You want to know WHY I am overprotective?

[PiCO]

This is so true. Almost every girl I knew growing up had something happen to her. :(

 

That's horrible. Where did you grow up?

[Ibbygirl]

That's horrible. Where did you grow up?

 

 

Ft. Lauderdale during the 70's. Not a good time or place to be. :(

[unsinkable]

This is so true. Almost every girl I knew growing up had something happen to her. :(

 

Speaking from personal experience, parents are sometimes clueless about older brothers' friends. Girls I know had to fight off their brothers' friends so often it is disgusting.

 

And sometimes the girls weren't successful. :crying:

[macdaddi]

So roughly 50 children are abducted and murdered by strangers every year.

 

This got me thinking about statistics and maybe some of you gals can help me with the numbers since I'm not great at this. :bigear:

Anyway, this quote makes the actual number of child abductions by strangers seem really small. What about the number of potential abductions or attacks that never get recorded? I know it seems silly to think about things that "almost" happened, but the reality is that these sickos are looking for opportunities all the time, and we need to be aware of that fact.

 

[katemary63]

Yes, I said that and I stand by it. Do I blame the person who committed the crime? Of course. But is the mother "blame-LESS" in this situation? No. You can come up with a million reasons why she left her 5yo daughter completely unattended in the parking lot of her apartment complex and I would say to you that none of them are good enough. If the phone rings, or the baby cries, or you have to go to the bathroom, or start dinner, or whatever...you take the child inside with you. End of story.

 

I am absolutely horrified for this mother and I assume she will be blaming herself forever... I would be blaming myself forever too.

 

I'm there with you Heather. Think of it this way....

 

If a child is riding a horse, is not wearing a helmet, even thought her parents are aware that a helmet saves lives, is bucked off and dies, are the parents culpable to some degree? Yes. Is it the parent's fault the horse bucked? No. Is it the parent's fault the child had no helmet on? Yes. Could the parent's actions have prevented the child's death? Yes.

 

If a child wearing no seatbelt, dies in a car crash caused by a drunk driver in another car, are the child's parents culpable? Yes. Is it the parent's fault their car was hit by a drunk driver? No. Is it the parent's fault the child wore no seat belt? Yes. Could the parent's actions have prevented the child's death? Yes.

 

This is all that is being said and it is common sense. It's tragic all around, but still.....

Edited June 5, 2009 by katemary63

[Greta]

Speaking from personal experience, parents are sometimes clueless about older brothers' friends.

 

And sometimes parents are clueless about what their own son is doing to their daughter. And sometimes parents are clueless about what their brother or brother-in-law is doing to their daughter. Or their neighbor. The list, sadly, goes on and on. I would never have imagined that these things happened so often if I hadn't had so many women tell me their stories of abuse. It is truly horrifying.

[yvonne]

: I hope that it is safe (considering we live BY A CHURCH!!) but that is not something I am willing to risk.

 

Me, neither.

 

Just when I started to think my 8 year old boys were old enough to ride to the park on their own, an 8 year old little girl disappeared in a rural area near here. She was last seen on a video surveillance camera skipping happily down the street from her home. They found her in a suitcase in a drainage pond. A friend of the family, a 28 year old FEMALE Sunday School teacher, daughter of a preacher, has been arrested for the child's murder. The SS teacher lived 5 doors down from the little girl and the woman's father, the preacher's, church was not far down the road.

 

It is so hard to find that line between overprotective and fostering independence.

 

yvonne

[Colleen]

 

We dads need to stick together.

Hey, guys, make room for moms in that "voice of reason" camp.;)

 

[unsinkable]

And sometimes parents are clueless about what their own son is doing to their daughter. And sometimes parents are clueless about what their brother or brother-in-law is doing to their daughter. Or their neighbor. The list, sadly, goes on and on. I would never have imagined that these things happened so often if I hadn't had so many women tell me their stories of abuse. It is truly horrifying.

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

 

It is heartbreaking.

[Liz CA]

Both my dh and I (growing up on different continents) were allowed more freedom than we were able to give our son.

I do believe a lot more things are happening today, of course, it does often make a difference if you live in a metro area or in a more rural area even though as someone pointed out it really can happen anywhere.

 

I also rode my bike around alone for hours during summer vacations. My dh grew up in a city and rode the city bus (his mother did not know about this) out of town. ;) He is still alive today - but none of this means that we let our son do half of what we did when he was a child.

 

As parents we need to follow our instincts and use the information we have access to in order to assess situations and make wise decisions.

 

I can only ache for the parents of this little girl. The Mom may have just stepped inside for a second - which I have done when my son was out riding his trike - the panic, the fear and now the confirmation of the worst must be horrendous, beyond words.

[Kim in Appalachia]

that doesn't mean you don't try to keep them safe. It is good and right to watch over your children. We use seatbelts in the car. I have a fence around our pool. My children are never allowed to swim alone. I make my boys come into the girls restroom when we are at the store. (the clerks at walmart have told me too often about men who have been caught "stalking" in the bathroooms) I don't let them wander out of my sight.

[Joanne]

t I think I can say with confidence that had the mother been sitting right there while the child was playing that that abductor would not have taken her. :(

 

Hm. I was molested, repeatedly, by a known and trusted family member during family events, holidays, etc.

 

The problem I see with those in the supervision against stranger violence camp is that there is often a lack of understanding of actual similar risks. Vehicle, food and screen time (mis)comparisons aside...

 

If you want to protect your kids from violence and molestation also consider keeping them from Sports Coaches, Youth Pastors, Teachers and Bus Drivers. Yes, that's snark but it also speaks to statistical truth of similar crimes.

 

One real precaution - no snark - Make sure you NEVER make them "kiss" or "hug" and adult if they don't want to. EVER.

 

The OP used a family's tragedy to posit her parenting paradigm. It's similar in intent as someone coming here after Columbine and saying "that's why I homeschool".

 

You *can* be too over protective. Being OVERprotective has risks that, IMO, negate advantages of safety or perceived safety. I do not intend to quantify or delineate the lines of OVERprotective for every family. I'd ask the same on return that the criteria of UNDER protective be left up to individual circumstances. To categorically assert 5 equals too young to ride a bike in an apartment complex is as inaacurate as asserting 10 is too old to be first given that freedom.

 

My own family style is more free range than many posters here. I think it's disrespectful and unkind and inaccurate to judge that style (one I chose deliberately and with informed thinking) as underprotective. Equally, it's disrespectful, unkind and inaacurate to assume the families I evaluate as OVERprotective to create dependency or delay age appropriate automony.

 

Surely there is a wide range of healthy and appropriate in this regard.

 

To say this tragdey would have been avoided if she had been supervised (read: had she been parented CORRECTLY) is a red herring to issues of family safety, growth and development.

 

It's a newsworthy tragedy because it's rare and awful. Tragedy happens; let's not blame the victims while trying to present ourselves as having immunity from tragedy.

[TammyinTN]

In the next town over from me a 5yo girl was riding her bike in broad daylight right out in front of her apartment. But her mom was not outside with her. She was grabbed off her bike. Police have been searching for days and they finally found her yesterday. Dead. Buried in a shallow grave near a river. This is so close to us...maybe 15 minutes from here.

 

I read about this all too often in the metro-Detroit area. I remember one story of a 4yo boy who was grabbed at Target and never heard from again. So for those who say the "statistics" show that this doesn't happen all that often or no more so than in earlier decades, etc.... I wonder how this little girl's mom feels at this exact moment about "statistics"?

 

My heart is breaking for her.

 

I always keep in mind...this isn't my childhood neighborhood and as a person living in loads of different places...I trust no one. God entrusted these children to me and I take that job very serious.

[Laurie4b]

Wasn't this the child whose mother's "friend" was a sexual perpetrator? It seems that that's where the level of protection should have been.

[Joanne]

I made the mistake recently of letting my 5 year old walk to a "game" at a festival about 10 yards away from me with his 9 year old brother a month or so ago. Big brother got his turn at the game and little brother came to find me....only the line had moved and I wasn't where he remembered me being. I screamed bloody murder for him out in the middle of the street. I was FRANTIC! Finally, by the grace of God, he came running to me. I will NEVER let my kids out of my sight again...not for a second. Anything can happen - and it happens in an INSTANT!

 

I don't intend to sound snarky. I *really* don't. Do you expect that parents, good parents go from 0 - leave the house without many such incidents throought the years? Things can, will and do happen even with good, adequate or superior parenting. Not every (or maybe even most) events happen and the JUST HAPPEN because life is complex.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Joanne

[Heather in Neverland]

If you want to protect your kids from violence and molestation also consider keeping them from Sports Coaches, Youth Pastors, Teachers and Bus Drivers.

I do. My children do not go with other adults alone anywhere. Well, except for their grandma. I am at church/sporting events with them as well.

 

The OP used a family's tragedy to posit her parenting paradigm. It's similar in intent as someone coming here after Columbine and saying "that's why I homeschool". That's a big conclusion you are jumping to. I posted it because I am often accused of being overprotective and told "I can't shelter them forever" and "I have to let them have more freedom or they will grow up warped in some way" both in IRL and the same sentiment is expressed here on the boards. It seems no matter how we "overprotective" parents try to explain our viewpoint we are told "statistically speaking this hardly ever happens, yada, yada, yada". Then a "statistic" happened very close to home. I am not slamming every other parenting style out there. I am merely explaining my own.

 

You *can* be too over protective. Being OVERprotective has risks that, IMO, negate advantages of safety or perceived safety. I do not intend to quantify or delineate the lines of OVERprotective for every family. I'd ask the same on return that the criteria of UNDER protective be left up to individual circumstances. To categorically assert 5 equals too young to ride a bike in an apartment complex is as inaacurate as asserting 10 is too old to be first given that freedom.

What exactly are these risks of being overprotective? Do we have statistics on them? I do not intend to delineate rules for other families either...just mine. I categorically asserted that I think 5 is too young to ride bikes alone. It is my opinion. I'm allowed to have it.

 

 

To say this tragdey would have been avoided if she had been supervised (read: had she been parented CORRECTLY) (No. SUPERVISED. If her mom had been outside with the child, the abductor would NOT have walked up and snatched the child off of her bike and murdered her. IF you disagree with that then I don't know what to tell you.) is a red herring to issues of family safety, growth and development.

 

It's a newsworthy tragedy because it's rare and awful. Tragedy happens; let's not blame the victims while trying to present ourselves as having immunity from tragedy. I am not trying present myself as having immunity from tragedy. Quite the opposite. Which is why I am overprotective.

 

I think the parenting prejudice leans the opposite way. Those "free-range" parents are the "voice of reason" while us protective parents are stunting our children's emotional growth and will wind up with adult children who won't leave home? And I am the one positing my parenting paradigm?

 

The whole meaning of my original post was one of PREVENTION. This particular incident could have been prevented. Maybe other incidents cannot be but this one could have been. And it wasn't. And she's dead. And I think it is a tragedy on many, many levels.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Heather in NC

[Joanne]

Wasn't this the child whose mother's "friend" was a sexual perpetrator? It seems that that's where the level of protection should have been.

 

I am ofb the belief that adult perpetrators *always* give information about themselves, their intention and their evil. Frequently an adult perpetrator has a trail of unreported victims as well.

 

However, I would never automatically blame guardians or adults or parents or leaders in missing these clues

Ss we have largely been socialized and taught to ignore and disregard them.

 

Personally I believe adults and children more at risk not knowing that info than a 5 year old riding her bike in an apartment complex.

[Kelli in TN]

 

My own family style is more free range than many posters here. I think it's disrespectful and unkind and inaccurate to judge that style (one I chose deliberately and with informed thinking) as underprotective.

 

It seems to me the more protective parents on here are the ones who are on the defensive. The less protective parents are the reasonable sane ones, according to this thread and others like it in the past.

 

I'm sure many people are convinced that my children are coddled, mother-smothered, pitiful children who are probably not developing at an appropriate rate because their growth is stifled.

 

I have not seen one post from the parents who believe in proactive protection attacking or judging any of the more free range parents.

[Kelli in TN]

I think the parenting prejudice leans the opposite way. Those "free-range" parents are the "voice of reason" while us protective parents are stunting our children's emotional growth and will wind up with adult children who won't leave home? And I am the one posting my parenting paradigm?

 

The whole meaning of my original post was one of PREVENTION. This particular incident could have been prevented. Maybe other incidents cannot be but this one could have been. And it wasn't. And she's dead. And I think it is a tragedy on many, many levels.

 

 

:iagree:

 

 

Word.

[angela in ohio]

Wasn't this the child whose mother's "friend" was a sexual perpetrator? It seems that that's where the level of protection should have been.

 

Indeed. This is a tragic end for the girl, but her life was tragic before this happened to her. Mom was too deep in her own problems to protect her daughter. More than one "friend" was a sexual perpetrator, and mom was a drug abuser.

 

(This happened about 15 miles from here.)

[battlemaiden]

The whole meaning of my original post was one of PREVENTION. This particular incident could have been prevented.

 

You don't know this. I'm an overprotective parent, according to my neighbors, but I can't prevent everything. And I would be foolish to believe I could.

 

I'm honestly shocked at your assumptions, Heather. :001_huh:

 

I'm not writing much of what I'm thinking.:glare:

 

Jo

[msjones]

Every parent does the best they can. And I find it heartbreaking and a bit appalling that there are those who have posted and openly blamed the mom for the loss of her precious child. You have no idea what the situation was. She could have run into the bathroom, any one of a number of scenarios...and lets face it, there are a vast number of parents who allow their children to play in their own yard, believing them to be safe. And you know, they SHOULD BE. Children darn well SHOULD be safe in their own flipping yards. It is not the mother's fault that a twisted, sick EVIL individual stole her child and killed her. It is the evil sack of scum's fault, and nobody else's. The mother is his victim as well. If she knew this person that did this, she's even more his victim, as she's been doubly betrayed...this is no longer a stranger, but someone her and her child trusted.

 

Blows my mind and turns my stomach that people would actually sit here and blame the mother for the actions of a sick and twisted individual because she didn't have her eyes on her child every moment.

 

I hope to God that nobody who knows this poor woman is in any way associated with this board. I can't imagine the pain that such callous, lofty judgment would cause her.

 

I'm with you here. It's one thing to believe the mother is partly to blame for her daughter's rape and murder. It's another thing to toss it out for casual discussion on a message board.

 

I've been thinking about this thread all day...

 

I was raped at gunpoint in the middle of the day while I was at work. The story was on the news for days. I remember people speculating that I shouldn't have had the window open and my door should have been locked.

 

People want to blame the victims because it gives them the feeling that, due to their vigilance, this sort of thing would never happen to them or their children.

 

I was stunned and absolutely furious that anyone had the nerve to say what I should or should not have done to prevent my attack. In the midst of the agony of my shock and grief and fear I had to deal with women criticizing my behavior. I imagine this poor mother would feel the same way if she were reading this thread.

[Joanne]

I have not seen one post from the parents who believe in proactive protection attacking or judging any of the more free range parents.

 

The OP itself serves as just such an indigtment.

 

BTW, I did not at all say anything about the specifics in this thread, the parents in it. My heart in writing my post was one of respect and nuetrality.

 

Although I understand if you are reading it through the experience of my posts in similar threads. I do approach stranger/aquaintance risk through a particular viewpoint and I do have passionate feelings against OVERprotection.

[Heather in Neverland]

You don't know this. I'm an overprotective parent, according to my neighbors, but I can't prevent everything. And I would be foolish to believe I could.

 

I'm honestly shocked at your assumptions, Heather. :001_huh:

 

I'm not writing much of what I'm thinking.:glare:

 

Jo

 

I'm sorry I shocked you. But I stand by it. This PARTICULAR incident could have been prevented. Not everything can be. But this one? Yes. Absolutely.

[Elaine]

 

The whole meaning of my original post was one of PREVENTION. This particular incident could have been prevented.

 

 

Lots of things could be prevented, but aren't. I don't know. The whole thread feels so...pharisaic.

[Heather in Neverland]

I was stunned and absolutely furious that anyone had the nerve to say what I should or should not have done to prevent my attack. In the midst of the agony of my shock and grief and fear I had to deal with women criticizing my behavior. I imagine this poor mother would feel the same way if she were reading this thread.

 

I am terribly sorry for what you went through. But this "poor mother" is a drug abuser whose "male friend" is a registered sex offender and she left her 5yo outside unattended. It is not even close to the same thing. What happened to you is an unspeakable tragedy. What happened to this little girl is an unspeakable tragedy. But this little girl should have had someone watching out for her who wasn't.

[Heather in Neverland]

Lots of things could be prevented, but aren't. .

 

But does that make it OK? Are you saying the mother bears ZERO responsibility in this?

[coralloyd]

:iagree:You go Heather!

[Old Dominion Heather]

I'm sorry I shocked you. But I stand by it. This PARTICULAR incident could have been prevented. Not everything can be. But this one? Yes. Absolutely.

 

Not necessarily... In particular in this case. The mom was friends with the suspect. If he is guilty, he could have snatched the kid at any time, or waited until he was babysitting her.

 

If it wasn't him, anyone could drive up and snatch a kid while the mom is 20 feet away. Tragedy could happen anywhere.

 

I don't see how this mom can be said to be responsible simply because she was letting her child ride a bike... if it turns out that she knew about the friend's criminal record, encouraged his friendship, etc... (and if he is the guilty party) then that would make her somewhat culpable, or at least negligent in my opinion.

[Old Dominion Heather]

I think the responsiblity she bears is in allowing a sex offender to be a "father-figure" to her child, if indeed he is the guilty party.

[KingM]

But does that make it OK? Are you saying the mother bears ZERO responsibility in this?

 

I don't know the situation, although the more details that come out, the more it seems like her lifestyle put her in contact with dangers for herself and her family.

 

But no, she is not responsible for what happened to her child. I feel the same way when someone says that a woman was raped because she was dressed provocatively. It doesn't matter what a woman does, or what dangerous situation she is in, the responsibility lies 100% with the abuser/aggressor/predator.

 

But of course we would be fools not to heed warnings, or to blunder into bad situations. I'm not at fault if I'm mugged, but that doesn't mean that it's wise to wander into some neighborhoods after hours.

 

All of this is to say that a child should never, ever be taken advantage of, no matter how weak, vulnerable, or neglected. Anyone who harms a child in this way should be put in a hole somewhere and never see the light of day again. But I do think it's acceptable to discuss--even when we don't agree--what level of protection/vigilance is necessary to raise a healthy and safe child.

[Elaine]

But does that make it OK? Are you saying the mother bears ZERO responsibility in this?

 

No, where did I infer that?

[Elaine]

I don't know the situation, although the more details that come out, the more it seems like her lifestyle put her in contact with dangers for herself and her family.

 

But no, she is not responsible for what happened to her child. I feel the same way when someone says that a woman was raped because she was dressed provocatively. It doesn't matter what a woman does, or what dangerous situation she is in, the responsibility lies 100% with the abuser/aggressor/predator.

 

But of course we would be fools not to heed warnings, or to blunder into bad situations. I'm not at fault if I'm mugged, but that doesn't mean that it's wise to wander into some neighborhoods after hours.

 

All of this is to say that a child should never, ever be taken advantage of, no matter how weak, vulnerable, or neglected. Anyone who harms a child in this way should be put in a hole somewhere and never see the light of day again. But I do think it's acceptable to discuss--even when we don't agree--what level of protection/vigilance is necessary to raise a healthy and safe child.

 

This I agree with 100%.

[Peek a Boo]

I wonder if the level of protection in our society (and I count myself in this) is contributing to the issue we have as a society of kids not making a transition to independent adulthood.

 

I wonder. That's all. I do not know if there is a relationship. I am certainly not accusing anyone here of making poor parenting decisions. I was pretty sheltered myself, and I think I turned out all right.:D

 

And I think about that (safety vs. independence) as I try to decide where to draw the line for my kids. That's all.

 

I don't wonder. It seems pretty darn obvious that most of that [the issue we have as a society of kids not making a transition to independent adulthood] boils down to training vs NOT training, not whether 'the leash' was short enough or long enough.

 

 

This author does a great job (though I am sure others will disagree with that assessment) speaking to the fact of the crime rates that are lower now than they have been since the 1970's.

 

Free-Rancge Kids

 

Her book is excellent.

 

gee. maybe those statistics are lower cuz we are being MORE CAREFUL, lol. Who was it in another thread that mentioned how the "range of freedom" has consistently decreased over the years? and we have lower crime statistics? go figger.

 

 

You *can* be too over protective. Being OVERprotective has risks that, IMO, negate advantages of safety or perceived safety. I do not intend to quantify or delineate the lines of OVERprotective for every family. I'd ask the same on return that the criteria of UNDER protective be left up to individual circumstances. To categorically assert 5 equals too young to ride a bike in an apartment complex is as inaacurate as asserting 10 is too old to be first given that freedom.

 

I disagree.

I'm scratching my head to consider how a dead or unmolested child is better off than an overprotected one. On the other hand, we have TONS of data that show how basic precautions can literally make the difference between a life or death situation.

 

The biggest problem w/ your statement is that you assert a risk from being over protective, but then refuse to delineate what those actions/risks may be.

 

 

It seems to me the more protective parents on here are the ones who are on the defensive. The less protective parents are the reasonable sane ones, according to this thread and others like it in the past.

:iagree:

 

 

I don't know the situation, although the more details that come out, the more it seems like her lifestyle put her in contact with dangers for herself and her family.

 

But no, she is not responsible for what happened to her child. I feel the same way when someone says that a woman was raped because she was dressed provocatively. It doesn't matter what a woman does, or what dangerous situation she is in, the responsibility lies 100% with the abuser/aggressor/predator.

 

But of course we would be fools not to heed warnings, or to blunder into bad situations. I'm not at fault if I'm mugged, but that doesn't mean that it's wise to wander into some neighborhoods after hours.

 

All of this is to say that a child should never, ever be taken advantage of, no matter how weak, vulnerable, or neglected. Anyone who harms a child in this way should be put in a hole somewhere and never see the light of day again. But I do think it's acceptable to discuss--even when we don't agree--what level of protection/vigilance is necessary to raise a healthy and safe child.

 

yup --THERE's the voice of reason! ;)

[runninmommy]

Peek,

 

You rock!

 

Good points.

[Dianne-TX]

Believe it or not, they do think it is overprotective. I hear/read all the time about "we used to ride the neighborhoods unsupervised when we were kids and we are fine!" and how allowing a child to walk down the block to the neighbor's house by themselves is just fine, etc. Yes, she was 5yo. But I wouldn't let my kids play outside unsupervised at 6yo or 7yo either. My 11yo isn't even allowed. He can have all the freedom he wants when he's grown but I will not play the odds while he is still a kid and he will just have to live with it.

 

:iagree:

[angela in ohio]

I am terribly sorry for what you went through. But this "poor mother" is a drug abuser whose "male friend" is a registered sex offender and she left her 5yo outside unattended. It is not even close to the same thing. What happened to you is an unspeakable tragedy. What happened to this little girl is an unspeakable tragedy. But this little girl should have had someone watching out for her who wasn't.

 

Heather and I both live pretty close to this tragedy. There are a lot more facts available locally. This was NOT a poor innocent mother who just turned her back for a moment while her daughter was riding her bike outside.

[Laura Corin]

Cloistering them comes at a huge cost to their confidence and ability to interact in the world. A child dying is a tragedy. But reacting to the (extremely) rare killing in a fashion that limits life has it's own costs.

 

Bill

 

I wouldn't let a five year old out alone on a bike because I would be afraid of him/her losing control and ending up in the road, however 'Hobbes' was happily exploring the local woodland on his own at eight.

 

Laura

[Renee in NC]

Heather and I both live pretty close to this tragedy. There are a lot more facts available locally. This was NOT a poor innocent mother who just turned her back for a moment while her daughter was riding her bike outside.

 

But the more details that are given, the more it seems this isn't about over-protective or under-protective as being named in this thread - it seems the mother was non-protective and put her child in danger by the company she kept. (Just going by posts here - I don't know the details.)

 

I do not let my 5yo out alone - she has to go out with a brother. However, I do let my 11yo walk to the mailboxes by himself (down the road a ways out of sight and hearing.) I guess I fall somewhere in the middle.

 

My mother and I discussed this yesterday. She says that her parents did not protect her enough, but it wasn't strangers that they should have protected her against. There was an older man (70s) in her neighborhood who had all the children play at his house and HE was the danger to the dc, not the random stranger driving down the street.

 

In a neighborhood like some I grew up in - some mothers home, lots of kids, cul-de-sac street (or an area that was not a "drive-thru" area) - letting a child out alone less risky. School-age children did not have babysitters after-school. Most people don't have that anymore, which makes it harder to give them free range.

 

I do think there is a happy medium between no freedom and total freedom and it is determined by child, location, and situation.

[Old Dominion Heather]

Peek says "gee. maybe those statistics are lower cuz we are being MORE CAREFUL, lol. "

 

 

The crime rates have actually been on the decline since the late eighties, before the massive child safety movement, if I remember correctly. one link on statistics The media continues to fear-monger about this issue.

 

It seems such a shame for people to live in fear (not saying you do this) that SOMEONE will snatch their child out from under their nose, when the likelihood is incredibly small and is steadily decreasing. No one is saying that you should not take reasonable precautions... I wouldn't let my five year old ride a bike where I couldn't see him.

 

It IS a false comparison to use this tragic case, where the suspect is a family friend, as one to show the dangers of stranger abduction. It wasn't a stranger.

 

You know, Peek, you should check the book out. I think you would agree with most of what the author says about trusting parents to make decisions for their children. She is all about giving reasonable amounts of freedom when the child is ready.

Edited June 6, 2009 by Old Dominion Heather
add statistics link

[TravelingChris]

I got up early this morning and was watching a Bill O'Reilly re-broadcast. He was outraged, as I am, about a judge in OK who gave a man who admitted to raping two sisters repeatedly only a 1 year sentence. Geraldo was interviewing the mother who was distraught. But the man involved was her boyfriend and Geraldo commented that she didn't seem to learn anything since she had moved a new boyfriend in.

 

Statistics show that the most common predator is the boyfriend or stepdad. In this case on O'Reilly, the woman was a poor, overweight, not attractive female. Unfortunately, unless the boyfriend is even poorer and less attractive, there very well may be some other reason he is there.

 

THe problem with the mom in the first post is not that her 5 year old was riding in the parking lot but that she is a drug abuse with very poor judgement in all regards. I wouldn't have let my 5 yo ride thorugh a parking lot like that but that's because I am aware of bike/car accident statistics. Unfortunately, the predators tend to prey on the most vulnerable children which include children of single mothers, children who are unattended, children who are not doing well in school, etc, etc.

[Joanne]

But this "poor mother" is a drug abuser whose "male friend" is a registered sex offender and she left her 5yo outside unattended. It is not even close to the same thing. What happened to you is an unspeakable tragedy. What happened to this little girl is an unspeakable tragedy. But this little girl should have had someone watching out for her who wasn't.

 

This is *entirely* different than the child playing in an apartment complex scenario posited in the OP.

 

Having worked with drug addicted mothers who make questionable hook up, I can have considerable experience with the dynamic involved in the case now being revealed. There is no comparison between that lifestyle and decisions and a general discussion on the level of supervision needed for school aged children.

[Heather in Neverland]

This is *entirely* different than the child playing in an apartment complex scenario posited in the OP.

 

Having worked with drug addicted mothers who make questionable hook up, I can have considerable experience with the dynamic involved in the case now being revealed. There is no comparison between that lifestyle and decisions and a general discussion on the level of supervision needed for school aged children.

 

I agree that it adds more dimensions to the case but ANY unsupervised 5yo could potentially be abducted whether their mother is a drug-addict or not. It certainly added to the odds for this child but there are many families whose children were abducted that do not do drugs or hang out with criminals. Again, my whole point was one of supervision and prevention.

[Joanne]

I agree that it adds more dimensions to the case but ANY unsupervised 5yo could potentially be abducted whether their mother is a drug-addict or not. It certainly added to the odds for this child but there are many families whose children were abducted that do not do drugs or hang out with criminals. Again, my whole point was one of supervision and prevention.

 

I understand.

 

In an ironic tragedy, it proves one of my points when these topics have been discussed before. STRANGER abduction is exceedingly rare.

[*LC]

 

If a child wearing no seatbelt, dies in a car crash caused by a drunk driver in another car, are the child's parents culpable? Yes. Is it the parent's fault their car was hit by a drunk driver? No. Is it the parent's fault the child wore no seat belt? Yes. Could the parent's actions have prevented the child's death? Yes.

 

This is all that is being said and it is common sense. It's tragic all around, but still.....

 

You have no way of knowing if a seatbelt would have saved that child's life. Our friends were in a wreck caused by poor weather conditions. One daughter, age 8, died in the wreck. No one else was inured other than bumps and bruises. The 8-year-old was in a booster seat and wearing a seatbelt. In fact, the seatbelt killed her by "cutting" her neck vein during the wreck. There was not a mark on her. I still put my kids in booster seats and seatbelts, but I know that doesn't mean they will alway be protected.

 

The orginal post said this little girl wouldn't have been killed if her mother had been outside with her. However, I see in later posts that it now looks like the little girl was taken by someone known to the mom. So, it is wrong to assume that the mother wouldn't have let the girl go somewhere with the suspect. I'm not saying she would have let the girl go to be killed. However, since she knew the "suspect" she could have easily said, "Yes, she can ride her bike with you to get some ice cream down the street." So, her being outside wouldn't have necessarily kept her child safe.

 

Common sense doesn't necessarily keep up safe, but it is all we have.

[amy g.]

I'm both extremes of the protectiveness spectrum in typical Gemini fashion. We never left our kids in the church nursery and we do not do baby sitters at all.

 

I won't let my 13 year old son go to Boy Scout camp with his troop unless Dh can go with him. I do not feel safe with the adult supervision, and the behavioral expectations. I did let him go to Boy Scout Winter camp in another state with a very strict leader who was my husband's own scout leader 30 years ago.

 

When he was 9, he started going across the country to piano camp for a month at a time. I feel very safe with their supervision, and have even talked to an electrician that had to pass a background check before he could do any work on the campus. I also feel safe about the fact that we can call at any time to talk to Ds, and they will put him on the phone. Family members can also visit the campus at anytime.

 

I did not feel safe with the leadership at our old church, and would not let our teenagers attend any functions or classes without one parent being there. There were just too many warning signs that the youth were not being guided or protected.

 

I let my 10 year old spend the night out of town with a family we only know through attending goat shows together. I just felt a peace about this family, and I could not think of a reason good enough to keep my daughter from having this special time.

 

I've let both of my oldest go on vacations with family friends. They play outside alone if they have our Great Pyrenees with them. My oldest walks alone to her volunteer work, but she calls me when she gets there, and she calls me when she stars out for home.

 

I had almost no supervision as a child, but my instincts tended to keep me safe, so I rely on those same instincts when it comes to my kids. I want them to grow up and have freedom, but if I have a hinky feeling about a situation, I absolutely will not back down.

[katemary63]

You have no way of knowing if a seatbelt would have saved that child's life. Our friends were in a wreck caused by poor weather conditions. One daughter, age 8, died in the wreck. No one else was inured other than bumps and bruises. The 8-year-old was in a booster seat and wearing a seatbelt. In fact, the seatbelt killed her by "cutting" her neck vein during the wreck. There was not a mark on her. I still put my kids in booster seats and seatbelts, but I know that doesn't mean they will alway be protected.

 

The orginal post said this little girl wouldn't have been killed if her mother had been outside with her. However, I see in later posts that it now looks like the little girl was taken by someone known to the mom. So, it is wrong to assume that the mother wouldn't have let the girl go somewhere with the suspect. I'm not saying she would have let the girl go to be killed. However, since she knew the "suspect" she could have easily said, "Yes, she can ride her bike with you to get some ice cream down the street." So, her being outside wouldn't have necessarily kept her child safe.

 

Common sense doesn't necessarily keep up safe, but it is all we have.

 

 

You quoted me but then didn't read what I wrote. I said, "Could the parent's actions have prevented the child's death? Yes." I never "assumed" anything about seatbelts and how often they save lives. In the case of a car accident in which a child dies while not wearing a seatbelt, it is entirely possible that the seatbelt could have saved the child's life. That is the only point I was making.

 

In addition, the OP is trying to make the point that if a 5 year old is unsupervised and comes to harm during that time, the mother bears SOME culpability in that it is the OP's opinion that age 5 is too young to be left alone outside unsupervised. And that it is possible that the harm that took place may not have so happened IF the child had been supervised. Like I said, THAT is just common sense and I agree with her.

 

Your point that in THIS case, it seems like the mother's associations were more of a danger to the child then simply being unsupervised brings even MORE culpability on the mother. THIS mother KNOWS that bad people are nearby often, yet STILL does not supervise her child. That's a double whammy of culpability in my book.

 

Someone posted that "all parents do the best they can." That is just nonsense. There are parents out there that could not give a crap about their kids for goodness sakes. Some of them are relatives of mine. Lots and lots of parents do NOT do the best they can and what happens to their kids because of it is on their heads. Why try to defend it or excuse it? Why feel bad because they might be wracked with guilt? If this woman had a registered sex offender, criminal as a "father figure" for her child, she SHOULD be wracked with guilt for the rest of her life. This has nothing to do with "blaming" the victim like some have posted. A negligent or abusive parent is NOT a victim when their child suffers due to their negligence or abuse.

 

I am not thinking about how this mother feels, I'll be honest about that. I am thinking about that girl and what she went through during the last horrific hours of her sad little life. ( and who knows what she had been through up to that point.) I believe that this mother bears some responsibility for the suffering this child endured and I don't apologize for that. People are accountable for their behavior. She is accountable for leaving a five year old out alone. She is accountable for the company she keeps and the lifestyle she led that left her child vulnerable and exposed to these types of people.

 

( OBVIOUSLY there are good responsible parents whose children are harmed by deviants in a random way - that point is not a refutation to what I have said. Those parents are OBVIOUSLY NOT culpable in their child's misfortune, just as the parent whose child is saftly buckled in but dies anyway in a car crash in also not culpable. )

Edited June 7, 2009 by katemary63

[Peek a Boo]

The crime rates have actually been on the decline since the late eighties, before the massive child safety movement, if I remember correctly. one link on statistics The media continues to fear-monger about this issue.

 

It seems such a shame for people to live in fear (not saying you do this) that SOMEONE will snatch their child out from under their nose, when the likelihood is incredibly small and is steadily decreasing. No one is saying that you should not take reasonable precautions... I wouldn't let my five year old ride a bike where I couldn't see him.

 

It IS a false comparison to use this tragic case, where the suspect is a family friend, as one to show the dangers of stranger abduction. It wasn't a stranger.

 

You know, Peek, you should check the book out. I think you would agree with most of what the author says about trusting parents to make decisions for their children. She is all about giving reasonable amounts of freedom when the child is ready.

 

the timeline for child safety awareness starts in the 70s and gets in full swing by the time the statistics start declining:

 

http://www.actionchildprotection.org/documents/2008/pdf/MayABriefHistoryofChildSafetyIntervention.pdf

 

voila.

 

I'm not stupid enough to try to separate child dangers: there is still a responsibility for parents to supervise children. Regardless the specific situation in the OP, this little girl was not adequately supervised. Even if the mother had been knowingly allowing the child to be molested, the child STILL apparently wouldn't have been properly supervised.

 

I think it is a shame for parents to ignore prudent advice and training opportunities. there are far more facts [as opposed to fear mongering] of child abuse, endangerment, molestation, and abduction to keep in mind than just one set of statistics about one narrowly defined crime.

 

i'm sure I will get around to reading the book eventually tho. And yeah-- I'm all about giving reasonable amounts of freedom when the child is ready too. But I'm sure our definition of "reasonable" would differ greatly. i wouldn't agree that turning a 9yo loose in NY city is reasonably safe.

[Heather in Neverland]

Your point that in THIS case, it seems like the mother's associations were more of a danger to the child then simply being unsupervised brings even MORE culpability on the mother. THIS mother KNOWS that bad people are nearby often, yet STILL does not supervise her child. That's a double whammy of culpability in my book.

 

Someone posted that "all parents do the best they can." That is just nonsense. There are parents out there that could not give a crap about their kids for goodness sakes. Some of them are relatives of mine. Lots and lots of parents do NOT do the best they can and what happens to their kids because of it is on their heads. Why try to defend it or excuse it? Why feel bad because they might be wracked with guilt? If this woman had a registered sex offender, criminal as a "father figure" for her child, she SHOULD be wracked with guilt for the rest of her life. This has nothing to do with "blaming" the victim like some have posted. A negligent or abusive parent is NOT a victim when their child suffers due to their negligence or abuse.

 

I am not thinking about how this mother feels, I'll be honest about that. I am thinking about that girl and what she went through during the last horrific hours of her sad little life. ( and who knows what she had been through up to that point.) I believe that this mother bears some responsibility for the suffering this child endured and I don't apologize for that. People are accountable for their behavior. She is accountable for leaving a five year old out alone. She is accountable for the company she keeps and the lifestyle she led that left her child vulnerable and exposed to these types of people.

 

 

:iagree: and AMEN.

[sunshine]

A 1% chance in 100 years is too big a statistic for me to let down my guard. Because that 1% is a human child, a real little child that laughed and cried and tried to scream when their abductor hurt them. That 1% bled and died. Someone has to be that 1% and it is not going to be my child. If I have to be a helicopter mom, so be it. I will kiss my child every night in their own beds. Not a stone at a grave.