Is there an equation ?

"H Schinske" wrote in message
...
Nan ) wrote:

I know in the US, social services sometimes has min. ages they
consider acceptable to be left unsupervised.

How would one look this kind of thing up? I have absolutely no idea what
the
law might be in my state.


On my experience it is not codified in law but is something which is simply
done in practice. In Florida, for example, it appears to be about 11 years
old, but Florida law does not specify. Others from other states may tell
you what they have observed.

-Aula

(H Schinske) wrote in message ...
Nan ) wrote:

I know in the US, social services sometimes has min. ages they
consider acceptable to be left unsupervised.

How would one look this kind of thing up? I have absolutely no idea what the
law might be in my state.

I Google'd it once after a discussion here, and found
something for my state (NC) but I can't figure out now
what the search terms were.

http://www.nccic.org/faqs/homealone.html

which includes data from some states.

As far as I remember (both from the page I found and from
some email I exchanged with the local government) in NC
there isn't a hard and fast age. The general feeling I
get that it's considered unacceptable to leave an under 8
for any period, 8-12 is considered iffy, and 12 is considered
okay but only if nothing bad happens. I'm not an
anti-government nut by any means, but the slightly spooky
thing about this no-hard-and-fast-age is that I get the
feeling that if you left a responsible 14 year old alone
and there was some kind of disaster, you could potentially
be prosecuted for child neglect. Not that would
necessarily be the first thing on your mind if your
14 year old had just been involved in a disaster, but
I can't see how it'd *help*.

Beth

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 14:04:42 -0500, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:

Hmmm...around here, it was very much not the routine
before, but became more the routine (though still the
minority, I'd say--busses are reasonably full) after the
sniper.

I suspect that any incident that involves shooting children is
going to cause parents to be scared for a while and to do
things differently.

The Laurie Dann incident here really scared many parents
and I think they take many more precautions than they used
to even though that happened a long time ago now.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
As far as I remember (both from the page I found and from
some email I exchanged with the local government) in NC
there isn't a hard and fast age. The general feeling I
get that it's considered unacceptable to leave an under 8
for any period, 8-12 is considered iffy, and 12 is considered
okay but only if nothing bad happens. I'm not an
anti-government nut by any means, but the slightly spooky
thing about this no-hard-and-fast-age is that I get the
feeling that if you left a responsible 14 year old alone
and there was some kind of disaster, you could potentially
be prosecuted for child neglect.(snip)

why don't they just make it a rule no under-18 y.o. of any sort can ever be
left unattended by an adult for any reason, then when it's their 18th
birthday they can go out & get married, join the army, go & get drunk, drive
a car & have sex????!!!! (not necessarily in that order ;-)

i mean to say. disaster or no disaster, 14 years is plenty old enough for
being at home alone. if it's not, how come they get to learn to drive a
scant 2 years later? when are these children practicing handling
responsibility? it's a process, not an age. ffs!!

governments, i tell ya. (& i'm not anti-govt either.)
kylie

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:04:23 -0800, "Circe" wrote:

Maybe I
shouldn't dismiss, out of hand, the possibility that Scotland is
inherently far more dangerous than the U.S.? I don't have any reason
to think so, but I've never been in Scotland. Any U.K.'ers who
aren't thoroughly sick of this discussion by now - can you tell us?

Well I think it is unlikely that any place in the UK is more dangerous per
capita than any similar place in the States, simply by virtue of the fact
that the US has much higher rates of violent crime (from everything I have
read) than the UK or, in fact, any country in Europe. That doesn't obviate
the possibility that folks in the UK have a higher *perceived* sense of
threat than folks in the US. It has not, however, been my impression from
what I have read in postings from other people who live in the UK that
parents over there are significantly more overprotective, on average, than
American parents.

When I grew up in the london suburbs in the UK walking to school was
certainly the norm and I walked by myself (or with other kids from my
street) beginning at age 5. We had over half a mile to walk and one
major road to cross right opposite the school attended by a traffic
warden (aka "lollipop lady").

These days however, the dangers (perceived or otherwise) are much
greater, and my sister, who lives in south London, drove her kids to
school all the way through elementary grades and only recently has
begun to allow the kids to travel home alone from school (via public
transport, since there are no school buses) at ages 11 and 13.

The main fear of parents in the UK is child abduction by psychopaths
and pedophiles, due to several such cases occurring in recent years,
such as the case of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman (abducted and
murdered by a school janitor) which has made parents more fearful and
protective, even if statistically the danger is no greater today than
20 or more years ago, as suggested by a BBC article at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2202479.stm

--Lisabell
Mom to Gabriella (5) and Michaela (almost 4)

"0tterbot" wrote in message ...

why don't they just make it a rule no under-18 y.o. of any sort can ever be
left unattended by an adult for any reason, then when it's their 18th
birthday they can go out & get married, join the army, go & get drunk, drive
a car & have sex????!!!! (not necessarily in that order ;-)

i mean to say. disaster or no disaster, 14 years is plenty old enough for
being at home alone. if it's not, how come they get to learn to drive a
scant 2 years later? when are these children practicing handling
responsibility? it's a process, not an age. ffs!!

governments, i tell ya. (& i'm not anti-govt either.)

I got involved in an argument on a local message board with
some folks after that case in Virginia (?) where the 12
year old got approached by a stranger in a store who tried to
lure her off by claiming that he was a security guard. Many,
many people told me they would *never* allow a 12 year old
to separate from them in a store, for any amount of time - just
look how unsafe it is!

I used the same argument; if you can't let them shop alone
for a few minutes at 12, how are you going to let them do
anything else as they get older? Yes, there's a certain
amount of risk involved, but that's true of everything. I
was told I was an irresponsible parent for being willing to
'play the odds' with my child's life.

So I think in this case the government is reflecting a lot
of people's values, although not mine.

Beth

"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
m...
"0tterbot" wrote in message
...

why don't they just make it a rule no under-18 y.o. of any sort can ever
be
left unattended by an adult for any reason, then when it's their 18th
birthday they can go out & get married, join the army, go & get drunk,
drive
a car & have sex????!!!! (not necessarily in that order ;-)

i mean to say. disaster or no disaster, 14 years is plenty old enough
for
being at home alone. if it's not, how come they get to learn to drive a
scant 2 years later? when are these children practicing handling
responsibility? it's a process, not an age. ffs!!

governments, i tell ya. (& i'm not anti-govt either.)

I got involved in an argument on a local message board with
some folks after that case in Virginia (?) where the 12
year old got approached by a stranger in a store who tried to
lure her off by claiming that he was a security guard. Many,
many people told me they would *never* allow a 12 year old
to separate from them in a store, for any amount of time - just
look how unsafe it is!

I used the same argument; if you can't let them shop alone
for a few minutes at 12, how are you going to let them do
anything else as they get older? Yes, there's a certain
amount of risk involved, but that's true of everything. I
was told I was an irresponsible parent for being willing to
'play the odds' with my child's life.

So I think in this case the government is reflecting a lot
of people's values, although not mine.

but are they really "a lot" of people, or are they just the noisiest? do the
sensible people just be quiet because they don't want to cop a serve from
someone about being "irresponsible"? i don't know. i _know_ i am too
overprotective by nature (mostly traffic-related issues)

"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"Elizabeth Reid" wrote in message
m...
"0tterbot" wrote in message
...

why don't they just make it a rule no under-18 y.o. of any sort can
ever
be
left unattended by an adult for any reason, then when it's their 18th
birthday they can go out & get married, join the army, go & get drunk,
drive
a car & have sex????!!!! (not necessarily in that order ;-)

i mean to say. disaster or no disaster, 14 years is plenty old enough
for
being at home alone. if it's not, how come they get to learn to drive
a
scant 2 years later? when are these children practicing handling
responsibility? it's a process, not an age. ffs!!

governments, i tell ya. (& i'm not anti-govt either.)

I got involved in an argument on a local message board with
some folks after that case in Virginia (?) where the 12
year old got approached by a stranger in a store who tried to
lure her off by claiming that he was a security guard. Many,
many people told me they would *never* allow a 12 year old
to separate from them in a store, for any amount of time - just
look how unsafe it is!

I used the same argument; if you can't let them shop alone
for a few minutes at 12, how are you going to let them do
anything else as they get older? Yes, there's a certain
amount of risk involved, but that's true of everything. I
was told I was an irresponsible parent for being willing to
'play the odds' with my child's life.

So I think in this case the government is reflecting a lot
of people's values, although not mine.

but are they really "a lot" of people, or are they just the noisiest? do
the
sensible people just be quiet because they don't want to cop a serve from
someone about being "irresponsible"? i don't know. i _know_ i am too
overprotective by nature (mostly traffic-related issues)

sigh :-) sorry about sending that early (AGAIN)

.... and those kinds of things so i make a point of making sure i push myself
to allow the children to do what is genuinely reasonable for their ages &
abilities. people who don't are not only making a rod for their own back
(e.g. "ian") but also are warping the general perception of what _should_ be
done & end up making a rod for everyone else's.

in general, i'd say western societies are perhaps in danger of becoming so
in thrall to "children's issues" - i.e. fear of being reported for being
negligent, iow - that things have gone just about as far as they can
otherwise govt intervention would be required to steer things back the other
way. i do think the majority of people are fairly sensible about it, but
certainly the perception is growing that overprotective parents are on the
increase (_and_ that it's justifiable to be that way).
klyie

"Circe" wrote in message news:n3wSb.6482$fD.6239@fed1read02...
snip

For further comparison, I walked to and from school alone when I was in
*kindergarten*. We lived in a very typical suburban American neighborhood.
The school was 5 houses and one street away. There were crossing guards at
the one intersection I needed to cross. Now, I suppose people had a less
keen sense of imminent danger to children when I was 5yo some 35 years ago,
but in reality, things are not significantly more dangerous in real terms
now than they were then--the dangers are just more highly publicized. And
it's a shame, really, because kids nowadays have *so* much less freedom than
they did when I was a kid. Parents are so frightened of very unlikely perils
(children being kidnapped by strangers, in particular) that they feel unable
to let their children out of their sight. It's sad.


And your niece and nephew walked from home to the same school when
THEY were in kindergarten, which was only (for Cora) 6 years ago. Of
course I always made sure the crossing guards were out at the corner
before I sent them off. I'd do the same thing if I had a
kindergartener living in my house today.

People nowadays are often irrational about danger, IME. I am 67 years
old and do a lot of traveling. A long-time friend and I were talking
about traveling alone by car, and I said I hadn't done it much but
remembered my mother getting in her Impala and driving across country
to visit relatives when she was my age. He suggested that it would be
a lot more dangerous for a woman alone to do that now than it was 30
years ago, when my mother was doing it. To which I said, pish-tush,
if any thing it's safer. Nowadays we have much more reliable cars,
better tires, and cell phones.

He went on to tell me about an acquaintance of his, our age, who
carries a pistol in her car and takes it in her purse when she goes to
the mall, she is so afraid of being mugged. He lives in Florida where
the crime rate is actually a little higher than it is here, but still,
it would NEVER occur to me to do that ... in fact I think if she ever
got into a situation where the gun would be useful, it would more
likely accelerate the situation or be turned on her than save her.
But the media make such a fuss about every incident that we think bad
guys are lurking behind every bush. It's really silly.

Of course bad things do happen and we have to use common sense. But
teaching our children to be fearful everywhere they go is
counterproductive, IMO.

Grandma Katie
Mom to Barbara, Grandma to Julian, Aurora & Vernon

dragonlady wrote in message ...
In article ,
toto wrote:


You are 26 and have an 8 year old child? Got married young, didn't
you? You need to have try to keep your story reasonable. You had
your child when you were 14 and your wife was 13.... LOL



Um, last time I checked, 26 minus 8 was 16. And people DO become
parents at 16 (and even 14 and 13, for that matter).

meh


Where are my weapons of math instruction now that I need them??? LOL!

Grandma Katie