Working Mom Arrested for Letting Her 9-Year-Old Play Alone at Park

[thebeave]

Just to give you an idea of how things have changed in 40 years with regard to "creepy" men and children, here's a short clip from an old episode of Columbo I caught recently, where there was a murder at a Mensa-like club meeting. I kinda chuckled, but also felt a bit sad when I saw it. Can you imagine the outrage from all the "helicopter mom's" if a scene like this played out in today's television? A scruffy man in a trenchcoat with googly eyes telling a young girl she's pretty?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And 40 kids at 'any one time' doesn't make it any safer. One can assume that those other 40 kids have adults nearby. What's to keep those adults from just thinking that a 9 year old leaving with another adult is anything out of the ordinary? Except being a stranger, they don't know that the adult taking the 9 year old away isn't her parent?

If they went peacefully you would be right.

Why do you think they would go with an abductor peacefully, though?

 

[Celldweller]

And 40 kids at 'any one time' doesn't make it any safer. One can assume that those other 40 kids have adults nearby. What's to keep those adults from just thinking that a 9 year old leaving with another adult is anything out of the ordinary? Except being a stranger, they don't know that the adult taking the 9 year old away isn't her parent?

If they went peacefully you would be right.

Why do you think they would go with an abductor peacefully, though?

Because the abductor calmly convinced the child to accompany him/her.

 

[The Paul]

If they went peacefully you would be right.

Why do you think they would go with an abductor peacefully, though?

Because the abductor calmly convinced the child to accompany him/her.

Yeah, since most parents telepathic senses don't extend more than a block or two the kid would be as good as dead, then.

 

[Jokodo]

Stop making assumptions - about me or about people around me. You're causing me annoyance too - through your continued refusal to back up your position with anything resembling an actual argument.

Irony much? The reason I'm not making an argument is because, and I quote "I'm not going to get involved in your argument".

This quote of yours is actually the most ironic bit of the thread. Because we're still discussing your argument which you're blatantly refusing to back up with as much as a single shred of anecdotal evidence.

You said "As an adult male nowadays I cannot offer assistance to, or even approach, any distressed child that isn't my own. The best I can do is call the police," and called it a "risk" not worth taking. All I did was asking you to clarify what you think the danger is and why you think that it's likely to happen, and offering anecdotal evidence that at least some adult males sometimes can give assistence to distressed children without getting in trouble. That is all staying within the scope of your argument, but you're refusing to back up the things you said.

It's true that, depending on details, people might get apprehensive, but that's a far cry from making it a risk not worth taking for adult males like you and me even in such a trigger-happy society as the US, let alone in the UK or Austria where the two of us are based.

 

[Metaphor]

Now, that I would find suspicious behaviour - why would you, in the face of a situation you could much more efficiently handle yourself, instead throw your hands in the air and, effectively, shout out "I can't come closer than 10 feet to this child, can someone else please come and handle this affair"? It almost makes it look like you're a convicted child molester on parole.

I'm afraid you don't know the half of it.

My sister used to work at a child care centre and one day, a child grazed his knee or some such and the cleaner put a bandaid on it because he was the closest adult. Holy hell did the shit hit the fan when it was discovered that an adult male who didn't even have a TAFE certificate in how not to molest children had put his hands on a child. There was an incident report and investigation, with key 'witnesses' questioned about the incident.

I don't remember frankly what happened to the poor cleaner. There were probably some angry villagers who chased him away.

 

[Jokodo]

Not that this is particularly relevant in the first place since, (A) as far as I can tell, this happened on a different continent from the one Hickdive and myself are based, and (B) child care facilities are expected to adhere to certain standards of professionality that don't apply in private interactions, but:

I'm afraid you don't know the half of it.

My sister used to work at a child care centre and one day, a child grazed his knee or some such and the cleaner put a bandaid on it because he was the closest adult. Holy hell did the shit hit the fan when it was discovered that an adult male who didn't even have a TAFE certificate in how not to molest children had put his hands on a child. There was an incident report and investigation, with key 'witnesses' questioned about the incident.

There's a lot of plausible reasons why the shit would hit the fan if a child injures themselves at a day care center and the only adult close enough to come to their assistence is a cleaner who was only there by luck. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with his being male, or with him being a priori suspected to be a potential child molester, and everything to do with the fact that no-one else was within reach, which is definitely not supposed to happen.

I don't remember frankly what happened to the poor cleaner. There were probably some angry villagers who chased him away.

I guess if that were so, you'd remember.

 

[Metaphor]

Not that this is particularly relevant in the first place since, (A) as far as I can tell, this happened on a different continent from the one Hickdive and myself are based,

Do you think child fiddling paranoia is exclusive to Australia?

and (B) child care facilities are expected to adhere to certain standards of professionality that don't apply in private interactions, but:

But they're a reflection of contemporary attitudes.

There's a lot of plausible reasons why the shit would hit the fan if a child injures themselves at a day care center and the only adult close enough to come to their assistence is a cleaner who was only there by luck.

The shit did not hit the fan because of the vicinity of child carers to the child. The shit hit the fan because an adult male touched a child.

Many of those reasons have nothing to do with his being male, or with him being a priori suspected to be a potential child molester, and everything to do with the fact that no-one else was within reach, which is definitely not supposed to happen.

Then I've misconveyed the story. It has nothing to do with a perceived medical crisis because a child grazed its knee without immediate medical assistance. It's because a janitor touched a child.

For reasons I can't fathom, you appear to refuse to believe that there are paranoid people out there, and organisations have responded to this paranoia with extremeness like the example of no males to sit next to unaccompanied children on flights.

For my psychology honours thesis, I collected data from children in year 3 and year 5. On the playground, one of the children hugged me (well, mostly my leg since she was a tiny child). Had I lived in a different time and place I would have instinctively patted her on the head. But I live here and now and I reasonably concluded that if I were seen touching children in the playground I'd be questioned and possibly disciplined.

 

[Jokodo]

Do you think child fiddling paranoia is exclusive to Australia?

No, but I think that it differs in form and extent between different countries.

and (B) child care facilities are expected to adhere to certain standards of professionality that don't apply in private interactions, but:

But they're a reflection of contemporary attitudes.

Just like smoking bans in public spaces are a reflection of contemporary attitudes, which still doesn't mean you'll get into trouble for smoking at home.

There's a lot of plausible reasons why the shit would hit the fan if a child injures themselves at a day care center and the only adult close enough to come to their assistence is a cleaner who was only there by luck.

The shit did not hit the fan because of the vicinity of child carers to the child. The shit hit the fan because an adult male touched a child.

Many of those reasons have nothing to do with his being male, or with him being a priori suspected to be a potential child molester, and everything to do with the fact that no-one else was within reach, which is definitely not supposed to happen.

Then I've misconveyed the story. It has nothing to do with a perceived medical crisis because a child grazed its knee without immediate medical assistance. It's because a janitor touched a child.

That's what you said, but yours is a second hand account at least and even if that's how you remember it, I can't be sure that you aren't filling in some details to suit your expectations. Your account is pretty sketchy on a lot of details as is, so why should I accept that you've perfectly nailed the motivations for the investigation when you admittedly recall neither the exact nature of the triggering incident nor the actual result?

For reasons I can't fathom, you appear to refuse to believe that there are paranoid people out there, and organisations have responded to this paranoia with extremeness like the example of no males to sit next to unaccompanied children on flights.

I don't deny that their are paranoid people. I deny that their paranoia is mainstream enough to make giving first aid to a child that's fallen off a swing, in front of dozens of witnesses no less, a risk not worth taking, and claim that thinking so is a form of paranoia of its own.

For my psychology honours thesis, I collected data from children in year 3 and year 5. On the playground, one of the children hugged me (well, mostly my leg since she was a tiny child). Had I lived in a different time and place I would have instinctively patted her on the head. But I live here and now and I reasonably concluded that if I were seen touching children in the playground I'd be questioned and possibly disciplined.

Surely, you don't expect me to accept the fact that you were afraid to pat the child on the head as evidence that patting the child on the head would have actually had dire consequences? Oh, and I have strangers pat my child's head all the time, when he takes a seat next to them in the metro, or when sharing an elevator, and any number of similar situations. I sometimes find it annoying and slightly invasive, as in they should have the decency to make eye-contact with me to check whether it's OK, but it doesn't ring any alarms about child molesting. Maybe that is a cultural difference (which would bring us back to the first point), or maybe you're just overreacting.

 

[bigfield]

For my psychology honours thesis, I collected data from children in year 3 and year 5. On the playground, one of the children hugged me (well, mostly my leg since she was a tiny child). Had I lived in a different time and place I would have instinctively patted her on the head. But I live here and now and I reasonably concluded that if I were seen touching children in the playground I'd be questioned and possibly disciplined.

I was hugged more times than I could count during a week's placement in a class of Year 1's and Year 2's. They are hug ninjas, attacking without warning. On my last day, the whole damn class formed a queue and hugged me one by one. Brings a smile to my face just remembering it.

 

[Metaphor]

That's what you said, but yours is a second hand account at least and even if that's how you remember it, I can't be sure that you aren't filling in some details to suit your expectations. Your account is pretty sketchy on a lot of details as is, so why should I accept that you've perfectly nailed the motivations for the investigation when you admittedly recall neither the exact nature of the triggering incident nor the actual result?

The result I'm talking about was the investigation. You appear to believe my story is implausible. I found it implausible at the time (I had to ask my sister what the problem was, in fact. I didn't understand what was wrong with a janitor putting a band aid on a child). I don't find it implausible now.

I don't deny that their are paranoid people. I deny that their paranoia is mainstream enough to make giving first aid to a child that's fallen off a swing, in front of dozens of witnesses no less, a risk not worth taking, and claim that thinking so is a form of paranoia of its own.

I didn't claim it was a risk worth 'not taking'. I claimed that there is hysteria over completely innocent situations.

Surely, you don't expect me to accept the fact that you were afraid to pat the child on the head as evidence that patting the child on the head would have actually had dire consequences?

Evidently you'll only accept something that already accords with your beliefs.

Oh, and I have strangers pat my child's head all the time, when he takes a seat next to them in the metro, or when sharing an elevator, and any number of similar situations. I sometimes find it annoying and slightly invasive, as in they should have the decency to make eye-contact with me to check whether it's OK, but it doesn't ring any alarms about child molesting. Maybe that is a cultural difference (which would bring us back to the first point), or maybe you're just overreacting.

Just because you don't see a child molester lurking in every shadow, doesn't mean others don't.

 

[Jokodo]

The result I'm talking about was the investigation. You appear to believe my story is implausible. I found it implausible at the time (I had to ask my sister what the problem was, in fact. I didn't understand what was wrong with a janitor putting a band aid on a child). I don't find it implausible now.

I don't deny that their are paranoid people. I deny that their paranoia is mainstream enough to make giving first aid to a child that's fallen off a swing, in front of dozens of witnesses no less, a risk not worth taking, and claim that thinking so is a form of paranoia of its own.

I didn't claim it was a risk worth 'not taking'.

Maybe you didn't, but thebeave and Hickdive clearly and explicitly did. As you seemed to be jumping to their defense, I resonably assumed that you shared that assumption of theirs. You seem to be forgetting the context of this discussion. We are in a thread about a working mum arrested for letting her child play alone at the playground, and one poster chimed in with the observation that a potential danger in doing so, more than the rather far-fetched risk of the child being abducted, would be that the adults present would reasonably be scared to help them out when needed, and that's the proposition I'm attacking.

I claimed that there is hysteria over completely innocent situations.

Nothing I said denies that. I'm making a much more specific argument.

Surely, you don't expect me to accept the fact that you were afraid to pat the child on the head as evidence that patting the child on the head would have actually had dire consequences?

Evidently you'll only accept something that already accords with your beliefs.

What are you basing this on? The fact that, in a forum dedicated to the academic discussion of political issues, I'm unwilling to accept claims without evidence? Or the fact I don't consider "I'm scared, therefore, it must be objectively scary" a valid line of argument?

Oh, and I have strangers pat my child's head all the time, when he takes a seat next to them in the metro, or when sharing an elevator, and any number of similar situations. I sometimes find it annoying and slightly invasive, as in they should have the decency to make eye-contact with me to check whether it's OK, but it doesn't ring any alarms about child molesting. Maybe that is a cultural difference (which would bring us back to the first point), or maybe you're just overreacting.

Just because you don't see a child molester lurking in every shadow, doesn't mean others don't.

Surely, if it was common enough to make innocently touching a child a "risk not worth taking", they'd have learnt to refrain from doing it by now?

 

[Metaphor]

would be that the adults present would reasonably be scared to help them out when needed, and that's the proposition I'm attacking.

Adult females probably would not be scared to do so. No-one ever thinks a woman would kiddy fiddle.

What are you basing this on? The fact that, in a forum dedicated to the academic discussion of political issues, I'm unwilling to accept claims without evidence? Or the fact I don't consider "I'm scared, therefore, it must be objectively scary" a valid line of argument?

I'm basing it on the general climate of the situation. I had to have a working with children check to enable access to the school. I was aware of my sister's experience at the child care centre.

But of course, I didn't touch the child so we'll never know if my caution was justified, will we?

Surely, if it was common enough to make innocently touching a child a "risk not worth taking", they'd have learnt to refrain from doing it by now?

The irony. You find it annoying that people touch your child without permission. You should want them to have more caution!

Do you believe that there is no reputational risk at all to men who innocently touch children unknown to them?

 

[Jokodo]

Adult females probably would not be scared to do so. No-one ever thinks a woman would kiddy fiddle.

Demonstrably wrong. According to this 1995 study, "75% of respondents considered intervention required in cases in which a mother often appeared nude in front of her fiveyear-old son," which is pretty much in the same ballpark as the responses for father-daughter situations.

I find some of the numbers in their research irritatingly high, and - despite methodological limitations that might have contributed to higher positive response rates than in a neutral setting (as they state: 'Simply "asking the question" increases the probability of a "positive reply"', especially so if the question is presented in a context of questions relating to unambiguous cases of child abuse) - indeed indicative of a kind of hysteria, but the idea that that hysteria is directed at males only cannot be maintained empirically.

What are you basing this on? The fact that, in a forum dedicated to the academic discussion of political issues, I'm unwilling to accept claims without evidence? Or the fact I don't consider "I'm scared, therefore, it must be objectively scary" a valid line of argument?

I'm basing it on the general climate of the situation. I had to have a working with children check to enable access to the school. I was aware of my sister's experience at the child care centre.

But of course, I didn't touch the child so we'll never know if my caution was justified, will we?

...and that's exactly why your caution doesn't count as evidence. The reasons that made you cautious might, but you didn't present them, you presented your caution as if it were evidence in itself.

Surely, if it was common enough to make innocently touching a child a "risk not worth taking", they'd have learnt to refrain from doing it by now?

The irony. You find it annoying that people touch your child without permission. You should want them to have more caution!

What irony? Whether or not I want them to have more caution is irrelevant. The fact that they don't is what's at issue.

Do you believe that there is no reputational risk at all to men who innocently touch children unknown to them?

That surely depends on the details of the situation. Unless you are trying to derail this thread, we are not talking about any and all cases of innocently touching children, we're talking about helping a child who needs help when no responsible adult is available and in the presence of dozens of witnesses. In that specific situation, I don't believe that there is such a risk and I've yet to see an argument to the contrary.

 

[Toni]

To me, this thread demonstrates some genuine tragedies:

1. A working parent was left with no good options for daycare for their child other than a)bring the child to work or b)let the child play in a park unsupervised. What is worse is that these are actually better options than many low wage earning single parents have.

2. A 9 year old child left unsupervised in a park is considered to be worthy of arrest of the parent. At least if the parent is a low wage earning single parent.
a) As a side light, when childhood obesity is at epidemic proportions, playing in a park is seen as a worse option for a child than spending the day in front of a computer screen in a fast food restaurant.
b) There is tremendous criticism of poor people, especially poor people of color for being overweight/for feeding their children junk and for not getting their kids outside and moving (preferably in properly supervised, scheduled classes with fees and transportation requirements and even wardrobe requirements attached. Like middle class white people do). Here is one obvious example of why low wage earning parents make the choices they do: keeping kids inside in front of a screen is safer than letting them roam around outside. Not keeping your kid inside (and out of sight) is neglect. Allowing your child to become overweight is neglect. Not feeding your child is neglect.
c)Apparently children can no longer be allowed one minute of unsupervised, unscheduled time because giving them that free reign means the parent is neglectful. The cost paid by the child is enormous and encompasses not just social and emotional development but also academic preparation:

http://www2.aap.org/pressroom/playFINAL.pdf


3. People have become afraid that if they were to touch a child, however innocently, however in service to providing comfort or care for the child, that their actions will be considered suspect and they might face investigation for inappropriate behavior with a child.
a) worse because there are actually cases where good, decent, rational adults have indeed been investigated and jobs have been on the line for putting a band aid on a child's scrape.
b) Men are considered more suspect than are women with regards to children. Particularly cruel if we want children to be able to trust adults--male and female and to have confidence and self assurance. And counterproductive to a society where all have equal opportunities to pursue a life they choose.


More and more I am convinced that as a society, we hate children.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

About adult men interacting with unrelated children...

It's a sad state of affairs in the US today, where there is so much more fear than ever before. A 9 year old isn't supposed to play in the park alone and unsupervised because of the bogeyman hiding behind every bush. And men who might be kind enough to help are afraid to do so lest they be thought of as deviant perverts.

Men who notice this don't talk about it much, because they start sounding like Mens Rights Advocates, and that is so very politically incorrect. Most men just sigh, shake their heads, and move on.

The airline policy was just one example.

I remember several years back a news story. A driver saw a toddler playing near a creek just outside of a daycare. He wanted to help but did nothing because he didn't want to be accused of child indecency, but he was worried about the toddler drowning. Later on he checked back and found the toddler had drowned. There were those who wanted to press charges against him, but his defense made them pause. He said he didn't want to be accused of child indecency. Although there were those ridiculing his defense, they saw too many men sigh, shake their heads, and say things like "oh, yeah, I understand."

In our current age of fear, men are perceived as predators. Decent men are afraid of being accused of being predators. They won't lay their hands on someone else's kid, even to pull them away from the creek bed, lest they be accused of horrible crimes.

Men have been interviewed by the police for the crime of taking pictures of their own kids at the park. After all, a pervert might take pictures of other peoples kids for perverted reasons, I guess.

But if I go on too far on this I'll sound like an MRA.

 

[Jokodo]

About adult men interacting with unrelated children...

It's a sad state of affairs in the US today, where there is so much more fear than ever before. A 9 year old isn't supposed to play in the park alone and unsupervised because of the bogeyman hiding behind every bush. And men who might be kind enough to help are afraid to do so lest they be thought of as deviant perverts.

Men who notice this don't talk about it much, because they start sounding like Mens Rights Advocates, and that is so very politically incorrect. Most men just sigh, shake their heads, and move on.

The airline policy was just one example.

I remember several years back a news story. A driver saw a toddler playing near a creek just outside of a daycare. He wanted to help but did nothing because he didn't want to be accused of child indecency, but he was worried about the toddler drowning. Later on he checked back and found the toddler had drowned. There were those who wanted to press charges against him, but his defense made them pause. He said he didn't want to be accused of child indecency. Although there were those ridiculing his defense, they saw too many men sigh, shake their heads, and say things like "oh, yeah, I understand."

I think this is the story you are talking about. But you do realise that evidence of fear is not evidence that the fear is reasonable?
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/man-did-not-rescue-child-for-fear-of-pervert-slur-1-486995

In our current age of fear, men are perceived as predators. Decent men are afraid of being accused of being predators. They won't lay their hands on someone else's kid, even to pull them away from the creek bed, lest they be accused of horrible crimes.

Men have been interviewed by the police for the crime of taking pictures of their own kids at the park. After all, a pervert might take pictures of other peoples kids for perverted reasons, I guess.

A quick search doesn't turn up any results for this scenario. Men and women, though have been reported or interviewed and sometimes charged over semi-nude photos of their children that were misinterpreted as being sexual when they were nothing of the kind.

But if I go on too far on this I'll sound like an MRA.

If you go on without evidence or argument, you'll, first and foremost, sound irrational.

 

[Playball40]

Not that this is particularly relevant in the first place since, (A) as far as I can tell, this happened on a different continent from the one Hickdive and myself are based, and (B) child care facilities are expected to adhere to certain standards of professionality that don't apply in private interactions, but:



There's a lot of plausible reasons why the shit would hit the fan if a child injures themselves at a day care center and the only adult close enough to come to their assistence is a cleaner who was only there by luck. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with his being male, or with him being a priori suspected to be a potential child molester, and everything to do with the fact that no-one else was within reach, which is definitely not supposed to happen.

I don't remember frankly what happened to the poor cleaner. There were probably some angry villagers who chased him away.

I guess if that were so, you'd remember.

I owned a child care center for over 5 years. There are many parents that would NOT register their children if it was a male teacher/caregiver. In addition, I was raised by a single father. I had friends who were not allowed to have a sleepover at my house because of the 'adult male' in the house. So, yes, many men ARE treated like pariahs when it comes to young children.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

There's nothing really to say to it, because the fear we are reacting to is itself an irrational fear. The men who do not wish to interact with other peoples kids due to a cultural pedophilia hysteria are only acting defensively.

Perhaps you have never seen any indication that this fear is out there. Some examples have been provided. The news story from The Scotsman. The airline policy. But you have dismissed those as examples of anything. Here's another article on the subject to dismiss. And another. And another.

There's not a lot written about the stubject. Most of the articles that one could find are about how Children should be afraid of strangers or analyzing those adults who selfishly don't want kids at all. There articles that do address the subject all agree on one point - that when children needing help are told to shun males, the message to men is to shun the children in response.

 

[Jokodo]

There's nothing really to say to it, because the fear we are reacting to is itself an irrational fear. The men who do not wish to interact with other peoples kids due to a cultural pedophilia hysteria are only acting defensively.

Perhaps you have never seen any indication that this fear is out there. Some examples have been provided. The news story from The Scotsman. The airline policy. But you have dismissed those as examples of anything. Here's another article on the subject to dismiss. And another. And another.<snip>

These are opinion pieces on how and why adults might be reluctant to help children. No actual data on how many actually are, much less anything remotely resembling an empirical demonstration that such a reluctance is reasonable.

Come back when you have pertinent links, will you?

I owned a child care center for over 5 years. There are many parents that would NOT register their children if it was a male teacher/caregiver.

And then there are many parents who will go out of there way to find a male teacher/caregiver because they want to give their chils (usually boy) a male role model. At the day care provider where we previously had our child, there was a male caregiver too and he had the longest waiting lists.

ETA: And do you really think that's comparable anyway? Giving your child to an adult for hours at a time where he'll be the sole adult in sight is something quite different from the situation we're talking about, which still is a scenario of applying a sticky plaster to a kid that's fallen off a swing in front of dozens of witnesses?