# Open Letter to the man who called police on 2 little girls instead of their parents



## Theseus

Rather heartbreaking article on the Free Range web site here. (Update on the web page). 

_"A couple of weeks ago, on a Sunday at around noon, my family were visiting family friends. Our older child, 6, and theirs, 7, had been playing games on a tablet and getting underfoot all morning, so we sent them outside to get some fresh air. We told them that they could go down to the creek in the woods behind the house, visible from the back windows, where they had been many times before. We made them wear appropriate footwear and packed extra socks and tissues for stuffy noses. We gave them explicit instructions to stay on the near side of the creek. No matter how many times I have reviewed that decision since then, it still always looks like good parenting to me.

Shortly after the girls got to the creek, however, they made another decision—they decided to continue through the woods on a route they knew, walk past the shopping center on the other side, and loop back through another section of woods to the house. They wanted to show that they could do it. This was undoubtedly a poor decision, and it has certainly been made abundantly clear to both of them that this is so. It was not, however, inherently unsafe, or something they were not capable of. It was a poor decision simply because they were disobeying their parents, and creating a situation in which, had anything gone wrong, we would have had no idea where to look for them. Both girls knew where they were going and how to get back, and our daughter’s friend knew her phone number and address. Both girls know how to behave safely around cars. Both girls have even had some self-defense training, if it should come to that. They are competent, responsible little girls, which is why it was so surprising to us that they did what they did—we gave them the freedom they were granted precisely because nothing they had previously done would have lead us to expect this of them, and we trusted them.

They were at the furthest extent of their looping route, less than a thousand feet from the house and twelve minutes after they left us, when they encountered you as they walked through the shopping center, and you stopped and questioned them. They spoke readily to you, because neither of them have been taught that they must not talk to strangers. Strangers are simply people that we don’t know yet, and we refuse to train our children to fear people or shut themselves off from new connections.

I’m sure that you acted in good faith, sir. I can easily guess that you are a product of a culture that has made much of “stranger danger” and become very uncomfortable with the idea of children on their own, not protected from the oft-imagined lurking predator. But I don’t know why you didn’t call us when you were given a phone number that would have reached us immediately. Perhaps you genuinely believed that any parent who would let their children slip away like that was deserving of police scrutiny. Perhaps you have no children, and so imagine that parents can always have perfect control over their young charges, which we clearly didn’t. I very much wish you had just called us—we would have been there in minutes, our children would have been amply horrified by the consequences of their actions, and we would have been duly warned to extend them less trust for a time.

Whatever your reason, you decided that the appropriate thing to do would be to call the police. Did you call 911, I wonder? Did you actually consider two calm, articulate little girls on a walk to be an emergency? I don’t know. Maybe you are just a very firm respecter of authority.

The police came with admirable speed. Somewhat less admirably, they chose to put the girls in the cruiser (with no car seats) rather than, again, resorting to the completely available option of calling their parents to come get them. They brought the girls back to us a total of twenty minutes after they first walked out of the door. They could have just told us what happened and admonished us to keep better tabs on our children. They could have just handed over their official-looking little card about age restrictions (which they incorrectly believed to be law, but which in fact were only county recommendations) and told us not to let it happen again. But you see, when you call the police, this creates pressure on the police to Do Something. So what they did was arrest us—one parent from each family, our choice, with no chance for private conference to decide. They tried to arrest us for felony neglect of a minor, but apparently even the magistrate thought that was ridiculous, so they went for misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor instead. They informed us that we would be reported to the Department of Social Services and probably contacted by Child Protective Services — which we have been.

Now, we have carefully read all of the relevant laws and recommendations since then, and it is clear to us that we have not actually committed any such crime, for the principle reason that our daughters are not delinquent. They are not “in need of services,” they do not habitually run away, they are certainly not neglected, and they harmed no one. We hope and believe, therefore, that when our court date at long last comes up, we will be acquitted of the charge and we sincerely hope that our records will be expunged, because if they are not, you probably realize that having a criminal record of any sort can be very limiting to one’s career and opportunities.

By now, as you have been subpoenaed for the trials of both families, you probably realize a little of what you have wrought. I hope that you are dismayed. Even so, I find it difficult to imagine that you have any idea of the fear, shock, humiliation, and rage that our families have experienced because of all this. I find it difficult to imagine that you know what it’s like to be afraid that your own government will punish you for having done your best to be a good parent. To be arrested for absolutely nothing anyone is even claiming that you did, in the middle of a peaceful afternoon of sewing and childcare. To jump every time the phone rings, every time a car slows down. To forget for a few minutes or an hour, as the days go by, and then suddenly remember with a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach. To have to let a stranger into your house—a stranger with the virtually unchecked power to take your children away from you—so that she can poke around and interrogate your child and decide whether you are fit parents. To see your confident, strong-willed child afraid to play outside or let her little sister do so, because the lesson she has taken from this is to “never go outside.”

There are also more tangible problems—several thousand dollars in lawyer’s fees, for example, which we will not get back even if we are declared wholly guiltless. And if, heaven forbid, a further miscarriage of justice declares two devoted parents to be criminals, then there will be large fines and much, much larger blots on their record and reputation from then on.

Possibly you believe that, while all of this is unfortunate, it is a necessary side effect of a reasonable effort to keep children safe from predators and abusive or neglectful parents. Do you remember when you were a child? Did you ever roam the neighborhood with your friends, or walk home from school, or go to the gas station to buy candy? Maybe you walked to the library from time to time. We did all of those things, and gained skill, independence, and confidence by doing so. No one believed that our parents were neglectful. Perhaps you believe, as many do, that those are bygone days of relative peace and security. If so, you may be interested to know that this is entirely a media-created illusion, a product of the sheer selling power of horror stories and “stranger danger.” Crime rates, against both children and adults, are actually lower now than when we were children. What’s more, the overwhelming majority of missing children are taken by relatives, or run away, or are simply abandoned. Only a tiny fraction of them are kidnapped by strangers.
Our daughters disobeyed us, yes. But did they create an emergency? Were they in imminent danger that required the police? I cannot believe that it is so. By turning to the police for every problem, real or imagined, we waste their time and our money, and we create enormous pressure on them to Prevent Bad Things From Happening and thus to Do Something About It. The consequences of which I hope you now see clearly. By living in fear of the wildly improbable, we deprive our children of the chance to learn and explore and grow up. I hope that next time you see a child in public and don’t see a caretaker right away, you’ll consider just being a good neighbor, maybe asking the child if he or she needs help, maybe waiting by the child until a caretaker can be found if you really, really feel the need.

Maybe you could save another family from the terrible, terrible experience we—and others like us—have had." – D.C. Mom_


----------



## Anon Pink

Sorry Theseus, 

"No matter how many times I have reviewed that decision since then, it still always looks like good parenting to me."

Nope, not good parenting. 6 and 7 year olds are too young to be wandering off the property without adult supervision. As evidenced by their decision to go further and thinking nothing of it. By the age of 10 a child has a better sense of danger and limits, but 6 and 7 is far too young to be given that much unsupervised time that far from supervision.

Calling 911 is exactly what the guy should have done. To have done anything else would have brought both the girls and himself into further areas of danger, unless he had a cell phone on him. Not to mention the wide spread notion that two little girls wandering alone in a shopping area are in need of official assistance, from parents who would not supervise them, or for already frantic parents of children who really walked away from the safety of the property.

Aside from all that, DSS is not in the habit of dealing with otherwise decent parents who just made a mistake. They have their hands full with abusive parents and will be quite happy to close any case they can.


----------



## PBear

I agree with the decision of the stranger to call the police. I do think that the police over-reacted though. But that's not the strangers fault. 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Anon Pink

Yeah, the cops could have started a CPS case without an arrest. From my experience though, when they make an arrest it's a nod to CPS that they think a real investigation should happen.


----------



## Miss Taken

This is a big reason why there are no kids outside anymore. This is also why six and seven year olds are generally not competent enough to cross the street by themselves. 

When I was a kid, playing with a buddy by the creek, walking to the store to buy candy with a friend or sibling at that age was not unheard of. We knew how to look both ways for cars and cross at the light, kids today - my son included almost at the age of ten simply can't be trusted to do so safely.

Because I am forced to bubble-wrap him for fear of social persecution and legal prosecution at age 9, I still cannot trust him to cross a busy street by himself (trusting that he'll look both ways, that he can accurately gauge the distance and speed of cars to determine how much time he has to cross safely) and hence, I still have to walk him to and from school every day. 

He wants more responsibility of walking the *5 minute FFS!!!* route between home and school and I would love to give it to him and thought we'd be there by now but with the school year almost over, still NOPE. He's accustomed to me doing the looking, me knowing the way home, me knowing how far away the cars are and how fast they're going. We are practicing, but with a month to go... 

At age 9, I was also staying home by myself and did not burn the house down. I was also allowed to go anywhere within a five block radius of my home so long as I took the dog with me. I think childhood today sucks. I watch my son play on his tablet and just think... how boring!

I also hate play dates. It sucks for parents. You shouldn't have to set a date with another parent whom you have little in common with except for your ability to produce crotchfruit just so said crotchfruit can socialize together. Seriously, it was awesome being allowed to go outside as a kid and come home for dinner and then go back out and only have to come home when the lights came on so long as chores and homework was done.

I don't have any kind of political pull but I've wanted for some time now to start/have there be a free-range kids or "go outside and play" campaign in my area. I hate this bubble-wrapped age.


----------



## 6301

If I saw two little unattended kids walking around and they were by themselves, my red flag would go up and I would notify the police. 

Now what happens after the cops show up and what they do with the parents, I have no control over but too many times you hear it on the news about "Amber Alerts" this is a serious matter. I would not feel guilty if the parents got read the riot act or got hauled off. It's their kids and they are responsible for them. 

Who knows. What if the guy that found these kids wandering around was a pedophile? It happens too many times and parents have to be aware of where their kids are. 

If I stopped at the gas station and got gas, before I went in to pay for it, I got my daughter out of the truck and she went with me, no exceptions. Better she with me than some guy grabbing a child alone. It's called common sense.


----------



## Maricha75

I do not trust my (almost) 6 year old and my 7 year old to go past our street. I live in an apartment community...well, the apartments are really duplexes, and 5 buildings per street (so 10 apartments per street). My 13 year old rarely goes to another street alone, mostly because of safety. That said, the kids play outside often, no playdates needed. In fact, I have never made a playdate with anyone. The only time we ever really had trouble was when former neighbors lived next door. The kids were horrible. And the mom attributed their bad behavior to "kids being kids"... No, they were terrors, and mom egged them on.

Anyway, for the kids to walk that far past the designated area? No. I would have done the same as the man did...call the police. The initial boundary set for the kids, however, I don't feel was bad. Hopefully, the kids learned a lesson.... and I hope when it is all said and done, the parents are set straight about safety precautions, including keeping track of the kids.


----------



## Pamvhv

I wouldn't trust two young kids to walk past all this stuff either. If they can see the creek from the window how were the girls gone 12 minutes with no one noticing?


----------



## MSP

Wow. Reading many of the posts so far, I am so glad I do not live in a place that runs on fear and such a deference to authority at the detriment of family independence. Yikes!


----------



## Lon

I don't think calling the police was a bad decision at all, under the assumption that police are competent and reasonable enough to assess the situation and act accordingly. Better to be safe than sorry and all that.

However, the escalating totalitarianism that is going on, and being championed by "law enforcement" in your country and mine too, along with the rest of Western Civilization is extremely concerning to me.

when I was 6 years old I knew all the other 6 year olds in my community, and most of their parents, whom also knew my parents. And we would be out riding our bikes (which just had the training wheels removed) km's away from the house. When something went wrong (injury) we would go to the nearest kid's house and seek help. We knew enough (because we actually had a chance to experience life lessons in an age-appropriate timeline) to not get lost, to know what time we had to be somewhere and when we needed to seek help from an adult. And the adults in our community were genuinely willing and happy to help us when we needed and asked for us.

We were never forced to be independent, but we were given freedom and the chance to appreciate the freedom we had.

The only reason I can't afford my son that freedom is in the name of everyone else's safety. Because adults don't know how to act when they see kids being kids, for assuming the worst, and from keeping their own kids from being able to experience a taste of freedom and learn to appreciate it, and understand rules and boundaries. It is frankly ridiculous and I seriously want to find some small community away from "civilization) that gets it, but these small isolated pockets of sanity seem to be disappearing.


----------



## Miss Taken

MSP said:


> Wow. Some of these responses make me incredibly relieved not to live in the USA.


The problem is in Canada too. As frustrated as I am with our bubble-wrapped society, I too am just as worried about my kids' safety as those who are not frustrated with it.

However, the reasons why I don't trust my children (well, my oldest - the youngest is under 2 so doesn't apply) to play alone, walk across a street (with lights, not talking about my quiet residential street) is not because of the boogeyman or pedophiles. I know they exist and bad stuff does occasionally happen at the hands of evil people. I don't think that the statistics justify how afraid we've become however. I do not think it justifies not giving children some independence, autonomy and freedom outside. I don't think it justifies not being able to say, "go outside and play." Even when I wanted to say, "go outside and play" there was nobody... not one kid out there for him to play with. I live close to an elementary school, there are tons of kids on my street/block. Today, kids aren't allowed out until they are ten... if that, it's usually thirteen.

_Also, as much as I enjoy playing with my kids - I am not a 2, 3, 4 - 10 year old anymore. Kids need kids to play with and I know my mom played with us girls but not as much that I have to play with my boys._

My worry stems from their lack of competence which is in large part of me being forced to follow suit and bubble-wrap them. Had they had my childhood freedoms, I know they would be different. I know they could be trusted to ride the bike around the block or go to the store and buy candy and walk to school alone. 

Luckily, things are a little bit better. Two other families with kids my son's age moved onto our street and another mom just started letting her son play outside by himself so they do play in each other's yards sometimes but that's only within the last year and certainly wasn't an option for the eight years we lived here prior. Before they came/my son grew older, I did have to go to those sh!tty play dates and put him in different supervised activities/clubs so he could make friends. Call me a bad mom/person but I felt like it was a chore and wished things were freer like my childhood than they are now. 

As for the guy that called the cops - I can't fault him for it. However, if it was me, and I was provided with a phone number, I would have called the phone number first. I also think the cops could have and SHOULD HAVE used their discretion to call the parents or drive to the parents' house, have a quick discussion about where they were and safety and that should have been that.


----------



## Cooper

How different this "letter" could have been. 

""Our young children wondered away when we turned our backs for 20 MINUTES and ended up at a shopping center, now they are gone and we are heart broken. Many people reported seeing the young children walking alone, only one man stopped them and asked if they were all right, they said they were OK so he left them alone, now they are gone. Somebody should have helped""

Sorry DC mom, kids are too young, gone for too long and gone too far from home.


----------



## happy as a clam

Never mind the shopping center, I think sending a 6 and 7 year old to play by a creek, unsupervised, is a poor choice. How deep is the creek? Slipping and drowning is a very real possibility.

I agree that the cops overreacted, but two little girls can get snatched in an instant from a shopping center parking lot.

It's a different world we live in now... very unlike when I was growing up and no one would have a thought a thing of it.


----------



## Lon

Cooper said:


> How different this "letter" could have been.
> 
> ""Our young children wondered away when we turned our backs for 20 MINUTES and ended up at a shopping center, now they are gone and we are heart broken. Many people reported seeing the young children walking alone, only one man stopped them and asked if they were all right, they said they were OK so he left them alone, now they are gone. Somebody should have helped""
> 
> Sorry DC mom, kids are too young, gone for too long and gone too far from home.


fear and paranoia. So at what point do you give them a longer leash? Or do you just wait until they are 14 and take them off the leash entirely and let them have to learn it all at once? Survival of the fittest?

I think 6 and 7 years old is entirely appropriate to start giving them a little slack and have opportunities to develop their own independence.

Not letting the kids out of your sight because 6 is too young, is no different than not letting them out of your sight because 10 is too young, or 15 or whatever arbitrary age you determine.


----------



## PBear

Lon said:


> fear and paranoia. So at what point do you give them a longer leash? Or do you just wait until they are 14 and take them off the leash entirely and let them have to learn it all at once? Survival of the fittest?
> 
> I think 6 and 7 years old is entirely appropriate to start giving them a little slack and have opportunities to develop their own independence.
> 
> Not letting the kids out of your sight because 6 is too young, is no different than not letting them out of your sight because 10 is too young, or 15 or whatever arbitrary age you determine.


So as soon as they can crawl, we should be able to drop them off unsupervised at a playground? Man, I wasted so many hours of my life watching my kids!

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GTdad

Yet another reason I'm so glad to be living in the country. One of my daughters could drive a stick-shift at age 10. In general, the kids can roam for miles and the folks around here will simply say "well, there's the GT kids. Hope they stay the hell out of my pond."




Miss Taken said:


> crotchfruit


:lol:


----------



## Lon

PBear said:


> So as soon as they can crawl, we should be able to drop them off unsupervised at a playground? Man, I wasted so many hours of my life watching my kids!
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


you know that is not what I said at all.

Obviously toddlers have more immediate needs that require an adults constant presence. But by the time they are 4 or 5 they are starting to gain more independence. Have bladder control, can talk and listen and communicate. It is our job as parents to develop that, and by constantly hovering until they are 10 or 11 years old is not only denying them opportunities for growth but is actually inhibiting it.

So instead of allowing them some slack at 5 or 6, we hover... then all the lessons they could have learned about independence are missed, now when they are 8 years old they don't have a framework for what is acceptable, they have all this ability but nobody including them has ever learned to trust in that ability.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to equip our children with the knowledge and abilities when society shames us into feeling guilty or wrong for doing so. And we will continue to see problems in our youth escalate because they have never had the guidance or maturity to handle their responsibilities by the time they are expected to.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

Many kids are left home alone inappropriately and nobody can notice. So the laws against neglect are of course skewed against those who let their kids play outdoors. 

Age 6 or 7 I would not let alone outdoors because of obvious reasons: ground wasps, rabid fox, bear, coyotes, the mentally ill and the obvious risk of people who like to meddle. 

At least if you're going to give kids this freedom invest in a walkie talkie and stay in touch with them so you can guide their decisions.

It sounds like everyone learned something, not just the kids.
It might have been an okay decision for the parents but with bad outcomes. So you have to reweigh with the new information what is the best decision in the future?

Of course I think you should get Google Glass and monitor your kids that way...hahahaha.

We live in a police state, you really expect you can allow two nice adoptable/ideal foster kids out by themselves without someone taking the bait?

Also, if someone saw them but did not report it, and they later came to harm, then they could be charged with neglect/failure to report or worse aiding and abetting (see notes above about police state.) 

You really put bystanders in a bad situation. I guess they could have called you, but unless they actually knew you, maybe they would be dealing with someone who is prostituting or selling drugs or doping up while their kids are out and about free as birds? Just because the kids were calm and collected means squat about the parents. In fact, calm and collected kids out and about at that age usually means they have risen to the occasion of need, and have developed street smarts, etc.

There are a lot of viewpoints here that aren't considered.
I think the #1 adjustment you need to make is to realize that first, no matter what you think, your neighborhood (and everyone's neighborhood) is not an okay place for kids to go unattended, regardless of gender, and #2 we live in a police state (this applies to people who fail to report as well.) When you understand and internalize this your decision will be different.


----------



## Lon

HNU... I can't follow what you are trying to say... So you think kids should never be unattended until they are adults, that we should embrace the police state? Or are you being sarcastic?

My child is 7, and as much as I want him the opportunities to exercise his freedom and gain some independence, those opportunities just aren't there for him because he is an only child and we are so detached from all the other families in my "neighborhood" (if that is what you call this completely isolated and compartmentalized household society) that there is no natural outlet available, and it is extremely frustrating to me.

I am not going to send him out alone, he needs a buddy to keep an eye on each others backs. Nor does he even want to go outside - he is perfectly happy staying in and playing minecraft all day (if I let him). Instead I gather him up, take him to the playground, we have a little fun by ourselves but there is rarely ever anyone else around. If there are the kids play together for a few minutes but they are never seen again after that. His schoolmates are all so busy with their extra-curricular activites (soccer, hockey, football, music, etc) that he has no friends outside of school hours. When he was younger, being outside and doing all this brought him vitality, but it seems as if the natural outlet has been cut off due to overprotective social measures.

Life was not like this for me at 7, I was out exploring and finding other kids my age that were also exploring, and some of those kids have become lifelong friends (even though not many are close). I would love and encourage it if he took an initiative like I and all my friends seemed to have at that age, but that was taken away, never instilled, because it was "unsafe due to pedophiles". (in actuality it is unsafe because us adults have all chosen to completely isolate ourselves from each other and are teaching that to our kids)


----------



## PBear

Lon said:


> you know that is not what I said at all.
> 
> Obviously toddlers have more immediate needs that require an adults constant presence. But by the time they are 4 or 5 they are starting to gain more independence. Have bladder control, can talk and listen and communicate. It is our job as parents to develop that, and by constantly hovering until they are 10 or 11 years old is not only denying them opportunities for growth but is actually inhibiting it.
> 
> So instead of allowing them some slack at 5 or 6, we hover... then all the lessons they could have learned about independence are missed, now when they are 8 years old they don't have a framework for what is acceptable, they have all this ability but nobody including them has ever learned to trust in that ability.
> 
> It is becoming increasingly difficult to equip our children with the knowledge and abilities when society shames us into feeling guilty or wrong for doing so. And we will continue to see problems in our youth escalate because they have never had the guidance or maturity to handle their responsibilities by the time they are expected to.


No, I know that's not what you intended, even if it's what you said. But the point is that the kids were NOT in an area that was really safe for them, in my humble opinion. If I was a guy who found two young kids, I'm not sure that I'd call the cops as my first course of action, but I can't blame someone for doing that. I likely would have called the number the kids gave me. But we're only hearing the parent's side of the story. Maybe the person tried to call the kids' home number, and the parents were at apparently visiting. Maybe the kids didn't remember their parent's cell number correctly. Who knows, based on the limited information they had. But I think erring on the side of caution is better than watching the news that night and seeing the faces of the two kids you saw wandering around a mall parking lot with no parents, and feeling like crap for the rest of your life...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Lon

PBear said:


> ...But I think erring on the side of caution is better than watching the news that night and seeing the faces of the two kids you saw wandering around a mall parking lot with no parents, and feeling like crap for the rest of your life...
> 
> C


I too think it is better to "err" on the side of caution, but then it needs to be acknowledged that we "erred" whilst arriving at our decision.

The police charging the parents with whatever allegations may have a chance of sticking, in court, is not really acknowledging that they were called in as a matter of erring on the side of safety. It causes mistrust in the police and is damaging our responsibility as a community to help children grow into responsible young adults.


----------



## Cooper

Lon said:


> fear and paranoia. So at what point do you give them a longer leash? Or do you just wait until they are 14 and take them off the leash entirely and let them have to learn it all at once? Survival of the fittest?
> 
> I think 6 and 7 years old is entirely appropriate to start giving them a little slack and have opportunities to develop their own independence.
> 
> Not letting the kids out of your sight because 6 is too young, is no different than not letting them out of your sight because 10 is too young, or 15 or whatever arbitrary age you determine.


Lon I am a firm believer in letting kids be kids, my kids grew up getting their own cuts and bruises, and learning to be resourceful. BUT..different situations call for different parenting philosophies. If you send your 6 year old out to get the mail you say be careful and look for cars, but you're not going to send that same kid across a 6 lane highway without holding their hand, at least I wouldn't.

Have you ever been to DC? It's beautiful around the capitol and other tourist areas but branch out a bit further and it's a cess pool, no place for young kids to be left alone. 

Bottom line is the parents lost track of the kids, the instructions were to go no further than the creek, all they parents needed to do was keep glancing up and checking on the kids. The kids were gone for 20 minutes and the parents still didn't pay attention until the police showed up, bad job folks. I think the good samaritan did the right thing by calling the police, but I do think the police over reacted, but sense I don't know any of the family history I hope the police did what they felt necessary.


----------



## ScarletBegonias

There really is no pleasing anyone. Either they complain that no one stepped in to protect children or they complain that someone overreacted and stepped in to protect children.


----------



## PBear

Lon said:


> I too think it is better to "err" on the side of caution, but then it needs to be acknowledged that we "erred" whilst arriving at our decision.
> 
> The police charging the parents with whatever allegations may have a chance of sticking, in court, is not really acknowledging that they were called in as a matter of erring on the side of safety. It causes mistrust in the police and is damaging our responsibility as a community to help children grow into responsible young adults.


As I said in my first post... I agree with the guy calling the cops. I do think the cops overreacted. But even then, we're only hearing the parent's side of the story. I doubt that it's a complete and true version, to be quite honest.

C


----------



## wilderness

Anon Pink said:


> Sorry Theseus,
> 
> "No matter how many times I have reviewed that decision since then, it still always looks like good parenting to me."
> 
> Nope, not good parenting. 6 and 7 year olds are too young to be wandering off the property without adult supervision. As evidenced by their decision to go further and thinking nothing of it. By the age of 10 a child has a better sense of danger and limits, but 6 and 7 is far too young to be given that much unsupervised time that far from supervision.
> 
> Calling 911 is exactly what the guy should have done. To have done anything else would have brought both the girls and himself into further areas of danger, unless he had a cell phone on him. Not to mention the wide spread notion that two little girls wandering alone in a shopping area are in need of official assistance, from parents who would not supervise them, or for already frantic parents of children who really walked away from the safety of the property.
> 
> Aside from all that, DSS is not in the habit of dealing with otherwise decent parents who just made a mistake. They have their hands full with abusive parents and will be quite happy to close any case they can.


This post is incorrect. You did nothing wrong. It was a horrible decision for those people to call 911. DSS most certainly IS in the habit of kidnapping children, so watch out for them. It never ceases to amaze me when people believe that DSS are a just organization. All of the evidence demonstrates otherwise.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Open Letter to the man who called police on 2 little girls instead of their p*



ScarletBegonias said:


> There really is no pleasing anyone. Either they complain that no one stepped in to protect children or they complain that someone overreacted and stepped in to protect children.


I think the parents are annoyed because they were denied the opportunity to teach the lesson to their kids themselves from this experience, and the police actively worked against them in doing so. It is wrong to blame the neighbor for speaking up when he sensed the kids may have been in trouble, but if it were me my wrath would be with the local police for trumping up the charges and interfering with my ability to parent my kids. And I would hope that atleast one of my neighbors would side with me on the matter.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

I think there is a happy medium here. At 6-7 I let my daughter ride her bike down the sidewalk (I lived on a dead end street) out of my view many times. I would look out the window to see her going by and kept tabs on her as I went about cleaning, gardening, etc. She knew she had to ask if she wanted to walk across the field to see if some friends wanted to play. The only time she was reprimanded was when she went down the parallel street to the end to walk another little girl home whom she had just met. This was not where she said she would be and past the first few houses became very hidden from view.

6-7 is fine to play in a shallow creek IMO. I did it all of the time as a kid at that age. Now when they wandered to a shopping center feeling very self-confident, it was good for a stranger to call the police OR ask the girls where they lived and walk them home and tell the parents where they had been. But the police should only have taken them home and spoken with the parents. They would have found out the children were way beyond their normally allowed area of play and the police could have helped scold the kids to reinforce they have to listen to their parents.

At 10ish, I think going to a small strip shopping center or convenience store is fine if they know their home number and it's relatively close and they've walked there with parents before. My daughter has always been very independent compared to other kids. Whether it was tying her own shoes or confidently heading off down the sidewalk by herself. Kids don't come from cookie cutters.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

Lon said:


> HNU... I can't follow what you are trying to say... So you think kids should never be unattended until they are adults, that we should embrace the police state? Or are you being sarcastic?
> 
> My child is 7, and as much as I want him the opportunities to exercise his freedom and gain some independence, those opportunities just aren't there for him because he is an only child and we are so detached from all the other families in my "neighborhood" (if that is what you call this completely isolated and compartmentalized household society) that there is no natural outlet available, and it is extremely frustrating to me.
> 
> I am not going to send him out alone, he needs a buddy to keep an eye on each others backs. Nor does he even want to go outside - he is perfectly happy staying in and playing minecraft all day (if I let him). Instead I gather him up, take him to the playground, we have a little fun by ourselves but there is rarely ever anyone else around. If there are the kids play together for a few minutes but they are never seen again after that. His schoolmates are all so busy with their extra-curricular activites (soccer, hockey, football, music, etc) that he has no friends outside of school hours. When he was younger, being outside and doing all this brought him vitality, but it seems as if the natural outlet has been cut off due to overprotective social measures.
> 
> Life was not like this for me at 7, I was out exploring and finding other kids my age that were also exploring, and some of those kids have become lifelong friends (even though not many are close). I would love and encourage it if he took an initiative like I and all my friends seemed to have at that age, but that was taken away, never instilled, because it was "unsafe due to pedophiles". (in actuality it is unsafe because us adults have all chosen to completely isolate ourselves from each other and are teaching that to our kids)


Canada and Iceland are a bit different than the US, as well as other places on the other end of the spectrum, i.e. Mongolia, India, etc. 

In our country, US, people have a duty to report if they see kids who may be neglected. In some places it is a crime not to intervene. Sadly, too often when kids are out alone like that, it's because the parents are incompetent, and often for criminal reasons, so that calling parents if you don't know them, could lead to yet more trouble, i.e. turning kids over to incompetent parents. 

You can't and shouldn't think that your neighborhood is free of crime. There is no such place any more.

The decision to let a child or a set or group of children out unattended is constrained in some cases by local or state laws, by the competency of the child, by the natural hazards to be expected, and by known hazards. 

In the case of kids on the spectrum, it's even more difficult. I left my 13 year old home alone for 2 hours and even though we have neighbors nearby for big emergencies, he was uninformed enough about risks and how scammers/thieves operate that he opened the door to an older, unknown teen who knocked wanting toilet paper, then left the door open while he went to the washroom to get it for the kid. We explained to him why we have a rule about not opening the door, and his 10 year old sister informed him as well about what could have happened to him, and to valuables in the home (few, but still.) He learned his lesson. However even when I was much younger I knew not to fall for something like that. 

In our state we have had home invasions by teens whose sole desire was to terrorize, maim and kill, and they did. The trial was gruesome because of the details and the reality coming through that this was their intent, not even drug money, just killing and terrorizing, for sport.

My kids go to and from school together, there are many eyes on them. They are informed of the hazards sometimes in greater detail than I would like to use, but they are also left alone and unattended when they visit their dad, sometimes he even goes out in the middle of the night kayaking or running and leaves them in their beds sleeping. He is an idiot, so I have taught my kids evasive tactics. However even with my son, he was caught by a scammer, why the kid didn't do anything or steal anything I don't know. Maybe he didn't see anything worthwhile. We found the toilet paper strewn around the neighborhood :rofl: But it was a close call, obviously this teen did not want TP.


----------



## Homemaker_Numero_Uno

There's also the possibility that the person that called 911 was not really a clear thinker. If you let your kids out into the world, you have to equip them to deal with these kinds of people. 

Kids who are truly street smart and well-equipped to deal with society would have knew to RUN and HIDE and use EVASIVE MANEUVERS the very minute they heard someone say they were going to call the police (or their parents.)

As for not teaching your kids not to talk to strangers...whhhhhhhhaaaaat? And you should also teach them where the conversational boundaries are with people that they know and should be able to trust, but shouldn't anyhow. If you worked in mental health or understood the prevalence of mental illness, you'd get this. Even other kids/teens are not safe. 

Strangers are just people we haven't met yet. OK, well maybe there are some people you're rather not meet, ever.

I've had to tell my kids not to rely on the neighbor for anything, she has a mental illness, in fact they are taught to look out for her, in case she becomes a hazard to herself. Just the way it is.

I think a rule of thumb for letting kids out of your sight for any length of time in public place is when they understand about rape and abduction, with details, and various methods used, along with practice (announced and unannounced) to see if they do/don't do what has been taught to them in these circumstances.


----------



## Anon Pink

wilderness said:


> This post is incorrect. You did nothing wrong. It was a horrible decision for those people to call 911. DSS most certainly IS in the habit of kidnapping children, so watch out for them. It never ceases to amaze me when people believe that DSS are a just organization. All of the evidence demonstrates otherwise.


Wilderness!!!! I almost missed you! :rofl:

I worked with (not for) DSS, and with kids in foster care, and have called DSS to report neighbors in our old neighborhood. They don't waste their time with parents who made a bad call. They do insist parents protect their kids and in today's environment, that means appropriate supervision. Two little kids, in this woods, near a water hazard, walked away. It could have ended much much worse than a simple service plan for the parents.

No go back to fasting and praying.


----------



## Anon Pink

And let's not forget the "self defense" this children had been taught. Yeah, that worked out well didn't it?


----------



## Miss Taken

Kids are not as stupid as we make them out to be. I do think that it is potentially dangerous to shelter kids most of their childhood until they reach a “magical age” and then throwing them to the hounds so to speak – (in situations they’ve never been exposed to) and expecting them to handle it smartly. i.e.) having walked my son to school his whole life and realizing how he doesn’t pay attention when crossing the street, because he’s never had to was a mild example. 

Most adults reading this thread, were allowed to do far more than we allow our kids to do and somehow we we made it. BRAVO for us. We must have been lucky to not have been kidnapped because child-killers and pedophiles surely outnumber the amount of good people in this world... and I can’t wrap my head around the fact that I didn’t drown because the creek I played by had waves the size of typhoons that would swallow kids whole everyday... or not. 

It wasn’t always like this... I know even the nineties was still a reasonable, not as fear-entrenched era compared to today. It certainly isn’t like this everywhere. Outside of North America, kids on other continents are given ample freedom - hell even responsibility that ours are not. Now I’m not saying that kids as young as five or six should have to walk five miles to a stream to collect water every day like some tribal Zambian kids may have to. And yes, even I feel sorry for a little kid that has to live like that. 

That being said, the fact that a kid that young is capable of walking there and back, carrying a heavy load, navigating rough terrain and avoiding or defending against wild animals DOES NOT escape me. Especially when ours can't even manage to play outside unsupervised for twenty minutes on our manicured lawns in our gated, wild-life sterilized communities.... 

If you can’t relate to the Zambian kids example, you can even just look at a lot of places in Europe where kids are still allowed to play outside by themselves. Heck, babies are left in their strollers to nap outside of cafes and restaurants right downtown in busy cities, some areas of Europe. 








What do you think would happen to me if I left my 19 Month old outside of Tim Horton’s for two minutes (not that I would because I know what would happen to me)... That’s what I and others are saying. I’m not saying that we should drop our kids off at the park alone once they can crawl. I’m not saying that we should not play with our kids and I’m not saying that playing with your kids is a waste of time. 

I AM saying that there is no logical basis behind why we are the way we are today. It is based in fear, or societal/cultural pressure and it’s not natural. We are animals, we all need a little leg-room, freedom and independence and that includes kids. Although bad things can and do sometimes happen; they mostly never do. We’ve all heard that kids are more likely to be raped/molested/murdered by their own family members, youth counselor, pastor or a friend of the family than stranger John Doe. The boogeyman doesn’t look like the boogeyman; he looks like Dad, Uncle Rob, Aunt Jill or Pastor Thomas. Add to that kids can also be taught street safety tips and rules such as the buddy system that will increase their already excellent statistical odds of never being victimized by a stranger.


----------



## Anon Pink

I was molested at age 8 riding my bike around a play ground. I was molested again at age 11 at the movie theater, both times there was no adult present, both times in the day time.

You want to take that chance with your kids? It makes other adults the hostage parent. It means that when unattended children misbehave, as all children do, the adult who is present is morally obligated to step in and keep the child safe. It also means the unattended children could easily make things worse.

Walking home from the park with a big group of friends one day, we decided to hang on some drooping power lines. Until some man pulled over and yelled at us like crazy. We had no idea the danger we put ourselves in.

Kids do stupid stuff and it the adults responsibility NOT to burden them with death defying odds as we hope and pray they "make it out okay."


----------



## Happyfamily

Err on the side of the pleasure one gets from having the jack boots on the neck of your neighbor, I always say. 

What we learned from the post-WWII totalitarian police states was how readily everyone turned in their neighbors for "crimes" like keeping an egg or stating their opinion on something. It wasn't that the police state was so extensively manned and financed. It's that having a police state allows people to free their inner sadist to unleash on others. Always to such noble purposes of course.

The Milgram experiment here in the USA was really no different. It proved people are only too eager to deliver a lethal amount of electric shock to a screaming subject, so long as someone in authority tells them it's OK. 

Subsequent experiments proved remarkable consistency in that the great majority - like 65% - were willing to _kill _ people for the "benefit" of a stupid social psychology experiment. God knows how high that proportion is when something serious like the "safety of children" is at issue. 

All we have to do is manufacture an excuse and hey, no problem: destroy families, incarcerate people, even kill them. Yippie!


----------



## Theseus

Anon Pink said:


> Calling 911 is exactly what the guy should have done. To have done anything else would have brought both the girls and himself into further areas of danger,


I disagree with you 100%. It's not like these kids were wandering around in the middle of the night, starving, or begging on the streetcorner. 

The children were in no danger, so calling the police immediately escalated the situation far beyond where it needed to be. The man could easily have done two other things much less drastic. He could have simply *called the parents* or he could have walked them home. They were only a few minutes away, for crying out loud!


----------



## greenfern

I agree with posters that say the adult who saw the kids should have intervened, but not with a 911 or police call. If it was me I probably would have talked to the girls and got their phone # and called the parents myself.

My kids (7 & 9) have recently been allowed to venture out, to walk to the grocery store nearby, with a list, and do a bit of shopping. They love it and I love that they are getting more independence. This story is a really good reminder that I need to talk to them about what happens if a stranger talks to them or asks what they are doing/where their parents are. 

Now I'm a little confused though. What is the correct instruction to give to a child you have given permission to, say, go to the store, and a stranger stops them like what happened in OP story.


----------



## Theseus

Anon Pink said:


> I was molested at age 8 riding my bike around a play ground. I was molested again at age 11 at the movie theater, both times there was no adult present, both times in the day time.
> 
> You want to take that chance with your kids?


Anon, I'm sorry for what happened to you but I think you are forgetting that most children who are molested, are molested by *ADULTS*, so there's obviously an adult around. So I don't think that's the best basis to start from.


----------



## greenfern

I should also add that unless the girls looked lost or distressed or confused I probably wouldn't stop them. 

Anon Pink, the fact that you were molested at age 8 & 11, with no parents around, is terrible. But I don't think that is a good reason to not let an 11 year old go to the store or park in the daytime. Can I ask, was it a stranger in both cases? I don't want to minimize your experience but what kind of molestation was it? Was it reported? 

The police come to the schools here and talk to the kids about this kind of thing, but they re-iterate what other posters have said, that molestation is almost always at the hands of someone you know and it could even occur in your house with your parents around. To happen in a public place, in the daytime, is highly unusual.


----------



## Theseus

Miss Taken said:


> This is a big reason why there are no kids outside anymore. This is also why six and seven year olds are generally not competent enough to cross the street by themselves.


Amen! This is also one reason why kids are so much more obese these days. They can't go outside without a parent, so they spend all their time inside playing video games instead. When I was a kid from 8-12 years old, I would ride my bike everywhere. It frustrates me to no end when parents only let their kids play in the yard or driveway and only when the parent is sitting outside too. 

My family lived in Germany for many years, and it was no problem for my children to walk home from school. But now in the USA, not only do kids seldom do that, but some schools won't even allow it!

Yes, kids can be kidnapped or molested or whatever. But they are actually far more likely to be kidnapped or molested by a close family member than a stranger. Statistically, they are also FAR more likely to die in a car accident on the way to school than they are from walking to school.


----------



## Anon Pink

Theseus said:


> Anon, I'm sorry for what happened to you but I think you are forgetting that most children who are molested, are molested by *ADULTS*, so there's obviously an adult around. So I don't think that's the best basis to start from.


LOL, well you can't argue with that logic.


----------



## Lon

Anon Pink said:


> I was molested at age 8 riding my bike around a play ground. I was molested again at age 11 at the movie theater, both times there was no adult present, both times in the day time.


I am truly sorry you experienced that, sadly many kids, even up to 13, 14 years old and beyond experience sexual abuse.

But just because it happened to you is no guarantee that it will happen to any/every unsupervised child. Lots of things carry risk in the world, but we do them because the reward, on the whole makes it worth it. We take risks every day, and as parents we often have to weigh those risks for the long term benefit of our children.

The reason you were molested wasn't because of a miscalculation by your parents, it wasn't because you were too young to have any culpability for your own actions as a child, it is because some sicko decided to completely break the rules of society for whatever selfish disgusting whim he chose.

And as much as you would prefer to still have the bubble wrap on you and everyone you love... some of us want the liberty and freedom of independence, and want to instill that in our kids. We are not sending them into the fire, we are encouraging them to progressively understand how fire works so that they may respect it and eventually build and extinguish their own fires as they choose.

Yes there are real threats out there, but I refuse to give them all the power by yielding to their wrongness. And in the case of this article, the only threat that showed itself that day was from the police - kids took an uncalculated risk, and it could have went badly but it didn't because statistics is highly in their favour - most people are good and well-meaning so that even if the 1 in 10,000 random pedophile happened to be near that day, no harm would have come to the kids because caring adults were watching over them, as a community is supposed to do, and always has. The difference is now everyone is so rooted in fear that they irrationally expect the worse.


----------



## Miss Taken

Anon Pink said:


> I was molested at age 8 riding my bike around a play ground. I was molested again at age 11 at the movie theater, both times there was no adult present, both times in the day time.
> 
> You want to take that chance with your kids? It makes other adults the hostage parent. It means that when unattended children misbehave, as all children do, the adult who is present is morally obligated to step in and keep the child safe. It also means the unattended children could easily make things worse.
> 
> Walking home from the park with a big group of friends one day, we decided to hang on some drooping power lines. Until some man pulled over and yelled at us like crazy. We had no idea the danger we put ourselves in.
> 
> Kids do stupid stuff and it the adults responsibility NOT to burden them with death defying odds as we hope and pray they "make it out okay."


Anon, I really like you and you may know from one of your threads, that I share a history of molestation too. However, my molester was my STEP FATHER. He was a Naval officer and a volunteer pastor at our church, still my sister and I were much safer playing out on the street than we were in my own home (so long as my mother was married to him). 

To me, the fact that a kid can be molested (most are not) by a strange adult still isn't a reason not to let kids hang out outside anymore than my having been molested by my step-father is any reason why adults with children shouldn't get remarried.

As for the power lines, that WAS stupid but yeah, kids do, do stupid stuff whether it be as kids or during a wild phase during college. I'm guessing that none of you died that day and that none of you ever repeated that stunt again. I also noted that there was an adult around - who I'm guessing wasn't a molester who cared enough to yell some sense into you and your friends to quit it. 

In addition to a lack of outdoor play and adventure - what you had there in your example was a sense of community - also lacking in most neighborhoods today... the whole it takes a village idea, I just don't see what's so bad about that.


----------



## Happyfamily

Over 80% of child molestation victims are either assaulted by someone they know or a family member. Like me. Also age 8.


Under the perverse police-state mentality then (where we use spurious reasoning), neglect would be having a child with an adult family member or someone they know. Much better to let them wander into strangers. Like the one in the OP for example. There was someone who really cared about those kids. 

My opinion is that this was exactly the kind of predator the police-state society breeds: people looking for ways to cause harm to others under the pretense of protecting them. Like calling child protective services on me for teaching things to my children "too early". 

Nobody is bringing up cases of police, school, or accredited day care molestation in our police state society thread because all of them represent or are approved of by authority.


----------



## coffee4me

*Open Letter to the man who called police on 2 little girls instead of their p...*



Lon said:


> It is becoming increasingly difficult to equip our children with the knowledge and abilities when society shames us into feeling guilty or wrong for doing so. And we will continue to see problems in our youth escalate because they have never had the guidance or maturity to handle their responsibilities by the time they are expected to.


Last fall I was speaking to a group of moms and one said she couldn't believe she saw my son sitting with his friends at the bus stop. The horror! I let him ride the bus in our upper middle class town?? 

Then I said if you think that's bad, I let him ride to the city with a few friends. Shocking!! I was made to feel I was on trial for not looking out for my teenage son, the perils that could befall him walking in broad daylight on the city streets exploring. Don't I care for his welfare and safety?! 

My son was 15 at the time, 5'11" 220 built like a line backer because he is one. He studied tae Kwon do for 7 years competed in too many tournaments to count and I do not worry about his ability to defend himself. 

I was told yes he probably can defend himself BUT what if something happens to him? He has common sense, a cell phone, a medical insurance card and an emergency debit card in his wallet. 

At this point I felt I wanted to say; I'm sorry you don't feel you raised your sons who are almost men to walk down public streets and ride a bus. Geez, I'm the worst mother in the world.


----------



## frusdil

Theseus said:


> Anon, I'm sorry for what happened to you but I think you are forgetting that most children who are molested, are molested by *ADULTS*, so there's obviously an adult around. So I don't think that's the best basis to start from.


Huh> :scratchhead:


----------



## frusdil

I think calling the police was the right thing to do, there is NO way in he ll that I would hand 2 children over to people I'd never met before. 

The police charging the parents was absolutely ridiculous and an abuse of their power. They should have put the fear of god into the parents, and given the girls a stern talking to, where they'd have learnt not to disobey their parents. They had a great opportunity and completely f'd it up.

Calling in CPS is total overkill.

While the parents f'd up royally in this instance, they do sound like good people.


----------



## Maricha75

When I was 6-7 years old, I played outside with my sister and the kids my mom babysat. We played in the yard, and ONLY in the yard. There was a gas station a block away. We were not allowed to walk to it for any reason, period. Even when my then-9 year old cousin was there...still not allowed to walk to the gas station for a soda or snack or anything. The only time we were allowed to leave the yard was when the ice cream truck came by and mom gave us money for something. Other than that, we played outside, and she only checked on us periodically, not constantly. We had plenty of things to do, too.

When I was 8, we moved to a house outside of town. We still played in the yard. Rode our bikes in the yard. Built all sorts of obstacle courses, by ourselves, in the yard. We built "forts" in the trees out back. We went looking for frogs and salamanders and snails in the swamp between our property and the neighbor's. We played with cars, dolls, you name it. All outside. All while mom was inside, and still checking periodically.

When I was 12, I was allowed to stay home, with one of my sisters, while mom worked all day. We had chores each day, but mostly played. Even back then, she didn't want us going outside unless we were putting clothes on the line or taking them off.

What's my point in telling this? To show it isn't a "brand new" concept. Even 33 years ago, parents limited things their children did, much like is being complained about now. We still did plenty that got us hurt: I almost lost the tip of my finger at a park (required stitches and I did lose the nail), my youngest sister broke both of her arms on two separate occasions.

Anyway, it IS possible to have fun outside, without constant supervision, this is true. And we do that here. But they don't walk a mile to the store, nor half a mile to the bus stop, unless an adult is with them. Yes, they look both ways before crossing... often without prompting. Wanna know what my oldest child is afraid of? Storms. My daughter? Bugs. The youngest? I swear he's afraid of nothing. He's a daredevil.


----------



## Lon

I just watched a couple kids about that age just now out the window walking down the street. In fact I see it often (even younger kids in some poorer neighborhoods) and it not once occurred to me that I should call police… why would I? These Kids are not in distress at all.


----------



## Thor

1000 feet from our home is half the distance to the local elementary school. Scads of kids age 6 and 7 walk to the school and play in the playground. 1000 feet from our house straight line is approximately the distance to a nice town park which kids also walk to.

At age 6 I was in 2nd grade (yes) and we would go play in the woods on the far side of the elementary school. That school was probably 1000 feet from the house I grew up in.

The two kids in question were not in distress and they provided a phone number of a parent to the guy who was worried. He completely over reacted calling the police, and now the Authorities have over reacted.


----------



## golfergirl

How well were the kids trained if they were talking to a stranger? Hadn't been taught that yet? Maybe they aren't ready to venture that far without an adult. Didn't follow instructions? Another indication they aren't ready.
Self defense training in a 6 or 7 year old is laughable. My 6 year son is a yellow belt in tae kwon do and I could outfight him with one untrained hand tied behind my back.
If they are still in car/booster seats they are too young to be unattended for that long. 
It's one thing to long of the days of the white picket fences and streets where everyone knows everyone and there is reality. 6 and 7 year olds aren't old enough to stay home unattended let alone out in the real world. Why? Because just as these kids did, they don't have the developed brains to listen ultimate instruction and gauge danger. If they legally aren't allowed to handle it in the safety on the home, they surely aren't able to by a stream and near the traffic of the shopping mall.
A responsible parent starts with little bits of responsibility at a time under supervision. You watch, follow, supervise and teach along the way. It is a learning process starting with little things and add more each time they succeed. If 6 and 7 year olds are so responsible, why can't they drive?
Get an unknown friend and have him approach the kids and ask them to help find his lost little fluffy puppy. See how good their rational thinking is then because odds are they will hop in any vehicle to go look.
There aren't boogeymen everywhere and not every stranger is a molester/kidnapper, but it does happen. It happens with enough frequency that I'm not taking the risk. If you do your call. But don't be surprised if people call you on it. The person who called the police did a good thing. The police went a little far. But maybe not if the parents still feel justified in their decision after the possible risks have been discussed. I'm not bubble wrapping my kids and bad things happen to well supervised kids too. But sending kids out to run at random at those young ages is just lazy parenting.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr. Nail

I've been required to take Youth protection training on a regular basis. It is aimed at adults working with kids between 7 and 14. (the one for 14 to 18 is much more disturbing) Any way as a result of this I'm not happy about the situation described here. But, I have had children, and I have lots of experience with children. So here is my dilemma, my frequent dilemma. Grocery store. Smallish community. Not so small that I know everyone I might meet there. In fact I probably know around 20%. I'm getting my snacks and bread and eggs, just minding my own business. Around the end of an aisle comes a kid in the under seven but walking range. Usually 3 - 5. Tear streaks on the face. A look of panic. This happens on a weekly basis. (I know if I spent less time at the grocery I could spend less time on the treadmill) So what is a responsible, well trained Adult to do?
I can take the kid to the service desk and teach them how to get a parent paged. The trouble with this approach is that the average preschooler is as likely to scream and panic more, than to accept me as a kindly grandfather figure. Usually I shadow the kid until they find a parent or a parent finds them. And I mean 20 feet away, because I don't want someone else thinking I am stalking. 
You see the dilemma. If I step in and Help I'm a bad man. If I let the child wander alone I'm neglectful. 
Had I been in the situation of the caller in this story, My response would have been to protect those girls. Without them knowing it. I wouldn't have said more than good afternoon. I certainly wouldn't have detained them or asked them for personally identifying information. Quite frankly our "good Sam" opened himself up to major risk just by doing that alone. Whole different story if he had another adult with him. 
1000 foot situation him standing at the corner and keeping a watch would have spooked any predator. He could have gone home knowing that he did his part to keep the neighborhood safe without risk to himself or anyone else.
FA


----------



## EleGirl

I would have called the parents, not the police.

Kids make bad choices and break rules. It's their nature.

The parents should have literally kept an eye them and known that the kids were not where they were supposed to be.

But this is something that both the parents and the kids could learn from.


----------



## 6301

Lon said:


> fear and paranoia. So at what point do you give them a longer leash? Or do you just wait until they are 14 and take them off the leash entirely and let them have to learn it all at once? Survival of the fittest?
> 
> I think 6 and 7 years old is entirely appropriate to start giving them a little slack and have opportunities to develop their own independence.


 If you think that cutting a little slack and and it's no biggie that a 6 and 7 year old kid are wandering around a mall with no parents to be seen and that's OK? 

Look, I grew up in a era where we went outside and played from morning to the sun went down and the only time my parents saw me was breakfast, lunch and supper and do you want to know why?

You just didn't have parents at home, adults in every house on the street were the parents. They had no problem reading the riot act to their kids and any other kid that was causing mischief. 

There were eyes and ears up and down the neighborhood and the kids respected the parents up the street like they did their own.

It was a different era. Times have changed and in today's world there isn't that luxury any more so when a couple of kids got wandering off to a place they shouldn't be and no parents around combined with hearing it two or three times a week about a missing kid or a some bum getting picked up for fondling a kid because the parents are at home and watching the stock market or on some stupid game on the computer, then yeah they deserve getting what ever they get from the cops or a judge. 

Your kids. Your responsibility and your ass if you aren't watching them.


----------



## golfergirl

EleGirl said:


> I would have called the parents, not the police.
> 
> Kids make bad choices and break rules. It's their nature.
> 
> The parents should have literally kept an eye them and known that the kids were not where they were supposed to be.
> 
> But this is something that both the parents and the kids could learn from.


What good would calling the parents do? They don't think they did anything wrong? It is the guy for calling police - the police for being so mean - the court system... The list is endless. Maybe the initial reaction from police would have been to return kids and give a warning. Or to return kids with tears and relief to parents who even noticed their children gone and actively searching. Maybe it was the attitude - 'hey my kid knows self defense and their phone number. How dare you pit them in the car without a booster seat' that caused the escalation in punishment.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EleGirl

golfergirl said:


> What good would calling the parents do? They don't think they did anything wrong? It is the guy for calling police - the police for being so mean - the court system... The list is endless. Maybe the initial reaction from police would have been to return kids and give a warning. Or to return kids with tears and relief to parents who even noticed their children gone and actively searching. Maybe it was the attitude - 'hey my kid knows self defense and their phone number. How dare you pit them in the car without a booster seat' that caused the escalation in punishment.


As the OP said, the parents did not break any laws. The children did not either.


----------



## Miss Taken

Maricha: I think your upbringing - in terms of the freedoms and limits your mother set was reasonable. However, even what you had, though there were limits, is a lot more than kids get today. At least from what I've seen the 9 years I've lived here on my street and nearly ten that I've been a mom. 


Almost three years ago, we had this one boy from my son's school come over to play for three hours. Like your mother, I set the rule that they needed to stay in the yard. The yard is fully fenced, the fence is nearly six feet high, with a locked gate BTW. Like your mother, I didn't spend my entire day outside with them although I did spend an hour out there playing with the splash pad with them and a game of soccer. 

However I also went inside and I cleaned up my kitchen, and fixed them a snack (the kitchen is right off the back deck where I can see the backyard) and looked up at them every few minutes or so. Both my son and his friend also came in and out of the house for drinks or to use the bathroom so they weren't out there the entire time and weren't by themselves the entire time either.

Well, you'd think I dropped them off at the mall like these girls were found in. It got back to the boy's mom that I wasn't outside all day, heavenly sh!t was she mad at me. The boys were both seven, in the second grade and in my child-proofed yard on a quiet residential street in a school zone. You'd think I gave them booze and lawn darts ffs. The boy never got to come over for a play date again because obviously, I neglect kids.


----------



## MSP

Somewhat fitting article I read a couple months ago: The Overprotected Kid - The Atlantic


----------



## Theseus

frusdil said:


> Huh> :scratchhead:


Maybe I wasn't clear. Anon said she was molested because no adult supervision was around. I just pointed out that most child victims were abused by their adult supervision.


----------



## golfergirl

EleGirl said:


> As the OP said, the parents did not break any laws. The children did not either.


You don't need to break laws to make a sh!tty decision. I think police over-reacted. But the parents failing to even entertain they could have done things better might have escalated the process. Did police over-react? They can't charge and demand court appearance without grounds. Should everything get thrown out prior to appearance point proven. If this goes through to completion, I am thinking we might only have one side of the story. 
Their are rules regarding safety of children and in some cases CPS have more say that police.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Happyfamily

Everyone is wrong.

Onlookers, seeing this person approach two children and obviously questioning them as a stranger, should have called the police on him. 

Since we know a number of serial killers, rapists, and molesters have posed as police, someone should have called the county Sheriff or maybe the Army when the police arrived.

The important thing though is to make sure our first reaction to whatever we see, like a bake sale, is to call in SWAT teams.


----------



## golfergirl

I would just hope regardless of everything the parents would sit back and think they are lucky things turned out that way. Better than a child being hot by a car in the parking lot, slipping in the creek and striking their head and drowning or getting lost in the woods. It doesn't need to be a molestation, rape or kidnapping to cause danger - could be a simple tragic accident that a 6 and 7 year old are far to young to handle. I'm glad the kids are ok and hope the parents get over it and come out fine too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Happyfamily

MSP said:


> Somewhat fitting article I read a couple months ago: The Overprotected Kid - The Atlantic


What a great article! 

Bottom line of overprotection as they cited one researcher saying - the epidemic of kids not being able to think for themselves.


----------



## EleGirl

Happyfamily said:


> Everyone is wrong.
> 
> Onlookers, seeing this person approach two children and obviously questioning them as a stranger, should have called the police on him.
> 
> Since we know a number of serial killers, rapists, and molesters have posed as police, someone should have called the county Sheriff or maybe the Army when the police arrived.
> 
> The important thing though is to make sure our first reaction to whatever we see, like a bake sale, is to call in SWAT teams.


Yea I agree .... here where I live the cops would have shot the guy who talked to the kids within minute of arriving. After all the was obviously a child murderer. Why else would an adult male talk to kids.


----------



## Maricha75

Miss Taken,
There is no fence, no gate here. The kids go in and out all day. They ride their bikes on our street and in the yard. The property has woods on one side, behind my apartment (and the other apartments on my side of the street). We have a mix of middle school and elementary children here. Some are allowed to ride their bikes on the main road in the community (not the main road of the town!). My oldest, I would be ok with that. Not my 5 and 7 year old kids. In a couple years, sure. But not now. And, I only allow them to go inside a few of the apartments, only because I know them.

_Posted via *Topify* on Android_


----------



## EleGirl

When I was that age, we lived across from a jungle. There were many times when a group of us kids would get our mom's to pack us lunch and we'd spend most of the day in the jungle exploring.

Jungles are dangerous places. We saw things like a black panther. He just looked at us for a while. We just looked back at him. Then he grunted and went the other way. 

Mostly we just picked flowers, fruits, caught lizards and watched the smaller wild animals.


----------



## SurpriseMyself

I bet the parents and their children now live in fear of calling the police. Even if they need them, my guess is that those kids will never ask a police officer for help. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MSP

EleGirl said:


> When I was that age, we lived across from a jungle. There were many times when a group of us kids would get our mom's to pack us lunch and we'd spend most of the day in the jungle exploring.
> 
> Jungles are dangerous places. We saw things like a black panther. He just looked at us for a while. We just looked back at him. Then he grunted and went the other way.
> 
> Mostly we just picked flowers, fruits, caught lizards and watched the smaller wild animals.


Hey, we have something in common. I grew up right around this place and spent most of my childhood wandering through it. You could walk for days and not come out.


----------



## Miss Taken

Not directed at anyone in particular, just adding to the discussion some more. 

While not directly related to what's being discussed here, I do think it's relevant. An excerpt of this article about how an elementary school got rid of most of it's rules regarding playtime at recess and actually got a lot safer. 



> The school is actually seeing a *drop *in bullying, serious injuries and vandalism, while concentration levels in class are increasing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Letting children test themselves on a scooter during playtime could make them more aware of the dangers when getting behind the wheel of a car in high school, he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "When you look at our playground it looks chaotic. From an adult's perspective,* it looks like kids might get hurt, but they don't.*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...However, the school took the experiment a step further by *abandoning the rules completely*, much to the horror of some teachers at the time, he said.
> 
> When the university study wrapped up at the end of last year the school and researchers were amazed by the results.
> 
> Mudslides, skateboarding, bullrush and tree climbing kept the children so occupied *the school no longer needed* a timeout area or as many teachers on patrol.
> 
> Instead of a playground, children used their imagination to play in a "loose parts pit" which contained junk such as wood, tyres and an old fire hose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this wasn't a playtime revolution, it was just a return to the days before health and safety policies came to rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AUT professor of public health Grant Schofield, who worked on the research project, said...
> 
> "The great paradox of cotton-woolling children is it's more dangerous in the long-run."
> 
> Society's obsession with protecting children ignores the benefits of risk-taking, he said.
> 
> Children develop the frontal lobe of their brain when taking risks, meaning they work out consequences. "You can't teach them that. They have to learn risk on their own terms. It doesn't develop by watching TV, they have to get out there."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Back to the topic at hand, NOBODY is saying to let kids go play in traffic, jump off bridges, drive cars, go to the park alone when they're three, four, five, six etc. We're just saying let them go outside in their own yards, on their own streets and obviously use common sense - some kids are more mature than others. 

The freedom given should be gradual and age (but more importantly SKILL level) appropriate. I've brought it up three times now, that I don't let my own son cross the busier street yet (it's not a highway or anything but is a main road) because he lacks the skill but I have enough common sense to realize that. So no, I'm not saying just throw all caution to the wind with no regard for consequences as I am picking up on in some of the comments.

For the record, I do agree that six and seven is too young to go to the mall alone but do not forget that the two girls in the letter weren't permitted to be there either and they broke the rules.


----------



## MyHappyPlace

Child Protective Services were called on my sister once because her 11, 7, and 4 year old daughters were playing IN her fenced front yard. CPS admitted they were called out because the children had been playing outside without an adult. When they responded and found that the property was in fact fenced in all the way around, they let that go but got on her because the younger two were in underpants/shorts with no shirts. We live in southern AZ, it's HOT AS HELL and the kids had been playing in the sprinklers. They made my sister and BIL go down for drug testing though neither of them have ever so much as smoked a cigarette. The case was closed quickly but still caused heartache and is permanently on their record.

A deputy once stopped and literally YELLED at my father and threatened to arrest him because during a family bbq, 6 kids (two 12, two 8, 6, and 5) were out front playing in the yard. The front door as well as the front picture window drapes were all wide open and there were eight adults within the home and backyard. The house is located a mile down a residential road. It's a huge neighborhood with an elementary school nestled into the middle and the streets are always filled with kids of all ages. It is not uncommon to see 10 yr olds out at 9 PM during the summer. Remember, the sun is just barely going down here at that time. Anyway, I took the deputy's name and badge number, and called his superior. The next day he showed back up at our door with his C.O. in tow to offer my father an apology. 

Every neighborhood is different. If we lived near a busy street or in a different area of town, no way would my kids be unsupervised outside. But we've lived in this neighborhood for 32 years, and it's incredibly safe. I bought my own home a few blocks from my parents and think nothing of sending my children to walk to Papa's house. 

The families in this letter surely knew their neighborhood and thought it safe. While I support their decision to let their children go out to play without a leash, I wag my finger at sending them to play near water unsupervised.


----------



## Omego

I haven't read all of the posts on this thread. A 6 and 7 year old are too young to go out unsupervised, period, unless it's in the backyard! What in the world were the parents thinking!? 

They are lucky the girls are safe. I'm really shaking my head on this one.


----------



## Mr. Nail

to EleGirl, "Why else would an adult male talk to kids." I think i pretty much covered that. 
You know I love kids. I'd spend all my free time with them if I could. Many men are like this. It's part the protective instincts we have naturally, and part the frustrated teacher in us. 
I swim with my nephew 4 mornings a week. I scout. My son and I do service and camp together. Outside of getting my nose into peoples relationship problems, it is my only hobby. Leather work and knot tying and outdoor cooking are all just branches of hanging out with scouts to me. But, the sobering truth is that we are trained to protect ourselves as much as to protect the kids. 
I don't really work with kids under 8 (we don't do tiger cubs) but the thought of 6 and 7 playing around a creek without an adult right there scares the heck out of me. By the way tiger cubs (7 year old boys) attend their meetings and activities with an adult partner.
MN


----------



## TikiKeen

Consider the source: this letter came from Free Range Kids. While the idea (letting kids be independent enough to learn life skills) is good, many of their members/commenters also feed the proverbial beast. 

By that, I mean the extremes seen everywhere, and reflected here:
-Don't let kids wander alone, they're all gonna die
-It's the media's fault
-It's parents' fault
-It's the fault of the "police state"
-There is no "community" any more

It's about balance, culture, understanding child development and knowing one's own kids. (I say that having seen the reaction to my grounding a kid for two weeks for being defiant. Know why that two weeks is pure hell for him? It's because he can't skateboard 5 miles to the other side of town across two farm-to-market roads to go visit his good friend. Removing social life does that.)

That said, letting 6 & 7 year-olds play at a creek unsupervised is, developmentally speaking, a huge risk, compared to doing the same thing when they're 8 & 9 or older.

I walked a mile home from school alone at 8. I canoed alone on the small 'lake' on which we lived (an old quarry filled with water and sold by the developer as a lake, lol) alone, no life jacket, at age 11. I snorkeled 200 yards away from my family, alone, no buddy system, at the beach. But...at 6 & 7, the end of the street was the limit. Culturally, other parents scolded any kid, because our families had the same values. Now the values are varied, parents live vicariously through their kids, and some parents just want to be absent. They exist.

But the goal is to land, on an average day, squarely in the middle of "too much freedom" vs "lockdown".

PS: I read FRK site regularly. A few years ago, a friend of mine who knows the founder of FRK as an acquaintance, got her butt chewed by Lenore, the founder, in a discussion about letting kids jump off barn roofs for fun. Just thought I'd point out that everyone has personal parenting limits.


----------



## Thor

If I recall correctly the school bus only picked up kids who lived more than 1 mile from the elementary school. All the other kids K-4th Grade had to get themselves to/from school. Starting in 3rd grade we were permitted to ride our bicycles to school, which would be age 7 or 8.

I think the guy who called 911 totally overreacted, as did the police and everyone else up the chain. Now it is going to be a political, PR, and CYA exercise by the police, prosecutor, and child protective services.

Now my one big issue with the parents is not teaching the kids to be careful of strangers. The girls should have been taught to stay more than an arms' reach away, and to never give out personal information such as where they live, their names, or a phone number.

My wife was molested at about that same age by a neighbor couple who loved to babysit young kids of the neighborhood to allow the parents some free time. So the molesters weren't strangers at all, and in fact my wife's parents delivered her to her abusers repeatedly while not recognizing the signs of sexual abuse in her changed behavior.

Still, there are opportunistic kidnappers and pedophiles who could have taken advantage of these two young girls who had not been taught to keep some distance from strangers.


----------



## Miss Taken

I'm just not as bothered by the creek as some people. However, I think it has a lot to do with our lifestyle. Yes, I realize that kids can and do drown and in water (even as little as 2" of water) and no, I would not trust my 1 1/2 year old to be in the bath unsupervised, or outside at the cottage (lakefront property) alone but my son when 6, nephew when 7 (they're 6 mos. apart) absolutely I would and did. That's not to say we didn't check on them often or that there weren't rules in place (they weren't allowed to be in the water without an adult present).

However, since they grew up with lake-front, they already knew to be careful and not get too close to the water at that age. Both were also very proficient swimmers for their age and have been in swimming lessons since very little - still are (even my youngest has been in swimming lessons with me at our local YMCA since he was 4 months old and I regularly take both kids to the pool for fun as it's something we all can enjoy despite their age gap.

From how I read the story is that this was a more rural area and that the creek backs onto the property. Or at least how that's I envisioned it as I grew up for a short time in the country out in Sooke, BC with a creek and forest right behind my house. So I think it's something the girls were exposed to all the time and demonstrated some level of awareness and responsibility around the creek.

I think there is a risk of everything. Even owning a dog. According to dogbites.com, 18 little kids died as a result of dog bites last year in the US. In Canada, the average is 1 or 2 fatal dog bites a year for all age groups. The CDC says that children aged 9 or younger are at the greatest risk of suffering a fatal dog attack.

Now we all know to NEVER let our children be unattended with dogs. It's also something people love getting sanctimonious about in the comments in media reports every time a kid is killed or injured in a dog attack. But how many people actually follow that? I mean really. How many people segregate their 6, 7, 8, and 9 year old child from the dog every time they need to leave the room to use the bathroom? I bet NOT A ONE. Still, we wouldn't call that neglect or dangerous. 

According to the CDC while it's true that kids under 14 are at the biggest risk of drowning; within that group, children aged 1-4 years old are at the largest risk of drowning. According to the WHO, children under 5 and MEN are at the biggest risk of drowning. These girls were 6 and older. 

To me, the level of danger or neglect presented by the letting the kids play on the property line with a creek is similar to letting kids play unsupervised (something nearly ALL dog owners are guilty of, if they are honest) with the family dog.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

Geez. At four I played in the woods behind my house. I was allowed to cross a main road to see a friend on the other side. Mom taught me to look both ways three times. She would watch from the window but if I'd been hit by a car I'd be dead before she could get to me. She had confidence that she'd taught me well and I'd be fine.

By 7 I walked down into woods by myself and played by a RIVER at that age. I knew if I saw a snake to stand very still until it moved on, or to move very slowly back out of strike range. I would make mud pies which mean climbing out on to a fallen trunk over the water and leaning down to scoop up water with a bucket. My sister is handicapped so I couldn't rely on big sis to help.

I also went and played in a creek, catching crawdads and lizards. I guess it depends how deep and slippery and fast moving it is but shallow, bubbling creeks are young kids' friend! Especially when on the outskirts of a back yard.

Only loosely related, this "cotton-wooling" of kids has many of them utterly paralyzed. My SIL wouldn't even let her toddler climb up in an arm chair and stand on the seat for fear he would fall off it. Onto a RUG. Co-workers kids: a 15y/o girl will NOT stay at home alone ever because she is afraid. This fear is embedded by her parents - her mother planted thorn bushes outside daughter's windows to deter rapists and kidnappers (Ya think THAT is why she is afraid??). Meanwhile a 13y/o isn't allowed to walk 2 blocks to a friend's home in a fully developed neighborhood unless she calls immediately from the friend's house saying she got there safe. I think these things instill irrational fear. 

And another parent complained their kid called from college for parent to make a doctor appointment because of a sore throat. By 18 a kid should be able to call a doctor to make an appointment and drive there. The girl across the street came home from college and was telling stories of college life - one was that a girl ran running from her room from a bee, slipped and her leg slid under a metal cabinet by the door slicing open her thigh and that everyone was screaming 'what do we do?" and crying and didn't know what to do because the RA was at an RA meeting. They called the RA on her cell who called campus police who put a clean towel on and applied pressure while everyone else was in OMG mode and 

The over-protective, do everything for them mentality affects the ability to use common sense, make decisions and most of all impairs self-sufficiency.

Read about the mother who left her 9y/o son at Bloomingdales in NY to ride the subway home alone: (PS he got home just fine.)

Why I Let My 9-Year-Old Ride the Subway Alone - The New York Sun


----------



## PBear

Not sure about the point to the "when I was a kid..." comparisons... As I was growing up, seat belts were ignored, nobody wore a helmet for riding their bike or skiing, my dad chain smoked in the car with us and we were lucky to have the windows cracked open. That was then, this is now. 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Theseus

PBear said:


> Not sure about the point to the "when I was a kid..." comparisons... As I was growing up, seat belts were ignored, nobody wore a helmet for riding their bike or skiing, my dad chain smoked in the car with us and we were lucky to have the windows cracked open. That was then, this is now.
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Here's the funny thing about that though. Everyone assumes the world is so much more dangerous now. Truth is, the violent crime rate is much LOWER now than it was in the 1970s and children have never been safer! 

Add to that the fact that kids can carry cell phones now too, which makes a huge difference for many reasons.


----------



## Happyfamily

PBear said:


> Not sure about the point to the "when I was a kid..." comparisons... As I was growing up, seat belts were ignored, nobody wore a helmet for riding their bike or skiing, my dad chain smoked in the car with us and we were lucky to have the windows cracked open. That was then, this is now.


I loathe logical fallacies, and see them all over this thread. 'When I was a kid" can either be the beginning of a logical fallacy based on anecdote or it could be a very good point so long as rules of logic are being followed.

The study referenced earlier is extremely important in demonstrating that despite grade schoolers walking alone to school falling from 71% to 9% (If I recall correctly)_ there has been no improvement in safety_. That's what has happened since I was in grade school. 

But on the other hand there has been a cost: A tremendous increase in kids not thinking for themselves and being able to evaluate/handle risk. 

It's a big stupid game now for everyone to think up dangerous things that might happen if we get up out of bed in the morning. It takes zero intelligence to play that game.

It takes a moderate level of intelligence to weigh both the costs and benefits of a policy and base those costs/benefits on rigorous data analysis instead of whimsical fancy. I agree with you here that a lot of this discussion is "anecdote followed by logical fallacy."

*Tikikeen* - 



> But the goal is to land, on an average day, squarely in the middle of "too much freedom" vs "lockdown".


lol. Meaningless "everyone is extreme, but I am in the middle" word salad. 

Your perceived middle is different from my perceived middle which is different from everyone else's perceived middle. So 100% of us can agree on your word salad and yet be in strenuous disagreement about whether kids should walk to school.


----------



## PBear

Happyfamily said:


> I loathe logical fallacies, and see them all over this thread. 'When I was a kid" can either be the beginning of a logical fallacy based on anecdote or it could be a very good point so long as rules of logic are being followed.
> 
> The study referenced earlier is extremely important in demonstrating that despite grade schoolers walking alone to school falling from 71% to 9% (If I recall correctly)_ there has been no improvement in safety_. That's what has happened since I was in grade school.
> 
> But on the other hand there has been a cost: A tremendous increase in kids not thinking for themselves and being able to evaluate/handle risk.
> 
> It's a big stupid game now for everyone to think up dangerous things that might happen if we get up out of bed in the morning. It takes zero intelligence to play that game.
> 
> It takes a moderate level of intelligence to weigh both the costs and benefits of a policy and base those costs/benefits on rigorous data analysis instead of whimsical fancy. I agree with you here that a lot of this discussion is "anecdote followed by logical fallacy."
> 
> *Tikikeen* -
> 
> 
> 
> lol. Meaningless "everyone is extreme, but I am in the middle" word salad.
> 
> Your perceived middle is different from my perceived middle which is different from everyone else's perceived middle. So 100% of us can agree on your word salad and yet be in strenuous disagreement about whether kids should walk to school.


And your link to an independent study that shows that kids are now unable to think for themselves and this causes issues is...

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EnjoliWoman

PBear said:


> Not sure about the point to the "when I was a kid..." comparisons... As I was growing up, seat belts were ignored, nobody wore a helmet for riding their bike or skiing, my dad chain smoked in the car with us and we were lucky to have the windows cracked open. That was then, this is now.
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


My personal point was that I had even more freedom than those girls in the OP's letter and I was alone most of that time (i.e. no buddy system) and not only did nothing bad happen by my being allowed those freedoms. In fact I had a wonderful time of free play which allows for lots of creative thinking and the experience of freedom itself showed me, by my parent's confidence in me, that I was capable of making some reasonably good decisions and look after myself instead of expecting others to do it for me. That fostered a sense of personal responsibility and confidence in my abilities.


----------



## antechomai

I think men are worried about anything that could cause them legal grief. 
I know I always made anyone's child stand outside the door, trying to sell me something, even if it was raining, unless my daughters were with me. 
Their parents were sitting in a car in plain view, probably wondering about me. "Could you invite them in out of the rain." NO.
I do remember my neighbors 5 year old son wandered into my house off the deck, one summer day, and I was "please go back outside NOW."


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Open Letter to the man who called police on 2 little girls instead of their p*



antechomai said:


> I think men are worried about anything that could cause them legal grief.
> I know I always made anyone's child stand outside the door, trying to sell me something, even if it was raining, unless my daughters were with me.
> Their parents were sitting in a car in plain view, probably wondering about me. "Could you invite them in out of the rain." NO.
> I do remember my neighbors 5 year old son wandered into my house off the deck, one summer day, and I was "please go back outside NOW."


Yeah this is true… like when unnattended kids ask you to push them on the swings or play a game at the playground


----------



## Happyfamily

PBear said:


> And your link to an independent study that shows that kids are now unable to think for themselves and this causes issues is...
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I see the straw man is the most popular tactic on this forum. Everything gets converted into an absolute. Really, how annoying. I had hoped for quality discussion. 

We have been discussing an Atlantic article, linked above. Once you have read that article maybe you deserve extra special consideration where I quote the exact page number for the part I referred to. 

But hey, the concept is reeeeeealy difficult, isn't it? When people don't have practice evaluating risk - they aren't so good at evaluating risk. Deep stuff there. 


*Miss Taken* also cited a great piece that goes into bullying as well as confirming the same things from the Atlantic article.

Would you like me to go back and show you where that is too? Or would you like to keep up with the thread instead?


----------



## TikiKeen

Happy, we can play the logical fallacy game all you want if you'd like, now that you've resorted to outright insults. (Thanks for mine, btw.)

I see your straw man and raise you one ad hominem, of which you're fond (and which I just used. See what I did there?)

Your sanctimony is showing.


----------



## EnjoliWoman

I'm pondering a correlation...

In the US at least, middle class is disappearing. We are gradually becoming a society of "have" and "have not". If, according to that article cited, we never develop skills for evaluating risk, will that exacerbate the problem? Will the upper echelon get the education and experiences necessary to evaluate risk (even if financial/business risk) whereas the lower economic groups don't? Or will the opposite be true because the "haves" will lead a sheltered life while the "have nots" actually gain real world experience and therefore pull themselves up by exceeding expectations?

The US had a boon with children raised during WWII who became very self-sufficient because fathers were gone and mothers were picking up the slack. They came of age in the 60s and reached their career peeks in the 70s/80s, also a time when the economy and stock market was in a strong growth period, resulting in a large, healthy middle class. Coincidence?

I realize I've drifted far from the OPs rant - it's a shame that good men can't push a girl on a swing, or let a boyscout inside from the rain to sell popcorn, or neighborhood kids come in to grab a drink or use the bathroom in the closest house in the summer. 

I like the idea of it taking a village to raise a child. I want someone else's Mom to scold my child for not sharing, or cursing when I'm not nearby. I'd like to feel comfortable doing the same without someone coming at me with "how DARE you..." I want them to ride off out of sight exploring fields, make daisy crowns, drink creek water and come back at dark. But if I did I'd be reported to DSS. I want my kid to feel free expanding their boundaries past the "safe" border of the yard. And I think the long-term repercussions are bigger than a few kids who are afraid to sleep with the window open.


----------



## PBear

Happyfamily said:


> I see the straw man is the most popular tactic on this forum. Everything gets converted into an absolute. Really, how annoying. I had hoped for quality discussion.
> 
> We have been discussing an Atlantic article, linked above. Once you have read that article maybe you deserve extra special consideration where I quote the exact page number for the part I referred to.
> 
> But hey, the concept is reeeeeealy difficult, isn't it? When people don't have practice evaluating risk - they aren't so good at evaluating risk. Deep stuff there.
> 
> 
> *Miss Taken* also cited a great piece that goes into bullying as well as confirming the same things from the Atlantic article.
> 
> Would you like me to go back and show you where that is too? Or would you like to keep up with the thread instead?


The person I quoted referred to a study about the decline in kids walking to school, and the went on to say:

But on the other hand there has been a cost: A tremendous increase in kids not thinking for themselves and being able to evaluate/handle risk. 

I was asking for some form of study that tied the kids not walking to school to a "tremendous increase in kids not thinking for themselves". If you can clarify how that relates to a "straw man" and "absolutes", I'd appreciate it. 

C
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CantePe

I'm sorry but I agree with their parenting decision. I was a latch key kid at 8 years old. Meaning I took care of my 5 year old sister and myself alone at home.

I knew how to cook, clean and get us out on the bus lunches and all by 8 years old.

I live in the bush with 5 kids. All 5 are self sufficient latch key / bush babies.

They know how to cook, find their way out of bush, fish, hunt, survival camp and much more. Why yes, by themselves if they had to. They range in ages of 13 right down to 7 yrs old. My kids have been bush camping since about 3 months old.

People are so freaking scared of being politically correct that it causes more problems than it helps.


----------



## Miss Taken

PBear said:


> The person I quoted referred to a study about the decline in kids walking to school, and the went on to say:
> 
> But on the other hand there has been a cost: A tremendous increase in kids not thinking for themselves and being able to evaluate/handle risk.
> 
> *I was asking for some form of study that tied the kids not walking to school to a "tremendous increase in kids not thinking for themselves".* If you can clarify how that relates to a "straw man" and "absolutes", I'd appreciate it.
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's not what they were referring to in terms of straw mans and absolutes and you know it. 



PBear said:


> If you can clarify how that relates to a "straw man" and "absolutes", I'd appreciate it.
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 Again, two separate things which is a bit of a red herring in itself as Happy wasn't arguing about that post but now you seem to want to focus on it anyway. It seemed to me that they were likely referring to statements like:




PBear said:


> So as soon as they can crawl, we should be able to drop them off unsupervised at a playground? Man, I wasted so many hours of my life watching my kids!
> 
> C
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


and possibly,



golfergirl said:


> If 6 and 7 year olds are so responsible, why can't they drive?


and likely this too:



PBear said:


> Not sure about the point to the "when I was a kid..." comparisons... *As I was growing up, seat belts were ignored, nobody wore a helmet for riding their bike or skiing, my dad chain smoked in the car with us and we were lucky to have the windows cracked open. That was then, this is now.*


and other comments similar to the above found in this thread.



PBear said:


> I was asking for some form of study that tied the kids not walking to school to a "tremendous increase in kids not thinking for themselves".


Yeah, you did but in a different post. Not the one to which happy was referring to and not before saying stuff like the above. Fed up though you may be about personal anecdotes, there are logical fallacies being tossed about from people on both sides of the fence here.... glass houses and stones... that is all.


----------



## Thor

EnjoliWoman said:


> Will the upper echelon get the education and experiences necessary to evaluate risk (even if financial/business risk) whereas the lower economic groups don't? Or will the opposite be true because the "haves" will lead a sheltered life while the "have nots" actually gain real world experience and therefore pull themselves up by exceeding expectations?


Sandals to sandals in three generations. Have no fear, the children of the wealthy will squander their riches and a new group of people will rise to the top of the economic heap.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Anon Pink said:


> Sorry Theseus,
> 
> "No matter how many times I have reviewed that decision since then, it still always looks like good parenting to me."
> 
> Nope, not good parenting. 6 and 7 year olds are too young to be wandering off the property without adult supervision.


To a body of water no less. I agree with this. But going a little further. You sent them somewhere in clear view of the house, but apparently failed to look.


----------

