quote: My first thought was, "that's a perfect place for someone to jump out and grab a kid."
I have a collection of cards that come in the mail with pictures of missing children on them. Almost all of them also have a picture labeled "last seen with" and a picture of an adult. The adult invariably has the same last name as the child. Even if it doesn't, at this point I pretty much assume the two are related.
The fear that someone will jump out and grab a kid is so unfounded as to be ridiculous. The most likely person to abduct a child is the child's parent, in a custody dispute.
Child molesters? Again, child's parent, step-parent, uncle, child care provider, teacher, trusted neighbor, etc. Strangers come into the picture so rarely as to be statistically insignificant.
The reason I bring this up is that the cases we hear about in the media are reported specifically because they are vanishingly rare, yet as a society we have become scared out of our wits over something that happens so rarely that it's barely worth considering.
As to whether a child should be allowed to wander freely: Does the child use appropriate caution when crossing the road? Do they know how to look both way for cars? Can they find their way home if they wander too far? Do they know their phone number and address?
Teach your child how to behave appropriately in these situations, and make your rules fit the child's abilities. If the child doesn't show caution crossing the road, then s/he shouldn't cross the road. As far as whether your son can go into "another neighborhood," ask him if he feels comfortable going there, or if he feels pressured by his friend to do something he doesn't want to do. Maybe he can show you the neighborhood, so you can observe whether he demonstrates appropriate behavior in finding his way around.
But for a simple answer to your question: The kid is 9 years old? Yes, you're being way too overprotective, unless there is something sinister you haven't told us about your neighborhood.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not sure, Icarus. I think the granting of trust or not-granting of trust isn't what makes the child trustworthy.
Perhaps not. Though I have found with my own kids that the more I expect from my kids, the more they grow, in terms of intellect and trustworthiness. For that matter, I find the same as a teacher, albeit to a much lesser degree than with my kids, whom I spend a lot more time with. But that's not really the point I was trying to make one way or the other, so I'll let it go.
Would you agree, though, that a child shouldn't be trusted beyond his or her capacity to live up to that trust? I would think that this is true, because consequences can be a lot worse than being too tired the next day, or they can be less immediate, and thus less likely to be intrinsically educational. And so I would say that you need to have a fair amount of confidence that your child can handle the trust you intend to place in him or her. How can you know what your child can handle? Well, you can build up to whatever you have in mind, so you stop when you reach his or her limit.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love Law & Order SVU! but somehow I don't think that I would use it to make decisions about children. I could be underestimating it though.
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So some of those fall under "external pressures." Intimidation techniques, extreme peer pressure... those are "advanced" situations?
If you think your kid is going to be offered pot at the age of 10, then feel free to keep him out of that kind of situation. No one would blame you. But sooner or later, he's going to have to make that choice. And I think a kid's moral system is fairly locked into place by the time they come into most of those situations.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. I don't know if we're quite talking about he same thing. I mean, all of that is certainly within the scope of what I'm focusing on, but I'm also talking about (for a nine-year-old or so), can you trust him to come home more or less on time and not give you a heart attack, can you trust him to tell you where he's going to be, can you trust him to not go do something too dangerous, that sort of thing. And it might be more about the parent at this point than the kid: maybe he is trustworthy, but how big a chance are you going to take on that while you're not sure? And so I'm seeing the gradual addition of rights as a way to make sure, as a parent, that the child is not given freedoms beyond his or her ability to handle.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icky, I like the gradual addition of rights idea!
Mr. Opera and I talked tonight, and we both agreed that our neighborhood and the surrounding area is pretty safe. We decided to have another personal safety discussion with Boy Opera, as well as go over street-crossing safety again. After that, we will grant him permission to walk up the street to the little girl's house who's in his class by himself. This will require him wearing his watch and coming home at a set time. He can play in her yard, but will not be allowed to play in her house until we meet her parents. (I don't allow kids in my house until I make sure it's cool with their parents, so it works both ways).
We figure that this will give him the chance to meet some of her friends from the neighborhood behind us. Then, after this goes well for awhile, if he wants to journey to the other neighborhood we will need to meet the parents of the other child first. Whether we walk him over or he goes by himself will depend on how well he has been doing. I think this will be a good, safe introduction to a bit more independence for him.
Thanks again for all the replies. It's great to get so many different viewpoints!
space opera
edit: it's who's not that's!!
[ September 16, 2004, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: Space Opera ]
Posts: 2578 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Law & Order SVU" is an entertaining show, but it is a work of fiction and modified to produce drama and therefore entertainment.
However, while stranger abductions are relatively rare compared to other cases, they are not that rare. And I don't want to gamble my child's life on "well, that's not likely to happen."
My opinion of my 9 year-old nephew - he's reasonably intelligent and responsible, but I wouldn't trust him to walk alone to another neighborhood from his subdivision.
I base this opinion on the speed of traffic that flies down the road outside his subdivision, the lack of sidewalks and his general youthful inexperience.
The nephews and family live in Alpharetta which is a fairly metropolitan area - enough civilization around that I wouldn't feel comfortable with the boy out of my sight if I was responsible for him.
posted
Icarus, it probably does depend on the parent more than the child. As I said, one of my friends was given a fairly large amount of trust early on, and I was given very little. We both turned out drug-free and intelligent people.
As soon as it's within the capability of the child to understand rules, tell time, and use rudimentary common sense, then that child is within grasp of a great deal of trust.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As an aside, until I was 10, I lived in a neighborhood without very many people my own age. None who were born in North America even. Most of the people in my neighborhood were either from Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Mainland China. Just to keep things diverse. Alot of their parents were frankly very zenophobic, and I had trouble making friends because kids wouldn't want to anger their parents. That and I didn't speak one of the two largest languages spoken at school, Cantonese and Mandarin. As a result I felt very isolated, and my only real friends were several blocks away. Without being able to see them, I would have been even more alone. Perhaps you should give your child a bit more freedom considering how hard it is for him in a neighborhood with no one to play with. I figure any modest risk would be more than offset by the potential boost to your kid's social development and happiness.
Posts: 1769 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I just went through the "Protecting God's Children" seminar at our church, so I think it's a good idea not to let your child go somewhere when you don't know who he'll be with.
I like Farmgirl's advice about going with him-- then you can check out the situation yourself and see if you are comfortable with it. If you are comfortable, walk him over the first few times, then let him try it alone. Or encourage the buddy system-- he walk over with a friend, or a few friends walk him home.
I'd definitely try to get to know the parents of the kids.
For the record-- I'm fairly over-protective, but I do try to strike a balance.
Posts: 239 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK I grew up in an area, that while not bad itself, deteriorated pretty rapidly only a couple blocks away.
My parents were very big into biking and bike safety. I think I was eight when I got my first *big* bike. Shortly thereafter I was allowed to ride two miles to visit my friend Gwen. Not all the neighborhoods I went through were *nice* but none were awful either. I know my father rode the route with me the first time, maybe even twice on weekends. Then after that I was allowed to go by myself, but I had to call from Gwen's house as soon as I got there. (Something I also thought about, I wasn't allowed to ride my bike around the block for a long time, but the trips to Gwen's house actually started only shortly after being allowed to ride around the block.)
During the summers when I was 9 and 10, I was also allowed to ride my bike to the local high school to go to summer swimming lessons. Once again, they rode the route I was taking at least once with me and I think mom drove ahead a couple times to wait for me until I got there. That was even farther away, probably 3.5 miles. I know they'd let me use the phone at the pool if I needed something but at that point, I don't think I had to call Mom to tell her that I made it.
Another way I would think about it, and I realize it varies by kid, but what responsibilities do you expect him to be able to handle three years down the road when he is 12, and when he is 14? You need to chart a course over the next three years to figure out where you want him to be and how to get him there.
Interestingly enough my parents after deciding I was responsible for years, and never abused my priveledges (and I do mean never, I was sickeningly good) suddenly went ballistic between about 15 and 18 and I ended up with far fewer priveledges than I'd had before even though I could drive. It was really wierd.
AJ
(Another thing I just thought of. I don't know where he goes to school, but if his school was in the little girl's neighborhood, would the local school district bus him, or expect him to walk that far? Seeing how far your local school district expects kids to walk before they begin bussing would also be an interesting criteria for setting boundaries.)
posted
When I was in third grade my friend Chris and I would regularly walk to his house after school, sometimes with other friends, sometimes not. It was probably about a 1- to 1.5-mile walk, and the neighborhood around my elementary school was not the best. My parents knew Chris's parents very well, and Chris was a year older than me, so I guess they (my parents) were pretty comfortable with letting me wander with that group of friends. But we did a fair amount of wandering, so there was no way responsible adults could have known where we were at all times. I was a pretty cautious kid, though, and my parents knew it, so I think they relied on that also.
Sometimes I feel like my parents are more protective of me now than they were then. And I'm 24.
So anyway, I think how much freedom you give your kid depends a lot on the personalities involved. I like the idea of incremental increases in trust. I will also heartily second the suggestion to get to know the other parents. Speaking for myself, I think it's no coincidence that the parents of my closest friends when I was growing up were friends of my parents.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
When my boyfriend was a kid, he lived in a fairly rural part of Ohio with lots of woods and streams and stuff. His mom had a big old handbell. He was allowed to roam his neighborhood at will, as long as he remained within earshot of the bell. If the bell rang three times and he wasn't standing in his own yard the privledge of roaming was revoked for an appropriate amount of time.
A few practice runs of this will see if it would work for you and this method will not embarrass him in front of his friends.
It sounded like a good idea to me, who grew up not being allowed out of yelling distance (but I lived in a much more urban/suburban neighborhood where my parents knew almost all the neighbors).
Just a thought.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fishtail -- here in the country, we have a bell for that too. Just because it is so much easier than hollering, and covers a lot wider area (if it isn't too windy, you can hear it down by the fishing ponds). But don't think that concept would work in the city....
posted
In our area, kids are forbidden by law to walk to school. They have to get there by automobile.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Mike, your parents are more protective now? How-so?
It's an exaggeration, really. But, for example, my mom drops not-so-subtle hints that she doesn't want me taking gymnastics, cause I might hurt myself. But it's not like she's going to try to stop me, beyond hinting.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: In our area, kids are forbidden by law to walk to school. They have to get there by automobile.
o_O
I'm assuming this is because of the chance of getting hit by a car. I understand the logic, but come on. Maybe the answer is to build more effing sidewalks and crossing lights in an area so that people who don't drive don't have to worry about getting run over.
Am I the only one that's noticed that areas for kids to play in and explore--fields, woods, and streams have been disappearing and the only place they have left to play now are places that they have to get to by car?
It's no wonder obesity is such a problem for kids. Where the flock do they have to GO nowadays?
posted
I'm curious how anyone would reasonably prepare their children to prevent a case like the Lisk murders.
It seems to me that we can live our lives in fear, or we can recognize that risks exist but refuse to live in fear. That's not denial, it's simply refusal to live in the prison of a paranoid mind-set.
When my daughter was about 3 she came home and told us that a neighbor boy (4) had tried to "sex" her. We talked to his parents, and to the boy, and made it clear that this behavior was unnacceptable. Now this was pretty clearly a matter of "playing doctor" except that he knew the mechanics, and came awfully close to an actual sexual act.
We told our daughter that she had done exactly the right thing. Then we told her that other people might try this, and that she should likewise tell someone right away.
Contrast this with another situation, in which my biological father began molesting a 7 year old girl. He managed to convince her that she had actually instigated the behavior (standard practice in child molesters is to tell the child that sexual interest is normal, and that since sex is normally associated with grownups, that since the child is "mature for her age" she shouldn't resist her natural feelings).
Now, if this girl had met this man on the street she probably would have run home and told her mother, but since her mother had put her in his care, he convinced her that her mother trusted him, and would be mad at her if she accused him of something. This process took a long time. This girl was 20 years old before she was finally strong enough to tell her mother the truth, and put an end to the molestation. By that time, my father insisted that the whole thing had been an "affair," after all what is wrong with having an affair with a 20 year old woman?
The real irony is that this girl's mother was a very nervous type, and talked about strangers and kidnappers and such. This actually played into the girl's fear that her mother would be mad at her, rather than my father.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I am paranoid. I don't really care if I am. I provide my children with a rich life of fun, and their friends are welcome here all the time. I do not live in fear.
Maybe I am a bit paranoid because there were two cases of abducted girls in our area, and the abductors were never found. I know that my colleague, the mother of one of the girls who was abducted and killed, would not be comforted by the fact that, statistically, it should not have happened.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no way to be completely safe - but I also don't see the point in making children easy targets either.
Find a happy compromise you can live with and go from there.
For my own piece of mind, I would be reluctant to let my 9 year old wander on his own; that said, every child is different and I can't tell any parent what would be best for their child based on my own concerns.
posted
Well, I have an 11 year old, but the rules are basically the same as they were when she was 9.
She is allowed to go outside anywhere on our property. (We have 2.7 acres, so it's a pretty large area.)
She rides her bike in the driveways (again, a large area, we have two driveways and both are wide and long) and, if me or another adult is outside she can ride her bike up and down the street we live on.
She is never, never to be outside and not within my line or sight from some point in my house. If she goes so far she can't see our house anymore, she has gone too far.
She is allowed to go over to some friend's houses if I drive and pick her up, and they must be people we know and we have a standing rule that she can only visit girls who have no brothers living at home.
She is not allowed to spend the night with anyone we haven't approved and approval means we know them very, very well (have known them for years, know their religious beliefs, their child-rearing philosophy, etc. and it agrees with ours) AND there can be no brothers at home.
That means that there is only one family in our church she is allowed to spend the night with - our assitant pastor and his wife and their two daughters.
And because there is never anything safe in this world and you can never say you truly know anybody, I still fret over that! But, my job is to keep my daughter safe as much as possible. And the stats on women who were sexually molested at some point in their lives are just too high for me to take any chances.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, When I was in seventh grade, I went to a junior boarding school. My dad taught there. i was alwasy so impressed with how the kids who lived in co-ed dorms were like brothers and sisters.
Years later, it was my first teaching job. My second year there, one of the eight grade girls told me all the kids who had had sex. I almost died. (OK, I know, I was pretty obtuse not to figure this out.)
The thing is, now that I have kids, even though I am a bleeding heart liberal in every other way, I am pretty close to your philosphy when it comes to sleepovers. In fact, most of the reasons I don't set my kids free in the neighborhood is because of all the dumb things I did myself at their age.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Belle, Do you just not let her go to sleep overs with boys in the house, or do you also not let her spend time with boys in general?
Posts: 1015 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a ten year old and an eight year old. I would be hesitant to let them wander to another neighborhood alone myself. Like Trevor, I grew up in the Atlanta area during the missing and murdered children era. Things like that breed a paranoia of sorts. Like I tell my kids, bad things can happen in a flash.
Rules at our house are pretty much the same as Belle's. I have to know people pretty well for my kids to be left at their house.
I hate that we have to be so protective, but when you hear so much about bad things that happen to children, you feel like you need to be vigilant.
Posts: 392 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. All situations differ, but in my situation, letting them loose is inappropriate. We also have bear, coyotes, and bobcats around the yard. (Bobcats have never hurt a human, and do not get rabies. There is one in our yard who jumps through the cat window every now and then. We stll think it was the father of our cat's kittens. But I digress.)
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm. The no brothers living in the house rule has definately given me something to think about. Belle, would you be willing to discuss this more? I'm not asking you to defend your decisions; I'm just interested in how you handle situations where there is a brother. I have a son (obviously) as well as a daughter.
posted
Where is the line between trying to better understand a policy that baffles me and grilling? Is my question not a legitimate one? Is not a child just as likely, if not more, to be molested by a friend's father as by a friend's brother? Is there any long-term harm in very clearly implying that males are dangerous?
-o-
EDIT to add, defend or not or tell me it's none of my business, but, the point having been brought up, I certainly don't think I'm out of line for asking. What's with the kid gloves, anyway?
posted
Even when my daughter has sleepovers, I monitor them until they go to sleep. I do not scrutinize, but I monitor. I keep them busy. They have opposite sex friends who sleep over, but we definitely all make sure everyone is behaving themselves. I am not sure all people do that.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus, I wrote my response to Theca, not you, because your question was a question. Theca's had more edge. Theca, I am not sure how you meant it, but that is how I perceived it, as an attack, though a very mild one.
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I've been dying to ask that, since the last time she posted that several months ago. I just refrained from asking in case someone accused me of grilling her. Fine. It's gone.
Posts: 1990 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Roman Catholic Church is not the only religious organization that has a high rate of molesters. I left clergy out of my list of "trusted guardians" who were more likely to molest a child than any stranger, but they are.
The point I'm making here is that being overprotective actually makes the child MORE prone to molestation, because s/he is taught to believe that stranger = danger and parents approval = safety. It doesn't work that way.
Molesters are very good at picking their targets. They use fear to their advantage.
For an example of how a child might find themselves in a situation where they become vulnerable, let's go back to Boy Opera and his little girlfriend.
I don't mean to disparage the girl's character, this is just a hypothetical situation. But it's one that happens often, as opposed to the stranger abduction.
Situation:
Boy Opera knows that he's not allowed to leave his yard, but like all children, he may disregard the rules if he thinks he can get away with it.
Little girl suggests they leave the yard, just a little bit beyond where he knows he's allowed to be.
Once beyond the yard, little girl suggests they go further, Boy opera doesn't want to go, but little girl says he's already breaking the rule, and she'll tell his mom. So Boy opera follows her some distance, not too far, but to a place where they are behind some bushes, where they cannot be seen.
Boy Opera now knows he has gone well beyond where he is allowed to go. He's afraid he'll get in trouble. Little girl "shows him hers" and demands that he "show her his." He refuses, but she tells him she'll tell his mother that he went out of the yard. This fear, plus the innate curiosity kids have about sex causes him to play along.
This may take more than one day. And each time it escalates a little more. Each day Boy opera's fear of being caught grows just a little more, because each day he has done something that he knows is more unnacceptable than the last time, which makes him even more likely to do whatever little girl asks him to do. Given that the sexual curiosity is present in children, Boy Opera may have mixed feelings, he knows what he's doing is wrong. He feels uncomfortable doing it. He wants it to stop.
And he wants it to keep going. In all probability at some point he will actually suggest an activity, at which point there suddenly becomes almost nothing that little girl cannot get him to do, because he KNOWS that he has done something wrong and enjoys it. So he feels completely guilty, and therefore powerless against any blackmail she may use against him.
This is how molesters operate. It begins with a childish game with just a hint of being beyond the rules, and escalates to full blown sexual molestation. Sometimes they use their own children or other victims of molestation to draw new victims to them.
The way to protect a child from this is not to make a big deal about leaving the yard, but to make sure the child knows that no matter what they may have done, they can tell you about it without fear of punishment.
In my case, the next door neighbor boy actually gave us an opportunity to tell my daughter at the age of 3 that molesters exist, and what kinds of games might turn into a situation where she should tell us what happened, even if she thought the game was fun. We made it clear that no matter what part she played in the game, that we would not be mad at her, but that she should tell us about it.
Bear in mind, my father's case lasted 13 years, and it took years before he engaged in an actual sexual act with his victim. All that time her mother trusted him, and his victim fully believed that if her mother found out what was going on, that she would get in trouble, and my father would not. As it turned out, when she told her mother the truth, her mother believed her instantly, and knew that it wasn't her fault.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
wow. Glad I grew up in the country. I was able to go anywhere I wanted when I was nine. Me and my sisters and brother mostly all went out together anyway and they were all younger than me except Kylie. We did all sorts of dangerous things but were never killed. We had FUN. I guess it was just in the genes that we all had pretty good common sense......
Posts: 315 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys you are more than free to ask me about my policy.
No, she does not spend time with boys, except for the normal interactions that take place at school and at church.
As for the sleepovers with fathers present - I worry about it. I really do - that's why I mentioned in my post that the people had to be well known to us, not just anybody who doesn't have any sons.
I trust my assistant pastor and his wife with my life, and with my kids. He reciprocates that trust with us. We've talked about our concerns. He himself was molested as a child by a friend's older brother at a sleepover. He supports our policy and enforces it with his own kids - in fact, his daughter doesn't spend the night here because I have a son. Yes, it seems silly - my son is four. But, a rule is a rule, and we don't do our kids justice by having a policy and not enforcing it fairly. It applies to everyone, regardless of who they are.
There are even family members who I wouldn't let my kids spend the night with. Not just because of the fear of molestation taking place, but because they lead lives and have values that I don't want them to impart to my kids.
I see no value in the sleepover concept, at least not any that outweighs the risk. So, except in a few extremely rare circumstances, we don't do it. When my oldest is invited to a sleepover, I speak to the child or to the parent and say "We don't do sleepovers, it's nothing against your child or you, it's just our policy as parents."
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glenn, I don't recall anyone saying they planned on lying to their kids about the dangers involved and why they couldn't wander off on their own.
Stranger = Danger and Parent trust = safe is not a bad combination as a default setting, but as we have discussed nothing is absolutely fool proof.
I think most parents would (or perhaps should) include the "you can tell me anything about anyone" speech because I think most parents will realize even they can be wrong on occasion. As the number of educators, religious figures and so being arrested for molestation grow.
posted
And as far as stranger abduction is concerned, it has been pointed out that the Lisk girls were taken right out of their own yard.
Other children are abducted from public places, especially crowded ones, where their parents are present. They lose sight of the child for an instant, and the child is gone.
How do you guard against that? Handcuff the kids to your wrist their whole lives?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
