Let my 10 year old walk to the park?

[TroyEade]

What's the road crossings like? Did you know that a child under 10 cannot accuracelty gauge the speed of an oncoming car?

IMHO I wouldn't recommend it just yet. Though nice idea/reward.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: funkymatt
you just posted pics of your children and an address on a public forum, yet you're still wondering about this.

Are you threatening us?

LOL....so you personally know everyone here and who they are?

your ignorance is astounding.....not only does everyone here registered and non-registered know where you live and what park you want to send your kid to on her own....now everyone knows what she looks like.....there is no "us" that could be threatened...only her.....your not gonna get raped by some depraved individual......think about it.....is giving her that freedom worth it just to prove to a bunch of no names of some stupid forum that you are not intimidated by threats that you do not see....that you don't want to be over protective of her?

think about it.

Think about what? Your rambling is incoherent. My admittedly sarcastic point was that you are arguing a priori (and you continue to do so). You are approcahing this from the perspective that it is absolutely, unalterably, DANGEROUS to let my child walk to the park AND to have the audacity to show their pictures on line. I'm asking that you back that up with data.

Why is it dangerous? Tell me so I know!

I tend to agree that people are too overprotective these days. But what I don't understand is why you felt the need to post your address and daughters' pictures on ATOT. What purpose could that possibly serve? We don't need to know what your daughters look like to offer opinions on your dilemma. I mean letting them go the park together, nothing wrong with that IMO. Kids need to get out and do stuff, get dirty, get scraped up, etc. -- I don't think they should be cooped up inside or in the back yard all the time. But posting their pictures online is increasing the risk (albeit probably very small, but still) of something happening for no good reason. It seems to me like you're just trying to prove something, like you're saying "hey look at me, I'm so not overprotective that I'm willing to post pictures of my young girls on an internet message board."

I would say the fundamental difference is that I don't feel it's dangerous to post pictures online. I'm not aware of any meaningful data that would indicate it's dangerous to do so. You seem to feel there's an inherent risk in doing so and I don't.
I'm open to suggestion, prove to me that it's dangerous.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Captante
I allow my 10 y/o daughter to play outside with her friends & to walk home from her school which (approx 1/2 mile from my house with a group of other children her age) but I wouldn't allow her to make the same walk by herself & I certainly wouldn't ever leave her in charge of a 6 year old in addition to herself.

Why? - have a reason.

Because although random violence against kids is rare it does happen & when it does it happens to kids out by themselves ... it may be that I'm a bit paranoid but if thats the case so be it.

As for allowing a 10y/o to look after a 6/yo for any more then a few minutes in the back yard, all I can say is that its a very bad idea & if somthing did happen to one/both of them you could likely expect serious legal ramifications.

I would send both of them together so that they would not be alone.
Disregarding the legal implications (which I believe is arguable, you can't reasonably anticipate kidnappings) most of the world EXPECTS female children over 7 to look after younger siblings. This would seem to indicate a universal propensity of children over that age to command basic supervisory roles. I'd have to look for the data of course, all I'm trying to say is that a 10 year old can probably ni most circumstances walk a 6 year old to the park and back. Granted, I know my 6 year old and she's not a crazy run-in-the-street type. I wouldn't expect my 10 year old to walk my 7 year old nephew to the park. He's CRAZY.

Regardless I still think its a bad idea ... if your older daughter were 12 I'd almost certainly have a different opinion since thats considered by many to be the minimum age for any kind of baby-sitting assignment.

More then likely everything would be fine letting the two of them walk to the park unsupervised, but by the same token your odds of surviving the drive to work without a seatbelt are extremely good and I'll bet you buckled up this morning anyway.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: TroyEade
What's the road crossings like? Did you know that a child under 10 cannot accuracelty gauge the speed of an oncoming car?

IMHO I wouldn't recommend it just yet. Though nice idea/reward.

FFS! Good point, finally.
In truth the crossings are very safe, they both have been trianed they are never to cross while a moving car is in sight. I will probably need to walk with them a few times to gauge how well they follow this rule without me reminding them.

Thanks you!

 

[frostedflakes]

The amount of MySpace and instant messenger predators you hear about on the news should be proof enough that there are people online actively pursuing information on where vulnerable children live, what they look like, etc. I guess I don't have any statistics to back this up, but if you really don't think that there isn't the slightest chance of one of these people finding this information and using it to their advantage, I would say you are pretty ignorant. As I stated before, the risk is probably minimal, but I don't see how you can claim that there is no risk.

BTW, Google has already cached this thread. I just hope there are no predators on Google looking for vulnerable 10 year olds on their way to the park.

text

edited to fix my failure at linking.

edit 2: OK no idea why my link description isn't displaying correctly, but the link itself works.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Captante
I allow my 10 y/o daughter to play outside with her friends & to walk home from her school which (approx 1/2 mile from my house with a group of other children her age) but I wouldn't allow her to make the same walk by herself & I certainly wouldn't ever leave her in charge of a 6 year old in addition to herself.

Why? - have a reason.

Because although random violence against kids is rare it does happen & when it does it happens to kids out by themselves ... it may be that I'm a bit paranoid but if thats the case so be it.

As for allowing a 10y/o to look after a 6/yo for any more then a few minutes in the back yard, all I can say is that its a very bad idea & if somthing did happen to one/both of them you could likely expect serious legal ramifications.

I would send both of them together so that they would not be alone.
Disregarding the legal implications (which I believe is arguable, you can't reasonably anticipate kidnappings) most of the world EXPECTS female children over 7 to look after younger siblings. This would seem to indicate a universal propensity of children over that age to command basic supervisory roles. I'd have to look for the data of course, all I'm trying to say is that a 10 year old can probably ni most circumstances walk a 6 year old to the park and back. Granted, I know my 6 year old and she's not a crazy run-in-the-street type. I wouldn't expect my 10 year old to walk my 7 year old nephew to the park. He's CRAZY.

Regardless I still think its a bad idea ... if your older daughter were 12 I'd almost certainly have a different opinion since thats considered by many to be the minimum age for any kind of baby-sitting assignment.

More then likely everything would be fine letting the two of them walk to the park unsupervised, but by the same token your odds of surviving the drive to work without a seatbelt are extremely good and I'll bet you buckled up this morning anyway.

Thank you, good point.
I would argue the comparison is not properly analogous. The odds of me getting in a car accident are considerably greater than my daughter getting kidnapped, molested or injured on her way to the park.

 

[Baked]

Dear OP, you're a horrible parent. You've just exposed your children to people like the ones in To Catch a Predator. I suggest you take down your daughters' pics and link to the park immediately.

Ps. Please grow a brain.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
The amount of MySpace and instant messenger predators you hear about on the news should be proof enough that there are people online actively pursuing information on where vulnerable children live, what they look like, etc. I guess I don't have any statistics to back this up, but if you really don't think that there isn't the slightest chance of one of these people finding this information and using it to their advantage, I would say you are pretty ignorant. As I stated before, the risk is probably minimal, but I don't see how you can claim that there is no risk.

BTW, Google has already cached this thread. I just hope there are no predators on Google looking for vulnerable 10 year olds on their way to the park.

http://www.google.com/search?q...icial&client=firefox-a

Do you feel good about intentionally fear-mongering without valid statistics or data or anything besides what you saw on the news. Do you, at any level, realize how counter-productive and incendiary that is?

Think about these things for a while, it may help you in life.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Baked
Dear OP, you're a horrible parent. You've just exposed your children to people like the ones in To Catch a Predator. I suggest you take down your daughters' pics and link to the park immediately.

Ps. Please grow a brain.

Prove it, you fvcking pothead.

 

[djheater]

Talk about the "pussification" of America. Do you guys realize that almost all responders have endorsed the helicopter parent model?
The world is really not that dangerous people.

 

[BigJ]

So this thread really wasn't about allowing your kids to go the park alone, but to allow you to stroke yourself and take pride in yourself for being such a radical parent?

Right then, carry on.

 

[JM Aggie08]

never thought i'd see the day when a lifer just went insane on the board. well beside loke.

calm down foo.

 

[CorCentral]

Never mind! :roll:

If I said those things I'd get banned for sure :laugh:

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: BigJ
So this thread really wasn't about allowing your kids to go the park alone, but to allow you to stroke yourself and take pride in yourself for being such a radical parent?

Right then, carry on.

Hey, I'm the one being accused of jeapordizing my child's wellbeing. As a parent I take that very seriously, that's not something I'd ever do.

I posted the thread, becuase I'm conflicted, your smarmy analysis is cute but doesn't help me in any way. Got something better?

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Captante

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Captante
I allow my 10 y/o daughter to play outside with her friends & to walk home from her school which (approx 1/2 mile from my house with a group of other children her age) but I wouldn't allow her to make the same walk by herself & I certainly wouldn't ever leave her in charge of a 6 year old in addition to herself.

Why? - have a reason.

Because although random violence against kids is rare it does happen & when it does it happens to kids out by themselves ... it may be that I'm a bit paranoid but if thats the case so be it.

As for allowing a 10y/o to look after a 6/yo for any more then a few minutes in the back yard, all I can say is that its a very bad idea & if somthing did happen to one/both of them you could likely expect serious legal ramifications.

I would send both of them together so that they would not be alone.
Disregarding the legal implications (which I believe is arguable, you can't reasonably anticipate kidnappings) most of the world EXPECTS female children over 7 to look after younger siblings. This would seem to indicate a universal propensity of children over that age to command basic supervisory roles. I'd have to look for the data of course, all I'm trying to say is that a 10 year old can probably ni most circumstances walk a 6 year old to the park and back. Granted, I know my 6 year old and she's not a crazy run-in-the-street type. I wouldn't expect my 10 year old to walk my 7 year old nephew to the park. He's CRAZY.

Regardless I still think its a bad idea ... if your older daughter were 12 I'd almost certainly have a different opinion since thats considered by many to be the minimum age for any kind of baby-sitting assignment.

More then likely everything would be fine letting the two of them walk to the park unsupervised, but by the same token your odds of surviving the drive to work without a seatbelt are extremely good and I'll bet you buckled up this morning anyway.

Thank you, good point.
I would argue the comparison is not properly analogous. The odds of me getting in a car accident are considerably greater than my daughter getting kidnapped, molested or injured on her way to the park.

Just trying to help & my only point is better safe then sorry! 🙂

Bottom line is you know your kids & your neighborhood a lot better then I do so its your call, I'm just telling you what I'd do in your place & again I wouldn't take the chance until they were just a bit older, but if you do go ahead I'd suggest you do a bit of experimenting to see how the 10/yo would react if god-forbid somthing bad did happen when you arn't around.

 

[ranmaniac]

If your 10 year old gets hurt in the park and there's no adult supervision, you can end up having your kids CPS'd and put into foster care. The difference between the 70s and the 80s, compared to today, was that we didn't have the internet that can expose your children to child predators around the country.

I agree that we do tend to shelter children in this country, however that doesn't mean a 10 and 6 year old can't be involved in activities, just make sure they're supervised activities.

And if you think that I'm not serious about what can happen, here's a FAQ from the Baltimore Police department, which probably will be much like your local PD.

http://www.baltimorecountymd.g..._faq/index.html#should

Q. What should I do if I see unsupervised children in my neighborhood and I am worried about their safety?

A. Call the Baltimore County Police at 911. They will make an immediate assessment of the child's safety and if necessary, the police will contact Child Protective Services at the Department of Social Services.

If you have a general concern and there is not an immediate issue of the child's safety, you can call 410-853-3000 to discuss the situation with our screening unit. Depending on what you have observed, a child neglect investigation might result.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: JM Aggie08
never thought i'd see the day when a lifer just went insane on the board. well beside loke.

calm down foo.

If you think asking for valid reasons to back up simple opinions is 'crazy' or a reason to 'calm down' then I'm not certain I'd be interested in your opinion.

 

[Kirby]

If it was me, I'd let her go, but tail her for safety. That way'd it give her the illusion of being independant and help her self-esteem and still be safe.

Ninja skills FTW!

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
If your 10 year old gets hurt in the park and there's no adult supervision, you can end up having your kids CPS'd and put into foster care. The difference between the 70s and the 80s, compared to today, was that we didn't have the internet that can expose your children to child predators around the country.

I agree that we do tend to shelter children in this country, however that doesn't mean a 10 and 6 year old can't be involved in activities, just make sure they're supervised activities.

And if you think that I'm not serious about what can happen, here's a FAQ from the Baltimore Police department, which probably will be much like your local PD.

http://www.baltimorecountymd.g..._faq/index.html#should

Q. What should I do if I see unsupervised children in my neighborhood and I am worried about their safety?

A. Call the Baltimore County Police at 911. They will make an immediate assessment of the child's safety and if necessary, the police will contact Child Protective Services at the Department of Social Services.

If you have a general concern and there is not an immediate issue of the child's safety, you can call 410-853-3000 to discuss the situation with our screening unit. Depending on what you have observed, a child neglect investigation might result.

So, focusing on the threat of DCFS taking my children from me, I should ignore that fact that at least three parties have to make a reasonable assessment of danger and just forbid my child from ever leaving the house until the magical age of 12?
This seems reasonable?

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
If it was me, I'd let her go, but tail her for safety. That way'd it give her the illusion of being independant and help her self-esteem and still be safe.

Ninja skills FTW!

I wouldn't lie to my kids about it. Either they can go on their own recognaisance or they can't. I think you'd get into worse danger if they THOUGHT they were allowed to do stuff that they actually weren't.

Let's be clear. My daughter doesn't EXPECT me to allow her to go to the park. I'm just coming to believe that there's no reason to stop her.

~lots of typos this late 🙁

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
If your 10 year old gets hurt in the park and there's no adult supervision, you can end up having your kids CPS'd and put into foster care. The difference between the 70s and the 80s, compared to today, was that we didn't have the internet that can expose your children to child predators around the country.

I agree that we do tend to shelter children in this country, however that doesn't mean a 10 and 6 year old can't be involved in activities, just make sure they're supervised activities.

And if you think that I'm not serious about what can happen, here's a FAQ from the Baltimore Police department, which probably will be much like your local PD.

http://www.baltimorecountymd.g..._faq/index.html#should

Q. What should I do if I see unsupervised children in my neighborhood and I am worried about their safety?

A. Call the Baltimore County Police at 911. They will make an immediate assessment of the child's safety and if necessary, the police will contact Child Protective Services at the Department of Social Services.

If you have a general concern and there is not an immediate issue of the child's safety, you can call 410-853-3000 to discuss the situation with our screening unit. Depending on what you have observed, a child neglect investigation might result.

So, focusing on the threat of DCFS taking my children from me, I should ignore that fact that at least three parties have to make a reasonable assessment of danger and just forbid my child from ever leaving the house until the magical age of 12?
This seems reasonable?

18 is also another magical age. Make your own decisions. You asked for opinions, you got them.

I wouldn't let my 10 year old sister wlak to the park without me accompanying her, when I was 18. Why? Because something COULD happen. Even unrelated to "evil" strangers, she could get hurt.

I lock my doors at night, I arm my alarm, I arm myself, I have insurance for the house, for my car, my health, teeth. All these things because things CAN happen, not will or to show people I'm unafraid.

EDIT: To be clear, its not the age, its maturity and sense of trust they can handle themselves. My younger sister was trusted to go to the park and ride her bike around when she got to 12, the youngest (1 year younger) wasn't trusted until she was 14.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: ranmaniac
If your 10 year old gets hurt in the park and there's no adult supervision, you can end up having your kids CPS'd and put into foster care. The difference between the 70s and the 80s, compared to today, was that we didn't have the internet that can expose your children to child predators around the country.

I agree that we do tend to shelter children in this country, however that doesn't mean a 10 and 6 year old can't be involved in activities, just make sure they're supervised activities.

And if you think that I'm not serious about what can happen, here's a FAQ from the Baltimore Police department, which probably will be much like your local PD.

http://www.baltimorecountymd.g..._faq/index.html#should

Q. What should I do if I see unsupervised children in my neighborhood and I am worried about their safety?

A. Call the Baltimore County Police at 911. They will make an immediate assessment of the child's safety and if necessary, the police will contact Child Protective Services at the Department of Social Services.

If you have a general concern and there is not an immediate issue of the child's safety, you can call 410-853-3000 to discuss the situation with our screening unit. Depending on what you have observed, a child neglect investigation might result.

So, focusing on the threat of DCFS taking my children from me, I should ignore that fact that at least three parties have to make a reasonable assessment of danger and just forbid my child from ever leaving the house until the magical age of 12?
This seems reasonable?

18 is also another magical age. Make your own decisions. You asked for opinions, you got them.

I wouldn't let my 10 year old sister wlak to the park without me accompanying her, when I was 18. Why? Because something COULD happen. Even unrelated to "evil" strangers, she could get hurt.

I lock my doors at night, I arm my alarm, I arm myself, I have insurance for the house, for my car, my health, teeth. All these things because things CAN happen, not will or to show people I'm unafraid.

I'm not arguing. My perception has become that there's a potential harm in NOT letting her go to the park. Now I have to weigh the possible harm of letting her go unattended and the possible harm of sheltering her.

Clearly the forum consensus is that I should continue to shelter her.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: funkymatt
you just posted pics of your children and an address on a public forum, yet you're still wondering about this.

Are you threatening us?

LOL....so you personally know everyone here and who they are?

your ignorance is astounding.....not only does everyone here registered and non-registered know where you live and what park you want to send your kid to on her own....now everyone knows what she looks like.....there is no "us" that could be threatened...only her.....your not gonna get raped by some depraved individual......think about it.....is giving her that freedom worth it just to prove to a bunch of no names of some stupid forum that you are not intimidated by threats that you do not see....that you don't want to be over protective of her?

think about it.

Think about what? Your rambling is incoherent. My admittedly sarcastic point was that you are arguing a priori (and you continue to do so). You are approcahing this from the perspective that it is absolutely, unalterably, DANGEROUS to let my child walk to the park AND to have the audacity to show their pictures on line. I'm asking that you back that up with data.

Why is it dangerous? Tell me so I know!

I tend to agree that people are too overprotective these days. But what I don't understand is why you felt the need to post your address and daughters' pictures on ATOT. What purpose could that possibly serve? We don't need to know what your daughters look like to offer opinions on your dilemma. I mean letting them go the park together, nothing wrong with that IMO. Kids need to get out and do stuff, get dirty, get scraped up, etc. -- I don't think they should be cooped up inside or in the back yard all the time. But posting their pictures online is increasing the risk (albeit probably very small, but still) of something happening for no good reason. It seems to me like you're just trying to prove something, like you're saying "hey look at me, I'm so not overprotective that I'm willing to post pictures of my young girls on an internet message board."

I would say the fundamental difference is that I don't feel it's dangerous to post pictures online. I'm not aware of any meaningful data that would indicate it's dangerous to do so. You seem to feel there's an inherent risk in doing so and I don't.
I'm open to suggestion, prove to me that it's dangerous.

what about your daughters' possible expectation of some degree of privacy? i.e., maybe they don't want their pictures posted to an internet forum. if I was that age, I wouldn't want my dad posting my pictures - I'd be furious and outraged.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: Wheezer

Originally posted by: djheater

Originally posted by: funkymatt
you just posted pics of your children and an address on a public forum, yet you're still wondering about this.

Are you threatening us?

LOL....so you personally know everyone here and who they are?

your ignorance is astounding.....not only does everyone here registered and non-registered know where you live and what park you want to send your kid to on her own....now everyone knows what she looks like.....there is no "us" that could be threatened...only her.....your not gonna get raped by some depraved individual......think about it.....is giving her that freedom worth it just to prove to a bunch of no names of some stupid forum that you are not intimidated by threats that you do not see....that you don't want to be over protective of her?

think about it.

Think about what? Your rambling is incoherent. My admittedly sarcastic point was that you are arguing a priori (and you continue to do so). You are approcahing this from the perspective that it is absolutely, unalterably, DANGEROUS to let my child walk to the park AND to have the audacity to show their pictures on line. I'm asking that you back that up with data.

Why is it dangerous? Tell me so I know!

I tend to agree that people are too overprotective these days. But what I don't understand is why you felt the need to post your address and daughters' pictures on ATOT. What purpose could that possibly serve? We don't need to know what your daughters look like to offer opinions on your dilemma. I mean letting them go the park together, nothing wrong with that IMO. Kids need to get out and do stuff, get dirty, get scraped up, etc. -- I don't think they should be cooped up inside or in the back yard all the time. But posting their pictures online is increasing the risk (albeit probably very small, but still) of something happening for no good reason. It seems to me like you're just trying to prove something, like you're saying "hey look at me, I'm so not overprotective that I'm willing to post pictures of my young girls on an internet message board."

I would say the fundamental difference is that I don't feel it's dangerous to post pictures online. I'm not aware of any meaningful data that would indicate it's dangerous to do so. You seem to feel there's an inherent risk in doing so and I don't.
I'm open to suggestion, prove to me that it's dangerous.

what about your daughters' possible expectation of some degree of privacy? i.e., maybe they don't want their pictures posted to an internet forum. if I was that age, I wouldn't want my dad posting my pictures - I'd be furious and outraged.

You're trying to change the argument and skewer me on some other, entirely unrelated point. I'm their guardian and decided to post the pictures. I have that right without question.

Got something to contribute or just want to argue?

 

[uhohs]

unfortunately you also have the right to display piss poor judgement.