[Nora.]

I suspect that a lot of the problem comes from the fact that news is 24 hours now.

I think this is a big part of it too.

I deliberately watched Rosanne the other day just to compare the show to how life is. In it she was letting her 8 year old ride off without being supervised (and the boy next door got hurt). She turned around to the neighbour & said "he's eight, I can't watch where he goes all the time" (or something like that). It was funny because I wouldn't dream of letting my eight year old go off on her bike without me supervising. Yet I did that as a child.

Honestly, I feel sorry for this generation of children. Apparently SIL phoned my mum recently and was so proud of her daughter catching the train on her own. I was doing that from 11 and moved across the globe (on my own) at 19.

[~Karla~]

I am probably what most of you would consider a helicopter parent, yet in the past 18 months I have had 7 trips to emergency for relatively serious injuries for two of my children. They have involved a 2yo falling at the top of an outdoor flight of stairs and slipping under the handrail and falling over 2.5meters straiht down onto concrete (he landed on his head too), a broken arm (2yo), a broken hand (3yo), a dislocated elbow (3yo), a dislocated shoulder (3yo), a fall/slide belly down a full flight of stairs that resulted in some scary instant bruising and swelling of the abdomen (3yo) plus a heap of other minor things like a spider bite from one if my 3yos climbing through the shrubbery in our yard etc. If these are the things my kids can do while supervised, imagine what the hell they would do if I let them roam free unsupervised.

My eldest is a responsible kid who I can trust to play unsupervised. So I don't hover over him like I have to with my others. But for my twins, it's neccessary. It may not be your ideal way to parent, but they are pretty unique kids and I will parent them in the way I see safest for them. And if that makes me a less worthy parent than those of you who give your kids free reign, well, I'll just have to wear that badge as I try (mostly unsuccessfully) to keep my kids relatively safe.

[Guest_holy_j_*]

Karla, your post makes no sense.

Supervising or hovering doesn't mean letting your kids have free reign and merely putting it upon yourself to pick them and dust them off and run them to the emergency room when they fall down the stairs. It means stopping them from climbing the stairs, or climbing through shrubbery or whatever the case may be in the first place to reduce or eliminate the risks they are exposed to. We aren't really referring to 2 and 3 year olds here either.

Given the age of your older child oh which you claim to not hover as much, which is younger than my youngest child in my OP, i'd say you are definitely toeing the free range parenting line.

[fillesetjumeaux]

Autumntree, the difference between stopping your children walking down the street without you to keep them safe from those pesky predators who are everywhere, vs wearing a seatbelt to avoid serious injury or death in a car accident is huge.

Riding in a car without a seatbelt carries a significant risk of injury or death, as car accidents are common. Being snatched from the street while walking in broad daylight is a negligible risk in the first place, so avoiding that risk by not allowing children to walk down the street doesn't actually make a huge difference to the outcome, yet the benefits of walking for the child (and perhaps the parent and/or other siblings) could be great - exercise, a sense of achievement and independence, not having to traipse on the school run twice a day with babies and toddlers, etc.

I assume all the self-confessed helicopter parents (or at least those who make the paradoxical decision to take their children in cars regularly, given that car accidents are one of the more statistically likely causes of injury compared to, say, being snatched off the street) are following best practice in restraining their children (rear-facing for at least 2 years, harnessing as long as possible, and using a booster until the age of 12? Actually, I know that's not legally possible in Australia, so it begs the interesting question: if something that was much safer for your child was illegal in Australia, but it was unlikely you'd ever be picked up for it, would you do it?

[crunch]

Autumntree, the difference between stopping your children walking down the street without you to keep them safe from those pesky predators who are everywhere, vs wearing a seatbelt to avoid serious injury or death in a car accident is huge.

I don't agree. I know that statistically it is unlikely that my 10 year old will be hit by a car when crossing the street, but will still not allow it until she is much older. Similarly, I know that it is unlikely she would be abducted whilst walking to our local shops, still isn't going to happen anytime soon. Pesky predators may not be everywhere, but they are certainly out there. You can use all the statistics in the world, but they mean little when the life of a child is the issue.

I had a discussion with a mother recently who said she had a new baby sitter for the kids (daughter of a friend), and her response when the woman asked if she could use my friends car to take the kids on a trip to a local park was "no way, she must be mad if she thinks I would trust someone I don't know with my car". Had no problem trusting them with her kids though. I think this speaks volumes. I do think on the whole our society is far more willing to take risks with our kids than with our other "possessions".

[liveworkplay]

Well I had an "EB " moment just now as I let my 7 yr old off on her first ever sleepove with her best friend. I know the mum is so micu as they have been friends for 3 years but that involves the odd playdate and talking in the school grouond. I have probebly only spoken to her for the sum total of 2 hours all up I would say. I have met the dad once (he is a police officer and works shift) I and my DH) are more then confident of her safety and know she will have a fantastic time. I was thinking "OMG what would EB think me letting my DD go with people I have never been to their home or had social outings with"

OP, I think wemake decisions knowing our own environment and kids. I probably do similar except letting my girls take responsibility for their 2 yr old sister. It is not so much me worrying abouot them taking care of her(although this may be the case in some situations) but more I do not think it is fair to demand they take on that responsibility.

[crunch]

Well I had an "EB " moment just now as I let my 7 yr old off on her first ever sleepove with her best friend. I know the mum is so micu as they have been friends for 3 years but that involves the odd playdate and talking in the school grouond. I have probebly only spoken to her for the sum total of 2 hours all up I would say. I have met the dad once (he is a police officer and works shift) I and my DH) are more then confident of her safety and know she will have a fantastic time. I was thinking "OMG what would EB think me letting my DD go with people I have never been to their home or had social outings with"

I am kind of doing the opposite next week. Dd has been invited to a birthday party (4 hours) and I don't know the parents, have only met them once for about 5 minutes. They seemed really nice, thier child I have met a couple of times at school, she is a delight, but I have just phoned the mum to ask if I could come to the party too! She seemed more than happy for me to come and was very understanding about my reluctance to let DD go to their house for 4 hours without me.

liveworkplay, of 2 things I am fairly certain:

1. We are both awsome mums with happy, well adjusted kids
2. We are both about to be crucified by the 2 opposing sides on EB lol

[autumntree]

Autumntree, the difference between stopping your children walking down the street without you to keep them safe from those pesky predators who are everywhere, vs wearing a seatbelt to avoid serious injury or death in a car accident is huge.

I don't agree either, the difference is not the risk, the difference is the statistics. Sure maybe more people are injured in car accidents than kidnapped by predators but if your child was that in that tiny percent that was kidnapped I don't think you'd care about the statistics. I wouldn't let my 8 yr old walk alone to the shops because of the risks. However I do let the 13 yr old do it. What's the difference? The 13 yr old can cross roads as safely as I can, she knows what to do if something bad was to happen. She has learnt these things gradually and constantly as she has grown. She didn't learn them out there alone, she learnt them with our guidance as will the others.

Statistically the chances of a child being abducted may be small, but each individual child would have a different risk level. Just like the chances of being seriously injured in a car accident would increase for an individual who didn't wear a seatbelt, the chances of falling victim to a predator would increase for, a younger child, a child with no idea of how to be safe, a child without the physical growth necessary to walk safely, a child alone, I'm sure you get my point. As a community we have reduced the statistics among ourselves by teaching children strategies, by not allowing them out alone or in unsavoury places. If we all just said 'See ya' in the morning to our kids and let them go for the day I am sure the incidences would rise as they have in other parts of the world.

[howdoyoudoit]

There is overparenting and underparenting aswell. You know your child and you know what they are capable of doing.

I let my kids use sharp knives,boil the kettle,help cook dinner etc however my front screen door is always keylocked..the chance of one of my kids escaping out the front is 1000000x more likely than the house burning down.... we always lock the screen..always..we know where our kids are in the house/outside.. we always reverse our cars into the driveway so we know when we leave who is around...I know our kids arent but I dont want to run anyone down!. Our 2 older boys walk home from school everyday..its about 1.2km walk...they are 8,6. I send them into coles to get something for me etc or the corner shop...

There are times though that you need to be the parent. Leaving them outside woolies to run amok is so not cool. I see kids doing that and wonder where the parents are and then I think who is the parent...take the kids with you,give them jobs to get certain items for you etc.... too many parents give into kids that dont want to do something...suck it up kids.... and as for sending kids with a 2 yr old to the shop.... what can I say! (and yes I have a 8,6,3,1yr old)

[Neriah]

I think your approach sounds very reasonable. Too slack and too careful are both going to cause problems and you do have to allow them some degree of independence. That is afterall what are raising them to be - independent.

I think that sums it up the best.

The trampoline ... this is one I kind of see like car seat. My parents took me home the hospital in a basinette on the back seat of the car, or held in my mother's arms. I didn't die. But other babies did. Now, babies go home in a rear facing carseat. It's safer. The car still works the same, you still get where you need to go, just safer.

The trampoline .. I jumped on one without pads or a net, I didn't get hurt. But other children did. But now, trampolines come with a mat and a net. It's safer. The kids can still jump and have a great time, I still teach my girls to jump safely. The net is just makes it a bit safer.

Same with bikes - my girls ride on the road (nice quiet cul-de-sac), just like I did. But they wear helmets. I never owned one. Because it just wasn't something you did back then.

It's a balance.
a) never allowing your child to ride a bike anywhere
b) allowing your child to ride a bike, with helmet, on streets not too busy
c) allowing your child to go anywhere, without any safety helmet.
I tend to go for the middle ground, based on what my child is like, and the circumstances.

I agree. Our generation has the benefit of hindsight. We have learnt from the experiences of the past. That's how these laws and equipment are introduced. It is important for development. In some ways we may have gone too far which is why there are laws for somethings but not others. It is a personal choice. I'm not sure how I will be but right now I couldn't imagine letting my kids do half the things on the OP's list. Not because I think they are wrong or anything but because I grew up in a dangerous area. When I was 7 a rapist tried to take me when I was playing at the park with some friends. It is lucky I had serious stranger danger instincts because I managed to sneak away and grab and adult who chased the guy. The cops were called and they tracked him down. It turns out he was wanted for 3 assaults of young girls in my area. I shudder to think of how that could have turned out differently for me or any other potential victim. So I reckon that clouds my judgement a bit, so does the Forensic degree I am doing. It may be rare, but things like that happen. I hope I am not too controlling and let my kids be kids and grow to be independent but I will always be particularly cautious because of my life experiences. I think there are two extremes and a large middle area, and anywhere in there is fine -as determined by the personal experiences of the parents, the personalities of the parents and the kids, and the area where they live.

This post has been edited by Neriah: 09/07/2011, 03:10 PM