Anonymous wrote:

My 11 year old (who will be 12 soon and looks much older) is allowed to venture off with the neighborhood boys (ages 11-13), but I don't make him take his 7 year old brother with him. My 7 year old still has plenty of time to be independent when he gets a little older. What's the rush?


If they're ready to go, and they want to go, why the delay?

Because her 11 year old wants to play with his friends as opposed to babysitting his 7 year old brother, perhaps?

My 11 year old (who will be 12 soon and looks much older) is allowed to venture off with the neighborhood boys (ages 11-13), but I don't make him take his 7 year old brother with him. My 7 year old still has plenty of time to be independent when he gets a little older. What's the rush?


If they're ready to go, and they want to go, why the delay?

9 and 10yr olds are not middle schoolers. Please reread. Yes, middle schoolers are old enough to babysit.

Anonymous wrote:]

You are taking an extremely narrow view, IMHO. It's not like we don't allow a group of 12 year olds to ride bikes around the neighborhood, play at the park and walk to 7-11. There's plenty of time for kids to be independent, so why the rush to send a 10 year old and his 6 year old to the park?

My 11 year old (who will be 12 soon and looks much older) is allowed to venture off with the neighborhood boys (ages 11-13), but I don't make him take his 7 year old brother with him. My 7 year old still has plenty of time to be independent when he gets a little older. What's the rush?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I grew up knowing how quickly bad things can happen and I have used that knowledge in my parenting to balance freedom and supervision to keep my children safe and healthy. I know that we can't protect our kids from any possible harm, but I will do my best to keep from putting them in situations that are beyond their age to handle.

I am certain that the Meitivs are also doing their best to keep from putting their children in situations that are beyond their age to handle. And since the Meitivs know their children, and you don't, there's a good chance that the Meitivs have a better idea of what their children can handle than you do.

My six year old relative was with a group of kids ages 6-10 playing at a park with no adults around. They were playing in a part of the park that an adult would have warned them away from because it was too close to the street. He was hit and his life was changed forever. I have talked to kids who were there when it happened and it truly would not have happened had an adult been there.

I get that kids are different but certain developmental milestones are fairly universal. Six year old children need supervision, and a ten year old is not yet ready for that and it is not fair to a ten year old to bear that responsibility. The kids who were there the day my relative was hit are adults now and they still think about that day.

If developmental milestones are universal, how come different cultures have such very different expectations of children's age-related capabilities?

Many reasons, not all of which pertain to this discussion, but partly because of differences in types of dangers that young children might be presented with.
Why expose kids to dangers that can harm them in a blink of an eye when you have the capability to teach them to protect themselves as they grow and develop? It is a rare six year old that understands the dangers of cars the way an adult does.

Nobody is suggesting that it's a good idea for a six-year-old who has never walked anywhere ever to suddenly start walking to school by themselves. As you say, you teach them as they grow and develop, so that by the time they are six, they are capable of walking to school by themselves.

I'm suggesting that six year olds should not be playing in parks with their only supervision being 10 year olds. When kids are playing, they let down their guard and may do things that an adult would see and correct immediately. An adult will tell kids playing too close to the street to move farther away, another kid will not.

I can name a number of situations from the "old days" where kids were harmed because of lack of appropriate supervision. We can learn from the mistakes of previous generations and do better for our kids. I've seen the results of sending kids out without supervision when they are too young and I knew I wanted better for my kids.

Funny, all I see are parents buried in their iPhones, not actually watching their kids at the park.

Even an adult reading a book or an iPhone would have been enough to save my cousin. Most people can read and be aware of what's going in around them at the same time and would recognize a dangerous situation that a child most likely would not.

That is not true. What is true is that most people BELIEVE that they can fiddle with their phones and be aware of what's going on around them at the same time. Which explains why texting while driving is so common.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm suggesting that six year olds should not be playing in parks with their only supervision being 10 year olds. When kids are playing, they let down their guard and may do things that an adult would see and correct immediately. An adult will tell kids playing too close to the street to move farther away, another kid will not.

I can name a number of situations from the "old days" where kids were harmed because of lack of appropriate supervision. We can learn from the mistakes of previous generations and do better for our kids. I've seen the results of sending kids out without supervision when they are too young and I knew I wanted better for my kids.

But should it be child neglect for a six-year-old to play in the park with a ten-year-old and no parent supervision?

Also, what's the trade-off? Children don't go anywhere these days without a parent. The benefit (perhaps) is that they are safer. The cost is that they don't learn to be independent and rely on themselves. Do you think that the benefit is worth the cost?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More oversight = less deaths

There are not less deaths because the world is safer so lalalala.. let the kids roam free. There are less deaths because parents are required to follow laws.

All violent crime is down, not just violent crime affecting children. Is that also because of child neglect laws?

Some economists say it's due to legalizing abortion in the 70s. A lot of future criminals weren't born.

I think it's a mix, including better policing, better reporting (everyone has a cellphone), and better awareness. Regardless, it means that statistically you're less likely to be a victim of violent crime now vs 30 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More oversight = less deaths

There are not less deaths because the world is safer so lalalala.. let the kids roam free. There are less deaths because parents are required to follow laws.

All violent crime is down, not just violent crime affecting children. Is that also because of child neglect laws?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I come at it from a somewhat different perspective. My parents constantly made me care for my sister (5 years younger) when I was a middle schooler (think every day all day long when we were not in school and every day after school). While I was able to handle most situations fine, a few arose that were really outside of my capabilities and it was traumatic for me.

Yes, I have also had that experience. I was very mature and frequently was put in charge of younger siblings starting when I was about nine. It was not fair to me as I was a worrier and stressed a lot about doing the right thing. It also affects the sibling dynamics when one kid is in charge of the others.

Oh good God. So now siblings can't babysit either? That should be the next MD law I guess

Do you think nine and ten year olds should be babysitting?

9 and 10yr olds are not middle schoolers. Please reread. Yes, middle schoolers are old enough to babysit.