Helicopter parenting vs. benign neglect (the "I survived" argument)

[TulipsAndSunscreen]

I've been really thinking a lot lately about this (that article is spurning me to write this post) and I wanted to get all your feedback since you're some of the smartest people I know. I am not sure this is a debate but I'm putting it here just in case.

I've been thinking a lot about the two "sides" in the parenting debate/backlash about parental child supervision - helicopter parenting vs. free range parenting or whatever you want to call it. I'm not one to take sides and I feel like this is just another version of the mommy wars but...anyway, I'll stop rambling and just get to it.

On the one hand, I'm very anti-helicopter parenting - in fact, other people routinely "spot" C on the playground while I calmly talk 10 feet away. I'm ok if she falls/scraps her knee, whatever. I feel like taking risks and experiencing failure, the two things "helicopter parenting" seen to want to avoid, are life skills and are character building. I feel like we can all see the negative aspects of extreme helicopter parenting (parents calling jobs for their kids or the college deans) but I feel like the more "average" daily example is in the gray area. I feel like we DO have a lot more information now, for better or for worse, and so taking additional precaution over and above what we had growing up is also appropriate.

I feel like I often hear the argument for "free range parenting" as "well, I did it and I survived so it's totally fine." Yes, I see your point but if you do something horribly dangerous and survive, that doesn't mean your child should. The people that don't survive that thing aren't around to say it. I feel like it's not helicopter parenting to take in new information and apply it appropriately even if that makes you more cautious than your parents were.

A few examples come to mind:

• As a kid, I was told to wear a helmet when bike riding but no one really did and/or wasn't that vigilant about it. Now, I feel like we ALL wear helmets and make our kids do so. This is a case where we've gotten so much more information about head injuries, in particular chronic concussions and head injuries, that even things which seem over-cautious (banning heading in soccer) aren't a terrible idea - I don't see anyone arguing against the additional information we have here and there's consensus to use helmets
• As a child, I was allowed to roam the neighborhood and had to come home to the dinner bell (again, a very, very commonly cited example of the "I survived" argument). I lived in a lovely community on the Chesapeake Bay that had a beach and water access from tons of areas. We used to have a blast swimming, jumping off docks, carrying on, etc. all day long with no adult supervision. We all survived and remember it incredibly fondly and I'd love for my girls to have that. BUT, looking at it objectively, I'm not sure I'd want my 7 year old roaming with a group of 7-14 year olds (granted most of the 7 year olds were younger siblings) around water with no adult. We had a blast but we also did REALLY dangerous stuff like jumping off unfamiliar docks, trying to jump dock pilings, getting on peoples boats without permission, etc. Many, many children die in swimming accidents each year - I'm not worried about abduction, I'm worried about swimming accidents - here is an area where despite additional information about water safety, I feel like there's a gray area around helicopter parenting

Anyway, where do you draw the line? I feel like the "I survived" argument isn't really valid (I mean at one point people survived without seatbelts and no one wants to go back there) but I don't want to helicopter parent either. How do you guys, many of whom are more experienced parents than me, make these judgments? What metrics do you use to decide whether to allow it or not? I'm sure it's a combination of the activity in question and the maturity of the child, etc. but how do you do it?

[spotty_dog]

I might have to get back to you after I finish the Alfie Kohn book on my bedside table. I'm fascinated by his argument that self-discipline and grit are overrated and that other parents don't "helicopter" as much as we perceive. But I've read Free-range Parenting and I lean that way. The point isn't "I did it and survived." It's that "perception of danger has grown even though danger hasn't." When we think about car seats and bike helmets, I think we say to ourselves, "This was always dangerous, but now we know better and have better safety equipment so we can follow saner practices." When we think about leaving children to their own devices on the other hand, we think, "It was safer then in those idyllic neighborhoods but the world is MUCH MORE DANGEROUS now in terms of stranger kidnappings and drug influences and pedos watching through binoculars and yadda yadda."

It's just not that much riskier now than it was. And the evidence doesn't stack up in favor of more protections leading to fewer bad outcomes. And we have to consider the risk of NOT letting kids have some unsupervised time, in measured doses, when the risks of screw-ups are lesser. If you don't have a plan in place to transition from a toddler always at arm's reach to a teenager responsible for his own choices (and mistakes) then you get kids who get in way over their head way faster than they're ready for.

We took a different route out of our neighborhood recently and my son looked around, marveling, "I can't believe I'm seven years old and there are streets near our house that I don't even recognize!" Frankly, I found this disturbing and it will be something we'll be remedying this summer. I expect he'll be going to the park (2-3 blocks away) and possibly even the ice cream store (.75 mile) alone by the end of August.

That said, I live in a ridiculously safe place and have ridiculously compliant children. I don't feel like I can judge any other parent's choices -- we are all acting out of love, after all.

[HouseofWool]

I have to admit, I skew strongly towards free range parenting. My 11 year old rides his bike a mile or so to school without supervision. I trust him to ride the 8 blocks or so to the library himself and he needs to cross a fairly busy street to get there. He also rides to and from friend's houses with minimal directions. (Our town is laid out with numbered streets running north/south and named streets running east/west, so it is easy to point him in the correct direction and say, Johnson St is about 8 blocks north, then turn left.) He also has a weekend paper route that he does himself.

Do I worry about him? Yes, particularly when he is getting close to the requested return time and I haven't heard from him. But, I remember being almost completely unsupervised at the age of 12 and being responsible for my sister who is 3.5 years younger. I have fond (and not so fond) memories of basically us being alone for most of the summer starting at 12.

I do insist on things like helmets and bike lights, seat belts and car seats. But, really, I think it is important that kids have an opportunity to get into (low level) trouble at a young age so they can experience the (relatively moderate) consequences and failure.

It does help that C is more cautious and is unlikely to take unnecessary risks. S? I am hoping for some frontal lobe development in the next 2 years...

[Urowife]

I think about this a lot too. I think that the risk of child abductions, etc. has not increased since I was a kid, although people do perceive there to be a higher risk. However, I do think there is something different in today's world that makes it slightly more risky to let kids roam around by themselves. And, that is the fact that people (adults and kids) seem to spend more time inside. People's houses are shut up with the A/C running all summer. When I was a kid, everyone's windows were open. People were out and about. When I was 7 years old, I rode my bike around the block alone. I know that if I had fallen and needed help, someone would have seen/heard me. That is what I worry about. My child having an accident and nobody being around to help. I don't worry about them being kidnapped.

Right now, my oldest is just 5 (starting Kindergarten in the fall). She has free range over the whole house -- if she wants to go anywhere in the house unsupervised, that's fine by me. I also let her go to the end of the driveway to mail a letter or check the mailbox (while I am in the house and can see her). She can play in the fenced backyard by herself (although, she never wants to). If I am in the front yard with DS, she can ride her scooter on the sidewalk around our culdesac.

ETA: By the time I was 5, I was already roaming between our yard and our neighbor's two doors down (they had kids similar in age). My mom kept an eye on us, but was not outside at all times, and I did have an older brother (3 years older).

[BonBon]

This is something I wrestle with, too. For now, I've been making decisions based on what I feel the individual child can handle. I also lean toward free range parenting. I have serious paranoia about the Bad Things That Can Happen, but I *try* to not let it cloud my judgment. For instance, when my son wanted to ride around the block on his own last year, I cried and had a VERY hard time being calm while he was gone. We live in a neighborhood that only has one entrance for pete's sake. I do feel that we are all hyperaware of accidents and crime, without knowing the actual rates of incidence. Life is a balance of risk. I don't really agree with the argument "I did it and survived" as a basis for letting your kids have free rein.

I think someone here once mentioned the metaphor of parenting is like using a fishing line. You slowly let out more line (responsibility and autonomy) as you see fit, and reel it back in a little if necessary. I try to do that with my kids. We relied heavily on Montessori philosophy in the early years which really stresses independence. As an example of something that I do that appalls other people, my kids are quite proficient in the use of sharp knives. I still won't let them use them if I'm not in the room, but it's pretty awesome that I haven't cut their food in years and they can help make dinner.

All right, I've been interrupted approximately 47 times now. I'll be back later.

[moonlight]

T&S You and i grew up just about as different as possible. I lived on a 5 acres of land about 5 miles outside of a smallish town where I went to school. There was one boy that lived 'next door' that was friends with my brother. His parents also had about a 5 acre lot. So... not all that close to our house. Otherwise, there wasn't much danger or trouble to get into. I would be scarred shitless to have my kids roam around in a neighborhood near waterways! I get nervous when DH takes DD out into the front yard to help with lawn stuff (pick up weeds or sticks). We do live on a somewhat busy street. I constantly yell SHE'S TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET!

I think by typical American standards I would be labeled more of a 'protective mother' for a couple reasons. 1) Based on how I was raised, we were not around people we didn't know. I went to the same school district 1-12th grade and on top of that lived out in the country! 2) My personality is to always always air on the side of caution. My child is everything to me. I would never forgive myself if something were to happen to her. God gave me her after I begged in prayer for years for a baby. She's just too precious to me. Once she's an adult its all on her, but for now its my responsibility to keep her safe.

[Thirteen]

I have distinct memories of no shoes, wandering through fields, playing in ponds, fishing for crawdads, playing with horny toads, garden snakes, turtles, frogs, etc.
We were outside a lot -- my mom had this loud whistle, and that's when we had to come back.

I grew up on about 3 acres.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pollyanna]

I...(wait for it)....PARENT. I swear if someone claims I "free range" or "helicopter" I will slap them

The "I survived" argument I find to be lazy and not thoughtful in the least. My mom grew up on a farm so was pretty damn "free range" and she is amazed she survived (and her folks were very protective and monitored their three girls closely). My dh was responsible for himself at 5 or 6, even got offered "candy" from a scary guy in a car (luckily he runs fast). My cousin and I used to have "free range" around my folks subdivisions but were monitored by a variety of subs, lol. Our kiddos have been more sheltered in that they didn't have the run of the neighborhood. Mostly because we were surrounded by acreage and a variety of wild animals that scared me (mountain lions, bob cats, coyotes, rattlers, you know, AZ standard). The pack of coyotes that ran in our area had no fear of people and were a big scary bunch. Our neighborhood here is modeled after neighborhoods of old where every house has a front porch, there are sidewalks, grocery, restaurants, schools, etc all within the neighborhood. It's a place where you forget to lock your doors. That being said, we won't give our younger kids free range of the place but we will take every situation on a case by case basis in a thoughtful manner.

We are faaaar more restrictive when our kiddos are younger. We expect them to show us that they can be trusted and good leaders. We spend a lot of time working and teaching to get there. Maybe that would be "helicoptering", I call it parenting. We expect them to be able to act as the "adult" in a situation if needed (and this is needed far more than you'd expect). They don't have curfews or restrictions on where or when they are going BUT the activity has to make sense. Guidelines are laid out based on the activity and discussed with the underlying belief that your morality and safety are the priority. Note: our kids have had to tell "adults" that they won't ride in a car without a seatbelt (on a school field trip!!!!), that they won't walk the streets of Chicago alone at 2am with a drunk parent chaperone, has seen many chaperones drink alcohol while on trips, has had to get out of a passenger van because the parent chaperone thought it was okay to load 20 kids in because they are only going 5 miles down the road and traffic is slow, etc etc. Seriously, the best time to make sure your child can be in charge and lead in an uncomfortable situation is before they go on a school trip (we don't allow them until high school).

The best thing you can do as a parent is be thoughtful. And be thoughtful for all of them not just the oldest and be thoughtful everyday. If you're too tired to be thoughtful it's okay to hire the electronic babysitter so you can have a little R&R.

Note: my one and five year old are currently playing alone in the backyard but I leave the door open so I can hear them

[houseelf]

Anyway, where do you draw the line? I feel like the "I survived" argument isn't really valid (I mean at one point people survived without seatbelts and no one wants to go back there) but I don't want to helicopter parent either. How do you guys, many of whom are more experienced parents than me, make these judgments? What metrics do you use to decide whether to allow it or not? I'm sure it's a combination of the activity in question and the maturity of the child, etc. but how do you do it?

Um there is no bright line, no single formula, no one-size-fits all. If there was, I would have bought it and plugged it in long ago. It changes from family to family, child to child, community to community. It is a gut thing. While ITA with Pollyanna, that labels oversimplify, for convenience sake, I'll admit that I tend to lean more "free range". When I think about my long term goals for my kids, after their health, safety, and moral character comes things like independence, life skills, judgment, self sufficiency. You can only get these attributes by trying them on a little bit at a time. My oldest had free range of the neighborhood, then the community during daylight with a buddy, then to areas that he could ride his bike. When I was a foreign exchange student, younger kids used public transport by themselves all the time. It drives me NUTS that American kids can't make change, read maps, speak to adults, and generally take care of themselves. Our jobs as parents is to send them off fully equipped to deal with the world. There are a million tiny steps in this direction. It starts with babies being able to be away from mommy overnight with a grandparent. My kids go to sleepaway camp at 7. I expect my kids to call parents to RSVP for parties around the age of 8. I could go on, but you get my point. My fear with parents who hold on too tight is that they give their kids the message that "your judgment isn't good". We need to foster that judgment incrementally. Sometimes we overstep boundaries, sometimes we miss the mark. With this sort of freedom comes lots of guidance and responsibility. If they can't handle the level of freedom I give them, I take it way back in. I tell them that they don't get to choose when they want to be a big kid and when they want to be a little kid. It's one or the other and I'm happy to accomodate them.

Listen, I'm the queen of anxiety. If there is something to worry about, I'm going to find it. But I love them enough to help them develop the life skills to take care of themselves. I didn't know that I felt this way until I started to see other parents doing things differently. It's not right or wrong, I just different life views.

Honestly, anyone who advocates that their way is the BEST is full of it. We're all just winging it.

[SoonerTexan]

The one thing that does worry me that I do think we might have a better handle on now vs 20-40 years ago is the potential for molestation.

I do pretty much let N have the run of the house.

[OrionGrad]

I had so many friends in high school whose parents were very restrictive of where they could go, what they could do, etc, and almost universally those were the kids who went buck wild in college.
DH and I believe it's important to give kids the freedom to make mistakes when they're younger and the stakes aren't quite as high (should I go on that jungle gym, or is it too tall for me right now?), so they're prepared to make bigger decisions when they get older.
Of course DS isn't even 2 yet, so this is all just a theory at this point. We'll see how it plays out as time goes on.

[mommax3]

Um there is no bright line, no single formula, no one-size-fits all. If there was, I would have bought it and plugged it in long ago.

Honestly, anyone who advocates that their way is the BEST is full of it. We're all just winging it.

I agree with this so much! ^

It is a day by day, situation by situation, kid by kid decision, and it's hard!!!! Additionally, I am going to say that some of my parenting decisions are made in the interest of self-preservation (extremely limited travel sports, one sport/activity per season, LOTS of unscheduled time in the summer), not because I have decided to be a "free range parent"....I don't know if anyone else can identify with that.

I will also confess that I have been mentally patting myself the back for the past year because I didn't fall apart when my oldest graduated/left for college. However, the same kid is now in Paraguay for six weeks (2 down, 4 to go) on a medical mission trip, and we have basically no contact with him (the team sends an email once a week to all family members/supporters). Honestly, this is not much different than the past year, because he typically only called when he needed something lol! However, I have been a freaking basket case since he left and there have been lots of tears (very unusual for me). It's like I finally realized that he is actually going to leave (has left, actually) and may end up far away! So even when you think you've got the hang
of this parenting thing and have found the elusive line between loving and letting go, you can still be caught off guard and off balance. Back to my humble pie....

[GrayMatterWife]

I have seen WAY WAY WAY too many episodes of "Criminal Minds." I squirm in my seat and loo anxiously at the men's room door at The Cheesecake Factory, waiting for DS (who is NINE!) to come out of the bathroom. All I can picture is weirdo pervert with a knife waiting from some poor boy to brutalize. I tell him that if there are any men in the bathroom, just wait politely outside, then go when it is empty. I make my DH go in and check on him after a minute. DS is so sweet about it, but he thinks I'm weird.

But then, I am totally free-range/free-roam about other stuff. I guess it is a matter of what you imagine can happen. Because I have watched too many crime dramas, I focus on that, instead of a horrible head injury from a bike accident (irony, being, of course, DH is a neurosurgeon).

[ladymoreta]

I'm not to the point of implementing any kind of free range parenting yet, but I believe I will lean that way. So far, my kids only have free reign of the downstairs and the back yard (if they ask first). Here are a few good statistics from the Free Range Parenting website:

A great comparison chart about Crimes on TV News vs. Crimes in Real Life. NOTE: 99.5% of Americans will never experience ANY violent crime.

Abductions in perspective:
Number of children age 2 – 14 killed in car accidents, as passengers: 1300
Number of children killed each year by family members and acquaintances: About 1000
Number of children abducted in “stereotypical kidnappings” (kidnapped by a stranger for ransom or for sexual purposes and/or transported away) in 1999, the most recent year for which we have statistics: 115.
Number of those children killed by their abductor: About 50.
Murders of children by abductors constitute less than one half of 1% of all murders in America.

Stranger Danger?
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 –
31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers

Put it another way: The Department of Justice reports that of the 800,000 children reported “missing” in the United States each year, 115 are the result of “stereotypical kidnapping” — a stranger snatching the child. About 90 percent of abductees return home within 24 hours and the vast majority are teenage runaways.

[MrsK]

Depends on the kids. K1 can't be trusted. He's impulse and doesn't look before he leaps. I keep a hand on him at all times and repeat the rules constantly. If I drop his hand at the zoo, he'd be climbing into the bear habitat for sure. With K2, I can lighten up a bit because he stays close but he's a little too friendly with strangers.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4