Mom Lets 4 Year Old Play Outside Alone, Gets Arrested.

[poppy]

This is why so many kids aren't getting the exercise they should be getting. Moms don't have as much free time as kids, and you're expected to watch them every second, hey, interact with them, because God forbid you let them play at the park and sit on the bench answering emails or catching up with your friends on your phone. So, kids stay inside with mom while she does everything she needs to do and only get to go outside when mom is free.

I dunno , I let my kids in the playground alone , they mostly dig in the dirt. When I was a kid I say in a tree and macs up stories. Outside time is lovely but it isn't necessarily more exercise.

[Lisbeth]

I don't think number of kids in a family should matter one way or another in a conversation about whether it is appropriate for a four year old to be alone at a particular distance from mom and for a particular amount of time.  It should be, in my mind, a consideration from the point of view of the whether it is safe for the child, period. If it is safe for a four year old, fine, it is safe.  If it is not safe, then it applies whether mom thinks she is too busy or not. 

 

That said, I still don't know that I would make this LAW.  I just would not leave *my* 4 year old unattended.  I don't think I would call the police for this...but I would be really uneasy seeing a small child out unattended outside.

[katilac]

 I don't know if I'd feel safe letting my 4 year old play outside alone in a large city like that, 

 

Small town vs city isn't relevant, imo, because stranger abductions are incredibly rare no matter where you live.  

 

I have to take the other view a little bit. While I don't think it's prison-worthy, I do think, "Why send him out there alone?" When my kids were little, I didn't leave them playing on the play equipment alone in my own fenced yard. There was utterly no reason to do so. I would sit out there and we'd all get a little fresh air.

 

I think there's plenty of reason to do so. My kids spent hours outside on a daily basis when they were younger, which certainly wouldn't have happened if I had to sit out there. Not being hovered over builds independence and problem solving skills, and I think it's just plain emotionally healthy to be a wee bit apart sometimes, and for kids to not live with the sense that they can't be alone at any time without something dreadful happening. 

 

I'm not a free-range parent when it comes to the neighborhood or the mall or such (although I think there can be benefits to it), but I can't imagine being too worried to let my 4-yr-old play in my fenced in backyard. That decision takes away a known and guaranteed benefit (plenty of outdoor play) because of a highly unlikely possible risk (something extremely serious happening that could have been prevented by being right there at every moment). 

 

Sometimes you just don't have the time to spend several hours outside everyday, watching your kid play.  <snip> To me, the risk of her getting hurt and me not being right there to scoop her up was worth the trade off of her getting to spend hours and hours of time playing outside.  

 

Yep. This is a good understanding of risk. 

 

 Talk about overreaction. It sounds like they mainly called because the kid didn't obey random adults. Um, that's a GOOD thing.  

 

It can be a very good thing. Everyone should look up Carlie Brucia, an 11-yr-old who was abducted by a stranger. There is video of him coming up to her as she walked home - she shies away a bit but lets him grab her by the arm and walk away with her. It's not known exactly what he might have said to her, but no weapon is visible and she doesn't yell or fight him. 

 

There's at least one more similar case that I can't think of right now, and of course tons of molestation cases where the perp relied on a child's automatic obedience to adult authority. 

 

I told my kids early and often that they would never get in trouble for not obeying either a random adult, or a known adult if they felt odd about the situation. Heck, I promised that I would reward them if it ever happened! 

 

That is a pretty low bar for parenting.................. close enough to hear a scream.

 

<snip>

 

Now that all could have taken place over 5 minutes, though I doubt it.  The point is, this doesn't seem to be someone keeping an eye out the window.  

 

I disagree. It can be more beneficial to a child to be close enough to hear a scream, yet far enough to foster independence. 

 

I also think it easily could be a case of someone keeping an eye out the window - she just may not have glanced out when the adults were speaking to him. If she looked right before and right after, all she would see is her son playing. 

 

It's probably not something I would have let my own 4-yr-old do, but I cannot even imagine calling the cops about it. 

[luuknam]

This is why so many kids aren't getting the exercise they should be getting. Moms don't have as much free time as kids, and you're expected to watch them every second, hey, interact with them, because God forbid you let them play at the park and sit on the bench answering emails or catching up with your friends on your phone. So, kids stay inside with mom while she does everything she needs to do and only get to go outside when mom is free.

 

Nobody bats an eye when I sit reading a book while my 4yo plays at the playground (okay, he just turned 5, but I've done that all summer). Little ones, maybe, but not 4yos. At least I haven't heard of anyone calling CPS yet over a mom who sits texting while glancing up at her kid every other minute.

 

But now you are just making assumptions that the mom wasn't watching. I've seen neighbors go up to my kids while they were riding bikes in the tennis courts and those neighbors would have no idea I saw because I simply watched from my window. I watched one neighbor walk laps around the court as my kids followed on their bikes. When she told me about it in passing she was shocked I saw her.

 

Nope, not assuming. An earlier post said that the mom was asked in an interview, and that she said she could *not* see the kid from her (house/apartment - I don't recall).

 

Whether she was able to hear the kid is up for speculation though. Although if the kid fell on its head and got knocked unconscious she wouldn't be able to see nor hear that (but, that's unlikely enough I'm not *too* concerned about it, just like I'm not too concerned about kidnapping).

[Farrar]

I don't know, but in plenty of suburban kind of places, there *aren't* many people around, because everybody works. I've taken my kids to the playground several times without seeing anybody, or maybe one person or something. Maybe what I think of as a "gated community" is different from your idea (I obviously don't live in a gated community), but anyway...

 

I don't know Sacramento, so I don't know if I'm picturing this right - or if any of us are actually. There aren't any of these in my hood for the most part, but in the slightly nicer areas, there are apartment complexes that are "gated" - think doorman type building with a courtyard. In other places I know of there are "garden apartment" complexes where there are lots of low apartment buildings around several green spaces and it's all gated, but it's not that chic. It's just part of the set up. But presumably the gated element makes it even safer. He's not going to be able to go far and there are clear boundaries.

 

I'm not sure if this place was in a real urban setting or not. Just that people above in the thread seemed to think it was and more than one person questioned the wisdom of being free range specifically in an urban setting. I'm saying I could turn that around and say, hey, I think it's less safe to be free range in a suburban or rural setting because there isn't anyone around to help. I don't actually really think that. I think every setting has its pros and cons but that the benefit of letting kids at an appropriate age become independent is an important value that surpasses all the potential cons.

[DesertBlossom]

Four is a little young for me. But I don't think this parent should be punished. The child did not get hurt. He was not neglected or abused. He wasn't kidnapped. He was fine. But we're going to punish her because something could have happened? That's unreasonable, IMO.

 

And I should clarify that I think that's very different from leaving your child in an inherently dangerous situation, where it's a matter of when, not if, the child is seriously injured.

Edited December 3, 2015 by DesertBlossom

[luuknam]

Four is a little young for me. But I don't think this parent should be punished. The child did not get hurt. He was not neglected or abused. He wasn't kidnapped. He was fine. But we're going to punish her because something could have happened? That's unreasonable, IMO.

 

Isn't that why drunk driving is illegal? Because something *could* happen?

 

And I should clarify that I think that's very different from leaving your child in an inherently dangerous situation, where it's a matter of when, not if, the child is seriously injured.

 

The thing is, that some people think that leaving a young child unattended outside (not your own back yard) is inherently dangerous. And, if you could leave a child outside at the playground long enough, eventually they will get hurt, and they will get abducted. It might take a million years on average for the kid to be abducted, but still. The thing is, there is no clear delineation between "inherently dangerous" and "not inherently dangerous". There's "common sense" - the only problem is that people disagree on what common sense is.

[Farrar]

It seems to me that when parents self-identify as "free range," they move further afield from sensible to try and prove a point. I have a big house, but even so, I did not have young kids in one section of the house while I was in the farthest section away. I believe little children (age depends on many things, but almost all 5 or younger) should be virtually always supervised during waking hours. Call me kooky. I can live with kooky better than discovering I should have been watching them because xyz happened.

 

I identify as being free range. I don't think any of the things I've done are not sensible. I think it was sensible to allow my kids to go to the park alone, to go to the store alone, to ride the subway alone, to stay home alone, to ride the bus to activities alone, all at the ages at which they've done it. I think it's not sensible to try and supervise a 5 yo in the house every waking moment. I would have gone nuts. On the other hand, I don't think you should go to jail for it. Or that you did it to try and prove some point. I think you're just parenting as you think is best. As am I. And assuming otherwise is just mommy wars nonsense.

[luuknam]

I identify as being free range. I don't think any of the things I've done are not sensible. I think it was sensible to allow my kids to go to the park alone, to go to the store alone, to ride the subway alone, to stay home alone, to ride the bus to activities alone, all at the ages at which they've done it. I think it's not sensible to try and supervise a 5 yo in the house every waking moment. I would have gone nuts. On the other hand, I don't think you should go to jail for it. Or that you did it to try and prove some point. I think you're just parenting as you think is best. As am I. And assuming otherwise is just mommy wars nonsense.

 

I wonder if the people with the foster kids and the monkeys thought what they did was sensible. Should we as a society really say that anything goes, as long as the parent thought it was sensible? Some people just aren't sensible even if they think they are. Not saying you're one of them.

Edited December 3, 2015 by luuknam

[Farrar]

Isn't that why drunk driving is illegal? Because something *could* happen?

 

 

The thing is, that some people think that leaving a young child unattended outside (not your own back yard) is inherently dangerous. And, if you could leave a child outside at the playground long enough, eventually they will get hurt, and they will get abducted. It might take a million years on average for the kid to be abducted, but still. The thing is, there is no clear delineation between "inherently dangerous" and "not inherently dangerous". There's "common sense" - the only problem is that people disagree on what common sense is.

 

Driving drunk is incredibly dangerous. It's illegal because it's been proven time and again, scientifically, with studies, with statistics, that drunk drivers do cause accidents.

 

Leaving a child outside to play is not as dangerous. Random (as in not by a family member) kidnappings or assaults on kids are incredibly rare. That's, again, speaking from statistics. The dangers of everyday life are present, of course. But they're present when a parent is there too. And the vast majority of those dangers - like a skinned knee or even a broken bone - are things that simply are not life threatening. That it would be rotten if the kid screamed for an extra minute, but in the end, not the end of anyone's world.

 

These two things simply cannot be compared.

[Farrar]

I wonder if the people with the foster kids and the monkeys thought what they did was sensible. Should we as a society really say that anything goes, as long as the parent thought it was sensible? Some people just aren't sensible even if they think they are. Not saying you're one of them.

 

So basically, none of us should be allowed to use common sense. Only the government... or, oh, sorry, random strangers... should be able to decide how to parent our kids?

 

And, just to be clear, you're not saying I did something inappropriate to monkeys. Great. Thanks.

[luuknam]

So basically, none of us should be allowed to use common sense. Only the government... or, oh, sorry, random strangers... should be able to decide how to parent our kids?

 

So you *are* saying that as long as the parent thought it was sensible, it's okay? No matter what it is? I guess we should get rid of CPS altogether then, because what parent will just say "hey, I thought it was a stupid idea, but I did it anyway".

[Farrar]

I'm saying there should be wide leeway. That there is a wide set of things that are okay. That we should stop judging, assuming whatever happened with those monkeys isn't happening. And in particular, when there isn't any strong statistical danger, we should all butt out.

[katilac]

 The thing is, that some people think that leaving a young child unattended outside (not your own back yard) is inherently dangerous. And, if you could leave a child outside at the playground long enough, eventually they will get hurt, and they will get abducted. It might take a million years on average for the kid to be abducted, but still.  

 

That's like saying if you stay with a child outside long enough, eventually they will be attacked by killer bees. It might take a million years, but still . . . 

 

 Should we as a society really say that anything goes, as long as the parent thought it was sensible?  

 

No, we as a society should look at the actual, not perceived, risk and judge accordingly. 

 

The actuality is that child abduction is heartbreaking and horrifying . . . but incredibly rare. So very rare that specific circumstances such as city vs small town, alone or with friends, really don't make a difference - the 7-yr-old girl that was just killed in Kentucky wasn't playing alone, she went missing from a crowded football game in a town where 'everybody knows each other.' 

 

Any of the other deadly risks I can think of are nearly as rare.

 

Many areas actually do have laws that rely on the authorities agreeing that you used common sense and made a reasonable decision. For instance, there may not be a specified age for staying home alone. If something happens or it gets reported, yeah, the authorities or the jury is expected to look at the evidence and judge accordingly.

 

People in general have a very poor idea of actual risk.  

[Farrar]

That's like saying if you stay with a child outside long enough, eventually they will be attacked by killer bees. It might take a million years, but still . . . 

 

If I leave my child outside for long enough, they will be struck by lightning, hit by a meteor, and bit by a rabid monkey.

[Farrar]

I still don't know what happened with the foster children and the monkeys. When I did a news search, all I turned up was an article about a really tenacious adoptive mom who worked at a company with a weird name (that included "monkey") and an article about how animal shelters foster animals, even sometimes weird ones like monkeys. I think I don't want know.

[Annie G]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4639590240001/mom-in-hot-water-for-letting-son-play-outside-alone/?playlist_id=930909787001#sp=show-clips

 

This is the video clip I referenced earlier. When I saw it at 6:15 AM, I really thought it ended at about the 2 minute mark. I must have dozed back off.  In any case, here it is in case anyone wants to hear from the mom herself. 

 

Disclaimer: It's Fox News so I apologize in advance for that. 

 

I wouldn't choose to let my 4 year old do that but I don't necessarily think it should be illegal.  On the other hand, it's so hard to pick 'an age' that it's ok to let your kid be out alone- each kid is ready at a different age.  (Of course that also opens the door to a parent saying her 3 year old play outside alone. Then another says her 2 year old is ready....

 

On the other hand, I live in Illinois and they go way overboard and say that under 13 cannot be left alone. They don't enforce that unless something happens, but gee whiz....13?????

 

 

Edited to fix link

Edited December 3, 2015 by Annie G

[Guest]

I identify as being free range. I don't think any of the things I've done are not sensible. I think it was sensible to allow my kids to go to the park alone, to go to the store alone, to ride the subway alone, to stay home alone, to ride the bus to activities alone, all at the ages at which they've done it. I think it's not sensible to try and supervise a 5 yo in the house every waking moment. I would have gone nuts. On the other hand, I don't think you should go to jail for it. Or that you did it to try and prove some point. I think you're just parenting as you think is best. As am I. And assuming otherwise is just mommy wars nonsense.

Well, I don't really have a dog in this fight and it's not something I want to stridently debate. I mostly don't care if another mom is more or less paranoid than I am in general. What I was inelegantly trying to say is that these stories hit the news about how a young kid was playing/walking/whatever unsupervised and it's always a "thing" that the parents say, "we're free-rangers." Kinda like when you would hear some story of a major outlier extended breastfeeder who was "nursing" an 8-year old...they are kind of giving the whole movement a bad name by displaying something more extreme than average. You don't hear of a four-year old playing in the park alone in which the parent doesn't make a "statement" about being free-range, which makes it look like they are just trying to call attention to an idea by being on the farther side of typical.

 

IOW, I haven't seen a case like this where the mom just matter-of-factly said, "yeah, he was playing outside the window and I was keeping an eye on him while I made lunch for the toddler, after which we were all going to picnic by the playset. What's wrong with that?" It's always, "oh, yes, we're free-rangers, joining in the movement to let kids freely move about in the world with less than average supervision, therefore, I intentionally send him out to play without boring my hawkeye into him all day long."

 

*please note that I *do not* think this is jail-worthy - that is completely idiotic. But I also don't think it is unduly cautious to watch your four-year old on play equipment.

[Joanne]

Isn't that why drunk driving is illegal? Because something *could* happen?

 

 

The thing is, that some people think that leaving a young child unattended outside (not your own back yard) is inherently dangerous. And, if you could leave a child outside at the playground long enough, eventually they will get hurt, and they will get abducted. It might take a million years on average for the kid to be abducted, but still. The thing is, there is no clear delineation between "inherently dangerous" and "not inherently dangerous". There's "common sense" - the only problem is that people disagree on what common sense is.

 

I disagree with your premise. And math.

[poppy]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4639558336001/jamiel-shaw-i-stand-with-trump/?playlist_id=930909787001#sp=show-clips

 

This is the video clip I referenced earlier. When I saw it at 6:15 AM, I really thought it ended at about the 2 minute mark. I must have dozed back off.  In any case, here it is in case anyone wants to hear from the mom herself. 

 

Disclaimer: It's Fox News so I apologize in advance for that. 

 

I wouldn't choose to let my 4 year old do that but I don't necessarily think it should be illegal.  On the other hand, it's so hard to pick 'an age' that it's ok to let your kid be out alone- each kid is ready at a different age.  (Of course that also opens the door to a parent saying her 3 year old play outside alone. Then another says her 2 year old is ready....

 

On the other hand, I live in Illinois and they go way overboard and say that under 13 cannot be left alone. They don't enforce that unless something happens, but gee whiz....13?????

 

'Father of teen killed by illegal speaks out'

 

Killed by illegal? 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I always have mixed feelings when something like this happens. 

 

I think it's hard to find balance in today's world between letting your children have some freedom and at the same time making sure they are safe.  It's also hard to know if you should get involved in someone else's business.  How do you know if the kid is just "free ranged' or being neglected?

 

I am fairly "free range" (although, I really don't like that term) but at the same time I ask myself  - what is the worst that can happen?  If the answer something I can live with - then off they go.    You also have to know your kid and what kind of things he can handle.

 

It is, and I can't help but wonder if there is more to some of these stories.  The kid may have even said something weird that made the neighbors worried.  I'm not sure what, but kids can be unpredictable like that.

[SKL]

My concern wouldn't be that someone could take the child, but that the child fell off the equipment and broke something. If she was inside, it might be quite a while before she'd realize that her kid was hurt. Obviously, e.g. an 8yo can fall off play equipment and break something as well, but I think that an 8yo with a broken leg would be much more capable to handle the stress of being in pain and not being able to get home and be with his mom and possibly having to be in that condition for half an hour or more. 4 would be a bit on the young side, imo (my personal level of comfort does depend on the individual kid, but generally 6-7 or so).

 

Gated communities creep me out, btw.

 

Every 4yo I know can holler loud enough to get the attention of their mom when she's 120 feet away.

 

I hope the neighbors learn their lesson and don't ruin any more lives.

 

I'm sick of parents being arrested and punished for literally nothing.  Nobody was hurt.  Oh, but "someone could have taken him."  Yeah, like CPS or the cops.

[SKL]

What's unclear to me is whether the kid was completely alone at the playground though. From the article, it seems like the child might have been completely alone - no other kids. And, the playground in the picture probably is the type that comes with the "made for kids ages 5-12, adult supervision recommended" warning. Which, I take with a lump of salt, but, we don't know if the mom would've even been able to hear a scream (we don't *know* that she had her window open - it is December (though this probably took place in November, but same difference).

 

At the very least, one would think that parents in America would teach their kids that if strangers bug you, to go home and tell mom about it... because of situations like these. They either didn't tell the kid that, or the kid was too young to implement that and just wanted to play more (the kid is 4... so, yeah).

 

A 4yo kid wanting to play some more at the playground is the most normal, healthy thing in the world.

 

Teaching kids to be scared of their neighbors and run home when spoken to is not something I could get on board with.

 

Not that long ago, 4yos walked to KG independently and even learned how to cross the street.  When my sibs and I were 4yo we went out to play up and down the street all the time.  It was absolutely normal.  Parents were never seen on the playground when I was a kid, except occasionally to swing wee tots in the baby swings.

 

I let my kids play out back (no fence) when they were under 2yo.  I would look out periodically as I washed dishes etc.  I guess I should be in solitary confinement.

 

I am sick of having to constantly weigh the risk of busybodies overreaching when I try to make the right choice for my kids.

[lea_lpz]

I'm pretty sure 2500 sq ft is the size of the average *new build.*

 

 

 

I didn't mean this to be snooty. I live in an 1100 sq ft apartment and we have 4 children with two on the way. I actually found this quite shocking, lol , when I heard this statistic as the average sq ft for a new home. But the thought popped in my head, if this is the new average size home than I can see kids being 120 ft from mom a good amount of time a day.

[Annie G]

'Father of teen killed by illegal speaks out'

 

Killed by illegal? 

 

Sorry- I think while I was cutting and pasting the link the video clip I was trying to post ended and it moved on to the next one, which evidently meant I pasted the wrong link.  

 

I'm not endorsing the network, it's just the only place I saw the mom speak. I usually would rather hear what the original person has to say rather than what some reporter's interpretation of the situation is. 

[J-rap]

It sounds like an over-reaction... 6 months jail time?  It makes me wonder if we're not quite hearing the whole story. 

[SKL]

Isn't that why drunk driving is illegal? Because something *could* happen?

 

No, because when you drive drunk the risk of something happening is significant.

 

Something "could" happen every time we drive sober, too, but driving sober isn't illegal.  Something "could" happen just walking down the street (with or without supervision).  Or climbing out of the bathtub.  So no, we don't make things illegal because something "could" happen.

[Mimm]

If you're going to decide what's allowable based on the worst case scenario, then nothing is allowable, and none of us should ever leave our houses. You're all wildly neglectful parents for ever putting your child into a vehicle, feeding them food (could choke on it), or leaving them to sleep without your eyes glued to them. Once you're talking about what "could" happen, it becomes absurd.

[SKL]

Well, I don't really have a dog in this fight and it's not something I want to stridently debate. I mostly don't care if another mom is more or less paranoid than I am in general. What I was inelegantly trying to say is that these stories hit the news about how a young kid was playing/walking/whatever unsupervised and it's always a "thing" that the parents say, "we're free-rangers." Kinda like when you would hear some story of a major outlier extended breastfeeder who was "nursing" an 8-year old...they are kind of giving the whole movement a bad name by displaying something more extreme than average. You don't hear of a four-year old playing in the park alone in which the parent doesn't make a "statement" about being free-range, which makes it look like they are just trying to call attention to an idea by being on the farther side of typical.

 

IOW, I haven't seen a case like this where the mom just matter-of-factly said, "yeah, he was playing outside the window and I was keeping an eye on him while I made lunch for the toddler, after which we were all going to picnic by the playset. What's wrong with that?" It's always, "oh, yes, we're free-rangers, joining in the movement to let kids freely move about in the world with less than average supervision, therefore, I intentionally send him out to play without boring my hawkeye into him all day long."

 

Maybe this is because of selective [anti-free-range] news reporting.  Or even the journalists putting the free-range spin on it.  Anyone who has been interviewed by a journalist knows that they take a lot of license with "quotes."

 

Fact is, there are probably a million 4yo kids who have played outside "unsupervised" this year and didn't get on the news.  All of their parents weren't "making a statement."

 

I also think this boy's name played a part in how folks have reacted.

[HRAAB]

It is, and I can't help but wonder if there is more to some of these stories.  The kid may have even said something weird that made the neighbors worried.  I'm not sure what, but kids can be unpredictable like that.

 

This is what I always think when I hear these types of stories - there has to be more to it - because it just isn't reasonable otherwise.

[HRAAB]

Maybe this is because of selective [anti-free-range] news reporting.  Or even the journalists putting the free-range spin on it.  Anyone who has been interviewed by a journalist knows that they take a lot of license with "quotes."

 

Fact is, there are probably a million 4yo kids who have played outside "unsupervised" this year and didn't get on the news.  All of their parents weren't "making a statement."

 

I also think this boy's name played a part in how folks have reacted.

 

Tomahawk?  I noticed that, too.  It's a different name, but I don't see how that would cause someone to be more likely to call CPS.  Or did you mean how people are reacting to the article?

 

It reminds me of a boy in my dd's kindergarten class.  He was named Windmill.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Tomahawk?  I noticed that, too.  It's a different name, but I don't see how that would cause someone to be more likely to call CPS.  Or did you mean how people are reacting to the article?

 

It reminds me of a boy in my dd's kindergarten class.  He was named Windmill.

 

Windmill?!

 

That's different. 

[HRAAB]

Windmill?!

 

That's different. 

 

Yeah.  The family was different, too.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah.  The family was different, too.

 

My husband works for a company that makes a product schools buy.  He sometimes has to help with data base issues so he sees lists of student names.  He tells me about some of the strange names he encounters.  One that tops them all is Shmera Fudge.

[Joker]

It's all completely ridiculous and does nothing but instill fear in other parents. It's to the detriment of our children. I seriously worry how things will be when my own dds have children. I grew up being allowed to wander all over my grandparents farms and barns from a young age. My own parents lived in a subdivision and we were able to roam. I rode my bike miles away from home and still look back fondly on those times. 

 

I, on the other hand, had CPS called on me when my dds were only 18 months and 4 years old because an idiot neighbor thought they were left home alone. We only had one car (which dh drove less than a mile to work), they heard crying, and just stupidly assumed. It all could have been avoided had they just knocked on the door. Instead the incident made me afraid for several years. We've even had comments about letting our dds stay home alone at twelve. 

 

I do find it strange that some parents don't even think young ones should be out of their sight in their homes. My dds enjoyed their alone time even as toddlers. I could hear them rambling on and one in their rooms pretending to read a book or talk to their stuffed animals. Even when I couldn't hear them, I didn't think I needed to be right there and keep an eye on them, especially not with four or five year olds. 

 

I've never called CPS or the cops and I would have to be very certain something horrible was happening to do so. 

[SKL]

I think people need to be able to sue busybodies for frivolous complaints about parenting choices.

[Joker]

I think people need to be able to sue busybodies for frivolous complaints about parenting choices.

 

I do remember that CPS told us that if the same person complained again that we could pursue legal action. They would actually turn over their information and it wouldn't be confidential. This was only after they said there was no case and we were cleared. The time in between was scary and had a great impact on how we did things in the following years. 

[Ravin]

Isn't that why drunk driving is illegal? Because something *could* happen?

 

 

The thing is, that some people think that leaving a young child unattended outside (not your own back yard) is inherently dangerous. And, if you could leave a child outside at the playground long enough, eventually they will get hurt, and they will get abducted. It might take a million years on average for the kid to be abducted, but still. The thing is, there is no clear delineation between "inherently dangerous" and "not inherently dangerous". There's "common sense" - the only problem is that people disagree on what common sense is.

Actually, "inherently dangerous" or not is a distinction made in the law for liability. There is commonly strict liability for inherently dangerous activities. Often it is common sense, but it may also be a matter of statistics.

 

Letting a child play in traffic is inherently dangerous. Letting a child play on a playground is not.

 

Every child is by law under parental supervision and parents can be held accountable for what happens to a child. That supervision gradually transitions from direct to constructive supervision over time. At what age a child is ready for short periods of constructive supervision depends on the individual child. Assumptions in that area are asinine.

[luuknam]

Every 4yo I know can holler loud enough to get the attention of their mom when she's 120 feet away.

 

I'm sick of parents being arrested and punished for literally nothing.  Nobody was hurt.

 

I'm pretty sure I would not be able to hear my 5yo from 120ft if my windows were closed. We don't know if her windows were open or closed, but in November/December, my windows are usually closed. I also haven't seen anyone post that she claims she would've been able to hear him if something had happened.

 

Anyway, my reasoning on this goes partially like this: the 4yo wasn't hurt. Jail is pretty crazy as a first step. However, if the 4yo had climbed on the monkey bars, fallen, and broken his neck (or been abducted, or any other bad scenario), what are the odds that the courts would think her supervision was insufficient with her being at home not being able to even see the 4yo? I suspect she'd get in legal trouble just about 100% of the time, no matter how mature she argued her 4yo to be and how sensible it is to let him play at the playground alone.

 

Whereas if an 8yo does the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, I suspect most people would view it as an unfortunate accident, and I doubt the mom would get in legal trouble (except in places where people are completely insane, but you could substitute a higher age if you wanted).

 

Obviously, a child can get hurt on the playground even when mom is there reading a book, or even right next to the kid. But, the mom would be less likely to get in legal trouble over it (unless she was encouraging the kid to be reckless).

 

Of course, it's pretty rare kids fall and break their necks at the playground (it does happen though). But, is the mom whose 4yo happened to fall and break his neck any more negligent than the mom whose 4yo didn't fall and break his neck? No, she was just less lucky.

 

Another example: if a 2yo drowns in the bathtub, it's neglect. If an 8yo drowns in the bathtub it's an accident. If you see a 2yo in the bathtub alone, should you do something about it? Would it be *wrong* to do something about it? Would you be at fault if the police or CPS went way overboard and mom ended up facing a jail sentence? Plenty of 2yos can spend loooong times in the bathtub alone for many many days and never be harmed.

[Tanaqui]

Are you suggesting that this play structure is so formidable that the mother should not simply have been in the area, but actually standing underneath him as he played? Because if you're simply on a bench as your child clambers around, I'm not sure if you could prevent your child from breaking their neck in a bad fall.

 

And if your presence couldn't actually prevent the accident you're speculating about, then I don't see why it matters. It's not analogous to the toddler in the bathtub at all.

Edited December 3, 2015 by Tanaqui

[Liz CA]

I used to ride my little bike all over the small town (maybe 5-6000 people at that time) where we lived. Most people knew the kids and even if they didn't know your name they knew to which family you belonged. If you fell off your bike in the other part of town, they came to help you up, not to call CPS on your parents...

[kiwik]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4639590240001/mom-in-hot-water-for-letting-son-play-outside-alone/?playlist_id=930909787001#sp=show-clips

 

This is the video clip I referenced earlier. When I saw it at 6:15 AM, I really thought it ended at about the 2 minute mark. I must have dozed back off.  In any case, here it is in case anyone wants to hear from the mom herself. 

 

Disclaimer: It's Fox News so I apologize in advance for that. 

 

I wouldn't choose to let my 4 year old do that but I don't necessarily think it should be illegal.  On the other hand, it's so hard to pick 'an age' that it's ok to let your kid be out alone- each kid is ready at a different age.  (Of course that also opens the door to a parent saying her 3 year old play outside alone. Then another says her 2 year old is ready....

 

On the other hand, I live in Illinois and they go way overboard and say that under 13 cannot be left alone. They don't enforce that unless something happens, but gee whiz....13?????

 

 

Edited to fix link

Here it is 14.  Once they turn 14 they are suddenly able to not only be left alone but able to look after younger kids alone.  But the law says "without reasonable supervision".  If the mother was looking out regularly and the child was in a safe area then they were being supervised.  I let my kids play in the park across the road for short periods and don't worry about the police turning up.

[ChocolateMomster]

Half of The Netherlands would be arrested! Seriously, we Dutch let our children go out, roam through the streets by themselves very early on. Now I'm not used to it anymore and when we go back I'm always a bit shocked.

[SKL]

I'm pretty sure I would not be able to hear my 5yo from 120ft if my windows were closed. We don't know if her windows were open or closed, but in November/December, my windows are usually closed. I also haven't seen anyone post that she claims she would've been able to hear him if something had happened.

 

Anyway, my reasoning on this goes partially like this: the 4yo wasn't hurt. Jail is pretty crazy as a first step. However, if the 4yo had climbed on the monkey bars, fallen, and broken his neck (or been abducted, or any other bad scenario), what are the odds that the courts would think her supervision was insufficient with her being at home not being able to even see the 4yo? I suspect she'd get in legal trouble just about 100% of the time, no matter how mature she argued her 4yo to be and how sensible it is to let him play at the playground alone.

 

Whereas if an 8yo does the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, I suspect most people would view it as an unfortunate accident, and I doubt the mom would get in legal trouble (except in places where people are completely insane, but you could substitute a higher age if you wanted).

 

Obviously, a child can get hurt on the playground even when mom is there reading a book, or even right next to the kid. But, the mom would be less likely to get in legal trouble over it (unless she was encouraging the kid to be reckless).

 

Of course, it's pretty rare kids fall and break their necks at the playground (it does happen though). But, is the mom whose 4yo happened to fall and break his neck any more negligent than the mom whose 4yo didn't fall and break his neck? No, she was just less lucky.

 

Another example: if a 2yo drowns in the bathtub, it's neglect. If an 8yo drowns in the bathtub it's an accident. If you see a 2yo in the bathtub alone, should you do something about it? Would it be *wrong* to do something about it? Would you be at fault if the police or CPS went way overboard and mom ended up facing a jail sentence? Plenty of 2yos can spend loooong times in the bathtub alone for many many days and never be harmed.

 

I disagree with this mindset, and it's not actually the way the law works in most places in the US.

 

In the rare case that a child of any age dies in a pure accident, people are actually more likely to have compassion vs. judgment on the parents.  The idea that a pure accident (which could happen with the parent 2 feet away) happened at a younger age should have no bearing on anything.

 

Most accidents happen with the parent right there.  That isn't neglect, not because the parent was right there, but because accidents are not neglect.

 

 

[SKL]

I used to ride my little bike all over the small town (maybe 5-6000 people at that time) where we lived. Most people knew the kids and even if they didn't know your name they knew to which family you belonged. If you fell off your bike in the other part of town, they came to help you up, not to call CPS on your parents...

 

Right.  And they would call your parents if they saw you being naughty, too.  One time my parents got a call from someone about 10 blocks away whom I didn't even know.  :P  My parents, not the cops.

 

[SKL]

I can hear my kids talking halfway down the street with my windows closed.  There is no question I would hear their cries if someone got hurt.

[Ravin]

I'm pretty sure I would not be able to hear my 5yo from 120ft if my windows were closed. We don't know if her windows were open or closed, but in November/December, my windows are usually closed. I also haven't seen anyone post that she claims she would've been able to hear him if something had happened.

 

Anyway, my reasoning on this goes partially like this: the 4yo wasn't hurt. Jail is pretty crazy as a first step. However, if the 4yo had climbed on the monkey bars, fallen, and broken his neck (or been abducted, or any other bad scenario), what are the odds that the courts would think her supervision was insufficient with her being at home not being able to even see the 4yo? I suspect she'd get in legal trouble just about 100% of the time, no matter how mature she argued her 4yo to be and how sensible it is to let him play at the playground alone.

 

Whereas if an 8yo does the exact same thing under the exact same circumstances, I suspect most people would view it as an unfortunate accident, and I doubt the mom would get in legal trouble (except in places where people are completely insane, but you could substitute a higher age if you wanted).

 

Obviously, a child can get hurt on the playground even when mom is there reading a book, or even right next to the kid. But, the mom would be less likely to get in legal trouble over it (unless she was encouraging the kid to be reckless).

 

Of course, it's pretty rare kids fall and break their necks at the playground (it does happen though). But, is the mom whose 4yo happened to fall and break his neck any more negligent than the mom whose 4yo didn't fall and break his neck? No, she was just less lucky.

 

Another example: if a 2yo drowns in the bathtub, it's neglect. If an 8yo drowns in the bathtub it's an accident. If you see a 2yo in the bathtub alone, should you do something about it? Would it be *wrong* to do something about it? Would you be at fault if the police or CPS went way overboard and mom ended up facing a jail sentence? Plenty of 2yos can spend loooong times in the bathtub alone for many many days and never be harmed.

She could only be found negligent if her presence would likely have prevented the accident or changed its outcome. In the case of falling and breaking his neck, the answer would be "no." With respect to a stranger grabbing the kid, 100% of culpability in that situation should fall on the kidnapper. Edited December 3, 2015 by Ravin

[luuknam]

She could only be found negligent of her presence would likely have prevented the accident or changed its outcome. In the case of falling and breaking his neck, the answer would be "no." With respect to a stranger grabbing the kid, 100% of culpability in that situation should fall on the kidnapper.

 

Wrt falling and breaking his neck, her presence might have prevented that if she'd been there to tell him to be more careful ("stop goofing around near the monkey bars or we'll go home now") or to catch him or w/e ("no monkey bars alone until you're older and better at using them"). Though realistically, I suspect that older kids are more likely to break their necks at playgrounds than 4yos are, not that I have statistics, and statistics would be hard to gather because not many people leave their 4yos alone at playgrounds. What with those playgrounds usually having big warning stickers saying "intended for ages 5-12, close adult supervision recommended", I'm not sure how well the death of an unsupervised 4yo would play out for the mom (especially if it's a young 4).

 

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this out. Would her presence not have made a difference if the kid were 3? 2? At what point do you draw the line between negligence and accidents? Afaik, there isn't a commonly accepted "acceptable level of risk", like if something poses less than 0.1% chance of grave injury it's fine. The laws seem to be all over the place wrt acceptable risk. I'm not allowed to let my kids bicycle without a bicycle helmet on, but I can send my 4yo to the playground alone? WTH? I've seen a bicyclist fall on his head exactly once in my entire life (even though I'm from NL where everyone bicycles everywhere, without helmets, mind you), and that kid that did fall on his head is special needs, gets OT and PT and the like, and didn't even fall hard so almost certainly would've been fine without a helmet. I'm not sure I could fall on my head if I wanted to (I've flown over my handlebars before - landed on my back halfway across the street, but I was also over 12yo (and going much faster than kids under 12 would), so I wouldn't have had to wear a helmet here anyway).

[SKL]

Wrt falling and breaking his neck, her presence might have prevented that if she'd been there to tell him to be more careful ("stop goofing around near the monkey bars or we'll go home now") or to catch him or w/e ("no monkey bars alone until you're older and better at using them"). Though realistically, I suspect that older kids are more likely to break their necks at playgrounds than 4yos are, not that I have statistics, and statistics would be hard to gather because not many people leave their 4yos alone at playgrounds. What with those playgrounds usually having big warning stickers saying "intended for ages 5-12, close adult supervision recommended", I'm not sure how well the death of an unsupervised 4yo would play out for the mom (especially if it's a young 4).

 

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to figure this out. Would her presence not have made a difference if the kid were 3? 2? At what point do you draw the line between negligence and accidents? Afaik, there isn't a commonly accepted "acceptable level of risk", like if something poses less than 0.1% chance of grave injury it's fine. The laws seem to be all over the place wrt acceptable risk. I'm not allowed to let my kids bicycle without a bicycle helmet on, but I can send my 4yo to the playground alone? WTH? I've seen a bicyclist fall on his head exactly once in my entire life (even though I'm from NL where everyone bicycles everywhere, without helmets, mind you), and that kid that did fall on his head is special needs, gets OT and PT and the like, and didn't even fall hard so almost certainly would've been fine without a helmet. I'm not sure I could fall on my head if I wanted to (I've flown over my handlebars before - landed on my back halfway across the street, but I was also over 12yo (and going much faster than kids under 12 would), so I wouldn't have had to wear a helmet here anyway).

 

Where I live, parents ignore the 5-12 sign (which is really just a CYA guideline) and let their kids do what their kids are ready for.  And at 4yo only some parents are hovering enough to prevent a fall.  I certainly did not when my kids were 4.  I've seen sturdy, agile kids much younger who are able and allowed to play on the 5-12 equipment without a hovering parent.  Falls are still rare at all ages, and the playgrounds are designed so that even if a kid falls, it usually doesn't lead to serious harm.

 

What if the kid were 3, or 2, or newborn ... why doe that matter?  We're talking about a 4yo.  A 4yo who was NOT injured, and who is now not allowed to play outside any more because someone across the way has an opinion.

 

[poppy]

Right.  And they would call your parents if they saw you being naughty, too.  One time my parents got a call from someone about 10 blocks away whom I didn't even know.  :p  My parents, not the cops.

 

 

Right because they knew your parents..... your parents created a neighborhood network.   Did this mom?