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:

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.

That’s not pushing back though. If you don’t like the rules and “helicoptering” expectations then what rules are you upset about that actually pertain to you?

[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.

The tone in that post “I did my part. I had 3 kids. Everyone gets through it.” Came from a very different place than an acknowledgement of challenge or attempting to make things better. The tone was very much “ I did it. Sucks, but everyone should since what I lived through was so hard and my kid had temper tantrums.”

I have a kid with ASD temper tantrums and meltdowns are very regular around here, but that doesn’t mean I think everyone else should have to live through it also. In fact, the OP followed the law and was chided by a rent-a-cop who was probably excited to have something to do.

I also think not giving kids some level of autonomy until age 13 makes them anxious and is bad parenting.

[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:

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.

IF those are the rules where you live then that’s what you do. OP didn’t fill anyone in for a good long while on purpose. For this exact reason. She could have stated up front where she was. She wanted this debate and she got it by trickling out the details in a troll like manner.

[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.

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.

No one likes being called a bad mom by a stranger in public (or by someone you know in private) even if the person making that assessment is wrong (which they absolutely were in this case). It's totally reasonable OP would want to vent about this stupid experience.

Today on this thread we have learned that what OP did was perfectly legal in VA and most other states and also that some people don't care and will take a mom to task anyway because moms are never supposed to do something that makes sense and is convenient if they could instead do something the hard way and martyr every second of their day to their children even once their children are old enough to not need that level of attention and supervision from parents. For some it is important that motherhood be miserable and stupid and inconvenient and that moms feel bad all the time. I don't know why this is so important to people -- perhaps some of you on this thread can explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parenting standards have changed so much. In the 80s nobody would question a 7 year old left in the car. Now we do. I won't be surprised when there are fewer babies born as the laws and requirements become even stricter for the next generation.

In the 80s I once left my 8 yr old, 3 yr old and a 6 month old I was babysitting in the car while I went into 7-11 to get some milk. I could see them all through the window from the 7-11. For some reason I mentioned it to the mom of the baby and she said she would prefer in the future if I had to go into a store that I take her child with me. I said, He was fine, my son was there if anything happened and I was in the store for less than 5 minutes and could see them the whole time. She insisted. I stopped babysitting that child.

[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: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.

The tone in that post “I did my part. I had 3 kids. Everyone gets through it.” Came from a very different place than an acknowledgement of challenge or attempting to make things better. The tone was very much “ I did it. Sucks, but everyone should since what I lived through was so hard and my kid had temper tantrums.”

I have a kid with ASD temper tantrums and meltdowns are very regular around here, but that doesn’t mean I think everyone else should have to live through it also. In fact, the OP followed the law and was chided by a rent-a-cop who was probably excited to have something to do.

I also think not giving kids some level of autonomy until age 13 makes them anxious and is bad parenting.

I did my part means I’m not contributing to the birth decline. Since that PP weirdly said people aren’t having kids due to rules like this which is ridiculous. I’d like that PP to post fact supporting her wild assumption for birth decline. Because birth decline is even worse in places that have more lax parenting. Such as Sweden where babies are allowed to chill in strollers outside shops and cafes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parenting standards have changed so much. In the 80s nobody would question a 7 year old left in the car. Now we do. I won't be surprised when there are fewer babies born as the laws and requirements become even stricter for the next generation.

In the 80s I once left my 8 yr old, 3 yr old and a 6 month old I was babysitting in the car while I went into 7-11 to get some milk. I could see them all through the window from the 7-11. For some reason I mentioned it to the mom of the baby and she said she would prefer in the future if I had to go into a store that I take her child with me. I said, He was fine, my son was there if anything happened and I was in the store for less than 5 minutes and could see them the whole time. She insisted. I stopped babysitting that child.

That worked out well for both of you then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parenting standards have changed so much. In the 80s nobody would question a 7 year old left in the car. Now we do. I won't be surprised when there are fewer babies born as the laws and requirements become even stricter for the next generation.

In the 80s I once left my 8 yr old, 3 yr old and a 6 month old I was babysitting in the car while I went into 7-11 to get some milk. I could see them all through the window from the 7-11. For some reason I mentioned it to the mom of the baby and she said she would prefer in the future if I had to go into a store that I take her child with me. I said, He was fine, my son was there if anything happened and I was in the store for less than 5 minutes and could see them the whole time. She insisted. I stopped babysitting that child.

That worked out well for both of you then.

Yes it did. I was fine with that outcome. My point is that's what happened in the 80s to me so my experience is people were questioning these types of decisions then.

[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.

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.

No one likes being called a bad mom by a stranger in public (or by someone you know in private) even if the person making that assessment is wrong (which they absolutely were in this case). It's totally reasonable OP would want to vent about this stupid experience.

Today on this thread we have learned that what OP did was perfectly legal in VA and most other states and also that some people don't care and will take a mom to task anyway because moms are never supposed to do something that makes sense and is convenient if they could instead do something the hard way and martyr every second of their day to their children even once their children are old enough to not need that level of attention and supervision from parents. For some it is important that motherhood be miserable and stupid and inconvenient and that moms feel bad all the time. I don't know why this is so important to people -- perhaps some of you on this thread can explain.

Were you expecting OP to get a round of applause?

[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.

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.

No one likes being called a bad mom by a stranger in public (or by someone you know in private) even if the person making that assessment is wrong (which they absolutely were in this case). It's totally reasonable OP would want to vent about this stupid experience.

Today on this thread we have learned that what OP did was perfectly legal in VA and most other states and also that some people don't care and will take a mom to task anyway because moms are never supposed to do something that makes sense and is convenient if they could instead do something the hard way and martyr every second of their day to their children even once their children are old enough to not need that level of attention and supervision from parents. For some it is important that motherhood be miserable and stupid and inconvenient and that moms feel bad all the time. I don't know why this is so important to people -- perhaps some of you on this thread can explain.

The person making that assessment was not wrong. OP was stupid and inconsiderate and made that person’s job harder for no reason except she couldn’t be bothered to turn off the engine.

And you are playing the martyr right now.

[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:

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.

IF those are the rules where you live then that’s what you do. OP didn’t fill anyone in for a good long while on purpose. For this exact reason. She could have stated up front where she was. She wanted this debate and she got it by trickling out the details in a troll like manner.

OP put the important bit in the first post: she left her car running with a child inside for ten minutes.

[Anonymous]

Yikes, this is all really disheartening. Trust me, I am not a “mommy martyr”, and in general I think that a lot of expectations on parents are way too high. But not leaving a young child (or children) alone in a car seems like a no-brainer. It’s disturbing there are posters bragging about doing this. We get it, you’re an irresponsible parent - why is that something you seem proud of? Is it more hassle to bring the kid in with you? Sure. But oh well, that’s going to happen sometimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

It's not a likely outcome -- it's not even an unlikely outcome. But people will see one news story about a car with a kid in it being carjacked and assume that this is a thing that is going to happen. They don't pay attention to things like where that carjacking happened or other circumstances nor do they consider the likelihood of this happening on any given day. The truth is that you are more likely to be in a fatal car accident on any day than your car is to be carjacked. But do people stop driving places with their kids in the car. Of course not.

Recently I saw a news story of a terrible tragedy where a bounce house at a minor league baseball game was blown down onto the field and a small child was killed. Absolutely gut wrenching. Literally the next week we were at an event with a bounce house. I had a moment of considering not letting my kid use the bounce house and then I reasoned that this bounce house was not up on a raised platform like the one at the ball game. I looked to see if the bounce house was staked into the ground. I hung out near the bounce house while my kid was in it. But I still let her get in it.

You can't just wrap your kids in bubble wrap until they are 18. You have to learn how to calculate risk and how to mitigate risk. And also what risks are ok -- my kid could get hurt bouncing in a bounce house or riding her bike or goofing off with friends but living a full and meaningful life carries inherent risk so I have to accept that.

The risk to OP's kid was practically nil. An incredibly low risk of a criminal approaching at just that moment and stealing her car. A similarly low risk of someone trying to abduct her kid. A higher risk of a bystander harassing her son or her out of a misguided effort to protect him (which is what happened).

On the other hand the risk of never leaving a kid in a car alone is that they will grow thinking they are incapable of being left alone for any length of time. They will lack skills of resilience and self-reliance. They will no trust themselves and may feel anxious when older when they are expected to do things on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

It's not a likely outcome -- it's not even an unlikely outcome. But people will see one news story about a car with a kid in it being carjacked and assume that this is a thing that is going to happen. They don't pay attention to things like where that carjacking happened or other circumstances nor do they consider the likelihood of this happening on any given day. The truth is that you are more likely to be in a fatal car accident on any day than your car is to be carjacked. But do people stop driving places with their kids in the car. Of course not.

Recently I saw a news story of a terrible tragedy where a bounce house at a minor league baseball game was blown down onto the field and a small child was killed. Absolutely gut wrenching. Literally the next week we were at an event with a bounce house. I had a moment of considering not letting my kid use the bounce house and then I reasoned that this bounce house was not up on a raised platform like the one at the ball game. I looked to see if the bounce house was staked into the ground. I hung out near the bounce house while my kid was in it. But I still let her get in it.

You can't just wrap your kids in bubble wrap until they are 18. You have to learn how to calculate risk and how to mitigate risk. And also what risks are ok -- my kid could get hurt bouncing in a bounce house or riding her bike or goofing off with friends but living a full and meaningful life carries inherent risk so I have to accept that.

The risk to OP's kid was practically nil. An incredibly low risk of a criminal approaching at just that moment and stealing her car. A similarly low risk of someone trying to abduct her kid. A higher risk of a bystander harassing her son or her out of a misguided effort to protect him (which is what happened).

On the other hand the risk of never leaving a kid in a car alone is that they will grow thinking they are incapable of being left alone for any length of time. They will lack skills of resilience and self-reliance. They will no trust themselves and may feel anxious when older when they are expected to do things on their own.

If the only way you can think to teach your children resilience is to leave them alone in a car, you have much bigger problems. Not leaving a kid alone in a car will do nothing to harm them or their sense of self-reliance. What nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, this is all really disheartening. Trust me, I am not a “mommy martyr”, and in general I think that a lot of expectations on parents are way too high. But not leaving a young child (or children) alone in a car seems like a no-brainer. It’s disturbing there are posters bragging about doing this. We get it, you’re an irresponsible parent - why is that something you seem proud of? Is it more hassle to bring the kid in with you? Sure. But oh well, that’s going to happen sometimes.

A 7 yo is really not very young. This conversation would be very different if we were talking about a toddler. I think it's fine and even positive for 7 and 8 year olds to be left alone for short periods of time in public places. I intentionally started doing things like having my 7 year old wait at a table in a food court for me for a few minutes or stay in the house alone while I ran next door to get some sugar so that she could experience that feeling of being on her own and self reliant in short and controlled situations. As we did more of this I could stretch out the time or go further away because she showed herself to be trustworthy and responsible in these shorter situations. What OP did sounds healthy to me.

And actually the fact that the kid didn't want to come inside is part of that process in my opinion. That's the age where kids start being less willing to tag along on errands -- they want to spend more time on their own and with friends instead of with parents. I think this is normal and healthy. It means they are becoming their own person. I can totally see myself in that situation saying "ok if you don't want to come inside with me here are the ground rules to waiting outside in the car" and then providing some ground rules and making sure my trip inside was short (which it definitely sounds like OP's was).

This is how parenting a child who is constantly maturing and developing works. You have to give them space to grow up and learn. It sucks that the security guard and others on this thread don't see that process as something we should all support instead of something to stand in the way of. If I'd been that security guard I would have noticed the kid in the car and kept an eye on that situation and then when the mom came out let her know if the kid had done anything for her to be concerned about (like if he was drawing attention to himself or playing with the car). I would also have told her he'd behaved well if he had in fact behaved well so she'd know that he'd met her expectations and earned more trust. I would not have harassed the kid and yelled at the mom. That's the exact wrong reaction.

Our "village" is so freaking broken. Between this thread and the one where people were arguing the OP should charge her neighbor for a 10 year old to walk with them to school I wonder if it even makes sense to have kids in a culture that doesn't understand that raising kids is a joint effort.