"Free-Range Kids" Long post...

[Amy loves Bud]

Has anyone else read this book? I'm reading it now and it has me wondering how much I do, as a parent, is based in fear and how much is based in reality.

 

For instance:

 

There are no recorded cases of children ever having been poisoned by Halloween candy in the United States.

So, all that checking and fear was for.... no real reason at all.

 

1 in 1.5 million children are abducted and killed by strangers. The odds of an American child being kidnapped and killed by a stranger are .00007%.

IOW, my kids are more likely to experience horrible side effects from random over the counter drugs than they are to be kidnapped. Yet, this fear keeps me sitting on the porch whenever they go outside and verging on a heart attack whenever they, shudder, go play with their friends.

 

Three generations ago most parents were married teens.

I cannot imagine trusting a teenager to care for my kids... except my dd, and only when I'm within running distance. I couldn't imagine letting teens care for an infant, and I was a teen mom...

 

Crime rates nationally [for the USA] are at the same levels as they were in 1971.

It's SAFER for my kids to play outside, like I did, than it was for me.

 

 

Does anyone else feel like the paranoia police? I am a relaxed mom, some of the things my kids are allowed to do give other parents the willies, but I'm starting to feel like the most overprotective parent known to mankind. I also feel pretty rediculous for the majority of my fears. Would you let your 8yo go for a walk to the mailbox (2 blocks away and I can't see it from the house)? Or let your 12yo babysit? Would you let your 12yo sit for someone else?

 

Anyway, I'm trying to reevaluate. Anyone interested can respond, you don't have to have read the book (I strongly reccomend it, though). How "free-range" are your kids?

 

This is very interesting. I'll admit I'm pretty lax about certain things. My eight year old could definitely go to the mailbox. I would not let a 12 year old baby sit simply because we have a pool and a toddler. However I remember regularly babysitting an infant when I was 11. Neither my parents nor the baby's parents had any hesitation. And I was completely comfortable with the job.

 

I believe that children are often short-changed in their ability to take responsibility for themselves and do the wise thing by our (the collective our) over-protection. JMO.:001_smile:

[lionfamily1999]

There are so many posts I want to respond to, but I'm in the middle of cooking dinner, so here is a vague response.

 

Moms that let your kids do what I did as a kid.... You guys are totally inspirational. I want my dcs to have that freedom too.... hopefully I can stop helicopter momming early enough for them to get to that, lol.

 

Moms with built in buddy systems, this is why I'm seriously considering one more pregnancy. At least my youngest dc will always have someone to go with them.

 

Moms that keep their dcs close. I understand. I'm just worried that I'm allowing an irrational fear keep my dcs from living their lives. IOW, I don't want MY paranoia to translate into their own future social disorders or inability to care for themselves, iykwIm.

 

Oh, and as for why we (my generation) are more filled with worry than our parents. I grew up looking at kidnapped kids at breakfast and lunch (milk carton kids). I grew up watching shows like America's Most Wanted. I grew up hearing about every stranger abduction, even some in other countries that happened to people from other countries. I grew up hearing way more about all the dangers in the world. It wasn't my parents or my friends, I wasn't kidnapped and none of the ugly stuff really happened to me until I was in my late teens and were the result of stupid decisions I made. It was the world around me broadcasting non-stop how dangerous dogs, people, planes, cars and everything else was. I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. That's where so much of my fear comes from and I'm sure it applies to (at least) some other people.

 

Okay, back later :)

[PiCO]

I have young children so I don't let them roam too much, BUT I am very much against the "don't talk to strangers!" routine.

 

I'm with you. I tell my kids that they should talk to strangers. How will they get a feeling for their inner "Gift of Fear" unless they have a broad base of experience?

 

I have also been annoyed by the behavior of my kids' pediatricians' office, distributing all this material about child safety that I consider bogus, and saying extraneous things to my child during an exam such as "It's okay that I'm looking at you here because I'm a doctor" -- I bet all the child molesters make similar justification; how about the fact that I'd previously told my child what to expect and was sitting right there?

 

My favorite doctor in the world (now retired) said it's never OK for anyone to look here unless it's OK with your mother, and she's in the room with you.

[Amy loves Bud]

 

When I was 9-10-11, we lived in a neighborhood. We all would go out in the mornings and not come back until the street lights came on. No one knew specifically where their own children were!

 

 

 

This was me. I might be at a friend's house or out in the woods. I always went home when I got hungry. :D

[K&Rs Mom]

I've skimmed the book, and realized that she was pretty much justifying what we already do, so didn't end up buying it. :) I'm a fan of her blog, though: http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/ My dc are already much more capable than most people give them credit for, and they're still pretty small.

 

I think Free Range Parenting has to go hand-in-hand with something like DeBecker's Protecting The Gift - it can be harmful to go overboard in either direction.

[Ravin]

I'm actually a parent that some other parents probably think is not cautious enough. I let my 5 yo. walk up the street to play with other kids (well, I did until the other kids started snubbing her because she's younger). We're in a large city, but our neighborhood is in a sort of dead-end, no one drives in here unless their destination is in the neighborhood. I let her play outside on her own in the front or back yard, though I usually keep the door open so I can hear.

 

In February we went to a large SCA event. I gave DD more freedom there than the others in my group were always comfortable with. For example, after the first day, during which she was getting her bearings and we reviewed fire safety, who to talk to if she got lost, etc., I let her hang out in camp while I was helping and taking classes at the Collegium tent, which was right across the road from our camp. Later in the week I let her do activities at Children's, which was somewhat farther away, but DD and I were both confident that she knew both how to find me where I was going to be (Collegium) and that she could find her own way back to camp. One of the rules of Children's is that it is not a babysitting service, and they will not keep kids there who want to leave, so you'd better not leave your kid there unsupervised unless you're okay with them leaving or trust them not to. I felt DD was fine in that situation.

 

To my annoyance, some of the other people in my group complained about her free reign behind my back. None of the complainers are themselves parents.

 

I'll also let her use public restrooms in small businesses by herself, if I'm confident she knows her way around the restaurant/store and she wants to. We'll go to the library or a bookstore and each do our own thing, just checking in with each other, not having to stay constantly in line of sight. Ditto at a playground, even a large one, she's free to play, and I'll check where she is periodically, not watch her every second.

 

I work nights, so during the day I often sleep while she entertains herself, gets herself snacks, etc. she knows she can wake me with good reason, and has gotten better over time at discerning what constitutes 'good reason'. She's allowed to use a knife to cut fruit or veggies or slice cheese, can use the toaster, and would be allowed to use the microwave if it wasn't up so high she'd have to stand on the stove to reach it.

 

My goal is to raise her to be a responsible adult; part of that is giving her responsibility for herself as a child insofar as she is willing and able.

[Tree House Academy]

I didn't read other responses, so forgive me if I duplicate. My responses are in red.

 

Has anyone else read this book? I'm reading it now and it has me wondering how much I do, as a parent, is based in fear and how much is based in reality.

 

For instance:

 

There are no recorded cases of children ever having been poisoned by Halloween candy in the United States.

So, all that checking and fear was for.... no real reason at all.

 

No, but in the 80's, in the neighborhood where I grew up, a neighbor found a needle in her kids' candy. Another person, a city away, found shards of glass. People did cruel and crazy things to candy they gave out the kids...because, on Halloween, who remembers where they got which candy. I still check my kids candy and will continue to do so. People are nutso.

 

1 in 1.5 million children are abducted and killed by strangers. The odds of an American child being kidnapped and killed by a stranger are .00007%.

IOW, my kids are more likely to experience horrible side effects from random over the counter drugs than they are to be kidnapped. Yet, this fear keeps me sitting on the porch whenever they go outside and verging on a heart attack whenever they, shudder, go play with their friends.

 

The odds, however, of an American child being kidnapped by a person they know are much higher. And it is totally SMART to watch your kids. I don't want my kids to be that one in 20 million. KWIM?

 

Three generations ago most parents were married teens.

I cannot imagine trusting a teenager to care for my kids... except my dd, and only when I'm within running distance. I couldn't imagine letting teens care for an infant, and I was a teen mom...

 

Crime rates nationally [for the USA] are at the same levels as they were in 1971.

It's SAFER for my kids to play outside, like I did, than it was for me.

 

Err, um, no. I don't buy that at all. Crimes are much more vicious in nature and done much less fearlessly (i.e. in daylight) than they were when I was a kid.

 

 

Does anyone else feel like the paranoia police? I am a relaxed mom, some of the things my kids are allowed to do give other parents the willies, but I'm starting to feel like the most overprotective parent known to mankind. I also feel pretty rediculous for the majority of my fears. Would you let your 8yo go for a walk to the mailbox (2 blocks away and I can't see it from the house)? Not just no. H*ll no. I worry about my 9 year old going to the end of my 200 yard driveway because mailboxes are inevitably by the ROAD. Or let your 12yo babysit? Maybe A 12 year old, not my son. LOL

 

Anyway, I'm trying to reevaluate. Anyone interested can respond, you don't have to have read the book (I strongly reccomend it, though). How "free-range" are your kids?

[mom4him]

Yes, far more are borrowed, molested, and returned by people they know. I still worry about my kids - and other people's too. It's one of the things I do best. :D. I may worry too much, but I still generally think they'll be ok.

 

Yes, I am one and have friends that have had similar experiences. I don't give my kids free range we have 2 reg s@x offenders within a couple blocks. No way! We live in an older nice neighbor hood and my two have a 2 block up and 2 block down area they can ride their bikes but NOT up the side streets. I have a rule. I need to be able to step out the door and see that you are ok. A book isn't going to change that for me. I have experienced those friendly hands.

Sorry if this is to explisit.

[joannqn]

Some parents just don't have the luxury of free range parenting.

 

:iagree:

 

I agree. I feel that I'm in that situation now. Had I realized that's how this neighborhood would end up being like, I wouldn't have bought this house. Now we are stuck here until both the economy and our personal financial situation improves. I hate, hate, hate that my kids are growing up where they aren't free to play outside.

 

I have friends who live 2 blocks away who feel that the neighborhood is safe for their young kids to play outside unsupervised despite the meth lab, drug houses, drug deals on the school property across the street at night, drug deals in the grocery store parking lot 2 blocks away (I see these regularly), kidnapping/murder of a 12 year old 1 mile away, 57 registered sex offenders within 1 mile (3 of them are level 3 offenders), and a murder 3-4 blocks away. They all say they'd feel differently if they lived on my street just 2 blocks away. The difference? Their street is a residential street and mine is a major arterial. I don't see how living on a residential street that is no further away from all these things makes the neighborhood safer...some of these things are ON those residential streets and even closer to their house than mine.

 

As for the comparison between attachment parenting and fear-based parenting...both are seen as overprotective by many. Those who see AP as overprotective have the same arguments about adverse results in the children.

[Barb_]

I guess my answer would be somewhere in the middle. I do not consider myself "fear-based overprotective". I consider myself "realistic about the world and its dangers and wanting to raise my children to protect themselves."

 

For instance, I have a friend who does NOT teach her child about stranger danger at all because she doesn't want them to know that there are those kinds of people out there. She doesn't teach them about it BECAUSE she is afraid of "scaring" them. I think that is irresponsible.

 

Also, parenting can be very situational. When we lived in the boonies of NC, our children had more freedom to roam and we let them. But to let them walk a few blocks down the street unsupervised in Metro Detroit is reckless parenting not free range parenting.

 

Some parents just don't have the luxury of free range parenting.

 

True, that. If you acted like you were in downtown Detroit but lived in a little out of the way suburb--that would be a potential problem. Background matters. I don't teach my kids Stranger Danger either...ie strangers automatically = danger. I know too many kids who are suspicious of EVERYONE and see adults as potential threats because Stranger Danger has been so drilled into their heads. My kids have been told: "People in white vans are bad and will try to take you away from your mom and dad," and "You shouldn't say hi to a grownup that you don't know because it's bad to say hi to strangers," among other gems.

 

I do, however try to give them a healthy dose of street smarts. I explain that more than 99% of the people they will encounter in their lifetime will be normal, helpful, nice everyday people. But *just in case* they were to encounter one who is not...there is no way of knowing. No one wears, "bad man" stickers on his shirt. So here is how to protect yourself...etc. But for me (and I do have the luxury) this doesn't extend to keeping my kids in sight at all times. Then again, like Jill I have a pack of kids.

 

Anyway, this thread has been interesting. I think it really comes down to what I alluded to earlier, and Impish reiterated...truly fear-based parenting sacrifices the child's needs on the altar of the parent's needs. What that means depends on the individual family circumstances.

 

Barb

[Mommyof4ks]

That book sounds very interesting. I will have to check that out.

 

I used to be terrified to even let my kids out of my sight, but after 9 yrs of parenting and nearly losing our youngest to cancer I have settled down alot.

 

These days all of my kids 3,5 and 9 all go outside to play by themselves, and we don't have fences here. There is the neighborhood mountain lion that worries my mother, but in the 9 yrs that we have lived here there have been no attacks despite all of the sightings. There are plenty of deer to feed it. We have never had a kidnapping, murder, or aggravated assault in our little sleepy town, so I figure it is as safe here as it is going to get. There have been drugs, but we knew nothing about it until they were busted, so I don't figure they are much threat to my kids either.

 

In public my 9dd is sent to find things on a list in the grocery store, she goes in to fast food places and buys things herself, and I have her ask people for things that she wants when we go places. We took the advice of a friend about strangers. Basically we ask the kids who they think are 'safe' people to go to while we are out in order to give them a sense that people are basically good and to help them fine tune the 'gut' feeling they have about people. It is important to me that they learn to trust themselves.

 

We trick or treat too, but only in a neighborhood where friends know every neighbor in the subdivision. I don't think it was poison that was the issue with candy but needles and razor blades, but I could be wrong. Either way I don't know anyone that has ever even known someone who knew someone that has experienced that or any other issue with candy.

 

It is amazing how much things seem so much more common when we hear about it on the news. Gaining perspective is necessary, and I need reminding often that many dangers are only perceived.

[skaterbabs]

What saddens me if the sheer volume of parents who panic over the thought of poisoned candy on Halloween or their child being abducted by a stranger, yet totally ignore the REAL risk their child faces every day when he or she climbs into the car. :banghead:

 

That said, my husband and his brothers were all "free-range". One BIL nearly died from a drug overdose, and another nearly ended up in prison. A third lost out on a very valuable and hard-to-get study opportunity because pot was more important. I think I'll keep my kids on a slightly shorter leash.

[Lolly]

Free range here. The kids have been going to play in the woods/creek by themselves since they were about 6 or 7. Can take their bikes anywhere in the neighborhood since about 5. We even let them swim in the lake without lifejackets or adult supervision as long as they have a buddy. They can take the canoe out whenever they wish (with life jacket on). My eldest was "babysitting" the youngers for short periods when younger than 12. I was babysitting multiple kids by the time I was 10 with absolutely no problems. BB guns are allowed with no supervision. I also have my own small pack that tends to move together. Ds tends to go solo more than the girls do.

[Peela]

How "free-range" are your kids?

 

Pretty free range but no where near as much as I was as a child. Not sure that that is my parenting though- I think it's more the culture nowadays.

My dh purposefully has us live - rent- in low crime, middle class suburbs- so that we can feel fairly safe letting our kids roam free. It is more important to him than that we buy a home- we could only afford to buy in a poorer, higher crime area.

 

I have often been surprised by the level of protectiveness of parents on these boards. I think the level of paranoia in the U.S. is very high, and it's probably the media to blame. Or rather, the fact that people watch so much of it. Australia is not so far behind- this generation of parents is certainly more "overprotective" than previous ones- but the level of violent crime is definitely lower here. But when the news is telling of a man in a white van trying to kidnap several kids in your area, you listen and you warn your kids about white vans and what to do if one stops while they are outside.

 

As a child though I would go off riding around the neighbourhood, wander in the bush alone, go off to the local shops alone. My kids are not such loners as me! But they go off sailing, bike riding, and to the shops, together.

 

Would I let an 8yo go two blocks to the mail box? Certainly.

 

I think that many parents think that being extremely protective and sheltering their kids is a good thing, that it is a loving thing. I dont. I think parenting out of too much fear puts fear into a child, and fear is a limiting and terrible thing to have too much of, and it can have subtle and crippling effects on people. I have seen parents hover so closely to their young children in case they fall over or off something in the playground- but the child picks up on the fear and therefore falls over and falls off things. It is expected- kids are smart. I would rather "expect" them NOT to fall over, fall off things, or to the extreme- get kidnapped. I would rather let them know I trust them to handle themselves and provide them with confidence radiating from me that they are fine. And meanwhile, stay at an appropriate distance, looking nonchalant! That is more my style.

[cathmom]

I'll let my 8yo, 7yo, and 4yo go to the pond (not drowning depth) by themselves...

 

What do you consider drowning depth? I've always heard that it's possible to drown in only an inch of water.

[Peela]

What do you consider drowning depth? I've always heard that it's possible to drown in only an inch of water.

 

See, to me, that is about common sense. A baby who can't turn over can drown in an inch of water. Anyone who for some reason falls unconscious- drugs, alcohol, stroke, or slipping and hitting your head on a rock- can drown in an inch of water. So I am sure it has happened over the years to many people. That doesn't make it a high risk factor for a 2 year old (I would leave a 2yo to play in a shallow bath or play pool and check on them regularly) or anyone who is in a normal state of consciousness who can physically move their body.

[cathmom]

I will admit that I am more paranoid about water and drowning. I've never wanted a pool for that reason, and when we were at my friend's house with a pond, I only let my 5 yo out when his oldest sibling or I was outside too. I would not let my 12 and 10 yos watch him (mainly because I thought they would be more focused on seeing their friend than watching him).

 

The person I quoted said that she let her 8, 7, and 4 yos go to the pond. I would be worried that something might happen like: 4 yo slips, hits head, goes under, and the 8 and 7 yos are unable to save him/her, or are looking at something else and don't notice until it is too late. That would be some incredible guilt the older dc would have to live with. Or, say, the 8 yo slips and hits his/her head, the 7 yo panics, and leaves the 4 yo unsupervised either trying to save the 8 yo or runs away. I could see various things happening. Are they likely? I don't know. But I would not be comfortable with that scenario. So I was genuinely curious how deep the pond was that the OP was comfortable with letting her dc go to.

[Jill- OK]

So I was genuinely curious how deep the pond was that the OP was comfortable with letting her dc go to.

 

...just over knee depth, on the 4 1/2 year old. (After a rain, lol.) It can come over his boots if he trudges in.

 

On my radar....it's not an issue. I understand that it would be for some, but like Peela says...I can't see it as a threat. If that were the case...you couldn't leave them in a bath by themselves. (Which I also do. :-)

Edited May 1, 2009 by Jill, OK

[cathmom]

...just over knee depth, on the 4 1/2 year old. (After a rain, lol.) It can come over his boots if he trudges in.

 

On my radar....it's not an issue. I understand that it would be for some, but like Peela says...I can't see it as a threat. If that were the case...you couldn't leave them in a bath by themselves. (Which I also do. :-)

 

Well, I don't really LOL. My dh gives all the little ones their baths/showers and he is right there with them (that's including the 5 yo). The difference with that is that you are right there. I would let my 5 yo take a bath in the hall bathroom with me sitting in the living room about 5 feet away. As long as I could hear him playing/talking, I'd know he was all right. If I heard silence for, idk, 30 seconds?, I would call him and make sure he was OK or go peek in.

 

I don't mean to hijack the thread and make it be about water. It's just that of all the horrible child death stories I've heard or read about, it seems to be drowning usually.

 

I'm not "free-range" - I'm not incredibly overprotective, either, I don't think. A lot of these things aren't an issue because of where I live. I don't have to decide if my dd can walk somewhere because there is nowhere to walk. The closest store just opened 3.5 miles away!

[Jill- OK]

The difference with that is that you are right there.

 

Where I talked about some of my 'free ranging' being sort of an illusion? :-)

 

As I mentioned earlier...if I'm not checking on the kids, I have Bigs that are. (We had a stray dog situation just today that was averted by an older sibling, outside with the littles). A hullaballo could certainly be heard, if not seen right away.

 

I'm not trying to make you more comfortable with something others would do--that's your decision--just saying that a lot of it is perception, as well as differences in decision making.

 

If you sit down and seriously evaluate all of the risks involved with day to day life, for a small child, or even an older one...there's a lot that could happen. I firmly believe that all of us are allowing some amount of risk in our children's lives. The difference is in what you believe to be reasonable, and that can vary from person to person. (Just an opinion.)

[cathmom]

Yes, I agree. There is always a lot that could happen, and thinking of that constantly would turn you into a big mass of jello! I just exercise a healthy caution about water.

[ElizabethB]

 

I have often been surprised by the level of protectiveness of parents on these boards. I think the level of paranoia in the U.S. is very high, and it's probably the media to blame. Or rather, the fact that people watch so much of it.

 

A lot of it is the media. And, more is reported now, it's not just more people watching.

 

When people near my age talk about how many more murders and child abductors there are now, I always ask them if they've heard of the "Green River Killer." Unless they lived in Washington state or are a serious addict of crime stats and crime books, they have not heard of him. Whenever I talk to overly protective moms, or not overly protective moms concerned that our generation is too overprotective, I bring him up and ask if they've hear of him. So far, about 1 in 100 people has heard of him.

 

From wikipedia about him:

 

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Green River Killer is believed to have murdered 48 (or more) women near the cities of Seattle and Tacoma in Washington State.

 

Do you think you could kill 48 people today and not make the national news? (I think he eventually did made the national news, but only a short blip.)

 

He was on the news a lot in the Seattle area, but not nationally.

 

I once had to talk a Mom out of calling CPS for 2 children that were playing at the park unsupervised when we lived in Ohio. No one would have even had that thought cross their mind when I was growing up. In fact, I don't remember Moms at the park at all unless it was of very young children or a larger park you had to drive to get to.

[Joanne]

When people near my age talk about how many more murders and child abductors there are now, I always ask them if they've heard of the "Green River Killer." Unless they lived in Washington state or are a serious addict of crime stats and crime books, they have not heard of him. Whenever I talk to overly protective moms, or not overly protective moms concerned that our generation is too overprotective, I bring him up and ask if they've hear of him. So far, about 1 in 100 people has heard of him.

 

Oh, pick me, pick me!

 

Before kids, I was one of those serious true crime addicts. I not only heard of him but read the big book about him!

[lionfamily1999]

We live in an area that is surrounded by water. All of my kids have had swim lessons, because of this. Here, water is unavoidable, and ironically, it makes most of the parents really lax about it. The only drownings that happen locally (in about a fifty mile radius) are people that come to visit here and haven't been raised listening to "don't go far, there's an undertow" or "watch out for the drop off" or "if you swim to the bowie you'll be run over by a boat and end up chum, chum." If I was paranoid about water, my kids wouldn't be allowed in the driveway during the spring or fall (when my driveway is under a half a foot or more of water).

 

Also, apparently the head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, Ernie Allen, is trying to "debunk the myth of stranger danger." He says that it actually puts kids at greater risk, because they don't have anywhere to turn for help.

 

A few nights ago a girl, a few counties away, was raped, while her little sister stood in the hallway, outside of the apartment and begged to be let in. It wasn't until their mother, down the hall, heard her youngest crying out that anyone knew what was going on. There was a hallway full of doors the girl could have pounded on, she could have run down the hall to home, but (as she told her gramma), she is not allowed to go anywhere alone. Granted, as parents, we might slap ourselves on the forehead and say, COMMON SENSE, but no one ever taught her that.

 

She was also taught, very clearly, to never.ever.ever.speak.to.strangers. When I was little, I was told to find someone with a badge, a mom, or a grandma. Not that ALL strangers were dangerous, but that some were and if I met one that was, I should find another stranger, but one that fit Mom's perameters and ask for help. If everyone is a stranger, and all strangers are dangerous, then there is no where to turn if you need help and your parents aren't there.

 

I remember my mom sitting us down and explaining how we can make a phone call without money. She was stunned when she realized, we did not know how to call home without change, we'd never heard of a collect call. It's stupid things like that, that cause so much misery. Of course, most kids today have cell phones and pay phones are incredibly hard to find, but back then, that's what you had.

 

I've decided I really need to sit down and reevaluate all of the 'important things' I've taught my kids and make sure I'm not keeping them from ever being self-sufficient, passing on the impression that I do not trust them, or actually putting them in danger with my advice...

[lionfamily1999]

Oh, pick me, pick me!

 

Before kids, I was one of those serious true crime addicts. I not only heard of him but read the big book about him!

lol, way to be proud of your guilty pleasures

[Mari]

I need to say up front that I have not read all the posts on this thread nor have I read the book brought up by the OP. I have heard about it and am very interested in reading it. I have to respond to this particular post, though, for a few reasons:

 

ooh, I'll have to look for that book. That sounds really good. I'm very free-range. I let my 3 yo play outside by himself, let my 2 yo play outside with my 8 yo, let my 6 and 8 yo go around the block by themselves - together - and they can spend the night places and started going to overnight camp when they are 6. I drop them off at soccer/baseball practice and just leave them......my MIL was *horrified* when we did that with dd. She actually drove an hour to come up and watch her at her practice. I was livid. Dh had a nice talk with her on that one :tongue_smilie:

 

This really floored me. Is the area that your 3 yo plays in fenced in or does he have free range as well? Is it wooded or just the comforts of your backyard? I'm hoping it is your fenced in backyard and you have your eyes on him/her. I'm sorry, 3 is much to young to allow a child to fend for himself. I'm fine with letting your 6 and 8 yo go around the block by themselves but do you know where they are going? Do adults around the block know how to contact you in case something goes wrong? Are your kids savvy enough to know how to avoid human AND natural predators? My neighbor's 7 yr old was attacked by a dog 5 houses "around the block." Turns out he was actually taunting the dog. The mom was upstairs taking a nap. Another little boy in our neighborhood was bit by a rattlesnake and nobody knew his parents or where he lived. He was 6 and did not know his address or phone number.

 

I don't even know what to say about dropping your kids off at sports practice "and just leaving them." I don't know what your circumstances are, if another child needs to get to a different practice, etc or if you're just out shopping somewhere. Here's what I do know. I've been the coach, asst. coach, or team mom for a variety of sports. It means the world to a child to see his/her parents watching from the stands. They want to work harder and please you, the parent, the most. It builds their confidence to see you rooting them on, even at practice. Plus, you get to see their weaknesses and can actually help them improve their skills at home. You can also see how well they listen, follow directions or help their fellow teammates. I'm with your MIL on that one. Besides, coaches are NOT babysitters.

 

I try to operate by facts, not emotions. Sometimes it's hard. But we just spend a lot of time researching things, looking at statistics, and deciding what is an acceptable risk to us. A lot of that comes out in health issues, too.

 

Okay, but please don't be like those parents who later tearfully regret the risks they've allowed their children to take and say, "we didn't think it would happen to our precious child." The FACT is, children do often suffer the consequences of their parents' poor decisions. That doesn't mean you should raise them in a bubble, but definitely be smart about how you LEAD your children to gain their confidence.

 

I try to remember that globally, kids do a lot more dangerous things and live in more dangerous habitats than I will probably ever know. I'd rather relax a little and live - b/c I could be very very protective and we could still all die in a car accident. I want to try and view the world as a fun place, not a scary place.

 

What ticks me off are parents in my neighborhood who give their children "free-range" to "go, explore and have fun" while their BRATS are actually wrecking havock over at MY house and yard and picking fights with every kid they encounter. I have no idea who these kids are, where they live or who their parents are for that matter. I guess they're at home "relaxing and living" their lives without caring about how well their kids can behave themselves when they're not around. I think the key is to give your kids parameters to work with. I think a lot of parents are lost on this one.

 

 

Also, the world is not supposed to be a scary place but it often is in many situations. We can't just brush that fact under the rug of our hope that bad things won't happen. I'm just saying we need to be smart and not overly relaxed about how we teach our children to LIVE confidently in this world.

[lionfamily1999]

I need to say up front that I have not read all the posts on this thread nor have I read the book brought up by the OP. I have heard about it and am very interested in reading it. I have to respond to this particular post, though, for a few reasons:

 

 

 

What ticks me off are parents in my neighborhood who give their children "free-range" to "go, explore and have fun" while their BRATS are actually wrecking havock over at MY house and yard and picking fights with every kid they encounter. I have no idea who these kids are, where they live or who their parents are for that matter. I guess they're at home "relaxing and living" their lives without caring about how well their kids can behave themselves when they're not around. I think the key is to give your kids parameters to work with. I think a lot of parents are lost on this one.

 

 

Also, the world is not supposed to be a scary place but it often is in many situations. We can't just brush that fact under the rug of our hope that bad things won't happen. I'm just saying we need to be smart and not overly relaxed about how we teach our children to LIVE confidently in this world.

Things have been really friendly up to this point (hint, hint, nudge, nudge ;) ;) )

 

The point of the book is that things ARE safe today, at least as safe as they were when we were kids.

 

Also, with the local bullies... have you shooed them away? I'm wondering, because they're on YOUR property and I know I wouldn't put up with that.

[Heather in Neverland]

The point of the book is that things ARE safe today, at least as safe as they were when we were kids.

 

 

 

 

I can see what the point of the book is. But I would phrase it differently. I would say things were just as dangerous then as they are now. We just didn't have it reported to us on the news as often as it is now. But the fact is, kids were kidnapped, murdered, molested and all manner of other things when I was a kid and they still are now. The "chances" of it happening then are probably the same as they are now. I do what I can to mitigate those possibilities by controlling what dangers I can, and by teaching my children to protect themselves in situations that I can't control. I'm not sure if this falls under free-range or over-protective? But I am a big fan of Gavin DeBecker's books "The Gift of Fear" and "Protecting the Gift".

[lionfamily1999]

I can see what the point of the book is. But I would phrase it differently. I would say things were just as dangerous then as they are now. We just didn't have it reported to us on the news as often as it is now. But the fact is, kids were kidnapped, murdered, molested and all manner of other things when I was a kid and they still are now. The "chances" of it happening then are probably the same as they are now. I do what I can to mitigate those possibilities by controlling what dangers I can, and by teaching my children to protect themselves in situations that I can't control. I'm not sure if this falls under free-range or over-protective? But I am a big fan of Gavin DeBecker's books "The Gift of Fear" and "Protecting the Gift".

She (the author) actually recommend "Protecting the Gift." I'm going to see if I can get it once our finances stop dropping.

 

I just didn't want this to get into the nasty, I'm a better mother than you area, and that particular post was a little more aggressive iykwIm. I was trying to diffuse it.

 

More fun with statistics (not for Heather per se, but for anyone who thinks [like I do] what if my kid WAS that .000003%):

 

A child is 40x more likely to die in a car crash, 80-90x more likely to be molested by someone they know and 10x as many kids are killed by fires at home... than are kidnapped by strangers.

 

IOW, it's a scary stinking world, but our kids (in the US) are safer outside, alone, than they are with us, driving to destinations or sitting in a house with an appliance that could go at any moment, or going to spend the night with a relative. Frankly, I trust my parents, my in-laws, my sibs and I am 100% sure my kids are not going to by injured by them. I trust my driving and the only accident I've had while driving was being backed into by someone trying to converse with someone going the opposite direction. Also..... well, no, we're REALLY paranoid about fires. Appliances get unplugged or breakers get turned off. We do use a real tree for Christmas, but it's infront of a set of sliding doors and the hope is, we can shove it outside pretty quick.

 

You know, it really ticks me off that we (parents) have been made to fear some of the most unlikely scenerios. That fear also keeps us, oftentimes, me at least, from giving our kids the knowledge they NEED for when they HAVE to be amongst strangers, out on their own. Eventually, we HAVE to let go.

 

BTW, I would strongly recommend the Cub Scouts guide for personal safety. There's things in that I would've never warned my dcs about. Also, there's a group called ASSERT Super Kids (I'm still looking for them, but they sound good :) ) that teaches everyone how to stay safe from creeps.

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

Statistics do not comfort me, sorry to say. You can tell me that only 1 in 1 bazillion kids actually are kidnapped and murdered but, you know what, that statistic isn't of much comfort to the mother of that ONE child.

...

 

 

 

But your choosing one set of statistics over other sets (right?). Do you plan to have your kids fly in a plane? Because no one thinks that their plane is going to crash but when a plane goes down, it's not much comfort to the families on that plane that it is so rare for a plane to go down.

 

Statistically, your children have more of a chance dying BECAUSE you are driving them to soccer practice than if you left them home to play unsupervised in your yard.

 

For my children (my dd will be 5 in a month, and ds6 just turned 6) I let them play in our yard. We live in a quiet neighborhood and we know ALL of our neighbors. If they want to leave the yard, they ask me, and they are allowed to go to their friend's houses on the block.

 

I frequently look out at the kids and I watch them when they are leaving for a friends house. They don't roam the neighborhood but they have about 4 or 5 houses where their friends live and they like to play from yard to yard.

 

Last summer, they were escorted by me to their friends houses because I wasn't comfortable with them going without me. Mostly because I thought they may follow a cat into the woods or decide to explore and get lost. Now, I think they play very well. They usually go on our swingset, sandbox, garden then yell "Dan's out, can we go?" and I watch them out the window go and I can hear them playing. If it gets quiet, I call for them, or call the other parent. Then they come back and ask if they can go to another friends house, and same routine. :)

 

For my family, this is reasonable and I feel that they are safe.

[Heather in Neverland]

But your choosing one set of statistics over other sets (right?). Do you plan to have your kids fly in a plane? Because no one thinks that their plane is going to crash but when a plane goes down, it's not much comfort to the families on that plane that it is so rare for a plane to go down.

.

 

I totally get what you are saying. For me though, it is about mitigating those statistics as much as possible.

 

As far as playing in our front yard, we lived on a corner lot and about two years ago a guy ran a stop sign, was hit by an oncoming car, his car flipped several times and landed in our front yard. If my kids had been out playing at that moment they would be dead right now. Did I ever think in a million years that something that bizarre would happen? Of course. Do I believe it now? You betcha.

 

One of my best friends has a pool and 3 children. The kids are taught pool safety, how to swim, yada, yada, yada. She felt perfectly comfortable going inside to take a phone call while her 11yo son kept an eye on things for a moment. Problem is, 11yo boys are pretty easily distracted and didn't notice that his 2yo sister had wiggled out of her float-vest and gotten into the pool. By the time anyone realized it, she was no longer breathing. Medics were able to revive her but she now suffers brain damage from lack of oxygen. She is now a statistic.

 

The point is, statistics COME from somewhere. I'd rather it not be from my family if I can avoid it so I do what I can. I realize there are statistics that I cannot avoid but there are statistics I CAN avoid, so I do.

 

And I appreciate you helping to keep the tone of this thread civil (we seem to be having issues with that lately on this board! :D)

[Barb_]

I once had to talk a Mom out of calling CPS for 2 children that were playing at the park unsupervised when we lived in Ohio. No one would have even had that thought cross their mind when I was growing up. In fact, I don't remember Moms at the park at all unless it was of very young children or a larger park you had to drive to get to.

 

You bring up a good point here. There have been times when I've felt uncomfortable allowing my kids do something I was perfectly okay with (like, I don't know, climbing a largish tree outside our house) because of nosey-butt neighbors. There is a certain social pressure to hover or risk looking neglectful. In some areas over-protection can almost feel like a competition. I'm so glad that the neighborhood we live in now is old-fashioned. Everyone keeps an eye on everyone else. No one freaks out if a kid is balancing on a landscaping wall or doing back-handsprings or climbing a pole or watching a younger sibling without supervision. In other areas we've lived in, one or more moms would be out there wringing their hands or flatly not allowing activities that I'm perfectly comfortable with.

 

Barb

[Barb_]

I need to say up front that I have not read all the posts on this thread nor have I read the book brought up by the OP. I have heard about it and am very interested in reading it. I have to respond to this particular post, though, for a few reasons:

 

 

:001_huh: Next time, it would be a good idea to take the time to read through the entire thread and absorb some of the tone and ideas before knocking someone upside the head the way you just did. You wouldn't walk up to a knot of people at a party and begin lecturing someone based on an overheard comment, would you?

[Barb_]

I don't even know what to say about dropping your kids off at sports practice "and just leaving them." I don't know what your circumstances are, if another child needs to get to a different practice, etc or if you're just out shopping somewhere. Here's what I do know. I've been the coach, asst. coach, or team mom for a variety of sports. It means the world to a child to see his/her parents watching from the stands. They want to work harder and please you, the parent, the most. It builds their confidence to see you rooting them on, even at practice. Plus, you get to see their weaknesses and can actually help them improve their skills at home. You can also see how well they listen, follow directions or help their fellow teammates. I'm with your MIL on that one. Besides, coaches are NOT babysitters.

 

I don't agree with you here. The overemphasis on children's organized activities and the assumption that family life is to revolve around them has contributed greatly to our child-centered culture. Some families are all about gymnastics or hockey or football, etc. That's great! That's what the family does together. But in our household, we have the track-star gymnast, the pianist, the academic, etc. Activities are what my children do for themselves. I go to the occasional meet or game and to any big recitals, but it would never occur to me to sit through practices. I don't expect my coaches to be babysitters, but teachers. While it's nice that parents are welcomed at practices, I would be forbidden to sit in a classroom with my child; why should I be expected sit in the bleachers?

[The Girls' Mom]

I'm admittedly over protective about some things, and no so much on others. But one thing I think contributes to the hyper-protection of our kids, is that CPS can be, and often is, called on parents that allow their kids the freedom to roam/play, etc that we had as kids. So by and large, we are pretty much FORCED to be over protective, even when we don't need to be.

[Amy loves Bud]

I'm admittedly over protective about some things, and no so much on others. But one thing I think contributes to the hyper-protection of our kids, is that CPS can be, and often is, called on parents that allow their kids the freedom to roam/play, etc that we had as kids. So by and large, we are pretty much FORCED to be over protective, even when we don't need to be.

 

You think so? I honestly don't know anyone (including myself) who makes these decisions based on whether CPS might be called. Except for one friend who has had some terrible disputes with a neighbor who actually has called CPS.

[The Girls' Mom]

Well, around here, people LOVE to be all in your business. I had neighbors yelling at my kids to go put a coat on to play outside. (Sorry, but if my 12 year old isn't cold, I'm not making her put one on!) You cannot leave your older children in a locked car (during cooler temps) while you run inside a gas station or store without risking the cops called on you. My BIL who is a volunteer officer locally actually went out on a call to a park because there were unsupervised kids going UP the slide. And an aquaintance just got through a COURT case because a neighbor called CPS on her for making a misbehaving child stand out on a porch alone. So, yes, it does happen. At least around here.

[cathmom]

There was a case in NC where a 2 yo appeared naked on the front porch for several minutes until an older sibling retrieved her. Based on that, a neighbor called CPS and a long court battle ensued.

[Mari]

Things have been really friendly up to this point (hint, hint, nudge, nudge ;) ;) )

 

The point of the book is that things ARE safe today, at least as safe as they were when we were kids.

 

Also, with the local bullies... have you shooed them away? I'm wondering, because they're on YOUR property and I know I wouldn't put up with that.

 

 

Well, I re-read my post and don't think my tone was unfriendly toward the poster. The ages she referred to really caught my interest. So I offered an opposing view which, I thought, was allowed on this board. And I know I'm not the only one who has not read through an extremely long thread before responding to one post in particular.

 

I think I brought up some valid points, the main one being that we parents, need to be smart about allowing our children too much freedom before they are ready to handle it and all that comes with it. We assume they are ready to face the world when, in reality, they are far from meeting that challenge. Again, it's a matter of parameters that need to be set in order to judge whether a child can handle themselves in certain situations.

 

I am very interested in reading the book because I would like to know exactly how the author encourages readers to raise "free-range" kids. How did she go about doing that for her own young 'uns? What are the "ages and stages" set forth in her book? I try very hard not to be a helicopter mom but I would like to know appropriate challenges she sees fit for the ages of my children. And, most importantly, how does she encourage parents to find comfort knowing that they are raising confident but street-savvy children? Because the post I responded to, and a lot on this thread that I have read, have not given me the impression that the parents are always aware of how their children behave when those who love them are not around.

 

I'm also intrigued by how the author compares life now vs. when we were kids. I think it's like comparing apples to oranges. Back in the day, our neighborhoods were filled with people who knew each other. We socialized more with each other and kids were more obedient to their elders. If they weren't, you'd better believe their parents would know about any instance before the kids even walked back through the front door. Trust me on that one...I learned that the hard way! Anyhow, today, we socialize far less with our neighbors than we used to. Television, video games, the internet, technology in general, has made us retreat more into our own homes rather than out meeting our neighbors. These days we're also dealing with more latch-key kids due to dual income house-holds. Parents don't know where their kids are really, but feel safe knowing they are at least in the neighborhood.

 

Which brings me to your question about the bullies. I have shooed them away but where to? Again, like I wrote earlier, they are BRATS!!! I don't know where they live or who they belong to. In fact, none of my neighbors do either. I don't put up with it and they always leave when I go outside. These are kids who come around with metal pipes and have actually held a kid down by his throat with one!! And it's not just my house they have been to, but around the entire neighborhood! Tell me, why would I allow my children to roam freely when they clearly could not defend themselves against these guys? It goes back to me knowing what my children can handle in particular situations.

[Mari]

:001_huh: Next time, it would be a good idea to take the time to read through the entire thread and absorb some of the tone and ideas before knocking someone upside the head the way you just did. You wouldn't walk up to a knot of people at a party and begin lecturing someone based on an overheard comment, would you?

 

Barb, I wasn't lecturing anybody. I merely gave an opposing view to a post that really caught my interest, much like you have done to me. And I did not walk up to a knot of people. I walked up to a single strand of the rope.

[Mari]

I don't agree with you here. The overemphasis on children's organized activities and the assumption that family life is to revolve around them has contributed greatly to our child-centered culture. Some families are all about gymnastics or hockey or football, etc. That's great! That's what the family does together. But in our household, we have the track-star gymnast, the pianist, the academic, etc. Activities are what my children do for themselves. I go to the occasional meet or game and to any big recitals, but it would never occur to me to sit through practices. I don't expect my coaches to be babysitters, but teachers. While it's nice that parents are welcomed at practices, I would be forbidden to sit in a classroom with my child; why should I be expected sit in the bleachers?

 

 

I think you are absolutely right on given the ages of your children. I would feel okay leaving a teen or tween child as well. The poster I responded to had much younger, elementary aged children, which paints a much different scenario.

 

My oldest is 9 yrs. old. I don't watch him as much as I do his younger, 5 yo sister. Yet, his soccer coach has complained about 5 troublemakers on his team who are really disrupting classes. He has talked with all 5 parents but cannot get them to manage their behavior. The coach has asked the parents to control their kids but they don't want to stick around. So in other words, he has become the babysitter, and the rest of the kids have to put up with the cr*p as well. So I ask, why should they have to when, as you wrote, the coaches are there to teach?

[ravengal]

I think you are absolutely right on given the ages of your children. I would feel okay leaving a teen or tween child as well. The poster I responded to had much younger, elementary aged children, which paints a much different scenario.

 

My oldest is 9 yrs. old. I don't watch him as much as I do his younger, 5 yo sister. Yet, his soccer coach has complained about 5 troublemakers on his team who are really disrupting classes. He has talked with all 5 parents but cannot get them to manage their behavior. The coach has asked the parents to control their kids but they don't want to stick around. So in other words, he has become the babysitter, and the rest of the kids have to put up with the cr*p as well. So I ask, why should they have to when, as you wrote, the coaches are there to teach?

 

The situation you write about is entirely different than one where an involved parent drops off their well-behaved child to attend a class alone.

 

If the coach can't control the kids and the parents won't control them, I would expect the coach to get rid of the offenders as a service to the other team members and their parents.

[Guest Katia]

Attachment parenting and fear-based over-protectiveness are two different things. We shouldn't lump the two together.

 

Barb

 

Ok. Coming back to this discussion just a little late...sorry....I've had a sick teen that needed me to hover....:D

 

I think I see what you and Joanne are saying here....I think. It's more your reasoning or motivations behind the parenting actions, right?

 

But.....when someone else (family, friends, neighbors, etc.) are looking at your style of parenting, they don't always see that little distinction and so you get judged for the fear-based over-protectiveness type of parenting when that may not be what you are doing.

 

I guess that is what I was responding to, because my choice to watch my dc all.the.time. when they were 0-15yo has been vocally criticized by others as fear-based and over-protective with the outcomes that you were predicting (sneaky, rebellious, over-dependent,etc).

 

So, can anyone but the actual parent really tell what motivation is behind the parenting style? And if kids turn out sneaky, rebellious or over-dependent is it a direct cause of the motivation behind the parenting style....or could it simply be that each child is different and you can apply the same parenting style and techniques to three different kids and all three of them will respond differently and with different out-comes because they are...well....different people?

[Joanne]

I think I see what you and Joanne are saying here....I think. It's more your reasoning or motivations behind the parenting actions, right?

 

But.....when someone else (family, friends, neighbors, etc.) are looking at your style of parenting, they don't always see that little distinction and so you get judged for the fear-based over-protectiveness type of parenting when that may not be what you are doing.

 

Hm. To answer your first paragraph, in a way.

 

First, I don't believe that the kind of hover-parenting in this thread = attachment parenting. I believe AP is mostly an approach to babies/toddlers/preschoolers. Certainly the underlying paradigm can be extended to older, school aged children, but I don't use that term to decribe parenting beyond diapers. ;)

 

As a related note, many AP parents adopt a "Continuum Concept" approach to parenting in which "free range" activities are encouraged, parents are involved in *their* adult activities and the children are nearby but not the focus.

 

Let's see if I can offer an example that might answer your first paragraph. While I despise the term "extended nursing" because it implies an artificial construct or imposed action, I'll use it for the sake of understanding. I believe in extended nursing. However, I believe, as with other areas, it is a place where parental issues can manifest. The problem isn't with extended nursing; it's with the parent who happens to make this (as yet) counter cultural choice. A while back, there was a link to a You Tube where a mom was nursing elementary aged girls. It was........creepy and odd. Not because of the EN, but because the EN was a place for this family's dysfunction to show up. The girl's focus on the breasts (which was not age appropriate) and the whole need to assert the "rightness" of the choice clanged my icky bell. This, from a mom who nursed her kids......years not months.

 

The level of "hover" in a family that is healthy can't have a number. But hover factor is another area that can be affected by the parent's issues.

 

I guess that is what I was responding to, because my choice to watch my dc all.the.time. when they were 0-15yo has been vocally criticized by others as fear-based and over-protective with the outcomes that you were predicting (sneaky, rebellious, over-dependent,etc).

 

Personally, I am not comfortable for a variety of reasons with no other care 0-15.

 

However,

 

So, can anyone but the actual parent really tell what motivation is behind the parenting style? And if kids turn out sneaky, rebellious or over-dependent is it a direct cause of the motivation behind the parenting style....or could it simply be that each child is different and you can apply the same parenting style and techniques to three different kids and all three of them will respond differently and with different out-comes because they are...well....different people?

 

I agree that personality and a co-factors are great influences on behavior. Earlier in my parenting, I believed in formulaic parenting. Do "ABC" and your kids will "DEF". However, I've come to embrace the bittersweet reality that I don't have that much power to prevent (or create) rebellion, over dependency, etc).

 

I've seen parents for the first timers in AP (or, for that matter, Ezzo) crowds assert that their child is {fill in the blank with some desirable trait} because of their parenting. But I've been talking to parents long enough to know children of all kinds are in families of all kinds.

 

The issue in *this* thread, IMO, is that decisions are being made on perceptions of "facts" that are not, indeed, facts.

[Mari]

The situation you write about is entirely different than one where an involved parent drops off their well-behaved child to attend a class alone.

 

If the coach can't control the kids and the parents won't control them, I would expect the coach to get rid of the offenders as a service to the other team members and their parents.

 

Maybe, but an involved parent would want to be around to see how his/her child responds to poor behavior directed at him/her, wouldn't they? An involved parent could probably step up and help the volunteer, unpaid coach who may need a little more assistance out on the field. An involved parent would do these because ultimately it affects how much their own child is learning. An involved parent might need to step up and talk to the offending players parents' personally to back up the coach. This is unfortunately what my husband and I are are contemplating because if the coach does kick the players off the team, there will be no more team period. There just won't be enough players. That would be unfortunate all the way around, not to mention a huge waste of our time and money.

 

The coach is not there to control the kids. He's there to lead them and teach them the skills they need to play soccer. Young kids just need supervision, period. You would think it would be as easy as having the parents control them but how can that work if they're not involved enough to stick around at practice after the coach asks them to?

[Audrey]

are more "free range MOMS"

 

Which is to say Moms that want to take kids on bike rides, go on hikes, go camping and fishing etc. I have so much fun with my boys when we play outside, and I do actually feel safer letting them have more freedom when we are camping than I do at home. They enjoy that freedom. And I think that teaching my boys to do your basic wilderness survival stuff has been a huge confidence builder, a lot of fun, and a chance for them to feel free when I'm still sort of around.

 

Do you know what ages are highest risk for stranger abduction? The older they are, the higher the risk, right up to age 18. Which means that if we REALLY want to protect our children, we have to micromanage the 16 year olds and not let THEM play alone outside. I doubt that's going to happen.

 

So perhaps we need some combination of teaching our children to be savvy and think fast in a scary situation, vigilance on our own parts, and a willingness to participate in the creek exploring wonder of childhood.

 

 

I think I might be a free range mom, then. We are very outdoorsy people, and both dh and I are as likely to climb a big old tree just because it looks fun as is our son.

 

We are very safety conscious though (I don't think climbing trees is dangerous YMMV). We are on a farm and there are things and equipment and big, BIG trucks and tractors that need to be heeded and treated with respect!

 

There was really only one time that I can say I actually got "freaked out" about something happening to my son. When he was barely toddling, there was a man who freaked me out (he shall go nameless and titleless, but suffice it to say that he was supposed to be a respected person in the community). Whenever I saw him in town, he would come over and want to touch my son and say how sweet he was. One day he kept going on about him and said "he so beautiful too -- someone would be so tempted to steal him."

 

It wasn't just what we said, but the way he said it. Creeped. Me. Out. Ew!

 

But that was the only time and the only person (we avoided him like the plague after that!).

[Barb_]

Maybe, but an involved parent would want to be around to see how his/her child responds to poor behavior directed at him/her, wouldn't they? An involved parent could probably step up and help the volunteer, unpaid coach who may need a little more assistance out on the field. An involved parent would do these because ultimately it affects how much their own child is learning. An involved parent might need to step up and talk to the offending players parents' personally to back up the coach. This is unfortunately what my husband and I are are contemplating because if the coach does kick the players off the team, there will be no more team period. There just won't be enough players. That would be unfortunate all the way around, not to mention a huge waste of our time and money.

 

 

This situation is really unfortunate, but I think you may have it backwards. I don't believe it's up to teammates' parents to enforce behavior, unless they are in the official position of assistant coach. The coach has accepted the position of authority, volunteer or no, and is there to lead the team. The worst offenders should be dealt with by the person officially in charge. I think a code of behavior and expectations typed up at the beginning of the season and signed by the kids and parents and ENFORCED by the sports club, association, what have you, is the only answer for dealing with troublemakers. First offense gets a bench for a game, second offense gets a bench for 2 or 3 games, third offense and you're off the team. If that means the team misses a couple of games at the end of the season because they don't have enough players, that's okay. People will be lining up to play for that coach once he/she has the reputation of putting up with no nonsense. Probably won't get that far, though. Once the ringleader(s) has been dealt with, the others often settle down.

 

Barb

[Barb_]

Maybe, but an involved parent would want to be around to see how his/her child responds to poor behavior directed at him/her, wouldn't they?

 

I missed this :) ...and no, I would rather allow my child to deal with poor behavior without me as a witness. I prefer to involve myself behind the scenes, listening at home and offering advice. I would support the coach in the background and ultimately pull my child from the team if I thought the situation was dysfunctional enough to be unsafe or abusive in any way, but no, ultimately kids need to learn to handle these things on their own in small doses. I think what you're describing above is an over-involved style of parenting.

 

Barb

[Renee in NC]

I missed this :) ...and no, I would rather allow my child to deal with poor behavior without me as a witness. I prefer to involve myself behind the scenes, listening at home and offering advice. I would support the coach in the background and ultimately pull my child from the team if I thought the situation was dysfunctional enough to be unsafe or abusive in any way, but no, ultimately kids need to learn to handle these things on their own in small doses. I think what you're describing above is an over-involved style of parenting.

 

Barb

 

:iagree:

 

I would only get involved if it were a dangerous situation.

 

I occasionally have left children on their own at practices, Scout meetings, etc.

 

I have let my dc go to day camps where I am not present.

 

I let my 2yo play outside with her 6yo brother (and older.) I let my 4yo play outside alone on the porch. I let my 16yo walk over to the lake with the 5 oldest siblings to go fishing. I let him drive at 12 on private property.

 

Now, I have been told that my dc are more mature than most, but I don't really have a lot of other children to compare to. I expect that they will follow our rules and use common sense. How much freedom they get is totally dependent upon their personalities, my experience with their level of responsibility, and the situation.

 

From what I hage read here, my dc would be considered "free-range" to a certain extent, but would be more so in a better neighborhood.

[Mari]

This situation is really unfortunate, but I think you may have it backwards. I don't believe it's up to teammates' parents to enforce behavior, unless they are in the official position of assistant coach. The coach has accepted the position of authority, volunteer or no, and is there to lead the team. The worst offenders should be dealt with by the person officially in charge. I think a code of behavior and expectations typed up at the beginning of the season and signed by the kids and parents and ENFORCED by the sports club, association, what have you, is the only answer for dealing with troublemakers. First offense gets a bench for a game, second offense gets a bench for 2 or 3 games, third offense and you're off the team. If that means the team misses a couple of games at the end of the season because they don't have enough players, that's okay. People will be lining up to play for that coach once he/she has the reputation of putting up with no nonsense. Probably won't get that far, though. Once the ringleader(s) has been dealt with, the others often settle down.

 

Barb

 

Yes, it is unfortunate and we haven't done anything yet. As I wrote, we are merely contemplating our next step since nothing else has worked so far. I really don't want to hi-jack this thread with our soccer team woes. Suffice it to say it's not as easy a solution as you've suggested since the league will not enforce the rules of which the parents don't seem to want to comply. Either way, the well behaved kids will still have to pay the penalty when the brats' parents should have been dealing with their own kids long ago, had they wanted to be involved in the first place. It's not okay with me whenever the bad apples spoil the bunch.