
Utah governor signs law legalizing 'free-range parenting' - jeffreyrogers
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013224/utah-governor-signs-law-legalizing-free-range-parenting.html
======
graeme
A lot of posts in this thread are not understanding the point of the law.
Sentiments such as:

"Why need a law? Just let your children be free and independent. They need
that." "If anyone threatens to call CPS on me I'll tell them to fuck off."

That's why the law is needed! Currently, in a lot of jurisdictions, do either
of those two things and your kids can arbitrarily be taken from you, legally,
by the government.

This law makes it so that allowing children normal independence _is legal_.
Because slowly administrative agencies started to take a stricter view on what
was "safe".

~~~
rayiner
My friend had a babysitter report her to CPS because there were stuffed
animals in her 7-month old's crib, which apparently contradicts some guidance.
CPS closed the investigation without doing anything, but not before causing a
lot of unnecessary worry.

~~~
chapium
> which apparently contradicts some guidance

This isn’t just “some guidance”. Its the American Academy of Pediatrics
guidance which shows stuffed animals, pillows, and blankets increase the risk
factor for SIDS.

~~~
rayiner
A lot of medical guidance comes from busybodies who have no ability to perform
cost-benefit analysis ( _e.g._ pregnant women and caffeine). SIDS risk is
around 0.5 per 1,000. The major cause of the decrease since the 1980s seems to
be the decline of smoking. Everything else is noise for something that's
already low probability.

~~~
btilly
Do you have a source for this claim?

References like
[https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/sts/campaign/science/Pages/backsl...](https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/sts/campaign/science/Pages/backsleeping.aspx)
and articles like [https://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-
man...](https://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many-deaths-
no-longer-a-mystery) make it likely that the increase in sleeping children on
their back is the bulk of the reduction. And that the fact that blacks are
less likely to take that recommendation is the reason why the black community
has twice the death rate of whites.

This is something that I have a personal interest in. My nephew died of SIDS
months before the recommendation about sleeping positions was reversed back in
the early 90s. My sister did not smoke. She did put him to sleep on his
stomach.

------
azinman2
It’s sad to me that the 24h news cycle that depends on selling fear causes
people to misestimate the dangers in the world. My sister doesn’t allow her
teenage children to take the bus in a wealthy suburb for fear of something
happening to them, yet both she and I took buses around SF and the bay
starting at age 10 without cellphones. Statistics show that things are _less_
dangerous now than when we were kids — but she’s been made paranoid via
attention grabbing media.

~~~
kyoob
Could the world be less dangerous now because kids aren't riding around
unescorted on buses any more?

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Unlikely because it is much less dangerous for everyone, not just kids.

------
eco
Child abuse and neglect laws started in the 1940s after a series of articles
were published by a doctor with accounts of children with injuries clearly
caused by adults and by the 1970s most states had passed them. They were well
meaning and only intended to protect children from real harm.

The problem is they are (somewhat necessarily) vague. They didn't think the
laws would be used for trivial things but words like "endangerment" can easily
be applied to letting your kid walk home alone.

This is the first real attempt that I know of to scale back some of it and I
suspect we'll see more of this in other states as society realizes some of
this has gone to far.

It should also be said that this is just codifying what was basically already
the case. Utah's Child Protective Services supported this law and already
considered the behaviors the law protects to be perfectly fine but they were
obligated to open investigations anyway. Now they don't have to. It also
prevents Utah's CPS in the future from doing some of the ridiculous actions
that have occurred in other states if the attitude of the workers/leadership
at Utah's CPS shifted.

~~~
r00fus
I seriously hope other states take the opportunity to review this legislation
for similar adoption.

As a parent, the shuffle to drive or walk my bike-capable kids 0.5 miles to
their school costs us time or money (to have someone shepherd them).

These days we have ways to track kids or kids have their own phone, tools like
Nextdoor and crime levels are low. Why shouldn't we trust kids to be able to
navigate (perhaps in a group) themselves to a local school?

------
d--b
It is awfully sad that we need laws that describe what we're allowed to do
rather than what's forbidden.

~~~
burkaman
That's the wrong way to look at it, this is a law limiting what the government
can do. For really broad, difficult to define crimes like "neglect" or "child
abuse", it makes sense to pass additional legislation limiting how those laws
can be applied.

~~~
robotrout
The parent is correct. It is sad that this is necessary. Similarly, the bill
of rights was almost not included at all, because the original premise was
that you had ALL rights that were not specifically prohibited in the
constitution. That the bill of rights has turned out to be necessary at all,
is also sad.

I am thankful for this law, and for the bill of rights, but it is sad that we
require either. We were not supposed to.

~~~
burkaman
I don't understand the issue. Do you agree that child abuse should be a crime?
If so, do you think you could correctly define it in legally precise language
on the first try, with no unintended consequences? Legislators are human and
make mistakes. It's good that they're proactively considering potential
unintended effects of a law, and it's not that sad that they didn't get it
exactly right the first time.

~~~
Retric
I don't think child abuse necessarily needs to be a separate law from general
harm.

~~~
burkaman
You'd have the same issue even if there weren't a specific child abuse law.
Does letting your 8-year-old walk to school alone count as "general harm"?
What about leaving them home alone for a day? A week? A month? Who gets to
decide? If the law doesn't specify, the police and the courts decide. And if
the police start making decisions that the public disagrees with, then we pass
new legislation to clarify what exactly counts as general harm.

~~~
Retric
How is that different from a 35 year old mentally handicapped sibling under
your care? It's not a question of age, it's one of responsibility.

~~~
burkaman
It's not different. If police started arresting people for letting their adult
mentally handicapped dependents do reasonably independent things, then it
might be a good idea to pass some legislation to modify the relevant law.

------
ThrustVectoring
The US has a slow decline where the acceptable level of risk to expose your
children to is nil. This is not good parenting; good parenting involves
teaching your children to navigate the world with increasing independence and
ability to judge and handle risk. It is, however, what people will pressure
each other into doing when something bad happens (or looks like it might).

You cannot and should not prevent every possible bad thing from happening to
your child. It doesn't produce the best outcome.

------
mrleiter
That a law like this is even necessary seems absurd to me. A child learns by
doing, by making mistakes by itself. By being curious about the world. By
feeling the consequences of ones actions. Of course parenting is needed, but
much less restrictive as it apparently is. My parents sent me to the UK when I
was 12. i knew no-one. Yes, there was a school and a host family that
fulfilled my basic needs, but I had to become selfconscious and responsible. I
would never want to miss that. Your parents won't always be here and the
earlier you learn to get on by yourself, the better. A child must develop a
sense of self dependency IMO.

Disclaimer: I'm from Europe.

~~~
graeme
That's the point of the law. In many north american jurisdictions you can have
your children taken from you if you let them roam around freely.

There was a notable story of a parent in Vancouver who had to stop letting his
kids take the city bus to school because a neighbour complained.

~~~
mrleiter
Wow, so hard for me to grasp. I didn't know. When I was young I used to climb
on trees all the time. I remember one incident where a neighbour called my
mother and told her that I was doing that and that she should tell me to stop
this as it was dangerous. My mother told her that this was none of her
business. For such a drastic measure (taking ones child away) much more severe
neglect is needed here in Austria (e.g. drug abuse, violence,...)

~~~
xxpor
Remember though, the reason it became a news story was because it was so
absurd. Kids take public transit to school here in Seattle all the time.

------
bunderbunder
I'm glad to see some sense coming back, after having seen things get to the
point where most of what's happening in the Charlie Brown Chrismas special
would be unthinkable. ("He bought a _Chrismas tree?_ Without _adult
supervision!?!?_ ")

~~~
kolpa
So? Charlie Brown is a cartoon that mostly erases adults from the plot because
they are boring. It's not a documentary of the 1950s.

------
kolpa
Link to the actual law, in case people want to discuss the law and not their
own preconceptoins:
[https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html](https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html)

~~~
hathawsh
Right. To clarify what that page is showing, the bill is a proposed change of
the Utah code and it's presented almost like a "diff" file. Underlined
portions are additions, strikeouts are removals. Lines 309 through 325 contain
the important parts.

~~~
bargl
Your comment helped me find the part in question thank you very much.

------
dahart
I feel like we don't have enough free-range parenting, even if silly new laws
seem to support it. Not nearly enough parents let their kids walk to school
where I live. (But I'll be careful to admit this view may be much more upper-
middle class centric than for poorer families.)

My parents took me and my siblings to Mexico when I was a kid, I was the
oldest at 7 years old. My brother and sister were 6 and 4. We'd go walking for
miles on our own. In retrospect it seems amazing that nothing serious happened
to us, though once my brother decided to pet a horse from behind and got
kicked.

This article also reminds me of a story comedian Molly Shannon tells about
sneaking onto an airplane with her friend when they were 13 and flying to New
York City to spend the day.

It seems like nobody does this kind of stuff anymore, parents are much more on
top of it than 30 years ago.

~~~
lostmsu
Could that be a survivor bias?

------
mnm1
The fact that our society needs such a law is beyond insane. When did the law
change? I walked to school in the 90's by myself at 9 years. Or has the law
changed? Or has the enforcement just changed without anyone's consent? I can't
imagine raising kids in America today. I'd never subject another human being
to this kind of life. Children are human too but Americans seem to have
forgotten that lately.

~~~
kolpa
Thanks to Internet and mass media, the occasional extreme case gets
misreported and widely publicized as "the new normal"

The irony is not lost: "Free-range" advocates say that society vastly
overestimates the risk of harms, so they campaign against child-protection
laws that they vastly overestimate the harm of.

~~~
tropo
I've dealt with those agencies enough to know that they are horrible. I've
even caught them in criminal acts, which of course won't be prosecuted.

The typical harassment starts with a kid who gets a normal childhood injury or
is found unattended at a library or church, or sometimes an anonymous tip by
somebody who wants to cause trouble. This is enough to start an investigation.
The agency's workers then feel entitled to interview and examine the kids
alone, invade the home, and even inspect the content of a refrigerator.
Depending on your location, a warrant may be automatically approved by a
judge.

The thing with the refrigerator is particularly absurd. It's not as if you
can't feed children without one. You could even eat out every day! If the
agency's workers find moldy food you forgot in the back of your refrigerator,
they will presume that the children are being fed moldy food. If you haven't
been shopping recently and the refrigerator is mostly empty, they will assume
the kids aren't being fed.

The agency benefits greatly from people's reluctance to talk with friends,
news media, and so on. So much of the malicious activity occurs in private.

These investigations have lasting effects. Years later, one can snap awake in
a panic due to a nightmare about kids being grabbed out of the home. You can
forever lose your feeling of safety and security in your own home. When the
report is anonymous, you can no longer trust anybody you know.

------
poelzi
I"m shocked that this is even forbidden in the "land of the free". I was
walking home alone from school. In fact, my father once said to me that I
basically raised myself on my own.

~~~
eeZah7Ux
Walking alone might be too scary for the "land of the brave".

Jokes aside, I'm often surprised by how frequently people in US describe
places, people and ideas as "threats".

~~~
tropo
You can't be brave unless you perceive a threat. Being oblivious to a threat,
or being in denial of a threat, is not bravery. Bravery requires well-
considered acceptance of a recognized threat. It's a matter of being able to
justify taking a risk.

------
cwbrandsma
Should call this the "let city kids have the same rights as rural kids" law.
All the kids on farms are just looking at this like "what the...?" (yes, kids
still live and work on farms)

~~~
dsfyu404ed
This is the part where I make some reply that subtly suggests that everyone
BFE is a backwards hick, that there's no economic opportunity there and that
kids who don't get out will all turn to drugs.

If I really wanna show how out of touch I am I should take pity on anyone who
lives somewhere without over 9000 ethic restaurants and bars that serve
hipster micro-brews within walking distance and mention startups somehow.

(yes, this is sarcasm)

------
paulddraper
> On the federal level, another Utah politician, U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, added an
> amendment to a 2015 federal education bill supporting the concept. It said
> kids shouldn't be stopped from biking or walking to school alone with a
> parent's permission, and parents shouldn't face charges for letting them.

Ah, what?

In Florida in the late 90s, my my 2nd grade self and my 1st grade sister
walked a mile to school every day.

The thought that someone would find that objectionable...genuinely bizarre.

------
908087
When I was a kid, they just called that "parenting". The generation that has
been growing up locked away from the world under constant adult supervision is
going to have a hell of a time leaving the crib when the time comes. 30 will
be the new 18.

Maybe this will help Facebook and Google's surveillance towns take off, since
these adult children would be able to move somewhere else where they'd be
under constant supervision.

~~~
hanbura
When real life sounds like a Black Mirror episode

------
eeZah7Ux
English is not my first language - forgive the stupid question: does "free-
range" come from animal farming?

(I hope not, that would sound quite patronizing)

~~~
quadrangle
It's an ironic joke. By saying that you raise "free-range kids" you are
accusing (correctly these days for the U.S.!) that other parents are raising
caged, confined kids.

------
Analemma_
This law is coming from a good place, but I'm not sure how much it can
accomplish. The pressure against "free-range parenting" is much more social
than legal, and it doesn't seem like the government can do a lot about that.
Although maybe it will be enough knowing that if someone threatens to call CPS
on you for letting your kid walk to school, you can tell them to fuck off.

~~~
x1798DE
Social pressure is fine, the problem is that right now people leverage the law
to force their culture of helicopter parenting on people not complying.

Frankly, I think it should go even further, it should be a civil offense to
frivolously report child endangerment based only on the fact that children are
unsupervised. Even with a protection bill, people will still report parents if
there are no consequences, and not everyone on the enforcement side will get
the message. Best to level the playing field so helicopter reporters will have
some skin in the game.

~~~
jlg23
> it should be a civil offense to frivolously report child endangerment based
> only on the fact that children are unsupervised.

So when I see children alone and think they might be lost, what do I do? Trust
the runaways who tell me that all is good? Creepily follow them until they
reach their destination? What you call "frivolous reporting" in one area would
be "criminal neglect" in another.

That's the whole idea of child protection services: Give them slightly more
power to investigate than an ordinary citizen, so they can make an informed
decision according to the law. After all, the _reporting_ is not the problem,
lack of standards/consensus what good parenting means en detail is.

> not everyone on the enforcement side will get the message

Lack of ongoing training in law enforcement should, IMHO, never be a reason
not to change things for the better.

~~~
abiox
> So when I see children alone and think they might be lost, what do I do?

do they appear to be in distress? are they in some strange location away from
civilization? quite possibly "nothing" is the correct answer, because "alone"
doesn't mean much.

if you really have reason to think they're "lost", you could ask whether they
are and if they need an assist in finding their way.

------
AndrewKemendo
As a parent of three it seems ridiculous that we need these laws, but sadly we
do to reverse the years of overly anxious people creating a world hostile to
kids exploring it without hovering caretakers.

I won't move to Utah because of this, but hopefully other states take notice
and I'll be lobbying my state to use this as precedent.

------
bcheung
What is wrong with people if they need to make a law for this? Seriously, just
because a kid is playing outside instead of being confined indoors playing
video games is no reason to call the cops.

------
Chris_UT
Coming from UT, I remember a lot of teens in high school that had over
reaching parents and as a result they didn't get the full experience of being
a junior or senior in HS.

Luckily for me, my parents had trust in me so in high school I could hang out
with my friends without my parents questioning my every move. They just wanted
me home before 10.

------
hathawsh
The news is about Utah SB 65:

[https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html](https://le.utah.gov/~2018/bills/static/SB0065.html)

Look specifically at the underlined additions on lines 309-325.

This is simply a refinement of the definition of "neglect".

------
quantumofmalice
Social trust is falling in the west. I appreciate Utah making an effort here,
but the problem is systemic.

There are specific reasons that this is the case, but most people will not
discuss it openly. Putnam sat on his results for years because it is simply
not acceptable to discuss in polite society.

~~~
vinay427
Would you care to discuss these so-called "specific reasons" relatively
anonymously then? I genuinely have no idea what you might be referring to.

~~~
0x4f3759df
>>A study conducted by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam suggests that
diversity hurts civic life and that differences can actually translate into
distrust
[https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128026...](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12802663)

Seems logical but social isolation is also increasing in Japan with their
ethnic homogeneity. I think its all related to the collapse of large families.
People have few children and when the kids grow up they're likely to move
away.

~~~
corey_moncure
>social isolation is also increasing in Japan

When was the last time you were there? I spent most of the past month in metro
Osaka, as a parent of young children, and I noted:

* Young children freely coming to city parks, fraternizing, and leaving, in absence of any adult supervision, indeed, without any adults other than myself even present

* Groups of young schoolchildren traveling mostly autonomously to and from school among busy urban streets (though sometimes under the watchful eye of many volunteer shepherds along the route)

* Children as young as 8 approaching me to be generally curious, maturely and completely without fear

* Proprietor of a local bar I visited knew everyone around, including my in-laws' family, this in the busy inner-city

* Ample resources and facilities provided by the prefectural and local governments, including staffed play areas and civic center events. My older daughter was broadcast on-air TV with other children attending a Girls' Day event.

* health care including vision/dental costs hard capped to 500 yen/treatment day (~$5) for children under 6

So yeah. I don't think the situation in Japan is comparable at all in any way
to what's happened here in the USA. I would not allow even the appearance of
my daughter playing alone in my own front yard, for fear of what well-
intentioned neighbors might say or do, let alone the boogie-man.

~~~
0x4f3759df
Interesting counterpoint. So I guess the social isolation in America is one
part poor urbanism (cities designed for cars, isolating suburbs) and one part
decreasing social trust, one part due to small families and children moving
away.

------
gumby
Weird that such a law is even required -- what was the legal regime _before_
the law was enacted?

~~~
OtterCoder
In Utah? Perfectly sane. The law just codifies Utah CPS practices. Other
states with similar laws? You could have your children confiscated if they
weren't in visual range.

------
lewis500
so cool they are finally gonna let the parents wander around freely.

------
pbreit
Is there any way to get rid of the original laws that this new law is
addressing or is that not how it works?

~~~
djrogers
It's not the original laws as written - they were fine for many generations.
It's the modern interpretation of those same laws that often gets out of hand.
Often it's changes in regulations, or court rulings related to those laws.

In this case, it was gradual shift in the perception of 'neglect' by CPS,
helicopter parents, or overly concerned citizens who think every child is in
mortal danger if they're not within 10 feet of a responsible adult.

------
kolpa
This is Utah, where the Mormon church has a de facto near-monopoly on large
segments of society. The church (and parents) impose far more oppressiev
restrictions of children's freedom than any CPS does.

------
kolpa
> _Utah lawmakers_ said they were prompted to pass the law after seeing _other
> states_

Smells like political posturing.

------
banned1
When I was 12 years old, my friends and I used to bike about 8 miles to the
airport to see airplanes take off from a nearby hill. The hill was federal
land, delimited by simple wire fencing, so we would climb it to get to the
hill. The path was clearly there, so we must not have been the only ones
there. As long as we came back before the light came on, we would be fine with
my parents. Once, we had to cross a freeway and a truck hit our dog, who died.
There was nothing we could do for it, so we left it there. We never went back
after that.

If a kid was caught doing that today, it would legally be taken away form
his/her family by Children Protective Services, the parents charged, tried,
and probably convicted of child neglect and endangerment.

Some of the best memories from childhood for me are those trips. How sad that
kids have to be home playing with their iPads today.

~~~
kolpa
> it would legally be taken away form his/her family by Children Protective
> Services, the parents charged, tried, and probably convicted of child
> neglect and endangerment.

citation needed.

> Once, we had to cross a freeway and a truck hit our dog, who died.

Your parents negligently put you in charge of a dog that you negligently
killed. That should be legal?

~~~
banned1
"citation needed"
[http://www.masslive.com/living/index.ssf/2015/01/maryland_pa...](http://www.masslive.com/living/index.ssf/2015/01/maryland_parent_investigation_raises_issue_what_age_to_allow_children_free_range_to_walk_stay_home_a.html)

"Your parents negligently put you in charge of a dog that you negligently
killed. That should be legal?"

Shit happens. The truck killed the dog, not me. Maybe you come from another
continent or country, but America is a free country, so we don't care about
what is legal, because the law establishes what is illegal, and everything
else is legal. It is not illegal to run with your dog.

~~~
tomasdore
This is genuinely a fantastic comment. You dealt with a cold, rude comment
with grace and calm, then provided an easily understood statement of what
defines a country with both freedom and rule of law.

~~~
banned1
Thank you

------
fzeroracer
Last I checked, it's generally a bad idea to leave pets alone in a car so I'm
not sure what the political or parental benefits are of leaving children alone
in a car.

This just reads of something done purely for face-saving reasons rather than
solving the greater issue of safety in America. Never mind that the concept of
free range parenting in America is something mostly for the white and wealthy.

~~~
hanbura
Leaving children in the car for short periods has occasionally practical
benefits, just as with pets. And both humans and animals do just fine in cars
as long as you make sure that the interior doesn't get too hot. In this
instance it's more about making sure harmless behavior isn't accidentally
outlawed.

>Never mind that the concept of free range parenting in America is something
mostly for the white and wealthy.

How is that? The US isn't Norway, but it is still very safe. I don't see why
helicopter parenting should be required?

~~~
fzeroracer
Because the occasional practical benefits do not outweigh some of the more
irresponsible parents leaving children or pets in cars on hot/cold days. I
view that as being more of a public safety issue much like seat belts.

As for your second point, it's because for a lot of the poorer parents they
don't really have the ability to let their kids roam freely. Either due to
proximity, lack of funds and so forth. Not to mention the institutional
problems minority kids face on a daily basis (see: black children being shot
by police).

It's not about requiring helicopter parenting but rather that laws like this
don't really solve the actual problem for the majority of parents in the US.
It's effectively lip service and I guarantee the wriggle-room left in the law
will be used to harm minorities more than anyone else.

~~~
kolpa
Cars have air-conditioning, heaters, and openable windows.

