In article , Jenn says...

In article ,
"Donna Metler" wrote:


looking back, I think 12 is probably a better rule of thumb. our son
was reliable at 10 but sometimes his judgment was a bit flawed. we did
have very strict rules e.g. he liked to cook, but was not allowed to use
blenders or similar devices at that age alone -- he could mix brownies
by hand or whatever but not use any power tools, or blenders or boil
things on top of the stove.

what is heartbreaking is the situation like the recent mother whose
sitter didn't come, and who left kids alone while she went to work -- a
fire in the apartment building killed them [I think it was a 9 year old
watching a 4 year old] Sure it was negligent -- but she faced losing
her job if she failed to get to work and welfare reform means that there
isn't welfare to fall back on if she did lose her job -- and then she
might lose her kids to foster care for losing her apartment/job --- it
is a choice that is a loser for her any way you look. of course most
mothers pushed into this choice don't have a tragedy --- but now
apparently the plan is to lock this hapless women up for a few years for
a situation with no way out

I think such situations would be judged differently in decades past. It'd be
viewed as a tragedy, but not negligence.

We had a thread here some time back about a family in a low-income neighborhood
where the police, mistakenly at the wrong address, raided starting with bringing
in a K-9 dog. There were no adults; the oldest responsible individual in the
house at the time was 12, there was also an a autistic older teen. The OP
screamed "where was the mother!". Well, leaving her kids with a
babysitting-aged daughter.

As if families are to be prepared for mistaken police raids involving dogs.

Banty