[patcheudor]

Yesterday I needed to run some errands and it hit me pretty hard how silly we've become. My seven year daughter didn't want to come with me and while I'm sure she's mature enough to stay at home by herself I went to Google to determine if I'd be viewed as a criminal or not in the eyes of my parenting peers or the state. It turned out that my local child protective services had a Q&A on their site stating that it's okay to leave a child home alone at age 11. I then went to my city and state statutes and couldn't find a single law which said it would be illegal. After a bit more research I found plenty of parents recommending that kids not only can, but should be left home alone if they are okay with it. This helps to build independence and self-esteem. I ended up leaving her at home alone for about an hour and not a single bad thing happened.

[bane]

We used to have the notion of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latchkey_kid

I grew up with both parents working long hours, and I was definitely a Latchkey kid. From the time I got home until right before dinner I was usually alone to do what I wanted.

I think for a few years, when I was 6 or 7, my mother required I call her every hour as a check-in, but even that relaxed by the time I was 8 or 9. My only requirement was to be home by dark, regardless of the time of year and if parents were home.

Curiously, my parents would also occasionally hire a babysitter, but I never quite understood why and what for. It was pretty random.

[jobu]

No idea where it came from, but we've been told that up to one hour alone per grade level is a good rule of thumb.

[falsestprophet]

I heard that too from a uninformed internet commenter.

[DanBC]

Homes are pretty dangerous and sometimes children do stupid things. While child protective services shouldn't be called[1] for someone leaving a child for a short time CPS needs to have clear and easy to communicate guidelines. They might want to say "11 and up; unless they're not stupid and the home is safe and you're not gone too long" but, well, the target audience needs clearer information.

[1] it'd be good if we had a "report early, report often" culture and the funding to go with it. A single report of a mild incident means nothing happens; several reports of mild incidents from different agencies means a freindly chat to see if help is needed or wanted.

[gglitch]

"Report early, report often" sounds extremely creepy and intrusive to me. I realize my culture is fully embracing the police state all around me, and I try not to play the Orwell card too often, but how can it not seem eerily Orwellian to suggest that parents should be reported early and often? What's next, CPS monitors in the home?

[DanBC]

It sounds creepy because you live in a police state where people abuse their powers.

Imagine a better society. A six year old child turns up at school unwashed and hungry. The parent, who normally collects the child every day, is not there at pickup time. The child lives 3 miles from school. A couple of weeks later the same child is taken to ER. The mother is evasive, but the injuries seem to match the story. The child is again unwashed and a bit dirty and hungry. There are very many cases where these kind of signs go unreported; and one of these signs on it's own probably doesn't reach a threshold where anyone (even if it is reported) will do anything about it. But when collated they start showing that maybe there is something where the parents need more help, or ultimately the child needs to be protected by removing it from it's family.

I live in a country where every single child attending A&E deparments for any reason is reported to their local child protection social workers. In the vast majority of cases nothing happens; no letters; no visits; no threats. But in some cases abused children are detected and protected. It's not perfect, but it's better than letting untrained people guess at what should or shouldn't get reported. Report early report often culture avoids the need for mandatory reporting, which is IMO worse.

When I talk about human rights my American friends say things like "obviously we believe in human rights. The only reason we don't ratify those UN things is a constitutional matter about our courts and our laws", but looking at what Americans in power shows that some of them have no concept of human rights.

A bunch of this stuff is pretty clear in international law (freedom from arbitrary interference; right to a family life for parents; right to a family life for children; family is findamental unit and should be allowed to parent; protect children from harm).

[charliefg]

First thing to get a little closer to that better society -- we need to lose the shady system of secret courts the parents are taken through.

[abfan1127]

no they don't. we don't need them telling us when our children are responsible enough for particular tasks. When our first reaction is "is this illegal" we've gone too far. When bad laws influence good parents, its wrong and needs to be repealed immediately.

[DanBC]

The first reaction a parent should have to "I might leave my child at home for a few hours" absolutely should be "is it safe?"

CPS is not there for parents who know how to assess risk. They exist for parents who by definition are bad parents. Those parents need simplistic advice, with the threat of legal action. The fact that CPS overstepped their bounds in a few cases is bad, and needs to stop, but it doesn't change the fact that the advice needs to be clear and simple.

And government totally should be trying to influence parents. I guarantee that their are some kind loving parents reading HN right now who do not have working tested fitted smoke detectors. Government here should be playing persuasive adverts; subsidising the costs of smoke detectors; providing assistance to fit those detectors; regulating the manufacture of detectors so we know they work.

The thing that has annoyed me about the discussions of these cases is that people are only talking about the disruption to this family's life. The real outrage is CPS wasting time on non abusive parents when so many children are raped and murdered. An estimate 1600 children died as a rssult of abuse or neglect from a primary care giver in 2012; that doesn't count murders by other family members.

I fully stand by my comment that the home is a dangerous place for children. Home is where children are murdered by family members; physically, sexually or emotionally abused by family members (and siblings are the greatest risk of being the abuser); most accidents happen in the home. Children can't get jobs; can't vote; are not held criminally responsible for their actions[1] -- so parents should be thinking carefully before they leave children alone in the house.

[irishcoffee]

> ...government totally should be trying to influence parents. I guarantee that their are some kind loving parents reading HN right now who do not have working tested fitted smoke detectors. Government here should be playing persuasive adverts; subsidising the costs of smoke detectors; providing assistance to fit those detectors; regulating the manufacture of detectors so we know they work.

Wow, so nobody wants the government reading our phone metadata, but its no big deal if they tell us how to raise our kids? Are you kidding me? "You can't have my privacy, but I'm OK with you taking my freedom." Really?

> Home is where children are murdered by family members; physically, sexually or emotionally abused by family members (and siblings are the greatest risk of being the abuser); most accidents happen in the home.

Most accidents would happen where one spends the majority of their time. One in three car accidents happen within one mile from home [0]. Your statement says a lot of nothing.

[0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/6018081/One-in-thre...

[rayiner]

Yeah, no. The government shouldn't be supervising how we raise our kids, except in the most extreme circumstances.

[DanBC]

The government needs to protect children before they're maimed by careless or stupid parents. A government agency letting you know what it considers risky behaviour is a good thing, so long as they don't set it too restrictively.

You may say "but what kind of fucking idiot would leave an 11 year old child at home alone for more than 24 hours?"

Here's a story about a woman who left her 11 year old boy alone at home while she went on a three week holiday.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2601747.stm

That article also mentions the case of a twelve year old boy who was left alone for a fortnight.

Thus, when CPS get a report of a child alone at home it's a good idea for them to ask (but not formally; not as part of taking action) if the child is safe or if the parents are going to be back that day or not.

[Crito]

> "The government needs to protect children before they're maimed by careless or stupid parents."

> "Here's a story about a woman who left her 11 year old boy alone at home while she went on a three week holiday."

Nice sleight of hand. You need to work on it though, it's still too noticeable.

We're not talking about cracking down on parents that maim or abandon their children. We are talking about parents that allow their children to walk around their own goddamn neighborhood.

[nitrogen]

I definitely could have cared for myself for three weeks when I was eleven. Maybe many 11yo kids can't, but that's a function of what they haven't been taught, not age.

[Crito]

Every single parent alive today is descended from a long line of parents, dating back to the origin of life itself, that did not need CPS to tell them how to act.

The idea that after all of those successful iterations we are now too stupid to raise our own kids is incredibly insulting.