My older sister walked me to Washington Elementary School, about a mile from my home, when I was in kindergarten. Then again, she was in fifth grade and attended the same school. When I entered first grade, I was on my own, like pretty much every other student. No one considered this unusual or problematic. The idea that kids shouldn’t be allowed to go places on their own was unthinkable at the time. Then again, the words “stranger” and “danger” had yet to be connected.
Not only has there been a distinct shift in the propriety of parents allowing their young (and not so young) children to be outside on their own, but other people observing children walking without a parent or guardian hovering over them have assumed a duty to call the police on other people for allowing their children to be “free range,” as Lenore Skenazy calls it. That’s what happened to Virginia mother Karyann Parkinson.
As the mother tells it, she was weeks away from giving birth to her fifth child when she took a walk with her son Sam through their gated community in Williamsburg, Virginia. They passed by a couple of ponds and crossed the street about six times, she said. Sam, 5, zoomed ahead of her and back on his bike, with the goose feathers he likes to collect from the ponds’ edges sticking out of his backpack.
When they returned home that day on June 5, Sam wanted to go back out to look for more feathers, she said.
Granted, a five-year-old is kindergarten age, and collecting feathers, unlike walking to school, is a volitional activity. It’s not that Sam couldn’t do so, but there was no need for Sam to do so. Then again, this was a gated community and Sam was obviously familiar with his surroundings.
She said she started making lunch, and, after 20 to 30 minutes, there was a knock at the door. On the other side was Sam, visibly shaken, with a handful of feathers, she said. Behind him stood a security guard, who told her a neighbor saw her son outside alone and was so concerned they called security, she said.
Parkinson said she insisted her son was safe and had the right to walk through his neighborhood by himself. But the guard said she had broken the law and called the police, she said.
You’ll never guess what happened next.
On June 18, about two weeks after police first arrived at Parkinson’s doorstep, they returned with a warrant for her arrest, she said. Parkinson was charged and convicted last month of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, according to online court records.
She was given a six-month suspended sentence, but that hardly vitiates the arrest or conviction. First, the neighbor who called security and initiated this situation believed Parkinson had neglected her child and put him at risk. Then the security officer, and later the police, joined in. Ultimately, the prosecutor and judge thought it worthy of a conviction. As for Parkinson, she was of the view that her decision as Sam’s parent was not only appropriate, but good parenting.
Parkinson, who has a bachelor’s degree in family science and graduated from William & Mary Law School in May, said she allowed her son to do the roughly half-mile walk by himself because she and her husband, Dallin, believe it’s important for children to “encounter reasonable risks, to do anything that they feel confident doing within safe parameters.” And Sam knows how to safely cross the street, get back home or ask a neighbor for help because she taught him, Parkinson said.
No one would argue that some parents are bad at the job, putting their children at needless risk of danger out of neglect or recklessness. No one wants to see a child neglected or abused. But where is the line? Who decides whether the line has been crossed? Is it up to the mother to determine whether she wants her child to experience a degree of freedom, or is it up to the most fearful neighbor who doesn’t believe any child under 13 should be allowed out without supervision?
“There’s a real disconnect between letting your kid do something normal that you trust that he can do, and you know him and your neighborhood, and abusing a child, which is the worst thing in the world, right?” Skenazy told The Post in an interview. “So, why are they mashed up?”
Are they “mashed up,” or is there no accepted clarity as to the degree of latitude a parent should have before childhood freedom morphed into child abuse? Every parent has to make a decision as to what they’ll permit their child to do, and some would not have allowed their five-year-old to cross streets and walk near ponds for fear of harm. Other parents would see this as a valuable lesson in growing up, taking on responsibility, enjoying a modicum of freedom and learning independence.
Is that a crime? For Parkinson, it was. Should it be? How would a parent know? Why should a parent accept the limits of their nosiest neighbor, or some cop, prosecutor or judge, as to how their child should be raised? Does a judge’s sensibilities trump the right of a parent to decide the degree of freedom their child should enjoy?
Added: Prawf Jon Adler provides greater insight into the case.
*Tuesday Talk rules apply.