I read nothing of the father in the story. I have no problem with him having responsibility as well if he's co-parenting the child.

I think the bigger point, however, is breaking the cycle that's potentially put a child in danger on a daily basis.

I couldn't agree more.

Wow.. just doubling down.

Damn straight. This is what poverty looks like in America. It looks like single parents who don't get consistent support from a working second parent. I'm quite comfortable assuming that a pattern that applies in 95% of such cases is pretty likely here unless/until there's information to the contrary.

It's a fact that a parent of either gender who runs away rarely (ever?) gets arrested for endangering a child. It's the parent who sticks around and actually tries to do the job who ends up in jail.

Ah, but that's the rub. Suppose he isn't co-parenting. Suppose he bailed. Then he doesn't get in any criminal trouble. That's a flaw in the way our system is set up.

This is absurd. I know times have changed but by 9 I was allowed to walk around the mall alone. And on Nantucket I just biked everywhere and walked around town alone or with friends. We'd also walk to a shopping Plaza not far from my house as a kid.

People have gotten so up tight about stranger Sanger and having to know where your kid is at every possible moment.

Sometimes I think this everything at your fingertips tech world is doing more harm than good.

The kid was 9, in a public park where lots of other kids and moms were, with a cell phone to call Mom if there was a problem, and only 1/3 mile (walking) from where Mom was working. Most 9 year old kids do not need constant parental supervision. They go out to play, ride bikes, walk home from school, etc. All of the "what if she..." scenarios are true for kids walking home from school too, but kids do it. More kids are injured or die in car accidents than are victims of stranger danger, but we don't consider it neglect if we take a kid in the car.

That's where I take issue. You're simply assuming the father has bailed on the situation. It is not always so simple.

You don't know that the father here doesn't desparately want to have a co-parenting relationship here. Fathers, especially to children out-of-wedlock, don't have equal rights to the children unless they can afford to go to court and win a trial to win those rights. Most states award custody to the mother by default and require the father to pay child support.

I can't find any reference to the father in news stories. We shall see if additional information is provided about the father.

:rolleyes:

http://living.msn.com/family-parenti...old-play-alone

She said "suppose he bailed." That is a possibility, not an assumption. And if he was somewhere scraping together the money to take the mother to court for his well-deserved parental rights, he is still not the one being charged.

I think it's unfortunate that this whole thing happened in the first place and even more unfortunate that the woman lost her job over it. I do agree with the post upthread about it being better to be out at the park with other children than sitting in McDonald's on a laptop all day. It's great that she's been getting donations but I hope she gets an offer for another job.

Some good news:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...s-lawyer-says/

Daycare is just too expensive for some people. I honestly don't know how some people even manage to afford it...

^ No kidding. (pun intended ;) ) A former coworker told me that his child's daycare closed promptly at 6pm, and charged $5 for every MINUTE a parent was late picking up his/her child. Of course, if a parent doesn't pick up his/her child on time, some adult has to hang around to watch the child, but still - three hundred dollars an hour? I know lawyers who don't pull down that type of money.

I hear ya. My university is located in a pretty affluent area and I'm slightly ashamed to be a part of the system; however, providing childcare in this area has easily paid more than any job I've ever had except for one (case manager at a private hospital). I love children and I'm excellent at what I do but I don't blame that woman for taking the option she did.

I agree with what Kevin said upthread. This shouldn't be an issue. By age eight I was riding my bike around town, going to the pool with my friends without supervision (there would be lifeguards obviously, and I was on the local swim team so my parents knew I could swim very well), going to the park with just my friends and no adults. My friends parents were the same way with letting them ride their bikes around town and go to the park without adults. We were never in any danger. I wasn't allowed to sit in front of the TV all day - I went out with my friends and played all day and came back home before dinner time. This was in 1999-2001 ish. Granted, I am from a small town but I do think that a lot of the things we are constantly worried about simply aren't things worth worrying about. Let kids be kids.