Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

Anonymous
Yes, that is the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I thought you were slightly changing the idea each time, so I wanted to make sure I understood clearly what you were saying.

As long as it's legal, that's the important thing.


If you really want to know whether it's legal, you should ask a lawyer, not an anonymous Internet commenter.


It appears that the people in the situation being discussed here believe that it is legal for kids to be without adult supervision as long as they are outside, not indoors or in a car. The law doesn't mention anything about the outdoors. Here is the law that appears to be the one being relied on:

Family Law §5–801.

(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

No mention of the outdoors in the law so it seems that the idea here is that there is no need to provide a "a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child" as long as the child is outdoors and not in a "dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle"? And that it is why it is legal for the six and ten year old to walk about a mile to a park and back? If the children were indoors or in a car, there would be a need to provide protection but as long as they are outdoors, there is no need to provide a reliable person to protect the children?

If the outdoors is not mentioned in the law, it must mean that children do not need the same level of supervision there that they would need indoors or in a car, correct?

Yes, that is the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.


Is there any chance that the spirit of the law might be different than the literal reading of the letter of the law?

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

How about six-year-old people who actually live in DTSS?


Yes, we see them wandering around DTSS a lot! Not.


What an odd neighborhood. People live there, but you never see them?


I see them with parents. Not alone.


So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?


Perfect! And because I never see six-year-olds driving, I don't know that driving isn't a safe activity for six-year-olds. Excellent logic.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I thought you were slightly changing the idea each time, so I wanted to make sure I understood clearly what you were saying.

As long as it's legal, that's the important thing.


If you really want to know whether it's legal, you should ask a lawyer, not an anonymous Internet commenter.


It appears that the people in the situation being discussed here believe that it is legal for kids to be without adult supervision as long as they are outside, not indoors or in a car. The law doesn't mention anything about the outdoors. Here is the law that appears to be the one being relied on:

Family Law §5–801.

(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

No mention of the outdoors in the law so it seems that the idea here is that there is no need to provide a "a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child" as long as the child is outdoors and not in a "dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle"? And that it is why it is legal for the six and ten year old to walk about a mile to a park and back? If the children were indoors or in a car, there would be a need to provide protection but as long as they are outdoors, there is no need to provide a reliable person to protect the children?

If the outdoors is not mentioned in the law, it must mean that children do not need the same level of supervision there that they would need indoors or in a car, correct?

Yes, that is the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.


Is there any chance that the spirit of the law might be different than the literal reading of the letter of the law?



Is there any chance that when the law says "dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle", it actually means "anywhere", you mean? That is a question for a lawyer. I suggest you ask one.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I thought you were slightly changing the idea each time, so I wanted to make sure I understood clearly what you were saying.

As long as it's legal, that's the important thing.


If you really want to know whether it's legal, you should ask a lawyer, not an anonymous Internet commenter.


It appears that the people in the situation being discussed here believe that it is legal for kids to be without adult supervision as long as they are outside, not indoors or in a car. The law doesn't mention anything about the outdoors. Here is the law that appears to be the one being relied on:

Family Law §5–801.

(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

No mention of the outdoors in the law so it seems that the idea here is that there is no need to provide a "a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child" as long as the child is outdoors and not in a "dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle"? And that it is why it is legal for the six and ten year old to walk about a mile to a park and back? If the children were indoors or in a car, there would be a need to provide protection but as long as they are outdoors, there is no need to provide a reliable person to protect the children?

If the outdoors is not mentioned in the law, it must mean that children do not need the same level of supervision there that they would need indoors or in a car, correct?

Yes, that is the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.


Is there any chance that the spirit of the law might be different than the literal reading of the letter of the law?



What is different about the indoors as opposed to the outdoors that caused the law to be written this way?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?


If you never see six-year olds driving cars, then how do you know that driving cars is not safe for six year olds? why do they have to wait until 16?


Well, for one thing, they can't reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

Now, how do you know that it's not safe for six-year-olds to walk around in DTSS?


Mine can! She's crazy tall. So, can she drive now?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?


If you never see six-year olds driving cars, then how do you know that driving cars is not safe for six year olds? why do they have to wait until 16?


Well, for one thing, they can't reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

Now, how do you know that it's not safe for six-year-olds to walk around in DTSS?


Mine can! She's crazy tall. So, can she drive now?


Oh hey, another person who's not answering the question.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't you answering the question?


Because I am busy pointing out how stupid your line of thinking is.

Call SS Police (your friends) and ask how many pedestrian accidents there are a year, then how many are in DTSS.


Well, or you could answer the question. Evidently your answer is that it's not safe for a 6-year-old to walk around in DTSS because there are car-pedestrian collisions in DTSS? I'm guessing that the vast majority of those collisions involve adult pedestrians. Does that mean it's not safe for an adult to walk around in DTSS?

Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. There are going to be more car-pedestrian collisions in places with lots of pedestrians than in places with no pedestrians. And there are lots of pedestrians in DTSS. (Maybe they don't know how unsafe they're being.)

Logic is not your strength
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't you answering the question?


Because I am busy pointing out how stupid your line of thinking is.

Call SS Police (your friends) and ask how many pedestrian accidents there are a year, then how many are in DTSS.


Well, or you could answer the question. Evidently your answer is that it's not safe for a 6-year-old to walk around in DTSS because there are car-pedestrian collisions in DTSS? I'm guessing that the vast majority of those collisions involve adult pedestrians. Does that mean it's not safe for an adult to walk around in DTSS?

Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. There are going to be more car-pedestrian collisions in places with lots of pedestrians than in places with no pedestrians. And there are lots of pedestrians in DTSS. (Maybe they don't know how unsafe they're being.)

Logic is not your strength


What is illogical here? Please explain. If it's so obvious, it should be very easy to explain.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't you answering the question?


Because I am busy pointing out how stupid your line of thinking is.

Call SS Police (your friends) and ask how many pedestrian accidents there are a year, then how many are in DTSS.


Well, or you could answer the question. Evidently your answer is that it's not safe for a 6-year-old to walk around in DTSS because there are car-pedestrian collisions in DTSS? I'm guessing that the vast majority of those collisions involve adult pedestrians. Does that mean it's not safe for an adult to walk around in DTSS?

Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. There are going to be more car-pedestrian collisions in places with lots of pedestrians than in places with no pedestrians. And there are lots of pedestrians in DTSS. (Maybe they don't know how unsafe they're being.)

Logic is not your strength


What is illogical here? Please explain. If it's so obvious, it should be very easy to explain.


It has already been explained on numerous occasions. If you didn't get it then, you won't get it now.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

What is illogical here? Please explain. If it's so obvious, it should be very easy to explain.


It has already been explained on numerous occasions. If you didn't get it then, you won't get it now.


OK, then I will assume that the reason it's not safe for a six-year-old who lives in DTSS to walk around in DTSS is that DTSS is not safe for a six-year-old to walk around in.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

It's a very good analogy in that children that age need adult supervision--in my opinion and that of many others. An adult is present in case of an accident, a stranger entering the playground area, etc.


No, it's circular reasoning -- school is a good analogy to demonstrate children's need for adult supervision because children need adult supervision.


But kids walk to school - to AND from on their own and much more than the 2 blocks the kids were picked up. Some walk in rural areas, some walk in city areas. Some even take the metro busses. All alone, no parents and no adult supervision.

And teens go to school. Do they need constant adult supervision too?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:

Because kids have needs. They need supervision, they need help with things, etc. We get so tired of going to the playground having kids insisting on us playing with them, entertaining them, trying to eat our snacks (sorry, no, not without parents permission and bring your own), and insisting we lift them, push them on the swing, try to ride our bikes, scooters. We aren't lifting or touching another child except in an emergency - not taking the risk of being accused of something. Most parents who are at the park are so checked out and have no clue or don't care what their kids are doing. It always amazes us.


Yes, all kids have needs. In fact, all human beings have needs. That doesn't mean that all kids (aged 0-17) need equal levels of supervision and equal help with the same things. At some point, kids are able to go to the park by themselves. The question is, when?



Not at age 6.


Says who? You? So what. For others it could be okay. Not all parents are alike. Not all kids are alike. That is why government should not interfere.

And by the way, I was 6 and walked home from school everyday.



So happy for you and your parents that nothing happened.



Wow, me too. Helicopters daydream of the worst every single minute of the day and gladly pass down their anxieties and insecurities onto their kids, which why so many are on meds or in a therapy for something. Or at the very least, can't cross a street, tie their shoes, fall down and get back up again without running to Mommy. I am glad I grew up when all kids were given some freedom to learn how to use their brain. You know, critical thinking skills, common sense, street smarts etc...

And by the way, in the 80's, one of the things a child being ready for 1st grade (5-6yrs old) was to be able to walk 4-8 blocks on their own. So what has happened since then that kids this age can no longer walk alone and some people think it is neglect?
Anonymous
Wow, me too. Helicopters daydream of the worst every single minute of the day and gladly pass down their anxieties and insecurities onto their kids, which why so many are on meds or in a therapy for something. Or at the very least, can't cross a street, tie their shoes, fall down and get back up again without running to Mommy. I am glad I grew up when all kids were given some freedom to learn how to use their brain. You know, critical thinking skills, common sense, street smarts etc...

And by the way, in the 80's, one of the things a child being ready for 1st grade (5-6yrs old) was to be able to walk 4-8 blocks on their own. So what has happened since then that kids this age can no longer walk alone and some people think it is neglect?


My oldest started school in the eighties at a school that used that readiness checklist, and the teachers and the other parents laughed about that question and commented that it must have been a leftover from an earlier decade. Kids walked a block or so from their bus stops by themselves, but K and first graders needed a parent to meet them. Same with K and first grade walkers.

It is possible to supervise young children without being a helicopter. Lots of parents manage to strike a balance between supervising and helicoptering. My own child was not walking a mile without an adult at six and yet now holds down a job and has his own place, all without meds or therapy. I know lots of others in his peer group who had a similar upbringing and have had similar success as adults.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
My oldest started school in the eighties at a school that used that readiness checklist, and the teachers and the other parents laughed about that question and commented that it must have been a leftover from an earlier decade. Kids walked a block or so from their bus stops by themselves, but K and first graders needed a parent to meet them. Same with K and first grade walkers.

It is possible to supervise young children without being a helicopter. Lots of parents manage to strike a balance between supervising and helicoptering. My own child was not walking a mile without an adult at six and yet now holds down a job and has his own place, all without meds or therapy. I know lots of others in his peer group who had a similar upbringing and have had similar success as adults.


But in the 1970s (and earlier), it actually was normal life. Just like "parenting", "free-range parenting" is a new name for a very old idea.
post reply Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers
Message Quick Reply
Go to: