Store Owner Responsibility For Unattended Children

[Big Guy]

So we have another question based on parenting responsibility vs the responsibility of a commercial establishment for children.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/lego-store-calls-security-on-unaccompanied-11-year-old-1.2351738

A parent drops off his 11 year old at a Lego store. The child tries to make a purchase, a security guard intervenes, the child admits to being 11 years old and the child is detained until the parent arrives.

An example of parental neglect?

An over reaction by the store?

The store following the law?

What are your views?

Edited April 30, 2015 by Big Guy

[Argus]

If the morons of the world have their way no child will ever be allowed out of its playpen before it turns eighteen.

Then of course, it will be ignored and unsupported so its first tentative mistakes crush its soul.

Call a lawyer, sue the mall, the store and its manager for illegally detaining your son.

[dre]

I started sending my kids into stores to buy things at about that age or even a bit younger. Wanted them to learn how stuff worked. They were also allowed to walk to the store a couple of blocks away to buy soda or candy once in a while.

Theres no broad law that defines when children can unattended, but the Canada Safety Council (CSC) recommends age 10 as a minimum.

Never mind buying lego... This child was less than a year away from being old enough to LEGALLY CARE FOR OTHER CHILDREN.

I dont know what the laws specific to this jurrisdiction are... But on the face of it, it looks to me like a crime was commited here, especially if the child did not consent and any type of force was used. You simply cannot detain or confine someone elses children for no reason!!! This security guard should immediately lose his job, and should prevented from working around children in the future. If any type of force was used he should be prosecuted criminally.

Edited April 30, 2015 by dre

[eyeball]

It's exactly the sort of thing we should expect in the fearfully conditioned state our society exists in.

Of course our media is also conditioned to give equal time to both sides of the issue which leads straight towards governments having to be seen doing something and ideologues lining up behind them.

Being a kid sure used to be a lot less complicated.

[Big Guy]

Ok I'll take the store's position. We have a policy of not allowing children under the age of 12 to be unattended in our store. If you do not agree, then shop elsewhere.

When a parent drops a child off unsupervised in our store, they are no longer responsible for them. Someone has to be. The courts say that if you know there is an underage child unaccompanied by an adult on your premises then you either accept responsibility or you detain that child until he/she goes into the proper care.

For those who think that 12 years old is an arbitrary figure, then what age would you suggest? Surely you would not encourage the parents of an 8 year old to go play in a store while they are busy elsewhere? Sure, drop the kids off at the Lego store and let them build a few things - they are certainly going to put everything back and cause no problems! Especially not my kids!!!

Oh, and as to the security guard, if he knew the child was under 12, ignored him and this kid was belted around by an older and bigger kid then that security guard would not only be fired but probably charged.

As to responsibility; A parent accompanies their child to the road where he/she is to be picked up by the school bus. They wait with their child until the bus comes and the child enters the bus. The bus driver now has the responsibility of that child. When the bus driver arrives at the destination school, he does not open the doors until a receiving teacher is standing there and the driver passes off his responsibility to the teacher, the school and the board of education. Coming home, the process is reversed.

Lord help the parent who shoos the child outside to go walk to the bus stop alone and then later gets a phone call asking the parent why the child is not in school that day.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Big Guy

[bush_cheney2004]

...Lord help the parent who shoos the child outside to go walk to the bus stop alone and then later gets a phone call asking the parent why the child is not in school that day.

Silly fear....we rode the buses and trollies "alone" starting at age six, and did so for many years without incident. Hell, by age nine we were getting paid to watch other scared parent's kids. Went shopping "alone" for "groceries" or nobody ate....even bought cigarettes with a note.

They were called "Bogeymen" for a reason.

[eyeball]

Ok I'll take the store's position. We have a policy of not allowing children under the age of 12 to be unattended in our store. If you do not agree, then shop elsewhere.

Don't forget to post this clearly so parents don't find out the hard way after already having let their kids shop there several times.

Thanks, goodbye and good luck with your business in the future.

[dre]

Ok I'll take the store's position. We have a policy of not allowing children under the age of 12 to be unattended in our store. If you do not agree, then shop elsewhere.

Thats absolutely your right, but its probably not too smart if your store sells freakin LEGO. LOL.

When a parent drops a child off unsupervised in our store, they are no longer responsible for them. Someone has to be. The courts say that if you know there is an underage child unaccompanied by an adult on your premises then you either accept responsibility or you detain that child until he/she goes into the proper care.

The courts say no such thing, and as I said there is not broad legal definition for what age a children can be unaccompanied by an adult. You have absolutely no right to detain a person in those circumstances against their will, and if you DO... Youre a criminal. THAT is what the courts say.

For those who think that 12 years old is an arbitrary figure, then what age would you suggest? Surely you would not encourage the parents of an 8 year old to go play in a store while they are busy elsewhere? Sure, drop the kids off at the Lego store and let them build a few things - they are certainly going to put everything back and cause no problems! Especially not my kids!!!

Its up to the discretion of the parents, and theres no legal definition. The Canada Safety Council recommends age 10 as a minimum, and that children younger than 12 shouldn't babysit younger children.

If the parent shows grossly poor judgement then they can be charged either with child endangerment or abandonment. For example... the lady that left her 6 year-old at the playground all day while she went to work. Its based on the actions of the parent not soo much the age of the child. The laws say that you cannot endanger your child but they do define a specific age where the child must be supervised by adults all day long.

As to responsibility; A parent accompanies their child to the road where he/she is to be picked up by the school bus. They wait with their child until the bus comes and the child enters the bus.

I walked to the bus stop from the time I was about 7. So did my kids, and most of the other kids in my neighborhood. Again it comes down to judgement not age. If the bus stop was 10 miles away through a busy high crime area of an inner city then the parent could be charged with endangerment.. whether the child was 8 or 12. If it was a block away in the subburbs then its completely fine.

.

Lord help the parent who shoos the child outside to go walk to the bus stop alone and then later gets a phone call asking the parent why the child is not in school that day

Lord help the Albanian sheppard thats allergic to wool! Shit happens. My school phones the parents of absent children in the morning. I get the calls sometimes when one of my kids stays home sick and I forget to call.

[cybercoma]

If the morons of the world have their way no child will ever be allowed out of its playpen before it turns eighteen.

At least you didn't have to babysit children in your office while the parents pissed off out of sight. You leave your child alone in a public place like that without supervision, then they are considered abandoned. Store employees are not daycare workers and have no obligation to look after your children.

[Big Guy]

As to maintaining a store policy of not allowing children under the age of 12 to roam unsupervised in a store, I doubt that it would deter people from shopping there. I would enjoy not having to avoid children with their hands into bins and stuffing their faces. My grandchildren enjoy Legos and when I take then into the store to purchase something, I supervise them.

As to others who use anecdotes of their youth as examples, please consider that you have lived long enough to make those statements. The ones no longer around cannot give out advice.

As I have mentioned in similar threads, I am posting my opinion. I do not expect anyone to change their parenting approach based on my views. If you continue in your own way, accepting that the odds are very much in your favor, then things will progress. If not, then you will live with your decisions.

As to dangers to children and the large odds against things happening to them when unsupervised, talk to a pediatrician or a specialist in childhood trauma.

[eyeball]

I think it's more dangerous if everyone is forced to grow up as if there is danger at every turn and with the Big Brother/Nanny State hanging over it all just in case.

The few we lose along the way are worth the price to avoid that.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The few we lose along the way are worth the price to avoid that.

Nowadays, we lose a lot more kids to the abortionists than any child molesters or murderers. Just 'sayin....

[cybercoma]

I think it's more dangerous if everyone is forced to grow up as if there is danger at every turn and with the Big Brother/Nanny State hanging over it all just in case.

The few we lose along the way are worth the price to avoid that.

It's less about dangerous predators and more about the liability of a store having to deal with unsupervised children running amok. There are some mature and well-behaved children that could do so just fine, but the problem are the little hellions of parents with absolutely zero parenting skills. Edited May 1, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Nowadays, we lose a lot more kids to the abortionists than any child molesters or murderers. Just 'sayin....

You know the difference between a kid and a foetus, right? We lose a lot of half children to menstrual cycles and masturbationists too. Edited May 1, 2015 by cybercoma

[eyeball]

It's less about dangerous predators and more about the liability of a store having to deal with unsupervised children running amok. There are some mature and well-behaved children that could do so just fine, but the problem are the little hellions of parents with absolutely zero parenting skills.

Then stores should put up a bigger sign so there's no ambiguity about their policies. There's no reason to bring in new legislation that sweeps up everyone.

I've been dealing with kids of all ages at work for fifteen years now. The truly small number of incorrigible little shits that seem to forever galvanize demands for more supervision and greater constraints against all kids don't warrant the over-reaction IMHO.

Cater to it and we'll likelier just end up with lax parents who expect some deckhand or attendant will crack the whip while they're off browsing or paying attention to something else.

Edited May 1, 2015 by eyeball

[cybercoma]

In practical terms, children are not legally liable if they're under 12. It's not unreasonable to insist that they're accompanied by someone who takes legal responsibility for their actions.

[Big Guy]

To eyeball - Your rather chilling response; "The few we lose along the way are worth the price to avoid that." is obviously an observation of one who has not lost one of "those few".

Again, I suggest that you ask a pediatrician, or a pediatric nurse or doctors or nurses who deal with children injuries and ask them how many parents will, while sobbing cry: "I thought I didn't have to ..." or "What are the chances that would happen ..." or I only stepped out for ..." or "But there were a lot of other kids around and ...".

I guess some parents also feel that the freedom a child should have in a car precludes having to strap them into a special seat. After all, what are the chances that a good driver like you is going to get into an accident?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Big Guy

[jacee]

To eyeball - Your rather chilling response; "The few we lose along the way are worth the price to avoid that." is obviously an observation of one who has not lost one of "those few".

Again, I suggest that you ask a pediatrician, or a pediatric nurse or doctors or nurses who deal with children injuries and ask them how many parents will, while sobbing cry: "I thought I didn't have to ..." or "What are the chances that would happen ..." or I only stepped out for ..." or "But there were a lot of other kids around and ...".

I guess some parents also feel that the freedom a child should have in a car precludes having to strap them into a special seat. After all, what are the chances that a good driver like you is going to get into an accident?

Accidents do happen. The blame parents game is inappropriate except in clear cases of negligence or abuse.

There are a lot of pasty fat kids confined to the TV because parents are OCD afraid of something happening to them if they go outside and play ... parents so afraid of being judged negligent that they confine their kids.

And then we wonder why 'kids these days' may lack motivation,independent thinking, creative thinking, etc.

Having said that ... stores do sometimes have policies on #students allowed at a time, and this store policy seems reasonable too: Some parents would inappropriately drop their kids at the Lego store unaccompanied to 'keep them busy' for a while.

But the policy should be posted clearly.

.

Edited May 1, 2015 by jacee

[guyser]

In practical terms, children are not legally liable if they're under 12.

That is incorrect I believe. A child under age 7 is supposedly free from liability but over that age a tort action on a child is measured by the maturity of the child . If he has it , a judglement can be rendered.

Each one is its own measure.

It's not unreasonable to insist that they're accompanied by someone who takes legal responsibility for their actions.

At all times until 18 they parents are responsible, or at least legally liable.

[eyeball]

To eyeball - Your rather chilling response; "The few we lose along the way are worth the price to avoid that." is obviously an observation of one who has not lost one of "those few".

Again, I suggest that you ask a pediatrician, or a pediatric nurse or doctors or nurses who deal with children injuries and ask them how many parents will, while sobbing cry: "I thought I didn't have to ..." or "What are the chances that would happen ..." or I only stepped out for ..." or "But there were a lot of other kids around and ...".

I guess some parents also feel that the freedom a child should have in a car precludes having to strap them into a special seat. After all, what are the chances that a good driver like you is going to get into an accident?

Was my choice of words really that off-putting? I know a few kids who broke a few bones while growing up and I could have easily been injured or killed a few times too - I know more adults whose stupid choices have led to disaster.

If you've interpreted what I'm saying to mean I'd support reckless nonchalance like deliberately driving without belting kids in I'd suggest you're seized with a moral panic that's gone over the top - like the Lego mall-cop.

Edited May 1, 2015 by eyeball

[Argus]

Again, I suggest that you ask a pediatrician, or a pediatric nurse or doctors or nurses who deal with children injuries and ask them how many parents

will, while sobbing cry: "I thought I didn't have to ..." or "What are the chances that would happen ..." or I only stepped out for ..." or "But there

were a lot of other kids around and ...".

There was a cite posted on the first page. It talked about how we'd put billions and billions of dollars into very carefully ensuring every playground is perfectly safe for children. Trouble is it didn't work. Either they got bored and went to play somewhere else, or they got hurt anyway in a different way. Kids need to take risks. They need to explore, to try things. It's in our nature.

Children have to learn how to wander farther and farther afield, have to learn responsibility and cause and affect. If they don't learn it when young they'll wind up as hapless, helpless adults without any idea about how to take care of themselves.

[Big Guy]

I am reading from the responses that different posters have a different standard for "negligence". I would assume that would mean we also have a different level of parental "responsibility".

And eyeball; "... seized with a moral panic that's gone over the top". I do not believe that the matter at the centre of our disagreement is taboo - if that is the kind of moral panic to which you refer.

I am surprised that you would try to differ with my argument by implying that the person behind the Big Guy avatar is suffering from some kind of emotional or psychological defect because of his views. I thought you were above that kind of approach and that is why I responded to your post. I guess I should be more selective as with whom I try to share opinions.

[Big Guy]

To jacee - I do not believe that I am playing the "blame parents game". Very few "accidents" that hurt and kill children are not preventable - or most "accidents" that hurt and kill children ARE preventable. If they are preventable then they are not "accidents" but the result of some level of neglect by somebody. I leave to the criminal code to decide negligence of a parent and the appropriate penalty or punishment. I leave it to the parent to decide if their lack of supervision was the cause of the tragedy. They have to live with their decisions - I do not.

I will repeat - I am NOT a pediatrician nor a child injury specialist physician. My views and opinion are based on my interaction with those professionals in that field. If you feel I am mistaken or in a "moral panic" then either ignore my posts or refer to a specialist in those fields.

[cybercoma]

I think the clash of viewpoints here is that some people think the kid was detained because it's not safe for the child, but I don't think that's what this is about at all. I think it's about store liability. It's about the company not wanting its employees to be responsible for children left unattended. It's about the store protecting itself, not the child.

[GostHacked]

Ok I'll take the store's position. We have a policy of not allowing children under the age of 12 to be unattended in our store. If you do not agree, then shop elsewhere.

I guess one could make it a store policy to not have to serve gays. Yes this is facetious at best.

I've made countless purchases as a kid, all the clerk was concerned with, 'do you have enough money?'

Edited May 2, 2015 by GostHacked