My Barnes and Noble story

[Tiff in TX]

Parenting styles can differ and yet still be valid. The law does not vary. In this case Barb broke no law, so to have the police called on her by an employee who heard her plans and watched her leave the store without saying anything is simply ridiculous. We can be angry about poor treatment of someone without necessarily agreeing with the actions. Personally, I wouldn't leave my 11-year-old in a store unattended, because that's outside my comfort zone, NOT outside the law. That doesn't make what happened to Barb any less horrifying.

 

 

Valid points about parenting styles and the law. However, when she left, the store employee had no idea about her set time for return and may have assumed that the children would be there for a longer time frame than a quick 30 minutes or so. I don't know how long kids have to be alone for abandonment laws to take effect.

 

I guess I just read the story as a series of unfortunate events, and we can't simply look past the event that caused the others. For what it is worth, I don't think any of the adults in the situation handled it properly, but hindsight is 20/20.

[SonshineLearner]

It always amazes me that 5 yr olds can walk to school, but not left where <I> feel comfortable for 2 minutes when I grab something...... The Government does busy work instead of dealing with THEIR problems... (Kinda like me on here instead of doing laundry :)

[SonshineLearner]

You know what is funny, there are only THREE states with actual legal ages to be left alone. They are Maryland-8, Oregon-10, and Illinois-14. 14! I'm still having trouble with that.:tongue_smilie:

 

In Oregon, when we called... 10 to be left alone, 11 with siblings, 12 to babysit..... (But 5 to walk to school???, and never to be left in the car??????) :001_huh:

[Quiver0f10]

The name is the store manager's, not the employee's, and it was posted because Barb couldn't find the information on her own and was told they didn't give it out.

 

Then it would be appropriate to PM it to Barb and not post it for the entire world to see.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Quiver0f10

[melissel]

Valid points about parenting styles and the law. However, when she left, the store employee had no idea about her set time for return and may have assumed that the children would be there for a longer time frame than a quick 30 minutes or so. I don't know how long kids have to be alone for abandonment laws to take effect.

 

I guess I just read the story as a series of unfortunate events, and we can't simply look past the event that caused the others. For what it is worth, I don't think any of the adults in the situation handled it properly, but hindsight is 20/20.

 

The store employee overheard her talking and knew when she left the store. She watched them the whole time they were in the store. At any point, the employee was free to stop her and say, "Ma'am, the store has a policy against children left alone in the store." Yep, it might have been uncomfortable for her, but as an employee, it is her job to enforce the store policies, isn't it? As I said earlier, there were many opportunities to address the situation BEFORE the police were called. And again, as Barb stated, the police immediately told her she broke no laws but proceeded to publicly berate her anyway, in front of her now traumatized children.

 

I actually think Barb handled the situation just fine. There was no posted signage that she could see about unattended children. No one spoke to her about unattended children. There is no law about unattended children. She was comfortable leaving her children and made a conscious decision to give them this freedom. The only people who acted unconscionably were the employee and the police. I think THEIR lenses may need some correction.

[melissel]

Then it would be appropriate to PM it to Barb and not post it for the entire world to see.

 

It's public information, isn't it? No one posted the manager's home phone number and address.

[Tiff in TX]

The store employee overheard her talking and knew when she left the store. She watched them the whole time they were in the store. At any point, the employee was free to stop her and say, "Ma'am, the store has a policy against children left alone in the store." Yep, it might have been uncomfortable for her, but as an employee, it is her job to enforce the store policies, isn't it? As I said earlier, there were many opportunities to address the situation BEFORE the police were called. And again, as Barb stated, the police immediately told her she broke no laws but proceeded to publicly berate her anyway, in front of her now traumatized children.

 

I actually think Barb handled the situation just fine. There was no posted signage that she could see about unattended children. No one spoke to her about unattended children. There is no law about unattended children. She was comfortable leaving her children and made a conscious decision to give them this freedom. The only people who acted unconscionably were the employee and the police. I think THEIR lenses may need some correction.

 

So how long can a parent leave their children unattended in public?

 

Who is responsible if the 8 year old stands on a chair to reach a book and falls and breaks her arm?

 

It certainly doesn't sound like these kids were being rowdy, but some children act differently when their parents are not around. The store employee had no was of knowing if the kids were going to Susie sweeties or Johnny rottens.

 

In all honesty, I don't think that Barb did anything seriously wrong, but it seems like she isn't taking her actions into account and only looking at the actions of others.

[melissel]

So how long can a parent leave their children unattended in public?

 

If there's no posted store policy or law? As long as they want to. How long can a 13-year-old hang out at B&N? How long can 16-year-olds hang out at the library?

 

Who is responsible if the 8 year old stands on a chair to reach a book and falls and breaks her arm?

 

The same people who are responsible if a 12-year-old does, or a 16-year-old, or an adult. Any of those parents or shoppers can sue the store. I don't see a difference, really.

 

It certainly doesn't sound like these kids were being rowdy, but some children act differently when their parents are not around. The store employee had no was of knowing if the kids were going to Susie sweeties or Johnny rottens.

 

Once again, the store employee was in the children's section the whole time and heard Barb's plans to leave the store. AT ANY TIME, she could have spoken up. She could have asked the children where their mom was. Calling the police should NOT be the first and only line of defense in this situation.

 

In all honesty, I don't think that Barb did anything seriously wrong, but it seems like she isn't taking her actions into account and only looking at the actions of others.

 

Barb's actions were entirely legal and as far as she could tell, within the scope of the store's policies. What else is there to take into account?

 

 

My responses in red above.

[elinnea]

My oldest ds are the same ages as the OP's kids. I am a bit of an overprotective mom but I wouldn't have a problem with doing what she did. Her kids were together and they had a cell phone and it was a bookstore not an amusement park or a concert or some other busy venue. I think it is important for kids to learn to be independent and responsible and in today's society I think that's really hard.

Certainly one shouldn't be leaving their 6 year old in a store or allow their kids to be rowdy and disturb others or destroy merchandise but it's unfair to paint all kids with the same broad brush. If the OP's girls were reading quietly and behaving then I think the store employee was waaaay out of line to call the police. Unbelievable! Like others have said she could have spoken directly to the mom or the girls instead of taking such a drastic step.

Definitely call the store manager AND corporate.

[OnTheBrink]

Who is responsible if the 8 year old stands on a chair to reach a book and falls and breaks her arm?

 

The same people who are responsible if a 12-year-old does, or a 16-year-old, or an adult. Any of those parents or shoppers can sue the store. I don't see a difference, really.

 

That doesn't answer the question, though. WHO is responsible for unattended children? The store employees? The absent parent? If the child gets hurt, abducted, or molested, who is held liable?

[Lolly]

So how long can a parent leave their children unattended in public?

 

Who is responsible if the 8 year old stands on a chair to reach a book and falls and breaks her arm?

 

It certainly doesn't sound like these kids were being rowdy, but some children act differently when their parents are not around. The store employee had no was of knowing if the kids were going to Susie sweeties or Johnny rottens.

 

In all honesty, I don't think that Barb did anything seriously wrong, but it seems like she isn't taking her actions into account and only looking at the actions of others.

 

That doesn't answer the question, though. WHO is responsible for unattended children? The store employees? The absent parent? If the child gets hurt, abducted, or molested, who is held liable?

 

You know what, it is called an accident. The 8 yo would be responsible for falling from a chair if she stood up on it. Well, unless a bookshelf fell over on her that was not properly installed. If the child was abducted or molested, the person perpetrating the crime is responsible. Same if the mom was just right down the aisle or outside the bathroom door.

[OnTheBrink]

You know what, it is called an accident. The 8 yo would be responsible for falling from a chair if she stood up on it. Well, unless a bookshelf fell over on her that was not properly installed. If the child was abducted or molested, the person perpetrating the crime is responsible. Same if the mom was just right down the aisle or outside the bathroom door.

 

You know what, you still didn't answer the question. And, wrong, but an 8 year old isn't legally responsible for anything.

 

Naturally, someone who perpetrates a crime is responsible for their actions, I'm asking, Who is responsible for supervising the child if the child is left alone in a public place?

[creekland]

You know what, you still didn't answer the question. And, wrong, but an 8 year old isn't legally responsible for anything.

 

Naturally, someone who perpetrates a crime is responsible for their actions, I'm asking, Who is responsible for supervising the child if the child is left alone in a public place?

 

As long as the child is old enough, no one is LEGALLY responsible for the broken arm. Anyone around - esp employees - would be responsible for calling 911 - same as they would if it were an adult that fell or had a heart attack or whatever.

 

My kids have been alone far younger, but then again, we're VERY free range. It's the way I was brought up and I loved it. My kids did/do too. Fortunately, we live rural, so even the local police are in support of free range (behaving) children.

[justamouse]

You know what that story says to me? That nosy people who judge others make a lot of trouble.

 

 

 

Just a question-did the woman stick around to watch the fallout of her phone call?

[homeschoolin'mygirls]

The store manager is Jessica Madhelia.

 

Send her a link to this discussion. Truly. For every poster on this thread there's more people reading it.There are over 5000 views to this thread already.

 

I think any responsible store manager would WANT to know about this. If only so the store can clarify their postion, and prevent similar situtions in the future. (edited to add--I don't mean clarify on here exactly. Better signs, employee training, etc)

 

I would be so upset esp with the police.

Yes, they had to respond and yes, the officer has a right to his parenting style. As do you. And your daughter? What if she needs to call the police one day? Her fear is not a good thing.

Edited May 17, 2010 by homeschoolin'mygirls
clarification

[melissel]

You know what, you still didn't answer the question. And, wrong, but an 8 year old isn't legally responsible for anything.

 

Naturally, someone who perpetrates a crime is responsible for their actions, I'm asking, Who is responsible for supervising the child if the child is left alone in a public place?

 

There's no single answer to that question. In a perfect, non-litigious world, all parents claim responsibility for their own actions, whether they leave their children alone in a store or go ahead and allow a child to climb the chair, and as a result, the child falls. In the real world, all kinds of cases could be (and have been) made. A store could be sued for such an incident whether the parent was standing right there or was next-door in TJ Maxx. Is this ethical? Right? Moral? No. Do ridiculous lawsuits happen anyway? Every single day. What this employee did didn't protect the store from anything, as we can clearly see. In fact, a litigious parent would go ahead and start up a lawsuit based on what actually happened in Barb's case.

 

ETA: And once again, I feel I must make the point. This employee didn't just show up in the children's section; see the children there, seemingly alone; ask the children, "Where's your mom?"; wait around for 20 minutes to see if the mom was nearby or coming back; and then make a decision to call her manager and involve the police because these children had been here for hours and hours. She saw their mom, watched them in the store for awhile, saw that they were well-behaved children, heard Barb say she was leaving, LET HER LEAVE, and then called the police. I think THIS is what most of us are having a problem with, and changes the entire flavor of the incident. We are not all raising free-range kids. I'm on the more anxious end of the spectrum myself. I have a problem leaving my kids' windows open while they sleep at night, for pete's sake! My problem is with the way the people involved handled the incident, and the fact that NO ONE BROKE ANY LAWS.

Edited May 17, 2010 by melissel

[Lolly]

I know you meant this to be funny, but at the same time it's like you are insulting children with food allergies (and their parents)... like it's just an overprotective parent of a child with food allergies spoiling all the fun. Sorry, that could actually KILL a child, and yes food allergies are on the rise... so it makes sense to not hand out food to random children.

 

I have a child with deadly food allergies. Yes, food should not be handed out to small children without consulting their parents. But, a child old enough to be on their own is old enough to know that they have a deadly allergy and politely decline the food. The sample lady at Sam's really shouldn't need to have my 11 year old come get me to give a verbal okay, which she does.

[elegantlion]

That doesn't answer the question, though. WHO is responsible for unattended children? The store employees? The absent parent? If the child gets hurt, abducted, or molested, who is held liable?

 

In this case I believe the child was being responsible for themselves and their sibling. Mom was simply a phone call away. Having worked in retail for years I would make the assumption that Mom/Dad makes the judgment about the maturity of a child to be on their own in a store. Now if the child looks fearful or is causing havoc as an employee I would have to qualms asking about the whereabouts of their parent, and making sure they find them.

 

Accidents, abductions, etc can happen with a parent within earshot.

[Renee in NC]

I have a child with deadly food allergies. Yes, food should not be handed out to small children without consulting their parents. But, a child old enough to be on their own is old enough to know that they have a deadly allergy and politely decline the food. The sample lady at Sam's really shouldn't need to have my 11 year old come get me to give a verbal okay, which she does.

 

In this case I believe the child was being responsible for themselves and their sibling. Mom was simply a phone call away. Having worked in retail for years I would make the assumption that Mom/Dad makes the judgment about the maturity of a child to be on their own in a store. Now if the child looks fearful or is causing havoc as an employee I would have to qualms asking about the whereabouts of their parent, and making sure they find them.

 

Accidents, abductions, etc can happen with a parent within earshot.

 

:iagree: and I hate that who is legally liable has to be determined for every action we take.:glare:

[elizabeth]

No unattended children might be the store policy. Legally that is their right to have such a rule and enforce it. This actually sounds similar to other "cases" I have listened to and it is more than likely that the clerk thought the children were too young and that their mother left them in the mall unattended. I am however fairly certain that the police would not be called without the knowledge and approval of the manager on duty at the time. Our Barnes has several managers, any one of which could be in charge that day. I still am really confused by the outrage. Irritation yes . Outrage is for the time when your children are approached by a strange man who tries to convince them to go outside with him. Maybe I have just had too many experiences with this sort of thing but really her beef is with the patronizing, rude and ill informed police officers that not only lectured her on a potential wrongdoing but falsely stated the law to her regarding age and a child being left alone....the manager of the store and the clerk who called are easy targets here. They are only human and might have made an error but it was not one in which anyone was hurt , kidnapped or killed.

[PiCO]

This employee didn't just show up in the children's section; see the children there, seemingly alone; ask the children, "Where's your mom?"; wait around for 20 minutes to see if the mom was nearby or coming back; and then make a decision to call her manager and involve the police because these children had been here for hours and hours. She saw their mom, watched them in the store for awhile, saw that they were well-behaved children, heard Barb say she was leaving, LET HER LEAVE, and then called the police.

 

AND the employee made a false report- saying the children were very much younger than they actually are.

[elegantlion]

No unattended children might be the store policy. Legally that is their right to have such a rule and enforce it. This actually sounds similar to other "cases" I have listened to and it is more than likely that the clerk thought the children were too young and that their mother left them in the mall unattended. I am however fairly certain that the police would not be called without the knowledge and approval of the manager on duty at the time. Our Barnes has several managers, any one of which could be in charge that day. I still am really confused by the outrage. Irritation yes . Outrage is for the time when your children are approached by a strange man who tries to convince them to go outside with him. Maybe I have just had too many experiences with this sort of thing but really her beef is with the patronizing, rude and ill informed police officers that not only lectured her on a potential wrongdoing but falsely stated the law to her regarding age and a child being left alone....the manager of the store and the clerk who called are easy targets here. They are only human and might have made an error but it was not one in which anyone was hurt , kidnapped or killed.

 

My outrage is due to the assumption and immediate judgment of the employee. At no time where the children approached and asked where their mother was at. If the employee truly feared for the safety of these children one would think she would approach them and chat with them and perhaps sit with them until their mother could be located.

 

As seems the case this employee was within earshot and instead of commenting on policy about unattended children (if this is the case), she made the judgment. IMO it sounds like she thought mom needed to be taught a lesson (my assumption obviously since I was not there).

 

What about an obviously lost child in a grocery? the police are not usually called in post haste. In most instances the child is brought to the front by the manager and the parent is paged. No attempt was made by the store to find the mother, they assumed the worst and called the police.

[mirth]

nm

Edited May 17, 2010 by mirth

[MelanieM]

ETA: And once again, I feel I must make the point. This employee didn't just show up in the children's section; see the children there, seemingly alone; ask the children, "Where's your mom?"; wait around for 20 minutes to see if the mom was nearby or coming back; and then make a decision to call her manager and involve the police because these children had been here for hours and hours. She saw their mom, watched them in the store for awhile, saw that they were well-behaved children, heard Barb say she was leaving, LET HER LEAVE, and then called the police.

 

I think there are some assumptions here that people are now accepting as fact. Barb assumes it was this woman that called because she was giving them some attitude. There is also the assumption that she overheard that she was leaving because the police said it was reported that she had gone to Target, and how else would she know.

 

It's possible that someone else called the police, and it wasn't this store employee at all.

 

It's possible that someone overheard the Target comment after Barb had already left the store... either being discussed between the kids, or when she called her daughter and said she was somewhere else. (If the word "Target" came up on the daughter's end during that call.)

 

There are lots of things that can be assumed here. We don't have to assume the worst of everyone. (That goes for the store employee and all of us!)

[Ravin]

I work in retail and it sounds like the B&N employees behaved badly. At the store where I work, a kid would have to shoplift, be very disruptive, or be upset about being left for anyone to bother them about being unattended in the store at that age. Also, it would only be management who would do anything like call the police. Regular employees would just call management and have them deal.

 

I would complain to the B&N store manager, and pursue a complaint with the police. What happened there is just messed up.

[TravelingChris]

I have been to bookstores that have a few floors. Many of them do. Those that don't often have a large one floor space. If I was a clerk, I wouldn't call the police without talking to the children or if I suspected the parent was going to leave the store and this was against store policy, I would talk to that parent before she/he left. IF the employee did file this report, it is so completely wrong.

 

Another poster said nothing harmful happened. I completely disagree. Traumatizing children is not nothing harmful. The policeman was utterly wrong. Threatening parents and children with removal from home when nothing illegal was done and there is no risk to the child is just very wrong. I agree with the other posters who say that the child's fear of the police needs to be addressed.

[melissel]

I think there are some assumptions here that people are now accepting as fact. Barb assumes it was this woman that called because she was giving them some attitude. There is also the assumption that she overheard that she was leaving because the police said it was reported that she had gone to Target, and how else would she know.

 

It's possible that someone else called the police, and it wasn't this store employee at all.

 

It's possible that someone overheard the Target comment after Barb had already left the store... either being discussed between the kids, or when she called her daughter and said she was somewhere else. (If the word "Target" came up on the daughter's end during that call.)

 

There are lots of things that can be assumed here. We don't have to assume the worst of everyone. (That goes for the store employee and all of us!)

 

Fair enough, and all good points. I am cynical enough, and have been on the receiving end of enough crummy customer service (which seems to be rule and not the exception in NJ anymore), to believe the story as Barb has relayed it though.

[angela in ohio]

I know you meant this to be funny, but at the same time it's like you are insulting children with food allergies (and their parents)... like it's just an overprotective parent of a child with food allergies spoiling all the fun. Sorry, that could actually KILL a child, and yes food allergies are on the rise... so it makes sense to not hand out food to random children.

 

I don't see how I insulted children with food allergies. :confused:

 

Yes, it was hyperbole.

 

I said the problem was parents who sue the store.

Edited May 17, 2010 by angela in ohio

[angela in ohio]

It would just be much safer (for the children) if food wasn't freely handed out to children who's impluse control might not be strong enough to say no.

 

But should a child with that little impulse control, especially one with a deadly allergy, be unsupervised in a store handing out samples or walk to the store alone?

 

We trained our dc from a very young age to refuse any food until we had been asked. They would be disciplined if they ate something that we had not checked about first. (And they have minor allergies - milk for one and red food dye for the other.) My dd used to amuse the parents at co-op because he would come all the way across the building to ask me about one M&M. :D

[laughing lioness]

I'd file a formal complaint with B & N, expecting an apology and disicpline of the employee who was clearly out of line.. Letting them know that you've had over 6,000 views on this thread might let them know that many involved parents are concerned about just treatment at their stores. I, for one, will be waiting to hear how they made this right for you. Until then, my dollars won't be spent at B & N.

 

And btw, you ROCK!! This is unjust, unfair treatment.

Edited May 17, 2010 by laughing lioness

[elizabeth]

I am dear friends with three employees and one manager at the local B and N. There is no policy regarding children left alone and certainly no one but a manager would have called police. They all said it would be for unruly, destructive behaviour or really young children that they would even consider calling the police . It might have been a casual observer rather than the B and N or the employee who might have been the one who called has gone "off the rails," so to speak. In any event their mouths were hanging open as the only time any manager called the police was for a situation where a woman was soliciting business in the coffee area of the store and naturally prostitution is not acceptable in the store even is she was merely negotiating price. In any event there is something amiss with assuming that B and N called the police and they did not do so or they have a completely whack a doodle person working there...

Edited May 18, 2010 by elizabeth

[stripe]

I'd be curious to know at what age a child is allowed to be left alone at home in your state. I was looking up library policies on leaving children in a library -- and I found this interesting discussion which mentions that state law (in this case, New Jersey) that the youngest age that children can be left safely at home alone is 7, and that the Red Cross offers babysitting classes to 11 year olds.

 

I used to take public (not school) transportation to school when I was 10, and stop by the library after school. I am not from some pre-WWII generation.

[MBM]

I'd be curious to know at what age a child is allowed to be left alone at home in your state. I was looking up library policies on leaving children in a library -- and I found this interesting discussion which mentions that state law (in this case, New Jersey) that the youngest age that children can be left safely at home alone is 7, and that the Red Cross offers babysitting classes to 11 year olds.

 

I used to take public (not school) transportation to school when I was 10, and stop by the library after school. I am not from some pre-WWII generation.

 

Our suburb in Illinois offers Red Cross babysitting classes for 11-year-olds as well as safety classes for latch key children as young as seven, but the legal age to leave a child home alone is 14. LOL. Ooookay.

[elizabeth]

This is just bizarre. I have been looking for policies/statutes about this issue for my own knowledge base and have discovered this site that is but one of many by the same mall corporation. http://www.valleyviewmall.com/shop/valleyview.nsf/security I assume that this is to prevent hooliganism, shoplifting and physical destruction of the facility but was very surprised to have found this corporation has malls all over the country and they can and do have draconian rules about minors. I understand but wow they do seem rather harsh.I had no idea such rules even existed in some malls.

[dirty ethel rackham]

I actually did not believe this. I had to look it up for myself. I am floored! :svengo: REALLY? 14 to be left alone? THis is insane.:glare:

 

Actually, it is not that simple.

 

Is there a legal age that is acceptable for a child to stay alone?

 

Illinois law defines a neglected minor, in part, as “any minor under the age of 14 years whose parent or other person responsible for the minor’s welfare leaves the minor without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for the mental or physical health, safety or welfare of that minor.†Juvenile Court Act, 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(d)

(emphasis mine)

In Illinois there is not a legal age specified. What is appropriate under certain circumstances may be considered child neglect in other circumstances. Illinois law lists 15 specific factors to be considered when deciding whether a child has been left alone for an unreasonable period of time.

 

15 Factors to Consider

1. The age of the minor

2. The number of minors left at the location

3. Special needs of the minor, including whether the minor is physically or mentally handicapped, or otherwise in need of ongoing prescribed medical treatment

4. The duration of time in which the minor was left without supervision

5. The condition and location of the place where the child was left without supervision

6. The time of day or night when the minor was left without supervision

7. The weather conditions; adequate heat or light

8. The location of the parent or guardian, the physical distance from the minor

9. Whether the minor’s movement was restricted (locked in a room)

10. Whether the minor was given a phone number of a person or location to call in the event of an emergency and whether the minor was capable of making an emergency call

11. Was food and other provisions left for the minor

12. Whether any of the conduct is attributable to economic hardship or illness and the parent, guardian or other person having physical custody or control of the child made a good faith effort to provide for the health and safety of the minor

13. The age and physical and mental capabilities of the person(s) who provided supervision for the minor

14. Whether the minor was left under the supervision of another person

15. Any other factor that would endanger the health and safety of that particular minor

[Hen]

sorry, I've only gone through half the pages here, this is a long discussion...

 

but I think we need a sit in.

 

moms in the area take their older children, have them stage a sit in-in the children's area and then the mom's all move to another are, maybe near the door and stage a sit it. This sort of thing works well for breastfeeding, and might bring to light how horrible the store and police handled this.

 

just a thought.

 

...you know things happen when you rile the hive..

[Gretchen in NJ]

You bet I would. Did any employee approach your children? I'm quite sure your eldest would have been able to articulate that you were in the area and had a cell phone in case you were needed.

 

My son is quite small for his age and that is one of the concerns I have about leaving him someplace, that people will assume he is younger than 12.

 

 

BN customer service

 

Barnes & Noble, Inc.

P.O. Box 111

Lyndhurst, NJ 07071

 

telephone: (800) 962-6177

e-mail: customerservice@bn.com

fax: (201) 559-6910

 

 

I would also see what the particular law in your state about leaving children unattended. I know some states have ages, so if your dc are above that or your state doesn't have one, they can see how stupid that employee was.

:iagree:Your child has to be 12 years old in NJ to be left on his own.

[angela in ohio]

This is just bizarre. I have been looking for policies/statutes about this issue for my own knowledge base and have discovered this site that is but one of many by the same mall corporation. http://www.valleyviewmall.com/shop/valleyview.nsf/security I assume that this is to prevent hooliganism, shoplifting and physical destruction of the facility but was very surprised to have found this corporation has malls all over the country and they can and do have draconian rules about minors. I understand but wow they do seem rather harsh.I had no idea such rules even existed in some malls.

 

I didn't look at all of their locations, but a lot depends on the area. We have a mall here in a more urban area. Friday and Saturday nights are a nightmare for police and mall security - shootings, huge fights, etc. For example, dh and I were trying to go to a movie there on Valnetine's Day, but the mall was shut down because of a brawl. They are trying to work wiht police to implement policies that will allow them to keep the mall open safely on weekend nights. Everyone blames the mall as soon as it happens (not the kids or parents for some reason.) Another mall in the area was closed totally, because they never cracked down and no one would go there anymore.

[Lolly]

I'd be curious to know at what age a child is allowed to be left alone at home in your state. I was looking up library policies on leaving children in a library -- and I found this interesting discussion which mentions that state law (in this case, New Jersey) that the youngest age that children can be left safely at home alone is 7, and that the Red Cross offers babysitting classes to 11 year olds.

 

I used to take public (not school) transportation to school when I was 10, and stop by the library after school. I am not from some pre-WWII generation.

 

Actually, it is not that simple.

 

That actually makes a lot more sense. The way it is written, there is actually no age limit for leaving a child alone. Of course, enforcement and intent of the law are not always the same thing. I strongly dislike wishy washy laws. Either make it clear or don't make it!

 

I've found that many people think they know the laws for their states when actually no law even exists.

 

Some people may find this link enlightening. http://www.latchkey-kids.com/latchkey-kids-age-limits.htm

 

Of course, it lists Illinois as 14, which the letter of the law actually does not do. Wonder how those other two states reported as actual laws in place have their laws worded.

[Barb_]

This last paragraph struck me as odd. I am guessing you posted this story so that others could discuss it and weigh in about how the police and store employee acted, but you don't want to know what others thought of your actions?

 

Seems to me like people are judging and making conclusions about one side of story and are asked not to discuss the decision of the person who is giving the story. The police officers and the store clerk are not on this forum to defend themselves and explain, while you are here to defend your actions, but you don't care to hear what anyone else has to say about your decision. It just doesn't make sense to me.

 

Tiff, you have one 3yo. I've devoted my life to my children for 20 years. Approximately half my life. I'm at a point where I'm feeling particularly consumed by them and yet (or maybe, as I result), I'm a good parent. I am an expert parent. I've devoted close to 100,000 largely thankless waking hours to mothering...10X the number of hours Malcom Gladwell asserts is the minimum necessary to be considered a master of anything. If you do the math per child, the hours reach almost 1 million...at any rate, enough experience to deserve a some respect. Instead, what happened last Friday caused me stomach churning humiliation. I posted my story because I needed support and empathy, and I feel too fragile to defend my choices. If you feel the need to defend the employees or crack on me for my choices, start your own thread.

 

Barb

[MBM]

Actually, it is not that simple.

 

Is there a legal age that is acceptable for a child to stay alone?

 

Illinois law defines a neglected minor, in part, as “any minor under the age of 14 years whose parent or other person responsible for the minor’s welfare leaves the minor without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for the mental or physical health, safety or welfare of that minor.†Juvenile Court Act, 705 ILCS 405/2-3(1)(d)

 

In Illinois there is not a legal age specified. What is appropriate under certain circumstances may be considered child neglect in other circumstances. Illinois law lists 15 specific factors to be considered when deciding whether a child has been left alone for an unreasonable period of time.

 

 

The problem with the law is that what is reasonable to one authority is not reasonable to another. Remember the overzealous police officer in this case? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23594474/ It's the authority who uses the law in an unreasonable way that is worrisome to me.

[Barb_]

The problem with the law is that what is reasonable to one authority is not reasonable to another. Remember the overzealous police officer in this case? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23594474/ It's the authority who uses the law in an unreasonable way that is worrisome to me.

 

This was my worry as well. This is what I meant when I said parents are in more danger of overstepping by authorities than we are of stranger abduction. I'm not personally familiar with anyone whose child has been threatened by a stranger, but I know multiple innocent people who have been traumatized by child services or the police. I know that is anecdotal, but does anyone doubt statistics would bear it out?

 

Barb

[Barb_]

Okay, I haven't called or stopped by yet because I've been procrastinating. The adrenaline has worn off and now I just want it to go away. It's been a rough year. But you all are right and I need to address it one way or the other because it seems to be more common to use the police or child services as a first line of defense rather than a last resort. Which is why it doesn't really matter whether any individual would be comfortable doing what I did with their own children, it only matters whether you believe it's a jailing offense. Played out another way, that was one possible outcome. If we don't stand up and say, "No, this isn't acceptable" then who will?

 

You know what I find ironic? How our society believes in pushing children out of the nest too early in so many areas that matter, and yet infantilizes them (and their parents) in other areas. In many ways, parenting well is a losing proposition and I am feeling so discouraged this week.

 

Barb

[Harriet Vane]

Okay, I haven't called or stopped by yet because I've been procrastinating. The adrenaline has worn off and now I just want it to go away. It's been a rough year. But you all are right and I need to address it one way or the other because it seems to be more common to use the police or child services as a first line of defense rather than a last resort. Which is why it doesn't really matter whether any individual would be comfortable doing what I did with their own children, it only matters whether you believe it's a jailing offense. Played out another way, that was one possible outcome. If we don't stand up and say, "No, this isn't acceptable" then who will?

 

You know what I find ironic? How our society believes in pushing children out of the nest too early in so many areas that matter, and yet infantilizes them (and their parents) in other areas. In many ways, parenting well is a losing proposition and I am feeling so discouraged this week.

 

Barb

 

:grouphug:

[merry gardens]

Okay, I haven't called or stopped by yet because I've been procrastinating. The adrenaline has worn off and now I just want it to go away. It's been a rough year. But you all are right and I need to address it one way or the other because it seems to be more common to use the police or child services as a first line of defense rather than a last resort. Which is why it doesn't really matter whether any individual would be comfortable doing what I did with their own children, it only matters whether you believe it's a jailing offense. Played out another way, that was one possible outcome. If we don't stand up and say, "No, this isn't acceptable" then who will?

 

You know what I find ironic? How our society believes in pushing children out of the nest too early in so many areas that matter, and yet infantilizes them (and their parents) in other areas. In many ways, parenting well is a losing proposition and I am feeling so discouraged this week.

 

Barb

Fifteen pages and I've finally read through this entire thread! Back many pages someone encouraged you to meet with the police chief. Please do that!

 

A busy-body employee or total stranger that didn't know the age of your children is one thing, but the police officers who knew your children's ages, who knew you didn't break the law and who nevertheless detained and lectured you is different! The person who called the police wouldn't have caused you to be this upset if the police hadn't overstepped their authority.

 

Sadly, I make some of my parenting decisions based on the fear that total strangers might report me to authorities who have the power to disrupt my family life simply because they disagree with my parenting choices. As a homeschooler who rejects the "social norm" of sending my children off to school, I feel particularly vulnerable that persons who question my school choice have the potential to cause us trouble. Some people seem to have the strange notion that a child should be protected by a parental bubble-wrap and then sent to day care or school to experience the "real world" starting at six weeks of age. Had your daughters been sitting in a public school while you went shopping miles and miles away from them, no one would have questioned you.

[m4given]

Okay, I haven't called or stopped by yet because I've been procrastinating. The adrenaline has worn off and now I just want it to go away. It's been a rough year. But you all are right and I need to address it one way or the other because it seems to be more common to use the police or child services as a first line of defense rather than a last resort. Which is why it doesn't really matter whether any individual would be comfortable doing what I did with their own children, it only matters whether you believe it's a jailing offense. Played out another way, that was one possible outcome. If we don't stand up and say, "No, this isn't acceptable" then who will?

 

You know what I find ironic? How our society believes in pushing children out of the nest too early in so many areas that matter, and yet infantilizes them (and their parents) in other areas. In many ways, parenting well is a losing proposition and I am feeling so discouraged this week.

 

Barb

:grouphug: Just a simple (((Hug))).

[RanchGirl]

To me, it seems pretty reasonable for a store to have no unattended children policy. Whether or not it's advertised, I would pretty much assume that no store has a drop off daycare policy unless they advertised to the contrary. Comfy chairs and children's books notwithstanding. I think the police officer lecturing you was way out of line, but it's not terribly surprising to me, since cops do tend to consider themselves authority figures.

 

I do agree that calling 911 as if it was an emergency seems like an over-reaction... if it was in fact a store employee who called. It could easily have been some busy body customer who overheard your phone conversation. Lots of people might feel judgmental and snarky enough to call 911, but not be up front enough to speak to the children directly and have them call you to return.

 

IF it was a store employee who called, I would think the manager on duty was probably either doing the calling or directing the calling of the police and he/she should have been escorting the police through the store. It doesn't make sense to me that an employee would just up and call 911 of her own volition.

 

Barb, if you feel you used good judgment with your kids (and I'm not saying you didn't -- although it's not a choice I would have made, clearly many others here thought it was reasonable and that is saying something), you should be more than comfortable going into the store to complain to the manager and return the books -- you can just ask for the manager, you don't need the name ahead of time.

[Renee in NC]

Does anyone know what happened in that above case?

 

Charges were dropped for insufficient evidence.

 

http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2008/03/13/charges-against-treffly-coyne-to-be-dropped/

[Blueridge]

...You know what I find ironic? How our society believes in pushing children out of the nest too early in so many areas that matter, and yet infantilizes them (and their parents) in other areas. In many ways, parenting well is a losing proposition and I am feeling so discouraged this week.

 

Barb

 

:iagree: Bless your heart. I just saw this thread, and I am so completely sorry that you and your sweet kids had to endure all this. What a nightmare. Don't believe the lies of this fallen world. You are a good mother. You are an attentive parent. I pray that you will be feeling better very soon. I'm sorry you've had a rough year. Your cup is empty, and I will also pray that it gets filled with all sorts of sweetness and encouragement.

[TravelingChris]

What states or companies often do is have laws or rules that they never intend to enforce systematically. The mall does not routinely id people and it isn't easy to figure out who is 17 11/12 and who is 19 so if they did want to ID so -called youth, they would end up ID plenty of customers up to about 22. None of that would be good for business. IF there is a movie theater at the mall, I am sure that movie theater isn't interested in driving away their young customers. Since my dd has a driver's license, she can go to malls though I don't know that she has. When she turns 17, she can go to the movies that none of the rest of us like by herself. WIll they card her while she walks through the mall- No. Because she looks like she is there for a purpose and doesn't look like she is there to make trouble. It is for the same reason that they used to have loitering laws. THose were considered unconstitutional for vagueness. Since these are private companies, they can be vague all they want and they do want. They want to escort the gang members out and let the actual paying teen clients with no criminal intentions in. They do so by these type of rules.