Free-Range Kids
vs
Myth Busters

Lenore Skenazy’s Free-Range Kids book and website spawned the latest parenting fad. Crime-Safety-Security.com Myth Busters hereby slays that dragon and inducts it into the Hall of Shame for Books That Should Be Burned.

A suburban mother thought she'd finally found the balance between protection and freedom with her third son. Five years ago, when he was 3, she trotted after him while he roller-skated, afraid he would fall. Later that day, he died after becoming entangled in a bush in the family's backyard; a branch somehow closed off his airway, and he wasn't strong enough to push it away [and nobody was around to save him]. ... But it didn't make her question the autonomy she gives her older sons...
Excerpted from The Philadelphia Inquirer – 26 August 2009

The Free-Range Kids Experiment

She advocates letting youngsters wander outdoors without supervision (to learn “self-reliance”) and ignores decades of research by thousands of child safety experts in the "safety industry" – accusing them of 'crying wolf' for self-serving gain.

Actually, it's Skenazy herself who is an opportunist. She's a dilettante who found a hot-button publicity angle to exploit – then cherry-picked statistics and quotes to support her theory of nonchalant parenting. She shamelessly hawks her book with an in-your-face ad on every page of it's marketing website – for her own self-serving gain. Hypocrisy?

Fork over your money for a marketing ploy from a freelance author whose career jumps around from one flavor-of-the-month marketing scheme to another – each with its own website marketing platform. This time she's gone too far by barging into a realm in which she's dangerously naïve.

Skenazy made a splash in the sensation-hungry media, and too many gullible parents latched on with the passionate delusion that they're somehow liberating their kids – and themselves – from the “fear mongering” of those nasty safety experts.

Her Pollyanna supporters actually fancy themselves as pioneers “uncaging” their kids. However, they fail to realize that the free-range kids experiment uses their kids as unwitting guinea pigs.

Rolling the dice by trusting a free range kid – a child after all – to wander wisely is an unnecessary risk. Gamble in Vegas, not in your life.

This Isn’t Mayberry Anymore

Skenazy cites the glories of childhood in the 1950’s, 60’s, and 70’s. But before we travel back to the “good old days,” let’s shed the rose-colored glasses.

First, almost all of the old, huge mental hospitals are now closed. Psychiatric patients with little or no medication now comprise many of today's homeless population, but very few were drifting around back in the good old days.

Second, in the good old days we were blissfully unaware of the shockingly high rate of child abuse, neglect, molestation, incest, and rape. Today we know better.

You'll shudder at the www.FamilyWatchdog.us map showing the many registered sex offenders living in your area (and remember that they travel to and from other areas). Worse, there are actually many more sex fiends (yes, fiends) than shown on the maps – the average child molester has 107 victims before his first arrest – and they won’t be on the maps where free-range kids go wandering.

Third, the good old days also predated the many modern safety strategies that we’ve since learned: smoke detectors, car airbags, seatbelts, child safety-seats, bicycle helmets, Megan's Law – to name a few. Today we know much better.

How far back shall we go in our quest for the romanticized “golden days” that never really existed? People tend to believe what they want to be true – distorting reality to create a kinder, gentler world than really exists.

Let’s look closely at Skenazy’s logic – or the lack thereof.

The Free-Range Kids title is a take-off on the free-range chickens and free-range cattle marketing terms. At first it seems to have a rousing and proudly independent ring to it – but ends up screaching when you consider the vast difference between raising animals and raising human children.

I'll type this s-l-o-w-l-y for the slow learners: free-range wandering might be good for farm and ranch animals, but human children don't graze in herds or peck feed off the ground to get fattened up for slaughter. Kids are in NO way anything like free-range animals.

Also, there are few, if any, perverted monsters prowling around farms and ranches hoping to kidnap, rape, and possibly kill animals. But there are countless thousands of perverted monsters prowling around hunting for vulnerable children.

Oops! Ms. Skenazy’s "research" apparently missed that difference. The USDOJ says that between 750,000 and 1.3 million children are reported missing each year. Roughly 140-240,000 of those are temporarily lost or runaways, and 500-900,000 are kidnapped in a parental custody dispute.

50-100 kidnapped children are murdered, another 50-100 are ransomed or taken permanently. Another 58,000 are kidnapped for short-term molestation (too briefly to be noticed as missing). And yet another 150,000 children are targeted but manage to escape by rejecting a lure and running away. (See more stats at Child Safety - Outdoors).

That’s a total of more than 200,000 kids each year targeted by sex fiends – and 200,000 reasons to always protect your kids.

Skenazy tries to justify her theory by favorably comparing the statistical odds of child molestation, kipnapping, rape, and murder against the odds of other dangers to children from freakish accidents and whatnot.

And that's exactly where her theory falls apart. Freakish accidents are essentially unavoidable. But a parent allowing kids to wander unsupervised is avoidable. Besides, many freakish accidents could be prevented if a parent were nearby to save the child – such as drownings or the Philadelphia boy above. Thus her statistical "comparisons" are bogus.

Why take unnecessary risks with your kids? That is the heart of this entire issue.

So what are the real odds? The very best odds of all are to not gamble with your kids.

We all know that predators aren't lurking around every corner. But even a million to one chance is too high a risk to take with a child.

Cautious parenting isn't a guarantee that kids will be 100% safe – life gives no guarantees. But a truly cautious parent does lower the possibility that a child will be at risk.

Skenazy assumes that since most kids are never attacked or harmed in a freakish accident, it's OK to let them all run around unsupervised. But that's as foolish as not using seatbelts because most cars never crash, or not using smoke alarms because most homes never catch fire.

So why do laws nationwide demand that we always use seatbelts and smoke alarms? Just in case. So why should we always go the extra mile in protecting our children? Just in case. Just in case a mere child encounters a freakish accident – or is targeted by an adult sex fiend.

Most U.S. state laws define Child Endangerment as “placing a child in a potentially harmful situation through negligence or misconduct.” Penalties range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

How Much Supervision Is Enough?

Throughout history, the primary parenting questions have been: just how much monitoring and until what age? And at what point today does the overly hyped child’s “freedom” become child neglect? The answers aren't black or white and have many shades of gray – but it’s FAR more wise to err on the side of caution.

The lunatic fringe portion of the free-range kids proponents loves to smear cautious parents as “helicopter parents” (always hovering). That may apply to a few odd extremists, but nobody advocates smothering or “bubble-wrapping” kids; just careful nurturing until the fledgling is mature enough to fly alone in this harsh, haphazard, unpredictable world.

The age of limited freedom for kids should be the mid-to-late teens depending on each individual circumstance (but NO hanging out at the mall or wandering aimlessly – see Child Kidnapping), or maybe somewhat younger if the child has had ample RadKids training.

The RadKids.org superbly covers child self defense (from bullies, molesters, kidnappers) as well as all-around child safety tips (for fires, traffic, etc.) for ages 5-12. The instruction level increases for each age group. And it’s a terrific bargain: pay the low fee once (which barely covers overhead costs) and your child can return again and again for free each summer at any RadKids location nationwide.

Even the best parent could never cover what RadKids does – all in a fun and gentle fashion. Attend with your child; you’ll be amazed – and it may very well save a life!

It’s far better for a child to know this and not need it, than to need it and not know it...

And the RadKids comprehensive approach is far better than the willy-nilly “exploration,” hit-or-miss “adventure,” maybe/maybe-not “self-resiliency” of the Free-Range Kids malarkey. Kids can easily waste their entire youth frittering away countless unsupervised hours wandering around, getting into mischief – and very possibly into a wide variety of dangers:

Melbourne FL – Three teenage girls were joking around on a narrow bridge when they were hit by a train, killing them as a friend watched helplessly, police said. The girls and a fourth teenager, a boy, had been hanging out when the girls decided to cross the trestle. ... Their parents had dropped them off at a mall, and then they took a bus downtown where they were “just goofing off,” police said. ... Bruce Dumas, 53, was fishing under the bridge when he saw the girls walk onto the trestle, ignoring a “No Trespassing” sign. He warned them but they didn't pay attention. “You know how kids are,” Dumas said. ... “It's crazy to watch young lives snuffed out like that. They didn't have a chance to live yet.”
Excerpted from Yahoo News – 21 February 2010

Other than Skenazy’s fan's fluffy little vignettes about free-range kids being smarter, more mature, etc., where oh where is the proof that free-range kids’ aimless wandering has any benefit whatsoever? WHERE?

And how did Skenazy’s “research” miss the glaring fact that almost ALL juvenile delinquents and gang members are free-range kids? And how about teen pregnancies? Oops! Explain away those issues, Ms. Skenazy. And prisons are chock-full of former free-range kids. As to drug addicts – most are or were free-range kids.

INSTEAD, BE PREPARED

Also get SafeSitter.org or RedCross.org babysitter training for any responsible neighbor girl you want to baby-sit your kids. Safety experts (and no, they're not nasty) will prepare her for safety procedures and emergencies. Just in case.

What sensible parent could possibly oppose these tried-and-true, potentially lifesaving courses and wonderful child-molding organizations?

Just ask a spectacularly misinformed free-range kid’s parent. Watch for their loopy logic and shrill ranting. They hate being called irresponsible – yet their cavalier attitude casts their kids' fate to the wind.

Raising children safely is the primary duty of a parent. If a child doesn't SURVIVE childhood... nothing else matters.

If you disagree, re-read the opening story about the boy dying in Philadelphia and see Parents of Murdered Children. Gamble in Vegas, not in your life – and not with your children.

By the same token, always use seatbelts and smoke alarms. Just in case.

Learn how to keep your child safe at:
Stranger Danger FAQ | How To Stop Bullying In School FAQ | Child Safety - Outdoors | Child Kidnapping | Child Safety - Kidnap | Child Safety - Molesters | Child Safety - Safeguarding | Security Products - Personal Devices

Go from Free-Range Kids to Child Safety - Overview
Go from Free-Range Kids to Crime-Safety-Security.com HOME PAGE