Here’s a link to an NPR article on the subject, citing cases of parents in trouble for letting children manage on their own, at home or in the neighborhood, according to which my home state has the highest “age below which it’s illegal to permit your kids to be at home alone.” Age 14 — wow, that’s nuts!
Why? How did it happen that children, even middle-school children, are expected to need constant supervision.
Yes, of course, a part of it is the all-out-of-proportion worry about child abduction, starting with the Adam Walsh case.
Here are a couple other guesses:
Is it a consequence of the suburban life with lots of scheduled activities? — which means that your kid is less likely to be roaming the neighborhood with a pack, because everyone’s got soccer or basketball, and, if you’re going to allow them to roam, it more likely means roaming alone.
Did it ironically get worse when cell phones came into common use? Yes, I know that’s counter-intuitive, but I wonder if they generated an expectation that we can — and should — be able to know where our kids are at all times.
Is it because, in the suburbs, parents drive their kids everywhere, and, in many neighborhoods, there just aren’t many places a kid can get to on his own, so that the very notion of a kid being on his own becomes foreign?
It is true that one difference we noticed quite clearly between the US and Germany is a different perception of risk. There was no obsessive fear of “stranger danger” and, starting at gymnasium-age, kids travel significant distances on public transportation to get to school. There was not the same fear of drowning as in the U.S. — public pools generally didn’t have lifeguards, and non-swimmers were expected to put water wings on and hop in, regardless of pool depth. At the same time, there was a much greater fear of chemicals, so that organics were much more common, and advertised even at Aldi-type stores.
What do you think? At what age would you let your kid be home alone, or out and about?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In