These are tiring times in the G & G household. Transitioning Lil' S from his crib into his toddler bed has been more difficult than anticipated. He's consistently doing one of two things and sometimes both: (1) waking up a half dozen times throughout the night, usually with a major meltdown around 3:30 in the morning, (2) "only" waking up once or twice during the night, but waking up for good at 5:30 a.m., even though he's still tired and cranky. We can't seem to get him on a schedule where he sleeps through the night and gets up at a reasonable hour. It's especially frustrating because he was actually sleeping pretty well in his crib, and if it was up to us, he'd still be in it for a few more months. We didn't decide to move him from his crib; he learned how to climb out. Our collective hand was forced. Now we have to struggle through a period in which he's still a bit too young to handle free range nights, but short of cosleeping with him (no) or moving him back to the crib and lining it with barbed wired, it's really our only option.
This is yet another example of how having a child who develops physically faster than average is a mixed blessing. It's cool to see your kid be able to do things other kids his age can't -- like, say, get to the top of a big toy meant for five-year olds-- but it sucks to deal with the ramifications on a daily basis. I try to console myself with the fact that it's just temporary, one day he will learn to sleep through the night like a normal human. But then of course I also have to concede that his fast start is just as temporary, other kids are going to catch up. The people who are the most physically gifted as kids are never the best athletes as adults -- except for Tiger Woods ... and Lebron James ... and Wayne Gretzky ... and Ken Griffey Jr. ... and ... okay, sometimes they are, but often they're not. (Enjoy the pics.)
On the topic of parenting, one thing I can take solace in is that I have yet to be arrested for being a negligent parent. This seems to be happening a lot for very innocuous "offenses". And by a lot, I mean I've recently come across two stories in which it happened. Here's one and here's the other.
In the first one, the author left her four-year old in the car while she went in to an electronics store to (quickly) purchase a pair of headphones. She was in a hurry to catch a flight and the headphones were to placate her son on the flight. I definitely don't think this woman should have been arrested, but I do think it was the wrong decision. And I'm not completely on board with all her justifications. For one thing, how bad would it really have been to bring the kid inside. Even if he throws a fit, it would have been a very temporary annoyance at worst. Plus, she says he had an iPad, take it and tell him he has to come inside the store to use it.
For another thing -- and this is the bigger thing -- the basic crux of her defense is that what she did wasn't really unsafe, if you actually look at the evidence. This is true, but it is also very specious. Yes, it's extremely improbable that anything bad will happen if you leave your four-year old son in a car by himself. But it's extremely improbable that anything bad will happen to him doing just about any "risky" behavior; this doesn't mean it's okay to engage in them. For example, if you left your sleeping baby boy alone in a crib at night and then went clubbing out on the town and came back hours later, chances are nothing "bad" would happen to him. Even if he woke up, he'd probably just cry himself back to sleep, which is often what happens when parents are there anyway (it's called sleep training). But I think just about everybody would agree that that is unacceptable parenting. Just because an individual act has a low probability of going badly, it doesn't make it okay to do it. It also matters how "necessary" that act is (however you want to define necessary), and whether or not that act is part of a bigger network of risky behaviors in which no individual strand has a high probability of going badly, but taken as a whole they constitute something that does.
Also, although I agree with the general sentiment that we have little reason to live in constant fear for our children's safety, and our society can be completely irrational about what constitutes risky behavior, the "our parents let us do a bunch of way worse thing" and "it's safer today than it was back then" arguments are not particularly convincing. After all, it could be that the increase in safety is precisely because parents are more protective now. Nobody argues that seat belts and airbags should be taken out of cars because the rate of serious injury from car crashes has dropped dramatically since 1975.
Lastly, the author fails to underscore what I believe are the two biggest concerns with leaving an unattended four-year old in a car while you shop: 1) the kid could take his seat belt off and do something like take the e-break off* or get out of the car and wander around the parking lot, 2) it freaks people out! Calling the cops on this woman is very harsh, but it's somewhat understandable. The "good samaritan" in this story doesn't know the woman or her intention or how long she's going to be gone. If you see a kid alone in a car who shouldn't be, what are you supposed to do? Kids do get abandoned in vehicles for long periods of time, sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally, and just because it's rare, does that mean you should always assume it's not happening if you see something fishy? Now, the better course of action for the samaritan probably would have been to talk to the woman (Although what do you say -- "excuse ma'am I couldn't help but notice you might be a bad mother"?) or to wait and see if she's coming back out right away (probably what I would've done), but turning it over to the authorities isn't that unreasonable -- is it?
With all that said, I don't want it seem like I'm coming down too hard on this woman because the fact she faced criminal charges for this and that the possibility of her losing her son was even somewhere on the peripherals of the conversation is absolutely outrageous. A warning from the police, something along the lines of, "Hey, people take it seriously if they see a toddler alone in a car, so don't do it anymore", would have been perfectly sufficient, I'm sure.
Anyway ...
The second story is of a woman who let her nine-year old play in the park unsupervised while she worked at a nearby McDonald's. And if all the facts are reported accurately, then this case, unlike the first one, is unmitigated horseshit. Since when it is wrong to let a nine-year old play in a park unattended? I don't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure my parents let me do things like that at that age without supervision -- especially in a public area where I could go "check in" with them periodically.
Also, who sees a nine-year old playing unattended at a playground and calls the police? (This is so different to me than a four-year old left alone in a car.) I feel like I see this all the time. Just a few weeks ago I was at a picnic/birthday party at a park and some little kid about nine came cruising up on his bike and just started chatting with one of the kids at the party.** It never crossed my mind that the kid had been abandoned, and I should call the police. I did wonder if his parents were keeping an eye on him, but that was not because he was potentially in danger; it was because he was potentially crashing the party. (We were joking about how at parties in public parks, you always see a few kids in the mix and think, "Wait a second where did they come from? Are they with us? What's going on here?) That would be my main concern as a parent, not "Is my son safe?", but "Is he bothering those people?".
There is also a racial/class element to this story that I won't go into because I don't have time and because the author of the story to which I linked pretty much nails it. I don't really have anything to add other than to say it's fucked up, and I'm probably going to contribute some money to her defense.
Okay, that's all. Until next time ...
*I did this once in my driveway as a kid, and my mom was just standing outside next to the car with the door open. It started to roll down the driveway, but my mom was able to open the door and hop in and apply the brake before we got too far.
**He was trying to get the kid to get on his bike pegs and ride with him. The kid declined, which was good, I would have had to intervene otherwise.
This is yet another example of how having a child who develops physically faster than average is a mixed blessing. It's cool to see your kid be able to do things other kids his age can't -- like, say, get to the top of a big toy meant for five-year olds-- but it sucks to deal with the ramifications on a daily basis. I try to console myself with the fact that it's just temporary, one day he will learn to sleep through the night like a normal human. But then of course I also have to concede that his fast start is just as temporary, other kids are going to catch up. The people who are the most physically gifted as kids are never the best athletes as adults -- except for Tiger Woods ... and Lebron James ... and Wayne Gretzky ... and Ken Griffey Jr. ... and ... okay, sometimes they are, but often they're not. (Enjoy the pics.)
On the topic of parenting, one thing I can take solace in is that I have yet to be arrested for being a negligent parent. This seems to be happening a lot for very innocuous "offenses". And by a lot, I mean I've recently come across two stories in which it happened. Here's one and here's the other.
In the first one, the author left her four-year old in the car while she went in to an electronics store to (quickly) purchase a pair of headphones. She was in a hurry to catch a flight and the headphones were to placate her son on the flight. I definitely don't think this woman should have been arrested, but I do think it was the wrong decision. And I'm not completely on board with all her justifications. For one thing, how bad would it really have been to bring the kid inside. Even if he throws a fit, it would have been a very temporary annoyance at worst. Plus, she says he had an iPad, take it and tell him he has to come inside the store to use it.
For another thing -- and this is the bigger thing -- the basic crux of her defense is that what she did wasn't really unsafe, if you actually look at the evidence. This is true, but it is also very specious. Yes, it's extremely improbable that anything bad will happen if you leave your four-year old son in a car by himself. But it's extremely improbable that anything bad will happen to him doing just about any "risky" behavior; this doesn't mean it's okay to engage in them. For example, if you left your sleeping baby boy alone in a crib at night and then went clubbing out on the town and came back hours later, chances are nothing "bad" would happen to him. Even if he woke up, he'd probably just cry himself back to sleep, which is often what happens when parents are there anyway (it's called sleep training). But I think just about everybody would agree that that is unacceptable parenting. Just because an individual act has a low probability of going badly, it doesn't make it okay to do it. It also matters how "necessary" that act is (however you want to define necessary), and whether or not that act is part of a bigger network of risky behaviors in which no individual strand has a high probability of going badly, but taken as a whole they constitute something that does.
Also, although I agree with the general sentiment that we have little reason to live in constant fear for our children's safety, and our society can be completely irrational about what constitutes risky behavior, the "our parents let us do a bunch of way worse thing" and "it's safer today than it was back then" arguments are not particularly convincing. After all, it could be that the increase in safety is precisely because parents are more protective now. Nobody argues that seat belts and airbags should be taken out of cars because the rate of serious injury from car crashes has dropped dramatically since 1975.
Lastly, the author fails to underscore what I believe are the two biggest concerns with leaving an unattended four-year old in a car while you shop: 1) the kid could take his seat belt off and do something like take the e-break off* or get out of the car and wander around the parking lot, 2) it freaks people out! Calling the cops on this woman is very harsh, but it's somewhat understandable. The "good samaritan" in this story doesn't know the woman or her intention or how long she's going to be gone. If you see a kid alone in a car who shouldn't be, what are you supposed to do? Kids do get abandoned in vehicles for long periods of time, sometimes on purpose, sometimes accidentally, and just because it's rare, does that mean you should always assume it's not happening if you see something fishy? Now, the better course of action for the samaritan probably would have been to talk to the woman (Although what do you say -- "excuse ma'am I couldn't help but notice you might be a bad mother"?) or to wait and see if she's coming back out right away (probably what I would've done), but turning it over to the authorities isn't that unreasonable -- is it?
With all that said, I don't want it seem like I'm coming down too hard on this woman because the fact she faced criminal charges for this and that the possibility of her losing her son was even somewhere on the peripherals of the conversation is absolutely outrageous. A warning from the police, something along the lines of, "Hey, people take it seriously if they see a toddler alone in a car, so don't do it anymore", would have been perfectly sufficient, I'm sure.
Anyway ...
The second story is of a woman who let her nine-year old play in the park unsupervised while she worked at a nearby McDonald's. And if all the facts are reported accurately, then this case, unlike the first one, is unmitigated horseshit. Since when it is wrong to let a nine-year old play in a park unattended? I don't remember exactly, but I'm pretty sure my parents let me do things like that at that age without supervision -- especially in a public area where I could go "check in" with them periodically.
Also, who sees a nine-year old playing unattended at a playground and calls the police? (This is so different to me than a four-year old left alone in a car.) I feel like I see this all the time. Just a few weeks ago I was at a picnic/birthday party at a park and some little kid about nine came cruising up on his bike and just started chatting with one of the kids at the party.** It never crossed my mind that the kid had been abandoned, and I should call the police. I did wonder if his parents were keeping an eye on him, but that was not because he was potentially in danger; it was because he was potentially crashing the party. (We were joking about how at parties in public parks, you always see a few kids in the mix and think, "Wait a second where did they come from? Are they with us? What's going on here?) That would be my main concern as a parent, not "Is my son safe?", but "Is he bothering those people?".
There is also a racial/class element to this story that I won't go into because I don't have time and because the author of the story to which I linked pretty much nails it. I don't really have anything to add other than to say it's fucked up, and I'm probably going to contribute some money to her defense.
Okay, that's all. Until next time ...
*I did this once in my driveway as a kid, and my mom was just standing outside next to the car with the door open. It started to roll down the driveway, but my mom was able to open the door and hop in and apply the brake before we got too far.
**He was trying to get the kid to get on his bike pegs and ride with him. The kid declined, which was good, I would have had to intervene otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment