6 ms·

Me too, and I so want this for my boy, but there is a reason to be genuinely scared of other people and social services. I mean people get arrested for letting

Me too, and I so want this for my boy, but there is a reason to be genuinely scared of other people and social services. I mean people get arrested for letting their kids go to the park or play in their own backyards, for god's sake.

Diederich 10y ago
Honest question: what is the objective, per-child risk of that happening? I don't have data for that, but I would be shocked if it was anything except exceedingly low, on the order of getting killed in a commercial aircraft crash.
- goodJobWalrus 10y ago
  Of what happening? Having CPS called on you? I don't know, but I am as terrified of it, as your average helicopter mom would be of having their child scrape their knee, or be abducted by a stranger. I really hope the risk is as low as being abducted, though.
  - Diederich 10y ago
    I hear you and my wife and I struggle with similar feelings! But taking a step back, I think it's plain that the actual risk from CPS over-reach is extremely low. I posted my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12744241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12744241 at the top level FYI.
- ansible 10y ago
  Well, the issue is the media reporting. Most of the time, if a child is abducted, it is the other parent in a post-divorce situation, rather than a kidnapper / molester. But we do see stories about those occasionally in the national news, so most people are "aware of the danger". Ditto, I suppose, for CPS getting called by an over-reactive neighbor upon seeing a child wandering around without supervision. These types of stories also make the national news, for whatever reason, so most people are "aware of the danger". And thus, we live in a climate of fear. Yay! For the record, I spent some parts of my childhood wandering around in the woods alone (or with friends) where I could have: fallen down a hill, drown in a stream, fallen out of a tree, etc., etc., etc. without a reasonable possibility of timely rescue (no mobile phones back then). And I somehow survived. It is a shame that most kids in urban or suburban areas won't get a chance to do this anymore.
  - Declanomous 10y ago
    The movie M by Fritz Lang has one of the most fascinatingly alien endings of any movie I've ever seen. A serial killer who preys on children is brought to trial. Before the final sentence is announced, the shot cuts to the mothers of the children crying. One says "One has to keep closer watch over the children. -- All of you" The moral is basically "You can't depend on people not to murder your children. You can't bring back dead children, we all need to protect our children." Watching M for the first time was incredibly strange. M was filmed in 1931 and the plot could have been written yesterday. I'm a huge proponent of letting kids explore the world (both literally and figuratively) without adult supervision. I'm extremely thankful that my parents instilled such a strong sense of self-reliance in me. So many people who I grew up with are afraid to do anything without somebody there holding their hand. When I was a child I was allowed to go pretty much anywhere as long as my parents knew where I was going, when I'd be back, and if there was an adult I could contact in an emergency. Other parent's used to ask my mom why she let us ride our bikes to school alone. (Always my mom, never my dad.) They'd ask "aren't you afraid of what could happen?" My mom was always insulted by these exchanges, and rightfully so -- the implication always seemed to be she didn't love us enough to protect us. Nothing could be further from the truth. My mom is pretty neurotic, and I know for a fact she was incredibly restless anytime my brother or I were out and about without supervision. She let us go because she wanted us to do more than live, she wanted us to thrive.
  - endemic 10y ago
    > I could have: fallen down a hill, drown in a stream, fallen out of a tree, etc., etc., etc. without a reasonable possibility of timely rescue (no mobile phones back then). And I somehow survived. Just made me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
    - ansible 10y ago
      Among my cohort, no one died in childhood due to an accident. The closest was an older guy due to an ATV accident... after he graduated high school. Among children / classmates close to my age in my hometown, I'm not aware of anyone who died, due to accidents or otherwise. So our mortality rate was somewhere below 1%, and I don't see anything to indicate we were unusual in that regard.
- merpnderp 10y ago
  I think I remember the number of non-related kidnappings of children to be something like 115 a year. out of around ~70 million kids. Throw in assaults and the number is still likely really low. Something to take into account, but hardly the kind of risk that say, traffic, presents.
- ptero 10y ago
  I know two people to whose place police have been called by neighbors "trying to help children" when they suspected (correctly) that a 7 and a 10yo were alone at home. The parents were normal, reasonable people (not born in the US); kids were never in danger. When I was between 7 and 9 I often came home from school and was alone for a while, warmed up food or cooked something simple (using a gas stove that required a match to light), went outside to play with friends if I wanted, etc. It is sad the society today will jump in to protect my kids from me if it catches me letting them do anything like that.
  - Diederich 10y ago
    What was the result of the police call?
    - ptero 10y ago
      Nothing serious. In both cases the parents were told to stop doing it. AFAIK they apologized and complied (or instructed their kids to act as if there were an adult in the house).
      - Diederich 10y ago
        > or instructed their kids to act as if there were an adult in the house So I gather that somehow these two kids were, when alone, acting in such a way that allowed the person who called the police to believe they were alone? It feels like there's some more context here. What were the kids up to? (:
        nikatwork 10y ago
        Never underestimate the nosiness of curtain-twitching busybody neighbors.
        ptero 10y ago
        I am not sure if you are serious. I assume you are -- I think the old lady, who was always bored, was tracking who was going where and when. I heard (but not sure) she even peeked into the windows from the outside to find out who was inside. Those were two separate incidents btw.
- knz 10y ago
  The difference is that a plane crash is largely out of your hands. Sending your child out to play unsupervised is a conscious decision. Parents are also not entirely rational. Don't underestimate the personal experiences of the parents either - I've seen multiple kids get kid by cars (and been hit by one myself) and also nearly drowned on multiple occasions so definitely pay a little extra attention when my kids are near a busy road or body of water. Obviously there is a spectrum though - it's possible to be a little more vigilant in some circumstances without being a "helicopter" parent. I'm not sure that incorrectly assessing risk is limited to just parents either - look at our collective response to terrorism and mass shootings. I'm sure it's already been mentioned somewhere in these comments but the role of the media sensationalizing tragic but rare events is probably significant in this.
  - cdubzzz 10y ago
    > The difference is that a plane crash is largely out of your hands. Sending your child out to play unsupervised is a conscious decision. There is no difference there. Sending your child out to play unsupervised and getting on a plane each have X risk of Y outcome so your decision is based on those variables. GP was simply suggesting that the risk of one's child being abducted (by social services or others) is probably similar to the risk of being on a plane that crashes (e.g. so low that most people do not even think about it).
    - Diederich 10y ago
      Well summarized, thank you.
    - knz 10y ago
      I understand that - I don't disagree that the risk of serious issues is overestimated. My point was more that sending your child outside to play is a routine decision with many more possible outcomes than a plane crash. Sending them out unsupervised exposes them to the possibility that they could get lost, they could get hurt, they could get bullied, or they could be a victim of a serious crime. Of course they could also have a great time which is why parents do it despite the (minimal) risks. If something bad happened to your child, plenty of parents would question their decision and that experience would likely influence their future decisions. There is a reason we have fences around pools, marked locations to cross busy roads, teach kids not to chase a ball out onto a road etc - they are situations that children encounter on a routine basis. Being involved in a plane crash as an unsupervised minor is far less likely to happen and probably has fewer possible outcomes.
- briffle 10y ago
  In the book 'free range kids' they talk about how your are 20,000 times more likely to have your kid die in a car accident than to be kidnapped by a stranger, yet how many of us put kids in the car seat every day, but teach them all about 'stranger danger' and keep a overbearing eye on them? The objective risk doesn't matter, its that parents feel a lack of control over kidnapping, which gets covered in the news, compared to driving..
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  The risk of your child abduction is very, very, very high in America these days. All you have to do is read news stories about what happens when parents let their kids go somewhere without supervision: the cops are called, CPS is called, and the kids are seized (or threatened to be seized). Yes, there is a huge danger of your children being abducted, if you are not a helicopter parent. It's not some shadowy molester however, it's the government which will abduct your child.

Diederich 10y ago

Honest question: what is the objective, per-child risk of that happening? I don't have data for that, but I would be shocked if it was anything except exceedingly low, on the order of getting killed in a commercial aircraft crash.

goodJobWalrus 10y ago
Of what happening? Having CPS called on you? I don't know, but I am as terrified of it, as your average helicopter mom would be of having their child scrape their knee, or be abducted by a stranger. I really hope the risk is as low as being abducted, though.
- Diederich 10y ago
  I hear you and my wife and I struggle with similar feelings! But taking a step back, I think it's plain that the actual risk from CPS over-reach is extremely low. I posted my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12744241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12744241 at the top level FYI.
ansible 10y ago
Well, the issue is the media reporting. Most of the time, if a child is abducted, it is the other parent in a post-divorce situation, rather than a kidnapper / molester. But we do see stories about those occasionally in the national news, so most people are "aware of the danger". Ditto, I suppose, for CPS getting called by an over-reactive neighbor upon seeing a child wandering around without supervision. These types of stories also make the national news, for whatever reason, so most people are "aware of the danger". And thus, we live in a climate of fear. Yay! For the record, I spent some parts of my childhood wandering around in the woods alone (or with friends) where I could have: fallen down a hill, drown in a stream, fallen out of a tree, etc., etc., etc. without a reasonable possibility of timely rescue (no mobile phones back then). And I somehow survived. It is a shame that most kids in urban or suburban areas won't get a chance to do this anymore.
- Declanomous 10y ago
  The movie M by Fritz Lang has one of the most fascinatingly alien endings of any movie I've ever seen. A serial killer who preys on children is brought to trial. Before the final sentence is announced, the shot cuts to the mothers of the children crying. One says "One has to keep closer watch over the children. -- All of you" The moral is basically "You can't depend on people not to murder your children. You can't bring back dead children, we all need to protect our children." Watching M for the first time was incredibly strange. M was filmed in 1931 and the plot could have been written yesterday. I'm a huge proponent of letting kids explore the world (both literally and figuratively) without adult supervision. I'm extremely thankful that my parents instilled such a strong sense of self-reliance in me. So many people who I grew up with are afraid to do anything without somebody there holding their hand. When I was a child I was allowed to go pretty much anywhere as long as my parents knew where I was going, when I'd be back, and if there was an adult I could contact in an emergency. Other parent's used to ask my mom why she let us ride our bikes to school alone. (Always my mom, never my dad.) They'd ask "aren't you afraid of what could happen?" My mom was always insulted by these exchanges, and rightfully so -- the implication always seemed to be she didn't love us enough to protect us. Nothing could be further from the truth. My mom is pretty neurotic, and I know for a fact she was incredibly restless anytime my brother or I were out and about without supervision. She let us go because she wanted us to do more than live, she wanted us to thrive.
- endemic 10y ago
  > I could have: fallen down a hill, drown in a stream, fallen out of a tree, etc., etc., etc. without a reasonable possibility of timely rescue (no mobile phones back then). And I somehow survived. Just made me think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
  - ansible 10y ago
    Among my cohort, no one died in childhood due to an accident. The closest was an older guy due to an ATV accident... after he graduated high school. Among children / classmates close to my age in my hometown, I'm not aware of anyone who died, due to accidents or otherwise. So our mortality rate was somewhere below 1%, and I don't see anything to indicate we were unusual in that regard.
merpnderp 10y ago
I think I remember the number of non-related kidnappings of children to be something like 115 a year. out of around ~70 million kids. Throw in assaults and the number is still likely really low. Something to take into account, but hardly the kind of risk that say, traffic, presents.
ptero 10y ago
I know two people to whose place police have been called by neighbors "trying to help children" when they suspected (correctly) that a 7 and a 10yo were alone at home. The parents were normal, reasonable people (not born in the US); kids were never in danger. When I was between 7 and 9 I often came home from school and was alone for a while, warmed up food or cooked something simple (using a gas stove that required a match to light), went outside to play with friends if I wanted, etc. It is sad the society today will jump in to protect my kids from me if it catches me letting them do anything like that.
- Diederich 10y ago
  What was the result of the police call?
  - ptero 10y ago
    Nothing serious. In both cases the parents were told to stop doing it. AFAIK they apologized and complied (or instructed their kids to act as if there were an adult in the house).
    - Diederich 10y ago
      > or instructed their kids to act as if there were an adult in the house So I gather that somehow these two kids were, when alone, acting in such a way that allowed the person who called the police to believe they were alone? It feels like there's some more context here. What were the kids up to? (:
      - nikatwork 10y ago
        Never underestimate the nosiness of curtain-twitching busybody neighbors.
      - ptero 10y ago
        I am not sure if you are serious. I assume you are -- I think the old lady, who was always bored, was tracking who was going where and when. I heard (but not sure) she even peeked into the windows from the outside to find out who was inside. Those were two separate incidents btw.
knz 10y ago
The difference is that a plane crash is largely out of your hands. Sending your child out to play unsupervised is a conscious decision. Parents are also not entirely rational. Don't underestimate the personal experiences of the parents either - I've seen multiple kids get kid by cars (and been hit by one myself) and also nearly drowned on multiple occasions so definitely pay a little extra attention when my kids are near a busy road or body of water. Obviously there is a spectrum though - it's possible to be a little more vigilant in some circumstances without being a "helicopter" parent. I'm not sure that incorrectly assessing risk is limited to just parents either - look at our collective response to terrorism and mass shootings. I'm sure it's already been mentioned somewhere in these comments but the role of the media sensationalizing tragic but rare events is probably significant in this.
- cdubzzz 10y ago
  > The difference is that a plane crash is largely out of your hands. Sending your child out to play unsupervised is a conscious decision. There is no difference there. Sending your child out to play unsupervised and getting on a plane each have X risk of Y outcome so your decision is based on those variables. GP was simply suggesting that the risk of one's child being abducted (by social services or others) is probably similar to the risk of being on a plane that crashes (e.g. so low that most people do not even think about it).
  - Diederich 10y ago
    Well summarized, thank you.
  - knz 10y ago
    I understand that - I don't disagree that the risk of serious issues is overestimated. My point was more that sending your child outside to play is a routine decision with many more possible outcomes than a plane crash. Sending them out unsupervised exposes them to the possibility that they could get lost, they could get hurt, they could get bullied, or they could be a victim of a serious crime. Of course they could also have a great time which is why parents do it despite the (minimal) risks. If something bad happened to your child, plenty of parents would question their decision and that experience would likely influence their future decisions. There is a reason we have fences around pools, marked locations to cross busy roads, teach kids not to chase a ball out onto a road etc - they are situations that children encounter on a routine basis. Being involved in a plane crash as an unsupervised minor is far less likely to happen and probably has fewer possible outcomes.
briffle 10y ago
In the book 'free range kids' they talk about how your are 20,000 times more likely to have your kid die in a car accident than to be kidnapped by a stranger, yet how many of us put kids in the car seat every day, but teach them all about 'stranger danger' and keep a overbearing eye on them? The objective risk doesn't matter, its that parents feel a lack of control over kidnapping, which gets covered in the news, compared to driving..
Grishnakh 10y ago
The risk of your child abduction is very, very, very high in America these days. All you have to do is read news stories about what happens when parents let their kids go somewhere without supervision: the cops are called, CPS is called, and the kids are seized (or threatened to be seized). Yes, there is a huge danger of your children being abducted, if you are not a helicopter parent. It's not some shadowy molester however, it's the government which will abduct your child.