Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisBob | Hacker News Reader

As the proud parent of a 3 month old, my concern is that exposing my daughter to small risks as she grows up could end in me going to jail. My wife and I joke that our kid isn't allowed to walk to the park alone until she can outrun the cops. Short of moving to Europe I am not sure how to make sure it is safe to let my child roam alone when she is an 8 year old. I am not concerned about her safety exactly, but some asshole calling the police is a very real and serious threat to our family.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/decision-in-fr...

View on HN

It happens.

My son threw a conniption fit in public. Leaving the zoo, heading back to the car. I had him under one arm (kicking & screaming) and my "dad bag" under the other.

A thoughtful neighbor yelled down at me "Stop beating your kid! I've called the police!" Okay then. I put my kid the car (leaving door open), sat on the curb, and waited for the cop.

Last thing I want is an AMBER alert and then get pulled over. Then I'd be late for the parent handoff, and then the fur really flies.

Older (experienced) cop shows up. My son's still grumpy. Cop sizes up situation and sends us on our way. The 15 minutes served as a pretty good cool down.

In general, abused kids do not throw tantrums in public, normal parents keep their cool when their kids just need a nap.

Anyone who would call the cops when a kid is kicking and screaming must have zero experience with kids. That's just what kids do.

It would be nice if there were some way to penalize the person wasting the cop's (and your) time. As with spam, it's easy to do because the cost is zero.

It's an offence in the UK ("Wasting police time"). I'm not sure how often it's prosecuted and I very much doubt that this particular case would meet the standard.

That would be all sorts of counterproductive, starting with the simple fact that maybe the person had a reasonable 20%-likelihood guess and considered that high enough to bring police into it. Move just one step up and you've got people who are almost certain, but have a doubt, and since they'll get fined/punished if they're wrong then they don't call anyone, so the kid keeps being beaten and no cops ever know about it. Move another step up, and you've got more parents who would otherwise not have beaten their kids start falling down the slippery slope because no one is willing to face the potential consequences if they wrongly report a kid-beater.

That's just the first three nodes of a N>10^8 causal graph.

Wasting police time is an issue, yes. It would be even more of a waste of time trying to establish whether this person had reasonable cause to call the police or was just trolling. Not to mention the other consequences I touch on above.

Well, what if the cost if one is wrong is small enough to not be a large loss, and there is a reward if one is right to account for the risk?

Suppose you want to incentivize people to report if they are at least 5% confident that there is a problem.

If you choose some small cost (say, $5 for example) if one is wrong, then if you assign a reward which is at least 19 times the cost if one is wrong, then the expected monetary value of reporting (in addition to the benefit from/of being altruistic) is positive when one is at least 5% confident that there is a problem.

(The ratio, where p is the minimum level of confidence you want people to report if they have, between the cost and reward, is (1-p)/p .)

One might question whether creating a monetary incentive scheme like this would still cause problems (akin to the expiraments about kids being monetarily rewarded for quality of artwork in schools decreases motivation or something like that), and that does seem like something that could be the case,

But one can set up a system that doesn't just disincentivize reporting when one has any doubt (as a simple fine for false reports would do), but still disince tivizes sufficiently uncertain reports.

That doesn't mean it would be a good idea though. I don't know if it would be.

Yeah, some talented thinkers could come up with some pretty good schemes.

The real problem lies in the numbers: To put it simply, the cost (salaries + funding) to research this issue and evaluate a good scheme and then implement it could be much higher than several years' worth of "noisy" police calls. Add this up with the opportunity costs (what those thinkers/researchers aren't doing while they're busy with this) and it's probably all the way down to "Will Do This Only If My Next Election Depends On It".

When you bring in the police, you don't know what will happen.

I've had someone call the cops on me because my son had a meltdown. I'm white so I just had a nice conversation with the cop, and I didn't get shot. But there are certainly people for whom even a random encounter with the cops has a good chance of turning out very badly.

> That's just what kids do.

No, it isn't. It's a parenting fail if you can't control a situation to the point where your child is experiencing emotional distress to the point of kicking and screaming.

That's them trying to communicate and a parent failing to understand what the child is trying to say.

(Unless the child has some kind of neuro-diversity)

EDIT: But calling the police is totally wrong in that situation.

It's a parenting fail if you can't control a situation to the point where your child is experiencing emotional distress to the point of kicking and screaming.

This is an incredibly broad and judgemental comment. Kids experience "emotional distress" all the time, without it being a "parenting fail". Many kids go through a "kicking and screaming" phase, and it takes time to work through this phase.

You don't think small kids (5 and under) can go from 0 to 60 in two seconds because of some "emotional distress" such as being denied ice cream at the zoo?

In my experience, children attempt to manipulate parents by throwing fits from the ages of about 2-5, no matter what. If you don't spoil your child, they will grow out of it. But, they're going to do it.

And, especially for new parents, failing is very common. I wouldn't judge them too harshly.

And the attitude among some strangers that "I should keep my kids under control" just gives the tantrum-throwing child more power.

They might try to manipulate the paret by throwing a fit. But that's still a parenting fail: the parents have failed to teach the child that such tactics do not work, and so the child does it because it works.

I can guarantee you that it does not work in my house, and yet my kids still do it.

Yes, when you see a child having a tantrum in public, you are witnessing parents not giving in.

Whereas parents who give in instantly to stop the tantrum are never noticed and tsked by busybodies.

"the parents have failed to teach the child that such tactics do not work"

How many times are the children allowed to try it during the process of learning that it doesn't work?

Or rather, how is a parent to teach their children it doesn't work after the first (and only in your unrealistic view) time?

It's only a parenting fail if they continue the behavior beyond a generalized age of say 5 years old. And how can you, as a passerby determine if "this" time is a first/early attempt at manipulation or just the result of learning that it works?

I've learned not to be so judgmental of other parents after becoming a parent. I hope you do too.

Toddlers are little sociopath terrorists (my daughter is two). What they're trying to communicate is "I want that cookie." Absolutely nothing wrong with hauling them away while they're kicking and screaming.

I mostly agree. But circumstances.

The time leading up to the parent hand off was always difficult. If I could have let him calm down on his own timeline, I would have.

That said, every person (kid, teenager, adult) is going to have a melt down now and again.

I'm not sure, but you seem to think that (1) all children are the same, and (2) all children are simply small adults.

I know it's hard to believe, and I didn't fully grasp this until I had some of my own, but children are remarkably varied in many different ways -- compared to other kids, compared to adults, and compared to themselves (even on a minute-to-minute or hour-by-hour basis).

As far as children being like small adults -- I think it's closer to the truth to consider them as small, temporarily insane adults-to-be.

I rather someone call the police than let this happen. What if a child is kicking and screaming because it is not their parent that is holding them and taking them away? Better safe than sorry. Children will kick and scream and be upset, of course, but I rather have good citizen keeping an eye out when don't look normal.

If someone is genuinely worried a child is being kidnapped, fine. But that wasn't the case here, they were worried that the kicking and screaming was because of "abuse", which is ridiculous.

> What if a child is kicking and screaming because it is not their parent that is holding them and taking them away?

Haven't you read TFA? This happens so seldom that defending against it causes more harm than good.

A practical option is to move to small town in a more rural area that has a strong and tight-knit community. The type of place where your neighbors go to the same church you do. (Aside: the "we go to the same church" thing is something the non-religious have utterly failed to replace, in my experience.) I've often felt that a big part of this problem is that people just don't really know each other. That "some asshole" wouldn't call the police if they thought "hey, there's chrisBob's daughter, probably headed to the park to play".

This is one of those trade-offs we've made to reap the many advantages of urban- and suburban-ization.

I live in an urban neighborhood that is nonetheless quite tight-knit. The other day, we dropped my daughter's stuffed giraffe outside while coming in from the car. A few hours later, someone texted us: "Powell is at the front desk."

How wonderful. I shouldn't have painted with such a wide brush. I believe my point stands in the general case, but perhaps enough people will tell me stories like yours that I'll regain my faith in urban communities.

> That "some asshole" wouldn't call the police if they thought "hey, there's chrisBob's daughter, probably headed to the park to play".

We have plenty of examples where people thought "Hey, that's $NAME, they would not abuse children" and then reports from children of abuse from $NAME were discounted.

Sorry, but I really don't see how that is relevant to my point that being part of a community where people know you and your children lowers the risk that letting your children roam independently is perceived to be (or is actually) negligent.

Your thing seems to be a different problem. It's good that people trust people they know. It's bad that people betray that trust in sometimes horrible ways, but the solution isn't to be suspicious of everyone… Right?

Yea I'm worried about that too. I was raised in France but live in the US, as an 8 year old I used to explore lot's of things. But I'm not actually sure I want to let my kids do the same, I remember doing a lot of stupid things too and I'm not sure any of this freedom taught me anything:

- touching dog poop to enter a "ninja" club

- entering many private properties

- climbing dangerously high trees

- crossing quadruple railroad tracks with TGVs passing on them.

- putting my head next to a passing TGV (about 2 feet away), just to see how it feels and be scared

- jumping off high ledges to see how far I can fall without hurting myself.

- walking near ledges with a 2 story drop.

- playing with explosive fireworks, big enough to blow up a couple of fingers. I could just buy these as a kid in France.

This is just a small list, and I was honestly a very quiet, calm kid. I just had an active friend. And as I said, I don't remember this teaching me anything.

Whereas I remember spending time programming (visual programming) at 8 years old, and that was awesome and taught me a lot.

"...I'm not actually sure I want to let my kids do the same..."

But you turned out OK, right? Why rob them of the experiences that shaped you into the wonderful adult human being you are today?

because I don't believe it taught me anything. Even my memories aren't really happy memories, it's more like crazy memories.

But as I am in the US now, I can't really even consider the same level of freedom, I would just end up in jail.

I'll just try to give my kids as much freedom as I can. For my 2-year-old for example, when we are outside, I let her do anything as long as it's safe. Jumping into puddles, touching things covered in dirt, let her choose the streets she wants to walk on. At this age it's not really extreme yet :)

BTW: I am a germaphobe. But as long as my own house is clean I'm ok with that. I just get my kid cleaned up as soon as she gets home. It is hard for me to watch her jump in puddles, but she is having so much fun :)

> But you turned out OK,

Survivor bias. The kids who get killed playing on railway lines don't grow into adults to make a post on HN about how they used to play on railway lines.

I don't think the death rate is anywhere near high enough for survivor bias to be a major factor.

It's easy to say in retrospect "those didn't teach me anything" but hard to imagine what you'd actually be like without those experiences.

Ever seen this episode? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapestry_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_G...

No, haven't really watched Star Trek except one movie. But I'll take a look at this episode, thanks :)

Sounds like infulential experiences, actually. I'm guessing you're not the kind of person that is afraid of everything.

I probably wouldn't want my kid to do the railroad stunts, but I think I'll be totally fine with the rest. Especially fireworks is something I want my kid to play with. Rockets are cool.

I live in NY State, fireworks are forbidden, stupid new york law makers :(

There are a lot of cool fireworks, I just thought there was a few a bit too dangerous being sold in France. But most of the ones I bought were safe and fun.

> - jumping off high ledges to see how far I can fall without hurting myself.

This is actually VERY IMPORTANT knowledge. Knowing how much your body can take and knowing how to fall in a way that increases how much your body can take could mean the difference between life and death in many situations.

As the Grim Reaper said when asked about giving a sword to a kid who could cut themselves: "That will be an important lesson."

You are probably right. I knew I shouldn't jump from high places, but this actually increased the height I thought I could jump from.

Yep. I remember growing up with one of those older playgrounds - there was a platform about 6 feet off the ground that had a rope climb on one side of it. The idea was to get a kid to climb up the wall with the rope.

Six-year-old me was fascinated with jumping off of the thing. And yes, it hurt sometimes. I fell on my face, I fell on my ass, I took hard landings that jarred my bones. But I learned, and it got to the point where I was taking a running start before jumping off (Parents pulled the plug at that point).

Kids should learn that sort of stuff. Ideally, you want to protect them from "kill / maim you with no warning" stuff like electrical transformers, the third rail on the subway, dangerous chemicals, etc. You want to inculcate a healthy fear of stuff that will cause lasting harm. And, well, everything else should be free game. My parents told me I was free to go wherever on the bike as long as I stayed away from the really busy roads and wore my helmet (again, kill / maim you with no warning).

The funny thing, to me, is that many of the sports that kids play are far, far more dangerous than these childhood games. Football kills and cripples kids every single year, but it's organized, so it's okay!

> Football kills and cripples kids every single year, but it's organized, so it's okay!

Liability and blame. Parents are okay with letting their kids get injured if there is somebody to blame. Like the coach. Or some higher purpose "Oh they were training for a competition"

But parents, and people in general, balk at personal responsibility.

Do you really need someone to point out what you learned?

> - touching dog poop to enter a "ninja" club

Dog poop is icky and kids will make other kids do anything, and they will do anything.

> - entering many private properties

A lot of private property is not very tightly secured.

> - climbing dangerously high trees

You can climb trees. Might save your life one day.

> - crossing quadruple railroad tracks with TGVs passing on them. > - putting my head next to a passing TGV (about 2 feet away), just to see how it feels and be scared

TGVs are fast and dangerous. Also said railroad tracks may not be adequately secured.

etc. What would you have learned if you had stayed indoors? Nothing.

The thing is, I new it was dangerous/icky before doing any of these things. I was just experiencing it instead of just knowing it.

The only things I improved was my climbing skills. But I was doing a lot of climbing outside of this. My parents were letting me climb trees, and they did sign me up for acrobranch classes (real tree climbing, from bottom to top, not just the parks you explore that are man made), but I was safe, with a harness in these cases.

Anyone out here had some fun with Klick & Play?

http://media.moddb.com/images/engines/1/1/29/krnl386_003.png

Or which later became Click & Create, and The Games Factory

> - crossing quadruple railroad tracks with TGVs passing on them. > - putting my head next to a passing TGV (about 2 feet away), just to see how it feels and be scared

Do you know the statistics for children hurt by passing TGV trains, both now and back then? I suspect it is zero if not near zero.

Well, presuming you're right, since a negative outcome is pretty absolute, I guess the more important question is, is the gain worth the risk?

Safety-freaks get concerned about one story of a kid injuring themselves or getting kidnapped. Watch out that you aren't likewise getting worried about rare scare-stories.

It's very unlikely that someone would call the police on your 5 year old playing outside. These stories are rare and outrageous, that's why they make the news.

Let your kid play outside. Encourage other parents. It will make a difference in your community.

Move to an urban neighborhood with lots of minority families. I used to live in a working-class hispanic neighborhood, and it was great. Tons of families around, children running around, and no busy-body with a $1,000 stroller is going to flip out if you look away while your kid is at the park.

No joke. Someone called the cops on my friend for having his 8 year old kid outside, playing in the cul-de-sac of a safe suburban neighborhood.

I want to slap that person and ask why the hell do you think anyone live sin a suburban cul de sac if not for this!

It could have been a spiteful neighbor who took advantage of the irrationality and craziness surrounding "children being hurt". Cut the yard too close to the fence -- that's a call to child protective services.

It caused a lot of shameful conversions, calls to work from police, visits to the house, and stuff like that.

And they never figured out yet who it was...

How many people let their kids walk home from school? How many of them actually ever have to deal with law enforcement because of it? Even the parents discussed in the link don't appear to have gotten in any serious trouble.

Articles like this are written because people like to talk about them and they drive page views.

Don't overestimate how real or serious the threat actually is based on sensational journalism.

These are fundamental human rights that are being interfered with. It's a big thing when agencies deny people their human rights and Americans should be concerned about this.

Here it's articles 10, 12, and 16.

And the children have rights (although the US, along with Sudan, haven't ratified the rights of the child). Here the relevant articles are 3, 5, 9, and 12.

I grew up in a rural (ish) part of the rust belt northeast. I was still in grade school, and my parents and the parents of my friends would send us out to play, and we'd go out miles into the woods, past the end of the paved roads, in the dead of winter, and stay there all day! (We were very well bundled up by mom, feeling kinda spherical by the end of the bundling process.)

When my parents were growing up in Korea, such things were "normal." (1) My dad has stories about he used to roam Seoul with his friends and devise ways to sneak into movie theaters or read books in bookstores until the shop owners kicked them out and proceed to the next one.

(1) - "Normal," with the caveat that they also remember the Imperial Japanese occupation and the Korean War.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com