy street ALONE too. Maybe at 10 yrs old with a couple of friends....to a very close store. I just think parents should be more aware of the world we live in. Call me overprotective but, I like to know where my little girl is at all times...and it is NEVER alone...anywhere...God forbid a child end up hurt and in the headlines becasue of a parents stupidity and laziness.

I get ya - but when does your personal parental judgment go from bad to criminal. It's a very fine line. You are talking about this from a personal/emotional point of view - I'm looking at it legally.

[Pixie]

It could happen to a child of any age. I think a 10 year old is a little young to be walking to a store and crossing a busy street ALONE too. Maybe at 10 yrs old with a couple of friends....to a very close store. I just think parents should be more aware of the world we live in. Call me overprotective but, I like to know where my little girl is at all times...and it is NEVER alone...anywhere...God forbid a child end up hurt and in the headlines becasue of a parents stupidity and laziness.

Let me add once again that I agree with you - personally. I had to be talked into letting my 9 year old go the the bathroom in restaurants alone.

[LocalCelebrity]

Let me add once again that I agree with you - personally. I had to be talked into letting my 9 year old go the the bathroom in restaurants alone.

Yeah, that is why I could never be an attorney or a judge....I would let my emotions and my feelings about children get in the way. I guess I feel like, you bring em into this world, they didn't ask to be here, love them and take wonderful care of them....ya know? Bitches like this mother annoy the hell out of me. ugh.....

[seductress]

I live in "small town America" during the winter and "get the out of tourist town" in the summer. No matter what time of the year it is, my kids are not allowed to the 5 blocks, no busy streets, to the gas station alone. I have allowed my now 15 to take my 12 year old and 10 year old on their bikes to the gas station. My daughter came home crying telling me that some guy was watching her and not watching the boys, that put and end to the 10 and 12 year old's going to the gas station.
There are too many creepy people out there, too many people that don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions. It's not just the creepy people either. I'm not saying I completely shelter them, but if I can't see them, then they cannot go. If they want to go to the park, 3 blocks away, I will take them all. It's not embarassing to them, if mom is going with them because the 5 year old is with.

[petrina]

i think 7 is too young to be walking alone places no matter what. tho i am not very overprotective. and i am thinking of myself at 7 and i was way ADD so who the heck knows where i would have ended up.

but 9 or 10 - is a little different. tho still i would want them to go in a group or with a partner. and then it all depends on where you live and what neighborhood life is like for you.

like i live in the city, but in a neighborhood with lots of outdoor shops and restaurants. so i would feel more comfortable with it than if my child had to cross a busy street. but still not alone - bc men suck. haha. well, pervs suck and i dont want to expose a kid to those boundary-making decisions before they are ready for that.

idk i am rambling.

[Pixie]

I live in "small town America" during the winter and "get the out of tourist town" in the summer. No matter what time of the year it is, my kids are not allowed to the 5 blocks, no busy streets, to the gas station alone. I have allowed my now 15 to take my 12 year old and 10 year old on their bikes to the gas station. My daughter came home crying telling me that some guy was watching her and not watching the boys, that put and end to the 10 and 12 year old's going to the gas station.
There are too many creepy people out there, too many people that don't give a shit about the consequences of their actions. It's not just the creepy people either. I'm not saying I completely shelter them, but if I can't see them, then they cannot go. If they want to go to the park, 3 blocks away, I will take them all. It's not embarassing to them, if mom is going with them because the 5 year old is with.

Wait - what? you have a 15, 12, 10 and 5 year old - is that right? I got confused. If so - you wouldn't let your 15 yo take them to the park?

[runecire]

I wouldn't have let my 7 yr. old go to the store, some nut job may follow her, take her to the nearest side street rape & kill her. You never know what may happen this day & time. Mom's lazy ass should have gotten off the phone and they both go together and get some exercise.

That concerns me more than the damn traffic. We just saw the story of the 19yo that pulled the 10yo off his bike, and I'm sure the 10yo could have put up a bigger fight than this 7yo. Stupid parents making stupid decisions.

[runecire]

I had to be talked into letting my 9 year old go the the bathroom in restaurants alone.

When we are at the skatepark, I do not keep an eye on my 13yo all the time, but I take note of when he heads to the restroom. It is 100yrds away from the skatepark but inside the Park. He lets me know when he is going just so I don't look up and worry when I don't see him skating. He is small for 13, but very streetsmart. If a friend needs to go, he goes with to keep an eye on things. I raised the boy to be smart. The buddy system is a good thing.

[seductress]

Wait - what? you have a 15, 12, 10 and 5 year old - is that right? I got confused. If so - you wouldn't let your 15 yo take them to the park?

If he was a normal 15 year old I would, but he's violent. He no longer lives in my house and can no longer see my other children without supervision. I keep praying everyday he's not on the FP

[Wicked Doll]

Maybe she was too busy with her Facebook friends. Teresa Hewett, 42.

http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss306/wicked_doll777/th.jpg

[Pixie]

If he was a normal 15 year old I would, but he's violent. He no longer lives in my house and can no longer see my other children without supervision. I keep praying everyday he's not on the FP

Oh. Yeah, I see.

[Pixie]

Maybe she was too busy with her Facebook friends. Teresa Hewett, 42.

http://i586.photobucket.com/albums/ss306/wicked_doll777/th.jpg

I'm not sure her having a Facebook account brings me any closer to a conclusion.

[seductress]

Oh. Yeah, I see.

He also didn't seem to do a very good job of keeping an eye out for her when he took her to the gas station. He said he didn't see the guy watching her. She said he wouldn't slow down when she was yelling at him so she could tell him about the creepy guy.

[Athena]

It could happen to a child of any age. I think a 10 year old is a little young to be walking to a store and crossing a busy street ALONE too. Maybe at 10 yrs old with a couple of friends....to a very close store. I just think parents should be more aware of the world we live in. Call me overprotective but, I like to know where my little girl is at all times...and it is NEVER alone...anywhere...God forbid a child end up hurt and in the headlines becasue of a parents stupidity and laziness.

In this very thread, you admitted to not letting your child play alone in her own yard.

I'm sorry, but, unless there's something we don't know, like you live in South Central LA or your next door neighbor is a convicted child molestor or your child is an infant, you've disqualified yourself as a reasonable example.

You've alluded to being over-protective a couple of times. Just embrace it, already. Acceptance is the first step to recovery. :wink:

Now, I don't know this area, so, in this specific case, this reaction may be justified. But generally speaking, parents' paranoia is unfounded. Violent crime is at 40 year lows. Younger children are exponentially less likely to be targeted than teenagers. Strangers account for only 10% of sexual abuse and only 3% of child homicide, so people you know and trust, statistically, pose FAR more risk.

The world today IS different than it was 30 years ago. The major difference? The media and its "If it bleeds, it leads" coverage. They hype stories that induce fear, because it leads to ratings. As a result, it's creating these over-protective parents that are stunting their children's development.

Kids are hitting 18 like a brick wall these days; record numbers of kids are having nervous breakdowns in college and living with their parents well into adulthood. A kid being exposed to independence as a child directly affects how they handle independence as an adult. By shielding our children from these negligible risks, we are artificially extending their childhood. They don't have the tools to make the transition into adulthood because they were not allowed the same activities that allowed us to develop judgment and character. This is a REAL problem.

This (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks15-2008may15,0,3678233.column) editorial piece sums it up quite well:

But, but, but, you say, all the same, Skenazy should never have let her 9-year-old son take the subway! In New York, for God's sake! A cesspit of crack addicts, muggers and pedophiles!

Well, no. We parents have sold ourselves a bill of goods when it comes to child safety. Forget the television fear-mongering: Your child stands about the same chance of being struck by lightning as of being the victim of what the Department of Justice calls a "stereotypical kidnapping." And unless you live in Baghdad, your child stands a much, much greater chance of being killed in a car accident than of being seriously harmed while wandering unsupervised around your neighborhood.

[Pixie]

He also didn't seem to do a very good job of keeping an eye out for her when he took her to the gas station. He said he didn't see the guy watching her. She said he wouldn't slow down when she was yelling at him so she could tell him about the creepy guy.

Yeah - I guess this is where personal parental judgment really weighs in - most 15 year olds would be fine - you know yours is not. My younger daughter will probably be 14 before I'd let her out of my sight (lol) but my eldest is very, very capable and mature at 9. So how does the law determine whether your "judgment" is sound? I dunno.

[Nell]

Yay Athena!:congrats: I so agree!

I used to be really overprotective. Now I work on it. I have seen too many 18 year olds that can't pay bills, or deal with adversity, make Drs. appointments, figure out college, etc.. It is getting ridiculous. Todays 18 year olds are like big kids for the most part, and I don't want to raise kids till I die.

I just let my 12 year old go to the Blue October concert. Did I worry? Oh yeah. But you have to let go a little at a time, give them confidence to be adults and make it on their own.

7 though, that's a little young.

[El Supremo]

The world today IS different than it was 30 years ago. The major difference? The media and its "If it bleeds, it leads" coverage. They hype stories that induce fear, because it leads to ratings. As a result, it's creating these over-protective parents that are stunting their children's development.

You know, you make an excellent point that I happen to agree with Athena. Funny how you have a way of refreshing my perspective on certain issues.

My parents grew up in Boston, and were taking subways around the city pretty much since they were in grammar school. At the time, there most certainly was a good deal of violent crime, child molestation, gang violence, robberies, muggings, etc.. I believe my parents were brought up to be conscious of these things, but to be smart about them as well. And that's also how THEY raised ME.

Being taught to fear the world is not going to help anyone. Learning to be aware of danger and making a conscious effort to avoid or combat it is something all children should be taught from the start.

[sherrz]

Now, I don't know this area, so, in this specific case, this reaction may be justified. But generally speaking, parents' paranoia is unfounded.

In the area where they're saying that she lives isn't that bad at all. West York is a little bit more quiet than the city, but you still don't want to have your 7 year cross West Market St. by herself during rush hour. That's a heavy commute route.

[Pixie]

Kids are hitting 18 like a brick wall these days; record numbers of kids are having nervous breakdowns in college and living with their parents well into adulthood. A kid being exposed to independence as a child directly affects how they handle independence as an adult. By shielding our children from these negligible risks, we are artificially extending their childhood. They don't have the tools to make the transition into adulthood because they were not allowed the same activities that allowed us to develop judgment and character. This is a REAL problem.

This (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-brooks15-2008may15,0,3678233.column) editorial piece sums it up quite well:


And this is where I begin to waver on this whole article. When does this new "bubble" parenting begin to take such a hold that the law begins to determine your parenting choices FOR YOU. I certainly don't want that.

You could say but I LOVE my snowflake so I'm a good parent by being overly protective - better safe than sorry...But maybe love and good parenting also involves knowing when to let go and trust the skills you have given them?

These thoughts certainly give me pause and allow me to question my own boundaries.

[Athena]

In the area where they're saying that she lives isn't that bad at all. West York is a little bit more quiet than the city, but you still don't want to have your 7 year cross West Market St. by herself during rush hour. That's a heavy commute route.

Are there no stop lights and cross walks? Was she attempting to cross illegally? If not, I strongly disagree with this mother being charged with anything. If cops felt it was unsafe and insisted on returning her home, that's one thing. But, by charging this woman, they are effectively undermining parental authority and a parent's right to determine what is acceptable for their child. Not cool.

[Ruby]

Absolute insanity to charge this mother with a crime. You may or may not agree with her, but that's your opinion. As Athena has shown, there's lots of evidence that says kids are safer on the whole today than they were in the past. What she did may not agree with your assessment of safe parenting, but it's certainly not illegal.:argh:

[SoUncool]

I'm thinking this child has successfully made this trip to the store by herself before. I have to agree that 7 is young but it just seems like there might be something we haven't heard yet. Obviously, for some reason unbeknown to us, Mom felt that she was able to handle the journey.

I think my kid was actually smarter at 7 then she is now at nearly 13. She wanted to go get something from the toy department at Walmart yesterday, I told her I would wait by shoes. SOME HOW, she didn't hear me (???) and went all over looking for me as I'm standing by shoes. She had tears in her eyes when she found me (BY the SHOES) and said, "I was just getting ready to have them page you, I thought you were lost." I just stared at her... I said, "Honey, nobody's gonna kidnap me, I'm too old."

[Countess Olenska]

Good god,

I allow my kids to play in the yard without me right there. I have a 6 foot fence around it. I also allow my 10 yr old to take my 5 yr old to the playground right outside my front door...unsupervised. My neighborhood is catered to families, gated.....there is still a chance some fucknut could snatch them. There's that chance everywhere. They will not live in a bubble because I'm paralyzed with the what-ifs.

Just use common sense...I always went to the store by myself with I was 8. With a note to to buy some smokes for my mom. Newport 100's in a box please...and the grape Hubba Bubba...

[Pixie]

Are there no stop lights and cross walks? Was she attempting to cross illegally? If not, I strongly disagree with this mother being charged with anything. If cops felt it was unsafe and insisted on returning her home, that's one thing. But, by charging this woman, they are effectively undermining parental authority and a parent's right to determine what is acceptable for their child. Not cool.

There are cross walks and lights - yes.

The bold area is exactly my point. Bring the child home if you feel the need - but to charge her criminally? With a - I looked up child endangerment in PA - M1! As close to a felony as possible.

[seductress]

I don't think she should be charged. But I do think that she needs to rethink where she lets her child go by herself.

[Athena]

And this is where I begin to waver on this whole article. When does this new "bubble" parenting begin to take such a hold that the law begins to determine your parenting choices FOR YOU. I certainly don't want that.

You could say but I LOVE my snowflake so I'm a good parent by being overly protective - better safe than sorry...But maybe love and good parenting also involves knowing when to let go and trust the skills you have given them?

These thoughts certainly give me pause and allow me to question my own boundaries.

This is just it, Pixie - the "better safe than sorry" mindframe. It's impossible to rationally debate against that mindframe.

If that's truly a parents motivation in restricting unsupervised play, then parents are poor prioritizers. Riding in a car or going swimming is statistically far more threatening than the threat posed by strangers, and those activities are no more necessary for a child's development than unsupervised play. Driving a child to school poses more of a threat to them than letting them walk. The time spent at the pool is riskier than the walk your child may take to get there.

We're letting ourselves be held hostage by a grossly exaggerated boogeyman... and our children are paying the price. Now, these are just generalities; you know your child and what he or she is capable of best. But even then, one encounters a chicken-and-the-egg question. Do you restrict them because they're immature, or are the immature because you restrict them?

[jo_momma_82]

Just use common sense...I always went to the store by myself with I was 8. With a note to to buy some smokes for my mom. Newport 100's in a box please...and the grape Hubba Bubba...

Lmao... my mom would call the nearby gas station and let them know that I would be picking up her cigarettes when I was 7-8, lol. Could you imagine what would happen now if a 7-8 y/o strolled into the local gas station w/ a note from their mom to buy cigarettes ?

[Countess Olenska]

I was very independent as a child. I encourage my kids (even the baby) to get himself a drink if he's thirsty. Cups, water from the fridge...all accessible. It's important to be self sufficient and babying them to the point they are not confident enough to go past the mailbox without fear of getting snatch is ridiculous to me.

Set limits, of course, but don't smother. Let them get dirty, let them have a chance to get a splinter or drop a rock on their toe. Let them walk around the block without fear. COMMON FUCKING SENSE. I wish more people had it and knew how to pass it on. How the hell will they learn if you do everything for them?

[thebooblady]

Good god,

I allow my kids to play in the yard without me right there. I have a 6 foot fence around it. I also allow my 10 yr old to take my 5 yr old to the playground right outside my front door...unsupervised. My neighborhood is catered to families, gated.....there is still a chance some fucknut could snatch them. There's that chance everywhere. They will not live in a bubble because I'm paralyzed with the what-ifs.

Just use common sense...I always went to the store by myself with I was 8. With a note to to buy some smokes for my mom. Newport 100's in a box please...and the grape Hubba Bubba...

I agree. My kids go all around the neighborhood by themselves. I do make my 8 year old stay with my 6 year old, but that is all. I don't have a fence in my yard and my neighborhood is not gated.

When I was 7, I would get on my bike and ride it all around the city. My dad didn't even now where I was. My kids do have a cell phone so we can communicate, though.

[LocalCelebrity]

Maybe Im a little more protective then I should be but then again, I am from Florida. My other half says its because I watch too much Dateline & 48 hours and read too much of this site. Regardless, Id rather be way too overprotective and know my child is safe. I dont baby her, I teach her responsibility and she has chores and I dont spoli her, I just dont put her in any situation where a preditor could approach her....ever.

[Kalehue]

Maybe Im a little more protective then I should be but then again, I am from Florida. My other half says its because I watch too much Dateline & 48 hours and read too much of this site. Regardless, Id rather be way too overprotective and know my child is safe. I dont baby her, I teach her responsibility and she has chores and I dont spoli her, I just dont put her in any situation where a preditor could approach her....ever.

Hey LC -- I'm a recovering over-protective parent, too. It's tough to let go even now (my youngest is 18). My kids have never been freaked out about it. On the contrary. They know I cherish them. They DO make fun of me about it all the time, though. One gave me a little plaque that says, "It's better to have laugh lines than worry warts."

[Athena]

Maybe Im a little more protective then I should be but then again, I am from Florida. My other half says its because I watch too much Dateline & 48 hours and read too much of this site. Regardless, Id rather be way too overprotective and know my child is safe. I dont baby her, I teach her responsibility and she has chores and I dont spoli her, I just dont put her in any situation where a preditor could approach her....ever.

Your other half is undoubtedly right. :tongue2:

Here's the problem with your logic, though - predators ALWAYS have access. You cannot guarantee your child's absolute safety no matter what you do. So, you're restricting your child's freedom and potentially stunting her development for the sake of a goal that's unattainable to begin with.

I feel like parents are so quick to be over-protective because they don't realize just how damaging it can be. Studies show that children who are allowed unsupervised play are more fit and more socially developed (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-503325/Children-play-unsupervised-turn-fitter-sociable-study-says.html) than their sheltered counterparts. But a lack of unsupervised play is also linked to less obvious but even more damning characteristics, specifically, diminished creative capacity and diminished self-regulation. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19212514)

Chudacoff's recently published history of child's play argues that for most of human history what children did when they played was roam in packs large or small, more or less unsupervised, and engage in freewheeling imaginative play.

Clearly the way that children spend their time has changed. Here's the issue: A growing number of psychologists believe that these changes in what children do has also changed kids' cognitive and emotional development.

"Today's 5-year-olds were acting at the level of 3-year-olds 60 years ago, and today's 7-year-olds were barely approaching the level of a 5-year-old 60 years ago," Bodrova explains. "So the results were very sad."

Sad because self-regulation is incredibly important. Poor executive function is associated with high dropout rates, drug use and crime. In fact, good executive function is a better predictor of success in school than a child's IQ. Children who are able to manage their feelings and pay attention are better able to learn. As executive function researcher Laura Berk explains, "Self-regulation predicts effective development in virtually every domain."

[LocalCelebrity]

Your other half is undoubtedly right.

Here's the problem with your logic, though - predators ALWAYS have access. You cannot guarantee your child's absolute safety no matter what you do. So, you're restricting your child's freedom and potentially stunting her development for the sake of a goal that's unattainable to begin with.


I get what you're saying and I guess if I look at my comments, I do come off like a total freak. My daughter isnt aware of how overprotective I am. For instance, no...she does not go outside unsupervised but she thinks she does...our yard is fenced in, I send Junior (our rottweiler) out with her, and I watch from the kitchen window. And, when she is off with family or friends of ours, I text the adult shes with rather then call so that KK hears it. She is my first and only and I just love her and want her here FOREVOR!!! :crazy: Admitting I have a problem is the first step I know...not sure that I will be able to fix it anytime soon. :stupido3:

[Athena]

Well, of course kids don't typically recognize that their parents are over-protective. When you grow up like that, you think it's totally normal. When I was growing up, my mother HATED beans of any sort, so we never ate them. I didn't know what I was missing - I assumed it was totally normal. Thought beans must be kind of like the other vegetables people often dislike, like parsnips and turnips or something. It wasn't until I moved out and looked back that I realized that, no, my mom was just strange. :tongue2:

But at least you watch from the window. That's at least a little less draconian. :happy:

[LocalCelebrity]

But at least you watch from the window. That's at least a little less draconian.

LOL...maybe there's hope for me yet!

[Kaylara]

Is it? Or do we know more now?
That's what I was thinking to be honest. Horrible things were still happening way back when, and just like way back when kids were more likely to be hurt by someone they knew than a stranger. I think we're incredibly protective these days and trying to reduce any possibility of risk to the kids from strangers. Which has it's good points and it's bad points. Still, your kids are more likely to be abused, molested, raped, beaten, kidnapped and otherwise traumatized by someone they already know than a stranger.

Very comforting thought, I know. :dong:

[Kaylara]

Because the little girl is ok... What would we be saying had the little girl come across some sick pervert? The mother needs to be charged with SOMETHING. Otherwise, just like so many stories we have read before, we will be talking about how somethng should have been done. I mean, to let a 7 year old walk to the store, cross a busy street by herself?...all becasue mom was on the phone? WTF? I don't have much tolerance for that shit.

I think I'd be much more worried about her being hit by a car to be honest. If a pervert really wants to hurt me or my child, and is determined, do you think a little thing like having another adult around is going to deter them? Stranger abductions really *aren't* that commonplace and account for a small number of the total abductions out there. Even most the the people we bitch about on here for what they do to children are usually either related or well acquainted with the victim.

I think it's rather ridiculous to try to prevent one kind of already not-very-common abuse and to completely ignore the actual prevalent kind.

Also, I refuse to raise my children to be afraid. Smart about their surroundings and able to defend themselves, yes. But afraid to walk around the neighborhood by themselves, hell no. That's no way to live. Been there, done that, no fucking thank you.

[silvahalo68]

And this is where I begin to waver on this whole article. When does this new "bubble" parenting begin to take such a hold that the law begins to determine your parenting choices FOR YOU. I certainly don't want that.

You could say but I LOVE my snowflake so I'm a good parent by being overly protective - better safe than sorry...But maybe love and good parenting also involves knowing when to let go and trust the skills you have given them?

These thoughts certainly give me pause and allow me to question my own boundaries.

Originally posted by Athena:
Now, I don't know this area, so, in this specific case, this reaction may be justified. But generally speaking, parents' paranoia is unfounded. Violent crime is at 40 year lows. Younger children are exponentially less likely to be targeted than teenagers. Strangers account for only 10% of sexual abuse and only 3% of child homicide, so people you know and trust, statistically, pose FAR more risk.

I know I tend to be on the protective side and I think that involves certain factors. The way I was raised, the media hype on violence and, simply becoming a parent, the fact that I am now entirely responsible for this young persons life.

I know the statistics speak for themselves and should qualm my fears but for the most they don't. Fear is a big factor. The fact that if something happened I would constantly be questioning what I might have done differently to change the out come. This feeling has far more to do with me as a person then anything else.
On the other hand, I'm a strong believer that a child should learn about the real world, through a parents guidance, rather than creating this "bubble" of a world, as if life is lolly-pops and sunshine all the time. It's a very difficult thing as a parent knowing day to day when to protect a bit more and recognizing the times when to let go.

The law has to make judgments about peoples safety all the time, adults and children alike. The "bubble" parenting is one reason but certainly the authorities also experience the lack of supervision and care so many children go with out. In essence the police are often left to make judgments because parents fail to do so. Some see it as controlling and yet others see it as being inevitable outcome due to a society in which parents seemingly take less interest in guiding their children. I think an even bigger factor is the dysfunctional nature of the family structure that is corroding before our eyes.

....geesh, I think I got of topic somehow. I hope the rambling wasn't completely incoherent. Can't concentrate when duty calls every 2 seconds!

[Kaylara]

I know I tend to be on the protective side and I think that involves certain factors. The way I was raised, the media hype on violence and, simply becoming a parent, the fact that I am now entirely responsible for this young persons life.

I know the statistics speak for themselves and should qualm my fears but for the most they don't. Fear is a big factor. The fact that if something happened I would constantly be questioning what I might have done differently to change the out come. This feeling has far more to do with me as a person then anything else.
On the other hand, I'm a strong believer that a child should learn about the real world, through a parents guidance, rather than creating this "bubble" of a world, as if life is lolly-pops and sunshine all the time. It's a very difficult thing as a parent knowing day to day when to protect a bit more and recognizing the times when to let go.

The law has to make judgments about peoples safety all the time, adults and children alike. The "bubble" parenting is one reason but certainly the authorities also experience the lack of supervision and care so many children go with out. In essence the police are often left to make judgments because parents fail to do so. Some see it as controlling and yet others see it as being inevitable outcome due to a society in which parents seemingly take less interest in guiding their children. I think an even bigger factor is the dysfunctional nature of the family structure that is corroding before our eyes.

....geesh, I think I got of topic somehow. I hope the rambling wasn't completely incoherent. Can't concentrate when duty calls every 2 seconds!


LOL! I don't honestly pay attention to media hype. I recognize it for what it is and move on. Perhaps this is because I was abused by the people who were supposed to be taking care of me, but the outside world didn't hold unknown boogie men for me to be afraid of. I knew the horrors that could happen to a kid because when I got home I was subjected to them on a constant basis. That shit was way more scary than the idea of some idiot trying to snatch me.

(In fact I can remember my father calling me up and screaming at me in a drunken rage for hours when I was 12 or 13 because I walked home from my friend's house that was about two miles away, in the late afternoon while it was still light out. And I remember thinking to myself "Are you kidding me? All the other shit I've been going through, including dealing with your drunken rage phonecalls, and you're worried about me getting some exercise on one of the few days that I *wasn't* busy running a household and raising children? Whatever.)

Probably also the fact that I've been doing this child-rearing thing for the past 20 years makes me a bit less concerned, over-protective, and sensitive than most women who are pregnant with their first child.

My point here being, if you live your life always being afraid, you will always be a victim of circumstance. I don't fear the "what-if's" some things just happen and you can't help it, and driving yourself crazy is not going to change things. Living in fear is not the answer.

Fear is the mind killer. When you ignore the truth because of fear, people can make you give up your ability to think, reason, and what personal power you have. This woman knows her child better than most people. I don't see why her power as a parent should be usurped by the authorities because she believed her child was capable and mature enough to walk to the store by herself. I mean, what incentive is there to parent correctly when the government can legislate that for you and take that power and ability to choose how to raise your child away from you? The government must know best.

I'm sorry, I just haven't seen anything in this article showing that there was any wrong doing committed here. It seems like a gross over-reaction by the police to me. I don't want *any* government taking over my ability to parent my child in a way that I think is appropriate for that child.

[ohmarvellousme!]

I wouldnt let a 7yr old go to the store alone if it involved a busy road. I'm lucky in that I live in a very quiet, rural village. The 'corner shop' is a 2 minute walk away, with only a small (hardly used) cul-de-sac to cross. So when my kids get to 8ish, I would probably let them go to the shop alone then. (I cant say 'definately' as I dont have a crystal ball to see how they mature, or how the road might change!)


It is a fine line between protecting your kids and keeping them safe, and allowing them the freedom to develop and discover the world. I agree that a parent is the best judge of how much responsibility their child is capable of. But I would rather err on the side of caution, than to be crying 'if only....' when the worst has happened. Time cant be rewound.

[El Supremo]

Fear is the mind killer.

I agree with your entire post, but I had to give you special props for quoting Frank Herbert in your comment. :)

[Kaylara]

I wouldnt let a 7yr old go to the store alone if it involved a busy road. I'm lucky in that I live in a very quiet, rural village. The 'corner shop' is a 2 minute walk away, with only a small (hardly used) cul-de-sac to cross. So when my kids get to 8ish, I would probably let them go to the shop alone then. (I cant say 'definately' as I dont have a crystal ball to see how they mature, or how the road might change!)


It is a fine line between protecting your kids and keeping them safe, and allowing them the freedom to develop and discover the world. I agree that a parent is the best judge of how much responsibility their child is capable of. But I would rather err on the side of caution, than to be crying 'if only....' when the worst has happened. Time cant be rewound.

True enough. But would you begrudge another parent (who hasn't shown any tendency towards neglect or abuse) the ability to do the same with their children?

[Kaylara]

I agree with your entire post, but I had to give you special props for quoting Frank Herbert in your comment. :)

LMAO! One must always quote good literature when the opportunity arises. :)

[DarkPrincess]

Personally I think 7 is a bit young to be going to stores alone, but that's not my kid. The mother does strike me as a lazy idiot, but she didn't commit a crime.

[Kaylara]

See, but that attitude there is part of the problem. You don't know her or the child. You think it's too young. She obviously disagreed with that assumption. There's nothing in here that points to the woman being lazy or stupid. She made a parenting decision about *her* child that you disagree with that did not cause her child any harm. If she didn't commit a crime, and didn't actually do anything wrong, then why the name calling/unfounded personal attacks on her? Why the animosity?

[DarkPrincess]

See, but that attitude there is part of the problem. You don't know her or the child. You think it's too young. She obviously disagreed with that assumption. There's nothing in here that points to the woman being lazy or stupid. She made a parenting decision about *her* child that you disagree with that did not cause her child any harm. If she didn't commit a crime, and didn't actually do anything wrong, then why the name calling/unfounded personal attacks on her? Why the animosity?

She didn't go because she was on the phone with a friend and resting? Come on. That doesn't strike you as lazy? She can do what she wants concerning her own child, but I have the right to disagree with her. The cops didn't do anything this time, but if her kid gets hit by a car or kidnapped, she'll be in deep shit. Then the "I was resting" excuse doesn't look so good to them.

[Kaylara]

She didn't go because she was on the phone with a friend and resting? Come on. That doesn't strike you as lazy? She can do what she wants concerning her own child, but I have the right to disagree with her. The cops didn't do anything this time, but if her kid gets hit by a car or kidnapped, she'll be in deep shit. Then the "I was resting" excuse doesn't look so good to them.

No, it doesn't strike me as lazy. It struck me as "I don't want to go to the store because I am doing other things. However, you are a big girl and can go to the store yourself if you like." You do have the right to disagree with her. However, I think that the animosity, negative assumptions and name calling does not further your cause, especially when it's totally separate from reality and based in the fact that you disagree with her. Disagreeing with you does not make one lazy or stupid. It means they disagree with you. You can disagree with someone without disrespecting them. I think that the presumption that the parent's opinion is less worthy than yours based on nothing but the disagreement, and therefore the parent is clearly inferior, is really what bothers me about your post.

And fear mongering to try to further your opinion does not help things. It would be a tragedy all around if something happened to the little girl. However, the girl is not more likely to be kidnapped because she walked to the store by herself (The stats, are available in Athena's post earlier in this thread.) If she was taught to follow traffic signals and cross at the crosswalk when the signals indicated it was safe to do so, then she had no increased risk of being run over either. She's more likely to be physically abused by her mother's new boyfriend or be kidnapped by a family member, or molested by a close family friend than any risk of something happening to her at the hands of a stranger.

We could play the "what if" game. What if, she tripped falling down a flight of stairs. What if, she chokes on a grape. What if, she slips in the bathtub. What if, a plane falls on her house. What if, she gets attacked by a rabid mongoose. What if, any number of ridiculous and unlikely things happen to this girl. Oh, then someone will be in trouble. Oooooh. And then no excuse will be enough because we should shield our children from every possible danger lest they actually have to learn some life skills.

Our jobs as parents is not to prevent our children from ever being harmed. It's to raise them to become healthy contributing adults in society. If you raise your child in a plastic bubble or a padded prison, they will never learn to be independent. As a parent, you should be deciding what you think is an acceptable level of risk for your children for any situation. The authorities should not be involved in parenting decisions if you are not a douchebag parent. Random people on the street do not know how to raise your child better than you do, unless you are a douchebag parent.

I will reiterate. There is nothing in this article that suggests that the woman was stupid or lazy. It's wrong, imo, to even suggest that she was being a bad parent just because she made a parenting decision that you disagree with concerning her child. Please show me where in this article it says that she is a horrible, neglectful mother and I will gladly accept the correction. However, to me, on the scale of horrific things you can do to your children, allowing them the independence to go to the store by themselves ranks right up there with letting them pick out their own clothing for school.

[DarkPrincess]

No, it doesn't strike me as lazy. It struck me as "I don't want to go to the store because I am doing other things. However, you are a big girl and can go to the store yourself if you like." You do have the right to disagree with her. However, I think that the animosity, negative assumptions and name calling does not further your cause, especially when it's totally separate from reality and based in the fact that you disagree with her. Disagreeing with you does not make one lazy or stupid. It means they disagree with you. You can disagree with someone without disrespecting them. I think that the presumption that the parent's opinion is less worthy than yours based on nothing but the disagreement, and therefore the parent is clearly inferior, is really what bothers me about your post.

And fear mongering to try to further your opinion does not help things. It would be a tragedy all around if something happened to the little girl. However, the girl is not more likely to be kidnapped because she walked to the store by herself (The stats, are available in Athena's post earlier in this thread.) If she was taught to follow traffic signals and cross at the crosswalk when the signals indicated it was safe to do so, then she had no increased risk of being run over either. She's more likely to be physically abused by her mother's new boyfriend or be kidnapped by a family member, or molested by a close family friend than any risk of something happening to her at the hands of a stranger.

We could play the "what if" game. What if, she tripped falling down a flight of stairs. What if, she chokes on a grape. What if, she slips in the bathtub. What if, a plane falls on her house. What if, she gets attacked by a rabid mongoose. What if, any number of ridiculous and unlikely things happen to this girl. Oh, then someone will be in trouble. Oooooh. And then no excuse will be enough because we should shield our children from every possible danger lest they actually have to learn some life skills.

Our jobs as parents is not to prevent our children from ever being harmed. It's to raise them to become healthy contributing adults in society. If you raise your child in a plastic bubble or a padded prison, they will never learn to be independent. As a parent, you should be deciding what you think is an acceptable level of risk for your children for any situation. The authorities should not be involved in parenting decisions if you are not a douchebag parent. Random people on the street do not know how to raise your child better than you do, unless you are a douchebag parent.

I will reiterate. There is nothing in this article that suggests that the woman was stupid or lazy. It's wrong, imo, to even suggest that she was being a bad parent just because she made a parenting decision that you disagree with concerning her child. Please show me where in this article it says that she is a horrible, neglectful mother and I will gladly accept the correction. However, to me, on the scale of horrific things you can do to your children, allowing them the independence to go to the store by themselves ranks right up there with letting them pick out their own clothing for school.

First of all, the poster called her a lazy bitch. You're jumping on my case for calling her an idiot? People have been called far worse here. As far as my "cause" goes, I have none. I expessed an opinion. If name calling bothers you, you'll be offended often on this site. What's the first thing everyone says when something happens to a child who was alone? "Where were the parents" right? You're responsible for them until they turn 18. If something happens, it's on you. It wasn't like she was letting her ride her bike around the neighborhood. She was crossing a busy road during rush hour. My thought here is that you are taking this as a personal attack on you. Raise your kids however you like. You have your opinion, I have mine. When I woke up this morning, I was in the United States of America and I will say what I damn well please.

[Castille]

Athena has pretty well summed up my opinion. But man! What low opinions we have of 7 year olds! Crossing a street? Seriously? My 6 yr old without prompting can wait on a corner for the light change, look both ways and cross the street without falling on her ass, drooling, or wandering off after a butterfly. It's not an amazing achievement. It's something I expect her normal peers to be competent at as well. She can also ride an escalator, operate an elevator, feed a ticket into and navigate the turnstile of the metro, wait on a train platform, and get herself in and out of the car to include operating her seatbelt all by herself. None of this is any more exceptional than crossing a street - which is a mundane activity many kids do every day, have for years, most often several times a day. My daughter's generally waiting at the corner when we're walking and has the crossing button already pushed long before I catch up. I don't send her out to the store alone, but I don't have a convenience store a couple blocks from me either.

Given what this woman has been charged with, I really hope the basis is something else - not that her daughter was walking to the store, which for all I know she's walked to with her mother countless times before and is perfectly capable of executing the trip solo. Perhaps they brought the daughter home and found her mother drunk or high. And maybe there's some sanity left over at York law enforcement.

[jo_momma_82]

My daughter just started walking alone to the bus-stop this school year, it's 2 blocks away and we are in the suburbs in a small town and she is going to be 10 next month... it was very difficult to let her walk alone but, she wanted to and I realized that it was important to her and it makes her feel kinda' grown-up. I know I am over-protective but, I do force myself to loosen the reigns in some situations and that is HARD !

I don't think I would let one of my kids cross a busy intersection at 7 (or 10) but, I don't know this woman and I don't know how mature or immature her child is so, I'll reserve my judgement. We all parent differently and kids are pretty good at adapting to whatever their exposed too... it wasn't that long ago that small children were operating cotton gins. I'm not saying it was right but, it's an example regarding the fact that kids can learn and adapt very quickly to whatever their exposed to.

With that I will also say that even though kids adapt well and should have age-appropriate freedom, we also shouldn't forget that there are dangers out there... I know that some have mentioned that kids are "more likely" to be abused by a family member or die in a car wreck than to be abused or kidnapped by a stranger but, why should we offer our kids up on a silver platter just b/c the statistics say that the chance isn't very high ?

[Kaylara]

First of all, the poster called her a lazy bitch. You're jumping on my case for calling her an idiot? People have been called far worse here. As far as my "cause" goes, I have none. I expessed an opinion. If name calling bothers you, you'll be offended often on this site. What's the first thing everyone says when something happens to a child who was alone? "Where were the parents" right? You're responsible for them until they turn 18. If something happens, it's on you. It wasn't like she was letting her ride her bike around the neighborhood. She was crossing a busy road during rush hour. My thought here is that you are taking this as a personal attack on you. Raise your kids however you like. You have your opinion, I have mine. When I woke up this morning, I was in the United States of America and I will say what I damn well please.
Of course you "can say what you damn well please." Of course, so can I. And being in America or an American really has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you assume that because I do not live in America that I am not an American and thus don't know about the First Amendment to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights at all. If this was your assumption, I am sorry to inform you that you are mistaken as I am an American, well versed in American History and Civics. I live in a country that is part of the European Union. They have Freedom of Speech, too, the US doesn't have the market cornered on that. If you're not assuming these things, and just stating that you are an American and have Freedom of Speech for no apparent reason, well then, okay. Good for you.

I don't take it as a personal attack on me, I was attempting a discussion about the actual subject matter. You can take my comments however you like it, but I promise, if I have a problem with you or think you are personally attacking me, I will directly respond to you about it. I am not a big believer in beating around the bush as it wastes time and tends to distress the bush.

Name calling does not offend me when it is warranted. When it's unwarranted, then yes, I find it offensive. I find it offensive in real life too. I see no reason to change my standards for this website. However, thank you for warning me that I may be offended on this site. I'd figured it out on my own, having been here for a few months and not being new to the internet. But it's nice to be reminded that people out there are considerate of others feelings.

I wasn't addressing the original poster, although while you mention it, I think that comment was equally ridiculous. However, it should be fairly safe to assume that if I say I think a certain behavior is ridiculous, that goes for everyone who is behaving that way and has nothing to do with my feelings about a particular poster and everything to do with the behavior. If you thought I was jumping down your throat, I assure you I wasn't. I had been responding in a similar fashion in this thread before you responded.

In the articles that are posted here involving children, that have actually been harmed or abused, it seems like most of the time asking where the parents were is moot, since it seems like a lot of the time it's the parents causing the harm. If the child is alone, it depends on the child's age and the overall conditions discussed in the case. If you find a 9 year old babysitting his younger siblings overnight in a house full of filth, I may ask where the parents are. So they can be arrested. That's obvious neglect and abuse. Leaving a 13 year old home to babysit in a clean house will not garner a "Where were the parents?" question from me. That child is old enough to be responsible in that situation. So the girl had to cross the street during rush hour. A street that had traffic signals and a crosswalk. This is much different than jaywalking across the Sunrise Highway during rush hour. This is following the rules of traffic and she would have been in just as much danger had her mother gone to the store with her having to cross at the crosswalk.

Yes, you're responsible until they're 18. If something happens, it may be on you. It may also be on them, depending on what we're discussing here. It could also be on someone entirely different. It's all situational. You're responsible for raising them. You're responsible for weighing those risks. You're responsible for teaching them responsibility and independence. You're responsible for a lot of things. However, there are plenty of lessons that you will not learn if your parents keep you trapped in the house all the time because they are terrified to let you out of their sight.

*If* something were to happen, then it happens and you deal with it. And you take responsibility for your actions. But living in fear of possible outcomes will only make a person nuts. There are innumerable ways children can be injured, maimed, or killed. If you are a good parent you do think about these things. You do take steps to reduce what you consider to be unreasonable risks to your children. There are plenty of risks that you will think are reasonable, that other parents will think are unreasonable. I was not being facetious. Some people will go ape shit over a parent that gives their toddler peanut butter, and lambaste them, shame them, scold them, and otherwise attempt to make them think that they are a bad parent. I read an article written by a parent who would never, ever, let their child eat grapes unless they had been very carefully peeled and sliced in half because there was a chance that the child could choke on a whole grape. They freaked out when they found out that the pre-school they were sending their child to gave grapes as snacks to the kids. So the mother spent 4 hours peeling and halving grapes the night before her child's first day at school.

I think this is silly, and a ridiculous way to both live and react to fairly common occurrences.

Now personally, I like opinions to be based in something. Usually they do not just occur in a vacuum. And I do tend to explain where I'm coming from or what my thought processes are in forming an opinion about a particular subject, especially if there is any kind of intelligent conversation going on. I like to have my facts straight when discussing or forming an opinion on a subject. That may just be me. But I'm entitled to my opinion forming process as much as I am to expressing my opinion. Just as you are.

However, having an opinion doesn't mean that no one is ever going to disagree with you, or question how you got there or why you have that opinion. I find that my opinion is mine and is inscrutable up until the point that I express it to someone else. The moment I type it or speak it, it's pretty much open season because people will and do disagree. That's awesome. It fosters some very interesting conversations at times. And if it's based in something silly, I do expect to be called on it. The fact that the opinion is mine means exactly dick to most people. So yes, I do expect that people will ask me "Why do you have that opinion?" And I find it helpful to be able to answer that question. For good or bad, my words, and my opinions are my own. I can only hope that at least it shows that I am thoughtful about what I opine before I do so.

[Kaylara]

With that I will also say that even though kids adapt well and should have age-appropriate freedom, we also shouldn't forget that there are dangers out there... I know that some have mentioned that kids are "more likely" to be abused by a family member or die in a car wreck than to be abused or kidnapped by a stranger but, why should we offer our kids up on a silver platter just b/c the statistics say that the chance isn't very high ?

I don't see it as serving them up on a silver platter either. Teach your children how to spot danger, how to get help if needed, and how to fight back. These are all basic things I was taught in Kindergarten. Teach your kids common sense. Those are the things you can plan for. And you hope to the gods that you never come across the kind of stranger who was going to take your kid regardless. Look at Joseph Edward Duncan. No amount of planning was going to stop that crazy fucker, he took what he wanted, and killed whomever got in his way.

It's almost comforting though, to be able to focus on "those ambiguous scary strangers" who want to do unfathomable harm to your child. Much easier than thinking about the babysitter who might be raping your kid, the nursery school teacher who threw your kid on the floor hard enough to crack his skull, the boyfriend who thinks that disciplining a 12 month old with a belt and by starvation is appropriate. Easier to believe that the monsters are "out there" and if you can just keep them out, then your kids will be safe. Much easier than thinking that you might live or love one of them and that they will be the ones to really hurt your kids.

Because really, if you had to scrutinize every social relationship that you or your children have or might have on that level, you'd go nuts and become hermit and take your kids with you. You get some small illusion of control if you think the problems are from some stranger.

Be happy, some of us really do not have that luxury. As I posted before, I know full well the damage that can be done to children. It's a hell of a lot worse to know that the people doing it to you are ones that are supposed to care for you and/or protect you.

Seriously. I was never particularly worried about the boys being kidnapped or hurt by strangers. I taught them common sense and a bit of street smarts, and they did not put themselves in dangerous situations outside of the house. Because just walking into the house was a dangerous situation. I was a hell of a lot more protective over them with the people who were closest to them.

My questions are: At what point did we decide that any risk for the kids is unacceptable? (I'm sorry, I'm pregnant right now, and I keep hearing the same kind of argument about various things that I should avoid doing, eating, saying, etc. because it will "OMG KILL YOUR BABY AND YOU WILL BE A BAD PARENT. NO RISK IS ALLOWED!!!11oneoneeleventy!1 Included in this list are things like "standing on my toes and stretching.") And why do we put a disproportionate amount of work into keeping our kids away from possible risk at the hands of strangers, whose statistic danger is negligible , and hardly any towards making sure that the people they *do* come into contact with regularly are not going to do them harm? And is there really any sense in doing that?

[Kaylara]

Athena has pretty well summed up my opinion. But man! What low opinions we have of 7 year olds! Crossing a street? Seriously? My 6 yr old without prompting can wait on a corner for the light change, look both ways and cross the street without falling on her ass, drooling, or wandering off after a butterfly. It's not an amazing achievement. It's something I expect her normal peers to be competent at as well. She can also ride an escalator, operate an elevator, feed a ticket into and navigate the turnstile of the metro, wait on a train platform, and get herself in and out of the car to include operating her seatbelt all by herself. None of this is any more exceptional than crossing a street - which is a mundane activity many kids do every day, have for years, most often several times a day. My daughter's generally waiting at the corner when we're walking and has the crossing button already pushed long before I catch up. I don't send her out to the store alone, but I don't have a convenience store a couple blocks from me either.
Wow. Your kid must be a genius. Also, you're a bad parent. Didn't you know, something could... happen to her. And stuff. BOO. Be scared. [/sarcasm]

I'm just joking around (also, I'm out of thanks again. Damnit.) but seriously, good for you. Glad to see that she can make it across a street without being runover, kidnapped, raped, molested, beaten up, drooling, getting confused, or being distracted by shiny objects. She appears to have risen to a mental competency that is beyond that of your average Magpie. Either you're an exceptional parent, or you're dressing your kid up like an irresistible paedo sunday. Paedolicious...

(I vote for you being a good parent btw.)

And that, my friends, is a sign that I have officially become punchy and should go to bed. :P

[ohmarvellousme!]

True enough. But would you begrudge another parent (who hasn't shown any tendency towards neglect or abuse) the ability to do the same with their children?

Not at all. Parents raise their kids the way they see fit. As long as they are not abusive or neglectful then who has the right to judge them?

I do wonder though, how the other parents would cope with the decisions they made should the worst happen.

[Kaylara]

The same way that any good parent reacts. It's no different than how you would feel if the worst happened, just because they made different decisions than you. No one can control the rest of the world. Hell, a lot of people are lucky if they can control *themselves*. :P

[seductress]

As parents we are always in a no win situation. We parent our children the way we choose to parent our children and it doesn't always please others.

I don't believe anyone knows my children the way I know my children. I will parent them how I see fit, just as everyone else will. I doubt that anyone on this site lives in my neighborhood or even knows my city very well. Most people see Lake Geneva and think wealthy tourist town. I do live there year round, I do know my neighborhood, which is about 3 blocks and I happen to live on a corner where I can see most yards with kids.

I do not allow my children to go where I cannot see them. I am afraid, but that does not drive everything I do. My children have other freedoms and appreciate those freedoms. They also happen to have a parent that loves to go places with them. We have the largest back yard in the neighborhood, so I feel lucky that when I am home, most days all the kids are in my yard. I also have gotten to know the kids in the neighborhood and know which kids parents have no idea where they are.

Maybe I am over protective, but I am the one responsible for my children, no one else.

How others parent their children is not for me to judge, nor is the way I parent my children anyone's place to judge. If the child is not being abused in any way, then who am I to say someone is doing a poor job of parenting?

[DarkPrincess]

Of course you "can say what you damn well please." Of course, so can I. And being in America or an American really has nothing to do with it. Perhaps you assume that because I do not live in America that I am not an American and thus don't know about the First Amendment to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights at all. If this was your assumption, I am sorry to inform you that you are mistaken as I am an American, well versed in American History and Civics. I live in a country that is part of the European Union. They have Freedom of Speech, too, the US doesn't have the market cornered on that. If you're not assuming these things, and just stating that you are an American and have Freedom of Speech for no apparent reason, well then, okay. Good for you.

I don't take it as a personal attack on me, I was attempting a discussion about the actual subject matter. You can take my comments however you like it, but I promise, if I have a problem with you or think you are personally attacking me, I will directly respond to you about it. I am not a big believer in beating around the bush as it wastes time and tends to distress the bush.

Name calling does not offend me when it is warranted. When it's unwarranted, then yes, I find it offensive. I find it offensive in real life too. I see no reason to change my standards for this website. However, thank you for warning me that I may be offended on this site. I'd figured it out on my own, having been here for a few months and not being new to the internet. But it's nice to be reminded that people out there are considerate of others feelings.

I wasn't addressing the original poster, although while you mention it, I think that comment was equally ridiculous. However, it should be fairly safe to assume that if I say I think a certain behavior is ridiculous, that goes for everyone who is behaving that way and has nothing to do with my feelings about a particular poster and everything to do with the behavior. If you thought I was jumping down your throat, I assure you I wasn't. I had been responding in a similar fashion in this thread before you responded.

In the articles that are posted here involving children, that have actually been harmed or abused, it seems like most of the time asking where the parents were is moot, since it seems like a lot of the time it's the parents causing the harm. If the child is alone, it depends on the child's age and the overall conditions discussed in the case. If you find a 9 year old babysitting his younger siblings overnight in a house full of filth, I may ask where the parents are. So they can be arrested. That's obvious neglect and abuse. Leaving a 13 year old home to babysit in a clean house will not garner a "Where were the parents?" question from me. That child is old enough to be responsible in that situation. So the girl had to cross the street during rush hour. A street that had traffic signals and a crosswalk. This is much different than jaywalking across the Sunrise Highway during rush hour. This is following the rules of traffic and she would have been in just as much danger had her mother gone to the store with her having to cross at the crosswalk.

Yes, you're responsible until they're 18. If something happens, it may be on you. It may also be on them, depending on what we're discussing here. It could also be on someone entirely different. It's all situational. You're responsible for raising them. You're responsible for weighing those risks. You're responsible for teaching them responsibility and independence. You're responsible for a lot of things. However, there are plenty of lessons that you will not learn if your parents keep you trapped in the house all the time because they are terrified to let you out of their sight.

*If* something were to happen, then it happens and you deal with it. And you take responsibility for your actions. But living in fear of possible outcomes will only make a person nuts. There are innumerable ways children can be injured, maimed, or killed. If you are a good parent you do think about these things. You do take steps to reduce what you consider to be unreasonable risks to your children. There are plenty of risks that you will think are reasonable, that other parents will think are unreasonable. I was not being facetious. Some people will go ape shit over a parent that gives their toddler peanut butter, and lambaste them, shame them, scold them, and otherwise attempt to make them think that they are a bad parent. I read an article written by a parent who would never, ever, let their child eat grapes unless they had been very carefully peeled and sliced in half because there was a chance that the child could choke on a whole grape. They freaked out when they found out that the pre-school they were sending their child to gave grapes as snacks to the kids. So the mother spent 4 hours peeling and halving grapes the night before her child's first day at school.

I think this is silly, and a ridiculous way to both live and react to fairly common occurrences.

Now personally, I like opinions to be based in something. Usually they do not just occur in a vacuum. And I do tend to explain where I'm coming from or what my thought processes are in forming an opinion about a particular subject, especially if there is any kind of intelligent conversation going on. I like to have my facts straight when discussing or forming an opinion on a subject. That may just be me. But I'm entitled to my opinion forming process as much as I am to expressing my opinion. Just as you are.

However, having an opinion doesn't mean that no one is ever going to disagree with you, or question how you got there or why you have that opinion. I find that my opinion is mine and is inscrutable up until the point that I express it to someone else. The moment I type it or speak it, it's pretty much open season because people will and do disagree. That's awesome. It fosters some very interesting conversations at times. And if it's based in something silly, I do expect to be called on it. The fact that the opinion is mine means exactly dick to most people. So yes, I do expect that people will ask me "Why do you have that opinion?" And I find it helpful to be able to answer that question. For good or bad, my words, and my opinions are my own. I can only hope that at least it shows that I am thoughtful about what I opine before I do so.

I didn't even notice where you live. My opinion is based on the "I don't give a fuck" attitude that some parents have. If you are making a decision on how you're going to parent your child and how much freedom you give them, I can respect that. I don't think she was thinking "I'll allow my daughter some freedom and independence." I think she was too into her phone call and didn't care. You're talking to me about people being allowed to disagree? You're the one who got your feathers ruffled because I called it like I see it, without censoring the way I said it. If I want my language to be censored, I'll go back to cafemom.

[silvahalo68]

Originally Posted by Kaylara http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/images/kirsch/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=191865#post191865) I'm sorry, I just haven't seen anything in this article showing that there was any wrong doing committed here. It seems like a gross over-reaction by the police to me. I don't want *any* government taking over my ability to parent my child in a way that I think is appropriate for that child.I guess its a matter of opinion whether any wrong doing was committed, and that is why we are all sitting her debating the subject. Every child is different in maturity level and real world knowledge, so its not easily said, yes this was clearly wrong or no, this was an over-reaction. What I said before, the law has to make judgments about peoples safety all the time, adults and children alike. The "bubble" parenting is one reason but certainly the authorities also experience the lack of supervision and care so many children go with out. In essence the police are often left to make judgments because parents fail to do so. Some see it as controlling and yet others see it as being inevitable outcome due to a society in which parents seemingly take less interest in guiding their children. I think an even bigger factor is the dysfunctional nature of the family structure that is corroding before our eyes. I am not saying this was the case here, just why police responded the way they did.

I don't see this as overstepping at all. Had this child suddenly disappeared or been killed, suddenly everyone would be questioning why authorities in the area didn't notice her or do something. We have to make reasonable assumptions that what was done was in the best interest of the child, although I do not think the parent should have been charged. Direct the child home ask some questions of the parents, but not charged.

[silvahalo68]

....
Fear is the mind killer. When you ignore the truth because of fear, people can make you give up your ability to think, reason, and what personal power you have.


Absolutely, I agree with that statement. When I admitted to being fearful, it is an honest assessment on what sometimes motivates me to be a bit too protective. I was thinking about my parenting in this regard, and decided I am far from over protective. My son of 5yrs. plays outside on his own all the time along with his best friend who lives next door. I let him ride his bike down the block and back to the house alone, it isn't very far and it has instilled a good deal of self confidence. Still, I have rules that must be followed. He tells me when he is riding his bike as that way I'm aware he is doing so and he must always wear a helmet, and his never to cross the street alone...he is simply too young to make sound judgments; besides, I know my son. And he is simply not ready for that.
He is always to ask first before going next door to play. Oh, and I'm always aware of who is at the home before he spends a good deal of time over there. I give him his space and use necessary but fair boundaries. I was raised pretty much like wild tumble weeds in the wind. Going about doing our own thing, and finding the hard way, there were big consequences for that.

So as a parent today, I am aware of my fears that sometimes cloud my judgments, but at the same time, know that my fears are founded on realities and sometimes that fear is a very good thing. Fear can help me to learn from mistakes. Fear also helps me to take necessary risks that will allow me to go further, in giving my child the ability to make good decisions independently. Without fear, I would not take risks without careful consideration. That situation would seem very superficial and mundane. I am very aware that if there is too much fear, it is not useful at all, and discounts anything to gain from it.

[Athena]

Athena has pretty well summed up my opinion. But man! What low opinions we have of 7 year olds!

Bingo!

I'm a "millenial". You know, those sniveling, whiny, entitled and incapable kids too attached to technology to do anything worthwhile? As with every generation, the one that came before it bitches about it. But what I find interesting about the op-eds pertaining to millenials is that all the things we're charged of can be directly attributed to how we were raised. We're whiny because we're used to being cared for rather than being allowed to care for ourselves. We're entitled and incapable because our parents insisted on keeping us dependent and treating us like we were fragile. We're too dependent on technology because, scared of the world around them, our parents kept us inside too much. Technology became our only means of exploration.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you treat a child like they don't know how, they won't know how.

[Athena]

I don't see this as overstepping at all. Had this child suddenly disappeared or been killed, suddenly everyone would be questioning why authorities in the area didn't notice her or do something. We have to make reasonable assumptions that what was done was in the best interest of the child, although I do not think the parent should have been charged. Direct the child home ask some questions of the parents, but not charged.

The people wondering why the authorities didn't protect her or where her parents were or whatever are the same people here who advocate being over-protective. "You" are "them", and "them" is not "everyone"... not by a long shot.

Some time ago, there was a story on the front page about a girl (7, I believe, but maybe 6) who got into a fight with her older brother went for a walk around her apartment complex. She was murdered by a neighbor. Sure enough, people came out of the woodwork wondering why she was allowed out of the house alone at that age. Then mothers actually started showing off their neurotic tendencies like it was some twisted pissing contest. "I don't let my 12 year old son go to the park a block away without supervision, and I live in a good neighborhood." "Oh yeah? Well, I don't let my 8 year old and my 6 year old play in their yard unless my husband or I can go out there with them."

It's natural to be ruled by fear. That's why the government's tactics post 9/11 worked so well. But it's the responsibility of a thinking, rational person to endeavor to rise above that.

[ohmarvellousme!]

The same way that any good parent reacts. It's no different than how you would feel if the worst happened, just because they made different decisions than you. No one can control the rest of the world. Hell, a lot of people are lucky if they can control *themselves*. :P

I didnt say anything about how they would react, I said 'cope'. The 'cautious' parent could at least take some tiny comfort in knowing they took absolutely no chances at all with their childs safety. Would the 'freedom' parent be at peace with the decisions they took? Or would they always question their actions, and wonder if things would have been different if they had stood and watched their child cross the road/walked her to the store/taken him to the park etc.

Thats what I meant when I said: I do wonder though, how the other parents would cope with the decisions they made should the worst happen.

As I have said before, I am in no position to judge a parents decisions when they are doing what they believe to be best for their child (excluding neglect/abuse blah blah blah...), just as no one has the right to judge me and critisize me as being 'overprotective' for the decisions I make. And my personal opinion is that I would rather err on the side of caution, than try and console myself with saying 'oh, at least I gave him freedom'.

[Morgana]

Under PA law Section 4304, Endangering welfare of children, the law states it applies to A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duy of care protection, or support.

Futher explanation of that duty would be to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child to prevent him from becoming injured, abused, neglected, etc. due to an inherent risk and to provide proper supervision and guardianship.

Now reading the article, it seems that being the child is a ripe age of 7 and was "trying" to cross a busy intersection at RUSH hour along with the mother's response to the officers, all together contributed to the charge. They could of not charged her. Maybe they were dickhead kind of cops, maybe they felt the mom gave a "I don't give a fuck" attitude when her child was at risk and it was not the right time to let her walk alone. In this case is was not even essential for this child to go out, the mother was resting, talking on the phone, whatever. She could of gone along.

I personally don't feel a 7 year old should be crossing intersections alone. While you all can let your kids do whatever you feel is appropriate for your geographical area at whatever age, my someday 7 year olds will have to be supervised, that is non-negotiable. I'll be damned to ever think 7 year olds are mature enough to travel around town alone....WTF

My husband and I have 2 in college and they were raised strict, they are both smart and strong and have never shown signs of mental breakdown. But we also explained why we were strict with whatever rule. I don't think it is good if children don't understand why you do what you do. We didn't hide them from what could or did happen around us.

[Pixie]

Bingo!

I'm a "millenial". You know, those sniveling, whiny, entitled and incapable kids too attached to technology to do anything worthwhile? As with every generation, the one that came before it bitches about it. But what I find interesting about the op-eds pertaining to millenials is that all the things we're charged of can be directly attributed to how we were raised. We're whiny because we're used to being cared for rather than being allowed to care for ourselves. We're entitled and incapable because our parents insisted on keeping us dependent and treating us like we were fragile. We're too dependent on technology because, scared of the world around them, our parents kept us inside too much. Technology became our only means of exploration.

It's a self-fulfilling prophecy - if you treat a child like they don't know how, they won't know how.

The "Millennials" Are Coming

(CBS) This story was originally broadcast on Nov. 11, 2007. It was updated on May 23, 2008.

It's graduation time and once again we say "Stand back all bosses!" A new breed of American worker is about to attack everything you hold sacred: from giving orders, to your starched white shirt and tie. They are called, among other things, "millennials." There are about 80 million of them, born between 1980 and 1995, and they're rapidly taking over from the baby boomers who are now pushing 60.

They were raised by doting parents who told them they are special, played in little leagues with no winners or losers, or all winners. They are laden with trophies just for participating and they think your business-as-usual ethic is for the birds. And if you persist in the belief you can, take your job and shove it.

As correspondent Morley Safer first reported last November, corporate America is so unnerved by all this that companies like Merrill Lynch, Ernst & Young, and scores of others are hiring consultants to teach them how to deal with this generation that only takes "yes" for an answer.

The workplace has become a psychological battlefield and the millennials have the upper hand, because they are tech savvy, with every gadget imaginable almost becoming an extension of their bodies. They multitask, talk, walk, listen and type, and text. And their priorities are simple: they come first.

Just ask Marian Salzman, an ad agency executive who has been managing and tracking millennials since they entered the workforce.

"Some of them are the greatest generation. They're more hardworking. They have these tools to get things done," she explains. "They are enormously clever and resourceful. Some of the others are absolutely incorrigible. It's their way or the highway. The rest of us are old, redundant, should be retired. How dare we come in, anyone over 30. Not only can't be trusted, can't be counted upon to be, sort of, coherent."

Salzman says today's manager must be half shrink and half diplomat.

What are some of the do's and don'ts in speaking to the generation of young workers?

"You do have to speak to them a little bit like a therapist on television might speak to a patient," Salzman says, laughing. "You can't be harsh. You cannot tell them you're disappointed in them. You can't really ask them to live and breathe the company. Because they're living and breathing themselves and that keeps them very busy."

Faced with new employees who want to roll into work with their iPods and flip flops around noon, but still be CEO by Friday, companies are realizing that the era of the buttoned down exec happy to have a job is as dead as the three-Martini lunch.


more (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml)

My husband - being in the video game industry especially, makes similar complaints.

[Athena]

Under PA law Section 4304, Endangering welfare of children, the law states it applies to A parent, guardian, or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a duy of care protection, or support.

Futher explanation of that duty would be to exercise reasonable diligence in the control of such child to prevent him from becoming injured, abused, neglected, etc. due to an inherent risk and to provide proper supervision and guardianship.

So long as the child was attempting to cross legally, one could argue that there is no inherent risk associated with crossing the road - certainly not one that a parent is likely to be able to protect their child from.

If the mother's response played into her being charged, than that is a painfully subjective miscarriage of justice. But that's just speculation, anyway. The crux of this argument depends on whether or not being unaccompanied - in broad daylight trying to cross a street with crosswalks and signals - is inherently dangerous. I say no.

I'll be damned to ever think 7 year olds are mature enough to travel around town alone....WTF

When you immediately underestimate a child in that manner, you risk stunting them. Your kids may be great, but, if you kept them constantly supervised, odds are, they could have been even greater. I'm not saying that over-protective parents will necessarily wreck their children - I'm just saying that over-protection makes it impossible to maximize a child's potential. A kid who was sheltered may turn out great, but may only be operating at 90% capacity, unable to reach the same heights he or she would be able to had they not been held back.

My husband and I have 2 in college and they were raised strict, they are both smart and strong and have never shown signs of mental breakdown. But we also explained why we were strict with whatever rule. I don't think it is good if children don't understand why you do what you do. We didn't hide them from what could or did happen around us.

The type of "strict" matters, though. I was raised in a strict household. My parents had the "strict" market so cornered, the neighborhood kids called my mom "The Warden". You don't get a nickname like that by letting your child walk all over you. School work came absolutely first and homework was to be finished before doing anything recreational; TV watching was kept to a minimum, averaging less than 1/2 hour a day; no TV, computer or videogames in the bedroom; consequences for misbehavior were consistent and severe.

But when everything was all good, I was given pretty free reign. Starting at, oh, 5 or six, it was "Go play outside and be back before the street lights come on." By 7 years old, I had roughly a three-mile radius to play with. My parents would ask me where I planned on being when I headed out, but that was it.

You just can't compensate for that kind of freedom. It gives you skills you simply can't acquire while being supervised. Being strict and giving your child limited doses of freedom does not have to be mutually exclusive.

[Morgana]

I missed all of page 2 in the posts. While I won't let it all out, it was a little upsetting to read. This is NOT 60 years ago and you CANNOT compare the two. The internet alone has brought about an upscale in crime and knowledge of how to commit that crime effectively that is just incomprehensible! Shit is happening everywhere. I don't say hide your kids, I say teach them to deal with what could happen.

But everyone is discussing the freedoms of a 7 year old! Meanwhile, the moment a teacher isn't looking and something happens, you're suing the school, the town, etc. Meanwhile she is responsible for watching 15-20 kids at once. If the child in this case was hit by someone who ran the light, trust me, they would of been front paged along with the mother's "lazy ass" who didn't accompany her to the store!

IT IS BECAUSE NOTHING HAPPENED THAT EVERYONE CAN argue how responsible their children are, how safe the real world is and why they let their child have such freedoms and others are too confining, etc. But what do you say to the people on this blog and others who HAVE BEEN VISITED BY THE BOOGEYMAN, WHO HAVE BEEN ABDUCTED WHILE WALKING ALONE IN A PUBLIC PLACE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, or because their parents let them have ALONE time, suffered horrific abuse at the hands of strangers and/or acquaintances? All three of those equasions apply to me. What do you say for the parents who let their 10 year old ride her bike just one block but was raped and killed? The parents of the child abducted right from his yard who was found tortured and dead? To the numbers of crimes, assaults, molestation, kidnapping and everything else, what were those numbers 60 years ago??? Oh, and what was the average life expectancy?

What could or would you say to us? Oh, that's right, silly me, I was at the other end of the statistics....ooops! We ARE the "what ifs", the "other" statistics and if alive, anyone of us would tell you now that we wished we had a mom that would of protected us and did her fucking job!

[penelopejo]

If the child in this case was hit by someone who ran the light, trust me, they would of been front paged along with the mother's "lazy ass" who didn't accompany her to the store!

No, i think the person who ran the light would be front page worthy, not the mother. The child was crossing the street with the right of way(presumably) and the person runs the red light. Even if the parent was there, that same child could still be hit if walking ahead of his/her mother. If a child were to get hurt by someone running a red light, it would be the fault of the driver, not the "lazy ass" parent who let them go to the store alone. Yes, that same parent might feel regret and blame, but the blame shouldn't be placed on that grieving parent if there was no way to stop it. Just as if a child riding his/her bike down to the neighbors and was abducted. In a heart beat, that parent would be blamed for letting the child ride the bike down the street. What about the perv who got the idea to steal said child, why don't they get they get the blame? Oh, that's right, cause it's the job of a parent to hover over our children till they are 18, then they're free range. yes, that's it.

[ohmarvellousme!]

A kid who was sheltered may turn out great, but may only be operating at 90% capacity, unable to reach the same heights he or she would be able to had they not been held back.

Supervising a young child does not equal holding them back or stunting them.

I dont wrap my kids in cotton wool and keep them in a bubble, but I dont take chances with their safety either. They are allowed to play out in my back garden without me. I check on them through the window, or pop out and sneakily observe them from the yard, over the wall and they are none the wiser. When we go to the park, my 4yr old is allowed to roam ahead (to a certain distance) but he must wait to cross the road until I reach him and can hold his hand. My 2yr old can walk along the pavement without holding my hand (she insists on this!) but must stay closer to me. When we get to the park, they are free to run wild and I encourage them to 'do it yourself' when they are on the play equipment.

My kids are all very confident, outgoing and happy. I see no reason to take what I deem to be unnecessary risks with their safety just because someone thinks I am overprotective or 'stunting' them.

[Athena]

I missed all of page 2 in the posts. While I won't let it all out, it was a little upsetting to read. This is NOT 60 years ago and you CANNOT compare the two.

I've posted the stats a million times, Morgana. 40-year low in violent crime. I don't know how much more clear an individual can be. People have less reason to fear their surroundings than 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. We can't go back farther than that because crime statistics didn't really exist beyond that.

If the child in this case was hit by someone who ran the light, trust me, they would of been front paged along with the mother's "lazy ass" who didn't accompany her to the store!

I feel pretty confident in saying that, had that happened, none of our front page authors would have been that insensitive. But, for the sake of argument - if mom had walked with her, what could she have done if someone chose to run a red? Then, it would have been two people hit, rather than one.

But what do you say to the people on this blog and others who HAVE BEEN VISITED BY THE BOOGEYMAN, WHO HAVE BEEN ABDUCTED WHILE WALKING ALONE IN A PUBLIC PLACE IN BROAD DAYLIGHT, or because their parents let them have ALONE time, suffered horrific abuse at the hands of strangers and/or acquaintances? All three of those equasions apply to me. What do you say for the parents who let their 10 year old ride her bike just one block but was raped and killed? The parents of the child abducted right from his yard who was found tortured and dead? To the numbers of crimes, assaults, molestation, kidnapping and everything else, what were those numbers 60 years ago??? Oh, and what was the average life expectancy?

What could or would you say to us? Oh, that's right, silly me, I was at the other end of the statistics....ooops! We ARE the "what ifs", the "other" statistics and if alive, anyone of us would tell you now that we wished we had a mom that would of protected us and did her fucking job!

I don't know, Morgana - what do you say to the families of a plane crash victim? Do you blame them for allowing their child on a plane? Do you foolishly suggest that they should have been on that plane with them, like they could have prevented it? Do you berate the parents of a child who died in a car crash for allowing their child to be in a car?

There is risk associated with just about everything we do. The risk in this case wouldn't have been any less if she were older. In fact, it would have been greater if she were older, as teenage girls are targeted at a MUCH higher rate than prepubescent girls. So why should we find this situation anymore inappropriate simply because the girl is 7?

[Athena]

Supervising a young child does not equal holding them back or stunting them.

Again, children who are not allowed unsupervised play are, on average, fatter, less social, less creative and less capable of exhibiting both judgment and self-control. If that doesn't sound like holding them back, to you, I don't know what does.

My kids are all very confident, outgoing and happy. I see no reason to take what I deem to be unnecessary risks with their safety just because someone thinks I am overprotective or 'stunting' them.

If your kids are 2 and 4, I'm not talking about you, here. :tongue2: But if they get much past 5 and they're still never allowed out of your sight, that's no good.

Again, the skills gained by unsupervised play cannot be gained by other means.

I would never suggest that a person alter their behavior simply because someone else disagrees with it. But I do believe it's everyone's responsibility to make decisions based on logic and reason rather than irrational believes rooted in fear rather than evidence.

Irrational fear IS turning our children into pansies (http://www.nationofwimps.com/). It's having a real consequence.

[malq]

i think 7 is a little young to be traveling around by yourself. I would try to promote the kid being independent enough to be able to go to the store.
The busy intersection and all that? Well I don't know enough about that. but I would probably not send a 7 year old out there by himself. At 7 I think even i was scrutinized when it came to those type of situations where good judgment needed to be exercised.

As far as the creepie crawlies out there, they are still there. They just don't get away with it because the media makes a big deal out of them. And rightfully so.
So this Mom? hard to tell without seeing the intersection, but nothing ecuses her from watching over her kids. Get the law involved? fuck no.

[malq]

I think 7 is a little young to be traveling around by yourself. I would try to promote the kid being independent enough to be able to go to the store.
The busy intersection and all that? Well I don't know enough about that. but I would probably not send a 7 year old out there by himself. At 7 I think even i was scrutinized when it came to those type of situations where good judgment needed to be exercised.

As far as the creepie crawlies out there, they are still there. They just don't get away with it as much because the media makes a big deal out of them. And rightfully so.
So this Mom? hard to tell without seeing the intersection, but nothing excuses her from watching over her kids. Get the law involved? fuck no.

[Morgana]

When you immediately underestimate a child in that manner, you risk stunting them. Your kids may be great, but, if you kept them constantly supervised, odds are, they could have been even greater. I'm not saying that over-protective parents will necessarily wreck their children - I'm just saying that over-protection makes it impossible to maximize a child's potential. A kid who was sheltered may turn out great, but may only be operating at 90% capacity, unable to reach the same heights he or she would be able to had they not been held back.


You just can't compensate for that kind of freedom. It gives you skills you simply can't acquire while being supervised. Being strict and giving your child limited doses of freedom does not have to be mutually exclusive.

Who are you trying to sell this to? Seriously. I have 400 cases behind me. Half are cases of DEAD children BUT THEY WERE NOT SHELTERED! Because every case involves an accident without adult supervision. I talk to these parents everyday and they believed in how smart and responsible their kids were. Shit does happen and the "skills" weren't enough to compensate for better judgment! Something that even adults struggle with. YES I AGREE THERE IS ASSOCIATED RISK WITH EVERYTHING but depending on where you live 7 may not be so appropriate to let a child cross streets, crosswalk or not. Certainly, not crossing the street alone at 7 will not fuck up your future in growth, mentality or otherwise. There ARE other activities you can give children to perform that make them feel independent without taking unnecessary risks.

What is stunting children is TV, VIDEOS, IPODS, CELL PHONES and VIDEO GAMES--they are doing that just fine at just that-- each on their own!

My toddler and pre-k know how to cook, know spices and how to turn on and off the stove for christ sakes, they aren't stunted. If you ask my 4 year old about privacy she can define the word to you. She can describe what she will do to a stranger who tries to give her ice-cream, which is totally hilarious but that doesn't mean I should assume she can handle herself or at 7 I will let her cross streets. They don't need to cross streets to feel like they have life in the crosswind. They cross streets, they ride subways, they do it all in the middle of NYC everyday all day, WITH SUPERVISION and they are learning the skills just fine. Ultimately, potential and skills will not protect a child (or adult) alone. This particular case above deals with judgment. Everyone has their own and so does the law.

Many of you I am sure disagree and your children will be just fine anywhere. But there is another side to statistics, and I'm not talking about airplanes vs. cars, everyone knows car accidents are number 1. I'm talking about everyday common judgment in your locale. Many have lost their children to unnecessary risks or for the child's lack of better judgment in a changing situation. By growing a little older and having more experience with different situations under his/her belt they might be better suited.

Example: 4 women alone have been hit in our crosswalk outside the building, one killed. I know when people turn, they don't like to stop for pedestrians, you have 3 lanes turning into the crosswalk. I look while crossing at who is turning and on occassion, the driver didn't stop or see me, so I stopped. I could of been hit, but my awareness is what saved me. I don't assume they will just stop or that no one will run a light or ever not enter the sidewalk, because this does happen. But my awareness and judgment helps to lesson the possability that I will be a victim in that crosswalk.

At 7 you can't possibly have all the awareness, judgment and experience needed to avoid a "shit can happen" experience. Something is always happening. It's how it's delt with at that moment that makes a difference often with the outcome.

I am not someone who is willing to risk premature decision making vs. my kids feeling independent and free at a young age to assume they'll reach maximum proficiency of their skill sets!

On a final note, to Athena--I wasn't foolishly saying anything hypothetically when referring to "what do you say to...." Actually, bringing up airplanes seems not relevant when I was discussing actual events of child abuse/death. How do you equate lettting your child go on an airplane, it crashes, me blaming the parent--- to letting your 7 year old cross streets not being the best of judgment---big difference! Do you let your child walk the airport alone? Probably not. Further, why would you think I would blame a parent for putting their child on a plane and it crashed? The elements in these two cases are not the same nor based on the same theory. Although I'm sure someone will reply with how their kid does it all the time and they are so advanced! (funny?)

I WAS abducted from a shopping center at 12. I was captive for exactly 30 days until saved by vice (10/19 - 11/17). I was to be sold to Boston and then trafficed out of the country. This was far among other things that I had already experienced in my life. I can't even explain what I went through and what I witnessed. This was the final thing. It can happen.

All I am saying is be diligent and use good judgment. YOU DO NOT want to be on the other side of this topic whether it be a parent who lost a child or a child who suffered. And readers shouldn't think that airing on the side of caution when their child is 7 will stunt their growth not to mention that the risk would not of been any less if she was any older, but the child's abilities and judgment would be better is she WAS older, therefore increasing her chances for surviving a "shit can happen" experience! You can live by statistics, but they won't dictate your life or what will happen during your stay here!

[ohmarvellousme!]

If your kids are 2 and 4, I'm not talking about you, here. But if they get much past 5 and they're still never allowed out of your sight, that's no good.

Oh yeah, I know you were aiming this at kids older than mine. But my kids are allowed 'out of my sight' - to a degree. We went to a soft play just last weekend, and I was quite happy to let my son go off in the BIG play area by himself, and didnt feel the need to check on him all the time. I did sit where I could keep an eye on the exit though. Just in case! :crazy:

I also let him go around to his friends houses to play after school, just as he has friends around too. But only people I know and trust, and know where they live. (he keeps asking to go to some kids house who I dont know his parents, and Im running out of excuses! He wont accept the 'I dont know them' reason!) And I will do the same with my daughter when she is old enough.

But I would not send them out to a shop, crossing busy roads at rush hour, on their own, at the age of 7.

[SoUncool]

My toddler and pre-k know how to cook, know spices and how to turn on and off the stove for christ sakes, they aren't stunted. If you ask my 4 year old about privacy she can define the word to you. She can describe what she will do to a stranger who tries to give her ice-cream, which is totally hilarious but that doesn't mean I should assume she can handle herself or at 7 I will let her cross streets. They don't need to cross streets to feel like they have life in the crosswind. They cross streets, they ride subways, they do it all in the middle of NYC everyday all day, WITH SUPERVISION and they are learning the skills just fine.

Although I'm sure someone will reply with how their kid does it all the time and they are so advanced! (funny?)


Funny! Um, isn't that EXACTLY what you just did? Told us all how advanced your kids are?

[Morgana]

Funny! Um, isn't that EXACTLY what you just did? Told us all how advanced your kids are?

I was responding to being told that I could be stunting my children's growth....!!!! Them being advanced????? Compared to what or to whom? What are you talking about? The language I used was in particular response to Athena's post. (No offense Athena, I appreciate your knowledge and opinion, agree or not).

I am big with my kids with privacy. Privacy from us and eachother at appropriate moments and to learn not to let them be violated when I am not around! I promote awareness with them due to sexual abuse that can happen all too often in your own home or at a relatives. The response wasn't meant arrogant.

You can never seem to keep kids out the kitchen and rather than yelling at them about how dangerous a kitchen is, I decided to let them cook with me and they just love it! It doesn't make them advanced, but it does improve their feeling of being important, capable, and independent when they break an egg, etc. I shared their experience to show there are other ways to promote skills and that in doing so, my children aren't 'stunted', because they are not crossing the street at 7!

However, I have enough sharing for one day, especially when I share something so personal and about my children and then be insulted. Say what you want about me, don't bring my children up in your comments.

[silvahalo68]

The people wondering why the authorities didn't protect her or where her parents were or whatever are the same people here who advocate being over-protective. "You" are "them", and "them" is not "everyone"... not by a long shot.

Some time ago, there was a story on the front page about a girl (7, I believe, but maybe 6) who got into a fight with her older brother went for a walk around her apartment complex. She was murdered by a neighbor. Sure enough, people came out of the woodwork wondering why she was allowed out of the house alone at that age. Then mothers actually started showing off their neurotic tendencies like it was some twisted pissing contest. "I don't let my 12 year old son go to the park a block away without supervision, and I live in a good neighborhood." "Oh yeah? Well, I don't let my 8 year old and my 6 year old play in their yard unless my husband or I can go out there with them."

It's natural to be ruled by fear. That's why the government's tactics post 9/11 worked so well. But it's the responsibility of a thinking, rational person to endeavor to rise above that.

I actually think the general public would be questioning where the hell were the authorities on this as they were right in the area. As we know, its human nature to turn on someone to blame, the questions would come up on the authorities first then the wtf, why did mother let her go questions would in sue. And it wouldn't just be the over protective parents either, I'd bet on that.

Yes, I remember that case. I believe she was 7 and her death was brutal, I think strangled and raped. Had it been my kid, I would have let her walk of to get some air but I would have not been far behind. In my opinion a 7 year old is fresh meat for to many motherfuckers out there, and as a mother I'd just have to know she was O.K....that's me, and I make no apologies for that.

"It's natural to be ruled by fear...But it's the responsibility of a thinking, rational person to endeavor to rise above that."
I agree, and that's why I keep my self in check. I don't see it as being over protective or ruled by fear, simply practical and setting the necessary boundaries that children need to thrive. Every one has there own ideas on just how to do that.

[Eagles Mom]

As a parent of a child who managed to make it to the age of 18 I can speak with a little hindsight.

I raised my child to be independent, think for herself and take responsibility for herself and her actions. She's a freshman in college now and called a couple of months ago to thank me for raising her "with enough rope to hang herself while I was there to catch her"

I never once told her Because I'm the mom and I said so. I told her what I thought. If she had reasonable point we would discuss, not argue, and there were times she was right and I was wrong.

Bedtimes? Not once she was old enough to understand that I don't care how late you stay up, your butt is getting up for school. Tired? sucks to be you, go to bed earlier tonight. She learned quickly.

She spent every day all summer at our neighborhood pool from the time she was in 3rd grade. Yes there were moms there for back up, but she knew what the rules were and if she didn't follow them she'd be staying home.

She starting showing dogs and horses in middle school. Before and after that it was swim meets. She was allowed to wander around the sites unattended because we had many friends and everyone kept an eye on all the kids. Besides kids are pack animals, you never see them alone. Of course we had the stranger, puppies and candy talk. Then I tested her by having someone she didn't know offer it to her. Maybe it was mean, but I made my point.

Once in high school we didn't have a curfew. Tell me where, when and who. More often than not she was in earlier than I would have told her to be.

Honestly, part if it is that I'm very lucky and my kid is a good kid. She's done some dumb stuff, but not nearly as bad as some of the kids I know with very strict, overprotective parents. She knows she can come to me with anything. I may tell her she was a dork, but she knows I still love her. and we'll figure it out together if we have to. But first I want her to try on her own.l

She left for college being able to cook her own meals, do her own laundry, balance her checkbook, she'd worked summers since she was 15. She's flown all over the country by herself. She went to the beach for spring break and came back unscathed.

My point in this rather long winded rant is that several of her friends from high school and now college never had to reap the consequences of staying on the phone til 3:00 am and having to get up for class. One kid, as a high school senior, had to turn his phone off at 9:30 and give it to his mommy before he went to bed. You know what? He is having a VERY hard time adjusting to college and being responsible for himself.

People have to learn to make decisions. You have to let them start young with the small stuff and work their way up. They have to fall and figure out how to pick themselves up. You can't throw them out into the real world at 18 and expect them to function and flourish.

[sherrz]

No, it doesn't strike me as lazy. It struck me as "I don't want to go to the store because I am doing other things. However, you are a big girl and can go to the store yourself if you like." You do have the right to disagree with her. However, I think that the animosity, negative assumptions and name calling does not further your cause, especially when it's totally separate from reality and based in the fact that you disagree with her. Disagreeing with you does not make one lazy or stupid. It means they disagree with you. You can disagree with someone without disrespecting them. I think that the presumption that the parent's opinion is less worthy than yours based on nothing but the disagreement, and therefore the parent is clearly inferior, is really what bothers me about your post.

And fear mongering to try to further your opinion does not help things. It would be a tragedy all around if something happened to the little girl. However, the girl is not more likely to be kidnapped because she walked to the store by herself (The stats, are available in Athena's post earlier in this thread.) If she was taught to follow traffic signals and cross at the crosswalk when the signals indicated it was safe to do so, then she had no increased risk of being run over either. She's more likely to be physically abused by her mother's new boyfriend or be kidnapped by a family member, or molested by a close family friend than any risk of something happening to her at the hands of a stranger.

We could play the "what if" game. What if, she tripped falling down a flight of stairs. What if, she chokes on a grape. What if, she slips in the bathtub. What if, a plane falls on her house. What if, she gets attacked by a rabid mongoose. What if, any number of ridiculous and unlikely things happen to this girl. Oh, then someone will be in trouble. Oooooh. And then no excuse will be enough because we should shield our children from every possible danger lest they actually have to learn some life skills.

Our jobs as parents is not to prevent our children from ever being harmed. It's to raise them to become healthy contributing adults in society. If you raise your child in a plastic bubble or a padded prison, they will never learn to be independent. As a parent, you should be deciding what you think is an acceptable level of risk for your children for any situation. The authorities should not be involved in parenting decisions if you are not a douchebag parent. Random people on the street do not know how to raise your child better than you do, unless you are a douchebag parent.

I will reiterate. There is nothing in this article that suggests that the woman was stupid or lazy. It's wrong, imo, to even suggest that she was being a bad parent just because she made a parenting decision that you disagree with concerning her child. Please show me where in this article it says that she is a horrible, neglectful mother and I will gladly accept the correction. However, to me, on the scale of horrific things you can do to your children, allowing them the independence to go to the store by themselves ranks right up there with letting them pick out their own clothing for school.

I really have to disagree with you on everything in this post, because I used to live in the heart of York city and on the east and west ends. These days, this is not the city to let your 7 year old walk to the convienence store by themselves. And in West York, there is no convienence store that is at a crosswalk and/or traffic signaled intersection. Trust me, I just lived in WY for about 5 years. Even though you can find a Turkey Hill on every corner, I would still walk with a child under the age of 12 to the store around here. We're starting to get la eMe in this area, and there's been a lot of violence in the "hood" areas of York.

[Kitty]

People have to learn to make decisions. You have to let them start young with the small stuff and work their way up. They have to fall and figure out how to pick themselves up. You can't throw them out into the real world at 18 and expect them to function and flourish.


Well said!!

[sherrz]

And a little for example. I was 10 years old in 1996. I was visiting my dad in York for his every other weekend visitation. I snuck out with a friend into downtown York, heading into West York. I called my dad from a payphone at the York Fairgrounds to brag that I had gotten this far without him. He told me to get my ass home immediately. That was a long 30 minute walk home.

And as soon as I walked in the door. I got my ass beat. Because the furthest my little brother and I were allowed to go was the intersection of N. George and Philadelphia St. which is pretty much downtown. And we were 10 and 8, respecively at that time.

[Morgana]

When I got home tonight I started to tell my husband about this story everyone's talking about with a 7 year old crossing an intersection...he just stopped me. "Who lets their kid cross the intersection at 7?! That's the problem with people, that's why we have all these messed up latchkey kids....." I laughed for a moment, his opinion sounding strong like everyone else with their opinion. He has grown up in Manhattan all his life and his mom did not allow him to go outside alone or cross streets alone until somewhere between 10-12 years old. You know, he came out well, he is one of the strongest men mentally that I have ever known. We don't live our life based on fear, that is the BIGGEST reason we quit going to our church, fear based religion doesn't seem right to us. Fear and being reasonably cautious are 2 different things. Also, there are laws regarding what people can do in regards to leaving kids alone, etc. they were created or changed because of instances of problems arising. Some people may want to review their state's applicable rules. While I don't agree with the crossing of the intersection in this case, I also don't agree with charging the mom with Endangerment! That is certainly excessive. Then again, I also don't know all the particulars of this case, history, town's problems, etc.

I'm still trying to figure out how just saying you think its not good judgment to let a 7 year old cross intersections at Rush hour is equivalent to living a fear based life, holding your kids back, encouraging cry babies, stunting growth, not preparing them for the real world, etc etc etc !???

[Pixie]

When I got home tonight I started to tell my husband about this story everyone's talking about with a 7 year old crossing an intersection...he just stopped me. "Who lets their kid cross the intersection at 7?! That's the problem with people, that's why we have all these messed up latchkey kids....." I laughed for a moment, his opinion sounding strong like everyone else with their opinion. He has grown up in Manhattan all his life and his mom did not allow him to go outside alone or cross streets alone until somewhere between 10-12 years old. You know, he came out well, he is one of the strongest men mentally that I have ever known. We don't live our life based on fear, that is the BIGGEST reason we quit going to our church, fear based religion doesn't seem right to us. Fear and being reasonably cautious are 2 different things. Also, there are laws regarding what people can do in regards to leaving kids alone, etc. they were created or changed because of instances of problems arising. Some people may want to review their state's applicable rules. While I don't agree with the crossing of the intersection in this case, I also don't agree with charging the mom with Endangerment! That is certainly excessive. Then again, I also don't know all the particulars of this case, history, town's problems, etc.

I'm still trying to figure out how just saying you think its not good judgment to let a 7 year old cross intersections at Rush hour is equivalent to living a fear based life, holding your kids back, encouraging cry babies, stunting growth, not preparing them for the real world, etc etc etc !???


I think that is most people's point. there are varying opinions on it being a good idea or not - but the main point is that this woman was charged with an M1 for a parenting decision.

[Countess Olenska]

Morgana,

I never said I would let my 7yr old cross a busy intersection at rush hour. Not because he isn't capable but because he's small and I could see someone crushing him because they didn't see him. I don't live in a city....I don't know why you are taking this whole thread so personally. You seem to be teaching your children to be people and no one is blasting your parenting style.

This weird tangent we've all taken isn't so much about the kid leaving and going to the store so much as the helicopter parenting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_parent) that has taken over. More about smothering and stifling personal growth and less about teaching self awareness and independence.


It was a tangent.....that's how this conversation came to where it is. It's all connected.

[Kaylara]

Exactly Mama. I think I'm more upset at the idea that the mother would or even should be charged with a crime for this. I know how I will raise my own children once they're here, I've been parenting for 20 years already. I don't think that I should be charged with a crime for making a parenting decision that a police officer doesn't agree with. I will be less able to effectively parent my child from jail, or when I can't get a decent job to feed that child.

[Pixie]

Exactly Mama. I think I'm more upset at the idea that the mother would or even should be charged with a crime for this. I know how I will raise my own children once they're here, I've been parenting for 20 years already. I don't think that I should be charged with a crime for making a parenting decision that a police officer doesn't agree with. I will be less able to effectively parent my child from jail, or when I can't get a decent job to feed that child.

And not be able to volunteer in the child's class or go on field trips because your background check shows child endangerment.

[Athena]

YES I AGREE THERE IS ASSOCIATED RISK WITH EVERYTHING but depending on where you live 7 may not be so appropriate to let a child cross streets, crosswalk or not. Certainly, not crossing the street alone at 7 will not fuck up your future in growth, mentality or otherwise. There ARE other activities you can give children to perform that make them feel independent without taking unnecessary risks.

I agree that the single act of crossing the street is not specifically necessary. But that's not what I was addressing. What I was addressing is the hyper-protective parents who would, not only NEVER let their 7 year old cross a road unattended, but admit to NEVER leaving their children unattended at all. That's detrimental for reasons that have been scientifically verified. Trying to argue with that is like trying to argue with, well, anything else that's been scienficially verified.

What is stunting children is TV, VIDEOS, IPODS, CELL PHONES and VIDEO GAMES--they are doing that just fine at just that-- each on their own!

That's certainly part of it... and, guess what? Kids never allowed outside without a parent get a lot more exposure to those things than kids who don't have to wait for a parent to come available to go play.

My toddler and pre-k know how to cook, know spices and how to turn on and off the stove for christ sakes, they aren't stunted. If you ask my 4 year old about privacy she can define the word to you. She can describe what she will do to a stranger who tries to give her ice-cream, which is totally hilarious but that doesn't mean I should assume she can handle herself or at 7 I will let her cross streets. They don't need to cross streets to feel like they have life in the crosswind. They cross streets, they ride subways, they do it all in the middle of NYC everyday all day, WITH SUPERVISION and they are learning the skills just fine. Ultimately, potential and skills will not protect a child (or adult) alone. This particular case above deals with judgment. Everyone has their own and so does the law.

You're not getting it. The things you described have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the skills that being constantly supervised robs children of, specifically, less creativity and less self control. Executive functions.

...It fosters maturation of the very centers of the brain that allow kids to exert control over attention, to regulate emotions, and to control behavior. This is a very subtle trick that nature plays--it uses something that's NOT goal-directed to create the very mental machinery for BEING goal-directed.

The best way to prepare kids for the future is to let them play on their own--unmonitored, unsupervised, unstructured. Because when adults enter the situation, it changes the way kids play--what they do, what they talk about and how.

Again, as the bolded sentence implies, kids NEED unsupervised play to properly develop. This development of executive functions is not obtained without that, no matter how much supervised cooking a kid does.

Example: 4 women alone have been hit in our crosswalk outside the building, one killed. I know when people turn, they don't like to stop for pedestrians, you have 3 lanes turning into the crosswalk. I look while crossing at who is turning and on occassion, the driver didn't stop or see me, so I stopped. I could of been hit, but my awareness is what saved me. I don't assume they will just stop or that no one will run a light or ever not enter the sidewalk, because this does happen. But my awareness and judgment helps to lesson the possability that I will be a victim in that crosswalk.

This is totally on an individual basis. Obviously, because four grown ass women have been hit there. So, clearly, ones age doesn't necessarily impact the likelihood of being hit. A 7 year old is capable of that exact same judgment, IF they're allowed to develop it to begin with. In fact, the little kids I know are better about crossing roads than most adults.

Actually, bringing up airplanes seems not relevant when I was discussing actual events of child abuse/death. How do you equate lettting your child go on an airplane, it crashes, me blaming the parent--- to letting your 7 year old cross streets not being the best of judgment---big difference! Do you let your child walk the airport alone? Probably not. Further, why would you think I would blame a parent for putting their child on a plane and it crashed? The elements in these two cases are not the same nor based on the same theory. Although I'm sure someone will reply with how their kid does it all the time and they are so advanced! (funny?)

That's just it - letting a capable 7 year old cross a street is not worse judgment than letting them do anything else that might cause them harm. If people are so quick to turn around and blame the parents, they're reactionary and inconsistent. I happen to favor consistency, myself.

That said, little kids fly alone all the time. They're abducted from right under their parents' noses as often as they're abducted out of sight. If a kid has been taught how to avoid risk, I'd let them walk around in an airport unsupervised at the age of 7.

I WAS abducted from a shopping center at 12. I was captive for exactly 30 days until saved by vice (10/19 - 11/17). I was to be sold to Boston and then trafficed out of the country. This was far among other things that I had already experienced in my life. I can't even explain what I went through and what I witnessed. This was the final thing. It can happen.

I'm terribly sorry to hear that, but, what's your point? That 12 year olds should never be unsupervised? That you blame your parents for getting abducted? That you've got an excuse for being totally irrational? Hopefully, D.) None of the above.

Sure, bad things *can* happen, but YOU are the exception to the rule. 99% of kids who go to shopping centers never get abducted. 99% of kids who cross roads don't get hit. It makes no sense to base ones opinion on the rare exception, although I can understand how difficult that might be for someone with such a tragic past. That said, please understand that I am part of that 99% - a kid who was given all sorts of freedom and was only bettered by it.

[Athena]

Say what you want about me, don't bring my children up in your comments.

Will all due respect, Morgana - No one said anything specific about your children. That said, understand that, if YOU choose to use them as an example as you did, they're fair game for discussion.

[Nell]

Every Saturday starting at 11 my mom gave me and my little sister $20 and told us to go to the mall so she could get a break. I am still alive and kicking. :D

[LocalCelebrity]

See, but that attitude there is part of the problem. You don't know her or the child. You think it's too young. She obviously disagreed with that assumption. There's nothing in here that points to the woman being lazy or stupid. She made a parenting decision about *her* child that you disagree with that did not cause her child any harm. If she didn't commit a crime, and didn't actually do anything wrong, then why the name calling/unfounded personal attacks on her? Why the animosity?

A decision about *her* child that was obviously the wrong decision. If it wasn't the wrong decision, none of us would be here discussing it. Opinions are like assholes. Noboby's opinion is going to sway me from being the type of mother I am. My mother was the very protective of me and I grew up to be just fine. I never missed out on anything, I wasnt "sheltered" and didnt "live in a bubble". Ive traveled, I'm educated, responsible, and I live my life to the fullest. I just know that not everyone has good intentions and I'm very aware of my surroundings all of the time. My child is and will be the same way. Someone said that a preditor can strike regardless of a mother being protective or not and while that may be true, the chances of a preditor approaching my child are decreased greatly because I always know exactly where she is. As far as things like crossing the street, yes, my 6 year old can do that succesfully. She can also fix herself a snack, tie her shoes, take a bath, brush her teeth, feed our dog and even wipe her ass! Big pat on the back to me for bringing her this far! Oh wait, no big pat, thats what a parent is supposed to do. Teach children how to function. Just becasue she can do it on her own doesnt mean she should all of the time. I think I could hang up the phone and get off of the couch to take her to the store myself and this LAZY woman should have done the same. :lollypop:

[seductress]

A decision about *her* child that was obviously the wrong decision. If it wasn't the wrong decision, none of us would be here discussing it. Opinions are like assholes. Noboby's opinion is going to sway me from being the type of mother I am. My mother was the very protective of me and I grew up to be just fine. I never missed out on anything, I wasnt "sheltered" and didnt "live in a bubble". Ive traveled, I'm educated, responsible, and I live my life to the fullest. I just know that not everyone has good intentions and I'm very aware of my surroundings all of the time. My child is and will be the same way. Someone said that a preditor can strike regardless of a mother being protective or not and while that may be true, the chances of a preditor approaching my child are decreased greatly because I always know exactly where she is. As far as things like crossing the street, yes, my 6 year old can do that succesfully. She can also fix herself a snack, tie her shoes, take a bath, brush her teeth, feed our dog and even wipe her ass! Big pat on the back to me for bringing her this far! Oh wait, no big pat, thats what a parent is supposed to do. Teach children how to function. Just becasue she can do it on her own doesnt mean she should all of the time. I think I could hang up the phone and get off of the couch to take her to the store myself and this LAZY woman should have done the same. :lollypop:


Out of thanks.

I completey agree. I don't think in anyway it's being over protective to want to be with your kids and they want to be with you. My kids love to go to the park with me and so do their friends. But no way does that phone, computer, TV whatever come before my kids. I think the mother should have gotten off the phone and gone with her daughter.

[Kaylara]

A decision about *her* child that was obviously the wrong decision. If it wasn't the wrong decision, none of us would be here discussing it... If it were *obviously the wrong decision* we wouldn't have had four pages on here discussing whether or not it *was* a wrong decision. The reason we're discussing it at all is because the mother was charged with a crime, and it was an article in a newspaper that the OP thought would be appropriate to post here. The fact that there are this many people on *both* sides of this discussion shows that it is not *obvious* whether it was right or wrong.

As for how you raise your kids and how you were raised, good for you. If you're not harming your kids in some egregious manner, I have no problem with your parenting. However that doesn't mean that people who have a different way of parenting or a differing opinion are automatically wrong when they make a parenting decision. People can have a difference of opinion. That doesn't mean that because you disagree with it, that they're wrong.

[LocalCelebrity]

As for how you raise your kids and how you were raised, good for you. If you're not harming your kids in some egregious manner, I have no problem with your parenting. However that doesn't mean that people who have a different way of parenting or a differing opinion are automatically wrong when they make a parenting decision. People can have a difference of opinion. That doesn't mean that because you disagree with it, that they're wrong.

I didn't ever say that becasue someone's opinion is different than mine that they are automatically wrong. I said this woman's decision was wrong. If there was absolutley nothing wrong with what she did, LE wouldn't have been involved, she wouldn't have been charged, and she wouldn't have ended up in the forums. Thats pretty clear, if there was absolutley NOTHING wrong, it wouldn't even be a discussion. Letting a 7 year old child walk to the store and cross a busy street is just not a good idea. If it were perfectly ok, again, we wouldn't be hearing about it here. It is a decision that could turn out deadly that is preventable. Some things are not preventable, I get that, but, had something happened here becasue this 7 year old was unsupervised, it would have been something preventable by her lazy ass mother. That's what my point is...Shit happens, I know that, but as a parent, it is our #1 priority to try and prevent any harm from occuring to our children. Am I wrong about that?
Letting them experience freedom and all is one thing, but being lazy and a slack ass parent is a horse of a completley different color.

[Athena]

I didn't ever say that becasue someone's opinion is different than mine that they are automatically wrong. I said this woman's decision was wrong. If there was absolutley nothing wrong with what she did, LE wouldn't have been involved, she wouldn't have been charged, and she wouldn't have ended up in the forums.

Oh, come on. You know better than that... don't you? People get inappropriately charged ALL the time. Charges get dropped ALL the time. LE involvement does not automatically signal that something was wrong and, in this case, really only signals that this particular DA's office is over-zealous.

Besides, at the bottom of the tiny, poorly written article that was linked to in the OP, the last paragraph states that the mother in question claims to have told her daughter to wait until someone could do with her. Who do we believe?

[seductress]

Oh, come on. You know better than that... don't you? People get inappropriately charged ALL the time. Charges get dropped ALL the time. LE involvement does not automatically signal that something was wrong and, in this case, really only signals that this particular DA's office is over-zealous.

Besides, at the bottom of the tiny, poorly written article that was linked to in the OP, the last paragraph states that the mother in question claims to have told her daughter to wait until someone could do with her. Who do we believe?

How long does it take to get to that intersection? How long was the child gone and the mother didn't go looking for her? Or did she just simply think the child did go to the store and would be punished when she got home? Did she notice the child was gone?

I don't know that I believe the mother, I personally am leaning towards the police. That's my opinion and it is not FACT. I don't know who is not telling the 100% truth.

The fact that she is charged only simply means she is charged. No one except the DA's office know what their intentions are. Not all DA's go after someone just to get a conviction.

[LocalCelebrity]

How long does it take to get to that intersection? How long was the child gone and the mother didn't go looking for her? Or did she just simply think the child did go to the store and would be punished when she got home? Did she notice the child was gone?

Couldn't have said it better. Mom obviosuly wasnt too concerned.

[Athena]

How long does it take to get to that intersection? How long was the child gone and the mother didn't go looking for her? Or did she just simply think the child did go to the store and would be punished when she got home? Did she notice the child was gone?

I can't find an article addressing any of that.

I don't know that I believe the mother, I personally am leaning towards the police. That's my opinion and it is not FACT. I don't know who is not telling the 100% truth.

You're not really choosing between the mother and the police. The police are basing their statement (presumably) on whatever the child said, and if a 7 year old was told to say home but went anyway, of course she's going to tell cops that her mom gave her permission. Hell, when I was about that age, my mom told me I couldn't go to my friend Paula's after school one day, so I attempted to forge a note so Paula's school bus driver would allow me on. Needless to say, it didn't work... but kids lie about what they're allowed to do ALL the time. :tongue2:

The fact that she is charged only simply means she is charged. No one except the DA's office know what their intentions are. Not all DA's go after someone just to get a conviction.

I have some pretty initimate experience with prosecutors, having worked for a public defense attorney and, while not all of them go after someone just to get a conviction, MOST of them do. The fact that we're never heard of a case like this before, and the fact that nearly everyone agrees that she shouldn't have been charged with anything suggests that this DA is being over-zealous.

[Athena]

Couldn't have said it better. Mom obviosuly wasnt too concerned.

Get back to me when you can answer any ONE of the questions posed by Seductress. Until then, this statement holds very little water.

My mom's family, all 7 brothers and sisters, lived on the east coast. This resulted in a LOT of lengthy phone calls. Had I refused to wait and headed off to a store, I could have been across town before anyone noticed.

The fact that they caught this kid on her way to the store and that the kid felt comfortable enough to walk to begin with insinuates that it couldn't have been very long.

[seductress]

I also have worked with the DA in my county and worked with private practice attorneys and with the Association for the Prevention of Family Violence. In some cases the DA has charged parents with neglect to negotiate a deal to get them into parenting classes or to get the family into therapy. I know some are way over zealous and that maybe the case here, but not in all cases.
And I guess for the charges need to reflect how long the child was gone, if the mother was looking for the child and if there is anything in the mother's past to suggest neglect.

[penelopejo]

Has nothing to do with this story but read and see how over zealous cops can be...even in a god damned good neighborhood.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/lenore-skenazy/a-mom-lets-her-son-walk-to-soccer-and-the-cops-come-calling.html

[penelopejo]

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&tab=wl

An article says mom lives on 100 block of N. Highland Ave., so i googled it. Did a map from 100 N. Highland Ave. to W. Market street....seems like it was only 2 blocks, and you can get those 2 blocks covered quickly. Especially if you are a running child....

[Athena]

Has nothing to do with this story but read and see how over zealous cops can be...even in a god damned good neighborhood.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/lenore-skenazy/a-mom-lets-her-son-walk-to-soccer-and-the-cops-come-calling.html

JESUS. I've never seen that story. That's outrageous!

Mike and I were discussing this thread on our way to the grocery store. I mentioned that I probably had a 3 mile radius at that age and he was like, "Shit, I had the entire Arizona desert. I'd probably ride my bike 20 miles in a day."

And we wonder why kids today are obese.

[seductress]

JESUS. I've never seen that story. That's outrageous!

Mike and I were discussing this thread on our way to the grocery store. I mentioned that I probably had a 3 mile radius at that age and he was like, "Shit, I had the entire Arizona desert. I'd probably ride my bike 20 miles in a day."

And we wonder why kids today are obese.

my kids do not have a 3 mile radius and still are not obese. They go outside, they play, they have friends over. I know my area, I know my kids, I parent my kids in a different way than you do. However you parent is fine they are your kids, however I parent mine is fine, they are my kids. But not one of my kids is obese. Just because I don't let them run all over does not mean they are stuck inside the house all the time. I hate to be inside, we as a family are always outside and the neighborhood kids are often found playing outside in my yard. I do things with them because ALL of us enjoy being together and their friends are welcome and often do come along when we go places.
I asked my 12 year and my 10 year old on the way to school yesterday if they feel they want more freedom, my son asked what for, we do pretty much what we want and my daughters said and you are there to take the pictures and play like a big kid

[sherrz]

Hate Mail from someone on this shit:

http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/showthread.php?p=213062#post213062

[wheresthebeef]

There is no way in hell my 7 year old is walking anywhere by himself. I do know people that let their 5 year olds walk to school by themselves. I just can't do it.