When did parenting become a thing?

[SKL]

Not every child who isn't in a car seat will get killed in every car crash, but it makes sense to put all kids in car seats as we don't who will/won't be.  We also don't know which drivers can drive at 90mph on the interstate and which ones can't, so it makes sense to make it illegal for all.

 

We don't know which babies will be harmed because parents leave them unattended in cars, so it makes sense to protect all of them.  And I personally don't see us losing much as a society because we are requiring parents to take reasonable precautions with small children.

 

By your logic, it should also be illegal to walk across a parking lot with a child, since kids do get run over.  And of course you can't leave a young child home alone.  Might as well just make it illegal to have children unless you have multiple adults available at all times, so nobody ever needs to take the child anywhere.  Safety first!

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well we can't tell by looking how long it's been since a child ate or drank.  It could have been 3 days for all we know.  Most likely the child's parent cares enough to not starve the child, but there have been kids who have been starved, so let's make a rule that you must be feeding your children at all times.  That way passersby will know they don't need to worry and call 911 just in case.

 

I don't agree that a blanket law to not leave kids in the car will prevent accidents, since usually in fatal cases nobody realized the kid was in the car until it was too late.  Those incidents will continue to happen until we come up with a reliable reminder system so parents don't forget their baby is in the backseat when they exit the car.  And also a remote alarm that tells car owners a child has snuck into their parked car.

 

But we do have laws regarding child neglect, and if there is evidence a child is not being fed then someone can be called in to address it.

 

Again, a reasonable societal precaution is that small children should not be left unattended in cars.  And I believe most decent parents agree and don't whine about not being able to do so.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

By your logic, it should also be illegal to walk across a parking lot with a child, since kids do get run over.  And of course you can't leave a young child home alone.  Might as well just make it illegal to have children unless you have multiple adults available at all times, so nobody ever needs to take the child anywhere.  Safety first!

 

No, because it comes down to what is reasonable.  At some point, children must be able to get through parking lots.  There really is no reason to leave babies in hot cars.

 

It is easy to come up with silly. ludicrous arguments against child safety, but it doesn't make them valid.

[SKL]

A reasonable safety precaution would be the parent asking herself, hmm, is my leaving this child in the car to run x errand safe or unsafe?  If unsafe then I will take the kid with me.  If safe then I will decide based on other factors, e.g., am I in a hurry, does my kid care one way or the other.

 

A reasonable safety precaution would be to provide objective, factual information about all of the risks that need to be weighed, and expect the parent to weigh them.

 

Some kids will get hurt either way - in the car or out of it.  But it will continue to be extremely rare.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

A reasonable safety precaution would be the parent asking herself, hmm, is my leaving this child in the car to run x errand safe or unsafe?  If unsafe then I will take the kid with me.  If safe then I will decide based on other factors, e.g., am I in a hurry, does my kid care one way or the other.

 

A reasonable safety precaution would be to provide objective, factual information about all of the risks that need to be weighed, and expect the parent to weigh them.

 

Some kids will get hurt either way - in the car or out of it.  But it will continue to be extremely rare.

 

In the same way we don't let parents decide whether they drive safely enough to forgo using a car seat, we have decided there is no societal benefit to allowing parents to determine who long small children should be left unattended in vehicles.

 

 

[shawthorne44]

I think the real reason for the concern for kids left in cars, is that when one dies alone in a car, it is Big News.   But, when one dies in a parking lot while holding mommies hand because peer-pressure bring the child with rather than leave him in the car, that probably won't be reported.  

 

I remember when "being sent to the car" was standard punishment for acting up in public.  

[SKL]

No, because it comes down to what is reasonable.  At some point, children must be able to get through parking lots.  There really is no reason to leave babies in hot cars.

 

It is easy to come up with silly. ludicrous arguments against child safety, but it doesn't make them valid.

 

Oh now we're talking about only "hot" cars?

 

The number of kids dying in hot cars today, with all these safety laws, is much more than before, when we left more things to parental wisdom.  That's a fact.  The reason is that some of the safety laws create new dangers that people don't realize.  Maybe we should address those issues, that actually cause deaths because the parent has no idea he's leaving a kid in the car in the first place.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think the real reason for the concern for kids left in cars, is that when one dies alone in a car, it is Big News.   But, when one dies in a parking lot while holding mommies hand because peer-pressure bring the child with rather than leave him in the car, that probably won't be reported.  

 

I remember when "being sent to the car" was standard punishment for acting up in public. 

 

What are the statistics for children being killed in parking lots due to not holding a parents hand? 

[SKL]

In the same way we don't let parents decide whether they drive safely enough to forgo using a car seat, we have decided there is no societal benefit to allowing parents to determine who long small children should be left unattended in vehicles.

 

There is no societal benefit to jailing / fining parents or taking away their kids or scaring them to death for performing and acting on a rational risk analysis.

 

There is plenty of societal benefit to expecting parents to think and decide what's best for their kid.  Wow, that's an amazing statement that there's no societal benefit to allowing parents to decide.  That's way out there IMO.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh now we're talking about only "hot" cars?

 

The number of kids dying in hot cars today, with all these safety laws, is much more than before, when we left more things to parental wisdom.  That's a fact.  The reason is that some of the safety laws create new dangers that people don't realize.  Maybe we should address those issues, that actually cause deaths because the parent has no idea he's leaving a kid in the car in the first place.

 

 

No, I used that as an example.  We also include cold cars and children left unattended for long periods of time.

 

Cite the specific data supporting that fact, and make sure the data you cite accounts for population (per capita statistics preferably) and consistent reporting.

 

I don't believe there is any evidence that accident rates for children in any common category are higher now than when only "parental wisdom" ruled that day, but I am willing to look at what you can provide.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I'll be danged. 

 

"But a growing share of the accelerating reduction in child mortality since 1970 stems neither from medical advances nor from immunization campaigns, notes NBER researcher Sherry Glied. Rather, it arises from a sharp drop in deaths from unintentional injury or accident. Among children under five, deaths from these causes dropped from 44 per 100,000 children in 1960 to 18.6 per 100,000 in 1990. Among children five to nine, the mortality rate from injury or accidents fell from 19.6 to 9.8 per 100,000."

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/dec99/glied.html

 

So much for parental wisdom!

[SKL]

What are the statistics for children being killed in parking lots due to not holding a parents hand? 

 

There was a recent case of a child being hit and killed by a car in a parking lot WHILE holding mom's hand.

 

But statistics are out there that show many kids being run over in parking lots.  They are on the kids'n'cars website for one.  Taking a young kid out of a car to cross the parking lot is not without significant safety concerns.

 

FTR you can't always hold your kid's hand either.  You might have multiple things to carry or you might have too many kids to hang on to all of them at the same time.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

There was a recent case of a child being hit and killed by a car in a parking lot WHILE holding mom's hand.

 

But statistics are out there that show many kids being run over in parking lots.  They are on the kids'n'cars website for one.  Taking a young kid out of a car to cross the parking lot is not without significant safety concerns.

 

FTR you can't always hold your kid's hand either.  You might have multiple things to carry or you might have too many kids to hang on to all of them at the same time.

 

 

Does the data account for driver negligence?

 

It should go without saying (but I guess it has to be said), but risk reduction /= no risk.  And I seriously doubt parents are leaving their children in cars because parking lots are too dangerous.  Come on.

Edited August 9, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[SKL]

I'll be danged. 

 

"But a growing share of the accelerating reduction in child mortality since 1970 stems neither from medical advances nor from immunization campaigns, notes NBER researcher Sherry Glied. Rather, it arises from a sharp drop in deaths from unintentional injury or accident. Among children under five, deaths from these causes dropped from 44 per 100,000 children in 1960 to 18.6 per 100,000 in 1990. Among children five to nine, the mortality rate from injury or accidents fell from 19.6 to 9.8 per 100,000."

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/dec99/glied.html

 

So much for parental wisdom!

 

And kids in hot cars don't affect those statistics because the incidence is way too small.

 

The majority of the change relates to more safety while driving kids in cars - but that is still a leading cause of child death.

 

Also they used to have lots of dumb baby products that ended up being dangerous.  Like walkers on wheels - babies used to "walk" over to stairwells and fall down.  And people thinking that their babies were safe while sitting in what were advertised as safety seats - but the baby could fall off the table, seat and all, and die.  With education, more parents realize you can't leave a baby alone on a table no matter what kind of safe-looking seat he's in.

 

There is also probably a factor of more babies being in licensed child care facilities during the day instead of hanging out at home.

 

And the fact that the average age (and, we hope, wisdom) of mothers has increased over the years.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

according to KidsandCars.org, which is where the stat of about 40 hot car deaths per year came from, about 50 kids are backed over each WEEK.  On average the site says 232 die each year from being backed over.  Most often it is a parent or other close relative (ie a sibling learning to drive) that is the driver behind the wheel, and the site says these things happen mainly in driveways or parking lots, but doesn't break down how many occur in which spot.

 

Now, that's just back overs.  The stats for "front overs" are less clear, it uses a stat in the category of "OTHER" and the number of deaths is not quite 400 each year.  But this also says these incidents mostly occur in driveways and parking lots (and again, doesn't break down further.)

 

So basically you and SKL are making claims based on assumptions on your part.  The data you cite includes children playing in their own driveways and every other scenario that occurs. 

[SKL]

 And I seriously doubt parents are leaving their children in cars because parking lots are too dangerous.  Come on.

 

Well sure, there are parents whose hands are (or will be) full and they worry that their child will dart off through the parking lot unless they are held in a tight grip.  I have certainly known parents who made this choice on a daily basis to prevent accidents.  A set of rambunctious twins comes to mind.  You can't even fasten the first kid into the seat without the other kid trying to run off.

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And kids in hot cars don't affect those statistics because the incidence is way too small.

 

The majority of the change relates to more safety while driving kids in cars - but that is still a leading cause of child death.

 

Also they used to have lots of dumb baby products that ended up being dangerous.  Like walkers on wheels - babies used to "walk" over to stairwells and fall down.  And people thinking that their babies were safe while sitting in what were advertised as safety seats - but the baby could fall off the table, seat and all, and die.  With education, more parents realize you can't leave a baby alone on a table no matter what kind of safe-looking seat he's in.

 

There is also probably a factor of more babies being in licensed child care facilities during the day instead of hanging out at home.

 

And the fact that the average age (and, we hope, wisdom) of mothers has increased over the years.

 

Correct, as some things simply can't be prevented.  But they can be reduce them.

 

I have no idea what else you are going on about.  But I am still waiting on you to back up this claim:

"The number of kids dying in hot cars today, with all these safety laws, is much more than before, when we left more things to parental wisdom."

 

Your comment about parental wisdom in the bolded seems at odds with what is in the quote box.

 

Thanks.

Edited August 9, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But there may very well be a valid reason to leave a sleeping baby in a car for 5 minutes on a cool day so mom can run in and grab milk or pay for gas.  A valid reason like maybe not waking the sleeping child, or the fact that it takes longer to get the kids all unbuckled than it does to run inside and back out. 

 

Having had to do all of those, no, I don't see those as valid reasons. 

[SKL]

So basically you and SKL are making claims based on assumptions on your part.  The data you cite includes children playing in their own driveways and every other scenario that occurs. 

 

I've seen it broken down elsewhere, but I don't remember where and I don't have time to go looking for it.  Obviously kids do get run over in parking lots and obviously it is not so rare that it deserves less consideration than kids intentionally left in hot cars for too long.  There are two (or more) risks to weigh, and the parent, not the state, is in the best position to weigh those risks.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I've seen it broken down elsewhere, but I don't remember where and I don't have time to go looking for it.  Obviously kids do get run over in parking lots and obviously it is not so rare that it deserves less consideration than kids intentionally left in hot cars for too long.  There are two (or more) risks to weigh, and the parent, not the state, is in the best position to weigh those risks.

 

Again, I don't believe that parents are leaving children alone in cars due to parking lots being dangerous. Especially not infants.  Seems more like a BS excuse someone would come up with when they have been embarrassed for leaving their child unattended.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Also, over the years (not just online - happens professionally) I have had people give me the "I have seen the data but can't find it" line but rarely have I ever actually found that data anywhere.

[hornblower]

I'll be danged. 

 

"But a growing share of the accelerating reduction in child mortality since 1970 stems neither from medical advances nor from immunization campaigns, notes NBER researcher Sherry Glied. Rather, it arises from a sharp drop in deaths from unintentional injury or accident. Among children under five, deaths from these causes dropped from 44 per 100,000 children in 1960 to 18.6 per 100,000 in 1990. Among children five to nine, the mortality rate from injury or accidents fell from 19.6 to 9.8 per 100,000."

 

http://www.nber.org/digest/dec99/glied.html

 

So much for parental wisdom!

 

I know. I've dragged out these stats before & it's like nobody wants to believe The Wonder Years left a trail of dead bodies. 

 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I disagree.

 

 

And, what gives you (aka, society) the right to tell me I MUST agree with you by creating legislation?

 

Who says you have to agree?  However, when you are within a legal jurisdiction you have to follow the laws as approved by the legislative process and enforced by the judicial system, or suffer the consequences if you are caught violating them.  You also have the option of working to change the laws and/or engaging in civil disobedience.

 

ETA: or moving somewhere without those laws.

Edited August 9, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[SKL]

Correct, as some things simply can't be prevented.  But they can be reduce them.

 

I have no idea what else you are going on about.  But I am still waiting on you to back up this claim:

"The number of kids dying in hot cars today, with all these safety laws, is much more than before, when we left more things to parental wisdom."

 

Your comment about parental wisdom in the bolded seems at odds with what is in the quote box.

 

Thanks.

 

Not sure what is "at odds" unless you are ignoring the difference between moving vehicle deaths and stationary vehicle deaths.

 

I am supposed to be preparing a work report right now, so I need to weigh the risk of me getting in trouble at work vs. the WTM readers being misled about child safety.  :P  I know there is trend information out there that supports my claim, I just don't know how fast I can find it right now.

 

It's not so much that parental wisdom used to be greater, but that "required" safety stuff was installed without giving parents any say in the matter.  I'm talking about passenger side air bags.  The powers that be decided:  1) you need an airbag by your front passenger seat.  2) airbags can kill small people, hence small people are not allowed to sit in the front seat.  3) babies and small kids need to be in rear-facing car seats in the back seat.  This combination of requirements has combined to increase the likelihood that a parent / caregiver forgets the child is in the car (usually is out of routine and on auto-pilot and the kid is quiet).  If the kids were in the front seat (which would be allowed if airbags weren't required there), then the caregiver would not have forgotten they were there.  Most of those kids would still be alive if the caregiver realized they were in the car.

 

The decision process has been taken away from parents; parents are led to believe that the state is watching out for their kid better than they could.  Kids die needlessly.  And the proposed remedy is to take away still more decision processes from parents, "just in case."  No.

 

[SKL]

Again, I don't believe that parents are leaving children alone in cars due to parking lots being dangerous. Especially not infants.  Seems more like a BS excuse someone would come up with when they have been embarrassed for leaving their child unattended.

 

Well I know what I have seen.  You can believe what you want.

 

As for infants, again, your hands are going to be full and stuff.  Or maybe where you're going isn't a great place for your baby to be at that moment.  Or maybe the time it takes to get the kid in & out is similar to the time it would take to run the errand and come back.  If the car isn't hot and the errand isn't long, then there is no problem.

 

If it is truly not risky given the circumstances, then it is stupid to make people jump through extra hoops.  Maybe it makes the lawmakers feel like they've done something.  But the fact is that it does not save the kids in real danger - the ones nobody realizes are in the car.  It just draws attention away from the real risk factors.  In all likelihood it is delaying the process of addressing those factors and saving some actual lives.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not sure what is "at odds" unless you are ignoring the difference between moving vehicle deaths and stationary vehicle deaths.

 

This statement:

"With education, more parents realize you can't leave a baby alone on a table no matter what kind of safe-looking seat he's in"

 

and this one:

"The number of kids dying in hot cars today, with all these safety laws, is much more than before, when we left more things to parental wisdom."

 

Parents had to be told not to leave babies alone on tables but their parental wisdom kept kids safe in hot cars? 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The laws that people create over miniscule risks say that I have to agree.  I have to follow the law or be arrested and have CPS investigate my family.  That's what says I have to agree.  So my question is, what gives society the right to decide that I have to agree with society that the risk to leaving my child in the car for 5 minutes to buy milk is so great that it's worth spending TEN minutes unbuckling all my kids? 

 

 

ETA: and I still am wondering, at what point to we recognize that our fear over such minimal risks can have greater detrimental effects on our kids later on. 

 

Your first sentence is wrong.  Your second sentence is correct.

Agree /= follow.

 

Regarding the bolded, I am doubtful that taking reasonable precautions regarding the safety of children leads to detrimental effects later.

[SKL]

This statement:

"With education, more parents realize you can't leave a baby alone on a table no matter what kind of safe-looking seat he's in"

 

and this one:

"The number of kids dying in hot cars today, with all these safety laws, is much more than before, when we left more things to parental wisdom."

 

Parents had to be told not to leave babies alone on tables but their parental wisdom kept kids safe in hot cars? 

 

Point being we let the parents decide vs. the state.  Not that all parents knew or know everything.  The state doesn't know everything either.  The state has no way of knowing whether my individual kid is better off doing X or Y.

 

The accidents I was talking about involved relatively new "safe" products that parents blindly trusted, before they were informed that they weren't so safe.

 

You may think they were idiots to trust a safety product - thanks to the hindsight we now have - but apparently there were people who actually thought their kid in a bumbo seat or punkin seat was safe on the table.  Actually there probably still are, but now there have been education campaigns so they are hopefully fewer.  Of course we also have the internet, so that kind of info gets around much faster.

 

For the hot car issue, it's great to tell parents this is an occasional cause of death in some extreme circumstances.  That might help some parents make better decisions.  But it still doesn't mean parents shouldn't leave a kid in a car that isn't hot for a few minutes.

[SKL]

 

Regarding the bolded, I am doubtful that taking reasonable precautions regarding the safety of children leads to detrimental effects later.

 

You are doubtful.  Well then you should do what you think is right for your kids.  And other people should decide what is best for their kids.

 

It's different if we're talking about something that is patently unsafe.  Here we're talking about a decision that has almost never led to death or injury.  It is associated with fewer deaths than a lot of things you probably think are fine decisions.  The logic being applied to this "risk" is extremely faulty and, when it results in families being harmed or broken up, it is extremely detrimental.

 

Well anyway, I have to get back to work and this is way off the original point of the thread.

[zoobie]

But there may very well be a valid reason to leave a sleeping baby in a car for 5 minutes on a cool day so mom can run in and grab milk or pay for gas. A valid reason like maybe not waking the sleeping child, or the fact that it takes longer to get the kids all unbuckled than it does to run inside and back out.

It's not only heat. Cars get stolen. It's not the baby's fault he is seen as an inconvenience to the parent.

[pinkmint]

Some interesting thoughts. Lots of angles I hadn't thought of like declining birthrate in many cultures. I personally know some families who had a handful of kids and ended up with zero grandchildren out of all their adult children. And certainly it's not unusual to see way more adults than children at extended family get-togethers. I wonder how common that used to be. Probably not very. 

 

I guess what I was asking is more when the comtemporary, modern idea of what we know as parenting came about. Granted, it wasn't called "parenting" 100 or 200 years ago, but I'm sure there were other terms for it. But like others have noted, elderly persons alive today will report giving little to no thought to their "parenting style" when their kids were small. And it is a massively huge deal today. There's some sort of disconnect going on it seems. Things aren't passed down anymore.

 

I grew up in the 1980's/ 90's and I think my story is not that unusual. Learned basically nothing about household management, cooking, caring for a baby etc. Was told that sex had nothing to do with starting a family, and that basically pregnancy is the worst thing that can happen to you. Parenthood is some way far off abstract thing that you don't dare attempt until several mllion ducks are in a row. 

 

I do think the increased intentionality (arguably to the point of insanity at times) has been good in some ways and bad in others. I definitely agree that there was no such thing as a "golden age". There were some things better in the past and some things worse. Same for today except the pros and cons are just jumbled to fall into different places. And certainly abuse and neglect still exist despite a general culture of freaking out over doing things correctly with parenting. 

 

Edited August 9, 2016 by pinkmint

[shawthorne44]

Some interesting thoughts. Lots of angles I hadn't thought of like declining birthrate in many cultures. I personally know some families who had a handful of kids and ended up with zero grandchildren out of all their adult children. And certainly it's not unusual to see way more adults than children at extended family get-togethers. I wonder how common that used to be. Probably not very. 

 

I guess what I was asking is more when the comtemporary, modern idea of what we know as parenting came about. Granted, it wasn't called "parenting" 100 or 200 years ago, but I'm sure there were other terms for it. But like others have noted, elderly persons alive today will report giving little to no thought to their "parenting style" when their kids were small. And it is a massively huge deal today. There's some sort of disconnect going on it seems. Things aren't passed down anymore.

 

I grew up in the 1980's/ 90's and I think my story is not that unusual. Learned basically nothing about household management, cooking, caring for a baby etc. Was told that sex had nothing to do with starting a family, and that basically pregnancy is the worst thing that can happen to you. Parenthood is some way far off abstract thing that you don't dare attempt until several mllion ducks are in a row. 

 

I do think the increased intentionality (arguably to the point of insanity at times) has been good in some ways and bad in others. I definitely agree that there was no such thing as a "golden age". There were some things better in the past and some things worse. Same for today except the pros and cons are just jumbled to fall into different places. And certainly abuse and neglect still exist despite a general culture of freaking out over doing things correctly with parenting. 

 

It does seem like I was taught that a million things had to be in place before you had a child.  You had to establish yourself in a career, get married, own a home, travel the world and get partying out of your system before you had kids.  I did all that.   But, I was old enough when pregnant to automatically need to see a high-risk doc based just on my age.  We would have liked to have had another, but it isn't happening likely due to my age.  

 

I doubt regret anything because I found the RIGHT guy and he wasn't ready until he was.  But, it has occurred to me that if DD does the same thing, I might never be able to hold a grandchild.  

[Jean in Newcastle]

I personally haven't found legislation regarding child safety in my state to be onerous.  I made lots of parental decisions and still do. 

 

The underlying love and desire of a parent to prepare their child for life crosses time and cultural bounds, I think.  How they do that changes with technology and new advances in understanding (some of it scientific - like discovering that an infant can get botulism from honey).  There are neglectful parents now just as there were in the past.  There are smothering parents now just as their were in the past.  And there are middle-of-the-road-pretty-good-but-not-perfect parents now and in the past.  My 91 year old mother agrees. 

 

 

[Ausmumof3]

The part that you bolded....

 

I wonder how much of a factor this plays in all this too. Meaning....people move quite a bit now. We have been in our current home for 2 yrs, and only plan to be here one more before we move again. At our previous home, we owned the house, and were there for 12 yrs. That was literally the longest I had ever been in one place ever. In my entire life. And in that neighborhood, surrounding our house....the neighbor on the right of us changed a total of 4 times in those 12 yrs. The ones across the street from that house, 3 times in that time. Across the street from us, they moved in about when we did, but the other side of them, that house changed ownership a few times, including a couple of years of being vacant and bank owned. And then to the left of us, those folks moved in a couple of years after us. Of the 3 houses behind us, all changed occupants at least 3 times, one went through 2 families in one year. So of 9 homes just on our block, only 3 had the same occupants for more than 10 yrs. And now that we have left, only 2.

 

In our current neighborhood...my neighbors on either side bought their homes when the neighborhood was built, so they have been here for 40+ yrs...but that's simply not common anymore. And, given how uncommon it is, even when someone does stay in an area for a long time, most folks around them don't stay. It's very difficult to get to know people when the people of the community change practically yearly.

 

Kids dying in hot cars-yes, it happens. It happens, on average, to around 40 kids a year. Most however, are accidents where the child was forgotten. Some are accidents where the child climbed into the car in the driveway, and some even more terribly, are intentional. However, while I am sure it's happened, I can't remember a news story where a mom intentionally left a kid in the car with all the windows up to go shopping for 2 hrs. Now, by contrast, 9,000 children ages 12 and under die in car crashes each year. Statistically speaking, leaving a child in a car for 5 or 10 minutes in the parking lot of a Shell or a CVS is going to be safer than getting in the car and driving away with the kids. Yet, it's the 5 minute shopping trip that is illegal, not the driving. And people think nothing of packing the kids up in the car and driving to the gas station, but then when they get there, they unbuckle 3 kids from 5 point harnesses, and drag them all inside just to buy that gallon of milk on the way home.

We had a case last summer where the mum intentionally left her kid in the car to go shopping and then shopped over four hours on a hot day! Almost as amazing as the story where the mum headed off to Bali for three days to sort out a passport issue and left her four and two year old home alone!

 

It's easy to judge all parents by our standards but with drug addiction and mental illness some awful stuff happens.

[luuknam]

It's not only heat. Cars get stolen. It's not the baby's fault he is seen as an inconvenience to the parent.

 

I suspect almost all cars that get stolen in the 5 minutes someone goes in to pay for gas are cases where the driver left the keys in the ignition and/or left the door(s) unlocked.

 

Carrying a baby from the car into a store on slippery ice in the parking lot/side walk is a safety issue - if you slip and fall, the kid might get hurt badly. And yes, I've thought about that in real life, not just while trying to justify myself on the internet. Not that it matters - even if the primary reason is convenience, if it's not significantly more dangerous, it shouldn't matter.

[LucyStoner]

Sometimes people do confuse leaving small children/babies in the car with letting older kids stay in the car. My son is 13. If he wants to wait in the car with the windows open if it's a little warm, that's fine. It's also legal here unless I have left the car running or am making him wait outside of a tavern (yes the law is that specific). I've had some people act like there's no difference between leaving a 12 year old to read in the car and leaving a 5 year old and a baby in the car because I don't feel like dealing with the large shopping cart. That's taking it to 11. Too far.

Edited August 9, 2016 by LucyStoner

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Not sure what is "at odds" unless you are ignoring the difference between moving vehicle deaths and stationary vehicle deaths.

 

I am supposed to be preparing a work report right now, so I need to weigh the risk of me getting in trouble at work vs. the WTM readers being misled about child safety. :P I know there is trend information out there that supports my claim, I just don't know how fast I can find it right now.

 

It's not so much that parental wisdom used to be greater, but that "required" safety stuff was installed without giving parents any say in the matter. I'm talking about passenger side air bags. The powers that be decided: 1) you need an airbag by your front passenger seat. 2) airbags can kill small people, hence small people are not allowed to sit in the front seat. 3) babies and small kids need to be in rear-facing car seats in the back seat. This combination of requirements has combined to increase the likelihood that a parent / caregiver forgets the child is in the car (usually is out of routine and on auto-pilot and the kid is quiet). If the kids were in the front seat (which would be allowed if airbags weren't required there), then the caregiver would not have forgotten they were there. Most of those kids would still be alive if the caregiver realized they were in the car.

 

The decision process has been taken away from parents; parents are led to believe that the state is watching out for their kid better than they could. Kids die needlessly. And the proposed remedy is to take away still more decision processes from parents, "just in case." No.

 

For clarification, are you claiming children need to be in the backseat due to side passenger airbags? Edited August 9, 2016 by ChocolateReignRemix

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As far as I am concerned, when my actions are dictated by the law, agreement does equal following.

 

I disagree that the precautions are reasonable. As I said previously, I find it completely unreasonable to make a blanket law that covers a very miniscule risk. And, as I said, I think that's another factor in how parenting becomes a thing.

That is simply incorrect. People often follow laws they not agree with, including laws that you and I may not even think to question.

You are confusing compliance with agreement.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I am not confusing anything. I am intentionally equating the two, despite their slightly different meanings because the end result is exactly the same.

It isn't. Lack of agreement is often what helps create the movement to change laws.

[scoutingmom]

The short answer to the bolded is "everyone."

 

Adults are not allowed to leave children alone in their car.....this became law because some kids were hurt. No one likes to see kids get hurt, so statistical risk aside, some people decided that leaving your kid in the car while you run in to pay for gas should be illegal and fought to make it law.

 

Not allowed to walk around the block...again, some people ignored statistics because a few kids got hurt and decided it should be wrong for everyone.

 

My 7yr old has a friend who lives around the corner. Like actually 2 houses north, then 4 houses east. It's just out of sight of my house, but it's really that close. When she goes over there, the mom wants me to text her to let her know so that she can watch her walking down (which really means walking down to the corner to walk back with her.) When it's time for DD7 to come home....they walk her home. When the kid comes over here, they walk him down, and when it's time for him to come home, they walk down to come get him. And, in fact, there have been times where they (mom and dad together) have driven down to my house to come get him. This kid is 7, going on 8, just like my daughter, and he isn't allowed to walk 4 houses, turn a corner, and walk 2 more houses, by himself. And, by extension, when the kids play together, that means that essentially, my daughter isn't "allowed" to do so either.

 

I ran into a similar situation when my oldest was like a freshman or so in high school. The neighbors next door to us had a daughter the same age, they would DRIVE their daughter to the bus stop...which was on the corner and in full view of both of our houses....and THEN, sit there, in their car, with it running and the heat on, till the bus came. Since they were right next door, of COURSE my oldest would be there in the car with them...I mean how is that something you can really refuse to allow your kid to do when someone is "just trying to be nice," ya know. But it means that my kid was basically not allowed to walk to and stand at the bus stop on her own. At 13/14 yrs old. She really wasn't even "allowed" to wait on our PORCH...because as the neighbor would pull out of her driveway, she would stop and roll down her window and ask my dd if she wanted to get in.

 

We have all see the news articles where other people are calling the police when they spot 10 yr olds walking alone. They don't call the parents....they call the cops. I read one where a neighbor called the cops when a kid was playing alone IN HIS OWN DRIVEWAY. His mom had gotten stuck in traffic and wasn't home before the bus got there. He didn't have a key because she was supposed to be home. So, he grabbed a basketball and played ball in his driveway. A neighbor saw this and called the cops because he was by himself. He was like 9 or 10 I think.

Locally we had this type of thing. A 10yo, 8yo and 6yo (I think that was the ages...) that played outside in their fenced in yard with the Mom inside (checking occasionally) getting a visit and check out by cfs. CFS has to do a full intake which includes going through the whole house, checking amount of food in the house, and asking lots of questions. There is also a permanent file kept. Because her kids were playing in their own fully fenced backyard.

 

Sent from my SM-T530NU using Tapatalk

[luuknam]

Locally we had this type of thing. A 10yo, 8yo and 6yo (I think that was the ages...) that played outside in their fenced in yard with the Mom inside (checking occasionally) getting a visit and check out by cfs. CFS has to do a full intake which includes going through the whole house, checking amount of food in the house, and asking lots of questions. There is also a permanent file kept. Because her kids were playing in their own fully fenced backyard.

 

They told me I could request to have my file removed in some time frame (don't recall) since they decided I didn't do anything wrong. They also decided to not search the entire house (though I did get the impression they were 'supposed' to, but the reason CPS got called had nothing to do with the state of the house so the guy might have decided he had better things to do) and only saw the living room and probably the downstairs bedroom.

[Carol in Cal.]

Here is a somewhat relevant article:

http://thefederalist.com/2013/10/23/feminism-razing-village/

[ktgrok]

You know, it might have been easier for some when everyone agreed on the parenting rules, but not for those that didn't agree with them. I'd rather there be a wide range of parenting styles accepted than be the lone person who goes against the grain. 

[Bluegoat]

I really do not see how we can equate mandating car seats with laws against leaving a child in a car, in terms of risk.

 

Car accidents are one of the leading causes of childhood death.  That is - a really significant risk.

 

Being left in a car intentionally by a parent, and overheating or being kidnapped or whatever, is extremely low risk.  As in, so low risk that other things that are comparable don't make us blink an eye in terms of safety. 

 

If we really don't think most parents are capable of making these basic determinations about very low risk scenarios, I am not sure why we think lawmakers would be better at making laws about them.  If people are really that unable to cope with basic decisions, more fraught ones like deciding whether to get a flu shot or if it is ok for your kid to bike to school will have to be mandated too, because parents obviously aren't capable.

 

There are some things that are a little more arguable - bike helmets, maybe, where we could argue the pros and con of laws mandating them by law.  But leaving kids in cars can hardly even justify a blip on the radar it is so rare that there is a bad outcome. 

 

People who live a aby in a car for 4 hours or a small child at home while they go to Bali are pretty much in the same category - they can't make appropriate decisions and having a law is unlikely to solve that problem.  And they can both be charged with neglect.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Bluegoat

[BlsdMama]

Regarding what someone said about parenting advice being in the bible, I thought of that.

 

Seems like it was much more "big picture" though,no? Seems like there was a shift in the 1960's ish where it's gotten increasingly neurotic and obsessive about every small detail.

 

It does make sense that once parenthood became optional that it also became much less simple.

 

 

I think it might only seem new because we stepped away from it for a while.

 

"Train a child in the way they should go and when they are older..."

But then when I think of the training along with this verse, "Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up."

 

Seems to me, long before the time of mommy and daddy hustling off to work and kiddies being bustled to daycare and later school, the parents worked and lived with their children.  That means telling them to stop when they are annoying or doing something dreadful and showing them the way to live and work and just be.

 

No, I think today is more "falsified" in that many do not parent in order to make a healthy, whole, functional, working adult but aim more towards, "Make me look good," but that's the result of our society. I think parenting, as in teaching, leading, discipling has always been the way.  If you think back to nomadic lives they would have taught the child how to work, what to do, dangers, pitfalls.... It's what parents do.  It's even what animals do.  I think, perhaps, what disturbs you isn't parenting per se, but some people's MOTIVATIONS, which leads them to be asinine about it.  I can think of a particular child who is really quite downright mean, but mom is mostly concerned with the child's clothing, cleanliness, how she looks.... And yet, not so much with her orneriness... Or maybe, in this day and age, the CARE of a child (cleanliness, dressing, etc.) is the only way many in our society knows how to parent, but they have no idea how to influence and change behavior?  Hm.

[Rosie_0801]

No, I think today is more "falsified" in that many do not parent in order to make a healthy, whole, functional, working adult but aim more towards, "Make me look good," but that's the result of our society. I think parenting, as in teaching, leading, discipling has always been the way.  If you think back to nomadic lives they would have taught the child how to work, what to do, dangers, pitfalls.... It's what parents do.  It's even what animals do.  I think, perhaps, what disturbs you isn't parenting per se, but some people's MOTIVATIONS, which leads them to be asinine about it.  I can think of a particular child who is really quite downright mean, but mom is mostly concerned with the child's clothing, cleanliness, how she looks.... And yet, not so much with her orneriness... Or maybe, in this day and age, the CARE of a child (cleanliness, dressing, etc.) is the only way many in our society knows how to parent, but they have no idea how to influence and change behavior?  Hm.

 

Appearances are what we are judged on. I would be safe from the Family Court if I put dd in school, where she would flunk.

[calihil]

We used to live with our extended family more often, as well. Mothers, fathers, in laws, cousins, aunts, etc mostly lived nearby so you had help and advice when needed. You didn't need parenting books, you had your family. With today's nuclear families, many of which don't have any family nearby, they're on their own and we need help.

[Joyofsixreboot]

I totally agree that many parent to " look good." The parental and child identity get all jumbled. Being a proud parent is one thing, feeling your child's successes or failures are a result of you is another. I also think that children are currently perceived as a " product" that can be improved by following certain rules. We also live in such a lucky culture that many of the traditional worries...death from childhood disease, starvation, child work accident are so reduced we have time to worry about other things. A constant stream of media helps fuel those fears. Many of our society's precautions are legitimate ( for example car seats) but many (just the right preschool, no play ground running, etc) seem over controlling. Finally with the advent of jobs away from the family, longer commutes, two parent working families or single parents the actual time people spend with their kids is limited. I think some parents really don't know their individual kid so just fall back on guidelines. My 8 yo is fine staying alone for a couple hours. Not every 8 yo I've raised was. You need to know your individual child.