ILiveInFlipFlops Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 What kills me, is people posting "but...a child molestor could get them!" Well, yes, one could. But if the parent drove the kid to the park, they could get in a car accident. In fact, I'd say the odds are HIGHER of the child being hurt driving to the park with mom and dad, or to the movies, or whatever, than while walking to the park. Yet one is an acceptable risk to society, and the other isn't. That makes no sense. It's not only about child molesters. It's also about loose dogs, and harassment by crazies, and out of control cars or crazy drivers, and stubborn 6-year-olds who don't listen to their older siblings, or any of a bunch of other things that could happen. IMO, I just don't feel like the benefits outweigh the risks at 6. There are lots of other ways to give your 6-year-old control and help develop their independence. 9-ish, maybe? 10 and up, yes, most likely. But 6 is too little for my comfort level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Great White North Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 In case it got lost above, try to keep in mind that THEY BROKE THE LAW. This was not a judgement call /busybody situation. This was a case where the cops picked up the kids because they observed the law being broken. I'm sure they asked the oldest her age first. It's a standard question in these situations. If she were two years older this wouldn't have hit the news. It was not against the law. The law requires supervision INSIDE houses, dwellings and cars, as a result of a few fires years ago where young children couldn't open the door to escape. Parks and sidewalks were not included. The county law mandates no bus for children 1.5 miles from school, so the law clearly expects kids as young as 5 (kindergarten) to be able to walk 1.5 miles alone (no need for the older sibling) The busybody who called the cops was wrong. The cops were wrong (they could have asked the kids if they needed help then said "Have a nice day") CPS was wrong (They could have told the cops that no law was being broken. You can't talk to a lawyer!?!?) Nothing the family did was illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 It was not against the law. The law requires supervision INSIDE houses, dwellings and cars, as a result of a few fires years ago where young children couldn't open the door to escape. Parks and sidewalks were not included. People keep saying this, but I can't seem to find it anywhere online. Do you have a link for it? Either way, if it is indeed the case, then I suspect the problem falls under the babysitting portion of the law rather than the unsupervised child portion, since the children were not indoors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I don't disagree that these parents made a reasoned, thoughtful decision. However, according to Montgomery County's Office of the County Attorney: In addition, a separate provision in the Maryland Statewide Child Protective Services Screening Procedures (SSA 95-13) describes an unattended child as: one who has been abandoned; a child less than 8 years old left in the care of either an unreliable person or someone less than 13 years old; a child between 8 and 12 years old left alone longer than briefly without sufficient contact or safety information (phone numbers of parents, neighbors, etc.); a child 12 years old or older who is left alone for long periods or overnight with responsibilities beyond his or her capacity or if the child has a special mental or physical disability that creates a greater risk. See, THIS. You don't read the specific law that says "home, car, whatever" and make a decision like this without finding out what is acceptable where you live. If you live in MD, these ages are clear. If they're under 8 they can't legally watch themselves and if they're under 13, they can't legally be responsible for the safety of another child. You HAVE to secure proper supervision for your kids in MD, and if you don't there are consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arcadia Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 My district provides school bus for the schools that are slightly less than a mile away. Kindergarteners and up are allowed to walk home but usually it's a big group walking to the apartments so lots of kids and some parents. There are also road crossing guards paid by the district. Other than school dismissal time, too many red light beaters for even adults to cross safely. Even if the crossing light is on, we still have to look out for those who ignore the red light. Where my kids attend an outside class, pedestrians are common throughout the day and cars tend to look out for children walking or biking to and from locations. I see plenty older elementary school kids walking home without adults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spryte Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I didn't vote. I want to say yes, sure. I want to be that free range parent. But I'm not. This is all hypothetical for me, as we deal with other issues that make it unlikely that I'd allow this (life threatening allergies, asthma, etc). I simply would need to know that someone is available with DS who is capable of administering emergency care if he's unable to do so himself - so a 6 year old wouldn't cut it. So, no, personally - wouldn't happen here. I'm familiar with the area, and no, hypothetically, I still wouldn't have been that parent. Not with a 6 year old. I think kids are different though, and I'm basing this on my kids. I would not want my 10 year old to be responsible for his 6 year old sister's safety. I just think it's more than he should have to take on. 2 10 year olds - I'd feel differently. Or if the 10 year old had been 12 or 13. Aside from all that, my understanding of the law is that it's not okay for a child under 13 to be responsible for a 6 year old. Whether there are loopholes or not, I think the spirit of the law is clear enough (for me). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I don't disagree that these parents made a reasoned, thoughtful decision. However, according to Montgomery County's Office of the County Attorney: In addition, a separate provision in the Maryland Statewide Child Protective Services Screening Procedures (SSA 95-13) describes an unattended child as: one who has been abandoned; a child less than 8 years old left in the care of either an unreliable person or someone less than 13 years old; a child between 8 and 12 years old left alone longer than briefly without sufficient contact or safety information (phone numbers of parents, neighbors, etc.); a child 12 years old or older who is left alone for long periods or overnight with responsibilities beyond his or her capacity or if the child has a special mental or physical disability that creates a greater risk. This doesn't fall under the term law. Provisions in code are not laws. If there was a law broken the parents would have been charged. What the parents did was not criminal. So, do not say they broke a law that does not exist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 This doesn't fall under the term law. Provisions in code are not laws. If there was a law broken the parents would have been charged. What the parents did was not criminal. So, do not say they broke a law that does not exist. OK, so, as I have asked, is there text of the law available somewhere? I've seen assertions in news articles, but those don't track with what I've found online. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Also, this is NOT A new story in Maryland. People send out their kids knowing the ages and hoping they don't get caught. When they DO get caught they're ALWAYS "shocked and dismayed" over the state of modern parenting. Everyone always has very noble and philosophical reasons for ignoring the law. Nobody ever says, "I really didn't think I'd get caught. My bad." That would be refreshing. It's always "I'm not from here and in Norway we park the baby carriage outside the store all the time." or "I know CPS investigates these cases all the time, but I have a degree so I should be exempt." Law, provision, code, guideline . . . whatever you call it, the cause and effect are clear in MD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Great White North Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 People keep saying this, but I can't seem to find it anywhere online. Do you have a link for it? It was quoted in the comments - with the number so you could look it up, but I didn't save the link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenCat Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 In the situation in the story, no way, I know that area, so no, no NO! Where we used to live, yes. Where I grew up? Yes. In both situations, we had a great path system and neighborhoods had sidewalks. Growing up, I'd walk a good 30 minutes to a "village center" by the time I was ten to pick up groceries. My younger brother went with me. By 10, I was also riding the local bus system by myself to places further away, like the ice rink and to friends that lived on the other side of town. It was a very normal thing to do. Not sure how that bus system is now, and the city is much bigger, so I don't know if I would allow that if I were still there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Law, provision, code, guideline . . . whatever you call it, the cause and effect are clear in MD. These terms have different affects legally. They are not interchangeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 The only way it would NOT be OK would be if either the 10yo or the 6yo had pretty severe issues. And I can't believe the parents aren't getting the benefit of the doubt that they, who are responsible for their kids 24/7, know whether their kids can handle a walk down the street. How many of us were not allowed to walk down the street (and cross a street) when we were school-aged kids? The world is going crazy. I find it truly scary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Acceptable by whom? It's technically legal here but not advised. On the other hand, they don't advise letting a 16-year-old babysit, so screw those provisions. I mean I'm not going to use my state's CYA policy to determine when my kids can go to the park. Sorry, charlie, but you lost me at "cannot be left unattended at 12 for anything more than a brief period of time". When you have knee-jerk provisions like that which basically say I need to pay for full-time child care until two years from college, ​I'm gonna just have to ignore you because you're saying that it's illegal to be poor. As for me, I've told my kids they are not going to the park without an adult until they are in the third grade and then only in a group and if they ever leave someone they are in huge trouble. I do think six is young but not criminally so. The parents know their kid. It is time parents stood up to the helicopters who are basically making this country a place where kids are either so well off that they have a parent at home full time AND a lifetime supply of bubble wrap, or inside all day playing video games. I'm not denying that there are dangers, but to me there is a huge danger of children being stuck indoors their entire lives until high school which is the last place you want them to be starting to experiment with personal responsibility. I don't blink an eye when I see kids at the park alone unless they appear lost or crying. It is not common but frequent. Our neighborhood kids walk to the park in groups and know to take care of one another. They are learning responsibility. It is important to make small bad decisions along the way so you aren't making your first decisions when there are lifelong consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 If it's true that this was illegal per written law, then the law is insane. Also, I heard the parents had recently moved there. Most normal people don't check the child abuse/neglect statutes when they move into a new town. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 It was quoted in the comments - with the number so you could look it up, but I didn't save the link Ah, thank you. I don't generally read Internet comments anymore--they tend to destroy my faith in humanity :lol: There's also nearly 3,000 comments there, so I'm not going to go digging, unfortunately. I'll have to leave that for someone else to address. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 The only way it would NOT be OK would be if either the 10yo or the 6yo had pretty severe issues. And I can't believe the parents aren't getting the benefit of the doubt that they, who are responsible for their kids 24/7, now whether their kids can handle a walk down the street. How many of us were not allowed to walk down the street (and cross a street) when we were school-aged kids? The world is going crazy. I find it truly scary. I was not and it was HORRIBLE. I remember days spent indoors while my mom worked. I hated it. I also felt naive socially for a long time. I was so thrilled at 12 when finally my rights started to catch up to and soon exceed those of others. I think my mom could see that we were deeply unhappy stuck indoors. She was afraid. A childhood lived in fear is really not a childhood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sun Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 In our area it seems to be common for children those ages to walk to and from school if they live a mile away. Yes, in my area too. I even see a few six-year-olds walking home after school on their own, though most are either picked up or walking with someone else. Whenever I read about controversy because of kids walking alone, I am ever so thankful to live in a city (yes, large city in the US!) where kids walking alone is still common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I'm not denying that there are dangers, but to me there is a huge danger of children being stuck indoors their entire lives until high school which is the last place you want them to be starting to experiment with personal responsibility. Are you saying that reasonable people can't find a middle ground between living a life indoors in fear until high school and not being comfortable with a 6-year-old walking without an appropriate guardian for a mile down a stretch of extremely busy street? Because I'm pretty sure there's room for experimenting with personal responsibility somewhere in there. Even the actual laws allow for children over age 8 to be left unattended if the parent deems it appropriate. And children don't need to be left entirely alone to develop self-confidence and self-reliance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 It's not only about child molesters. It's also about loose dogs, and harassment by crazies, and out of control cars or crazy drivers, and stubborn 6-year-olds who don't listen to their older siblings, or any of a bunch of other things that could happen. IMO, I just don't feel like the benefits outweigh the risks at 6. There are lots of other ways to give your 6-year-old control and help develop their independence. 9-ish, maybe? 10 and up, yes, most likely. But 6 is too little for my comfort level. But..there are a ton of risks driving to the playground, too. Drunk drivers, tire blow out, person behind you'd brakes fail (that one happened to my husband...he's still not right 2 years later thanks to the head injury he got when he hit the rear windshield of his truck with his head), and of course those out of control cars and crazy drivers you mention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caroline Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 But..there are a ton of risks driving to the playground, too. Drunk drivers, tire blow out, person behind you'd brakes fail (that one happened to my husband...he's still not right 2 years later thanks to the head injury he got when he hit the rear windshield of his truck with his head), and of course those out of control cars and crazy drivers you mention. But all of those are issues if you are walking down a six lane divided highway with a speed limit of 45 mph with a sidewalk but no guardrail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 But all of those are issues if you are walking down a six lane divided highway with a speed limit of 45 mph with a sidewalk but no guardrail. I answered in general... was this where the kid is walking? I wouldn't do that myself, regardless. But that is a different question than whether or not they can go to the park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawthorne44 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Nope. I would never let my 6-year-old walk a mile in that scenario, with or without a 10-year-old brother, and I was still deeply disturbed by the CPS reaction. It's stories like these that frighten good, thoughtful parents into being hovering, overprotective parents. As has been said, I think we're more at risk from the busybodies than we are the actual dangers of our world most days. Stories like this can also cause good thoughtful parents to be reluctant to call CPS. I have gone from being a "When in doubt, call CPS" to "Only call if you are pretty darn sure something is wrong." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahB82 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 But..there are a ton of risks driving to the playground, too. Drunk drivers, tire blow out, person behind you'd brakes fail (that one happened to my husband...he's still not right 2 years later thanks to the head injury he got when he hit the rear windshield of his truck with his head), and of course those out of control cars and crazy drivers you mention.These examples aren't suitable for comparison to anything that 2 children could face. In those examples there is an adult there to react and use their adult judgement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spryte Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I answered in general... was this where the kid is walking? I wouldn't do that myself, regardless. But that is a different question than whether or not they can go to the park. Yes, I have 2 answers, too - depending on the area. I think we all have a different picture in mind when we hear "walk to the park." For some, I think it would be fine. For the particular area (I know the general area where this took place, it has been a huge story around here) - I'm not on board with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettyandbob Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 But all of those are issues if you are walking down a six lane divided highway with a speed limit of 45 mph with a sidewalk but no guardrail. This doesn't give a good picture of the area. This is a very urban area. Families who live in urban areas teach their children how to walk on sidewalks and deal with traffic. FTR, my sil lives right there. My nieces grew up there and I have been there many times. I guess this street would seem scary to people who live in suburban and rural settings. My kids have only experienced a suburban area so I would not have dropped them off at those ages and told them to walk a mile along that road, but if we had lived there and that was our park perspective and experiences would be different. One of the reasons why evaluations being left in the hands of CPS are messed up is because this particular county has some rural area at one end and urban area which extends into Washington DC at the other. Perspectives of the case workers may not be in line with reasonable learning experiences and opportunities parents have for teaching children based on the varying geography. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 These terms have different affects legally. They are not interchangeable. Were they actually arrested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whereneverever Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I wouldn't let them in that area, not with the possible legal fall out. Where I live, though, my driveway itself is a 1/4 mile long, so they could walk a mile and never leave my property. My kids get to roam in their own yard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I answered in general... was this where the kid is walking? I wouldn't do that myself, regardless. But that is a different question than whether or not they can go to the park. Yes. It's a huge, busy street. It is six lanes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I answered in general... was this where the kid is walking? I wouldn't do that myself, regardless. But that is a different question than whether or not they can go to the park. I have a question. Was this a highway or a big street? We have highways on which traffic goes about 5 over regularly. It is not safe for pedestrians at all. Then we have big streets with a 35 mph limit on which traffic goes 45 mph occasionally. They are safe--I see kids on them all the time. Well, not safe but safe enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 But all of those are issues if you are walking down a six lane divided highway with a speed limit of 45 mph with a sidewalk but no guardrail. My point was, they are issues if the parents drive them, as well. But no one thinks that is an unacceptable risk. Why is one more acceptable than the other? I'd say walking on the side walk is safer than being in a car on the street, most of the time. I hear of a lot more car vs car crashes than I do car vs pedestrian (when the pedestrian is on the sidewalk). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ktgrok Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 These examples aren't suitable for comparison to anything that 2 children could face. In those examples there is an adult there to react and use their adult judgement. Adult judgement or not, adults get in car accidents ALL THE TIME. It's one of the highest risks we can take. But we think it is fine and dandy, because we are used to that level of risk for that activity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KungFuPanda Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I have a question. Was this a highway or a big street? We have highways on which traffic goes about 5 over regularly. It is not safe for pedestrians at all. Then we have big streets with a 35 mph limit on which traffic goes 45 mph occasionally. They are safe--I see kids on them all the time. Well, not safe but safe enough. It's both. It's not D.C. because it's MD, but it's busy and feels like a city. There are six lanes (maybe four in some spots?) moving at a decent clip. There are some crosswalks, but you have to hustle to make it and watch for right-turning vehicles. There is a metro station on that road. It's not an area where "nothing bad ever happens." It 'looks' very nice , but my sister's kids have been approached by drug dealers in that area. Maybe they wouldn't solicit little kids? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I live in a walking/biking town. It is not unusual to see children that age walking or biking together to school, to the library, to shops etc I saw a boy about 8 taking a run with his dog the other day. My walking route is over a mile in one direction and I saw him most of that. What are these lines!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Maybe. Depends on the kids, the location and the why. I would not in the location as it is described, nor in a location where it is illegal for a 10 year old to supervise a 6 year old. If the parents want to avoid the risk of driving in a car, one or both of them could walk with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Just because some of you don't think you would do it, that doesn't mean it should be illegal for other parents to decide their kids can do it. All these "dangers" are mostly BS. The majority of "dangers" are there whether or not an adult is there. The majority of "dangers" hardly ever happen. The majority of "dangers" assume a clueless kid, whereas a child can be brought up to be competent in an everyday situation such as walking to a park. When I was a kid, it was the norm, and any child who was not allowed to do this was assumed to be impaired or overprotected. It is sick. Kids don't get to use the park because walking down the street is illegal. It's a wonder parks are still legal. For the time being. Kids playing at parks have been getting more parents arrested every month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Adult judgement or not, adults get in car accidents ALL THE TIME. It's one of the highest risks we can take. But we think it is fine and dandy, because we are used to that level of risk for that activity. I didn't reply earlier because I'm running out of steam, but my answer is that frankly, I'm not convinced that using those statistics in this way is entirely accurate. There are so many factors and variables involved in those numbers that I don't think you can just use them as a blanket comparison. I did a quick search before my overtired brain bottomed out on numbers, but for the most recent year I was able to find, yes, car accidents were by far the most common cause of injury and death to children. A large percentage of those children were in a car with someone who was drunk or with another young person driving. I don't drive drunk. I don't text while I drive. I have *cough cough* years experience behind the wheel in all kinds of environments. I'm a very careful driver, and my six-year-old was in the highest-rated 5-point-harnessed booster side (with side impact protection) that she could fit into at the time. Given all of this, I do believe that driving my kid to the park would have been at least as low-risk as you believe her walking there would have been, given the road conditions and environment. Also, in that same year, over 500 children were killed in pedestrian accidents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 It's both. It's not D.C. because it's MD, but it's busy and feels like a city. There are six lanes (maybe four in some spots?) moving at a decent clip. There are some crosswalks, but you have to hustle to make it and watch for right-turning vehicles. There is a metro station on that road. It's not an area where "nothing bad ever happens." It 'looks' very nice , but my sister's kids have been approached by drug dealers in that area. Maybe they wouldn't solicit little kids? Oh well drug dealers... Do they shoot you if you don't buy or can you just say "no thank you"? There is no such thing as "nothing bad ever happens". Anywhere. Rural areas we have meth and domestic violence and drunk people shooting beer cans. Urban areas, drugs and fast cars. Suburbs, joyriding teens and drugs. Actually drugs are everywhere. I would be concerned about a real threat of getting caught in gang violence crossfire if there were daily shootings, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Nyssa Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I would... except... one of my children is very tiny for his age. I know he is well-trained and clever enough to deal with ordinary problems that might come up on a mile walk, but I can't help thinking that it would be very easy for someone to pick him up like a feather and carry him off. Not a rational fear, but still, that's my mommy gut talking... if he were as large and strong for his age as his sib, I would feel completely OK with it. I think I recall the exact street from the article, and I am still OK with it, if we had practiced it together. To compare, when I was about 4 yrs old, I and my chum decided we would go and meet his sister at 'big kids school' which was about a mile or a mile and a half away. We walked all the way there, just the two of us. When we came home, our parents were upset with us, not because we had gone that far, but because we had not told anyone where we were going. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LibraryLover Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 Oh well drug dealers... Do they shoot you if you don't buy or can you just say "no thank you"? There is no such thing as "nothing bad ever happens". Anywhere. Rural areas we have meth and domestic violence and drunk people shooting beer cans. Urban areas, drugs and fast cars. Suburbs, joyriding teens and drugs. Actually drugs are everywhere. I would be concerned about a real threat of getting caught in gang violence crossfire if there were daily shootings, though. Right. There are people selling pot, and there are homeless people in the areas my dds walk. It is a fact of fife here. These people are mostly not dangerous at all. Kids who live in urban areas learn how to handle this. I would also say these kids are more safe as there are so many folks out and about. When I walk in my town, I'm another set of eyes. If the boy I saw running with his dog had been approached in a dangerous way, there are lots of us out there keeping watch. Any number of us would have stepped in to help. It's called community. It's not better for the boy to be sitting at home for hours with Xbox. It's much healthier for him to be out running with his dog. He looked fit and happy. There should be nothing illegal about a child walking or biking to the park, library, violin lessons, little league practice, home, school etc etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-rap Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 It depends on circumstances, mainly, the safety of the area and the maturity of the 10-year-old. In our town, it would have been fine. We know people in every 6th house or so that would be on the way home, and every other car that passed would be someone we know too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILiveInFlipFlops Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 FTR, my sil lives right there. My nieces grew up there and I have been there many times. Did your SIL let your nieces walk alone in a similar way/for a similar distance at that age? I'm not challenging, just curious. DH was a pretty free-range city kid, but not until he was a bit older, and he had older brothers and a general pack that he traveled with. It always makes me laugh when he worries about giving our kids certain freedoms (staying home alone, etc.) given what he was out and doing and their ages! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I didn't reply earlier because I'm running out of steam, but my answer is that frankly, I'm not convinced that using those statistics in this way is entirely accurate. There are so many factors and variables involved in those numbers that I don't think you can just use them as a blanket comparison. I did a quick search before my overtired brain bottomed out on numbers, but for the most recent year I was able to find, yes, car accidents were by far the most common cause of injury and death to children. A large percentage of those children were in a car with someone who was drunk or with another young person driving. I don't drive drunk. I don't text while I drive. I have *cough cough* years experience behind the wheel in all kinds of environments. I'm a very careful driver, and my six-year-old was in the highest-rated 5-point-harnessed booster side (with side impact protection) that she could fit into at the time. Given all of this, I do believe that driving my kid to the park would have been at least as low-risk as you believe her walking there would have been, given the road conditions and environment. Also, in that same year, over 500 children were killed in pedestrian accidents. Most of the kids killed in pedestrian accidents (which used to be a much smaller %, so I'm not sure it's apples to apples) are also not in the typical school-kid walking to the park scenario. They include many cases of little tots getting run over in their own driveways or in parking lots. They include parents driving their kids to school and running over other people's kids. They include kids who have not been taught street safety because their parents thought they were too young to walk alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joyofsixreboot Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I have no problem with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 In case it got lost above, try to keep in mind that THEY BROKE THE LAW. This was not a judgement call /busybody situation. This was a case where the cops picked up the kids because they observed the law being broken. I'm sure they asked the oldest her age first. It's a standard question in these situations. If she were two years older this wouldn't have hit the news. The poll question should read "Is it acceptable for parents to break a law they don't like" I haven't read the second page yet, but I will freely admit I do not follow laws I do not agree with. (And before too many disagree, do you really follow the speed limit laws ALL the time? If not, you are picking and choosing as well.) I'd have no problem with parents not following laws like this. Some laws our country has are just plain _______. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 The parents in question say they prepared the kids for that trip over a period of time and were very intentional about giving them the needed skills. They didn't just dump them one day out of the blue and tell them to walk home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 If the parent thinks they can handle it, then yes. ETA: I'd ever go so far as to say I don't care if the kids were walking from ten miles away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 This story has been everywhere. My kids are routinely where those kids were picked up alone so that's definitely coloring my view on this. Yes, for goodness sake. They were fine. One piece I want to add to the discussion is how much I think race comes into play. If those had been two black kids walking down Georgia Avenue alone, I seriously doubt anyone would have called the cops. And what does that say about our expectations about race and which children need "protecting." Another is the urban factor. I have seen a lot of suburban parents see the intersection and freak a little. But if kids grow up negotiating that, it's not big and scary. Kids - unlike adults - follow the rules at intersections and don't jaywalk. I don't find the busyness of the street a factor here. This whole thing... It makes my blood boil. If you live in Maryland and it also makes your blood boil, there's a new organization started to trying to lobby to change the law. I'd join except I'm in DC (actually, I keep wondering what would happen if we were called in on this. The Maryland police pick up the kids and... what, contact DC CPS and insist they investigate us even though by DC law and attitude we did nothing wrong? Sigh.) http://www.empowerkidsmaryland.org/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
creekland Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 If the parent thinks they can handle it, then yes. ETA: I'd ever go so far as to say I don't care if the kids were walking from ten miles away. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought one mile was a pretty short walk... it would not even have gotten our kids to the end of our small road and back, much less anything useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ndGenHomeschooler Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 I voted yes, but then changed it to yes, with conditions. For me, it would mostly depend on the maturity level and responsibility of the children and also how well the 2 children got along. That being said, I haven't let my own children wander that far. We live in a rural area with very low crime, no registered sex offenders within 5 miles, and minimal traffic through our neighborhood (I can walk the 3 miles around our block and see less than 5 cars). It would make a great place for kids to roam. There are rolling hills, stables, cows, a nature perserve, greenhouses, two Christmas Tree Farms, a lake with a boat launch, and a private golf course - all within a mile or two of our house and without ever having to cross a main road. Also, I have 4 children who are 10, 8 (9 in a few weeks), 7, and 5 that could all stay together in a group. They are also all tall for their ages and therefore look older than they are. So why don't I let them wander our neighborhood? Because I'm worried about busybodies calling the police on me. I think this will be the year though that I start giving them more freedom. At least the older 2 anyway. I need to stop worrying about being reported for something that is NOT illegal in our state and just start letting my children develop their independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.