At what age would you let a kid swim under these circumstances?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t have let my 4 year old swim in those conditions, but I do think it falls under the “fine if parents say it’s fine” situation, as do the VAST majority of parenting decisions in life.

Also, do you KNOW he was 4, or just guessing? My son is teeny tiny, and I was always really small for my age. It gets *really* old having people constantly assume he’s younger than he is, and I hated it as a kid too.

I know the family and know the kid is 4. I also have a tiny kid, and a couple times new swim teachers tried to say she was too young for the swim class she tested into because she was so small, so I get that.

[Anonymous]

Wow I was not expecting 4. I would absolutely agree with you op, that is far too high risk for me and I think anyone trained in water safety. No matter how competent a 4 year old is, they are still 4. Their ability to judge risk is still much more limited than an older kid and the likelihood they could make an impulsive decision is still much higher than older kids, no natter what their swimming strength is. And accidents in the water happen incredibly quickly, people become overwhelmed or tired much more suddenly than anyone would expect. If you haven’t witnessed a near drowning it’s hard to imagine it but I saw it with an adult and it was the snap of a finger that they went from seeming fine to suddenly tired and overwhelmed. And with the difficulty seeing and not closely supervising. Anyway, I agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Not ok. Because of poor visibility and divided attention. Dh is a lifeguard and he would so tj until age 10-11 if the kid was a strong swimmer. No way at 4.

[Anonymous]

In that circumstance, I'd say about 12. I was a lifeguard for a long time, and I don't go to swim areas that don't have lifeguards though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not ok. Because of poor visibility and divided attention. Dh is a lifeguard and he would so tj until age 10-11 if the kid was a strong swimmer. No way at 4.

+1

[Anonymous]

Wow, 4, no. Absolutely not and I am fairly liberal with what I would allow younger kids to do.

[Anonymous]

It’s not your kid...myob.

[Anonymous]

I would let my kid do that at 8-9, but I'm never watching another kid. It sounds like a very shallow lake; assuming there's not a sudden dropoff, the risk is relatively low because the kid can touch bottom. Lakes are scarier than pools to me, because you can't see underwater, so that's my main concern.

At four, I wouldn't, unless the kid had on a floatation device like a life jacket or puddle jumper. But it's not in the realm of obviously neglectful -- the lake was shallow, the kid could touch, and the parent was watching, even if they were also watching another kid.

[Anonymous]

Yikes (@ 4).

This is significantly worse IMO than a situation I was nervous about the other day. Was at a small beach on the western coast of the Chesapeake and a very very little kid (if he was 2, I'd be surprised, but let's say a tiny/barely 2-year-old) was wading out into the bay with minimal supervision.

-he had on a puddle jumper (like more secure water wings)
-the water was only up to his chest and fairly calm
-he was about 15 feet from shore
-parent was about 30 feet away but not really watching most of the time
-wasn't right near a sibling/etc.

He was trying to engage me by throwing a plastic shovel to me so I'd catch it... IDK, seemed like a bad idea, even with a puddle jumper on.

[Anonymous]

There are neglectful parents everywhere. 4 yr old in water should always have parent supervision. Situation you are describing is a big hell no.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:14 or 15

Holy shit! As elementary kids we did this at YMCA daycamp as long as the kid could swim the length of the pool and I was maybe 8.

[Anonymous]

Nope. We wear life jackets in natural water. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Never but lakes scare the living sh@t out of me. You are more buoyant in the ocean and the waves usually push you to shore. Lakes are murky with underground hazards. 60 yards is far out for a parent not in a swimsuit standing in shore. If your kid went under it would take you over a minute to swim there and you might lose sight of your child.

OP said 60 feet, not 60 yards.

Honestly can most people imagine or picture in their heads what 60ft or yards looks like? Can most people estimate how many feet away something is?
If so, i have a deficiency I didn’t know other people could do that.

Yes but I was a cheerleader and spent a lot of time on a football field running yard lines.

[Anonymous]

If the kid can stand, then the water is only about three feet deep? Can you clearly see the bottom? If so, that makes me feel much safer. It's not a deep murky lake. It's wading for an adult. Clearly watch the 4 yo closely, but it's not the same as deeper water.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:-fairly clear lake, with a swim area marked by buoys
-no lifeguard on duty
-parent at lake's edge, watching younger sibling, and not in a swimsuit
-kid about 20 yards (60feet) from shore
-water up to the kid's neck
-kid is a competent swimmer and very comfortable in the water
-no flotation devices or life jacket
-early sunset with light shining toward shore, so it was hard to see swimmers

I thought the age of the child (and therefore their size/experience) made the situation extremely dangerous, but my spouse thought I was overreacting and that it was a "fine if the parent thinks it's fine" type of thing (it was not our kid). Curious about what rules others have at the lake.

So the child was standing on the bottom of the lake and their head was completely out of the water?

Yes, maybe on tippy-toes, but head was out of the water. Child is 4.