Child plays at park while parent works....
 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...-alone/374436/

My thoughts: They could have issued a warning and asked the parent if she needs help finding a community-based summer/after school program or child sitter. They didn't have to take the kid unless there was a history of neglect or abuse

What say you, GC?

Exactly what you said.

I disagree completely with the state's response. That's some stranger danger bullshit right there. This merited an investigation which should have resulted in no finding of neglect. Instead, the state has chosen to spend its finite resources to traumatize a family which did nothing wrong. At a time where we have such a high rate of childhood obesity, we should be happy when a child doesn't mind playing outside for several hours at a time.

I like how the article illustrated how irrational the state's response with this activity was as compared to having your children ride with you in the car.

I agree.

Was the state trying to avoid bad publicity (they got it, anyway) and doing a "better safe than sorry" approach?

Perhaps some of the $3.7 billion the government wants to spend on completely unaccompanied minors who aren't Americans could be used to help someone like this family.

In my experience whether a pickup order is issued is most often decided by a poorly trained, minimally educated individual who has only a glancing bit of court oversight. In Oklahoma, the only burden the state has to make after the caseworker has made the individual determination to pick the kid up is whether that caseworker had a "suspicion" which was "reasonable" that abuse or neglect is happening.

I understand legislatures wanting to tip the scales in the direction of protecting children, but few of them understand how potent and dangerous the combination of a referral being made by someone with a bad agenda and a stupid caseworker can be nor how common a combination that actually is.

;) There are billions of other dollars to be scrutinized and redistributed.

I'm questioning the relevance of this comment. The government spends money on all kinds of things. This story is about a child protective services worker who probably overreacted to a situation and has embarrassed herself and her agency.

You're talking about an entirely separate humanitarian crisis.

^^^ I agree.

Tax payers have a right to question where federal money is spent. However, it is a relative low percent of federal dollars being spent on children crossing the boarder. Much more state and federal dollars are spent on U.S. citizens. The question should be how the money is spent and other issues such as those discussed in that "baby born to a drug addict" thread.

Quite frankly, I think it's far more "abusive" (note quotes) to force a 9 year old to stare at a laptop all day sitting at McDonald's with all manner of skeeves popping in and out.

Oh and the nebby person who reported this needs a big old fish slap. Unless the girl looked neglected or appeared to be hurt, why is this your business?

The mom's in a tough situation but consistently leaving a child unspervised, even while holding down a daily
8-hour shift, is a problem. It's made even worse by leaving the child in a public space where who knows what could happen.

What if the child had been abducted or otherwise violated? Who wouldn't be saying "how could the child have (consistently) been left unsupervised?"

I'm interested in what steps the mother took initially, and up until arrrest, to find supervision -- family, friends, etc... Don't know her background so don't have a firm opinion on whether she should have been arrested vs. sternly warned. But, from facts presented, I can't argue with the arrest.

When I was that age, I was riding my bicycle all over town with friends. That was the 1980s and IIRC, child abductions, etc., are far more rare now than they were then. I lived, so did nearly all of my friends.

Kids, depending on their maturity level don't always need 24/7 supervision. Parents these days are overly paranoid and overly protective of children. Some of the dangers we're so worried about just don't exist.

How about we find this kid's father and arrest him...something tells me he's not busting his butt all day to feed his child like her mother is.

It doesn't say anything about him, but that statement is pretty offensive.

It sounds like you have an ax to grind with non-custodial parents. You can't just assume that the father has nothing to do with this kid and doesn't pay support. He could very much want to be a part of the child's life, and this screwup by the mom might open the door for him to modify custody.

Moms don't get this desperate when Dad is sending checks on the regular. A million bucks says this is a one-income household. Maybe he's dead.

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.

The more I think of it, there's so much that could have factored into how this little girl appeared at the park. There are generational and cultural variations in the meaning of "let kids be kids."

In the 1980s, we played without the presence of adults but we never appeared to have no place else to go. We were hanging out and playing. We were never sitting around a park solo and looking lonely or in need of something to do (I'm not saying this little girl was). I liken it to how truant or runaway children look when they hang out instead of going to school or going home. They are clearly staying for extended periods of time to avoid going someplace else.

Also, when we were kids, in the off chance an adult asked us where our parents were or where we lived (if we felt obligated to answer) we would be able to comfortably say that our parents know we are hanging out. We wouldn't be reluctant to answer from fear of getting our parents in trouble.