Leaving kids alone

ora_43

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 10:43 am

amother wrote:

Very funny. I also don't let my kids drive. Am I disrespecting their independence?

No, because not all activities are equally appropriate for all ages.

And also, I didn't say anything about parents disrespecting kids' independence. It's only an unhealthy lack of independence if the child is suffering unnecessarily (eg a child whose social life is seriously restricted because their parents can't bring them to friends' houses and won't let them go alone), or isn't on track to be prepared for adulthood (eg a 14-year-old who's never so much as gone outside alone).

Nobody is saying you have to leave your kids at home.

sweetpotato

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 10:50 am

amother wrote:

Very funny. I also don't let my kids drive. Am I disrespecting their independence?

I have no problem with the idea of leaving an 8 year old who is appropriately mature home alone (or letting them play outside without constant supervision, walk around the neighborhood, etc.) but I think 16 and even 18 is too young to drive and hope to not have my kids driving unsupervised at that age. Car crashes are actually the leading cause of death for teens in the U.S., so there is a real (not imagined/assumed) risk.

Aylat

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 10:52 am

amother wrote:

How convenient for you that your parenting philosophy allows your older children to take care of your younger ones much of the time.

Did this list of scenarios give you the impression that I am an absentee mother whose younger children are parented by the poor overburdened older ones? Because that is definitely not what happens in my family.

Sure, it's convenient to be able to run out to the shop across the road for 5 minutes while 11 yo is in charge of the younger ones. You bet my kids appreciate that too.

But I don't do things I regard as unsafe because they are convenient. Case in point: we are family of 7 with a 5 seater car. I would never put more people in the car than seats with belts. When we go away for shabbat or a simcha, DH drives with 4 kids while I and the remaining kid travel on public transport, a journey normally involving 3 or more stages and taking about double the time driving does. Convenient? No. But my parenting philosophy and understanding of car safety does not allow me to take the convenient option.

Aylat

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 10:59 am

sweetpotato wrote:

The law in Israel reflects your concern. Can't remember the exact details, but there are restrictions on teenagers driving alone and also with teenage friends in the car until a certain age or a certain amount of time after gaining their license.

ETA your point about real/imagined risk is the major issue in this whole discussion.

ceebee

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 1:06 pm

amother wrote:

Parents don't supervise kids for fun. They do it for safety. This world isn't one big happy gumball machine full of bouncing sweet happy pink gumballs. Do you ever read the news? We are supposed to trust in Hashem to keep His kinderlach safe while still doing our hishtadlus.

Why do you feel the need to criticize responsible parents to make yourself feel better about your choices? OK, I don't think that letting an 8 yr old play outside by himself is necessarily a bad thing, it depends on the circumstances, but you shouldn't feel the need to criticize moms who would choose a different parenting strategy.

That is a very common scare tactic used against free-range parenting. But it's simply false. The USA is safer than it has ever been. It's very safe to allow children to be independent and unsupervised more than ever before. As long as children are given the tools they need to understand their independence. I'm surprised you haven't read that in the news.

There are a million scenarios that can happen at any time. I teach my kids to be responsible and knowledgeable but addressing every single disaster that might happen will just cause needless worrying. Bad things happen when parents supervise too.

amother

Indigo

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 1:31 pm

ceebee wrote:

"The US is safer than it has ever been"-
Data please?

ora_43

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 1:40 pm

ceebee wrote:

See, I'm not against free range parenting, but I don't like this logic either.

There are valid factors in both directions. There's more than just mindless panic on the pro-caution side. Just like there's way more than just "meh, it's easier" on the more free-range side.

Whether it's safer now - violent crime is down, but there are other factors to consider. Like accidents, child predators (of the friendly neighbor variety, not the scary kidnapper variety), and just general bad kid behavior (eg am I sure my kid and his friends are playing nicely at the park, not throwing rocks at each other and endangering younger kids?).

Again. Not saying you or anyone else is making a bad decision. Just that it's a genuinely complicated issue.

ceebee

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 2:27 pm

ora_43 wrote:

Most abductions and certain crimes against children occur with a parent or someone they know. There is a big misconception that children are always safe from crime and accidents when they're being supervised. Anecdothally, the time my son needed stitches from an accident happened when I was right next to him, watching him.

Ideally, a free range child learns to be self reliant and responsible enough so if they encounter a bad situation, they know what to do. (Screaming, running to another adult for help, etc)
One of the hallmarks of the free range lifestyle is to stop the prevalent worst-case scenario thinking. Even though crime is down, we still view crime as very real and all around us. Our brains jump to horrible scenarios waiting to jump out on our children. In reality, this is not the case. But if we don't teach our kids what to do then they are not ready to be unsupervised. Although I love Leonor and most of what she says resonates with me, I don't think it's a one size fits all. Certain kids may need more supervision than others.

amother

Indigo

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 2:36 pm

ceebee wrote:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/theres-never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/

This article quotes several sources of data showing reduction in all kind of crimes.

And you don't think that perhaps the drop in child mortality rates/ child abductions/ children hit by a car/ etc, as shown on the graphs could be attributed to greater precautions taken by parents with regards to child safety?

Seems like an obvious conclusion to draw, from where I stand. If anything, an even greater reason to lose faith in the free-range parenting philosophy of previous decades.

amother

Seagreen

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 2:59 pm

This thread has really been eye opening to me.

When I was 10, I was babysitting my 5-6 younger siblings right when I came home from school until my mother came home two hours later. I also babysat for every wedding they went to, long hours at night.

It's great to see how many people here let their children be children...

ceebee

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 3:01 pm

amother wrote:

Not at all. It would seem obvious, but that's not the case. In regards to child murder and abduction, majority of perpetrators are the parents themselves. Very rare for a child to be murdered or abducted by a stranger.
In regards to infant and child mortality and auto accidents, we are doing better in these areas thanks to better health/nutrition and safety measures including seat belts, airbags etc.

This article gives some reasons explaining the decline in auto deaths: http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo.....age=1

Interesting fact about auto accidents though: they are the leading cause of death of children. And those children who are killed were being driven by an adult, most likely a parent.
Parental supervision doesnt mean safer. It's a big misconception, as I wrote in a previous post.

amother

Indigo

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 3:07 pm

ceebee wrote:

Regarding the decline in tragedies related to children- can you prove that it's not the case? Or is that just your best guess? Cuz I think that it is the case.

Regarding the idea that perps are often the parents themselves- so why trust parents with their own children altogether? Do you believe that parents have a place in their children's lives at all? If so, you're agreeing to put children at risk. Right?

Your thought process is flawed.

ceebee

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 3:25 pm

I'm answering your question on what's driving down the lower crime rates. You stated it's due to parental precaution and that's why we need more parental supervision.

I'm stating otherwise. There's lots of theories attributed to the lower crime rates, but your theory isn't in the running.
Income growth, higher employment rates, lower exposure to lead are some theories why crime is on the decline.

As far as your comment that I'm guessing why there's lower child mortality rates, I gleaned all that data from their sources. I didn't guess anything.

And your comment about parents being the perps of most child murders and abductions, I'm stating a fact. Don't shoot the messenger. Of course parents should be trusted and have a place in their children's life. You're going off tangent. The comment was in response to the worrying that helicopter parents have that if they leave their children unsupervised, they'll fall victim to a violent crime.

ora_43

Sun, Feb 26 2017, 4:01 pm

amother wrote:

I think that's a different issue... Please don't think that everyone saying kids can be left alone is saying kids are good to start being mini-parents from age 10!

I would let my 10-year-old go to the library alone (a couple blocks away), take the bus alone, or go out to the store with a friend. I would not ask her to babysit her younger siblings. Because she doesn't want to.

To me that's a huge factor in the whole question of how much freedom to give kids and when - what does the child want? I try to give my kids more freedom to do things alone because they want to.