Murky Laws Make It Too Easy To Label Good Parents 'Neglectful'

Everyday parenting decisions should not put people at risk of getting arrested, losing their kids, or being listed on a state registry for child endangerment.


Is it legal for parents to let their kids play outside on their own or stay home alone for a little while? That's a simple question without a simple answer.

At Let Grow, the nonprofit I co-founded to promote childhood independence, we just completed a first-of-its-kind study of all 50 states' neglect laws. I am sorry to report that a large majority say parents must not deprive a child of "supervision" or "proper care" but do not explain exactly what those terms mean. Others say parents may not expose their kids to "risk," without specifying how big or dangerous that risk has to be in order to be prohibited. Too much is left to the discretion of the authorities, which is why you've heard of parents arrested or investigated for letting their 8-year-old walk the dog or letting their 9-year-old play at the park while her mother worked a shift at McDonald's.

Recently I heard from a South Carolina mom who wondered if her kids in first, third, and fifth grade were allowed to walk the mile home from school. The kids, who walk all around town, were psyched about the idea, but the principal decreed that an adult must accompany them. So could the mother get arrested—or even lose her kids—for letting them hoof it?

South Carolina's criminal law is virtually silent on what specifically constitutes child endangerment. Meanwhile, the rules enforced by the state's Child Protective Services, an agency that has the power to put kids in foster care, say children are neglected if their parent engages in "behavior" or an "occupation" that could endanger others. Does that merely refer to a mom who is making meth—or could it also apply to one who lets her kids walk home alone? And who gets to decide if the walk home counts as dangerous? The principal? A social worker? A judge?

A bill aimed at fixing that statute passed South Carolina's Senate unanimously in 2019 but had to be shelved in 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic shut the legislature. Left hanging was the question: Shouldn't parents be allowed to decide how much independence their kids are ready for?

"Parents largely remain in the dark as to when and how they can safely make those basic decisions," longtime civil rights lawyer and Let Grow consultant Diane Redleaf writes for the American Bar Association's Children's Rights Litigation newsletter. Redleaf, a co-chair of United Family Advocates, is working on narrowing neglect laws—and boy, do they need narrowing.

Alabama, Alaska, South Dakota, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., all define a lack of supervision as "neglect," leaving parents to divine what qualifies as a lack of supervision. Some states throw proper or adequate in front of supervision, but that does not make things any clearer.

And then there are the laws that aren't murky, just awful. Connecticut criminal law says parents who leave kids under age 12 alone, even at home, can be found guilty of neglect. Twelve! "Obviously," says a pamphlet from the Tennessee court system, "young children under age 10 should not be left without supervision at any time." That's not so obvious to me, but Michigan has the same policy. Louisiana says it's illegal to leave a child in a car if the adult is more than 10 feet away. Good luck returning that shopping cart!

Not that most parents will ever be investigated for walking 11 feet from the car or letting their kids stay home while they run out to get toilet paper. But these policies can create a chilling effect, causing parents to worry they could be second-guessed by cops or caseworkers with very different ideas of what is reasonably safe.

Everyday parenting decisions should not put people at risk of getting arrested, losing their kids, or being listed on a state registry for child endangerment. In 2018, Utah passed the nation's first "Free-Range Parenting" law, which states that it is not neglect to let kids walk or play outside, stay home alone, or wait briefly in the car in some circumstances.

This is a better approach: Behavior does not rise to "neglect" unless it involves "blatant disregard" of obvious, likely, and serious danger. That is the wording Illinois enacted in 2013.

When kids learn how to manage the reasonable risks that come with childhood, that's not neglect. That's growing up.

NEXT: Brickbat: Your Name Is Mud

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Are u free at home want to do some work at home and earn money then go to this site link its can provide u to work at home and earn money easy without any investment…I also do this work..
    Here is More information.

    1. Google pays for every Person xaz every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I earns every mbf weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions….. Visit Here

      1. [ PART TIME JOB FOR USA ] Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to adf do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page…..work92/7 online

    2. I am making 10,000 Dollars at home own laptop .Just do work online 2 to 4 hour proparly . so i make my family happy and u can do Check it out whaat i do…….. CLICK ON THIS LINK TO GET USA JOB INFORMATION…THANKS

  2. Murky laws allows our betters to selectively punish depending on the needs of the state. They can go after enemies of the people, give a public reminder to the proles, or just go on a power trip.

    1. Came to say similar

      1. Get $192 hourly from Google!…Yes this is Authentic since I just got my first payout of $24413 and this was just of a single week… I have also bought my Range Rover Velar right after this payout…It is really cool job I have ever had and you won’t forgive yourself if you do not check it…

        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Home Profit System

  3. The murky laws aren’t even the root of the problem. There is really no substantive due process for CPS cases.

    CPS also has been hugely incentivized to scar children. Think about it: if CPS takes no action and it turns out there IS abuse going on, it will come back on them. On the other hand, if they take the children “just to be on the safe side” and it turns out there was NOT any abuse, well, no harm no foul (obviously, the emotional scarring of the children doesn’t count).

    So why would they ever “not” take action when the risk to themselves is much less if they always take action?

    1. What about the not insignificant number of kids who get abused while in CPS custody/foster care? Why do those cases never come back on CPS?

      1. because they were doing their best and thats all that matters even when it fails

        1. And why shouldn’t that work for the parents?

          1. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
            earning opportunity.. USA ONLINE JOBS

    2. My experience differs. CPS often ignores obvious abuse while prosecuting questionable abuse. My ex sister in law and her new husband (my brother is deceased) were obviously abusing and neglecting my two feet nephews, even abandoned one under the age of 18 and choked him out on more than one occasion. My parents called CPS, the school called CPS, the therapist called CPS (after which they banned them from seeing a therapist to deal with their father’s death). CPS gave them a suspended sentence after the third call and ignored all further calls, including doing nothing when they abandoned my middle nephew. However, when my oldest nephew ran away and came to my parents place, because he felt unsafe, CPS and the local police department contacted the sheriff’s office in my parents county and reported that my parents had kidnapped him. Luckily my parents called the sheriff’s office first and reported what was going on. The deputy came, took a statement, called CPS and was ordered to return my nephew to his mother. He has since dropped out of high school, she would force him to skip school to work and then take his paychecks. He eventually flunked out, and thCPS still didn’t do anything.

      1. Police, therapist, teachers etc are mandatory reporters yet CPS ignored or underplayed all the reports on my nephews.
        Luckily, when they abandoned my middle nephew, my parents were able to get a lawyer and force an adoption. He was two semesters behind but my parents helped him get caught up and he graduated on time. He is going in the service next spring and has held a job and ran his own lawn cutting and snow shoveling company. His older brother on the other hand, no diploma and drug problems. Fuck CPS. They deserve to burn in hell for ignoring obvious abuse and neglect.

      2. “my two feet nephews”

        How many hand nephews do you have?

    3. you left out a MAJOR incentive for CPS to take kids into custody and then work them in the foster system. CPS get a huge sum of money every month for each child they have “on their books” in foster care. The foster parents, get a pittance of that huge sum. SO.. many units of CPS plan their yearly budget counting on the huge profits embedded into the systsm in their favour. That’s also why they fight loke hungry dogs over every case. Because they ARE dogs, and hungry ones at that. Meanwhile, the kids and families are harrassed, even tortured mentally often becaue of some normal thing the chid is fully capable of handling on his own and does. With no problem.

  4. #defundthe cps

  5. Do a writeup on that Oregon hair salon owner who was harassed by the governor. The bitch guv sent CPS to talk to her kids.

    1. same wretch sent in Oregon State Police rifle team for the specific purpose of taking outLaViy Finicum, one of the folks protesting about the extreme travesty of justice (rather, extreme LACK thereof) for the Hammonds, Father and Son who’d been falsy charged and railroaded on an arson rap, when it was BLM folks (the Feds, not the commies)who set the fire in question, which DID burn down the Hammonds’ Naighbours home and outbuildings, the Hammonds only set a back-burn to protect their own place and home from a fire BLM had deliberately set specifically to burn them out. Finicum, rightly and justly, was protesting their abuse.
      Several attempts to impeach her weree waylaid by various picky technicalities. She is one of the rottenest goverors ever in the entire union. But whaddya speck, she’s related to the Edmund G Brown family that’s been part of the ruling class for generations. Pelosi and the Gabbling Nuisance are related to that “familiglia” as well.

  6. “It’s for [our] children”, the [WE] foundation.
    “You mean you thought those were your kids??”

    One of today’s biggest benefits to being a rural-raised child is escaping the guardianship enslavement of the [WE] mob.

    1. You are safe until they drop some high-density housing in the middle of your rural community to house the mob.

    2. It takes a village

      1. In a way a rural community is much closer to this ideal, with less Karen’s. I have had my kids playing at the park and one of them hurt themselves and a passing community member called me to let me know. It was like that growing up too. My mother and I were talking about how me and my brothers would play outside for hours and she didn’t worry because all the parents in the neighborhood kept an eye out. Knowing your neighbors is a huge plus.

  7. When kids learn how to manage the reasonable risks that come with childhood, that’s not neglect. That’s growing up.

    Only if those ‘reasonable risks’ remain somewhat stable over time. Or as stable as the general changes of biological evolution – since that is the biological constraint of ‘growing up’.

    To give an example of how those risks change over time, you only need to look at the distortions we have created in favor of the car. There is no ‘growing up’ to do re human children and the car. Up until the age of 16, the only possible developmental goal is to avoid getting hit by a car. No kid can possibly have an expectation of anticipating the behavior of a driver because the kid can’t have driving experience. After the age of 16, the human goes inside the car and ‘safety’ becomes an issue that is both unknown to that individual and entirely different than it was when they weren’t then protected by a cage of metal.

    The hurdle over time does not change at the pace of human evolution (the ‘just grow up’ hurdle) but at the pace of technological change re automobiles and driving behavior and driving/infrastructure rules. For the sake of argument, if you view the car as simply a predator; then the ModelT version of that predator is dramatically less deadly to the ModelT era version of human than the current version of vehicle is to current version of human-outside-car.

    And the issue goes far beyond cars. It goes to the entirety of human freedom of mobility for kids outside the home. Because there is a zero-sum game here re the infrastructure. The more freedom cars have on the mobility infrastructure (meaning public land allocated to ‘streets and transport’), the less freedom non-carred humans have. There is no such thing as ‘shared space’.

    1. Our common understanding of growing up, risk and safety, and just about everything else of course changes with time.

      “Childhood” did not really exist until recently, and now has expanded into younger 20s for many “kids”. One problem” these are voters and workers who expect a coddling environment, perhaps for life.

      And part of that coddling is the elimination of all risk, both physical and mental. Demands for restricted speech and safe spaces come as much from delusional desires about risk-free life as from political ideology.

      1. expect a coddling environment

        Of course there CAN be a risk in that direction over time towards ‘coddling’. eg pretty much all childhood vaccines dramatically changed infant/childhood mortality rates. There is something very ‘natural’ about making sure kids go through the entire range of childhood diseases and if 50% of them die well so be it. There is apparently an entire school of ‘libertarian’ thinking that views that as not just ok but PREFERABLE – because liberty for an adult today is worth more than liberty for a future adult in a few decades.

        But not everything is in the direction of coddling. Sometimes it is the reverse. In particular, it is often the reverse whenever:
        a)the issue is resolved politically (where current ‘voters’ – ie adults – determine how things will be decided)
        b)the issue is resolved via debt (where those who incur the debt – ie adults – are the ones who make the decisions v those who will pay for or carry that debt)
        c)the issue is resolved via distorting a CURRENT product in the market – which is where cars and public transport infrastructure come in. Because the market and pricing system are not really much better than anything else when it comes to changes over time.

    2. What the hell are you talking about? There were cars on the streets when I was growing up (and walking more than a mile to 5th grade), and there are cars now. I don’t think the nature of those cars has changed so dramatically to create an entirely new kind of risk.

      1. I don’t think the nature of those cars has changed so dramatically to create an entirely new kind of risk.

        But they have. Cars are faster, bigger, and provide less visibility to those outside than ever before. Or more accurately – trucks and SUV’s are significantly larger than ‘cars’ – built on a different larger chassis – and those larger vehicles now dominate the road. In urban ‘grid’ streets, those vehicles are now pushing the limits of the lanes themselves so will force a new ‘redesign’ of the streets to push some other traffic off the streets. All ‘safety’ rules and tech and thinking are almost exclusively for the occupants of a car – not anything/anyone external to the vehicle.

        Traffic rules and street design are all periodically redesigned to ensure traffic flows faster and more continuously faster. eg – right turn on red is probably the one big change in traffic laws (created in all states from 1973-1981) that forced kids off streets entirely because right turn on red is deadly to all smaller modes.

        What has not changed at all over time is the risk of serious injury to a human hit by a vehicle at different speeds: 10% at 15 mph; 50% at 30 mph; 75% at 40 mph; 90% at 45+mph. Those are in fact entirely different categories of risk. And the more one pushes the actual traffic velocities up, the more the actual risk changes.

        1. Nonsense. Cars have gotten less ‘hard’ – fiberglass instead of steel shells, for example. And while this does reduce injuries during accidents to the occupants, it also improves safety in case of a car hitting a pedestrian (or a pedestrian hitting a car).

          Moreover, the people have changed. Education (of both drivers and pedestrians) has reduced the danger of cars.

          Most pedestrian collisions today happen in dark conditions on the street (but not in a crosswalk) in urban areas. About half of them (the pedestrians) are drunk. So if anything, it’s not the cars or the drivers that drive collisions with pedestrians, its the pedestrians themselves. And its not primarily children getting hit either – the peak is at 55-59 years old. Children (under 14) are the least likely age group to be hit.

          Large trucks and busses are also exceptionally unlikely to fatally strike a pedestrian. Cars account for almost 50% of all pedestrian fatalities, and SUVs/vans/(pickup) trucks account for most of the other 50%.

          1. Children (under 14) are the least likely age group to be hit.

            Funny that. The consequence of not allowing kids to walk anywhere and driving them around everywhere instead – of successfully intimidating them off the road – is that they aren’t likely to be walking around much and getting hit by cars. Therefore proving that those fears are/were unfounded.

            In fact, the raw data re ped fatalities shows exactly what I said. The reason FATALITIES are higher at night and away from a crossing is because that is when vehicle speed is higher. And the reason fatalities there skew towards peds with BAC levels is because those are the peds who cannot react as quickly to a car bearing down on them that isn’t paying attention to them. So they are unsuccessful in jumping out of the way. Peds who don’t die – didn’t exist.

            Your interpretation of that data is EXACTLY the problem here in the US. Where ‘the car’ is basically seen as the innocent victim. if anything, it’s not the cars or the drivers that drive collisions with pedestrians, its the pedestrians themselves – Officer I swear the guy jumped in front of my car. We saw that excuse directly with the robocar accident in AZ a couple years ago – and it worked as it always does.

        2. Steel bumpers, hood ornaments and chromed metal grilles are gone. A-pillars are smaller, collision warnings and back up cameras are common. Crush zones in the nose are mandated for pedestrian safety on anything sold in the EU ( most of what you see on the road)

          1. …and today’s cars handle and brake way, way, way better then cars of the past….

            1. Both of which result in – drivers driving faster.

        3. I’ll pit a 1963 Pontiac Bonneville against your 2000+ year soccer mom SUV any day in a collision.

    3. Oh but they do have experience being in the metal cage. Granted, they’re largely required to be tied into the “correct” seat for a mostly arbitrary length of time.

      That said, I’m sure it’s not just car seats that are driving down America’s birthrate. Just another murky law that tilt the scales against having children.

      It seems to me that the current laws merely paint a target on the backs of anyone with the temerity to not have an abortion. Perhaps we can all take some ironic sense of comfort that all these laws are “for the children”.

    4. Um…..huh? Humans go “inside the car” from the time you strap them into the car seat to take them home from the hospital. I drove a car at the first time at age 13 not from any instruction, but from simply getting behind a wheel (unknown to any adult) and emulating what I had seen during my life up to that point. FROM BEING INSIDE THE CAR. I did pretty well, no wrecks in about 10 miles on a windy country road.

      Also from sentient age, I knew getting hit by a moving car would not be a good idea. I didn’t have to be 16 to know I would like to avoid that.

      People aren’t just “dropped into a car” at age 16. Your entire post is idiocy and infantilization of children, who are not infants, and only sometimes idiots (which is more of a natural immutable characteristic than an age-based one).

      1. No actually what is being infantilized is American kids who now have to be driven around everywhere. Chauffered around and developing all the habits of a protected entitled snowflake. And you apparently think this is ‘normal’. YOU are precisely the sort of ‘normal’ adult who now believes that life/laws must now be developed assuming ‘kids ride inside a vehicle that someone else drives’ not ‘kids walk/bike because those are the modes of mobility that give them freedom’. Everything else flows from that.

        And those laws/practices changed precisely because it DID become dangerous for kids to ride bikes on streets without bike helmets and to use sidewalks that are no longer used/maintained or given any real right of way that drivers will accept.

        1. I don’t “think” something is normal. I am describing observed normal — kids spend a lot of time growing up, in cars. I’m not giving an opinion on that, pro or con, versus past realities. It’s just the way it is.

          1. Yes I understand that is the way it is – now.

            But the whole point is that this WAS a change. And the changes had proximate causes. Suburban Ozzie-and-Harriet lifestyles turned into latchkey kids hanging out at the mall turned into helicopter parenting and kids being driven everywhere. Those are some very extreme pendulum shifts. That took place over about one generation.

            No doubt a lot of it had to do with the changing role of adult women. But this isn’t just a women’s issue with women fighting other women over who’s the best mother. And it seems obvious to me that many of the specific issues here have to do with whether kids are free to be mobile. Not whether they should be free to be abandoned.

            1. It may be obvious to you but I can’t find a coherent point in any of this.

              Are you saying that restrictions on child freedom are the result of objective increases in risk for normal activities?

              Or that coddling children in cars has led to coddling them everywhere?

              Or something else?

              1. Right turn on red was responsible for a 50-100% increase in ped/bike accidents at intersections in the late 70’s. IOW – BEFORE behavior changed, there was an objective change in risk/outcome. Unlike some countries, we did not protest that change in risk. Rather we normalized it.

                Within a couple years, bike helmets became available and soon mandatory. Biking (esp among kids) declined as perceived risk caught up with objective risk. Coincidentally, a baby boomlet and CAFE standards meant that the family car turned from a station wagon into a minivan (atrocious visibility – incl running into your own kids in the driveway). Walking then declined.

    5. You’ve never been around farm kids, who often drive on their own property before they are 16, hell in most rural states the driving age is 14 or 15.

    6. That’s a load of hooey. I know kids who, at six, had their own quads, and the space to run them on. Early ones were gutless and impossible to tip over, for the little guys. They quickly graduated to large,r more powerful and capable machines. Those kids had far better sense of gravity and inertia, coupled with traction lmits, at twelve than I ever had until I’d been driving for years. Inline skates, boats, bicycles (road and trail) are also part of most kids’ growing up. j Out playing in the nieighbourhood growing up, we learned quickly to not only SEE every car that came onto our street, we also learned to quickly determine where it was gonna go, and thus proactively stay out of their way until they were past us. Younger ones learned from the older ones, as is natural. These days, each year or two of kids becomes its own little social construct, and can;t learn the wisdom and experieince of the other groups, OR learn how to look after others. What we did (that we knew our parents knew about) growing up would have most parents behind bars, and the lot of us split up and placed in three or four different foster homes.

  8. “Parents largely remain in the dark as to when and how they can safely make those basic decisions,”

    Feature, not bug. You must make a “reasonable” effort to comply with the law. What is reasonable? We’ll let a judge and a jury decide that after we arrest your ass, but you can be sure it’s an evolving standard that basically means “more”. If it’s reasonable to do A, surely it’s reasonable to do B, and once we’re agreed B is reasonable, surely C is reasonable as well. And once we’re agreed C is reasonable, surely you’ll agree that D is reasonable.

    1. The law, like the Constitution, must be living.

    2. “We’ll let a judge and a jury decide that after we arrest your ass, ” Arrest you, out you to the media, slander your name all through the media to a point where people who know you are afraid to defend you, all while setting your guilt in the minds of anyone who might be selected for your Jury after being directed by a Judge (who wants to be re-elected) to pretty much find you guilty.

      1. But slippery-slope arguments against this are fallacious.

  9. The obvious solution to me is not charge for what might happen, or could happen, but only charge for actual harm. Of course, those bureaucrats would claim invisible immeasurable harm to the kid’s psyche.

    1. As John el Galto pointed out, CPS will be blamed for not preventing actual harm, but won’t be blamed for harm caused by overzealous intervention.

  10. “Is it legal for parents to let their kids play outside on their own or stay home alone for a little while? That’s a simple question without a simple answer.”

    Of course there is a simple answer. Anyone seen as defying the state (or the Karen community) is guilty, and some serious infraction will be determined ex post facto.

  11. For those who subscribe to pro-choice philosophy, why does this end at birth? SOMEone has to decide things post-birth. Is anyone better positioned than the parent/s? Familial pro-choice seems to apply quite well here.

    1. ten-ring shot. Well done.

      But you fail to observe that the pro choice warblers do so out of some sick compulsion to manage other people’s lives. The same pro choice warblers are the ones promoting the kind of smothering abuse being discussed here, simply another facet of the same Nannies gotta Nannie symdrome. In fact some of the same twisted individuals promote urdering the children brfore they are bor,n then murdering their spirits once they are here by imposing their worst-case scenario, “something BAAAAD COULD have heppened .

  12. This will happen when people are duped into believing that there is someone who is good enough to rule over them.

  13. First three months of my thinrd grade I had to ride the schoolbus. Our little neighbourhood was only two sttreets, no easy turnabout, so we had to walk out of that, along one of the busiest streets for a couple blocks, then cross at a four way stop sign intersection during morning commute time. We had no problem. Life got a lot simpler when I transferred to a different school at the winter break. NOW I had to ride my bike about three miles in city trafffic. I had just barely learned to ride my Dad’s big ‘newspaper bike”, far too big for me then. Never had a problem. Never late for school, though one timein about fifthgrade I got soaked because I decided to ride through a big puddle…. to find outit was really a loading dock that was flooded. I had water up to my waist as I saton that BIG bike… the first time such a big bike was relly an advantage. Had I been on an appropriately sized kid bike I likely would have drowned.

    I was also allowed, when prearranged, to ride over to varios friends’ houses after school to mess around for a couple hours, then home in time for supper. At fourteen I was allowed to ride 17 miles down to Newport Harbour where I had access to a 26 foot sailboat, which i as “checked out’ to sail, as long as I had at least one crew. Id be gone all daym never had a watch, only requirement ws to be home in time for supper. My sun clock was VERY accurate…. I was never once late for supper. Though a couple times I raced in throgh the front door just as they were sitting down, and wondering “where’s ME?”. They had not started serving up the food yet, so supper had not started. Stern look was the only reminder that I was skating in thin ice. Note taken. Grace accepted. By the end of my senior year of high school I was riding my high end Italian road bike ALL OVER southern California, everywhere from LA down to San Juan Caistrano, and out into the desert and inland mountains. Logged ten thousand miles on that bike senior year. Every once in a while Mom would ask if I’d been on such and such a road headed some direction last Wednesday after school… I’d think about it for a while realise I had been, and say yes.. she’d then tell me Mrs, So and SO was driving and called her to mention she thought she’d seen me riding my bike along this road. After a few such sightings and confirmations, I realised she did have her network of “obervers” keeping an eye out for me, and reporting back. All fine and good. I’m sure any kid today with a tenth that level of freedom would be rounded up and put into foster care, and my folks in jail for neglect. And that foster care would have gone far harder on me than the self-sufficiency and independence (and bearing the consequences of my own decisions) I was steadily developing without even realising it.

    Now I know children at twenty who are not even allowed to walk or ride outside their small neighbourhoods. The thought of letting him ride bike the fifteen miles to my place is unthinkable….

  14. Murky laws are a much broader and likely intentional problem. Opacity is oppression.

  15. In an official Red Cross babysitting class that I took in the early 80’s, we were told that we could babysit during the day at age 10, and at night at age 11. All over the world, middle age kids take care of their younger siblings while parents are providing for the family. It is the norm, we are the exception.

    1. And that timeframe – the late 1970’s and early 1980’s – was exactly when everything changed in the US compared to most of the rest of the world. Up until then, the increase in driving and infrastructure changes towards driving (occurring since end of WW2 in the US and the 1950’s/60’s elsewhere) had resulted in continuous increases in traffic fatalities everywhere. After the 1973 oil embargo, attitudes about that changed in different places.

      The most extremely opposite response from the US happened in the Netherlands. There, they transitioned away from driving to multimodal – which visibly has resulted in bike paths and even more visibly has resulted in kids using public streets to go everywhere independently or in their own groups starting at maybe age 7 or 8 or so. The US doubled down on driving – including by encouraging more sprawl via zoning, homeowner subsidies, etc. Other places fall somewhere in the middle of those two.

      But everywhere the reality is that cars monopolize the streets over time. And since kids don’t drive, it means kids become passengers to everything in life until they do drive.

    2. This becomes even worse with the school shutdown. Children who a few decades ago would be considered eligible to care for infants are now considered too incompetent to work on a desktop in their own home without supervision. This forces parents who cannot work from home to simply not work

  16. I was one of those parents that got caught up in a row with Child Protective Services.We have a trans racial family of 6 kids, 3 of which were not genetically related and it was very obvious they were not born into the family. A black social worker decided that no white family should be allowed to adopt a black child! She saw me discipline our jet black Asian islander son. I had four of the kids with me, two biological and two adopted. This self appointed social worker with CPS had a police patrolman arrest me for abuse of my recalcitrant child. I had a hold on his arm and was taking him with the rest of us which he wanted no part of. The CPS came to the house and with out any due process at all or any investigation they took all 6 kids into foster care. My wife filed suit against CPS and the social worker and the police department and the city for violating our civil rights and the rights of our children. It took us three weeks to get the kids back. The two oldest boys 11 & 12 were separated in a different foster home. We later found out that the other kids in that home and both foster parents were very abusive. The boys were both tall for their age and all 6 children practiced martial arts as part of the family home schooling exercise program. Those two boys beat each and every abuser bloody the third day they were in the home, and they called 911, as they were taught to do, and told the police about the violent abuse they had received. CPS showed up. Our sons were put into juvienial detention for defending themselves. We were not told anything until we got a notice to appear in court. The judge thought the whole case presented her was highly questionable. We had a two hour talk with the judge. My wife gave the judge all of the official documents we had and her legal brief of all we knew about. The judge called in the CPS worker and the arresting officers. After discussion,with the CPS lawyer, we returned to court and the judge dismissed all charges and actions against our family with prejudice. She then proceed to declare a sanction against the CPS lawyer and social worker. The sanction allowed my wife to sue both the social worker and lawyer civilly for maleficence, abuse of public trust, and real and punitive damages. My wife won the whole thing and a lot of money, and all counseling expenses related to CPS actions until the children were 21 years old, which were considerable. The abusive foster parents went to jail on a whole book full of charges. CPS got a restraining order to not deny civil rights in their actions. It was years ago and I’m still more than very angry….

  17. And this is why the USA is now a snowflake factory.

    Of course, snowflakes are easier to manipulate, because they can’t think for themselves.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.