posted
We have been struggling with this for a while. We let our daughter go for a short bike ride alone, around the loop of a nearby street. My husband was not at all for it. I said it was fine. She came home last summer, bloody, from a fall in the sand at the side of the road.
Tonight, my son asked if he could go on a short bike ride alone. I said OK. He came home sobbing because a dog had chased him. I was horrified.
So, do I keep them penned up in the yard at all times? How much do I let them loose? It is really a tough one for me, and I wonder what everyone else feels about this. It does not help at all when I think of the ways we ran the roads at my kids' ages. We climbed trees, rode bikes poorly on busy roads, hiked through woods, played near water, and threw choke cherries at cars. (I got caught, of course, though everyone else biked way.)
I read the story of this psycho in Idaho, and I panic whenever my kids are out of sight, yet I want them to be able to explore.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not a parent, but I do know one thing.... sooner or later they are going to go out alone. The only question is when.
I couldn't guess when is right for your son or daughter without knowing their ages, whether they can be trusted, and how dangerous your neighborhood is.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the danger of falling or whatever, I force myself to relax and bak off. I think they have to take those little risks, of falling off the bike or whatever, to grow. As far as the risk of kidnapping or something like that, even though there have been an alarmingly high number of cases in the last year, stranger abductions are actually extremely rare.
But that's only part of the answer, because it depends on your kids and how much you can trust them to follow the rules you set, and to remember the things you have taught them about talking to strangers, street safety, etc. I don't trust my kids out in the neighborhood yet. They are seven, and I know that other kids seem to be trusted more by their parents, but I know my kids and they're not ready yet.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would let them, within reason. Being cloistered away is almost as damaging as being let loose to run wild, at least for most children, because the best way to make them go really, really wild in their teens is to be too strict.
On the other hand, you need to have SOME sort of limits, or they will run wild without even knowing they ae doing so.
What are their ages again? I have been to your house for dinner, and it seemed like a pretty quite neighborhood.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
1. Purchase walkie-talkies. Give your child one and keep one with you. Make a rule that he or she has to respond when you call within 30 seconds (or whatever is a reasonable amount of time to stop what they're doing and pick up their walkie-talkie).
2. Have set check-in times when they have to check in with you face-to-face. I would suggest every hour or half-hour, depending on the age.
3. Check the sex offender registry for your zip code and the surrounding zip codes. Check it weekly - sex offenders are transient. This is not so you'll live in fear, but so you can be aware of any dangers in your area.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
My kids are geekily obedient. They are 11(girl) and 8 and 3/4(boy)(his number).
The walkie talies are a great idea. We had some, and they did not really work, but we need to get new ones.
The sad thing is, I feel safer when they are on bikes, yet that is when they have had problems.
Our neighborhood is very quiet and nice, but the road is a cut-off people tke to save time, and they often go faster than they should. Whenever they ask me if they can do so0mething, like walk or bike to a certain place, I usually say, "Um, I am not sure."
I want them to be more free to move around, but I am terrified they will move around.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My kids are younger and I don't allow them to go out on the road without supervision. I would with an 11 year old. (My nephew is that age)
Walkie talkies are a great idea and I use them with my family.
I often find I feel more comfortable if they have a destination in mind than if they're just wandering around. That way if they don't arrive, someone will know about it and they can call to say they have arrived. I also like groups. Predators tend to stay away from groups of 3 or 4.
Posts: 251 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm worried about letting my kid run around the neighborhood, too. He's seven. I don't worry here, because I am on an Army base (I like to refer to it as the Ultimate Gated Community), but we are moving to a civilian area (husband's going into recruiting *shudder*) in the next two months. It's going to be the first time I've lived off-base in ten years.
Golly.
So I'm going to have to revise my mindset in many different ways.
Luckily for me, my son is very sure of what's right and what's wrong ('stranger danger', etc) and follows house rules (loudly protesting, sometimes, but if you tell him it's for safety reasons, he's more impressed). I'm just afraid of smothering, I guess.
This was not a particularly helpful post. So sorry. Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: Our neighborhood is very quiet and nice, but the road is a cut-off people tke to save time, and they often go faster than they should. Whenever they ask me if they can do so0mething, like walk or bike to a certain place, I usually say, "Um, I am not sure."
Have you thought about advocating for speed bumps?
Posts: 2149 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is ridiculous. When I was 11 I walked to school every morning, two kilometers, and back in the evenings. Indeed, I did the same when I was 8. You are way, way, over-protecting your kids; there are not hordes of ravening cannibals waiting just outside your yard gates, and they need to learn that.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, I was quite clear that I ran around the neighborhood as well when I was young. (Of course, when I ran, it was uphill in every direction, snowy, and ten below zero.) This exact running around that I did so blissfully is what scares me now when I think of my children doing it. So, just because my parents were fairly permissive does not automatically make me think that I am way, way overprotective. Do you have children, I forget? Have you felt the electric shock of their pain through your system? I live a very few miles away from a woman who dropped her teenage daughter off fo lifeguarding duty, and never saw her again.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Miro, it is not really that type of road. I have called and asked the police to patrol it more often, though.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
King of Men, I could not disagree with you more.
In my area, there are 47 registered sex offenders. And half of them were convicted of taking indecent liberties with children. The other half were convicted of carnal knowledge of child 13 to 15 years old, forcible sodomy, rape, aggravated sexual battery, abduction, and abduction for immoral purposes. Three of them are currently wanted - two of the three for taking indecent liberties with children and abduction. I think it's prefectly reasonable for me to be nervous about allowing my children out alone and to take whatever precautions I feel necessary to protect them. And I think any mother is justified in feeling the same way, no matter where she lives (I live in one of the wealthiest suburbs of Richmond).
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant to make the point that there is no safe neighborhood. No matter how "nice" your neighborhood is, there are sexual predators everywhere. The area where I live has high property values and a strong police presence and I still wouldn't feel comfortable letting my children roam around alone. I wasn't bragging and I hope it didn't come across like that.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's face it. The world today is much scarier for kids than when we were kids. It's a simple matter of population. If x percent of the population is deviant, or whatever, then an increase in numbers leads to an increase in whatever undesirable factors.
I think you are right to be prudent and safe about your children. Mine is only seven. He can't leave sight of the house. It's tough for him, though, as his friends want to go off and ride around the neighborhood. But they are older.
I'll gradually give him more lead as he gets older, but, as I said, this isn't the world we grew up in.
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in a town of about 600 people. There are 2 registered sex offenders in our town, according to the sex offender website.
I do let my kids go to the park or their friends' houses on their own, however. From time to time, I show them the pictures on the website so they know whom to avoid, and I've driven them past the houses so they know where to avoid. I think it's about time we had another reminder discussion about what to look out for, though.
Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I worked in a group home for sex offenders. They were between the ages of 8 and 11.
These were children who had been sexually abused, but who had already been charged with abuse of others. At that age.
So, as much as I want to be fair, and as much as I believe people can reform, I don't think sex offenders can. At least not to the point where I will ever feel my children are safe from them.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think your children will never be safe, regardless of whether you let them out alone or not.
After all, do you drive them around in a car? If so you are exposing them to a far greater threat than sex offenders. I guarantee you that there are more serious car accidents in your area than sex crimes.
There's any number of things to get paranoid about - both inside the home and outside. What if you have cleaning chemicals that might poison them? Or do you have a set of stairs they might dangerously run down? How about if you own a gun they might be able to find? Any number of horrible things do, in fact, happen to children in all sorts of places. Chances are they won't, though.
Are you sure your kids are that much safer inside with you? Or is it just less frightening for you if you have them nearby? When they are young, I think it is the former, but as they grow older, my suspicion is that it becomes more and more the latter for parents.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Let's face it. The world today is much scarier for kids than when we were kids. It's a simple matter of population. If x percent of the population is deviant, or whatever, then an increase in numbers leads to an increase in whatever undesirable factors.
Also... this is an illusion. The population may increase, but the PERCENT still stays the same, meaning the chances of any given person in your neighborhood being "bad" remains the same. Furthermore, even if the population of your neighborhood increases, thus increasing the number of bad people, that number is offset by the fact that those bad people have more potential victims to choose from, and thus the chance of YOU becoming their victim drops.
The only thing an increase in population does is make it sound scarier, because instead of 1 murder there may be 10. But what the news reports often do not mention is that if the population has gone from 1,000 to 10,000, the murder rate is no higher than ever. Similarly, when someone says there are 42 sex offenders in the area it sounds bad, but only until it is added that there is probably thousands of people in that same area, the vast vast majority of which are not sex offenders. This is the danger of using flat numbers out of context, rather than percentages.
Furthermore, because of better monitoring ability by police and communities, more anti-crime effort, and a heightened awareness of criminal behavior, the world is actually safer now than in the past. If you look at actual crime rates, they have been dropping nationally. You are safer now than in the past.
The truth is, I think, the world is far less scary for kids than ever. Kids don't watch the news so they aren't freaked out by the above illusion like parents are, unless their parents scare them.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every time is the worst time to be a kid, throughout history.
There are always things to be scared off, but remember, it's not where you raise your kids, but how you raise your kids that matters.
You'll have to trust them to exercise good judgement at some point. Prudence is one thing, but it can quickly become suffocating.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elizabeth you sound like a great mom to me. You're concerned not only about your kids safety but you recognize the fact that you may be protecting them too much.
My thinking - if they have helmets then you've already reduced by far the chances of serious injury on bikes. Scraped knees and elbows from bike falls are part of childhood and I think it's fine to let them ride their bikes in the neighborhood, though I second the advice about walkie talkies and check-ins.
The dog is an issue I WOULD address, however. I would ask your son to show you what house it was and have a chat with the dog's owner, asking them to please keep the dog put away so it doesn't chase the neighborhood children. I assume there's a leash law? You can always call authorities if it remains a problem, but I'd try a friendly request first.
As for the sexual predator issue, remember many of them look for easy prey. Your kids are old enough to learn basic "stranger danger" and I'm sure you've taught them all that. You might want to have a refresher session, sit down and talk specifically about what they should do if someone approaches them in a car, or on foot while they're on their bikes.
*hugs* I know the feeling. The rule we have for our kids (age 12 down to 5) is simple - you can play outside but if I open the door and call your name you must answer me. In other words, they can't ever be further away than the sound of my voice. The five year olds aren't allowed outside at all without me or their older siblings with them.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do let my 11 (almost 12) year old have a decent amount of liberty. I know where her friends live and I'm on good speaking terms with most of their parents. H does need to tell me whose house she'll be at and what time she'll be home, and she knows that if there's a change in plans (i.e., "Babs and I are going to Hannah's house"), she needs to call me to get permission first. I feel my neighborhood is fairly safe, probably rates about as safe as the one I grew up in.
My 8 year old, however, is still on a very short leash, but she's also the child with the developmental issues and ADHD. She's still testing out at about 4.25 in school, and she certainly doesn't have the skills that H had at 8, so I feel it's appropriate for me to maintain 4 year old controls for her.
We've recently begun discussing the possibility of getting H a cell phone. One big holdback is the fact that I recently signed a 2-year contract with my cell provider and I haven't yet checked into what kind of penalties would be involved for changing to a family plan. At the moment I think it would be more cost effective to get a pay-as-you-go program like Virgin Mobile has at Best Buy, with the understanding that she pays for any minutes not attributable to calling Mom out of her allowance. That way she can choose to use it to call her friends but has to take responsibility for those calls.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I just reviewed the sex offender list for my area, and found three registered sex offenders living on the same street. That's rather disturbing. Two have the same last name, and live next door to each other. One lives a few houses down and has a different last name.
Fortunately, it's miles away from me and in a different county even, but what a street to live on! I hope there aren't families with young kids on that street.
The charges were:
Guy #1: sexual abuse 1 - victim 10 years old
Guy #2: Sexual abuse 1 (age of victim not listed)
Guy #3: sexual abuse 1, sodomy 1 - age of victim seven years
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have nine in the "area" that equates to the same zip code, but since it's a rural county the zip code covers a very large geographical area, even crossing county lines. None are especially close to me, certainly not within a square mile, which is somewhat reassuring.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
I thought I knew exactly which dog, but I was wrong, unless it had wandered up the street. A boxer on the corner had come out and barked at me when I was walking once. We were in the van, and I pulled into the driveway, but he said it was not the house.
I will keep an eye out for it.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both sex offenders and kidnappers are most likely to be family members, child care workers, or trusted friends, rather than someone who pulls your child off the street.
It does happen but it's extremely rare. I'd wonder if the sex offender registration could tell you the circumstances, but that would identify the victim in most cases, so I'm relatively sure they don't.
To me, the most important thing you can do for your children is to take away the offenders greatest weapons: Secrecy and embarrassment. My kids both know that someone who talks or attempts to touch them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable, suggests that "sexuality is normal" or strikes up conversation about their sexual interests, may be grooming them for molestation.
That's the way it usually starts. The molester has to gain the child's confidence, inspire sexual exploration (victims often feel that they actually initiated the sexual activity), and create a sense of embarrassment and secrecy before they reach the point where actual molestation begins.
Your children have to know that if something like this happens, that no matter what has happened, you will listen to them, that it's not their fault, and that you won't blame them for any part they played, no matter how embarrassing it may be to talk about.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, it is true that most offense happens within families. That does not stop the wheels of paranoia from turnijg, though. I fully realize that this is probably 95 percent my issue, and that my kids are fine. I am really curious, at this point in my kids' lives, what other parents do with the free range issue. I refuse to use my childhood experience as a benchmark.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So, as much as I want to be fair, and as much as I believe people can reform, I don't think sex offenders can. At least not to the point where I will ever feel my children are safe from them.
Once again, I feel the need to shout from the treetops: NOT ALL SEX OFFENDERS/ OFFENSES ARE THE SAME. And laws vary state to state and even county to county about what means you have to register. I think, in some cases, they can change. It all depends on circumstances, personality, beliefs, what exactly they did, and why (that's the most important part.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
ketchupqueen, shout until you are hoarse. I don't want pedophiles, or "former" pedophiles, around my children.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: ketchupqueen, shout until you are hoarse. I don't want pedophiles, or "former" pedophiles, around my children.
Unfortunately it's highly unlikely that you can accomplish this.
Back to the abused kids molesting other kids... I have a family member in precisely that boat-- molested as a small child, acted out as a pre-teen, went through a lot of therapy and is now one of my favorite and easily my most reliable relative.
While my own experiences never led me to even be tempted to sexually abuse any child, some of my very poor parenting skills and boderline emotional abuse of my children over their first 8 years or so are without a doubt linked to the damage that was done to me. After the therapy I've been through, I am thrilled to say I've become a heckuva parent and very proud of the choices I make in dealing with my kids.
All this to say that I really wish fewer people would discount and write off those of us who have been abused and acted out because of it. Far be it from me to suggest that abusers not be punished, and I'm certainly not about to suggest that exposing your children to potential abusers is a good thing, but after a lifetime of being written off by nearly everyone in any position of authority over me at the first sign of imperfection, I'll happily hold myself up as an example of the healing that can take place once someone believes in you.
Yes, I am taking this too personally. Self-absorption has always been one of my character flaws.
FWIW, I think you are making really good choices, and more importantly, showing a pattern of carefully considering the balance which is best for your children, for whom you obviously care deeply.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to disagree with the assertion that this is not the same world we grew up in : It is. We've just gotten more paranoid about it. There were sex offenders in your neighbourhood as a kid, and in mine; we just didn't know about them.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'm following this thread with great interest, as this has been an issue for me as well. My kids are 10 and 7. My son wants to ride his bike by himself up and down the road, but I've said "no" so far. We live on a gravel road with only 6 houses, so I'm not really worried about people, but there are no sidewalks and sometimes people tend to drive a bit fast for my taste. There are quite a few curves and hills, and I worry about him getting hit somehow.
posted
KoM: perhaps in Scandinavia it is the same world you grew up in. Here, it is, simply not the same.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all people labeled pedophiles are actually pedophiles.
kq I've seen you come to rabid defense of people who are in the sexual predator list before and I've got to tell you it baffles my mind.
Take for instance, the list I posted about. The specific offenses are listed, and the people were convicted for sexual contact with a 10 year old girl and a 7 year old girl.
Are you going to defend that?
Or is your argument that people who are on the list but shouldn't be are people that, say, had sex with a 17 year old, so it's not really statutory rape, the prosecutor must have had it out for them or something.
Sorry, if somebody has sex with someone under the age of consent, that's rape, and I want that person on the list so I can know where they are.
I'm really confused why you seem so defendent of convicted sexual predators, honestly it doesn't fit with the perception I have of you from your other posts.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, I think the system is all kinds of screwed up, that's why. Kind of like how I think the death penalty is a good idea in some cases-- but I don't want to make that decision on a jury myself, and I don't know that people should actually be executed with the justice system the way it is now.
Also, other reasons, which I will not share here.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: . . . had sex with a 17 year old, so it's not really statutory rape, the prosecutor must have had it out for them or something.
Sorry, if somebody has sex with someone under the age of consent, that's rape, and I want that person on the list so I can know where they are.
Belle, is a 20-year-old who considered himself (or herself, for that matter) to be in love with a 16-year-old (leaving aside the fact that I agree that the balance of power in such a relationship is horribly skewed) and was convicted of statutory rape really the same in your book as the ones who had "sexual contact with a 10 year old girl and a 7 year old girl"? What about 10 years later? 20 years?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Sopwith, how about some backing up of your assertions? I do think the burden of proof is rather on those who assert that Things Have Changed.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And what if they got married and had kids 3 years later? I know someone who was 17, and was dating a 16 year old and got her pregnant. Not a good situation, to be sure, but let me tell you....if anyone was to blame (and in my mind they BOTH were) it was HER. I knew them both, and guess which one was more eager to have sex?
But HE got charged with statutory rape....
Two years later they were married, and are still married, with two other kids.
I am NOT saying all the people on those lists are like that, but it is this type of reaction that was a concern of the ACLU when they took the case trying to overturn the registry laws.....that some people wouldn't see the difference between the types of cases, and they would all be lumped together.
posted
And that kind of thing happens all the time, and people on those lists are the target of large amounts of harassment and discrimination, whether they are violent/predatory pedophiles/high-risk to do it again (what I would call "the bad ones", who I don't think should be living among us in the first place), or just misled kids who are really good people who made mistakes.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many ex-criminals out there (of all varieties) who have learned from their mistakes, and who are no longer a risk. The trouble is that it is difficult to distinguish these people from the ex-criminals who are going to repeat the same crimes again. Thus people are more willing to write them all off rather than risk their or their children's safety in an effort to give those ex-criminals another chance. For those who've committed severe crimes, I'd think it be very difficult to live with people knowing your past and discriminating against you accordingly, even if you had turned a new leaf long ago.
For that reason, I am not happy with the idea of publishing a list of people for the purposes of helping neighbors to discriminate against those people - especially when it promotes so much fear. I think it gets to the point with stuff like this where we make people overly afraid - where they actually hurt themselves and their children by overavoiding risk. Measured risk is a good thing, because life is dull and unproductive without it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ, I am remembering something you posted in another thread, now, and I believe I understand why you have this reaction when this topic comes up.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good, Elizabeth. I'm really not in favor of letting people out to rape women or molest children again.
I just think we need to be able to distinguish, as Tresopax said, those people from people who really aren't a risk.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
