Is it acceptable to walk 1 mile home from a park at the ages of 10 and 6?

[LibraryLover]

_{So true. A walk of one mile is nothing for the able-bodied.}

[Murphy101]

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.

I'm in a small city outside a medium city and I think <5 miles is a pretty short walk. We can all walk up to 4 miles in any direction that distance in 30-45 or less if I don't have the stroller with me. Stupid stroller requires detour navigation for many areas. Without it we just tramp through the grass and woods or behind buildings and over small creeks instead of staying next to the road or sidewalk. Pending where I'm going, I have to take the stroller. If it's mostly level and the distination is a playground, the 3 yr old is thrilled until about half way home when we all take turns carrying him. I can't carry him with my unreliable left side for long and a barely at all on rough terrain.

 

I would consider a "long" walk, one that took an hour or more one way or that was over an hour without a rest stop.

[creekland]

An average walking pace is 3 - 4 miles per hour.  The kids should have been able to do it in 20 minutes - pretty short.  Even if they averaged 2 miles per hour (pretty slow pace, but if there are stops, this happens), it's still just 30 minutes.

[JeanM]

I was very free-range as a kid myself, and I let my kids loose in our neighborhood when they were young, but our neighborhood was very different from the area in this article. I personally would not have let my kids at those ages do that walk, but I think that is a decision that should be made by the parents. Heck I was babysitting when I was 10, but I personally would not have hired a 10 year old to watch my infant.

 

I have relatives who live in that area, and I will say that walking to or from school in that neighborhood is different because there are crossing guards to help kids across big intersections. Some of those intersections are very large, and cars are not very careful.

 

Also, I'm guessing that the walk could take significantly longer than you might think because of all of the traffic lights. If you have to wait for a walk symbol at almost every intersection, it slows you down.

[KungFuPanda]

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 _______.

Your disregard for speeding laws does not bolster the argument to let little kids walk along Georgia Avenue unattended.

[Murphy101]

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 really don't care what the law is when it is an unjust law. I have zero desire to be complicit in such laws or to support them.

 

There are laws I don't like. Like taxes. Damn taxes. But most people don't think taxes are inherently unjust and the punishment is usually related to the law broken. (They might think the rate is or what is taxed is or whatever. But most people agree taxes are a necessary evil. Necessary being the sticking point. And even then, refusing to pay is a valid option. Heck, the American Revolution was fought over refusing to pay taxes and obey British laws less grievous than the OP topic!)

 

And then there are laws that are unjust AND unnecessary AND have punishments that are aborhent. Laws about whether a perfectly innocent person of basic mental ability of any age at all can freely walk about public areas are one of them. To detain anyone or even threaten to remove them from their otherwise loving family is an offense against reason and freedom and parental rights.

 

A huge part of civil disobedience is in fact disobeying.

[KungFuPanda]

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/

THIS is how you do it. First, change the 'offending' law (ordinance, code, etc . . .), or at least how it's enforced, and THEN send your kid to the park. Otherwise you and your kids face consequences from law enforcement. Teaching them to ignore the laws they don't care for probably isn't the best preparation for real life.

 

My beef is with people who stick their finger in a light socket, then go on the news crying about how surprised they are to get a shock.

[creekland]

THIS is how you do it. First, change the 'offending' law (ordinance, code, etc . . .), or at least how it's enforced, and THEN send your kid to the park. Otherwise you and your kids face consequences from law enforcement. Teaching them to ignore the laws they don't care for probably isn't the best preparation for real life.

 

My beef is with people who stick their finger in a light socket, then go on the news crying about how surprised they are to get a shock.

 

Changing laws is far more difficult than ignoring laws because there are way too many people out there who feel they ought to control how other people live.

 

In our family, we opted to explain reasons for doing what we did instead - teaching our kids to think.  We never taught nor advocated blind obedience (even to parents) once they were out of their toddler years and could reason a little bit.

 

Mine would not have been surprised at a shock from a light socket.

[Farrar]

THIS is how you do it. First, change the 'offending' law (ordinance, code, etc . . .), or at least how it's enforced, and THEN send your kid to the park. Otherwise you and your kids face consequences from law enforcement. Teaching them to ignore the laws they don't care for probably isn't the best preparation for real life.

 

My beef is with people who stick their finger in a light socket, then go on the news crying about how surprised they are to get a shock.

 

Well, I would contend that this family did not break the law. The law as written says that children under 8 cannot be confined or locked in a vehicle or building without supervision. In fact, when the police in Maryland have charged parents with a crime for having their kids playing out on the sidewalk or in the park, that has been the charge - keeping a child in a building without supervision. Which is odd. I mean, it's really weird. But that's been the longtime interpretation of that law. The Meitivs said they did not interpret it that way. Which seems pretty legit.

 

That said, I think the way you change a law is often through civil disobedience. Civil disobedience challenges the system to apply the law more thoughtfully or brings attention to it, as it has in this case. You take the punishment, but you do so as a form of protest, talking about how unjust the law and system are, potentially to the media, potentially complaining. I believe strongly in civil disobedience and have engaged in it before. I teach my kids that as well. One of my kids is a letter of the law follower and it has led to him trying to do some really stupid things on occasion. I would much rather teach thoughtfulness about the rules and understanding of acceptance of the consequences.

 

I think the difficulty comes in when the punishment for a crime does not fit the crime at all. Such is the case here and in anything that could lead to a child being taken. How do you thoughtfully protest through civil disobedience when the state will take your children? Seriously, that's hard. Or when your children's wellbeing is in danger from the protest, as I contend it is if the state takes them away over going for a walk outside and nothing else. Yet the law is unjust. It's tough. Obviously a much, much more serious situation, but I often think of the courage of parents in the civil rights movement who let their children march and let their children be used to integrate schools. Like, wow. They let their kids do things for the greater good that were not in the best individual interest of their kids. This is an issue that I feel really strongly about - allowing parents to parent and kids to roam freely - but I don't know that that's needed in this case. But then how do you protest and call attention?

 

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't reside in Maryland. And if they ever pick up my kids at that corner, I hope I handle it as well as the Meitivs.

[Murphy101]

Well, I would contend that this family did not break the law. The law as written says that children under 8 cannot be confined or locked in a vehicle or building without supervision. In fact, when the police in Maryland have charged parents with a crime for having their kids playing out on the sidewalk or in the park, that has been the charge - keeping a child in a building without supervision. Which is odd. I mean, it's really weird. But that's been the longtime interpretation of that law. The Meitivs said they did not interpret it that way. Which seems pretty legit.

 

That said, I think the way you change a law is often through civil disobedience. Civil disobedience challenges the system to apply the law more thoughtfully or brings attention to it, as it has in this case. You take the punishment, but you do so as a form of protest, talking about how unjust the law and system are, potentially to the media, potentially complaining. I believe strongly in civil disobedience and have engaged in it before. I teach my kids that as well. One of my kids is a letter of the law follower and it has led to him trying to do some really stupid things on occasion. I would much rather teach thoughtfulness about the rules and understanding of acceptance of the consequences.

 

I think the difficulty comes in when the punishment for a crime does not fit the crime at all. Such is the case here and in anything that could lead to a child being taken. How do you thoughtfully protest through civil disobedience when the state will take your children? Seriously, that's hard. Or when your children's wellbeing is in danger from the protest, as I contend it is if the state takes them away over going for a walk outside and nothing else. Yet the law is unjust. It's tough. Obviously a much, much more serious situation, but I often think of the courage of parents in the civil rights movement who let their children march and let their children be used to integrate schools. Like, wow. They let their kids do things for the greater good that were not in the best individual interest of their kids. This is an issue that I feel really strongly about - allowing parents to parent and kids to roam freely - but I don't know that that's needed in this case. But then how do you protest and call attention?

 

All I can say is that I'm glad I don't reside in Maryland. And if they ever pick up my kids at that corner, I hope I handle it as well as the Meitivs.

 

*clap clap clap clap clap clap* :)

[Daria]

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. 

 

Pedestrians die from being hit by cars, at a slightly higher rate per mile walked, than car passengers die per mile traveled by car.  It's likely that unaccompanied kid pedestrians die at a higher rate than the average pedestrian, and busy streets like GA Ave probably also increase that risk.  So no, they wouldn't have been at higher risk in the car.

 

I'm not saying that is or isn't a reason for them to have been allowed to walk home.  In my opinion, it is not acceptable to involve your kids in civil disobedience until they're old enough to understand that decision on their own.  I wouldn't put most six year olds in that category.

[Laurie4b]

CPS needs to be reserved for the extreme in parenting. Every time a resource is diverted to check out what is essentially a difference in *parenting philosophy,* that means one less worker available to investigate sexual abuse, suspicious burns, etc.  When reasonable parents disagree, CPS should not be involved. Even if the situation is not *optimal*, that does not make it an issue that the state needs to step into. 

 

I think this situation was fine if the parents were training the kids and the kids were reliable. Someone else mentioned urban vs. suburban child training which is quite different than rural child training. US standards are different than European standards which are different from standards in other areas of the world. There is no one standard that is best. These parents had a well thought-out parenting philosophy which actually has some research behind it. Their kids were fine. Even when we disagree strongly with what another parent is doing, I think we (as a society) should be careful to keep CPS dealing with the extreme cases not cases in which there is current debate with respect to parenting philosophy.

[Tsuga]

Pedestrians die from being hit by cars, at a slightly higher rate per mile walked, than car passengers die per mile traveled by car.  It's likely that unaccompanied kid pedestrians die at a higher rate than the average pedestrian, and busy streets like GA Ave probably also increase that risk.  So no, they wouldn't have been at higher risk in the car.

 

I'm not saying that is or isn't a reason for them to have been allowed to walk home.  In my opinion, it is not acceptable to involve your kids in civil disobedience until they're old enough to understand that decision on their own.  I wouldn't put most six year olds in that category.

 

I am not sure Free Range parenting as a movement is about civil disobedience. Most of the laws actually do not forbid a lot of the things that a small minority consider neglectful--including in this case.

[Murphy101]

In my opinion, it is not acceptable to involve your kids in civil disobedience until they're old enough to understand that decision on their own. I wouldn't put most six year olds in that category.

I can't disagree enough with this.

[Murphy101]

I am not sure Free Range parenting as a movement is about civil disobedience. Most of the laws actually do not forbid a lot of the things that a small minority consider neglectful--including in this case.

Well it for sure should not require civil disobedience for a kid to be allowed to walk about in pubic.

[creekland]

I am not sure Free Range parenting as a movement is about civil disobedience. Most of the laws actually do not forbid a lot of the things that a small minority consider neglectful--including in this case.

 

I don't see it as Civil Disobedience at all.  I see it as bringing up my kids the way I feel is correct.  I don't particularly care if someone else disagrees.  Hubby and I feel the same way and we are the parents.  That's what counts.  It definitely helps that locals around us see nothing wrong with it or if they do, they keep their feelings to themselves.  Plenty who agreed with us commented to us about that fact, but it's probably more common to comment when in agreement in our area.

[Daria]

I am not sure Free Range parenting as a movement is about civil disobedience. Most of the laws actually do not forbid a lot of the things that a small minority consider neglectful--including in this case.

 

Regulations in Montgomery County are very clear.  Much clearer than in many other jurisdictions.  Kids under age 8 need to be under the supervision of someone 13 and older.  It is pretty common knowledge.  For example, teachers are not allowed to allow 6 year olds to leave school without someone over 13.  

 

These parents knew that.  They specifically coached their kids about what to do if they were stopped, and prepared laminated cards for them to carry, both of which are pretty strong evidence that they knew it was possible.

 

I would consider myself a pretty "free range" parent, but I also didn't consider waiting until 8 for my kid to travel by themselves a huge hardship.  There are plenty of other ways for a kid to experience independence.  

[Murphy101]

Regulations in Montgomery County are very clear. Much clearer than in many other jurisdictions. Kids under age 8 need to be under the supervision of someone 13 and older. It is pretty common knowledge. For example, teachers are not allowed to allow 6 year olds to leave school without someone over 13.

 

These parents knew that. They specifically coached their kids about what to do if they were stopped, and prepared laminated cards for them to carry, both of which are pretty strong evidence that they knew it was possible.

 

I would consider myself a pretty "free range" parent, but I also didn't consider waiting until 8 for my kid to travel by themselves a huge hardship. There are plenty of other ways for a kid to experience independence.

Good for them teaching their kids civil disobedience.

 

To me how easy it is to obey the law is 100% not relevant to whether the law is just or necessary or worthy of being followed.

 

ETA:

 

Actually a law very difficult to follow would affect my view of it, but not how easy it is.

[SparklyUnicorn]

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.

 

I totally agree.

[Reefgazer]

I'm sorta free range and somewhat "hands-off-ish" and I think a mile is too far and too young.  Mainly I think that because of the six year old.  But I can see where some parents might think it's OK; it's just beyond my comfort zone.

[SKL]

Since when do we just lie down and die just because some idiots decided to write an idiotic law that harms children?

Yes, harms children.

 

According to what people are citing above, it is always 100% wrong for a 7yo to take a walk or go play with a 12yo.  Not just wrong, but worthy of criminal repercussions.  In my mind it is wrong to prevent kids from playing together on their own.

 

I don't know if these parents knew the letter of the local law before they got investigated.  But either way, I 100% agree with them fighting it.  I think it sucks that they have to go through all of this crap over doing something that is actually good for their kids.  Letting them play and walk outside and have sibling time together.  I mean, that was the majority of my childhood outside of school hours.  It's also what kids do in most other countries.  It's NORMAL.

[Farrar]

Regulations in Montgomery County are very clear.  Much clearer than in many other jurisdictions.  Kids under age 8 need to be under the supervision of someone 13 and older.  It is pretty common knowledge.  For example, teachers are not allowed to allow 6 year olds to leave school without someone over 13.  

 

These parents knew that.  They specifically coached their kids about what to do if they were stopped, and prepared laminated cards for them to carry, both of which are pretty strong evidence that they knew it was possible.

 

I would consider myself a pretty "free range" parent, but I also didn't consider waiting until 8 for my kid to travel by themselves a huge hardship.  There are plenty of other ways for a kid to experience independence.  

 

This is not correct. If you look at the law, it actually says they must be supervised when in a building or vehicle. Furthermore, it conflicts with school policy, which is that students who live within a mile of the school will not be bused because they can walk. I don't think it's clear. And I take the Meitivs at face value when they say that they did not believe the law about children in enclosed spaces applied to children in parks and out on the sidewalk.

 

As to the cards, this is a tactic suggested in Free Range Kids. It is suggested for places with absolutely no age based laws as well. It's just meant to be empowering and show that, yes, the parents really know where the kids are and what they're doing. This has nothing to do with the law. It's about being able to say to random adults that they really are where they're supposed to be.

 

Also, I know many Montgomery County parents who have said they were not aware of the law at all until this case. Of course, I know many who are, but I think the whole thing is not as clear cut as all that. A couple of years ago, I saw two parents get in an argument about that law. One said that she interpreted it that she could leave her 8 yo alone or her 12 yo alone, but could not leave them alone together because then the 12 yo could be said to be "supervising" the 8 yo. The other parent said that was absurd. But seeing as they apparently charge parents whose kids play at the park with keeping a child alone in an enclosed space, who knows how the law would actually be interpreted.

[LibraryLover]

If we legislate kids not being able to walk a fracking mile, we are doomed.  Doomed, I tell you.

[creekland]

If we legislate kids not being able to walk a fracking mile, we are doomed.  Doomed, I tell you.

 

My 6 year olds were walking 6/10ths of a mile home from their bus stop most afternoons (when the weather was good).  Oldest walked it alone (or rode his bike sometimes).  Middle walked/biked it at 6 with his then 8 year old brother.  Youngest also walked/biked it at 6 with his 8 year old brother.  Oldest, at that time, rode a different bus since he was in 5th grade by age 10.  We didn't start homeschooling until he started 9th grade (and youngest started 5th).

 

But then again, my guys also read books like:

 

Facing the Lion: Growing Up Maasai on the African Savanna

 

http://www.amazon.com/Facing-Lion-Growing-African-Savanna/dp/0792272978

 

So they had more of an idea of what other kids in other cultures could handle at various ages too.  

[Farrar]

If we legislate kids not being able to walk a fracking mile, we are doomed.  Doomed, I tell you.

 

Then we're doomed. Especially Mont-freaking-gomery County, Maryland, which may be the epicenter of overregulation for the entire universe.

[creekland]

Then we're doomed. Especially Mont-freaking-gomery County, Maryland, which may be the epicenter of overregulation for the entire universe.

 

Ah, the land of the free... Glad we don't live there.

 

We're actually very much enjoying Grand Bahama as I type - far, far fewer regulations of pretty much any sort - yet people still manage to survive somehow!

[Mommy to monkeys]

No way would I let any of my kids go out walking where we live.  If we lived in a safe neighborhood, I'd let my 10 and 12 year olds walk together, maybe under the right circumstances. But never ever ever would I send my 6 year old (or 5 year old) out walking without an adult. Ever. 

[SKL]

Last year I sent my two six-year-old daughters to the park which is a mile away from my house.  They had a great time.  I went to pick them up a bit later since I was afraid someone would call the cops if I left them "alone" at the park for very long.

 

I don't understand people saying that they would never, ever, under any circumstances, let a 6yo walk down the sidewalk without an adult.  Why?  I could understand it if it was a highway without a sidewalk, or an impulsive kid who had no sense of danger, or Hell's Kitchen.  But why "never, ever, ever"?  For those saying that, how does this compare to your own childhood?

 

Honestly, I am more worried about the things that can happen to my kids when they are older.  Things that a little street smarts and confidence might help prevent.

[Pamela H in Texas]

Pretty much, I agree with all the posts that say that it depends on the children and circumstances involved.  My 6yo is special needs so no way, no how.  But my other kids at six?  With one of the boys across the street (they are 11 and 13)?  Yes, I would allow that.  And all sorts of six year olds trek with older siblings from here to the school daily (there isn't bus service as it is only 3/4 of a mile away). 

 

I agree that we borrow worry these days.  I can't be free range and wouldn't let a 7yo walk to school or go to the park alone or with his 7yo buddy even.  But as long as their circumstances are reasonable, I think it is fine.  Just not my cuppa.

[Laura Corin]

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. 

 

There's some interesting research about perception of risk: if you feel in control (even if you aren't) then you will perceive the risk to be less.  

 

When we drive, we feel that we are in control (even though, rationally, we know that we are at the mercy of the next drunk) whereas when we let our children out of our sight, we feel that we do not have control.

 

L

[SKL]

It's true, we are not in control if we let our kids out of our sight.  Our kids are then in control.

 

And they should be in control of things they are ready to handle.

[maize]

There's some interesting research about perception of risk: if you feel in control (even if you aren't) then you will perceive the risk to be less.

 

When we drive, we feel that we are in control (even though, rationally, we know that we are at the mercy of the next drunk) whereas when we let our children out of our sight, we feel that we do not have control.

 

L

And this is why we need to be careful about over-sheltering our kids. A child who grows up NEVER experiencing being in control of himself/herself will never have a chance to develop confidence in navigating through the world. We cannot be healthy if we perceive everything in our lives as uncontrollable risk.

 

Yes, as parents we have a responsibility to assess risk and take reasonable precautions on behalf of our children, but hovering protectively over our children at all times teaches them helplessness and may ultimately do them more harm than good. Our job is not to raise young people to be perpetual children, but to be capable adults.

[creekland]

I've always taught my kids that it's better to truly live and die young, than to grow into old age and do absolutely nothing.

 

We also teach thinking though - using a seatbelt is smart (in most cases).  Choosing to drive rather than fly to a destination due to fears of a plane crash is not.  Then there is everything in between.

 

Consider what the true risks vs rewards are.  There are many things we choose to do that others might choose against.  Scuba diving to us is worth it.  My youngest was certified 2 months after his 10th birthday. (10 is the youngest one can get certified unless they've changed the regs since 2006.)  We had some tell us we were taking risks allowing him to do so at such a young age.  He did just fine and loved it.  Any of us could go out the next time and not make it back.  If that happens, at least we enjoyed the life we had!  It sure beats not going out and doing things even if we were to live to 90.  I just prefer seeing my world IRL rather than on TV or videos and the world I want to see is vast.  Risks come with the territory.

[foxbridgeacademy]

Nope.  Too young, too far, and I'd be a nervous wreak the entire time.  

[creekland]

There was an excellent Washpo piece regarding this perhaps today.

 

We ignore the truly vulnerable and cosset the privileged.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/our-most-vulnerable-children-dont-deserve-our-indifference-but-thats-what-they-get/2015/02/02/2c90054e-ab13-11e4-9c91-e9d2f9fde644_story.html?postshare=5701422981056345

 

Awesome article and sadly so true.  I only wish it weren't.

 

Thanks for posting it.