Article about the clash between free range parenting and the gov't. What do you all think?

[rose]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/protecting-kids-from-childhood-1.4297653

 

I know that we've all talked about the nanny state before. This article hits close to home because we live in BC. I lean heavily toward the free-range parenting style. I'm hoping that just the fact that there is press coverage of this situation is an indication that tides might be changing.

 

What do you all think?

Edited September 20, 2017 by Rose M

[sassenach]

I thought "nanny state" referred to when the government provides all of your needs- food, housing, income. Am I wrong?

[sassenach]

The idea that teenagers need supervision to be left home alone.... what in the world?

[rose]

I thought "nanny state" referred to when the government provides all of your needs- food, housing, income. Am I wrong?

 

I'll change the subject to avoid ambiguity. I've always assumed that that term means that the government uses laws to protect people whether they like it or not.

 

[Lady Florida.]

I thought "nanny state" referred to when the government provides all of your needs- food, housing, income. Am I wrong?

 

You're not wrong. That's usually what it's understood to mean.

[sassenach]

I'll change the subject to avoid ambiguity. I've always assumed that that term means that the government uses laws to protect people whether they like it or not.

 

Oh, that makes sense, too. Hmm.

[poppy]

So his point is taht Japan is a model of trusting kids, while Canada isn't, so Canadian kids are riddled with anxiety...... does this man know anything about the mental health situation in Japan?  

 

[Arcadia]

Not just Japan but many Asian cities have kids roaming the streets or home alone at a young age because of the needed dual income. I grew up in a latchkey generation and there are still plenty of latchkey kids because after school care isn't cheap. If my brother's wife need to rejoin the workforce due to financial hardship, their daughter would join the ranks of latchkey children.

 

I thought "nanny state" referred to when the government provides all of your needs- food, housing, income. Am I wrong?

My home country is a well known Nanny State. It is not so much provide but control from cradle to grave.

 

Finland apparently score the highest in EU for nanny state

"Finland is 'the worst country to eat, drink, smoke and vape in the EU' – unchallenged on the Nanny-State Index

...

The index compares EU-countries in their restrictiveness when it comes to the consumption of alcohol, nicotine and food & soft drink – to determine which are “the worst countries to eat, drink, smoke & vape in the EUâ€. Out of 28 European countries, Finland is ranked number one with 51.6 points while the UK, in second place, had a mere 37.4 points"

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/finland-is-the-worst-country-to-eat-drink-smoke-and-vape-in-the-eu--unchallenged-on-the-nanny-state-index-2017-6/

[PineFarmMom]

So his point is taht Japan is a model of trusting kids, while Canada isn't, so Canadian kids are riddled with anxiety...... does this man know anything about the mental health situation in Japan?

I'm unaware of the mental health situation there. My niece just moved from living there for a few years and she had great things to say about the way they manage children and the respect and lack of crime. We were all awed at the age of children taking buses and going to the store by themselves, etc. She seemed to think it would be a good model for other countries. Our crime rates would keep it from being ok here. I'm very very much for less government involvement in, well, everything, so...

[Amy in NH]

I have not read the article, but with regard to the question in general I see it as a two part problem:

 

1.  Safety of young children

2.  Lack of parenting & the resulting problems for other citizens who have to live with the consequences.

 

So, I think it is a fine line/careful balance,

 

just like the parental right to educate children way they see fit, and the state's compelling interest in having an educated citizenry.

[rose]

So his point is taht Japan is a model of trusting kids, while Canada isn't, so Canadian kids are riddled with anxiety...... does this man know anything about the mental health situation in Japan?  

 

Yeah, that is definitely a weak point in the article. Even if Canadians are more anxious there could be scores of others reasons for that.

[Amy in NH]

Not just Japan but many Asian cities have kids roaming the streets or home alone at a young age because of the needed dual income. I grew up in a latchkey generation and there are still plenty of latchkey kids because after school care isn't cheap. If my brother's wife need to rejoin the workforce due to financial hardship, their daughter would join the ranks of latchkey children.

 

I was a latchkey kid due to divorce/single working parent, and I made some pretty bad choices for my-unsupervised-self as a tween/young teen which have had regrettable lifelong consequences.

[rose]

Not just Japan but many Asian cities have kids roaming the streets or home alone at a young age because of the needed dual income. I grew up in a latchkey generation and there are still plenty of latchkey kids because after school care isn't cheap. If my brother's wife need to rejoin the workforce due to financial hardship, their daughter would join the ranks of latchkey children.

 

 

 

I think that author singled out Japan because there seems to be a lot of respect here for Japanese society.

[Jean in Newcastle]

The mental health state in Japan has absolutely NOTHING to do with letting kids ride transit on their own.  I was riding a city bus along in Japan at age 5, including a transfer downtown with no trouble.  Child suicide rates in Japan tend to be tied to the school system - particularly to the very heavily tracked junior and senior high schools and the entrance exams which determine what school you can attend.  I knew neighborhood kids who committed suicide.  Two when they failed the junior high entrance exams for the better schools and one who failed in high school.  None of these kids were anxious because of learning to ride the bus or subway on their own. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Also Japan is very high on the "it takes a village" meter.  You might not have the government looking over your shoulder but you will have the neighborhood Aunties taking you to task if you get out of line.  Which not only helps kids to keep out of mischief but is a safety net if kids have trouble.  Someone will always help a child (or a stranded tourist) find their way if they get lost or have difficulty in some way.

[PineFarmMom]

Also Japan is very high on the "it takes a village" meter. You might not have the government looking over your shoulder but you will have the neighborhood Aunties taking you to task if you get out of line. Which not only helps kids to keep out of mischief but is a safety net if kids have trouble. Someone will always help a child (or a stranded tourist) find their way if they get lost or have difficulty in some way.

I would love a situation like this so long as the people around me had the same goals and morals that I hold. This sounds like the description I hear of my parents' small-town upbringing. No public transportation though.

[poppy]

I'm unaware of the mental health situation there. My niece just moved from living there for a few years and she had great things to say about the way they manage children and the respect and lack of crime. We were all awed at the age of children taking buses and going to the store by themselves, etc. She seemed to think it would be a good model for other countries. Our crime rates would keep it from being ok here. I'm very very much for less government involvement in, well, everything, so...

 

I've seen similar comments about France, where kids eat adult food and sit calmly and quietly for hours-long dinners.  It's authoritarian parenting style that makes it possible there.  It's a family choice that CAN work here, though it is less socially supported.

[poppy]

The mental health state in Japan has absolutely NOTHING to do with letting kids ride transit on their own.  I was riding a city bus along in Japan at age 5, including a transfer downtown with no trouble.  Child suicide rates in Japan tend to be tied to the school system - particularly to the very heavily tracked junior and senior high schools and the entrance exams which determine what school you can attend.  I knew neighborhood kids who committed suicide.  Two when they failed the junior high entrance exams for the better schools and one who failed in high school.  None of these kids were anxious because of learning to ride the bus or subway on their own. 

It may be completely unrelated, or only party related.  But a country with a noted child suicide rate is not one I would pick as a model  for a low-anxiety childhood.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I would love a situation like this so long as the people around me had the same goals and morals that I hold. This sounds like the description I hear of my parents' small-town upbringing. No public transportation though.

 

We had that for our kids here in our little corner of the US for my kids.  I knew the names of every single neighbor for the two blocks around us.  My kids knew that they could knock on any of those doors for help if they needed it.  I felt safe letting my kids ride their bikes around.  I heard good and bad reports from neighbors regularly about my kids.  My kids were not allowed to go inside with even the nicest neighbor but outside in public?  I had no trouble with the village looking out for my kids.  (BTW - this was the same for me growing up in Japan.  There were / are molesters in Japan but in public, the village works quite well.) 

[Jean in Newcastle]

It may be completely unrelated, or only party related.  But a country with a noted child suicide rate is not one I would pick as a model  for a low-anxiety childhood.

 

It might be better to try to argue for things that you know something about. 

[nixpix5]

I would love a situation like this so long as the people around me had the same goals and morals that I hold. This sounds like the description I hear of my parents' small-town upbringing. No public transportation though.

It is the cohesive, collective community that makes this work. This model could never work in the U.S. due to diversity of beliefs. Anxiety in kids does rear up when what they are told is right/wrong moral etc is challenged continually around them. It is confusing. Not saying one is better than the other, I am saying they are very different. Anxiety also exists when they are told what an unsafe place they live and need constant supervision. Not teaching children how to independently navigate their environment does induce anxiety.

 

Now, Japan does have mental health issues. One big one is academic pressure. Collective societies often generate a "shame culture" where your success or lack there of reflects on your family. Another piece of the mental health puzzle is dating/sex/tech and the way they are intertwined. Many interesting research articles about this. The sex doll industry is big. There is more somatization type mental health struggles as well. Internalizing is more common there which looks like less of a societal issue on the surface because the one suffering is doing so on their own. In the U.S. it is more externalizing/blaming so we see mental illness acted out (school shootings, murder, etc).

[Elizabeth86]

I am like 100% opposite of a free range parent. However, I back free range parents 100%. It makes my blood boil thinking of the government or anyone telling me how to parent. Sure free ranging can be risky. I co sleep and thats risky. We all make our choices and mistakes and that should be ok and ours to make.

[Liz CA]

I am all for letting the leash out gradually and teaching skills for independence, resourcefulness and problem solving.

Having never visited Japan, it seems hard for me to gauge how effective this method is in teaching those skills.

I am not in Canada either but here in the US, it is a (sad) fact of life that hardly any parent would want a child as young as 5 walking through town because of the crime rate.

 

I grew up for the most part in Western Europe, and had the freedom to roam in my little town. Almost everyone knew everyone. My grandma knew nearly every kid and others knew me. Of course it is not just the fact that people know you but also the fact that none of those people were inclined to harm someone else as evidenced by the fact that I am sitting here. This is still different than what is described in this article since kids navigate through large cities on their own.

 

I think for those of us who live in higher crime areas, there are other ways of allowing your kids to become independent. At some point, though it will likely mean they are going somewhere by themselves and this is when it's important to have talked about how to react to potential dangers, how to assess a situation, where to find help if you need to, etc. This is a relatively new skill set to teach and learn. Our grandparents may not have needed it but today's generation should possess it.

 

I definitely think truly sheltering a child until they are a teen at 15yo (with hardly any opportunities to make decisions) is less likely to result in a confident son or daughter.

[Sarah CB]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/protecting-kids-from-childhood-1.4297653

 

I know that we've all talked about the nanny state before. This article hits close to home because we live in BC. I lean heavily toward the free-range parenting style. I'm hoping that just the fact that there is press coverage of this situation is an indication that tides might be changing.

 

What do you all think?

 

I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I was out of town last week, so my 11 year old stayed at my 21 year old's house. He got up and took the bus to school by himself every morning. I don't know why we wouldn't try to encourage independence in our kids. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

It is the cohesive, collective community that makes this work. This model could never work in the U.S. due to diversity of beliefs. Anxiety in kids does rear up when what they are told is right/wrong moral etc is challenged continually around them. It is confusing. Not saying one is better than the other, I am saying they are very different. Anxiety also exists when they are told what an unsafe place they live and need constant supervision. Not teaching children how to independently navigate their environment does induce anxiety.

 

Now, Japan does have mental health issues. One big one is academic pressure. Collective societies often generate a "shame culture" where your success or lack there of reflects on your family. Another piece of the mental health puzzle is dating/sex/tech and the way they are intertwined. Many interesting research articles about this. The sex doll industry is big. There is more somatization type mental health struggles as well. Internalizing is more common there which looks like less of a societal issue on the surface because the one suffering is doing so on their own. In the U.S. it is more externalizing/blaming so we see mental illness acted out (school shootings, murder, etc).

You said this very well. Every culture has its problems and its "underbelly ". And thus we shouldn't praise any culture wholesale because that is too simplistic.

 

But I do think that it is ok and good to look around at cultures that are doing one thing particularly well because we can learn from them. As long as we see how things are interconnected and how these things don't happen in a vacuum.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PineFarmMom]

I am like 100% opposite of a free range parent. However, I back free range parents 100%. It makes my blood boil thinking of the government or anyone telling me how to parent. Sure free ranging can be risky. I co sleep and thats risky. We all make our choices and mistakes and that should be ok and ours to make.

My youngest is 7. I have some of the same thoughts. I'm pretty protective and shelter a lot through the younger years but we have land and trees and woods nearby that I do allow them to have freedom in. I tend to be one who also lets the leash out slowly, liberty and responsibility going hand in hand. It has worked well. I do NOT want to be told how to parent and wouldn't tend to listen if I was. I also don't think the government has any business in that area of our lives, particularly not in the type of government we have in the US.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I also think that we can safely encourage independence in the US and Canada. I have said before on this board about how I taught my kids to grocery shop starting at age 8. This involved teaching the adults in the grocery store how to treat them with respect as well as teaching my kids how to actually shop. It also meant though that I had to first teach my kids how to act in public long before getting to the basics of picking produce and putting it in a cart.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited September 20, 2017 by Jean in Newcastle

[Bluegoat]

I read this article last week.

 

I thought the actions of the government were waaaay out of line.

 

I do think the way we over-protect kids is contributing to anxiety.

 

I'd say there are many cultures the author could have looked at to see when kids do things in other cultures.  Kids are walking around and using public transit  much younger than there are here in many places.

[PineFarmMom]

I remember taking a bus from my town to my grandmother's town when I was 8. My mom packed me some snacks, I was introduced to the bus driver, And I sat behind him on the way. It was a greyhound. I wouldn't let any of my kids do that now. It has nothing to do with feeling they couldn't handle it but everything to do with feeing distrust for others.

[Guest]

Yeah, that is definitely a weak point in the article. Even if Canadians are more anxious there could be scores of others reasons for that.

Is it because there are so many bears?

[SKL]

...  Finland apparently score the highest in EU for nanny state

"Finland is 'the worst country to eat, drink, smoke and vape in the EU' – unchallenged on the Nanny-State Index

...

The index compares EU-countries in their restrictiveness when it comes to the consumption of alcohol, nicotine and food & soft drink – to determine which are “the worst countries to eat, drink, smoke & vape in the EUâ€. Out of 28 European countries, Finland is ranked number one with 51.6 points while the UK, in second place, had a mere 37.4 points"

http://nordic.businessinsider.com/finland-is-the-worst-country-to-eat-drink-smoke-and-vape-in-the-eu--unchallenged-on-the-nanny-state-index-2017-6/

 

That is so interesting, because of something that happened when we went to Finland this summer.

 

We were in a small town and walked up a street to an old church on top of a hill.  There was extremely little motor traffic on that street.  With me were my two ten-year-old, sixth-grade daughters.  They were acting like most people, just doing their thing on the way up the street (there were no sidewalks).  When a car came along, they moved aside like everyone else.

 

The guide got my attention and said, "see this sign with the mother and child walking together [holding hands]?  Know what that means?  It means keep your children with you so they don't run in front of a car.  You must watch your children very carefully."  [i had assumed the sign was to warn cars that pedestrians walk in the street.]  Now granted, one of my kids is short for her age, but neither of them has needed hand holding in the street for quite a few years.  Even in the US we don't expect a kid that big to be stuck to her mom (I don't think).

 

And the funny thing is that Finland boasts how it encourages free play for young kids as part of its supposedly amazing school philosophy - but I guess "free play" is defined differently there.  :P

 

But back to North America - the pendulum has swung too far toward over-protectiveness, but I'm beginning to see it swing back some.  So there is hope.  Unfortunately, it's hard to be brave and stand up to these stupid rules, when they can threaten to take your kids if you don't comply.  But there are still some sane lawmakers who are pushing back.

 

One thing I will note is that often, you hear one side of the story, but relevant facts are left off.  Such as, the kid ran in front of a car, or the kid was extremely afraid and unsure what to do, or the home upon inspection was full of old dirty diapers etc.  These may be the real reason why the parent is cited, but the language used in the court case, some of which becomes precedent, is off the mark.  Will future courts really follow that "precedent"? 

 

Or are those rules really only applicable to that family because something went wrong and a CPS case is open?

 

Honestly, I think if you're talking about a 10yo or 12yo, as long as your kid isn't a midget and doesn't act foolish, you should be OK.  If we're talking a kid who looks 7 or under, then maybe manufacture opportunities for them to learn independence until you are sure of what is allowed.

[kroe1]

I really have mixed thoughts on the free range parenting thing. My kiddos are 20 years apart. I was a totally different parent with each one, as would be expected in that time frame. The first was free ranged to a great extent, the last was helicoptered.

 

I have learned a couple of things along the way. The most important thing I learned is that most children do not get pregnant, start smoking, start taking drugs, shoplift at the mall, get raped, or get drunk in front of their momma.

 

Nonetheless, as long as children are not abused or neglected, I see no reason why there should ever be any interventions other than from the well meaning, slightly neurotic grandmother. (Wink).

[bettyandbob]

I was a latchkey kid. I did not smoke cigarettes, start drinking, do drugs, get pregnant, shoplift, vandalize property, etc. 

 

You can set your child up for success as a latchkey kid. You can have expectations of how they will spend their time. I grew up a responsible person because of how my parents set up expectations. If I'd had a stay at home parent I would not have had the opportunity to develop the level of responsibility I had. 

 

My kids had mostly a stay at home parent. I did not helicopter. I believed they needed opportunities to make independent decisions as much as possible despite my being around them most of the time. 

 

What parents did worked very well. 

 

I think what I did worked very well. 

 

Neither is better. 

 

Anyway, reading some of these responses makes me want to defend the latchkey situation. It is not inherently bad. It can be handled badly. My parents did not handled badly. (In other threads I have mentioned things that were not handled well for me, my parents were not perfect)

[Χά�ων]

From the article, assuming there is not more to the story, I think the father is in the right and the government overstepped.

 

I do not understand the irrational views that children are incapable of basic things. I am not saying birth them and throw them to the street, but I have noticied an insane amount of hovering in the US. A friend's son is old enough to drive and only now allowed to cross my street. I just do not understand.

 

I parent differently. My son is 13 and I give him a hug and tell him I love him but he has two feet and there are three buses that that will take him to his destination that less than two miles away and to text me when he arrives.

 

I think teaching the skills and then insisting they use them is vital to becoming a functional member of society and to not do so is abusive.

[Daria]

I'm a pretty free range parent (or I was, I have an 18 year old, so the kids with more cautious parents have all caught up by now), but I found the article super annoying.  

 

First of all, the argument is baffling.

 

1) Canadians don't let their kids ride public transportation alone.

 

2) Japanese people do.

 

3) Canadians have very anxious kids (is there data for this?)

4) Japanese kids have no anxiety (WTF?) 

 

5) The lack of anxiety in Japan is clearly caused by public transportation and only public transportation.

 

There are as many holes in the logic as if they'd argued that Hello Kitty causes straight black hair.  

Also, their interpretation of the Ontario Law is clearly designed to provoke reactions, and is heading into "fake news" territory.  

Here's the actual law:

 

  "No person having charge of a child less than sixteen years of age shall leave the child without making provision for his or her supervision and care that is reasonable in the circumstances."

Clearly this means, evaluate the circumstance before leaving your kid.  Are they mature enough?  Do they have access to a phone?  Do they have a number for someone to call?  How long will they be gone?  Is there sufficient food if necessary?  

As a special ed teacher, I appreciate that the law says "in the circumstances", rather than a specific "this age can do this, that age can do that."  I once called CPS to ask if I could make a report on a 12 year old with ID, who did not know his own last name, phone number or address, whose foster parents wanted him to ride the subway home alone without a phone, and walk 1/2 a mile, in the dark, in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in our city.  Our city had a similar law, and CPS told me "Yes, we'd take that call and investigate", so I told the parent (who had shared their plans with me, but hadn't yet had the child try the plan) that "as a mandated reporter, I'll need to make a call if he doesn't ride the school bus or get picked up by an adult before aftercare is over.  If you want to work with me to make a safe plan that includes learning to use a cell phone and leaving school before dark, I'm happy to work with you."

Because of that, and many other experiences, I'm often suspicious when i read about cases like this, and I wonder if there's more to the story. 

[Bluegoat]

 

I'm a pretty free range parent (or I was, I have an 18 year old, so the kids with more cautious parents have all caught up by now), but I found the article super annoying.  

 

First of all, the argument is baffling.

 

1) Canadians don't let their kids ride public transportation alone.

 

2) Japanese people do.

 

3) Canadians have very anxious kids (is there data for this?)

 

4) Japanese kids have no anxiety (WTF?) 

 

5) The lack of anxiety in Japan is clearly caused by public transportation and only public transportation.

 

There are as many holes in the logic as if they'd argued that Hello Kitty causes straight black hair.  

 

Also, their interpretation of the Ontario Law is clearly designed to provoke reactions, and is heading into "fake news" territory.  

 

Here's the actual law:

 

 

 

Clearly this means, evaluate the circumstance before leaving your kid.  Are they mature enough?  Do they have access to a phone?  Do they have a number for someone to call?  How long will they be gone?  Is there sufficient food if necessary?  

 

As a special ed teacher, I appreciate that the law says "in the circumstances", rather than a specific "this age can do this, that age can do that."  I once called CPS to ask if I could make a report on a 12 year old with ID, who did not know his own last name, phone number or address, whose foster parents wanted him to ride the subway home alone without a phone, and walk 1/2 a mile, in the dark, in one of the most dangerous neighborhoods in our city.  Our city had a similar law, and CPS told me "Yes, we'd take that call and investigate", so I told the parent (who had shared their plans with me, but hadn't yet had the child try the plan) that "as a mandated reporter, I'll need to make a call if he doesn't ride the school bus or get picked up by an adult before aftercare is over.  If you want to work with me to make a safe plan that includes learning to use a cell phone and leaving school before dark, I'm happy to work with you."

 

Because of that, and many other experiences, I'm often suspicious when i read about cases like this, and I wonder if there's more to the story. 

 

 

The way he talked about Japan was, I think, meant to be suggestive rather than causative.  He could likely have chosen another example, but perhaps he chose Japan because there is a fairly significant Asian population in BC.  But the idea seems to be that kids on other places are competent to use public transport - something many parents here don't actually realize is possible because we culturally infantilize children.

 

It might have been better if he had separated the anxiety thing - but there are fair number of people who hypothesize that lack of a sense of competence is related to the high levels of anxiety in Canadian kids.

 

As far as the law - I think people assume they should read it the way you are suggesting.  I think maybe the point here is that the flexibility it seems to be encouraging can be two-edged - what if it comes to be common sense that public transport is beyond the capability of a 7, 10, or 12 year old?  Even if that's not developmentally appropriate?

 

ETA: for what it's worth, this isn't a new story in Canada, and the details seem to be as they are laid out here.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Ravin]

I know my DS's anxiety took a spike upward after his confidence was shattered by a nosy parker calling the cops on him because he was playing Pokemon Go in the park a 5 minute walk from our house by himself. He was 5 1/2 and entirely capable, knew the route, knew where home was. The officer took the phone, found "mom" in it, scared the heck out of my mother (it was my phone), and because DS didn't have his address memorized, they assumed he was lost. (he knew where home was, and how to get there, just not the number and address which meant nothing to him as he couldn't yet read, but the officer didn't ask him if he knew how to get home or where home was, just what his address was). Then we had to deal with a DCS (CPS)  interview. That was fun.

 

DS is, two years later, still afraid to so much as go out of my line of sight in a familiar store thanks to that experience. He overall just doesn't much like leaving the house any more. He now walks to/from school (started walking to school, which is right next to the aforementioned park, midway through K), and I had to have a chat with the principal before the teacher would accept our letter giving him permission to walk home on his own after school.

 

DD goes to a program in a different district, and in 7th grade we had to file a form for them to let her leave campus at the end of the day to take the city bus home, instead of giving her the same level of supervision they give the kindergarteners. When she was 11 she successfully got herself to and from school every day on the city bus at the charter she attended that year--and in the spring became riding buddies with a boy two grades older to help teach him the ropes. 

 

DD has a diagnosed anxiety disorder, but with proper scaffolding and preparation (lots of riding the route together before she did it on her own, had a cell phone to call for help if needed, etc.), was entirely capable. DS was capable and confident in himself until the authorities traumatized him.

 

I fall squarely on the side of "free range parenting is not the same thing as neglect."