
“Children under ten years of age shall not be left home alone” [pdf] - protomyth
http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText16/SenateText16/S2104.pdf
======
joshyeager
I wonder what the reasoning is for this. In Maryland kids can stay home alone
at 8, and I've never heard of problems with that. Requiring supervision until
12 seems extremely restrictive. Kids alone by themselves learn responsibility,
and parents need time without their kids so they can recharge.

As a parent of young kids, I'm looking forward to when they reach that age.
I'd be awfully depressed if Maryland made this change.

------
bpyne
I get that sponsors of the bill are trying to protect young children from
neglect. The motivation is good. The one-size-fits-all solution is poorly
thought out.

My issue with this bill is the penalty for parents who leave a 9yo alone for a
few minutes to pick up food, milk, help a neighbor down the street, etc. As
someone pointed out last night in a FB group of parents in my community, are
the kids better off in the foster care system while the parents fight an
expensive, time-consuming battle with Child Services? There has to be a better
way than a human purse-seine technique.

This is a poorly thought out bill. The problem of children being left for long
periods unattended requires multiple solutions for the different "use cases"
for lack of a better expression. At the least, we have parents who pursue drug
habits and the like, are immature, and ones who are stuck on 3rd shift jobs
with no support system to watch the kids. These different populations require
different solutions.

------
VLM
Its a legal minefield because some parents are getting arrested for not
supervising "baby sitting age" girls.

And with teen pregnancy you can end up in weird scenarios like a mom with her
toddler legally requiring a grandparent, technically.

I've seen some writings that its a pretty effective weapon against people of
the wrong demographic. The same crazy cat lady who files HOA complaints for
having the wrong species of daisy in the flowerbed will hover over the
neighborhood's jews or blacks or whatever she doesn't like, until she sees a
kid alone in the backyard long enough to snap a picture, then CPS is called
in. Its not that we don't like section 8 people, or republicans, or whatever,
its just that we don't like unsupervised kids, you see.

I've also seen writings that in some municipalities this is the only way to
handle barking dogs.

------
brownbat
More context: [http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/26/rhode-island-children-
unde...](http://reason.com/blog/2016/01/26/rhode-island-children-
under-10-shall-not)

It's just a proposed bill though (aka, journalist bait).

~~~
mrxd
A little naive, IMO. Parents don't actually have freedom and flexibility
because they are constantly watched by paranoid neighbors on a hair trigger
for any possible sign of abuse. When the government creates a rule like this,
it actually enhances parental freedom by officially declaring that leaving
your kids alone is OK. Personally I'd like to see the age limit a little
lower, but this is great news for parents.

~~~
detaro
And now the paranoid neighbors have clear rule to stand on if the kid is under
10. Gray areas go both ways.

------
geuis
We usually talk about "the nanny state" in a general derogatory way about the
government interfering with and micro managing people's lives.

This is a specific instance of a government literally being a nanny. Sad.

------
djhn
I find it difficult to relate to someone who could hold this opinion. It may
be a feature of not being a parent.. But how helpless exactly do grownups
think kids are?

Beyond the age of 5, maybe 6, a child is surely more than capable of
independent living for several days? They should be able to handle their
bodily functions, feed themselves, keep themselves entertained with books
and/or TV and/or the internet, play outside with their friends and cycle
around (slightly depending on the living arrangement and distances involved),
commute to school, get their homework done etc.?

I remember being home alone for days going on weeks during early school years,
if my parents were out of town/out of country. 20-45-minute commute of
walking+subway (/metro/underground) is still the norm for everyone at my
(then) primary school starting from first grade.

~~~
LyndsySimon
I'm curious - did you live in the US during that part of your childhood?

I did, in a rural area in Arkansas. I was probably 12 or 13 before I was left
home alone for longer than a few minutes.

~~~
djhn
A nordic capital, 1mil population, old-style city centre.
[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stadsplanesystem.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stadsplanesystem.jpg)
(1st picture). 15 minutes walk to central railway station connecting (kind of)
to the rest of the world.

I'd say the independent/free play-area radius extends beyond the inside yard
sometime between 4 and 5, by 10 kids would be cycling all over the city by
themselves. Most would walk 10-15 mins to their kindergardens themselves (?)
from about the age of 5.

I wouldn't consider this an outlier, and my family wasn't particularly
laissez-faire. Many friends would go cycle-touring or interrailing in Europe
between 15 and 20. Doing a solo interrail in Europe for a month is a
culturally established "rite-of-passage", although people will usually wait
till they turn 18 to go alone.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Ah, then that explains it.

While your experience certainly isn't exceptional in your community - or
worldwide - it would absolutely be exceptional in the US. There have been
cases of parents being prosecuted for allowing their children to walk to a
local park less than a mile away.

Seeing a child alone in the US is _exceptionally_ rare. This extends to age
12-14, I would say.

------
arbitrage
Couldn't find a definition of brief, in either the original law or the
proposed amendment.

How brief is brief? 15 minutes? 1 movie? Nap time?

------
kukx
There's Rhode Island, and there's Japan
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YrN8Q2PDU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7YrN8Q2PDU)

------
Mandatum
In New Zealand the law requires any child under the age of 14 to have
supervision. This can include anyone above the age of 14, provided adequate
care is given.

------
tumdum_
The land of the free? Less and less with each decade :(

------
arbuge
The definition for 12 year olds is somewhat murky... what exactly do they mean
by "overnight"?

------
lintiness
"(d) Parents and legal guardians should use their judgment to access the
maturity and responsibility of their children ..."

how does one use judgment to "access" maturity?

~~~
marshray
Well, you know, you end up spending a lot of time with your kids and get to
know them pretty well.

How else could this question be answered?

~~~
detaro
the parent probably wanted to point out that "access" != "assess"

~~~
marshray
Oh, I see it now. That's funny.

------
aerovistae
Will only actually be used against legitimately neglectful parents. I'm in
favor.

~~~
LyndsySimon
Laws are never used against everyone, when they're intended to only apply to
one demographic.

> The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in
> practice has never been so applied.

Watson v. Stone, 1941

[https://casetext.com/case/watson-v-stone#](https://casetext.com/case/watson-
v-stone#)!

Oh. Nevermind.

