Everyone here should watch the Japanese TV series, Old Enough!. 2-4 year olds are sent out on their own to run errands, etc. Yes, really, 2-4 years old. And they succeed and are fine.
Happened to my coworker: kids were playing outside and a neighbor called the authorities on them. Not clear if they really thought the kids were in danger, or just did it out of spite, but what ensued was a nightmare of CPS calling the workplace and a few follow-up house visits. The sad part is everyone involved can turn around and claim "we were worried about the children" and use that as a shield for whatever overzealousness or maliciousness may hide underneath.
This is one of those things laws are great at. Delete the power of idiot Karens and the culture will return to normal.
It works for Utah (and to a point, Texas); it can work for your polity, too.
When children are at far greater risk of abuse and abduction by concern trolls and the State, and they very much are in New World countries, your society is broken.
Free range laws say the opposite: that a kid over a certain age is allowed to be alone and the parents CANNOT be charged for it. It’s to encourage free range parenting.
Is there evidence of that? And would you define 'concern trolls' (beyond 'people who have concerns different than mine')?
"Trying to abduct my child either directly or by proxy" is not merely a question of polite differing concerns.
We know the concern is insincere because the OP’s example (children playing in their yard) cannot be considered concerning by a reasonable person.
How? Those idiot Karens are the ones writing the laws. They get on your state legislature and local town ordinances, and prevent more housing from being built too.
They have no competence and they do everything in the name of "safety", so you can't challenge them with logic or reason.
They are usually very privileged people with plenty of time on their hands so you can't play asymmetric warfare with them and expect to win.
Karen delenda est.
As a mandatory reporter if I don't report such a thing I can be put in prison. Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters (only mandatory reporters are allowed to go camping with scouts). I'm specifically told not to think, if there is any possibility I must report it and let the experts figure out if there is a problem or not.
This of course means the experts have to spend a lot of time/effort investigating where it is obvious there is nothing but they have to get enough evidence of that to close the case. This time is taken away from all the kids that really need help. Note that I have no idea how many kids who need help are discovered this way.
There are some issues here with what you're saying.
Mandatory reporter classifications are a legal construct. Activities can't make people into mandatory reporters. Only some mandated reporters are subject to reporting requirements when off-duty (for example, in many jurisdictions, your scout camp 'chaperones' may well not be obliged to mandatory report. Teachers and HCPs may, however, be. And it may vary for WHAT they are reporting.)
What is all that based on? Are you a mandatory reporter?
It might be dangerous to give advice. Even if you know your jurisdiction, others will vary.
> Many activities now make all adults mandatory reporters
I was specifically commenting that an activity doesn't make someone a mandatory reporter. That is you are a mandatory reporter based on your occupation, status, and what is happening. The OPs comment makes it sound like "if you're camping overnight with children, you become a mandatory reporter"
versus, for example, "The BSA's policy is to only allow people who are already designated mandatory reporters to chaperone camping overnight with scouts". The BSA cannot ... mandate ... that you are a mandatory reporter (in the legal sense, with protections and responsibilities accompanying) just by virtue of you saying "I'll chaperone this event" (though they can certainly say "it is our policy that you act as-if").
Come to think of it, they say it is mandatory to report, but are careful to avoid talking about the law. However it is recorded I have training. I would honestly expect the courts decide that I'm legally a mandatory reporter if it was discovered I should have seen something, even if I don't technically meet the law. (at least if they can find any way to read the law to get me)
All of this is of course on top of any moral or ethical imperatives about reporting suspected abuse, mandated or otherwise.
Change requires someone that doesn’t accept the status quo
(I don’t have kids, but hope to have some in the future, so this is me talking out of turn)
It's the reverse. CPS could be found liable if they ignored a report where there were indeed problems.
Also, I have family that work in CPS and it's really not the bad guy everyone that's "anti-CPS" seems to think. They have a HIGH bar to go over before they'll remove kids from a home. Things have to be particularly bad. And even then, the organization is slanted to get the kids back into the home ASAP. The state doesn't want to have to take care of kids.
Most of the time, it's work with the parents to make the environment safe.
It's quite literally the same thing as a cop checking up on someone for a reported domestic disturbance.
It's not as instant jail sentence or separation of parents from their kids.
Like I said, those are literally tools of last resort. Things have to be really bad. Like, for example, a kid that shows up with bruises and stories of violence from the parents won't instantly be removed. That's how far CPS bends over to avoid family separation. The research is pretty clear that family separation is about the worst thing you can do to a kid. That's why instead CPS generally will deploy things like mandatory therapy (if that). Or life skills lessons. And that's assuming they see major problems at the initial interview. If it's a false claim the actual most likely thing that will happen is they'll show up and say "looks like a false claim" and leave, probably ignoring future reports.
It's actually wild to me how anti-cps people are.
I'm not really anti-CPS as much as I'm anti unnecessary involvement with unaccountable people who can wreck other people's lives.
Or on how caring, responsible, and capable they are. You're making a lot of assumptions about a lot of people.
People say these things casually but let me point out that it's not at all trivial: Demonization is the first step used by the right-wing to oppress and harm people: Democrats, liberals, LGBTQ (esp trans people), immigrants, FBI, CDC, any regulators, high-ranking government officials in national defense, government workers, city residents in blue states (when will the National Guard be sent in?), ...
The casual spread of such ideas, which makes them more insidious because few people notice their significance, is a big part of demonization.
The worst part is that someone would thing this is the appropriate thing to do rather than observe the kids and in any case approach them and ask if they’re OK. The US has grown a culture of “don’t get involved” cowards hidden behind the legal system.
Japan is a monoculture and strictly traditional, not to mention very xenophobic. Everything works because the social penalties for violating those norms are severe. It’s effectively an ethnostate and not that long ago revered their god-emperor.
The U.S. is by contrast a diverse (geographically and demographically), broad culture of immigrant communities based on a concept of rugged individualism where states and townships run things as they see fit.
If you want to reshape the U.S. in the model of Japan … well
Not to reshape America into Japan, but attempt to keep the parts that are nice while integrating the best parts of other nations. America loved to claim it was a nation of immigrants; the French even sent you a gift for how much America would take the best of other countries (the brightest minds, the hardest workers), and build with that.
Maybe that's not how the country works any more, but it was a nice fantasy.
Are they teaching 'lifestyle' - how specifically? Does the US not teach it? And do you have any evidence that homogeniety has something to do with it?
Often "homogeneity" is a dog whistle for blaming minorities.
You can legislate environment, e.g., when all you have is car-centric sprawling suburbs, it's harder to walk / cycle to school.
I grew up in a 'streetcar suburb', and was walking to school on my own (or with friends) by grade four (my dad woke me up, made breakfast, and then left for work: I knew I had to leave for school after G.I. Joe finished (at 8:30, for 9:00)).
I grew up in the 70’s where after maybe eight we had pretty much free rein. I rode my bike several blocks away and crossed two busy four lane roads to get candy at 7-11.
The world is no more dangerous now than it was then, and yet here we are, with parents being treated like criminals for letting their kids play in their own front yard.
It's a lot safer than the 1970s in most places.
Like any reality TV, you're only seeing the story they want you to see.
Nobody should be gauging reality based on what you see on reality TV shows.
Edit: Occasional parts of the show are the camera people trying to avoid the kid who has turned and is walking right toward them.
1. Neighbors and friends are notified in advance. "If you see my daughter and she looks lost, please help her, she is doing an errand."
2. The destination is usually notified. "My daughter is coming to buy rice, let me know if she isnt there in two hours."
3. This practice is somewhat old-fashioned and rural. Many parents wouldnt consider it today.
Remember, the show was aired to a Japanese audience. If it were universal, it would not be worth televising.
I have observed many kids walking and biking to and from schools when these conditions seem to exist. Crossing guards help out for crossing busier roads near the school. However, there is also a car queue, perhaps for students who live farther away.
It's actually impressive that you can entertain yourself at 3-4 years old.
My perception of time at that age would have been such that I'd probably be very fearful of being abandoned if left alone for more than 2-3 hours.
But kudos to him.
They also literally had a camera and crew on standby while also blocking off streets (off screen).
Push this out thirty years. One set of kids was navigating the real world since they were 4. The other has been mollycoddled with overparenting and screen time. Which cohort do you think will be happier, better adjusted and better off?
Then realise that it's not uncommon to see grade schoolers taking the subway to and from school in New York.
The US is a massive country with a huge number of different climates and layouts, which is partly what makes articles and conversations like this so painful to read. Instead of the skeptical, critical thinking you'd expect from HN you get mess of "Car bad" "I wish we had European public transit" and broad generalization talk.
So did I. Have you been back? The kids in my school are dropped off when I biked.
Sure. Which of those cohorts do you think has more freedom?
> also enjoy a certain amount of diversity (in every sense, from thought to people) that simply isn't tolerated in Japan
You’d have a point if Japan were the only culture in the world with competent 4-year olds. They’re not. We’re the exception. To the extent there is a bubble it’s the American culture of isolating and surveilling kids to and from school.
Yes, and have agency and think for themselves - a key requirement of democracy and freedom.
It’s great that Japan has a civil society that makes a show like that possible, but don’t mistake it for more than it is. It’s the same mistake as generalizing from what you read in the news: it’s news because it’s unusual.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgBne2KTlDUyxLPg3oalg...