Woman arrested for letting kid play in park

[Big Guy]

...

Being responsible is not the same thing as being omnipresent. Part of parenting is letting kids try things on their own and take risks.

...

I fully agree. But the process is called guided discovery. You allow the child to attempt new experiences which may be dangerous - but with supervision. With the parent available if something goes wrong.

Of course there are many stories we all have of doing things by ourselves as children - from rafting to having a smoke at 8 years old.

There is no magic age at which a child has the ability to make rational decisions. I still think that allowing a 9 years old to go to a park by themselves, without adult supervision for hours is an irresponsible act. I parented two wonderful, well adjusted children who are now both professionals. I am sometimes grand parenting 3 very active youngsters.

I also spent many years in different capacities in the Ontario education system. I could give you very, very many stories of tragedies that occurred when the kids "were left for just a minute ..." and "they did this all the time but this time.." and "it has never happened before in that park..." and "he would never do that when he was with me ..." and "but he was such a mature young man" and "I thought that the other adults there would ..." and "there were all kinds of other kids there" and on and on.

I also agree the parent is the only one who really knows the maturity level and the sense of responsibility of their child - but an overly optimistic evaluation can be a death sentence.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Big Guy

[Black Dog]

I fully agree. But the process is called guided discovery. You allow the child to attempt new experiences which may be dangerous - but with supervision. With the parent available if something goes wrong.

Except kids also need independence. That means doing things away from the eyes of adults.

Of course there are many stories we all have of doing things by ourselves as children - from rafting to having a smoke at 8 years old.

And we're all here to tell the tale.

There is no magic age at which a child has the ability to make rational decisions. I still think that allowing a 9 years old to go to a park by themselves, without adult supervision for hours is an irresponsible act.

But you haven't really said why. Because something could go wrong? Something could go wrong anytime, anyplace. I'd like to see some evidence that shows unsupervised kids are more likely to come to grief.

I also spent many years in different capacities in the Ontario education system. I could give you very, very many stories of tragedies that occurred when the kids "were left for just a minute ..." and "they did this all the time but this time.." and "it has never happened before in that park..." and "he would never do that when he was with me ..." and "but he was such a mature young man" and "I thought that the other adults there would ..." and "there were all kinds of other kids there" and on and on.

I also agree the parent is the only one who really knows the maturity level and the sense of responsibility of their child - but an overly optimistic evaluation can be a death sentence.

And shit happens when parents are present as well. In fact, from a statistical standpoint, one of the most dangerous activities a parent can do is put their child in a car, yet this happens literally millions of times every day without people giving it a second thought and without CPS getting involved.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Black Dog

[Big Guy]

...

And shit happens when parents are present as well. In fact, from a statistical standpoint, one of the most dangerous activities a parent can do is put their child in a car, yet this happens literally millions of times every day without people giving it a second thought and without CPS getting involved.

"I'd like to see some evidence that shows unsupervised kids are more likely to come to grief." Do you really believe that unsupervised kids are as safe as supervised kids?

You apparently feel comfortable with your position and I feel comfortable with mine. If I err, then I would prefer to do so on the side of caution. I am not here to try to convince anybody of anything. Each poster has an opinion and I assume that will translate into their behaviour with their loved little ones. We all continue to be responsible for our decisions.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Big Guy

[GostHacked]

The woman was working during that time. Normally one would put their kid with a caregiver during her work hours. For that reason, this woman was not being responsible. I think the reaction would be different if the kid was left with a babysitter and went off to play. But it's an over reaction to the incident of an unsupervised child playing in a park. Me and my friends growing up were of all age groups. Typically we looked out for each other. We had small mountains and brush behind our houses in which we played all the time. The worse we ever got were a few hornet stings, one girl broke her arm whens he fell, some cuts and scrapes bike riding in the bush.

Are we turning kids into wussy adults? Can't do a darn thing on their own? Does not really create a trust relationship.

[Black Dog]

"I'd like to see some evidence that shows unsupervised kids are more likely to come to grief." Do you really believe that unsupervised kids are as safe as supervised kids?

For the sake of this discussion, I'll say yes and invite you to show me otherwise.

[Big Guy]

For the sake of this discussion, I'll say yes and invite you to show me otherwise.

Both of us must have something better to do with our time than discuss the benefits and responsibilities of supervising youngsters over not supervising youngsters. The answers are obvious. I would not insult you with examples.

[Black Dog]

Both of us must have something better to do with our time than discuss the benefits and responsibilities of supervising youngsters over not supervising youngsters. The answers are obvious. I would not insult you with examples.

Then it shouldn't take any time at all to find the data.

What are you worried about?

[Big Guy]

Are you serious that there is a question if children should be supervised or not?

Do you really think that children do not have to be supervised for their own safety?

[Mighty AC]

I think 8-9 is about the point when kids do need to start unsupervised play.

[Black Dog]

Are you serious that there is a question if children should be supervised or not?

Do you really think that children do not have to be supervised for their own safety?

Depends on their age. Babies and toddlers, sure. Beyond that, I think it's open for debate. 9 seems a bit old to need someone hovering at all times.

[Big Guy]

I believe everyone participating in this thread has the best interests of children at heart. I suggest that all believe that the more independence a child is allowed then the better for the child. Where we seem to differ is the age at which unsupervised activity could be allowed and in which venue that activity should take place.

There are general guidelines as to when a child could be left alone and unsupervised at home and for what length of time. Commercial establishments post the conditions under which children are allowed to enter and under what conditions. Every child is different. Some mature quicker than others. Some parents are good parents and some are not. The not very good ones need direction as to their responsibilities to their children.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to allow a 9 year old girl to "hang out" or "run" or "play" or ... unsupervised in public park. I sense an assumption by others here that other adults or other children there will be expected to deal with an emergency and/or call the mother if an emergency existed. I do not have that expectation. I may have that hope but not that expectation.

We are able to post here because we are survivors. Those who were not cannot post.

Yes, we have all done some foolish things when we were young and most would probably keep their own children from trying the same dumb things. Kids will be kids. They will test the parameters of instruction and the envelope of risk. I believe that our responsibility is to minimize and mitigate the cost of experiences which lead to the learning and maturity that we try to instil into our offspring.

The extent to which we do this will depend on the individual adult. I repeat - in my case I will err on the side of prudence rather than chance the tragic results of an overly optimistic evaluation of the maturity level and ability of the child.

[Black Dog]

I believe everyone participating in this thread has the best interests of children at heart. I suggest that all believe that the more independence a child is allowed then the better for the child. Where we seem to differ is the age at which unsupervised activity could be allowed and in which venue that activity should take place.

There are general guidelines as to when a child could be left alone and unsupervised at home and for what length of time. Commercial establishments post the conditions under which children are allowed to enter and under what conditions. Every child is different. Some mature quicker than others. Some parents are good parents and some are not. The not very good ones need direction as to their responsibilities to their children.

I do not believe that it is appropriate to allow a 9 year old girl to "hang out" or "run" or "play" or ... unsupervised in public park. I sense an assumption by others here that other adults or other children there will be expected to deal with an emergency and/or call the mother if an emergency existed. I do not have that expectation. I may have that hope but not that expectation.

We are able to post here because we are survivors. Those who were not cannot post.

Yes, we have all done some foolish things when we were young and most would probably keep their own children from trying the same dumb things. Kids will be kids. They will test the parameters of instruction and the envelope of risk. I believe that our responsibility is to minimize and mitigate the cost of experiences which lead to the learning and maturity that we try to instil into our offspring.

The extent to which we do this will depend on the individual adult. I repeat - in my case I will err on the side of prudence rather than chance the tragic results of an overly optimistic evaluation of the maturity level and ability of the child.

So all that being said: do you think arresting the mother and placing the child in the care of the state is a reasonable response to letting a kid play unsupervised in a public space?

[Argus]

My friends and I all played outdoors without parental supervision at age 9 (and younger, for that matter.) Public parks! Playgrounds! The city parks and rec swimming pool! Has the world changed that much in the past 20 years? Is Augusta that different from Edmonton and Victoria and Ottawa?

-k

Our popular culture has come to be ultra protectionist about children. This coincided with the rising awareness of child sexual abuse, which has been wildly exaggerated by the 24 hr news cycle so that parents all seem to think some drooling pervert is waiting on every street corner to scoop them up and drive them away to their torture chamber. In reality, kids are in no more danger now than they were twenty or thirty or forty years ago. Probably less given they now wear bicycle helmets on their trikes and bikes and skateboards and often have cell phones.

[Bryan]

Our popular culture has come to be ultra protectionist about children. This coincided with the rising awareness of child sexual abuse, which has been wildly exaggerated by the 24 hr news cycle so that parents all seem to think some drooling pervert is waiting on every street corner to scoop them up and drive them away to their torture chamber. In reality, kids are in no more danger now than they were twenty or thirty or forty years ago. Probably less given they now wear bicycle helmets on their trikes and bikes and skateboards and often have cell phones.

There was a recent episode of Freakonomics about this kind of thing. We tend to have irrational fears about things that are incredibly unlikely to happen (like stranger danger, or shark attacks), yet have equally irrational faith in very dangerous things like cars.

A public park with a bunch of witnesses is one of the safest places for a kid to be, they are far more likely to have something terrible done to them by someone we know who is taking care of them behind closed doors.

[Big Guy]

So all that being said: do you think arresting the mother and placing the child in the care of the state is a reasonable response to letting a kid play unsupervised in a public space?

To remove the mother from the child as a consequence of the mother believing that she was doing the right thing just does not make sense. The child is punished for the poor judgement (according to the local authorities) of the mother.

I do not know the exact details of the event, the history of this family (if there is one) or the conditions of arrest and subsequent sentencing. I do think that if the decision was made strictly on the information given in the article then justice was not served and the comfort of the child was not the priority.

I believe that the mother was in error, but an error NOT based on either criminal intent or a conscious attempt to harm the child in any way. The way to correct an error is not to punish but to inform.

It appears that there are some posters here who would have acted in the same manner.

So be it.

Edited July 17, 2014 by Big Guy

[WestCoastRunner]

There are so many issues with this story.

This woman is a single mother, who works for minimal wages and cannot obviously afford childcare which everyone seems to overlook.

What I do like about this post in the paper is that it draws attention to the sad state of single mothers obtaining affordable care for their children. Especially for children in the 9-12 years range.

I remember for a short period of time, I was a single parent and I had latch key kids. And they would have been around the same age as this young girl. I recall telling my kids, you cannot leave our apt, you cannot answer the door, you cannot answer the phone etc etc they were in a prison until I returned home from work.

I only hope that this story draws attention to underfunded child care not only in the U.S. but also in Canada.

[cybercoma]

She broke the law. Execute her.

[WestCoastRunner]

She broke the law. Execute her.

Let's throw her in prison, take her kid away, give her kid to someone else who can foster parent her. Her kid would be better off, wouldn't she? We did justice!

Edited July 17, 2014 by WestCoastRunner

[cybercoma]

Execute the kid too.

[Mighty AC]

This story is a great illustration of a problem made more common by the conservative race to the bottom. What happens when we depress wages, cut taxes and social programs?

[WestCoastRunner]

This story is a great illustration of a problem made more common by the conservative race to the bottom. What happens when we depress wages, cut taxes and social programs?

Let's not forget, this was a black woman. Had this been a white woman, forget it. It wouldn't have made the news.

[ReeferMadness]

As a parent, I'm just grateful I've never been forced to make the choices that this woman has had to face. I wouldn't necessarily choose to leave my 9 year old daughter in the park for hours but from the story, it seems she had no good options so I find it hard to find fault.

Criminal law is a blunt instrument and its application often leaves things worse rather than better.

[WestCoastRunner]

As a parent, I'm just grateful I've never been forced to make the choices that this woman has had to face. I wouldn't necessarily choose to leave my 9 year old daughter in the park for hours but from the story, it seems she had no good options so I find it hard to find fault.

Criminal law is a blunt instrument and its application often leaves things worse rather than better.

I agree that most parents would not leave their 9 year old alone in a park for hours without access to a home with parents/grandparents/other adults available. It is a sad state of affairs to judge this woman not understanding the circumstances.

[BC_chick]

So at 10 a switch goes off in a kid's head enabling good judgement? Huh.

Of course, there's nothing there to suggest that these guidelines are actually science-based and not simply products of the current culture of fear.

Being responsible is not the same thing as being omnipresent. Part of parenting is letting kids try things on their own and take risks.

What risks are we talking about?

We have a legal age for many things, driving, voting, drinking etc. - in none of those cases does a switch go off overnight on the kid's birthday but for simplifying the law, we do pick arbitrary numbers.

As for risks, it's not just the boogeman, crossing the street for example needs a more developed brain. I have friends who live in rural areas and their kids play outside at age 7 and I think it's perfectly ok but in a busy city, I don't know, I would probably supervise my kid too. Just common sense.

[Bryan]

This story is a great illustration of a problem made more common by the conservative race to the bottom.

It's exactly the opposite. It's an example of liberal nanny-statism where parents are told how they can and can't raise their kids.