
How Fact-Free Parenting Policies Rob Kids' Independence - mjirv
http://5kids1condo.com/very-superstitious-how-fact-free-parenting-policies-rob-our-kids-of-independence/
======
Stratoscope
Back around 1960, when I was eight and my little sister was six, we went with
our dad to a chess tournament at the Mechanics' Institute in San Francisco.
[1]

Of course if you're six and eight and not really into chess, nothing could be
more boring. So we asked Dad if we could do something else. He gave us a few
nickels and quarters and said "sure, how about riding the cable cars and go
see the town?"

So we did! It was the most awesomest thing ever. We rode every cable car we
could find, walked around town and saw the sights. The best part was when we
found a street with our last name on it!

Everyone was nice. The cable car operators saw that we were a couple of kids
riding around on our own, so they showed us how the grip and the brakes
worked, pointed out interesting things to see, and made sure we knew how to
ride safely - even when we were sitting on the outside of the cable car
kicking our feet.

We forgot to ask for lunch money, so when we got back to the chess club as Dad
was finishing his games, he took us out for a bite to eat and we told him all
the stories of our adventure.

What a great day!

[1] [https://chessclub.org](https://chessclub.org)

------
xroche
Over-protecting kids is probably not the main point here. Bureaucrats tend to
focus on only one goal: not taking any responsibility or risks. Letting kids
being independent is a risk for them, even if this is for their own good. And
you can carefully explain to them the case, with scientific evidences, but
they are not accountable for anything, and won't bother to change their mind.
Because there is a second thing bureaucrats hate: admitting they were wrong.

~~~
vacri
The counterpoint is, however, that the 'risk' is real: while most parents
wouldn't hold the ministry accountable for minor risks, 'most' is not 'all'.
They're doing CYA for a reason, not because they get jollies from it.

It's the same reason why politicians say nothing of substance anymore. In the
olden days, the occasional slip-up would slide. These days if you say the
wrong thing, you can spend weeks or months defending it, and it can even cost
you your job.

It's not just a case of 'bureaucracy gone crazy', but also of 'we demand too
much of them'. The stereotypical example is that teachers used to just teach,
and now they need to be nurses and social workers as well.

~~~
sametmax
> In the olden days, the occasional slip-up would slide. These days if you say
> the wrong thing, you can spend weeks or months defending it, and it can even
> cost you your job.

I think Trump is proving you wrong.

But I get your point, the risk is really because a few people are idiots with
too much powers to break things.

We see the same things with the medical personal: they get very cautious and
conservative because they are held accountable when something goes wrong,
whether it's their fault or not.

But then forbidding idiots to have power would not be very democratic wouldn't
it ?

~~~
vacri
Trump isn't really proving me wrong. He made a lot of promises. He's
completely unable to get any of them done; he's a completely ineffective
politician. He's alienated his own staff and political allies. He won't
survive the next election, and doesn't even want to. He doesn't care to stay,
and without impeachment, there's no way to remove him. Total amount of
elections won = 1, total amount of 'stuff done' = 0.

Trump doesn't care about keeping his job _or_ doing his job _and_ he
effectively can't be fired (which is rare for most positions). If you don't
care about those kinds of ramifications, then you don't need to defend your
slip-ups. He really is an atypical case here.

~~~
sametmax
> He really is an atypical case here.

Not in my experience.

I France we have politicians lying, cheating and even being condemned coming
back all the time.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
You don't even need to go as far as France. RI and NJ do that too.

~~~
brepl
> You don't even need to go as far as France.

The implication in the comment above is that he's already in France. So going
to RI or NJ would be going further.

------
geff82
While helicopter parenting is a thing here in Germany, too, it is still
possible to use your sane judgement as a parent for a lot of things. My
daughter is not yet in school (so I am not into a peer group that talks about
such stuff), but I see the 7-year-old neighbour kids walking to school without
supervision, just as it has been the custom here in my own childhood. I have
to admit there are fewer of those on the street (and more accompanied by
parents), but kids still have the same freedoms in law that I had. Heck, in
anti-gun Germany they are allowed to shoot at shooting clubs beginning 12,
doing their first solo flight in (sail)planes at 14 and have their boat
driving license at 16. I often critisize our country for its obese body of
law, but life of kids is not too much restricted.

~~~
foepys
There currently is discussion about how parent should stop bringing their kids
to school and let them ride the bus or walk. In the often narrow streets in
front of German schools, parents drive their children to the gate of the
school in their SUVs and endanger everybody around them.

~~~
kaeluka
My mother, a former Austrian primary school teacher has, in her words "dragged
this mother out of her car and showed her what could've happened." I think
that the school doesn't let parents drop kids off right at the door any more
for this reason, they have to go to the parking lot down the street instead.
Most kids that live near walk or cycle to school (once they're allowed to).

Edit: I think the school recommends that parents walk with the first graders
for a certain time (those that are in walking distance) until they feel that
the kid knows the way and the rules and feels safe.

------
Dove
I don't mind the idea of the state protecting children. What I mind is it
happening without essential protections such as a right to jury trial, a
presumption of innocence, and illegal behavior being limited to what is
defined by actual laws written by elected representatives.

What we have here is the terror of the police state. Anonymous tips, petty
bureaucrats making life changing rulings on a whim with no clear laws to
establish legal behavior. I would love to see the whole thing challenged as
unconstitutional and abolished and folded into the much more functional
justice system.

~~~
DanBC
In the OPs situation he can just politely tell the child protection team that
he's heard their advice, but that he disagrees, and that he's not going to
change his behaviour.

The social workers then put all the information together and take it to their
lawyers, who'll either say it's not strong enough to go to court, or ask him
if he really does want to ignore the advice because they think they have a
good case.

At that point I assume they go to court, and then the state has to persuade
the judge that he's an unfit parent and that removing the children is the only
option - that nothing else will do. He doesn't have to prove he's a good
parent; the onus is on the state to make their case.

The court has to respect his parenting choices, unless those choices are
harmful or neglectful or put the children at risk of significant harm.

The court also has to take into account the views of the children, and it's
likely these children will be happy about the travel arrangements, and will be
persuasive to a judge.

This (quite old) report includes information on Canadian parents allowing
children to engage in risky activity (11 year olds taking cannabis, for
example) and Canada ranks 17th, which is pretty poor.

[http://cwrp.ca/publications/401](http://cwrp.ca/publications/401)

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
> _but that he disagrees, and that he 's not going to change his behaviour._

I don't think that's how it works, in this day and age.

As Adrian mentions in the article:

 _Being a divorced, single dad who has his kids 50% of the time, I have little
recourse to challenge the Ministry’s decision. Disobeying it even in the
slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner store by my 9.75 year old),
could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children, a
remarkably draconian outcome I would never risk._

This is very similar to how it would work in Australia. The cards are
especially stacked against you if you're unfortunate enough to be the bearer
of a Y chromosome during a separation involving children.

~~~
DanBC
> could result in the Ministry stripping me of equal custody of my children,

It's not true though.

The ministry can't strip him of equal custody rights, they can only go to
court. A judge is the only person who can strip his rights away.

THe claim is:

> Disobeying it even in the slightest (i.e. allowing a trip to the corner
> store by my 9.75 year old), could result in the Ministry stripping me of
> equal custody of my children

And that claim is just bullshit. Show me any case in Canada where this has
happened.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I can't speak for Canada, but in Australia...

In Australia men don't have a 50% custody _right_. The mother can just cease
participating in the shared parenting plan. She could say "he lets them roam
the streets unsupervised". Then it goes back to court, the courts tell the
mother "you have to participate", and then she "forgets" or her "car breaks
down" or she "doesn't have enough money for petrol". This can also, though
rarely, work with the genders reversed.

The result is the same: The Government strips you of custody because someone
claimed you stepped out of line.

I don't meant to sound like I have an axe to grind, but I do, so that's how it
comes across.

~~~
DanBC
But you're talking about a totally different situation.

OP isn't talking about a mother frustrating the will of the court (and I agree
that's a problem); OP is talking about an agent of the state removing children
from a parent.

If anything your argument just supports my point: she's violating her child's
convention right to a family life with its father, but the courts can't do
much about it.

If this "the state can just take your children" argument held any water the
state, after the court cases, would see the mother breaking the court order
and take the child off her. They don't, because it's very hard to do.

------
thedays
The "Cover Your Ass" culture which results in mandating helicopter parenting
is sadly widespread, and not just in Canada.

We need to be ever vigilant to stop petty bureaucrats everywhere from making
arbitrary rules and taking away valuable freedoms and discretion. Do what you
can at work and in your personal life to maintain freedoms.

EDIT: One simple thing we can do is make a donation to the legal fighting fund
established by the writer of this article to fight this draconian Canadian
regulation. There are links to the legal fund donation page in the linked
article.

------
d--b
Also people don't realize this anymore, but when you're a single parent and
have FIVE kids, you HAVE to teach your kids independence, cause you can't be
behind each and every one of them all the time! When one of them gets sick
(which is just about every other week), you're pretty pleased that the others
can get to school by themselves.

------
mnm1
I walked the whole city I was born in and took whatever busses and trolleys I
wanted (I knew all the routes) when I was 7-9 years old (in the 80's) in a
city of 300-400k people. This is simply insane and stupid. It's the reason why
I will never have kids in the US or Canada. What kind of shitty culture and
society allows this kind of degradation of kids? Is it any wonder they grow up
not knowing how to live? It's shameful and disgusting to allow children to be
policed in this way. I'd blame it on government/bureaucracy, but it only
follows the norms of the shitty culture that enables it.

~~~
plandis
Yes, tell me more about how shitty my culture (and by extension) the people of
that culture are. Any other insult you want to lay on a group of 300+ million
people that you've so carelessly stereotyped without giving a careful thought
about it?

~~~
walterstucco
He's right

------
new299
I'm sympathetic. But given the article is against "fact-free" parenting. I
didn't find the data presented very compelling.

Basically you'd need to know how common crime against children traveling
unsupervised on buses in a similar scenario.

The closest example presented is kids in New York riding the subway, so
presenting stats on that would be useful.

I'd also like more details on the Japanese example, it's honestly not uncommon
to hear news reports of kids being abducted in Japan. I'd personally be
interested in the stats, but as a comparison point it doesn't make sense
unless you can normalize for the overall lower crime rate that Japan has.

If anyone has good data against "Helicopter parenting", I'd be curious to see
it.

~~~
dwaltrip
From the post:

> And the odds of your child being kidnapped by a stranger on the bus?
> Incredibly long. A 2003 study in Canada found just one case nationwide of a
> stranger abducting a child, in the entire two years prior.

I personally found the article very compelling. This kind of mindless fear, in
direct contradiction of clear evidence, makes my blood boil.

~~~
dagw
While I agree with the general assertion in the article, cherry picking
statistics for just one, very rare, crime isn't compelling evidence. Why not
present the stats for all relevant crimes?

~~~
AstralStorm
So what kinds of crimes are you willing to look at? Murders and abductions are
probably the worst and easiest to track.

Robbery much harder and often unreported or reported as bullying.

~~~
pamqzl
Honestly I'd be far more worried about my kid being hit by a car than being a
victim of any crime.

Or maybe they try something stupid (we all did stupid things as kids and I
don't expect my kids to be smarter than I was) and wind up drowning in the
river or falling off something.

~~~
walterstucco
> Honestly I'd be far more worried about my kid being hit by a car

But why?

Is it common for them to be hit by cars?

Is it safer for them to go to school with parents?

And if someone hits you while you are trying to protect your kid, is it less
traumatic?

And if while you take them to school you hit someone else's kid, is it less
traumatic?

Is it common for kids to drown or fall and die while parents are not there?

From what I see it is common for adults to drown while they're trying to save
someone else (usually not kids, but other adults)

If you start thinking about everything that _could_ happen, you wouldn't let
your kids go out

Kids spend a lot of time alone and still they manage to survive

Why going to school should be any different?

~~~
dagw
_Is it common for them to be hit by cars?_

According to CDC it's the second most common cause of accidental injury death
among children aged 5-14 (after being in a car crash)

~~~
walterstucco
With or without parent's supervision?

The post I was replying to specifically said he's scared that his kid could be
hit by a car when going to school _on his own_

It's fairly obvious that accidents are the most common cause of death for kids
My point is that parent supervision don't protect them from being hit or end
up in a car crash or fall down from a bridge

p.s.: main cause doesn't mean it is common I believe it's not very common,
it's catastrophic for their young body when it happens, but not common

~~~
AstralStorm
Critical part is actually "going to school". Typical stats on accidents do not
say where you were going, but at most where you actually were. My suspicion is
that most vehicular accidents happen during play or free roaming, especially
in an unsupervised kid group, not when actually going somewhere on their own.

------
Ntrails
This article is depressing as hell.

I used to walk to school at the age of what, 8? There was one really quite
busy road I had to cross on my own, the rest was residential. But learning to
cross the road is something that was dogmatically addressed from a very young
age. "Stop. Look. Listen." I remember learning about that aged 5ish? My
parents knew I could cross the road, they'd taught me, the schools had taught
me. It was tested in the crucible of parental observation and then I was
trusted to continue.

Of course someone could come along and kidnap me as I blithely wandered along
the pavement. But frankly if we're going to spend our lives obsessing about
extreme tail risks then we've already lost.

~~~
roceasta
_But frankly if we 're going to spend our lives obsessing about extreme tail
risks then we've already lost_

Yes. And the tail risks are asymmetrical here. Bureaucrats take on
responsibility for thousands or hundreds-of-thousands of children in their
district. They look bad _however few_ of these kids are harmed or killed. So
what might be a perfectly acceptable risk for an individual family is not
acceptable to the local government.

The more they interfere and assume responsibility for children the more
_additional_ responsibilities their offices will be loaded with when things go
wrong. Which will cause further problems, et cetera, because although parents
love and provide for their children, institutions don't know how to (and can't
afford to).

------
ThrustVectoring
The point of parenting isn't to avoid getting criticized for being a "bad
parent", or to do things that make you look like a "good parent". The point is
to provide the necessary conditions for children to learn how to be
independent and successful adults. This involves taking reasonable levels of
risks, and figuring out what amount of risk-taking is reasonable, and learning
how to navigate the world in general.

------
ArchD
The way blame gets assigned and risk gets assessed by human society is often
quite pathological.

In a typical setting, there are options A & B. As an example, let A be the
option to allow young kids to ride independently on a bus and B the option to
legislate against letting young kids ride independently on a bus.

The cost of A seems high to human emotions and the lazy thinker, typically
involving rare but high-impact events (something really bad happening to the
well-trained kid taking a bus) that get cherry-picked as important to
consider.

The cost of B seems low to human emotions and the lazy thinker, typically
involving diverse continual low-impact events (all kids affected by
legislation losing out on chance to learn independence, environmental impact
of using a car instead of public transport) that get neglected because of
their low emotional appeal and more complicated accounting. (It may be hard to
prove that lots of low-impact things add up to a big thing -- there are too
many things and causal relationships to point to.)

In many cases, the cost of A is actually objectively lower than the cost of B,
so A is the better option. In such cases, whereas all options and their
consequences should be considered together with their probabilities, in
reality, option B is often deemed to be the better choice, and A a bad choice,
because the cost of A appeals more strongly to emotional. Consequently,
someone who picked A (law-maker or bureaucrat) gets blamed but someone who
picked B doesn't get blamed and is harder to blame, including in court. To
protect themselves, they pick the inferior option.

I think this sort of pathological risk assessment is the root of the cover-
your-ass culture that permeates society.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
Wash rinse repeat for 90% of not specific laws about behavior in a
noncommercial setting...

------
jakobegger
I‘m really glad this parent is fighting the decision; no ministry should be
able to interfere with personal freedoms when the stakes are so low, basing
their decisions on far fetched court cases that have nothing to do with the
situation.

As a point of comparison, school kids in Austria typically walk to school or
use public transit on their own from first grade (6-7 years old).

In the beginning of the school year, older students watch zebra crossings and
block traffic when kids need to cross.

------
bizgreen9000
I find it incredible that these bureaucrats routinely threaten people with
taking away their children. Aren't even the most reasonable people going to
get dangerous when faced with that kind of a situation? I don't have kids but
I can't even imagine.

~~~
daemin
Yes, but they'll most likely have a Police escort when they come and take your
children away. If you want to escalate it further then for sure you will not
be getting your children back under your care any time soon.

------
Xoros
A friend of mine is father of 7. When they had their fifth kid, children
protection started to show their faces on a regular base.

Because, you know, having that much children, you are probably a bad parent.

Of course, it's not a bad thing that they ensure that there is, in fact, no
obvious problem home. It's important to watch for the children, they are the
future of your country.

But in his case, a wealthy entrepreneur, his wife is a nurse, with the biggest
house I've ever been in, and one of the happiest family I know, they still
visits every couple of months, seamingly looking for a reason to piss them
off.

It looks like (and it's just my opinion) they can't accept different form of
life standards.

~~~
extra88
I'm skeptical that this is the whole story, CPS departments don't have the
staff to monitor every Duggar-wannabe. But if there was an incident that put
you on their radar (even if it was actually nothing), I could see it taking a
long time for them to take you off their list.

~~~
Xoros
Well I don't really know. Maybe 5 kids is a trigger here in France.

But on a semi related subject, my wife and I decided to not put our kids in
school this year and do home schooling.

To be well prepared, we asked people already doing it, joined Facebook groups
of homeschooling parents nearby, etc...

The most frequent advice we had is to watch out when government will send
someone to check out if everything is ok, as it's badly accepted in France to
do homeschool. And they're known to try to corner you to get the kids back to
school.

And a lot of parents think you're doing bad for your kids making this choice,
so may be there is jealousy/angry involved.

But again, it's in France not Canada or US so it might be different.

~~~
extra88
It would have been helpful to mention you were describing a situation in
France, it makes a big difference which country you're in and most people here
don't have experience there.

I have heard that homeschooling is not as accepted in France as it is in the
U.S., it seems like there quite a few individual liberties Americans assume
that are not protected in France.

~~~
Xoros
Yes, sorry about that, I realized it when reading your answer, that's why I
answered, to add context.

France is hiding behind terrorism to prevent parents to do homeschooling,
arguing it will help radicalization.

Of course it's completely irrelevant, but governments hate to lose control on
people.

~~~
extra88
I don't think homeschooling is "completely irrelevant" to radicalization.
There are American homeschoolers who are pretty radical in their beliefs and
take their children out of school to prevent them being exposed to other
beliefs.

I would agree that with Islamic radicalization (probably the only kind of
radicalization being considered) in Europe, education at home by parents is
not a significant source of radicalized youths.

~~~
Xoros
Yes, I read something about that subject in a recent HN post, with the
religious opinions for homeschooling.

But in France, that's really irrelevant. All the recent terror attacks have
been perpetrated by persons with a public school education.

So short sighted politicians could also claim that it's the fault of the
public schooling system ! And that also be irrelevant.

------
fillskills
Bureaucrats have little stake in this but see high risk to their careers so
they want to play safe. Only way to affect change is to somehow convince them
that this is good for their career. Or get lucky enough and find the one
person who believes in and cares enough to push the issue through the system.

------
nicklaf
Any countries out there where this kind of helicopter parenting isn't endemic
in the culture?

~~~
daxfohl
Per walking / public transit to school, Japan is always the big example where
many kids do so on their own. I feel like I've read this is _mandatory_ there,
but a quick search finds no backing evidence so maybe not.

I'm curious though in Japan whether this is part of a general trend combating
helicopter parenting, or if it's just a one-off social norm.

~~~
valgaze
CBS Dec 2015 on Japan
[http://youtu.be/IkVvXVDs5aI](http://youtu.be/IkVvXVDs5aI)

Not sure if they're common/representative, but two interesting things the
mother demonstrated (2:14):

1\. She can track the kid via GPS

2\. When asked, she said she would never let her son walk alone to school in
the United States

~~~
new299
It's been common in Japan since before the second world war.

My wife, who went to school in Japan, says it's seen as a good thing, to
encourage independence.

There's a popular TV show, where they follow small kids (maybe 4 or 5?) on
their first "trip alone" to do a chore, obviously they're being followed by a
camera crew. But the TV show promotes kids taking responsibility for
themselves (and it's cute of course).

The US is just seen as a much more dangerous country than Japan. I mean, it
actually does have a higher crime rate.

Sorry, this is all purely anecdotal. But I believe it to be the general case
(would as always love to see data).

------
smelendez
I think the question the Ministry official asked him about what would happen
if the kids start fighting is an important part of the equation.

Society has gotten more legalistic. The bus driver or a random adult passenger
doesn't have legally defined authority to discipline the author's kids, which
means they don't have the authority at all.

But basic human decency demands you intervene if you see little kids fighting
or doing something dangerous (even if you'd just roll your eyes if it was a
couple of drunk guys).

This tension propagates through the system until somebody basically rules kids
can't ride the bus unsupervised until they're old enough to be unsympathetic.

~~~
new299
What happens if two adults start fighting? What is the difference?

------
daemin
A more sinister way of looking at this is that the government wants to raise
children to be more dependent on an authority figure. So that when they grow
up to become adults they will more naturally defer to authority and the state
will have an easier time controlling the population and instituting draconian
measures.

This goes hand in hand with another commenter where no-one wants to take the
responsibility for being wrong and always defers to an "authority figure".
Because nobody got blamed for buying IBM.

------
Animats
At least in Menlo Park, CA, I'm seeing more kids walking to school. You can
now drive down a road that passes three schools around 3 PM without being
caught in a traffic jam of SUVs queued up for kid pickup.

I wonder if computer use is helping. I used to see kids struggling under
enough backpack for a weekend campout. The backpacks seem to be much smaller
now. Maybe more content is on tablets and laptops.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
Computer use is likelier helping through the existence of cell phones. They're
essentially electronically supervised, so the physical supervision feels less
necessary to observers.

------
program_whiz
Once there are numerous children riding unaccompanied on the bus, the stats
may change. Obviously in the current environment (where no children are riding
the bus), the number of incidents are small (his stats are from school
busses). What happens when people realize that dozens of children are riding
public buses all the time without a parent in sight?

The current climate of "over-protecting" kids may be the cause of the lower
rates of child-related crimes. Check out some graphs of the kidnap rates
falling. Maybe the "woefully ignorant" public policy makers actually have the
right answer?

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/there...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/14/theres-
never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/?utm_term=.3a60649a53b4)

------
pharrington
I smell a confidence trick.

Nowhere in his article does Crook mention any specific names of government
workers he interacted with, specific dates when he met with caseworkers, or
specific actions or enforcements the government would take regarding his case.

In an article full of links to specific stats and empathy inducing images of
his children, he does not show a single government correspondence.

I hope my assumption is just misguided cynicism, and that there actually is a
concrete reason to give this man money.

~~~
pharrington
from [https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-
columbia/vanco...](https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-
columbia/vancouver-man-ordered-to-stop-letting-his-children-take-city-bus-to-
school/article36180815/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&reqid=ab593daa-153f-4fb3-9a01-e6142ab95e76)

"In a June 23 letter that Mr. Crook provided to The Globe and Mail, the
ministry said it looked into concerns that "you were pulling the children's
ears and allowing them to take transit unsupervised." Asked about the ear-
pulling, Mr. Crook said it was treated as an afterthought in the investigation
and follow-up, and that the main focus was the bus trips.

The letter says there are no child-protection concerns and that the children
are safe in their father's care."

------
averagewall
What must be the most painful part of this is that he's in a weak position
having shared custody. A normal parent could just give the middle finger and
they'll never have their kids taken away for a single minor behaviour like
that. But someone with tenuous custody has to bend over backwards to look like
they're doing it right. It seems he could actually lose his kids quite easily
because they have another home ready to go to.

~~~
sametmax
It's amazing an institution as such power, and that they can exercise such
power, not based so much on a legal ground as on moral ground. Yeah they
mentioned lawyers, but there is no law against what the parent did.

~~~
DanBC
They can't do anything without going to court. Of course there are laws that
govern this.

~~~
sametmax
About the result yes. But the procedures they engage can have a tremendous
impact on one's life, and even more when a court is involved, whether they are
right or not.

Can you imagine having to kiss some distant bureaucrat bottom, accepting they
invade your life, endangering your reputation, making you question your
choices, threatening you to loose your kids, making them look at you
differently, all that __even before any decision is taken__ ?

This is madness.

~~~
DanBC
He doesn't have to do any of that. He can chose to not engage at all.

Again, the state can't do anything without going to court, and when they go to
court they have to prove their case, he doesn't have to prove anything.

------
cabalamat
Relevant: [http://www.freerangekids.com/](http://www.freerangekids.com/)

------
cromulent
In Finland each child gets a yellow cap when they start school around age 7.
They are expected to be making their own way to school, and this cap makes it
easier for other road and public transport users to spot them and assist them
if necessary.

------
Evgeny
I wanted to make a small donation but I am not comfortable entering my credit
card information on a website I know nothing about. This is the first time
when I wanted to make a donation, and there was no PayPal option to do it.

------
Xoros
It's seems pretty tough in Norge too. The local Children Protection Service
seems powerful.

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBWXhrN4AM4](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BBWXhrN4AM4)

------
imartin2k
Wow. I took the bus alone to school from 6-7 years on, back in East Berlin.

------
sneak
Those kids are too young to be riding the bus alone.

~~~
crummy
How come?

------
CodeWriter23
I had to stop reading when the father of FIVE starts talking about
sustainability. He might have some credibility in my eyes if he had a
vasectomy after 2 kids. And even more if he snipped them at 1.

------
esaym
>Attorney General, and determined that children under 10 years old could not
be unsupervised in or outside the home

Good night... glad I live in America.

~~~
kareemm
America's got its own share of issues wrt this topic:

[http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/living/feat-maryland-free-
rang...](http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/13/living/feat-maryland-free-range-
parenting-family-under-investigation-again/index.html)

~~~
esaym
And can you imagine how much worse it would be if there actually was a "legal"
unsupervised age???

