George Will - Punishing parents who deviate from the government-enforced norm

[darkstar]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...cd035e-f8c4-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html

The Meitivs live in suburban Montgomery County, which is a bedroom for many Washington bureaucrats who make their living minding other people’s business. The Meitivs, to encourage independence and self-reliance, let their 10- and 6-year-old children walk home alone from a park about a mile from their home. For a second time, their children were picked up by police, this time three blocks from home. After confinement in a squad car for almost three hours, during which the police never called or allowed the children to call the Meitivs, the children were given to social workers who finally allowed the parents to reclaim their children at about 11 p.m. on a school night. The Meitivs’ Kafkaesque experiences concluded with them accused of“unsubstantiated” neglect....

“Intensive parenting” is becoming a government-enforced norm. Read “The day I left my son in the car” (Salon.com), Kim Brooks’s essay on her ordeal after leaving her 4-year-old in the car as she darted into a store for about five minutes.

 

[Ray Kinsella]

I read that. We keep a very close eye on our sons, primarily because my wife is hypersensitive to their safety. But I hate the idea of the government deciding how much supervision the children should have.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I assume this is a result of pressure from all the "Family" groups that have sprung up in America in the last decade or so.

I grew up in an era when parents told their kids "go play in the street" and that wasn't a bad thing. Moreover, kids would go out to "play" in the morning with the vague (and rarely enforced) instruction to "be home for dinner" or sometimes just "be home by dark."

But these are different times.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

What we have here seems to be yet another instance of cops behaving badly. But of course the usual suspects will turn it into an attack on liberal values.

 

[darkstar]

It is not often you find George Will pimping salon.com

 

[LuteHawk]

We have two different extremes in parenting today.

There are the Helicopter parents who hover over
their children's ability to grow up as independent adults.

There are the Can't Be Bothered parents who could care
less about their children's development socially and
mentally.

The middle road is the ability to nurture and be interested
in their children's welfare without smothering the children's
creativity.

 

[naturalmwa]

This is why you teach your kids to run from the cops.

 

[linkshero]

How can we be expected to protect the child predators of this country if we have parents letting their kids walk about freely, with no adult supervision?

 

[hawkifann]

Stories like this annoy me. Kids have to learn how to exist on their own and they should have a world that gets bigger as they mature and demonstrate that they can handle it. My 4yo can't do much on his own outside our back yard. Our 8yo has the ability to go up and down our streat and while we don't live on a typical city block, he has roughly "around the block" freedom. My 11yo has been through a variety of stages and now has the ability to cover a radius of up to a couple miles on his bike, provided we know roughly where he's going to be. This allows him to go to quite a few of his friends houses as well as the big park where our Little League plays. I shouldn't have to deal with police because we allow him to bike to his little bro's Little League game and then ride over to a friend's house. Eff that.

 

[22*43*51]

I doubt that this is a practice in all neighborhoods.

 

[thewop]

This is why you teach your kids to run from the cops.

I LOL'd at this, because in this case, it's true.

My parents taught me that cops were there to help, and also told me to 'be home by dinner/dark'. I'd have surely been raised by foster parents these days.

 

[aflachawk]

I assume this is a result of pressure from all the "Family" groups that have sprung up in America in the last decade or so.

I grew up in an era when parents told their kids "go play in the street" and that wasn't a bad thing. Moreover, kids would go out to "play" in the morning with the vague (and rarely enforced) instruction to "be home for dinner" or sometimes just "be home by dark."

But these are different times.

So are you OK with local governments doing this or not? I am not. It's merely a difference in parenting styles. There are helicopter moms and free range parents. These are free range parents.. These are different times to be certain but kids are in much greater danger from extended family than from strangers. That's a truth laws like these totally ignore

 

[Lone Clone]

I assume this is a result of pressure from all the "Family" groups that have sprung up in America in the last decade or so.

I grew up in an era when parents told their kids "go play in the street" and that wasn't a bad thing. Moreover, kids would go out to "play" in the morning with the vague (and rarely enforced) instruction to "be home for dinner" or sometimes just "be home by dark."

But these are different times.

Me, too. And anybody who suggested wearing a helmet when riding a bike would have been looked at like he was crazy....which he would have been. Cars didn't have seat belts. Kids played with BB guns and educational toys like Erector Set, with its electric motor and worm gear that could take off a finger, and the A.C. Gilbert chemistry set, which was suitable for young kids, and included bottles of acid. All the adult men smoked, and did so indoors.

Can't imagine how I lived as long as I did.

 

[Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo]

So are you OK with local governments doing this or not? I am not. It's merely a difference in parenting styles. There are helicopter moms and free range parents. These are free range parents.. These are different times to be certain but kids are in much greater danger from extended family than from strangers. That's a truth laws like these totally ignore

And frankly, Ol' Doodle would contend that the only thing markedly "different" about our "times" is that more people know more details about abductions, abuses, and other child endangerment circumstances than in the past. Instant (and at times overwhelmingly comprehensive) communication and information has made it seem as if the world is full of predators crouched in every shadow and around every corner eagerly awaiting their chance to pounce like a lion on a baby water buffalo.

The obvious truth is, there have always been and will always be predators. But, for instance, growing up in say Fort Dodge, Iowa in the 60s or 70s or 80s...you maybe never even knew about the case of a girl in San Diego abducted from a slumber party, or a boy in New York snatched up a couple of blocks from his house while walking home from school, or heck, you may not even really know all that much about a kid in Des Moines who disappeared while delivering newspapers. In 2015 you simply cannot escape it. That information is ubiquitous.

Today...if a toddler sneezes and farts at the same time in Boise, ID, it will make its way to the Internet in some form or fashion and pretty much anything more significant than that will have its own Website.

This instant, unavoidable avalanche of information about every conceivable topic or event is predominantly why people say stuff like "these are different times we're living in". That's absolutely true....you know, as long as in the context of child safety when you say "different times" what you actually mean is "much better and significantly safer times".

http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-missing-children/2013/05/10/efee398c-b8b4-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

 

[theIowaHawk]

I certainly wouldn't call it Kafkaesque, but it is wrong and it should be stopped.

 

[3 and Out on D]

This is why you teach your kids to run from the cops.

I taught my daughter not to do things that attracted the attention of the cops. She was a great student.

 

[naturalmwa]

I taught my daughter not to do things that attracted the attention of the cops. She was a great student.

Meaning you wouldn't let her walk home from the park? Did she study in the park?

 

[joelbc1]

this is an old story. In fact it was on the evening (national) news a month ago. It seems that the parties involved are now moving to resolve the matter amicably. The State has been involved before and removed the kids. The State only becomes involved when someone issues a complaint with them. Seems to me these folks have some very intrusive neighbors who refuse to leave well enough alone.
Not really "the State's fault" as much as it is others involvement, although good intentioned.

 

[theIowaHawk]

How you determine the State not "at fault" in any of it is perplexing.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

this is an old story. In fact it was on the evening (national) news a month ago. It seems that the parties involved are now moving to resolve the matter amicably. The State has been involved before and removed the kids. The State only becomes involved when someone issues a complaint with them. Seems to me these folks have some very intrusive neighbors who refuse to leave well enough alone.
Not really "the State's fault" as much as it is others involvement, although good intentioned.

That's a "gentle" approach to the situation.

I have no problem with the authorities following up on a complaint that might involve child endangerment. They should. It's how they handled it - and especially how they handled the kids - that I find troubling.

If it is actually dangerous for kids to walk home, then clearly something needs to be done. But that case wasn't made and the official response seems to have been unnecessarily traumatic and drawn out.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Me, too. And anybody who suggested wearing a helmet when riding a bike would have been looked at like he was crazy....which he would have been. Cars didn't have seat belts. Kids played with BB guns and educational toys like Erector Set, with its electric motor and worm gear that could take off a finger, and the A.C. Gilbert chemistry set, which was suitable for young kids, and included bottles of acid. All the adult men smoked, and did so indoors.
Can't imagine how I lived as long as I did.

You survived it? Good for you. Do you realize how dumb that sounds? If someone says they survived the Holocaust or the collapse of the twin towers...does that mean it couldn't have been that bad?

Among children from one to five, deaths from unintentional injuries/accidents dropped from 44 per 100,000 children in 1960 to 8.6 per 100,000 in 2009. Try to get your head around those numbers.

Among children five to nine, the mortality rate from unintentional injury or accidents fell from 19.6 to 3.8 per 100,000 in 2009.

Far more kids didn't survive their childhoods then. If the death rate for five to nine-year-olds from accidents was the same today as it was in 1960, you would have over 3,000 more kids in that age group dying every year. For those under five...over 7500 more deaths every year from accidents. Do that math and you have over 10,000 more deaths among children under 10...every year.

 

[Doodads and Hoohah]

And frankly, Ol' Doodle would contend that the only thing markedly "different" about our "times" is that more people know more details about abductions, abuses, and other child endangerment circumstances than in the past. Instant (and at times overwhelmingly comprehensive) communication and information has made it seem as if the world is full of predators crouched in every shadow and around every corner eagerly awaiting their chance to pounce like a lion on a baby water buffalo.

The obvious truth is, there have always been and will always be predators. But, for instance, growing up in say Fort Dodge, Iowa in the 60s or 70s or 80s...you maybe never even knew about the case of a girl in San Diego abducted from a slumber party, or a boy in New York snatched up a couple of blocks from his house while walking home from school, or heck, you may not even really know all that much about a kid in Des Moines who disappeared while delivering newspapers. In 2015 you simply cannot escape it. That information is ubiquitous.

Today...if a toddler sneezes and farts at the same time in Boise, ID, it will make its way to the Internet in some form or fashion and pretty much anything more significant than that will have its own Website.

This instant, unavoidable avalanche of information about every conceivable topic or event is predominantly why people say stuff like "these are different times we're living in". That's absolutely true....you know, as long as in the context of child safety when you say "different times" what you actually mean is "much better and significantly safer times".

http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/stranger-child-abductions-actually-very-rare-130514.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-missing-children/2013/05/10/efee398c-b8b4-11e2-aa9e-a02b765ff0ea_story.html

I was just going to post the FreeRangeKids.com website. I had this discussion with someone the other day and their first response was "there are so many sick people these days!" Just 25-30 years ago when I was a child we would be out almost all day with friends. My wife and I are pretty much on the same page and totally agree with the Free Range idea.

Another good read on the topic: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Learn-Unleashing-Instinct-Self-Reliant/dp/0465084990

 

[theIowaHawk]

That's a "gentle" approach to the situation.

I have no problem with the authorities following up on a complaint that might involve child endangerment. They should. It's how they handled it - and especially how they handled the kids - that I find troubling.

If it is actually dangerous for kids to walk home, then clearly something needs to be done. But that case wasn't made and the official response seems to have been unnecessarily traumatic and drawn out.

 

[pablow]

Me, too. And anybody who suggested wearing a helmet when riding a bike would have been looked at like he was crazy....which he would have been. Cars didn't have seat belts. Kids played with BB guns and educational toys like Erector Set, with its electric motor and worm gear that could take off a finger, and the A.C. Gilbert chemistry set, which was suitable for young kids, and included bottles of acid. All the adult men smoked, and did so indoors.

Can't imagine how I lived as long as I did.

Playing with mercury,

You survived it? Good for you. Do you realize how dumb that sounds? If someone says they survived the Holocaust or the collapse of the twin towers...does that mean it couldn't have been that bad?

Among children from one to five, deaths from unintentional injuries/accidents dropped from 44 per 100,000 children in 1960 to 8.6 per 100,000 in 2009. Try to get your head around those numbers.

Among children five to nine, the mortality rate from unintentional injury or accidents fell from 19.6 to 3.8 per 100,000 in 2009.

Far more kids didn't survive their childhoods then. If the death rate for five to nine-year-olds from accidents was the same today as it was in 1960, you would have over 3,000 more kids in that age group dying every year. For those under five...over 7500 more deaths every year from accidents. Do that math and you have over 10,000 more deaths among children under 10...every year.

Your statistics are misleading. There has been an overall drop in childhood mortalty over the last half century. Yet the percentage of these deaths that are attributed to unintentional injuries has not changed that significantly. In 1970 37% of deaths age 1-4 were due to unintentional injuries. This percentage in 2007 dropped only to 34%. Age 5-14 deaths due to accidents dropped 49% to 36%.

You survived it? Good for you. Do you realize how dumb that sounds? If someone says they survived the Holocaust or the collapse of the twin towers...does that mean it couldn't have been that bad?

Among children from one to five, deaths from unintentional injuries/accidents dropped from 44 per 100,000 children in 1960 to 8.6 per 100,000 in 2009. Try to get your head around those numbers.

Among children five to nine, the mortality rate from unintentional injury or accidents fell from 19.6 to 3.8 per 100,000 in 2009.

Far more kids didn't survive their childhoods then. If the death rate for five to nine-year-olds from accidents was the same today as it was in 1960, you would have over 3,000 more kids in that age group dying every year. For those under five...over 7500 more deaths every year from accidents. Do that math and you have over 10,000 more deaths among children under 10...every year.

Has the percentage of childhood deaths due to unintentional injuries changed during this time period?

My research indicates that the drop in childhood mortality in the last 70 or 80 years has been across the board thus probably due to improved medical care. And, of course, automobiles have steadily more crashworthy.
http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/images/mchb_child_mortality_pub.pdf