Letting children out of sight at a park

[Bbqchicken]

If you meet up with a group of friends and their children at a park within walking distance of your home, take picnics you have a lot of laughs play games drink etc. Would you let your primary school age children go off out of sight while you sit chatting with friends into the evening? AIBU to think it's irresponsible? If I did that and anything happened to my child age 7/8 I'd never forgive myself.

It's really hard to say, as it would depend on so many things.

But I would let my 7yo play out of my direct play out of my immediate sight yes.

"Honestly, I think there are very few parents out there who think ‘my child isn’t that important to me, I don’t really mind if they get abducted.’

But people do assess the risk differently."

I also think some people approach the issue in a more simplistic / nuanced manner when approaching this debate.

For some parents, it is a simple case of my child might get abducted, that's irresponsible.

Others might take a more nuanced approach. You are more likely to win the lottery than to have your child abducted by a stranger. Even within that very rare risk, it is even rarer for an abductor to forcibly take a child. Most will simply try to abduct another child instead (Eg the April Jones case). The child saying "no" is their best protection against being abducted.

Your best bet to save a child from abduction is not to watch them 100% of the time, it only takes a moments lapse of attention (think Jamie Bulger) but rather to teach the child not to go off with strangers. Of course, that requires the child to have some degree of freedom to be able to do this.

Others may also look to other countries to see when children are able to take on this level of responsibility. Perhaps they're aware of the many countries in continental Europe where children can walk themselves a mile to school alone, unsupervised every day, or Japan where 5 year olds navigate Tokyo's metro system alone every day to get to school. This shows that children are capable of being unsupervised from the age of 8/9.

Perhaps the parents are also aware of the psychological damage we're doing to our children's mental health and social development by not allowing their children to have unsupervised play. They might have read the studies, the research and the concerns by numerous experts about this, as well as the studies that show we have the least independent and unhappiest children in Europe.

So whilst some parents might do a knee jerk no it's not safe, others might take a more nuanced approach, balancing the unlikely but devastating harm from abduction against the more insipid but more likely mental harm we inflict on our children by not giving them freedom. It's all a sliding scale, and what some find acceptable, others will not because they will be considering a different range of factors in their decision making.

They obviously have faith in their own parenting decisions, it's time you had faith in yours and then the opinions of internet strangers wouldn't matter to you.

Oh come on, it's perfectly reasonable to run a quick poll to check whether you are over protective. Lots of total dingbats have 100% faith in their very poor parenting decisions - being willing to cross-check is no failure in my eyes . In this case most people who have replied are risk averse, so it seems her unease at the situation was not unusual.

I am sitting in a park right now and I can't see DS(7) and his friend, but in a massive park I would worry.

Kids that age should be climbing trees and playing tracker. You'll probably hear them even if you can't see them.

If I was in a park I wouldn't need my junior aged child to be in my line of sight if they were playing with other kids. I think yabu.

This.

I think it depends on the park really. My local park is massive. You can do five-mile walks in it without retracing your steps and the terrain varies from thick woods to cultivated parkland with paths, cafes, playgrounds, etc, and it has a boating lake, streams, bridges and little tunnels, a petting zoo, meadows, donkeys, lots of hidden clearings etc. So I think most parents probably would want to keep an eye on their 7/8 year olds as it would be extremely easy for them to get lost. But in the park in my old hometown, where they couldn't really wander far enough to get lost or be away from lots of people, it would be different I think.

Either way - I think it really depends on what you mean by 'out of sight'. I think I would probably let kids that age play in the trees near where I was sitting and chatting, and I wouldn't expect them to be in my eye line the whole time, or if there was a particular thing just around a corner that they wanted to go and look at in a group (eg 'Mum, can X, Y and me go and look at the donkeys in the field just past the trees?') then 'Yes, but make sure you all stay together in a group and don't be more than 15 minutes' would seem reasonable. But I wouldn't just sit myself down and then be like 'Right kids, off you go, see you in a couple of hours.'

Yes

At 7/8 mine were going to the park themselves.

And were certainly allowed out of sight in bigger national trust type parks

They knew where we were and would come back for food

Absolutely this! So well articulated.

I did, younger too - but we lived in a village and there were thick bushes that made a natural tunnel and den area you could only access if you were under 4 ft. They loved it, parents couldn't see but could hear them, no exit from the park that end

No way
I was at the park recently and my son was in my view but I was slightly round the corner . A man started walking right towards him but then noticed me and walked towards the perimeter of the field and out of view. Now it's 99% probably the case he was just a man having a walk. But something didn't feel right and him being in my sight enabled me to monitor things incase something did happen but also for that man to know my son wasn't on his own

I live in a relatively rural area and the kids roam in a semi-feral pack from age 5 up. Everyone knows someone on each street so if there were any emergency, there’s always a neighbour whose door they can knock on for help. They’re all taught the pants rule and safe body boundaries at school, so they are safe in more ways than one.

Where we used to live in London I would absolutely not let DD out of my sight. But in our village I love that she can go out on her bike and knock for her friends. It’s like something out of a famous five book.

I do at our local park but do expect my kids to check in with me from time to time if in the bushes or climbing trees. They are also not off on their own but either with each other or with friends. Plus, as it's a village-type place, we usually know quite a few people there. The park itself also has only two ways in or out, both of which are visible from where I usually sit.

In a "strange" park, no I wouldn't. Also, this would probably be an afternoon rather than an evening as I'd want to get them home for bed by 8 at the latest.

mommandme
"Honestly, I think there are very few parents out there who think ‘my child isn’t that important to me, I don’t really mind if they get abducted.’

But people do assess the risk differently."

^^ brilliant response

Too many variables. I’d have to assess the park, the personality of the child and the behaviour of the group. At the moment bits still light at 8:30.

If the Yr 3 kids were playing together & are developmentally normal then I'd be fine with this as long as they knew they had to stick together. Having a large family, I've spent a lot of time in parks....
Wouldn't feel the same if it was one child alone, they'd have to stay near the adults. Or if there was reason to believe that some DC needed more supervision than the average at that age.
But YABU to judge them for this.

Great response, thank you.

What does it mean out of sight. I've spent enough time in Hyde Park with friends to see that people absolutely do let their 4 year olds play hide and seek and run off. My four year old and his friend scooted ahead of us in Battersea park and we couldnt see them for a couple of minutes. Not sure time of day has anything to do with it. It's currently very light.

Yes OP I would. This is exactly how children develop autonomous decision making, confidence, decision making skills.

Children have already lost so much freedom - they tend not to play on their own streets anymore or 'roam' freely as previous generations did - though there is no more crime than there was 50 years ago

My children went to a big park like this near where we lived in primary years - v recently - and yes I enjoyed it actually when they were out of sight running about/ playing in trees/ I would keep an eye out if I didn't see them coming back fairly regularly etc - but surely that is a joy of childhood? Pushing the boundaries a little and enjoying some freedom

And we were in a pretty urban london area so the 'danger' you may be thinking of (not sure what???0 would be present.

Also - primary covers 4 til 11 - my son is 10 and now goes to the park on his own so he needs to have taken the steps towards that at a younger age.

Is there a group of them? Is it still light? The evenings are right now. Do the kids know their boundaries and to check in now and again? Are they sensible kids that like each other and get along? Are they ever out of earshot?? Have they been taught what to do if they get into trouble?
Ifs the answer to most of those is yes then i don’t think it would bother me.
Out of sight isn’t the end of the world especially if they are with others and it is still light outside. I’d trust my 2 out of sight in a picnic place that they’re familiar with.
They can injure themselves while I’m watching just as easily!

No. I took my kids to the park today and tried to get them to be more independent without me. I suddenly had a tight knot in my stomach when remembering innocent 7 year old Emily who got murdered my a women with mental health problems.

Yes I’d let my 7.5 year old with a few others do this

But one of kids favourite park games at age 7/8 is hide and seek! How do you play that with them without allowing a teency bit of freedom? It is a bit gut wrenching when you can't find them for a while (normally I peek a bit so I know vague direction they have gone) but I think at that age it's a part of growing up. So long as you are all in the park and not out of sight for long I think it's ok.

I did with mine, but I'd been working with them since they could walk to develop their independence and ability. Skills, to keep them safe. I wouldn't just keep them attached to me until they were 8 then let them loose.

There were small increments in what I taught and allowed them to do. They have to learn how to be safe and that's a never ending part of parenting.

My nephew is 8, and I don't let him out of my sight when he's with me. His parents don't allow him to be out of their sight. He's never been out to play, can't swim, ride a bike, cross the street. He doesn't know the way home from school, or what to do if a stranger approaches. He's so unsafe because he's learning nothing.

Sure, and I'm also sure Maddy's parents didn't imagine for one second that she would be abucted from her hotel room - when they were dining a few metres away.

But she was.

And someone had studied the restaurant bookings to find out when they wouldn't be in their hotel room.

I'm not blaming them either. Maddy should have been safe. But she wasn't.

Child abductors plan these things. They also study threads like this to find out how lax parents are and what we are prepared to put up with.

It only takes thirty seconds or less.