Free-Range Parenting

I'm fine with the 10yr old walking a mile to the park. I used to go swimming and fishing by myself at the same age.

I'm not so fine with a 10yr old being tasked with taking care of his 6 yr old sister. Taking care of himself is enough for a 10yr old.

 

Not only scare the hell out of the kids but in the article I read the cops didn't call the parents right away so they are looking for their kids for a couple of hours after the children are supposed to be home.
Finally the dickheads called to say the kids were in custody.
The kids might have been 'free-range' but they still had some what of a tether, which is the way I was raised.
Now granted I grew up in an area where the closest neighbor was 2 miles away but we would disappear all day.
My mom used an air horn to call us back, one long, 2 shorts and a long, which is the railroad crossing single.
A couple of times I came home because I heard the train go through one of two dirt roads in our area.

So, yes just about as free range as you can get but there was risks in those days too.
My best friend and his uncle were murdered by a drugged out asshole they picked up hitchhiking.
That didn't change the way my mom handled things though she did make sure we knew how to shoot and she was a pacifist.

She was a deep believer in the story of the old Quaker who on finding a burglar in his house, said "Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world but thee is standing where I am about to shoot."

 

I raised my girls purposely with independence, in the middle of a city. At 2, they carried their own library books as we walked home, and they helped me cook their breakfasts on a daily basis. At 3 and 4, they walked two houses down on the same side of the street as myself and the other parent stood on the porches and watched them; their friends did this, too. We frequently walked to the park, and my youngest was taking swimming at the Y at 1.5 yo. We talked about the world at our table, and they were well versed in landmarks around the city. Both were familiar with the bus system and were probably 12 when they began to ride it with friends sans parent, carrying transit maps with them. They were educated, arty nerdgirls, and the motto at my home was Have fun be sensible, and I said it almost daily. I beleive they felt safe and behaved coherently because they were educated in the ways of the world and how to behave - not just by me, but by their teachers, neighbors, peers, books, maps, and so forth. This is their world, and I wanted them to feel free, and be free, enough to walk around it, experience it, and find the joy in living. I am happy to read about parents who are somewhat trusting of their children, their neighborhood, and their own parenting. I find it refreshing.

As for the cops who did not call the parents immediately upon taking the children into possession? I think they should be arrested, not for checking on the kids safety but for taking them into custody at all. Instead, perhaps they could have escorted the children, preferably by foot, to their parent(s) for a lively reunion.

 

This has gotten way out of hand. When will we realize that this kind of overprotective sheltering of our kids not only makes them afraid, inhibited, and incompetent at living on their own, but it also does little good in terms of keeping them safe.

Stranger abductions of children, despite what Law and Order: SVU would have us believe, are quite rare. The vast majority of abductions, child abuse and child homicide cases revolve around perpetrators the child knows well, or to whom they are related.

When I was growing up, starting from when I was around five, I was often given permission to walk a couple of blocks to my best friend's house to play. Starting from when I was seven or so, I was often permitted to walk a few blocks further to the park, and play there unsupervised. When I was eight, I could walk alone around a quarter of a mile to the store to get stuff, or to the used bookstore next to it, where I had leave to sit and read as long as I pleased. When I was nine, I could walk a mile to the Hillel House where my dad was the rabbi, or to the local library branch, or to the video arcade (yes, I am that old). And by the time I was ten, I could take the bus downtown to the main library, or to go to the movies. Or walk two miles to the local pool and swim there. Granted, this was in Minneapolis, which was pretty staid and peaceful, even at the turn of the '80s. But still....

It's ludicrous to think that in a few years, when my son is six or seven, I will likely be facing investigation if I let him walk two blocks to the park and play there for a while unsupervised. What's just as bad now is that I find I am afraid to leave my sleeping kid in the car for five or ten minutes (when it is neither hot nor very cold) while I run into the store for something. I am not afraid that anything will happen to my kid. He could sleep through a jetliner taking off next to him, once he actually falls asleep. I am afraid of what might happen to me: that someone will see him, and call the cops on me. When I was a kid, I got left in the car while my folks ran into the store all the time. Everyone I knew, same thing. And not just when I was sleeping. They would leave me with a toy or two, or when I was a little older, a book or two, and I would play or read. No problem. But I'm pretty sure doing that now is courting having CPS called on you.

I do grant you that I personally would probably not let a ten-year-old look after a six-year-old. But I could also imagine it might depend on the kids in question, and what they were doing. If both kids were quite bright, capable, and responsible, and it was something straightforward like walking to the park, playing, and walking home, I might.

Things like that need to be the decision of parents. Not of nosy neighbors or cops or CPS reps who absolutely must have better things to do with their time and resources.

It's just becoming absurd.

 

I have kids this age. Funnily enough my older boy is much more cautious and is only this year happy to walk to school sans parents because his little brother is with him. I know quite a few parents and these range on a scale from:
1. don't let the kids out of sight
all the way to
2. they are old enough to cross roads, therefore they don't need a huge amount of supervision.

I think I am somewhere in the middle.

RE the article, I'd be more likely to approach kids if they looked like they were in trouble, rather than ringing the police, but if they looked fine I'd leave them to it. You don't see a lot of unsupervised kids around here, though.

My scout troop had a recent night where the kids went unsupervised to the local supermarket to buy food for a cooking night. It was interesting to note how many of them found this to be a new experience (the youngest is my 10yo). You do have to loosen the apron strings at some point.

 

When I was a kid my mom would only let us stay in the house X amount of time before were ordered to "go get some fresh air." This was several decades before video games, cable TV, cell phones, social media, etc. We only had to give a general idea of where we were going, and we covered many miles on foot and/or on bicylces. The main requirement was we had to be back home about an hour before dinner.

Our current "information age" is wonderful in many aspects, but IMO it gives & causes exaggerated views of the level of crime. In some of my communications classes studies were discussed that showed people who didn't get out and watched/listned to a lot of news media tended to be much more apprehensive about crime than people who got out and psrticipated in society. And this was back in the mid '80s.

 

The law wants to rule our everyday lives to the point mind control. Hadn't they made enough enemies by the numerous murders committed by lawmen across this land? Lucky for the kids, they didn't get shot or tazed.
Grew up in the rural south pre-segregation, 60s - early 70s, free range was a understatement. Our Moms threw us out first thing in the morning after breakfast, explore the lands, Expand our minds, played with the black kids across the tracks. Generally had fun but always under the watchful eye of a parent somewhere. It took a while for me to accept that todays world is not much difference, except for the nanny government.

 

Growing up on a farm or a yard surrounded by pastures, "free range" meant me, my sister, and our closest neighbors playing in the fields, creeks, and occasionally the barns. There's a lot less trouble you can get into when you're surrounded by fences and play with what nature has to offer, rather than the "street smart" sort of free range that is possible in the city. I don't think I'd let my kids roam in the city, but within a fenced pasture? As long as none of the animals sharing the pasture are aggressive and the kids know to leave the animals alone, go for it!

 

This is a tricky one. Now, I don't care if other parents want to let their kids explore on their own. I don't care, unless it is way out of the ordinary like a 4 year old walking down the street at 10 pm.

I had a childhood of riding my bike a mile or two from home. But, I have no idea how old I was. I do know that I got myself to school whenever the weather was nice from Kindergarten through High School and I was fine being left alone and doing my own thing.

This is one of those things that I would worry about if I ever had one kid someday. If people have three or four, I think it is easier to let them wonder on their own. I'm not sure why I think this. Maybe it is a big city/medium city/small city issue. Or a wilderness/nature issue causing harm. I did know about kidnappers growing up, but not the sexual predators. It also wouldn't have made national news like it probably would today with a bunch of other parents saying, "we told you this would happen".

 

This. All forms of violent crime have dropped by over 80% in my lifetime alone, the world is safer today than it has ever been in almost any living person's lifetime. On top of that there's the matter of demographics; "Stranger Danger" in general is very nearly a myth, overwhelmingly the most dangerous people to children are their parents followed closely by extended family and trusted authority figures.

The current climate of utter terror over the dangers facing Women And Children™ is nothing short of outright mass hysteria. I don't think the Satanic Panic of the 80's ever actually ended, it just put on a clean shirt and kept going.

I wouldn't do it not necessarily because they couldn't, but because they shouldn't. Like Stan said taking care of themselves is enough for a 10 year old, don't make them worry about taking care of someone else just yet.

 

I even think this danger is overstated. Unconfirmed reports on sites like facebook just make the spread of hysteria easier. We had a talk from the local police school liaison officer last year about internet safety. The way she talked, you'd think creepy people were everywhere stalking young folk. It pays to be cautious, but not to the point you are jumping at every shadow.

As a person in an authority position (I help out at school, coach a soccer team and am a scout leader), I find there is a group of people who almost look at you like you *are* that creepy guy. Scouts particularly state as leaders we need to always have two leaders present (or if doing one on one stuff, that you do it within a public space so you can always be seen), specifically to avoid the "he is alone with (a) boy(s)" issue.

 

Because it suits certain powerful interests to keep the majority of people divided, fearful, and hateful of one another.

 

Or a puppy. I wouldn't actually do that to a puppy; but Molly adores 1 yr olds and it is always mutual. I'm sure those parents would be fine with a bit of slobber.