This will likely be my last article so as not to spam the current events bored. I have been procrastinating though and finding some interesting articles as a result.
The site seems legit enough.
http://chartiersvalley.patch.com/articles/police-say-dad-left-kids-at-park-while-he-shopped-showered?ncid=newsltuspatc00000001
QuoteGovindaraj Narayanasamy, 38, of Scott, was charged with two counts of child endangerment after township police said he left the 6-year-old girl and 9-year-old boy alone in the park for nearly two hours Saturday.
How dare he let his children play alone in a park. The woman who reported this needs to start minding her own fucking business.
New articles are not Spam! Keep up the good work. If you're going OTT I'll drop you a polite PM :)
Quote from: Tank on April 19, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
New articles are not Spam! Keep up the good work. If you're going OTT I'll drop you a polite PM :)
Ok thanks, I figured a bunch of consecutive threads could get annoying to some.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 19, 2012, 07:32:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 19, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
New articles are not Spam! Keep up the good work. If you're going OTT I'll drop you a polite PM :)
Ok thanks, I figured a bunch of consecutive threads could get annoying to some.
Not I. And I've never seen a complaint on any forum complaining about too many legitimate new threads. That's just an observation NOT a challenge! :D
Quote from: Tank on April 19, 2012, 07:35:33 PM
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on April 19, 2012, 07:32:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 19, 2012, 07:27:58 PM
New articles are not Spam! Keep up the good work. If you're going OTT I'll drop you a polite PM :)
Ok thanks, I figured a bunch of consecutive threads could get annoying to some.
Not I. And I've never seen a complaint on any forum complaining about too many legitimate new threads. That's just an observation NOT a challenge! :D
I was about to go into manic mode to test it before that last sentence. :)
I agree that it is a bit much. I was definitely "free range" by the time I was 9. My younger sister and I used to run around in the woods and play spotlight for hours. It was great.
"Atheist mom" (a blogger) wrote a pretty good blog entry on this issue a few weeks ago.
http://atheistmom.com/2012/03/29/free-range-parenting/ (http://atheistmom.com/2012/03/29/free-range-parenting/)
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on April 19, 2012, 08:35:27 PM
I agree that it is a bit much. I was definitely "free range" by the time I was 9. My younger sister and I used to run around in the woods and play spotlight for hours. It was great.
"Atheist mom" (a blogger) wrote a pretty good blog entry on this issue a few weeks ago.
http://atheistmom.com/2012/03/29/free-range-parenting/ (http://atheistmom.com/2012/03/29/free-range-parenting/)
That was a really interesting blog post. I have to agree with the author. Also don't blame your parents. My mom was terrible as well, seeing as she let me ride my bike around my neighborhood with my friends unsupervised. Sometimes we were so irresponsible we rode our bikes out of the neighborhood and to the lake. Oh my. ;)
For crying out loud. I and the kids from my neighborhood never played under "elder supervision", as it were. And now that cell phones are part of every adults and kids everyday lives and essential kit, my youngest brother has roamed around rather freely since being 6 or 7. Give your kids some credit and trust.... :-\
So far, I appear to be the only one here who'd never let their 6 or 9 year old play alone in a park for two hours. I think he was a father who made an unwise choice. I don't think he should have been arrested for it, though. All parents make mistakes when they do something silly but certainly never intend to harm their children. If the park were relatively close to my home, I'd allow a 9 year old to play there, but I'd certainly be checking on them. I wouldn't allow a 6 year old (only 2 years older than my daughter, ack!) to play alone. I'd be worried sick every moment for her safety.
Maybe my perspective is based on my location. The area I live in is *relatively* safe, but it's a city and the local parks here aren't places I'd allow my child to be unsupervised in. It's not an issue of trusting the child. It's more that in certain areas, there are some, uh, 'unsavory' people who you don't trust and who could easily approach your child.
Quote from: Amicale on April 20, 2012, 03:35:03 AM
So far, I appear to be the only one here who'd never let their 6 or 9 year old play alone in a park for two hours. I think he was a father who made an unwise choice. I don't think he should have been arrested for it, though. All parents make mistakes when they do something silly but certainly never intend to harm their children. If the park were relatively close to my home, I'd allow a 9 year old to play there, but I'd certainly be checking on them. I wouldn't allow a 6 year old (only 2 years older than my daughter, ack!) to play alone. I'd be worried sick every moment for her safety.
Maybe my perspective is based on my location. The area I live in is *relatively* safe, but it's a city and the local parks here aren't places I'd allow my child to be unsupervised in. It's not an issue of trusting the child. It's more that in certain areas, there are some, uh, 'unsavory' people who you don't trust and who could easily approach your child.
I don't think your personal comfort zone on this is unreasonable. Personally, I have no idea how I'll feel once our wee guy gets a bit older (he's not yet two. So I don't leave him unsupervised pretty much anywhere). I think it depends a lot on the kid/area/how well you know the neighbours, etc.
But, unlike you, I think there are a lot of HYSTERICAL parents out there. I'd argue that, for me, it's not even so much about whether my son is unsupervised or not. It's more about whether I want to make him afraid of everything and everyone. I think some parents really push their adult worries, concerns and fears on their children and I find that kind of bothersome.
Steven Pinker addresses this issue in The Better Angels of Our Nature. I plead guilty to being one of the "helicopter parents" that Pinker refers to. I'm trying to get better.
Pinker at one point says something like - if you actually want your kid to be abducted by a stranger, statistically you'd have to leave him outside unattended for 750,000 years.
Ironically, I think it's the rarity of this sort of stranger violence against children that makes it so horrendous. It's a little bit like the fear of shark attack. The rarer it is, somehow the more horrible it would be if it actually happened. Not only is your child gone, but you've just become the world's worst parent.
By the way, Better Angels is a life-changing book. Read it, or do like I did and download the audiobook.
Unless the park was in a neighborhood within eyesight of friendly houses (as in neighbors who know them) then I wouldn't let a 6 and 9 year old play alone for any amount of time. Arresting the father is, of course, a bit much as I think only real criminals who intend to cause harm should be arrested. We were allowed to run around our neighborhood not directly supervised when we were kids but we were always within earshot of some parent even if it wasn't our own so if our parents wondered about us they just called over to the house we said we'd be near. This was well before kids had cell phones; back in the days before or just after the bag cell phones, but the safety concern is real eyes of safe people being on the kids not just being able to call. I know how most 6 and 9 year olds act these days...the 6 year old is too young to be left alone and the 9 year old isn't mature enough to keep careful watch or offer protection apart from running if something happens.
Did something happen to the kids?
Because from what I understand, the chances of some asshole doing something to them are like..? One in a whole lot, no?
Let the kids explore their world, I say. They wil burn themselves from time to time, and after the fact, they'll probably appreciate parents being there for them.
My point is: the world is not as full of creeps, weirdos and reckless drivers as many parents seem to think. Being protective is all good and well, but being overprotetive..? Well, in my experience, people who had such parents grew up to be the most insecure, high-maintenance adults I know. (Limited sample of five and two suspected. Rate of 100%)
Just to be clear - I don't want to be so over-protective that I make my daughter scared of the world, or suspicious of everyone she meets. That's never my intention, and never will be. I just prefer balance, is all. If she goes to the park, especially when she's as young as she is, I go with her and she has the absolute freedom to run around and climb all over everything and have fun. I'd just prefer being there. Same when we're out in public. I'm already teaching her to be very careful who she talks to or goes with, because she's an overly friendly kid who'd unfortunately probably happily toddle off with someone if they said they had puppies to show her. Sigh. She doesn't understand at ALL the concept of being careful, or prudent in who she speaks to. And at the age of 4, she's certainly not capable of supervising herself. By the time she's 9 or 10.... sure. But for now, while she is little, I'd sooner be cautious and be there for her and with her as often as I can be.
Personally i think this father is an idiot, but arresting him is definitely extreme.
I guess some people feel "oh, my neighborhood is safe. This would never happen to me."
I would never let kids that young be alone in a public place for so long. I mean, what the crap was he doing for 2 hours!!?
When I was 9 I was roaming pretty much on my own. However I grew up on Air Force Bases a very unhealthy environment for any child molester. This being said while it might be appropriate to give a 9 year old some freedom 6 years old is far to young. Arresting the father might be a bit much, but in the current child protection climate it is to be expected.
Well, leaving your kids alone while you do errands for two hours is pretty frowned upon. Parents are suppose to be responsible til the kid is at least 16. :(
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 30, 2012, 03:48:54 PM
Well, leaving your kids alone while you do errands for two hours is pretty frowned upon. Parents are suppose to be responsible til the kid is at least 16. :(
Sorry SD, but this made me giggle. I was babysitting
other people's kids by the time I was 12. The idea that kids must be under constant parental supervision (even for a couple of hours while you run errands) until they are at least 16 seems pretty extreme to me.
I'm definitely more of a free range parent. I agree with Asmo's assessment. I also read Lenore Skenazy's book, and the statistics on kids getting abducted by strangers are like one in a gazillion. (to put it in perspective, they are more likely to be hit by lightening.) It's the people you actually know that you have to worry more about taking your kids *eyes all of you suspiciously*
Kids are way smarter and more capable than we give them credit for. My POV is that I need to prepare my little guy for the world, not protect him from it. To that end, I take him on walks, and at every single intersection I stop and make him recite back to me what we do when we cross the street (we look both ways) and then we do it together, and then we cross. I have made him memorize my cell phone number by making it into a little song, and we've talked repeatedly about how if he were to ever get separated from me, he is to find another Mommy and ask her to call me (but he is NOT to go anywhere with her.) My parents live 9 doors down from us (and on the same side of the street, so no need to cross the road) in a very safe neighborhood with almost no traffic, and every time we walk there, I make him tell me which way to go and which house they are in to make sure he knows the way. I'm thinking this summer I may let him walk by himself (although I may have to sneak along behind him the first time or two - I'm not *that* cavalier about it, but at the same time I do want him to start flexing his independent muscles in small safe ways.
The world really isn't as scary as we adults make it out to be. I value independence, curiosity, and self sufficiency, so I recognize as a parent that I have to give my guy the tools to be safe, and then let him practice these things in safe and age appropriate ways.
Ali, awesome post. Your kiddo's lucky to have you for a mom. :)
In all reality, when it comes right down to it, I'd be more concerned with my daughter going off somewhere to play, and then tripping, falling, and knocking her front teeth out... which could happen... because she's my daughter, and we're both klutzes. :D
I know that right now in my hometown area, 'stranger danger' is on everyone's mind because a murder trial just wrapped up where a little girl was abducted by a man and woman, abused and killed - and she was taken right after school. Scary stuff for any parent to hear about for sure... and we all hope like hell no matter how well we prepare our kids for 'the real world', that it never happens to them. But like you said Ali, it's about the chance of getting hit by lightning - a crazy, horrible, nightmare of a one-off event that isn't likely to happen.
Like you, I do the best I can with my kiddo. Like you, I have family members living on the same street. And there are plenty of very nice folks living around me who I know would take my daughter in and help her without question if she were lost or needed help, and I wasn't there. I know that it's the people you DO know who are most likely to harm a child, but overall, I do believe that the vast majority of people are decent folks who would do just about anything to keep a child safe. Anyone here can call me naive, but I don't see danger lurking behind every tree. I still wouldn't let my daughter go alone to the park at her age, but I'm still reasonable, I think.
I wouldn't call either of you two naive. The news likes to focus on the most horrible crimes imaginable. Hell, within three days, nearly everyone seems to know about the asshole who was eating the face off his living victim. Yet, I still run into people in the U.S. who don't know about the major Supreme Court decision sometime in June. People like sensationalism. Telling people their children are statistically safe doesn't sell advertising space in papers or tv. ;) We all need to fear our children being abducted or having our faces half eaten.
Amicale - I hope you didn't think that I was calling you out because you said you wouldn't let your daughter go to the park by herself at her age! For the record, I wouldn't let T go to the park by himself at this age (4, same as your girl) either! I honestly don't know about 6, I have to see what six looks like (for T) before I make that call. :) All I'm trying to say is that it seems like a lot of parents (not you specifically ;)) have a lot of angst about their kids' safety that I don't see as entirely warranted or even normative for our culture, as proved by the fact that the vast majority of us had a lot more freedom growing up and most of us survived. My brother and I pretty much ran wild through the woods and neighborhoods of our childhood, as was very normal in the time and place we grew up. I can guarantee that at 9 I would have been allowed to hang out in a park with my 5 year old brother for two hours by ourselves as long as my mom knew that we were there, and no one would have called the cops. I don't know how kids who ran amok during their own childhoods grew up to be such scaredy-cat parents. We think the world is "different" now than when we were kids, and in a way, we're right. The stats show that it's actually safer.
Oh, heck no, Ali :) I didn't think you were commenting on me. I just kinda used your post as a launch point and went from there. :D Sorry for the confusion!
And I really like the points you've made. :)
Oh good, I was worried for a second! :D