It Does Not Take A Village To Raise Your Child

1. 81

   GA Andersonposted 5 weeks ago

   This did not bring a 'morning chuckle.' It brought a spark of anger.
   
   Why Letting Your Kid Walk Home Alone Could Land You in Jail
   
   
   This is a 2022 story, here's the search page: "mother arrested for letting son walk 1/2 mile home"
   
   A sample headline:
   Texas mother lost her home and job and was threatened with jail after asking eight-year-old son to walk home alone
   
   "Freerange Kids" should not be something parents have to fight for:
   "Fighting the belief that our children are in constant danger from creeps, kidnapping, germs, grades, flashers, frustration, failure, baby snatchers, bugs, bullies, men, sleepovers and/or the perils of a non-organic grape."
   Freerangekids.com
   
   . . .  and then there is the politics of it. This situation (a need for a Freerange kids movement) is not a result of Conservative policies.
   
   Ga

   replyreport
   1. 87

      Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Thank you for posting this.
      
      Start off by really frightening them—maybe have a cop put the kid in the back of the car and then scold their parent right there on the spot. Nice job. It’s a clear message: do what’s expected, or face legal consequences. Honestly, I didn’t find this funny at all. In fact, it seemed typical of our society, and it’s no surprise that some would actually find humor in it. It’s easier to laugh at situations like this than to confront just how messed up things have gotten.
      
      This mom lost her job! I guess that’s a warning to anyone who hopes to raise their kids without fear of walking in their own neighborhoods. I can see this kind of mindset taking hold—there’s a lot to be said for going overboard. Deciding if your child is old enough and responsible enough to walk home should come down to individuality. Sure, some 8-year-olds might not be ready, but many definitely are.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Its a sign of over-reach... either side can be guilty of it.
         
         Whatever allows for such to pass as a crime in that community is clearly in the wrong... regardless... as you say, a stern warning is all that is required.

         replyreport
         1. 87

            Sharlee01posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            There shouldn’t have to be a debate about free-range kids; the real conversation should center on the urgent need to address the fear that keeps our children from walking home from school in their own neighborhoods. Adult police officers are fearful enough to feel a parents can't decide their child's safety. Yes, we know not all parents are responsible. But, I would guess we might need to look at the circumstances, before arresting a parent. Pure government overreach.  Like we need more! Instead of trying to fix the problems smack the big long arm of government on the problem.
            
            We need to reflect on how we arrived at this point. There are countless neighborhoods where it’s simply not safe for children to wander, and let’s be honest—many cities have become places where adults also can’t walk freely, having to dodge garbage, crap, needles, and yes, unstable individuals.
            
            Should it not be crucial that we examine the reasons behind this situation and acknowledge that, in many areas, the reality is that kids can be raised in a free-range environment, and some can't?   Until we confront these underlying issues and work toward safer communities, the fear will persist, and children will continue to miss out on the independence they deserve. The independence many of us have enjoyed.
            
            At any rate good topic.

            replyreport
   2. 86

      tsmogposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Gasp . . . signed off as Ga and not GA. I'm lost! I have the perspective this post is a deep fake. Just kidding about.
      
      I got stuck that you in essence were pissed off, though no hint to what or why leaving me to infer. However, that may be tainted by my own prejudices with what pisses me off. It comes down to I am pissed off that the fear of a child abduction, today, is not speculative. That pisses me off, 'first'. Perhaps, it is a matter of cause and effect at hand. Then, following closely are the cumulative effects such as what you brought to light peeves me.
      
      Otherwise, my comment it is sad!!

      replyreport
      1. 81

         GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         My 'spark of anger' was at our reaching a point where we allow 'government' to meddle in this part of our lives. The political statement was to ideologies, not parties (as has been noted—both sides do it)
         
         The policymakers/politicians might have created the environment for this, but we put them there.
         
         Your thought about child abductions is a frequently seen justification for actions seen in the OP. The 'these days and times' justification.
         
         I have the perception that 'these days and times' aren't more dangerous than past days and times. It's not from deep research, it's just a perception. I think crimes like this are just more instantly known — worldwide — than in times past. Very generally speaking, child abductions are down by almost half in the last 50 years (40% according to The Washington Post). It is less speculative now than it ever was.
         
         If that is correct, look what it says about all the voices saying they did it when they were a kid, but not now, not in these days and times.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 86

            tsmogposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the info. It is still sad.

            replyreport
         2. 68

            Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Remember way back... in the 80s perhaps, 90s for sure, when there was all this 'criminals are the victims' BS...
            
            The effort to blame society for creating the robbers and rapists...
            
            We also got rid of insane asylums and started prescribing medications and giving protections to those that couldn't function in normal society in a normal way.
            
            Its been a long road to get here... ... but this is the tipping point, all this crap gets flushed out of the system and normalcy and law and order is restored... or we, the nation, the West, get taken on a ride very similar to what Germany went on in the 30s and 40s.
            
            The rest of the world is standing up to us, marshaling behind Russia and China... if we do not install new leadership that finds a way to coexist, if we keep pushing these wars into Russia, into Iran... civilization is doomed.
            
            On a lighter note... play from the timestamp... you may enjoy it:
            https://youtu.be/ZgHR4ug866Q?t=917

            replyreport
            1. 81

               GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               I would say 'victimhood' started in the 90s, probably as a response to the 'me' 80s.
               
               To your link, nah.
               
               GA

               replyreport
2. 68

   Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks ago

   We'll be getting a lot more of that...
   Neighbors reporting on their neighbors...
   All it will take is a Harris "win" come November... or December... or however long it takes for them to get the results they want... another violation of the Constitution... this time with no pandemic to blame it on.

   replyreport
   1. 75

      Valeantposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Lol...just had to insert the usual political fearmongering into a non-partisan story.  Which political party runs Texas?

      replyreport
3. 91

   Nathanvilleposted 5 weeks ago

   An interesting issue:  In the UK there is no law that specifies an age at which children can walk home from school alone. However, it is illegal to leave a child alone if it puts them at risk. Parents are responsible for ensuring their children get to school and attend regularly – Full details in the link below:-
   
   https://roostermoney.com/a-parents-guid … ool-alone/
   
   I find this point interesting in that there are a ‘few’ Americans on this forum who are quick to criticize UK laws for infringing on personal freedom of choice; and here we are, a situation where the tables are turned.
   
   When I was at school I started walking home from school alone from the age of 8; and we let our son walk home from school from the age of 11 – and as will see from the above link, in the UK the average age for parents letting their children walk home from school is 10.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      That initial "spark of anger" has had time to mellow. I think the closing political aspect is accurate, but it was unnecessary and pointed a finger too early.
      
      The point was about the state of a society when a specific law isn't needed, the generality of the applicable laws allowed a law enforcement officer to charge for a potential crime—not a real one (specifically in this case).
      
      Relative to British comparisons, our past "coconuts" thread is a similar example. So maybe it's a policy problem, ie. Progressive vs. Conservative, rather than British vs. American?
      
      My American perspective asks why the 'authorities' think they have any business meddling in parenting. Why is there an argument about Freerange Kids? It's nuts.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         This has long been a thorn to me; if the police want you they will find you and charge you.  With something, for there are enough laws on the books that none of us can live a truly legal life.  There is always some tiny thing we're doing wrong, whether it's speeding 3 MPH or spitting on the sidewalk.  Maybe looking in the window of the house we're walking by.
         
         And that's wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            You're preaching to the choir. here. But . . . this one is worse. Your examples all included specific laws (such as speeding), this one only needed the generality of 'Child protection," not a specific law.
            
            This one isn't about following the law but about not doing it the way someone thinks' it should be done. And the consequences (as in this particular example, but it's not an atypical one) were life-changing for this family. And that's more wrong.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 89

               wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               I fully agree; many of our "laws" are being used to force a lifestyle acceptable to the state (or individual cop) and are not within the intent of the law. 
               
               In the case you give, the "law" so egregiously violated could be the "child protection" you mention, it could be "child endangerment" or even "child abuse".  All are sufficiently vague that they make fine targets when looking for an abuse of the law or a control issue that the law was never intended to cover.

               replyreport
      2. 91

         Nathanvilleposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Well, I’ve learnt something new from our discussion; namely the phrase “Freerange Kids” – I looked it up on Google and got this answer: 
         
         “Free-range kids are children who are raised with a parenting style that allows them to explore the world and function independently with limited adult supervision. The goal of free-range parenting is to give children a sense of freedom so they can learn and grow.”
         
         Is there a real “argument about Freerange Kids” in American society, or is it all just blown out of proportion – And why is it political in America?
         
         In Britain, of course society, the authorities and the government cares about the safety of children; but it’s not made into a political issue – and provided parents are responsible, and parents don’t leave a child alone if it puts them at risk, to a large extent the concept of Freerange Kids is encouraged and supported in the UK.
         
         Obviously there are caveats, for example although there is no legal age in the UK for leaving a child home alone, it is however illegal to leave a child alone if it puts them at risk. Parents should use their judgment to decide when their child is mature enough to be left alone.   The NSPCC recommends that children under 12 should not be left alone, especially for long periods of time. They also advise that children under 16 should not be left alone overnight.
         
         Although there are few laws in this area, there are some restrictions in the UK, mainly on parents, which includes for example where parents can be fined by the school if they take their child out of school during term time to take them on a week’s holiday (vacation).
         
         Also, across the whole of the UK corporal punishment in schools is illegal, and in Scotland and Wales all forms of corporal punishment, including smacking, at home is illegal – and corporal punishment is also limited in the home in England and Northern Ireland e.g. restricted to just smacking where this amounts to 'reasonable punishment' only, and provided it leaves no marks on the child.
         
         On the flip side:-
         
         •    In England, under British law, children can legally drink alcohol at home from the age of 5, and
         
         •    From the age of 11 children can vote for their fellow peers (aged 11 to 18) to represent them in the UK Youth Parliament, which meets once a year in the House of Commons to debate and vote on policy issues to campaign for over the next year.
         
         UK Youth Parliament debate lead - Protect the Environment - Connor Clarke MYP https://youtu.be/EnkBlhQB9Sc

         replyreport
         1. 81

            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Whether 'Freerange kids' is a big deal depends on where one stands. I think it's a big deal. With incidents from parents at council meetings to the busybody of the OP, it is a more frequent news item now—which means it is also more of a political issue.
            
            I grew up free range and I think it's better for children. Here's one perspective that agrees with mine: 12 Years After Free-Range Kids, How Has Childhood Changed? - Reason.com
            
            I say the increasing government involvement in parenting has increased its visibility.
            
            I also say the government does have a place in cases of abuse; like beatings or strappings, but that is where the line should be drawn. We are at a point where kids threaten parents with Social Services calls over a face or butt smack. That ain't right.
            
            What also 'ain't right' is the authorities' actions in the OP's example. The officer's 'call' resulted in an innocent family's life getting turned upside down. Lost jobs, unaffordable legal fees and economically-forced false confessions — all in the guise of government protection.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 91

               Nathanvilleposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               “Whether 'Freerange kids' is a big deal” not only “depends on where one stands.” But also depends on where one lives e.g. it’s not a big deal in the UK.  In fact, it’s quite the reverse in that the ‘Authorities’ are occasionally accused of not seeing ‘red flags’ and not acting quickly enough when things go wrong and a child dies due to parental negligence or abuse.  In contrast to what you report for the USA, in the UK it’s NOT “a more frequent news item”, and is definitely NOT “a political issue.”
               
               I also grew up as a ‘free range’ kid, as did my brother, mother, her father, his mother, and her father before (going back to at least my great-great grandfather born 1829 – all well documented in family diaries and family history passed down through the generations.
               
               Again, unlike the USA, in the UK there hasn’t been an “increasing government involvement in parenting” and therefore no “increased its visibility”.  Albeit, there has been increase awareness of the dangers posed to children by strangers e.g. when I was a kid we thought nothing of thumbing a lift from stranger to get to town (from our local village), I quite frequently did it – but these days there is plenty of warnings of the dangers of strangers kidnapping kids out alone and unsupervised.
               
               We do have a slight difference of opinion in your penultimate paragraph; and that I am sure is due to having upbringing e.g. neither I, my mother, her father, his mother, and her father before (going back to at least my great-great grandfather born 1829, where ever smacked as children; and neither was my wife – so in turn we never smacked our son.  So my ‘red line’ a lot further towards tolerance (or whatever the appropriate word is) than yours!
               
               Yes, I totally agree with you in your last paragraph – There is no way the mother should have been treated in that way, and no way she should have lost her job.  In the UK, it tends to be a more softly, softly approach, and the police do not primarily get involved in such matters – such matter are primarily and predominantly investigated by Social Workers, and it’s the social worker’s job to report any serious issues to their employer e.g. local government, NHS etc. – and the police would only be called in where a major criminal offence has been committed e.g. manslaughter.  It’s the Social Workers who get it in the neck if they get it wrong e.g. by being over jealous (over reacting) or by missing tell-tale signs and not acting swiftly enough.
               
               Becoming a Social worker in the UK:  https://youtu.be/teOjfBq6krg
               
               In the UK, if a parent does have a child taken away from them (as a last resort), it’s not a criminal offence, and the parent would not lose their job; unless of course, it was a very serious criminal offence such as sexual abuse.
               The normal procedure in Britain, where a person is arrested for a serious crime, is that they are not usually sacked (we have much tighter employment protection laws in the UK than the USA); normally the person would be suspended, often with full pay, until their court hearing e.g. on the principle of ‘innocent until found guilty’.
               
               Under British Law:  It is illegal for you to be sacked for being arrested for a serious crime, without following a fair process, as laid down under British law.

               replyreport
4. 91

   IslandBitesposted 5 weeks ago

   I used to walk home from school. But, is not the same anymore. I hope it was.
   
   In any case, if her legal trouble was because the boy walked home from/to school, I'll probably have the same reaction. But it was not. She asked the boy out of the car, when he was having a tantrum. And left him alone. The end of the story could have been worse.
   
   
   The rest of your argument is BS.

   replyreport
   1. 81

      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      As I understood it, the walk was about half a mile in their suburban neighborhood, which is noted to be safe.
      
      As for 'the rest' being BS, do you mean the political 'policies' part or the Freerangekids.com part? Or both?
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 91

         IslandBitesposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         But what is safe? Im not saying a crazy woman, a murderer, a pedophile. What about a car? A dog?
         
         Anyway. 
         
         To answer your question...
         Your political comment/belief.

         replyreport
         1. 81

            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            To the BS, it's fair that you see it as BS. Just as it is that others don't.
            
            GA

            replyreport
5. 84

   Venkatachari Mposted 5 weeks ago

   I agree with GA. Why do the police and government meddle with parenting? The laws that meddle with family matters, parenting, etc., are not acceptable. There have been cases of many incidents that happened and appeared in the news and even in the movies.

   replyreport
   1. 89

      wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      In my state there is a family that has lost not one but two children because parents refused the allow simple medical care.  "Whatever happens is God's will".  Another case from a few years ago was a small boy that suffered years of such physical abuse that he couldn't walk or object when he was taken to the irrigation canal, his pockets filled with rocks and thrown in.
      
      That's why government meddles with parenting.

      replyreport
6. 74

   Kathleen Cochranposted 5 weeks ago

   Yes, it does.
   
   Mother of 5
   Grandmother of 9

   replyreport
   1. 81

      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Arguing with a mother with your credentials is not a good way to start a morning. Maybe my focus on the government's involvement can give me room to back-peddle a little bit.
      
      Relative to the "village" part, if it means the neighbors keep an eye on the neighborhood kids as well as their own, that the kids are as welcome in the neighbor's house as they are their own, and that the neighbors will tattle on you, or take you to baseball practice, or . . .  you're right, it does take a village.
      
      But in the OP's example, the 'village' and the authorities overstepped.
      
      GA

      replyreport
7. 84

   Venkatachari Mposted 5 weeks ago

   Parents love their children and never leave them to suffer under any circumstances. But discipline is one factor where they have to be strict with their children. If the governmental agencies meddle with these things thinking they are safeguarding the children, it could be a foolish assumption.

   replyreport
8. 79

   Kathryn L Hillposted 5 weeks ago

   So, I was a free range kid in a middle class family. I walked to and from elementary school every single day since kindergarten. It was a 30 to 20 minute walk for my little legs. Once, I had forgotten to put on my underwear and had to run all the way home. After walking back to school, I remember crying and crying at the school door; it took a long time to get the courage to knock on the door, I was so late. Another memory is tripping and falling on the gravelly path as I ran home. A splinter of glass had lodged near my eye which was very scary for me. Another time, while riding my bike from school, a dog who had been barking and running after me, bit my ankle. I had been quite certain that vicious dog would kill me. Once in a while, one of my mean little classmates would throw rocks at me as I trudged home ... Did experiences like these make me stronger? Yes.
   Side note: I think the responsibility of walking and getting myself home directly after school all those years, to this day, has caused me to be very anxious to "GET HOME" from wherever I am.
   
   Free range kids we all were in the fifties and sixties.
   Kids have been loosing their freedom ever since ... till WHAT ... they have barely NONE?

   replyreport