Just got yelled at for leaving my kid alone in in the car while I went to the pharmacy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

Omg of course you took your toddler into the store. OP is talking about a 7 year old. And I was not the poster who said people don’t have more kids b/c they can’t leave them in the car although I do agree with the sentiment that we have made life unnecessarily difficult for families such as hall monitors trying to act like something is illegal even when it is clearly not illegal under VA law. We expect parents to helicopter and supervise their kids 24/7 in a way that is unhealthy and not aligned with many other cultures across the globe. The security guard lecturing OP is just a symptom of a bigger trend.

If you want to take a stand on all these rules, nobody is stopping you. But you’re not going to convince me to take the stand you don’t take in your own life. How are you bucking authority and being the change? Do you just tell the school you won’t be in the car line and your kid will walk home no matter what? Or refuse to wait at the bus stop? What exactly are you doing differently to live your values?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

DP. The example you gave was of a preschool that had a rule that you not leave kids in cars when you pick up your kids. I find that rule idiotic if the preschool has it's own parking lot and would have advocated for a more reasonable set up like maybe doing pick up outside where parents can stay within site of their cars or parents signing up as volunteer "parking lot monitors" to make it easier for parents to do drop off and pick up without having to bring in one or more other kids (who might be napping or tantrumming).

You think you're superior because you blindly followed a bad rule with bad outcomes. Who did it benefit for you to drag a screaming toddler across a parking lot to pick up your other kid. It didn't benefit you or your kid or the other kids or the other parents. It didn't even benefit the preschool! It was just a dumb rule.

And now you want to yell at other parents doing the perfectly reasonable thing you were prevented from doing because hey if you had to deal with stupid anti-family rules then so should everyone else. You just don't like the idea of other parents having it easier than you did. But I actually do like the idea of making the world more family friendly than it was when my kids were small! I want parents to have it easier and I want us to have sane and reasonable rules that make sense for families. Not least because if my own daughter has kids I don't want it to be as hard for her as it was for me for no good reason.

I think I’m superior? OK. Maybe I can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn’t worth it to me to fight the school on this particular rule. I couldn’t see the car for the duration of the drop off and pick up. My DD might have been screaming in the car distressing people who would walk by. Weighing all the pros and cons I came down on the side of I’ll just take her in. We walk fast and get in and get out. As an adult I’m well equipped to manage an 18 month old.

How is your story about an 18 month old (who it would be against the law to leave in the car in nearly every state) comparable to a 7 year old who can legally be left alone in a car? Your posts keep getting weirder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Bootstraps and walking to school 3 miles uphill both ways in the snow.
Why do you want it to suck for your kids too just because you had to do it? It makes the kids more anxious to have to overparent like this. They learn they can’t be trusted.

Having also always taken my kids with me as a parent I understand the story to be an acknowledgement that taking kids into a place for a quick errand it challenging but one does it because it is the law.

And what about if it is not the law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

DP. The example you gave was of a preschool that had a rule that you not leave kids in cars when you pick up your kids. I find that rule idiotic if the preschool has it's own parking lot and would have advocated for a more reasonable set up like maybe doing pick up outside where parents can stay within site of their cars or parents signing up as volunteer "parking lot monitors" to make it easier for parents to do drop off and pick up without having to bring in one or more other kids (who might be napping or tantrumming).

You think you're superior because you blindly followed a bad rule with bad outcomes. Who did it benefit for you to drag a screaming toddler across a parking lot to pick up your other kid. It didn't benefit you or your kid or the other kids or the other parents. It didn't even benefit the preschool! It was just a dumb rule.

And now you want to yell at other parents doing the perfectly reasonable thing you were prevented from doing because hey if you had to deal with stupid anti-family rules then so should everyone else. You just don't like the idea of other parents having it easier than you did. But I actually do like the idea of making the world more family friendly than it was when my kids were small! I want parents to have it easier and I want us to have sane and reasonable rules that make sense for families. Not least because if my own daughter has kids I don't want it to be as hard for her as it was for me for no good reason.

I think I’m superior? OK. Maybe I can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn’t worth it to me to fight the school on this particular rule. I couldn’t see the car for the duration of the drop off and pick up. My DD might have been screaming in the car distressing people who would walk by. Weighing all the pros and cons I came down on the side of I’ll just take her in. We walk fast and get in and get out. As an adult I’m well equipped to manage an 18 month old.

OK so let's apply that logic to OP:

OP can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn't worth it to her to fight her cranky 7 year old on whether or not to come into the pharmacy. She was only going in for a few minutes and the car was in a safe and quiet neighborhood and her 7 year old is capable of coming to find her if absolutely necessary. If she'd brought her kid in the pharmacy he might have been disruptive to the people who work there or other customers or he may have refused to listen to her in the parking lot and risked getting hit by a car. Weighing all the pros and cons OP came down on the side of just leaving him in the car. She was just picking something up that was already ready and could get in and get out. As an adult OP is well equipped to manage a 7 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Every time you take a little kid through a busy parking lot you are putting them at greater risk of bodily harm than just leaving them in the car for a few minutes.

Idiots.

Point is, I don’t make the rules. I follow them and don’t ask for exceptions. I personally know a mom who had CPS visit her after leaving her kid in a car to pick up a pizza. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

OP *did* follow the rules for her jurisdiction. And yet she got chastised by a judgy busybody security guard, which is honestly a much bigger risk than a carjacking.

So? Then she should have followed up with him and set him straight. Many of us don’t live in an area with the same rules.

Only 8 states consider it illegal to leave a 7 year old in a car under the circumstances OP describes. People are talking on this thread like it's illegal everywhere but actually it's legal almost everywhere.

Even with the car running?

I think most posters have agreed she shouldn’t have left the car running. It’s the spinoffs about how 7 year olds should not be left in the car alone ever that are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

DP. The example you gave was of a preschool that had a rule that you not leave kids in cars when you pick up your kids. I find that rule idiotic if the preschool has it's own parking lot and would have advocated for a more reasonable set up like maybe doing pick up outside where parents can stay within site of their cars or parents signing up as volunteer "parking lot monitors" to make it easier for parents to do drop off and pick up without having to bring in one or more other kids (who might be napping or tantrumming).

You think you're superior because you blindly followed a bad rule with bad outcomes. Who did it benefit for you to drag a screaming toddler across a parking lot to pick up your other kid. It didn't benefit you or your kid or the other kids or the other parents. It didn't even benefit the preschool! It was just a dumb rule.

And now you want to yell at other parents doing the perfectly reasonable thing you were prevented from doing because hey if you had to deal with stupid anti-family rules then so should everyone else. You just don't like the idea of other parents having it easier than you did. But I actually do like the idea of making the world more family friendly than it was when my kids were small! I want parents to have it easier and I want us to have sane and reasonable rules that make sense for families. Not least because if my own daughter has kids I don't want it to be as hard for her as it was for me for no good reason.

I think I’m superior? OK. Maybe I can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn’t worth it to me to fight the school on this particular rule. I couldn’t see the car for the duration of the drop off and pick up. My DD might have been screaming in the car distressing people who would walk by. Weighing all the pros and cons I came down on the side of I’ll just take her in. We walk fast and get in and get out. As an adult I’m well equipped to manage an 18 month old.

How is your story about an 18 month old (who it would be against the law to leave in the car in nearly every state) comparable to a 7 year old who can legally be left alone in a car? Your posts keep getting weirder.

It’s about doing hard things. Your kid doesn’t want to go in the store? Too bad. If those are the rules, those are the rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

DP. The example you gave was of a preschool that had a rule that you not leave kids in cars when you pick up your kids. I find that rule idiotic if the preschool has it's own parking lot and would have advocated for a more reasonable set up like maybe doing pick up outside where parents can stay within site of their cars or parents signing up as volunteer "parking lot monitors" to make it easier for parents to do drop off and pick up without having to bring in one or more other kids (who might be napping or tantrumming).

You think you're superior because you blindly followed a bad rule with bad outcomes. Who did it benefit for you to drag a screaming toddler across a parking lot to pick up your other kid. It didn't benefit you or your kid or the other kids or the other parents. It didn't even benefit the preschool! It was just a dumb rule.

And now you want to yell at other parents doing the perfectly reasonable thing you were prevented from doing because hey if you had to deal with stupid anti-family rules then so should everyone else. You just don't like the idea of other parents having it easier than you did. But I actually do like the idea of making the world more family friendly than it was when my kids were small! I want parents to have it easier and I want us to have sane and reasonable rules that make sense for families. Not least because if my own daughter has kids I don't want it to be as hard for her as it was for me for no good reason.

I think I’m superior? OK. Maybe I can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn’t worth it to me to fight the school on this particular rule. I couldn’t see the car for the duration of the drop off and pick up. My DD might have been screaming in the car distressing people who would walk by. Weighing all the pros and cons I came down on the side of I’ll just take her in. We walk fast and get in and get out. As an adult I’m well equipped to manage an 18 month old.

OK so let's apply that logic to OP:

OP can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn't worth it to her to fight her cranky 7 year old on whether or not to come into the pharmacy. She was only going in for a few minutes and the car was in a safe and quiet neighborhood and her 7 year old is capable of coming to find her if absolutely necessary. If she'd brought her kid in the pharmacy he might have been disruptive to the people who work there or other customers or he may have refused to listen to her in the parking lot and risked getting hit by a car. Weighing all the pros and cons OP came down on the side of just leaving him in the car. She was just picking something up that was already ready and could get in and get out. As an adult OP is well equipped to manage a 7 year old.

If OP was so assured that she was in the right, why didn’t she just tell the security guard? Instead she comes here fuming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

Omg of course you took your toddler into the store. OP is talking about a 7 year old. And I was not the poster who said people don’t have more kids b/c they can’t leave them in the car although I do agree with the sentiment that we have made life unnecessarily difficult for families such as hall monitors trying to act like something is illegal even when it is clearly not illegal under VA law. We expect parents to helicopter and supervise their kids 24/7 in a way that is unhealthy and not aligned with many other cultures across the globe. The security guard lecturing OP is just a symptom of a bigger trend.

If you want to take a stand on all these rules, nobody is stopping you. But you’re not going to convince me to take the stand you don’t take in your own life. How are you bucking authority and being the change? Do you just tell the school you won’t be in the car line and your kid will walk home no matter what? Or refuse to wait at the bus stop? What exactly are you doing differently to live your values?

OP was at a store. Not in a school pickup. My kids ride the bus so I just meet them at the stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

Omg of course you took your toddler into the store. OP is talking about a 7 year old. And I was not the poster who said people don’t have more kids b/c they can’t leave them in the car although I do agree with the sentiment that we have made life unnecessarily difficult for families such as hall monitors trying to act like something is illegal even when it is clearly not illegal under VA law. We expect parents to helicopter and supervise their kids 24/7 in a way that is unhealthy and not aligned with many other cultures across the globe. The security guard lecturing OP is just a symptom of a bigger trend.

If you want to take a stand on all these rules, nobody is stopping you. But you’re not going to convince me to take the stand you don’t take in your own life. How are you bucking authority and being the change? Do you just tell the school you won’t be in the car line and your kid will walk home no matter what? Or refuse to wait at the bus stop? What exactly are you doing differently to live your values?

OP was at a store. Not in a school pickup. My kids ride the bus so I just meet them at the stop.

Really pushing back on the helicoptering and supervising I see. You’re part of the problem too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

DP. The example you gave was of a preschool that had a rule that you not leave kids in cars when you pick up your kids. I find that rule idiotic if the preschool has it's own parking lot and would have advocated for a more reasonable set up like maybe doing pick up outside where parents can stay within site of their cars or parents signing up as volunteer "parking lot monitors" to make it easier for parents to do drop off and pick up without having to bring in one or more other kids (who might be napping or tantrumming).

You think you're superior because you blindly followed a bad rule with bad outcomes. Who did it benefit for you to drag a screaming toddler across a parking lot to pick up your other kid. It didn't benefit you or your kid or the other kids or the other parents. It didn't even benefit the preschool! It was just a dumb rule.

And now you want to yell at other parents doing the perfectly reasonable thing you were prevented from doing because hey if you had to deal with stupid anti-family rules then so should everyone else. You just don't like the idea of other parents having it easier than you did. But I actually do like the idea of making the world more family friendly than it was when my kids were small! I want parents to have it easier and I want us to have sane and reasonable rules that make sense for families. Not least because if my own daughter has kids I don't want it to be as hard for her as it was for me for no good reason.

I think I’m superior? OK. Maybe I can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn’t worth it to me to fight the school on this particular rule. I couldn’t see the car for the duration of the drop off and pick up. My DD might have been screaming in the car distressing people who would walk by. Weighing all the pros and cons I came down on the side of I’ll just take her in. We walk fast and get in and get out. As an adult I’m well equipped to manage an 18 month old.

How is your story about an 18 month old (who it would be against the law to leave in the car in nearly every state) comparable to a 7 year old who can legally be left alone in a car? Your posts keep getting weirder.

It’s about doing hard things. Your kid doesn’t want to go in the store? Too bad. If those are the rules, those are the rules.

But those … aren’t the rules. There is no rule that a 7 year old has to go inside of a pharmacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your car got carjacked…… !!!!

How many kids are getting carjacked? In what reality is this a likely outcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Every time you take a little kid through a busy parking lot you are putting them at greater risk of bodily harm than just leaving them in the car for a few minutes.

Idiots.

Point is, I don’t make the rules. I follow them and don’t ask for exceptions. I personally know a mom who had CPS visit her after leaving her kid in a car to pick up a pizza. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

OP *did* follow the rules for her jurisdiction. And yet she got chastised by a judgy busybody security guard, which is honestly a much bigger risk than a carjacking.

So? Then she should have followed up with him and set him straight. Many of us don’t live in an area with the same rules.

Only 8 states consider it illegal to leave a 7 year old in a car under the circumstances OP describes. People are talking on this thread like it's illegal everywhere but actually it's legal almost everywhere.

Even with the car running?

The laws generally don't reference whether the car is running or not. Only that it is parked.

Personally I would have done car off but windows down. However I am sure people on here would excoriate me for leaving my 7 yr old in a vehicle with windows cracked because omg then the gangs of carjackers who roam every corner of the world could point the guns in through the crack in the window. I personally don't judge OP for leaving the car running even though that's not the choice I would make because it was just a few minutes and in my experience 7 yo kids are perfectly fine sitting in a car (on or off) for a few minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

DP. The example you gave was of a preschool that had a rule that you not leave kids in cars when you pick up your kids. I find that rule idiotic if the preschool has it's own parking lot and would have advocated for a more reasonable set up like maybe doing pick up outside where parents can stay within site of their cars or parents signing up as volunteer "parking lot monitors" to make it easier for parents to do drop off and pick up without having to bring in one or more other kids (who might be napping or tantrumming).

You think you're superior because you blindly followed a bad rule with bad outcomes. Who did it benefit for you to drag a screaming toddler across a parking lot to pick up your other kid. It didn't benefit you or your kid or the other kids or the other parents. It didn't even benefit the preschool! It was just a dumb rule.

And now you want to yell at other parents doing the perfectly reasonable thing you were prevented from doing because hey if you had to deal with stupid anti-family rules then so should everyone else. You just don't like the idea of other parents having it easier than you did. But I actually do like the idea of making the world more family friendly than it was when my kids were small! I want parents to have it easier and I want us to have sane and reasonable rules that make sense for families. Not least because if my own daughter has kids I don't want it to be as hard for her as it was for me for no good reason.

I think I’m superior? OK. Maybe I can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn’t worth it to me to fight the school on this particular rule. I couldn’t see the car for the duration of the drop off and pick up. My DD might have been screaming in the car distressing people who would walk by. Weighing all the pros and cons I came down on the side of I’ll just take her in. We walk fast and get in and get out. As an adult I’m well equipped to manage an 18 month old.

How is your story about an 18 month old (who it would be against the law to leave in the car in nearly every state) comparable to a 7 year old who can legally be left alone in a car? Your posts keep getting weirder.

It’s about doing hard things. Your kid doesn’t want to go in the store? Too bad. If those are the rules, those are the rules.

But those … aren’t the rules. There is no rule that a 7 year old has to go inside of a pharmacy.

Do you know what the word “If” means?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

Omg of course you took your toddler into the store. OP is talking about a 7 year old. And I was not the poster who said people don’t have more kids b/c they can’t leave them in the car although I do agree with the sentiment that we have made life unnecessarily difficult for families such as hall monitors trying to act like something is illegal even when it is clearly not illegal under VA law. We expect parents to helicopter and supervise their kids 24/7 in a way that is unhealthy and not aligned with many other cultures across the globe. The security guard lecturing OP is just a symptom of a bigger trend.

If you want to take a stand on all these rules, nobody is stopping you. But you’re not going to convince me to take the stand you don’t take in your own life. How are you bucking authority and being the change? Do you just tell the school you won’t be in the car line and your kid will walk home no matter what? Or refuse to wait at the bus stop? What exactly are you doing differently to live your values?

OP was at a store. Not in a school pickup. My kids ride the bus so I just meet them at the stop.

Really pushing back on the helicoptering and supervising I see. You’re part of the problem too.

I posted up thread that I have left my 7 year old alone in a car in VA. If someone wants to give me crap I’ll tell them it’s not against the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can totally leave it running for the AC, leave the key fob with the kid and have them lock the door. Then when you get back, they unlock it for you. 7 is plenty old to do this.

I worry about a car jacker showing up with a gun and demanding that the car be unlocked.

You are worrying about a fantasy that will never happen.

Yeah. You tell ‘em.

Or…

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/two-juveniles-sought-in-car-theft-with-child-inside-in-northwest-dc-police/3172083/

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/4-month-old-girl-found-after-being-taken-in-georgetown-car-theft/3508529/

Those cars were not parked in parking lots with security guards-- they were parked on the street.

The kids in those cases were much younger. In the case of the infant, the carjacker likely did not even realize the baby was in the car for some time.

It's also not clear how long those cars were left idling. In the infant case the mom left the car to go into a perfume store (wtf). Are these cases of people running short errands nearby or are they cases of people using leaving kids in idling cars for 30 or 60 minutes?

The PP is envisioning a situation where a carjacker approaches a locked car with a 7 year old visible in the back seat, and in full view of the security guard and what I'm sure are security cameras outside the pharmacy, points a gun at the child and demands they unlock the car. In the 3-5 minutes the mom was inside the pharmacy.

This will not happen.

So the security guard was babysitting the child? Is that his job?

I actually do think it's his job. It was a few minutes and the mom was right inside. The child is 7, not 2.

The other day I was at the grocery store with my 8 yr old and it started pouring rain while we were in the store. DD was in flipflops (post swim class) and I decided to run and get the car and pick her up at the curb. I left her in the vestibule next to the door. I did consider this a reasonably safe option in part because there was a security guard posted near the door and the area is monitored by cameras.

Am I a derelict parent for leaving an elementary kid alone in public for a few minutes?

It is your primary responsibility as a parent to keep your child safe. You make the guard’s job harder by handing over that job to the guard because you can’t turn off the car while you run into the store. So self-centered.

Again -- in a functional society no one considers a security guard keeping an eye on an older kid in a car for 10 minutes to be "baby-sitting." It's just being a person in society. But the US is not functional around families and children so we have this deranged idea that from birth until like 12 or 13 a parent must have eyes on their child at all times OR be paying a professional child minder to watch their kid. It is nonsensical and is actually BAD for kids in the long run.

The point is that a 7 year old is actually perfectly capable of handling themselves in a car for a few minutes. The security guard is not a baby-sitter (it's not a baby!) but is a layer of social protection against some of the rare and unlikely circumstances people are fretting about -- a carjacking or car accident. Those things are almost definitely not going to happen and the presence of a security guard makes them less likely.

This is how watching kids works in normal societies where kids are viewed as normal and necessary. People in other countries do not freak out when they see an unattended 7 year old in a public space where there are responsible adults present because why would they -- that kid is safe. It is only in the US where we have all been convinced that this is a dangerous situation thanks to the efforts of scare mongers who are mostly trying to rally hatred of working mothers and poor people (if it's illegal to leave any child alone for any length of time for any reason then I guess women have to stay home with kids for 18 years and poor people should not have kids at all right).

It’s not his job. If he’s busy watching the kid then he’s not doing his actual job. What a selfish viewpoint. It’s your job to keep an eye on your own kids and you’re neglecting it. Why aren’t you doing the job youself?

It’s not a job! It’s a child living their life in a public space. It’s perfectly safe.

But I won’t do it. Because of people like you. And it adds to the stress of parenting.

The birth rate will continue to decline. The high costs combined with the intense expectations are just unbearable.

I did my part. I had 3 kids. And I made them come with me to run errands and into the store and carried my tantrum prone daughter like a football to drop her older brother off in preschool because we weren’t allowed to leave them in the car. My daughter wanted to stay and play too, so dragging her in for drop off was a nightmare but i had no choice. Everyone gets through it. Luckily my kids are legit old enough to stay at home. I don’t leave them in the car because they will for sure fight. Mostly I just plan my errands for when the kids aren’t with me. Your 7 yr olds aren’t old enough yet but will be soon.

Your tantruming kid could have slipped from your arms and ran in front of a car. Or fallen and hit her head.

Like you do realize there’s a small risk of something bad happening in either scenario. You’re not morally superior for dragging a screaming kid out of the car. Also I too have 3 kids (ages 10, 7, and 3) and none of my kids scream at having to run an errand. Soooo I can one up you there if you want to play that game.

Well, my tantrumming kid also has special needs, but yay you for not having that extra burden! She has a developmental disability, are we still playing the game?

Oooh I knew you were going to say that and I almost my mentioned in my prior post I have a kid with SNs (AuDHD). I know how to avoid taking him places when he may get dysregulated.

Cool, cool. Guess you don’t have to deal with leaving a kid in a car bc you never have to take your kids everywhere. So not sure what your issue is here? You have no experience. Also of course you knew i was gojng to say that because kids acting inappropriately usually have a reason why theh act that way. But you knew that, supposedly.

I was mimicking how asinine your “I had 3 kids so I did my part and I did it better than you” spiel was. You’re not a better parent just because you took your tantruming kid into a store. You assessed the risks and made a choice that was right for you. But there were still small risks of taking them into the store. Just like there are small risks of leaving a kid in the car. One isn’t necessarily morally superior than the other.

Ok. I didn’t “assess the risks” i had a toddler and it was against the rules to leave kids in the car. I didn’t decide the rule didn’t apply to me because I’m an uppity princess. You acting like people don’t have more kids because of leaving kids in cars rules is what is asinine.

DP. The example you gave was of a preschool that had a rule that you not leave kids in cars when you pick up your kids. I find that rule idiotic if the preschool has it's own parking lot and would have advocated for a more reasonable set up like maybe doing pick up outside where parents can stay within site of their cars or parents signing up as volunteer "parking lot monitors" to make it easier for parents to do drop off and pick up without having to bring in one or more other kids (who might be napping or tantrumming).

You think you're superior because you blindly followed a bad rule with bad outcomes. Who did it benefit for you to drag a screaming toddler across a parking lot to pick up your other kid. It didn't benefit you or your kid or the other kids or the other parents. It didn't even benefit the preschool! It was just a dumb rule.

And now you want to yell at other parents doing the perfectly reasonable thing you were prevented from doing because hey if you had to deal with stupid anti-family rules then so should everyone else. You just don't like the idea of other parents having it easier than you did. But I actually do like the idea of making the world more family friendly than it was when my kids were small! I want parents to have it easier and I want us to have sane and reasonable rules that make sense for families. Not least because if my own daughter has kids I don't want it to be as hard for her as it was for me for no good reason.

I think I’m superior? OK. Maybe I can just pick the hill to die on. It wasn’t worth it to me to fight the school on this particular rule. I couldn’t see the car for the duration of the drop off and pick up. My DD might have been screaming in the car distressing people who would walk by. Weighing all the pros and cons I came down on the side of I’ll just take her in. We walk fast and get in and get out. As an adult I’m well equipped to manage an 18 month old.

How is your story about an 18 month old (who it would be against the law to leave in the car in nearly every state) comparable to a 7 year old who can legally be left alone in a car? Your posts keep getting weirder.

It’s about doing hard things. Your kid doesn’t want to go in the store? Too bad. If those are the rules, those are the rules.

But those … aren’t the rules. There is no rule that a 7 year old has to go inside of a pharmacy.

Do you know what the word “If” means?

Do you know what the word if means? If it is illegal in the state you’re in then bring the kid inside. If it is not illegal then you can choose to leave them in the car. This isn’t hard. I’m not even sure what point you think you’re making.