umm i dont know how i ended up on this page or why i read the comments . but i am so disturbed . as a mother who's ex left her seven and and 5 year old in car outside a store for fifteen minutes and you know what happened? the got hit . the air bag deployed and my 7 year old was killed nearly decapitated in front of his sister. most of the crap on here is ignorance . what happened when you were a kid is irrelevant . expecting other adults to step up when the childrens very parents have a low standard is ridiculous. there are plenty of ways to allow your children to play free while not leaving them with their parents as resources. the amount of excuse making and "the are fine" crap is infuriating . and everyone who found that woman creepy is a hypocrite . maybe she did not want to call the police maybe she struggled with it.in the end she cared more than their father did

Dude- Really leaving your kids alone at any time at that age is not ok. I guess if you have kids and they are that age and you leave them alone you are as big an a-- as he is!

Excuse me JConley, wasn't it not too long ago a Child Care Worker was ARRESTED in SCOTT Twp for MOLESTING CHILDREN???? How about you put YOUR CHILDREN in the park ALONE and wait for the PEDOPHILE to meet them!

Dude, Caring Parent - you're insane. Not okay to leave your kids alone at ANY time at ANY age? So should a 16 year old sit in the bathroom while their parent showers? I think I'll just be an ass.

@Terry - that just goes to show that they are safer at the playground!

Haha woah, rewind Amanda Matthews....reread the post and you'll see that caring parent says leaving your kids alone at any TIME at THAT age is not ok, never said anything about any age. Secondly, being 16 is way different than being 6 or 9.

Oh okay so only the 9 year olds have to sit in the bathroom while mom showers? At what age can that stop? Sorry, but that's still insane. Yes 16 is different from 9, just as all 9 year olds are different.

When I was 6-9 I went to a park two blocks away from my house, on my bike, alone, all of the time. And get this...the park was filled with kids, and NONE of their parents were there.

People need to mind their own business.

Thank you, Dudley. I used to bike 1 1/2 miles every day by myself to the local play ground after school when I was 9 years old (I live in a more rural area) to meet up with friends. My parents always told me before I left: Don't talk to anyone you don't know, don't get in anyone's car, and if someone tries to grab you run. Children are perfectly capable of managing themselves for an hour or two, and it builds both independence and character.

Our society has become over-paranoid and wrongfully fearful. Pedophiles have always existed. It's not like there has suddenly been a pandemic over the last few years.

I don't have kids, so I can only go by how I was raised in the 70's & 80's. We would walk or ride or bikes to the 7-11 (about 1 1/2 miles from home almost daily). Our rule was, "let me know where you'll be, be home in time for dinner/lunch, don't go anywhere with adults you don't know, and don't get in trouble". Hell, the baseball field was almost a mile a way and we played EVERY day all summer from the time I was eight until I was twelve. I'm not talking Little League either, just kids. (My best friend and his brother were crazy about baseball) It would have been very uncomfortable and weird if our moms had insisted on coming along. Did I miss something? Did kids become weak and needy in the last twenty five years? Whether you want to believe it or not, crime is way lower now than its been in a long, long time. Certainly lower than when I grew up. But, it seems people are more afraid of the bogeyman than they used to be.

Really-

Butt, and I do mean butt...........The officer would be getting an award if this was a case of the kids getting hurt in somme way.............Bottom line is that when you choose to leave your children at any age, anywhere, for any length of time.you should provide them with a means of communication.....DAH There are numerous issues that are judgement calls for officers, but there is no excuse on earth for this to occur with children!

No one said it was a crime- it's just stupid!

Caring Parent - The cop that charged him with child endangerment said it was a crime!

Really, Caring Parent. Did you miss that part of the article?

Please feel free to "care" for your own children and leave other people alone. Not everyone thinks it's stupid to instill a sense of independence into their children.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone from my neighborhood. It's full of busybodies and helicopter parents.

The kids did not walk to the park or ride their bikes. They were dropped off there by their father. The apartment building they live in is 2 miles away. If the kids even knew how to get home, they would have to walk along a busy 4 lane road with no side walks to get there. There was nothing ok about this situation. Anything could have happened. What if the dad was in an accident along the way. Did he let anyone else know where the kids were? We don't know, but this was just way over -the-top poor judgement.

This. I'm not from the area but obviously it's rife with violent crime such that it is endangerment for two kids to play at the park. So...why aren't the cops dealing with all that crime?

According to the criminal complaint, the woman watched the two kids for an hour. How would she know "what was up" with their father if the kids didn't know? Should she have watched them all day or left them alone and gone on with her day?

Mike - the kids knew what was up. They were playing in the park, they had their father's approval to be there without him; that is what was up. She should have heard that from the kids and then gone on with her day. Watching the kids for an hour and not talking to them is kind of creepy.

Mike, who says the kids didn't know what was up? Nowhere in the article does it say that the kids didn't know exactly where their father was. In fact, either the kids or this woman had the dad's cell phone number (since somebody gave it to the cops), so why didn't the woman just call the dad to make sure everything was ok?

Mike, I would say she should have moved on with her day. Nowhere in your article does it state the lady noticed they were hurt, crying, or in obvious distress. She just saw them playing without an adult. Nothing wrong with that.

@Chris... Maybe she should've move on with her day. Maybe she did the right thing. Who knows when the father was planning to come back to the park? But I don't know why she is being vilified for thinking there was problem and contacting authorities. There are strong opinions on both sides of this. Why don't we let the court adjudicate the matter?

Let the courts ajudicate it? This women *knew* the kids, since when do we need the courts to ajudicate every difference of opinion between friends or neighbours?

I may not like how my neighbours parent their kids and I know they don't all like how I parent mine (as I've had people stop my kid from riding to the other end of the park ahead of me); but we don't call the cops to sort it out.

@Mike- Why should the courts be involved at all in whether or not kids are allowed to play at the park for a few hours? When I was a kid, it was the norm to tromp around the park and neighborhood for hours. The kidnapping rate was far higher then. Kidnapping rates have gone down. Kids are most likely to be taken or abused by someone they know (statistically, the lady who called the cops is more likely to harm those kids than a random stranger.) As far as possibly getting hurt, my kid is nine. we have logged hours and hours, and hours at a park and I have never witnessed a child being seriously injured, ever. The chances are very small of that happening. So, essentially, there really is no issue with children playing at a park alone.

What we actually have here is a busy body who is imposing her warped views of the world on someone else. Getting the police involved for letting kids play at the park for a few hours is a complete and utter joke.

Ummm no. Kids are not abducted "all the time". They're not even abducted half the time. See MP's post below.

Don't have kids if you are too lazy to teach them to be independent and function without you at their side 24/7.

You are joking, right? I think you read the news too much. Here's some stats. Only 115 kids, on average, are victims of "stereotypical" kidnappings (don't know the person, etc...). http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2810#1 is where I got that stat. If you're that concerned about the kids, don't take them in the car - the stat for injury car accidents for kids is MUCH MUCH higher. I feel lazy and don't feel like looking that one up right now, so I trust you can use Google to do so if you don't believe me.

Mary, you're right! Well, you're mostly right, in that this is not 1920. Crime and violence against children has been steadily declining since then, however. Please inform yourself, if only to keep yourself from living in unwarranted fear. Any child kidnapped, molested, injured, etc. is one too many, but the statisical probability of it happening is quite low. So low in fact, that a father being charged for child endangerment because he allowed his children to participate in an activity that encourages creativity, independence, and good health, is, in my opinion, the real crime. Our culture is becoming nuts! It is not abuse to let your children, ages 6 and 9, play at the park.

If you look at FBI stats, crimes against children are usually perpetrated by someone who knows them. Stranger kidnappings are extremely rare. Look it up (please, please look it up instead of spreading hysteria on the internet.) The FBI keeps stats and they are very easy to Google. Kidnapping rates have also plummeted since the 1970's and 1980's. Kids used to play by themselves without interference from busybodies all of the time back then. The world is actually a pretty safe place for children.

right on mary!

Not to mention that playgrounds are far safer now than they were back then, and people have immediate access to a phone (cell phones) if they see an injured child.

Regina... The family lives in the Carriage Park apartment complex. That's about three miles from Scott Park.

The more I'm seeing, the more I'm thinking the father has really poor judgement. 3 miles is too far for kids to walk home if needed. 6 and 9, I wouldn't even let my kids walk to Cook School Park and that's right up the street! I thought I was over protective but I've raised really independent kids. Mike, please keep us posted on what comes of this. Thanks

3 miles is not too far, we just think it is. I used to walk, from the age of 7, the two miles home from school almost every day. I would take the bus in the morning and walk home. Some days I would take the residential route, others I would take the busy street with the interesting stores that I could stop in on my way home. I grew up in Michigan too, and yes, I would walk even in the winter. So no, 6 and 9 isn't too young. Perhaps it's time we started holding children competent, instead of treating them like morons and being surprised when they can't do anything for themselves.

@Robynheud... I think this is the disconnect from outsiders and people who actually live here. There's no way I, as an adult, would walk 3 miles on Greentree Road.

I think the real insanity here is that someone called the cops for kids playing at the park alone, and that the cops actually came up with charges against someone for letting kids do what they have been doing for centuries-play independently. No wonder adolescence doesn't end until the mid 20's these days. Parents stalk their poor kids 24/7 and don't give them the room to become independent and confident that they can handle the world. So sad.

Until they turn 18, and have no idea how to function w/o all sorts of background checked care-givers to keep them 'safe'?

Oh, wait. That's what we already are!

Really Martha? At all times? So you and your husband must trade off sleeping shifts, so you can stare at your children in bed. You must always shower and dress with your children in the bedroom/bathroom with you. Will you do that when they're, say, 13? Do you send them to..horrors...school, where you may not have met and vetted every teacher, teacher's aide, office staff, janitor, lunch lady, and parent volunteer?

No, our job as parents is to raise people that can function in the world without us needing to be there at all times.

Martha, they could have run to the creepy woman who was watching them and not saying anything to them for an hour.

I agree with you Martha. Thanks for saying what needed to be said. "It takes a village to raise a child". I think this story and the comments above have shown us all the kind of "village" we are living in. Sigh.

Martha, please take ten seconds and think back to your own childhood. Were you constantly supervised by an adult every hour of every day? Why should our own children have any less freedom?

And what if lightning strikes them while they're in the park ? Statistically speaking, there's a better chance of that happening than any of the things that you've mentioned. You're definitely a victim of mass media and your attitude is representative of a real sickness in this country. It's the definition of paranoia.

Wow. I'm glad you weren't my mom. And BTW, the pedophiles you speak of are almost never strangers. Your children are most likely to be molested by their father , uncle, or family friend. You just made it up in your head that kids are in some grave danger of getting molested or kidnapped. FBI stats say very, very differently. But you would rather perpetuate hysteria than look up the stats and find out what the risk of danger to children actually is. And in all of my years of going to the park with my own child, I've never witnessed a child getting seriously injured. No need to jump to the worst possible outcome when that is very, very rare. The overwhelmingly likely scenario is that they play for a couple of hours, have a blast, and go home with dad unscathed after a couple of hours. And, they come home with a level of independence and confidence in themselves that other kids don't get to have because their parents keep them in a bubble.

When I was about 8-9 my friend and I rode our bikes about 2-3 miles away from home before we found this awesome tree to climb. We got up a few branches before one broke. During my fall, I had a large piece of bark pierce my skin and actually go into my leg, under the skin. When I tried to get up, it was too painful to walk. My friend let me use her as a crutch as her and I hopped to the nearest house. We knocked on the door and the friendly person called my dad to come pick us up. Even after then, my parents continued to trust me to play outside, "far" from home, without parental supervision. The rule was I had to be home when the street lights came on.

The moral of this story is that 2 8-9 y/o kids were able to find a solution to a problem. We were able to get help and think for ourselves. This was over 25 years ago, before cell phones.

Just because one person thinks it's wrong, doesn't mean it is. Raise your kids how you see fit and let others raise theirs. I will say that helicopter parents are becoming the norm and I feel bad for their children.

A parents job is to raise a person who can think for themselves, have a sense of independence and good judgement. Those traits are established before a child is 7. If you've done your job right as a parent, you won't have to worry about them playing alone in a park for 2 hours. The only reason so many people wig out over this, is because of not understanding child development, under-estimating young people, and over-estimating 'adults' ability to handle things better than a 9 year old. Sadly, not the case. Just adult ego over education.

This is actually not true. 12 is the age most people think it's OK to leave a child home alone, but most states (including PA, which I assume is the most relevant) do not have an official legal minimum age for leaving children alone.

NY state does not have an age restriction on kids being left home alone. It is left up to the parents to decide when they're mature enough. My kids stayed home alone before they were 12.

In my state, there is no legal age. They wisely leave it up to the parents to decide based on a number of factors. There is nothing magic about the age of 12. Whether or not a kid can handle themselves alone depends on their maturity level. And, they are very likely to be pretty immature and incapable of handling themselves alone if mommy hovers over them 24/7 and they've never been allowed to experience independence or trust from an adult.

I took a babysitting course at 10 and was independently babysitting other people's babies at 11. Was that unusual? No, almost every other girl I knew did that back in the day. Our babysitting course included not only how to care for the kids, but that we should do the dishes and clean house after the kids go to bed. If only the college kids I hire today would pick up after dinner and not let the kids trash the house...

Kids are capable of great things. My eleve -year old has been allowed to stay home alone (for short intervals at first) since he was seven. The nine-year-old will probably be thirty before he gets the house to himself. Because it is an individual thing. The nine-year-old has been allowed to go to our local park alone since he was much smaller (better with other kids).

Instead of ages, we need to look for indicators of readiness. Instead of dictating common sense - we need to let people use it.

No matter how much we hover, tragedies and accidents will occur. Much of the impact they have depends on the maturity of those involved... maturity grows when it gets exercise.

So then Kathleen, should your personal experience be codified into law? Do it this way or the cops are called and you will be arrested?

But they weren't alone. They had each other, and there was even an adult there that knew them. And the police were able to be called and get there quickly if there had been an emergency. Unfortunately, that last fact was used in the wrong way.

The 6 year old was not alone.... he was with the 9 year old sibling! What we have here is a serious cultural problem that overprotects, overreacts, under educates, under-estimates... and doesn't actually understand children, development, parenting or responsibility at all!
Children are not pets... they are people, who's fundamental sense of self is pretty well established by the time they reach between ages 5-7.
If you raise them to think for themselves, and to have a sense of responsibility, then between 7-9 they are pretty well able to manage themselves, and look out for a slightly younger one. For all of history, mothers have actually relied on this developmental fact as the only way they were able to have so many kids!
The cultural mindset of treating children like infants until they're of driving age is sickening, and the reason for the decline of skills, values, responibility, etc... Think about it... how can a kid develop real life coping, decision making, and self worth, If they're not given a chance to feel empowered and make decisions until they're past the key development cycle? This father didn't do anything wrong... In most cultures, and in most of our own childhoods not that long ago... this was totally normal, accepted, not even thought twice about. What happened???

MP, Martha is both afraid, and is right now feeling morally superior to folks who think differently than she does. Into that toxic stew of psychological incompetence, the facts about child abduction, and statistics that show crime falling, not rising; that our kids are safer today than when we were growing up, don't stand a chance.

They are also statistically far more likely to be molested by her husband or herself. It's funny how people make crap up and then try to hold the rest of us up as bad or crazy based on their standards, which come from made up ideas that have no basis in reality.

Making up things and chastising the rest of us based on completely fabricated ideas is well said? Ignorance and fear mongering is not something that should be rewarded as "well said." It's a sad world that we live in when people would rather live in their own made up world than the world that actually exists.

Then perhaps you should do some research. A child playing alone in a park is more likely to be struck by lightning than abducted by a stranger. The vast majority of all missing children are runaways. Of those who are abducted, the vast majority are taken by family members. The vast majority of child abuse is committed by a family member or someone who is well known to the family.

Let me say it again: Your child is more likely to be struck by lightning than abducted by a stranger.

A friend of mine once said "The world would be perfect if we lived by one creed 'NO KILLING THE BABIES', meaning we protect them, love them, educate them and do nothing to kill their bodies, their spirits, or their sense of wonderment" I think that says it all, for any case.

Pedophiles also go to church. What's your point?

Ignorance? Knowing the FBI stats that are kept from year to year is ignorance? I don't think so. Ignorance is when you make up things to suit your own flawed world view, which is that strangers are all out to get kids. This could not be further from the truth. I guess looking up the stats for yourself would take too much work. It's easier just to stay ignorant and not have to change your warped view of the world. It's easier to spread fear based on lies that you and other hover parents have made up.

Why on earth does there need to be a law that 12-year-olds can't be left home alone? Is anything left up to parental decision based on their individual kids anymore?

I didn't say there needed to be a law. I don't know what the law is, that's my point. We need to find out what the law says before we convict the man, or the neighbor for that matter. We all have different experiences and we all know our kids differently. That was the basis for all I've said thus far. We can't deny though that there are some parents who don't use good judgement, either because they don't have it or because it's easier to just do what they want.

Beth, there isn't such a law, at least not in PA (or most states, actually). It is a common misconception though, and most parents do believe that they aren't legally allowed to leave their kids home alone until 12.

That isn't the law in most states though. Most states leave it for parent to decide based on maturity and other factors. My state lists the factors parents should consider. My 9 year old certainly meets all of the factors they suggest.

So you know all ambulance drivers in your area?

Yes, if my kids were out playing alone and got injured, I would ABSOLUTELY want them to ask the first adult they saw for help. This is part of why "Stranger Danger" is such a dangerous and counter-productive philosophy that even the FBI has abandoned it. It's not only completely ineffective, but it isolates children from the adults of their communities at the times they most need them.

I love how teachers who are basically strangers to most parents and the children when you drop them off on the first day teach about stranger danger. Ironic? :)

Again, jumping to the very rare, worst possible outcome. Major injuries on playgrounds are not terribly common. And, if they got hurt, I would hope that a bystander would be decent enough to call me and and ambulance if needed. I know my nine-year-old has my number memorized. Sticking it on a slip of paper in their pocket isn't too hard either.

"Helping" would be walking up to the kids and asking "Hey, is your Mom or Dad around"? "You guys OK?" Certainly the 9-year-old and most likely the 6-year-old (these aren't non-verbal toddlers we're talking about) could have had a conversation with the woman about how they were playing at the park on a nice Saturday morning while their dad ran errands. It is not "helpful" to stare at kids for an hour and then call the cops.

For the sake of argument, If you were a parent and returned to see someone walking up to your child (even if her intentions were pure), I'd imagine you would be really concerned and may even consider calling the police on her.

Actually the father thought he had been gone for 45 minutes. It seems either no one bothered to talk to the kids, or what they said wasn't included in the article. Either way; So? Does the park become more dangerous at minute 46? She knew the kids were safe because she sat there for an hour (creepily watching them) and saw that nothing bad happened to them. And what's more, their father - who should be the one making the decision to let them play there or not - felt that they were safe. The cops did not give them any added safety. In fact, calling the cops made these kids and all kids in the area less safe, because now parents will be afraid to let their kids learn some independence by playing at the park, all the neighborhood kids will know each other less, etc.

Regina - *I* would not be concerned about that, and I certainly wouldn't waste the cops' time with something like that. I wouldn't leave my kids at the park unless I was confident I had taught them the skills to stay safe, including; talking to strangers is fine, you just can't go anywhere with them.

Regina, I would not consider calling the cops if I saw someone approaching my child. My children know more in our community than I do because they are out all day playing and meeting people. I would walk up to them, introduce myself, and hear the story of how they know each other. I would react according to how my children were. If they were upset or uncomfortable, then I would look further into it.

@Amanda... Actually, both the father and boy thought he had been gone for 45 minutes, according to the criminal complaint. But that was impossible because he checked into the LA Fitness at noon and didn't return until 1 p.m. Plus, he admitted to going to Walmart before and getting stuck in Easter weekend traffic.

hence why I said "may even consider". I don't believe for a minute that a good parent's alarm wouldn't go off, even if it's just to inquire as to what the conversation was about. Once you're confident that it's innocent, you'll calm down but I'm a firm believer that for at least a minute, you'll wonder "what's going on?" as you approached them.

@Mike then I'm going to guess that's the standard answer the children and father have agreed to give to busybodies.

@Regina No, no alarm would go off in my head. My daughter is highly social (in contrast to myself, my husband and our sons), and talks to nearly every person she encounters. If that threw off an alarm for me, I would constantly have an alarm going off and would probably go insane.

Regina, I can't even *imagine* calling the cops on a person talking to my child. In fact, I'd probably not even interfere at first. Talking to strangers is *not* dangerous! Frankly I'd probably look upon the interaction my kid was having with this other person as something I'd thank the other for. It is just these kinds of connections that do in fact keep our kids safe.

I'm right there for pity's sake! Should I be worried that the adult *just might* run off with my kid? Better keep my finger poised over the speed dial number for the cops!

oh absolutley she did. This is absurd. The children were not left "ALONE" in a park. there were other families there, parents and children playing. I have been in the park many times and as an adult been defaulted to watching all the children. Had total strangers ask me to keep an eye on theirs while they went to do something, or picked up a strange child who scraped a knee and updated whoever came to pick him up. this is playground protocol. ESPECIALLY for children you know. I find it fascinating that no one has had the balls to explain what really happened here. Carraige Park is a Hindu community. She didnt talk to the children and just called the police because she didnt want to deal with the Indians...

Snap out of it all of you. This was a misuse of police and was nothing more than blantant racism. You do not call the police if there is an issue with a child you KNOW. You take them home, or call the parents. I know this guy. Personally and professionally. I have watched the children. He ADORES those children. And they him. The article doesnt mention that he had been there at the park for over an hour playing tennis with the kids. He did not go and drop them off... they had been there and then he went to run some errands. Best decision in the world? obviously not... child endagerment?? come on!!

That's kind of a red herring, though, isn't it? The fact that the dad decided Wal*Mart was too crowded, and that staying there AND getting a shower would be too much, has absolutely no bearing on whether the kids were safe at the park or whether it was legal to leave them there.

Oh, also, the fact that LA Fitness has a play area is also a red herring. It has nothing to do with whether the kids were safe at the park or whether it was legal to leave them there.

MP... If you trust the police, the father admitted to them that he had second thoughts about leaving the kids alone. That's not a red herring. Personally, I don't care what this guy did or didn't do, but how hard would it have been to pile him in the car and take them to Walmart to get snacks?

It doesn't matter how hard it would have been. It is healthier for kids to be playing outside at the park than to be inside walmart. It is statistically safer for the kids to play at the park than to ride in a car.

Mike, I think perhaps you don't know what a red herring is? A red herring is when you introduce an argument that has nothing to do with the original question. A red herring may be true -- and I believe it is true that the dad felt waiting at Wal*Mart would take too long, and that he didn't want to leave his kids that long -- but that doesn't make it not a red herring.

The questions here are whether the children were safe at the park, and whether it was legal to leave them. The fact that the father didn't want to leave them long enough to finish shopping at Wal*Mart does not tell us whether the kids were safe, or whether it was legal.

Also, pointing out that it would not be difficult to take the kids along to Wal*Mart is yet another red herring. Again, it does not affect whether the children or safe, or whether it was legal to leave them. Maybe you could take a step back and think about addressing the actual questions here.

@MP... Then let me break down this situation with no red herrings. The father left his kids alone at Scott Park for two hours. Police thought that was negligent on his part. They charged him with two counts of child endangerment.

Your perception of whether the kids were safe are as much of an opinion as the police officer's interpretation of the law that they were put in a dangerous situation.

@Mike- It doesn't matter that he had misgivings. It doesn't mean that it is unsafe or negligent to leave kids to play at a park alone for a couple of hours. What it does mean is that it is normal for all parents to be nervous about their kids experiencing independence. As Mary, Martha, and the mom who called the cops have shown us, sometimes the fear is extreme and verges on hysterics, and others just experience some minor qualms as the dad did. What parent hasn't been nervous about their child? It's totally normal. But, ti doesn't negate the fact that the kids were safe at the park and did fine. The mom watching them and the police coming did not make them any safer.

That's correct. The boy apparently gave the officer the phone number and he answered while driving back from LA Fitness.

Slaqueur... The father's name is listed in the charges. Police did not release the woman's name. That's not her fault. The criminal complaint didn't say, but I'm working to find out if she went over to talk to the kids or not.

The father has the right to know who his accuser is, it's not the public's right to know though. However, I think since the police were called while the father was gone it isn't a case of the neighbor being the accuser. If leaving your child is a crime, then he was caught in the act and it's not the neighbor being the one accusing. She is the person who tipped the police, not the actual accuser. If the father didn't break the law and the neighbor simply over reacted, then the police would have the responsibility to tell the neighbor thanks but no law as broken. Everyone arguing that this was the father's right to leave them there because it was his judgement regarding his kids needs to remember that it was this neighbors right to call the police to protect these kids (if needed) because it was her right to her judgement as well.

No, it is not a right to tie up the police phone line with things that are not a crime, or to take up a police officer's time by having him investigate children being perfectly fine at the park, because that could (there's that word you guys love so much!) prevent someone that actually needed the police from getting help. And if letting your kids play at the park IS a crime, the law needs to be changed STAT.

Amanda, you need to read my other posts because I'm haven't been talking about "coulds". I said to not bother with what ifs and to focus on what IS. If it's a crime then he violated the law. I've said that consistently. If you don't like the law, then you're welcome to move to change it. But if it is the law, which the police seemd to think it is, then he deserved to be arrested. People need to get involved with what they think is a violation of the law, by not doing so you allow your community to welcome crime. The neighbor felt it was illegal and apparently she's not alone. We complain that neighbors don't bother keeping a heads up for our kids any more, yet when one does, people name call and call her a busybody. That's just wrong.

If it is a law, it is a law because of coulds, because those kids were fine. And if a law is wrong, no he does not deserve to be arrested for it. He may be arrested for it because that is the law, but he does not deserve it. I HOPE my neighborhood welcomes the crime of letting kids play at the park. She wasn't watching out for those kids, she was making herself feel better by stopping someone that used a parenting method she disagreed with, because again, those kids were fine.

@Regina. The problem is not whether there are child endangerment laws. The problem is that by their nature these laws do not try to describe every possible situation (of course) and this case clearly defies all reason in interpreting this situation as "child endangerment". Child endangerment laws COULD interpret such things as taking your children ice-skating as child endangerment, but no one gets arrested for that because everybody knows better. What about camping, hiking the mountains, football, bicycle riding, or just running around the house? All frankly much more dangerous. The astonishing thing is that in this case the woman should know better, and definitely the police should know better, but neither one exercised the common sense the law was intended to be applied with in the first place. No one questions whether the law exists and is good. That is a complete non issue in this instance. It is the radical interpretation of the law that is being applied in this circumstance by those enforcing it that people find repulsive.

John, I can see your point. However, this whole debate has been a matter of speculation. You're saying it's a matter of interpretation but others in the debate have villified the cop for the arrest and ignored the fact that the father's not had his hearing. It may very well be that the charges are dropped. I even said if that's the case the cops needed education about what specifically is the law and the father deserved an apology. It seems that most are choosing to see only parts of comments and not reading everything I'm saying. It is about the law, because this article was a report on the arrest, not about the father's right to parent. I understand people are passionate about how they feel the correct way to parent is. However the same people who are saying for people to butt out of how they parent their kids are criticizing others way to parent as well. My comments were based on the fact that if the law of Collier Township is that it's not legal, then he is indeed worthy of being charged. If a judge sees that the charges are unfound, then yes.. drop them. The article is about the charges! This article was commented by a person in Australia (Lenore from freerangekids.org) She doesn't know the streets that surround this park, nor do most of the people commenting. It's not crime riddled, but there are few sidewalks and a very congested main road. This isn't a blanket "all kids should get to play at the park" sort of debate.

I am not a trained EMT and if I suffered a concussion and didn't have my cell phone I wouldn't have a way to get to the ER either (since I shouldn't drive until being checked out) so should I have my mommy follow me around even though I'm 32?

I'm glad you're a FORMER teacher, then. How many of those bloody noses resulted in death or permanent injury? There were obviously people around that could have called 911 if needed. If we live our lives in fear of what COULD happen, we'd all just stay inside 24/7, in houses made completely of fire-proof rubber. I would say a person that has never had stitches, a broken bone, or a bloody nose has lived a very sad life.

Oh for heaven's sake! So our kids can't play in place where there isn't an EMT available immediately?? Guess I made a huge mistake (and was TOTALLY negligent) for teaching my daughter to not only sail, but (shudder) to ski as well. I'm not an EMT, and just IMAGINE the things that could occur on a boat out on a big lake, or worse on a mountain in the WINTER no less.

Classic worst case thinking. If it *could possibly* go wrong, we imagine it, and then shake our fingers at those who didn't prepare for it.

. . . . (sniff? sniff?) yup there it is again - the stench of moral superiority. 'I'm better than you because MY kids (or charges) would be safer than yours'.

Disgusting.

Chris,you are 32,not 6 or 9.Amanda,it sounds like you are a very bitter person.I am also thinking you are not a parent.I was a wonderful teacher and LOVED every child I taught, even the ones who were clearly neglected at home.We don't know that there were "obviously people around that could have called 911 if needed." It isn't others' responsibility to watch these kids.It is the father's-the man who left them there for hours while he went to Walmart and to shower.And it is absurd to say that one has "lived a very sad life" if having never broken a bone or had stitches! RAILMEAT,"Oh for heaven's sake," I NEVER said they can't play where there isn't an EMT--And I doubt you sent your daughter skiing alone at age 6 or 9,leaving her at the slopes for hours or sent your daughter to sail alone in a lake at age 6 or 9 and you went to do errands. Really,I am far from one who claims any "moral superiority!".I just care about kids, those who are neglected and those who are not. I have witnessed at Scott Park, on many occasions, kids left alone who cracked their heads open from falling off of the climbing apparatus, and kids falling from bikes and breaking an arm, and a child who fell off of a swing and got a concussion, and those were 3 times that these kids were without a parent or guardian.I DID step up to the plate and tried to console until I could reach the police and EMTs.Where were you?What would you have done?It's time to stop bashing those of us who merely care for these two.

@fc You'd be wrong, I have 4 kids. And they have had bloody noses, they have fallen off monkey bars and bikes, they have lost teeth, they have had nausea and vomiting (though not from dehydration, since we taught them from birth to drink when they are thirsty, and we don't limit the times they can drink as schools often do) - all while either I or my husband, often both, were watching them. We then taught them how to deal with such a situation if it should happen while we weren't. Guess what usually happens? When an adult is there, the kid makes a fuss about it, and the adult gives them attention. When an adult isn't there, they get up and wipe their nose or dust themselves off and keep playing. Again I ask, how many of these things you have seen have resulted in permanent damage? The only permanent damage I have seen is some permanently stained shirts, which is not worth keeping my kids inside for. In addition, how would their parent being there have prevented these things? Unless you're suggesting, as someone else said, that we follow along behind our children with our arms out so that if they fall they won't get hurt? How's that going to work for me, when I have 2 arms and 4 kids?

I guess you could call me bitter, because I am hostile against teachers - which most kids spend more of their waking hours with than their parents - having the kind of attitude you have. It's one of the many reasons I don't let teachers raise my kids.

Don't they have a Block Parent program, or is that just in Canada? I am a Block Parent, meaning I have had criminal record checks etc, and I have a sign in my window letting neighborhood children know that I am home and able to help in case of an emergency. Even if there is no Block Parent, at that age they would surely know to go to someones door and ask them to call for help.

Kids get hurt. It happens. Take them to the doctor, get it fixed, and they heal. And, since it is a park, there would likely be an adult there who would have the decency to call the dad (the kids knew his phone number) and an ambulance if needed. Kids aren't going to die from those things. A parent being there won't keep it from happening.

Also, I do consider it my responsibility to look out for other people's children. It's not like a kid at the park has to be supervised by strangers. Certainly all it requires is going to help them if they scream out.) I would hazard a guess that many others on here do as well. I care about the welfare of others. I would help an adult or child if they needed it (and have many times.) I certainly wouldn't call the police if a child were hurt and the parent weren't around. I would call their parent or walk them home. I find it sad that there are people around who don't feel like they have a responsibility to help others when it's needed. Instead they harm a parent for doing something innocuous like letting his kids play at the park. And it isn't to help. It's so that they can feel morally superior. She did not help those children in any way, and neither did the police. The kids were doing just fine on their own.

What if the kids had fun on the playground? What if nothing happened? What if other kids had come along to play with them? You can't live your life in fear, otherwise that's not living.

There obviously is no specific law or he would have been charged with a more specific violation than child endangerment. Child endangerment is a broad charge of we don't like how you are raising your kids, so we are charging you with a very non-specific crime. All it takes is one cop to not like what he did. You could have 20 or 30 cops who think it's okay, but if the one or two who went to the scene think it's wrong, that's all it takes. I can tell you, from having a dad who is ex-law enforcement that they could have just told the lady to move on and that there was nothing to see. They could have just called the dad to see what was going on. They have that flexibility since he did not break a specific law, but rather did something that can be judged by opinion.

SusanOR... By that reasoning, people who drink and drive, but make it home safely, didn't commit a crime.

@Mike if drunk drivers didn't have a high rate of notable accidents, it wouldn't be illegal. Kids playing at the park don't have a high rate of notable accidents nor abductions.

@Amanda... That's your interpretation of the law. Other people have different opinions on the child endangerment charges. But the only people that really matter are the police who filed the charges and the district judge who will decide if the case heads to court. The father hasn't been convicted of anything yet. The DJ could very well throw all the charges out.

Those are the only people that will decide if he is guilty or not. But the fact that this might even be considered a crime matters to every single parent and child in the country.

@Amanda, you are so right about it mattering to every parent n this country. It's scary that one or two people can decide on a whim that something that most of us here consider healthy and normal is child endangerment. Taking your kid in a car is more dangerous than what this man did, so why isn't every parent getting in trouble for that?

We need to spread our voice that this kind of intrusion is not okay. It needs to be normal again that kids are allowed to play on their own. I find the hysterics and fear mongering to be a crisis situation. It's scary.

Unfortunately the latest generation of hover parents, whose ultimate goal is to judge other parents and feel that they and their child are superior to everyone else ARE worrying about every single possible scenario to the point that childhood has been sanitized. And we wonder why we have a nation of fat, TV and video game addicted kids who don't know how to play well with others, who can't work out their own issues, and who are so dependent on their parents that they when they get older they have their parents call their bosses at work (yes, this is a new thing that is going on) when they get in trouble and live at home until they are 30.

"It's like when our children are first learning to walk, we walk behind them with our arms just far enough to catch them from falling onto the edge of the table."

(Wow. Just wow.) I did not do that with my 4 kids. Should I be arrested, or should we just agree that different parenting methods are okay, since my kids managed to learn to walk without any permanent damage?

You didn't stand behind them during their first steps? I'm not saying the entire time they were learning. But I'm assuming you were near. Which was exactly my point. You didn't baby proof your home? not excessively but enough to keep the detergents from being ingested? or the outlets from getting played with? If you didn't, fall to your knees and thank your lucky stars your kids are ok. Like I said, it's risk ASSESSMENT. And, like I said, this is about judgement. I give the father his right to choose but if he chose to break the law, he broke it. PERIOD.

Do you really never let your kids out of the sight of someone who has CPR certification?

I don't have it. Most of my friends and relatives don't have it. Most people I know don't have it. My four brothers and I grew up without my parents ever having it. Most people in the world don't have it.

Unless you make sure that your children are never out of the sight of some person who has CPR certification, then whether the nine year old had it is irrelevant. Kids generally do spend time without someone with CPR certification nearby. Since very few people ever need CPR, and the chances of anything happening at a park to a healthy child that would require it are so small as to be almost non-existent, that's just not a reasonable concern.

No, Regina, I did not stand behind them while they took their first steps. I may have been a bit away, taking pictures, but when they took their first steps I was confident that they were mature enough to take their first steps. Yes I was near - but they were babies then. By 6 and 9 they were no longer babies and I had long before accepted that. I was able to let go of them the small amount that it took to let them take those first steps, because I knew that standing behind them would only delay them stepping further and further away from me, and would only make it hurt more when they finally did.

Yes it hurts to let go. But I know I have to let go, to let them fall that first time. There's a reason babies and children have softer bones than adults; they are MEANT to fall. We aren't meant to prevent them from falling, because that only means they will still be "falling" when they are adults, when it is going to do worse damage. I know that by catching my child that is trying to take his first steps, or by not letting my 9 year old play on the playground, I would be doing more harm than good. So I don't stand there with my arms out. I don't babyproof my home, I instead teach my child not to do things like play with electrical outlets, because what happens when we visit a home that isn't babyproofed? My baby already knows not to play with the outlets, while you have to sit there watching yours. And sure, sitting there watching may make you feel good about yourself now. But it can't last forever. You will have to let go sometime. It might be when they go off to college, it might even not be until you die of old age. Whenever it is, I'd rather my kids be prepared for it, that they get in practice while they are young.

Amanda, my kids are grown or nearly grown. I have 3. I covered the outlets AND taught them they were dangerous. I agree that parents often consider the babyproofing as a means to relax because their kids can't "get to them". The same parents are probably shocked when the kids end up taking the covers of the outlets off. As for me, I did both, because I knew there were those 10 second intervals where I could be changing another child's diaper and the older child, still a toddler, could get to it. I wasn't obsessed, I was just prepared. I was a girl scout for 12 yrs as a child and always planned ahead. I'd appreciate if you don't assume, because thru my posts I never attacked anyone else. i don't know you, you don't know me. I've raised law abiding, free thinking citizens who are active in both their own lives and the community. They venture off and take on new experiences on a daily basis. One child has even travelled internationally without me with boy scouts. As did I when I was 14, without my parents. It's not "all or nothing" in parenting. You can be protective and still give your children age appropriate experiences. I travelled abroad for 3 weeks at 14 because my parents knew who I'd be with. Same with my son. You can't protect your child from life, but in their formidable years, you can make them feel safe enough to know they can fail and still survive. Over doing it is the extreme and causes issues, but letting kids make adult decisions is the extreme too.

Amanda, the first steps comment was about when they were babies. Please read the entire comment. The comment was all about how we allow appropriate risks. And that we do let them fall. Mine fell often, and learned to brush themselves off. The CPR certification was sarcasm. 2 of my 3 children are CPR certified. I think it's a good idea. Was it required? No. The CPR comment was in reference to someone saying that the parent needs to prepare them for "what ifs" I agree. The sarcasm is that at 6 and 9, you don't necessarily have the chance to prepare them for everything.

You may not think you are attacking anyone, but you are attacking the way of life of many people reading this. If you did not allow a 6 and 9 year old to play at the park, then I find it very hard to believe that you gave appropriate experiences. The idea of age appropriate is flawed - things are specific to each specific child. What one child may be ready for at 9, another may not be ready for until 13, and yet another may be ready for at 6. This father was the best person to decide if these specific children were ready for this experience.

Child endangerment is a broad charge that can encompass pretty much anything that one cop decides on. He didn't break any specific law. He just used different judgement than the mom or cop. That is all he is guilty of.

And, maybe his kids were ready for that space you are talking about.

Amanda, we didn't either. We did not interfere with her walking other than to pad sharp edges. We did very little childproofing other than a few padded corners, outlet covers, and putting poisons out of her reach. We kept an eye on her and taught her the word no. Our child never got hurt. She also climbs trees, plays in the neighborhood with her friends, rides bikes, skateboards, jumps on her bed, and has never been injured beyond a cut or bruise. She's 9. I can't help but think it's because we have never tried to prevent every bump and bruise. By letting her get slight injuries and teaching her to shake them off, she's been able to learn what works and what doesn't. She's developed skills like balance, agility, and confidence. In the long run, it makes her less likely to get severe injuries. If/when she does break an arm, we'll get her a cast and it will heal. End of story.

True story and the scariest part of this.

People can travel through the internet now?!??! The diffecente between the two situations is that the bike patrolman TALKED TO the "young ones" (I noticed that you didn't mention the ages of any of the "young ones" involved, but that is neither here nor there) and stopped a crime. That's very different than watching children that are completely fine for an hour and then the police charging their father with a crime. Talk to "young ones" and if something is wrong, set it right, if nothing is wrong, be happy that you live somewhere that nothing is wrong and go about your life.

*the difference between

On what basis do you believe in more information than the paper is reporting?

Let's not criminalize parenting decisions... it is hard enough to parent without people that don't even know the situation are trying to second-guess.

Perhaps he did play tennis with them. Though if he was playing tennis enough to need a shower, he obviously played with another adult as well. Have you ever played real tennis? Have you ever played ANY sport with a 6 and 9 year old? It is completely different, due to differing physical abilities. Are you saying a parent should never be able to do an activity that doesn't involve their child?

There's nothing weak about that argument. It isn't just coincidence that the rates of obesity started to skyrocket once people became afraid to let their kids play outside. Kids need more sugar and fat than adults, and therefore need more exercise and have more endurance. A child can not get the amount of exercise they need with an average adult constantly at their side.

And kids are safer at a playground than they are in a car.

I'm saying as an adult, you're NOT ALLOWED to compromise a child's safety just to cater to what is comfortable for you to do.

Do you have some other situation in mind where the children's safety was compromised? Because they were evidently perfectly safe in the situation in this article -- they even had a law-abiding adult keeping an eye on them.

this law abiding citizen you're saying was keeping an eye on them is also being verbally attacked for being a busy body. She was keeping an eye on them because the father was failing to be there to do it himself. For the record, that's my opinion, it's not relevant to the CASE. This news report was regarding the charges and the comments give us all the right to share are opinion. Those who disagree with me have the right to do so of course, but to argue that the cops didn't have the right to charge him is pointless if it's the law of this land. And frankly, if we're going to mandate people use seatbelts or not talk on their cell phones while driving or even keeping lead out of paint, then we're going to have to accept that the authorities have the right to insist that parents do their job and not leave children unattended in potentially dangerous situations.

What law of this land are you citing? The law that says that cops can arrest and charge people with a crime any time that, in their subjective judgement, something bad "could have happened" because of their actions that actually aren't in violation of any specific law? There's actually no such law, but there's a law against that kind of excessive police authority; it's called the constitution.

Pentomom? did you see all the countless posts where I said "let's find out what the law is?" And I did say due process was intact to ensure these charges are dropped if infact they are w/o merit. I'm fully aware of the Constitution. But, the site youre affiliated to keeps commenting on our local news based on what your moral agenda is. I've not ever questioned your right to your opinion, but unless you know what the local laws state, then you're without merit in regards to accusing the cops of infringing his Constitutional rights. Seems to me you've neglected to read all the comments but instead you're jumping on the band wagon in regards to your freerange counterparts are referring to. I repeat for those lazy enough to not read all my posts: I said we need to find out what thet law is, before we pass judgement on either the father or the person who reported it. There, I hope that clarifies it all as to what my opinion on THE CASE is, now as far as your parenting style versus mine, you raise your kids, I'll raise mine and as long as neither sets of kids violates the law, we'll be fine. Don't like the law? then change it, peacefully. God Bless America! Citizens have the right to do that.

Neither of those things has anything to do with whether the kids were safe playing at the park. Maybe the kids would rather play at the park and he felt they were mature enough. I know my child would rather play at the park than go do those things if I gave her the choice. Sometimes, she does choose to stay home by herself if I go to the store. She knows what to do if something goes wrong.

How can you constantly watch your child and post these comments at the same time?

wow Amanda, sounds like you're judging me.... Something you basically said I don't have the right to do to this guy who's been arrested. (Which by the way, I've said it's a matter of law vs not law, all along.)

I see a very large difference between a 9 year old and a 3 year old. I'm sorry that happened to you, but statistically speaking, how many people do you know where something like that has happened (besides yourself)?

Oh, I agree. My point isn't the capabilities of each age group. My point was that if we can't control what's on our door step, then we surely cant' control a public park. The park is in a good area, true. But in my case, like so many horrible cases, the person was "passing thru" It's about what a child can handle mentally and parents assessing the risks. I've said all along that though this father may have exhibited what I think is poor judgement, the question is "what is the law?"

Regina, in your last comment you said, " It's about what a child can handle mentally and parents assessing the risks. " Who, besides the parents, would know what their kid could handle any better? NOBODY. I've also seen kids whose parents were fearful of everything, and sheltered them. You know what they're like later in life? Scared of everybody, and scared to do anything for themselves. They were never taught to think for themselves, and were taught to be afraid of everything. That's the real abuse honestly, not a father who leaves his perfectly capable kids in the park for a couple of hours.

You can parent your kids however you want, but seriously, unless mine need help, are injured, in danger, then it's none of your business what I do. According to the article they were in no danger, except from the creepy woman who wouldn't take her eyes off of them.

Michelle, I think we're actually saying the same thing. See? You said if they are in danger, it's someone else's business too. Did anyone consider that perhaps the woman who was keeping tabs on these kids possibly had to leave the park and could no longer make sure they weren't in danger? I think people are assuming she was a resident and had all day to watch them. She may have needed to leave and didn't want to trust fate to keep these kids safe. In any case, she perceived there to be a danger if someone else didn't watch them. I would never condone a busybody to butt in if it was merely a case of how I do things vs how you do things. It's our right as parents to decide those things, HOWEVER... I've said all along that it's not about judgement. It's about law. I've said from the start that we need to be informed what the law states and not condemn either the woman who reported it nor should we condemn the man. I wouldn't have left my kids there, but like I said, that's my OPINION.

I didn't say you don't have the right to judge anyone. You do have that right. You just don't have the right to arrest someone because of your opinion. You were mixing morals/opinions and laws. Just because something is against the law does not mean it is wrong and anyone that violates that law DESERVES to be arrested. There have been many things done in the world that were against the law at the time, but that needed to be done, and that deserved to be done, to stand up for human rights.

Now, it sounds like you didn't answer my question. I'm honestly curious. If it isn't safe to leave your child "alone" - that is, out of the eyesight of their parent - how do you get anything done?

I didn't feel I needed to answer your question about how I get things done while posting these comments. Because, not that it's anyone's business but my kids are older and adult. My kids have turned into independent FREE THINKERS despite me taking my parental job seriously enough to make their immediate environment safe. I worried, but never enough to limit their experiences. I prayed A LOT. And with my faith, I trusted those that I made a point to get to know before leaving my children in their care. My parenting style isn't the only way to parent, but it was a compromise between what I was comfortable with and what I assessed as reasonable risks. Would I leave my children 3 miles from home while I went to Walmart 2 miles away? No. Do I think the man endangered his kids to do so, Yes. But is it illegal? The police think so based on their understanding of the law. If infact, it's not illegal I'd be the first to say the police need educated and he should be apologized to. I've said all along it's judgement that leads our decisions as parents, judgement is not black and white. there are a lot of grays. But, if the law is not black and white, it should be rewritten.

Someone attempted to abduct me form our apartment parking lot when I was 4. I still remember it. My mom taught me what to do and I started kicking, screaming, etc... Yet, I still let my child walk and ride around our neighborhood on her own or with friends. I actually had the experience myself. It was scary, but I don't let it scare me. My mother WAS abducted as a teen and beat up and had rape attempted on her by a young man who she knew of but did not know. She was half naked and ran away. Guess what? She still let me do the things I let my daughter do.

Please get up to date on your statistics. Just because a kid is MISSING doesn't mean they're kidnapped. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2810#1

@Michelle: Did I say anything about kidnapping? Nope. The stats I provided are from the same source as yours (missingkids.com).

What does that have to do with this story. By your own admission, those aren't all kidnappings. We know statistically that most missing kids run away or are abducted by a family member. So, I'm confused as to what your point is other than to post a random statistic out of context to make it seem like these kids were more danger than they were. That's manipulation and adds nothing to the conversation.

The kids can't be lured away if the nine year old knew not to be lured away. If the parent didn't teach a nine year old not to go with strangers, THAT'S a parenting fail. Leaving kids who are old enough to know that is not.

"Was there no water at their residence?"

Maybe there wasn't. It happens.

"They were, they were protecting their kids from a parent that left them alone while he ran errands. "

Which harmed them, how? Kids need to be protected from harm, not from things that might cause harm if a whole series of other, already criminal, acts occur.

That's like saying that kids need to be protected from riding bikes because someone COULD come along and steal their bike and smash them over the head with it. But it's not riding the bike that's a problem, and it's not letting two kids, one of whom is definitely old enough to know that you don't go wandering off with people you don't know, play in the park that's the problem.

And I wish people would stop saying "alone." How can two people be "alone?" If you mean "without direct adult supervision," say so.

"They [the cops] were, they were protecting their kids from a parent that left them alone while he ran errands."

Police State, here we come. Evidently we need the police to protect our children from their parents whenever a decision is made that flies in the face of the worst possible event that could occur.

"Sir, I'm taking you into custody for child endangerment. I see you have your son sitting in a sunny place near a large window. Clearly you do not understand the horrific consequences of any sort of object flying through that window. And don't get me started on skin cancer. Come along quietly now."

There is a greater chance of a child being struck by lightning than a child being forcibly taken from a place visible to the public by an unknown person.

So yes, It *could* happen. The question is whether the chance of it happening is great enough to require adjusting parental behavior to such a tiny chance.

Tell you what Dean, I won't question your parenting style if you don't feel it necessary to have the cops enforce your parenting style upon me.

Fair 'nuff?

I disagree that it's "normal" to leave your 6 and 9 year old kids alone in a public park for two hours. I live in a very good neighborhood with lots of parks, which my child and nice and nephews and neighbors frequent, and I have never seen any kids that young without adult supervision for that long a period of time. In fact, even when someone has to run to their car or run home, they ask a friend to watch their kids for the ten or so minutes that they have to be away from their kids. The risk of abduction or running into the street and getting hit by a car or even falling off the monkey bars and breaking an arm trumps the "freerangekids" idea. That's my opinion. Also my opinion, "freerangekids" is an excuse to be a slacker-parent. There are other, BETTER ways to promote self-reliance than to leave your 6 and 9 year old children alone in a public park for two hours.

Mike,
Lenore Skenazy's “Take Our Children to the Park…And Leave Them There Day” initiative is an important thing. It urges us to embrace our communities, to trust our neighbors, and most importantly, to trust our children.

I found this article via Free Range Kids, but I grew up in Peters Twp., and I was 11 when Christine Guenther was abducted and murdered. You can bet that when I was out in the woods behind the Elby's on Rt. 19 with a friend, and we weren't home on time, that our parents were scared. But they didn't restrict our comings and goings. We didn't have lockdown. I'm sure we got the "don't go with strangers" lecture, but honestly, I can't remember it. Oh, how times have changed.

The whole idea behind "free-range" parenting is that a child's parents, NOT the authorities, can decide when a child is capable of handling certain situations. I feel sure that Mr. Narayanasamy felt that his children were capable of taking care of themselves in a public park. Why should anyone other than parents decide at what age their child is capable of doing certain things?

And what kind of world are we creating for our children if everything is to be feared? I blame the 24-hour news cycle for the fearmongering.

@Alison... I think you bring up a lot of great points. The Free Range idea obviously has a lot of merits. Seems like a fine way to raise a child.

What I'm having trouble understanding is this backlash against the woman who called police. Was she supposed to assume that everything was fine and that the father, himself, was subscribing to Free Range (I don't think anything indicates he was. He basically left them there to run errands). Actually showing concern for someone else should be commended, not condemned, in my opinion.

@Mike - I personally am not condemning the woman's concern. In fact, that goes to show why free-range parenting works. The world is more good than bad. However, what I don't agree with is her decision to call the cops. Have you figured out if she talked to the kids yet? Again, nowhere does your article state the kids were in distress so why did she feel the need to call the cops for 2 kids playing in a park?

@Chris... I just spoke to the Scott Township police chief and he said the woman went over to the kids after noticing they were alone. She talked to the boy and he told her that their father was parking the car at LA Fitness. If you know anything about this area, that gym is about three miles away and a 15-minute drive, so she thought that was a strange answer. The police chief agrees that it didn’t really make any sense. After they were alone for another hour, she thought something might be wrong and called police. I’ll have an update with more info from the police chief shortly.

oohhhhhh. So when something doesn't make sense to the police chief, it becomes a crime and a chargable offense.

"Also my opinion, "freerangekids" is an excuse to be a slacker-parent."

Ahhh yes - right on schedule. That 'ol moral superiority cropping up again.

But no matter . . . . so, tell me Resident: What are these better ways of teaching self reliance? You know, the ones other than letting children learn to rely upon themselves?

Railmeat, i'm pretty sure you won't get an answer to your last question, because it seems as if the best way to teach self-reliance is to never ever EVER take your eyes off your children, no matter how old they are.

Resident, I would've called the police after I observed you observing strange kids for two hours. I mean how creepy!

More careful of what? They weren't hurt or harmed at all. They were at the park playing and having fun. The only thing he needs to be careful of are the busy bodies who try to impose their hysterics and unlikely what-ifs on other people.

"She questioned why someone should be charged if no one was harmed."

Yes, but that was all in the CONTEXT of what we're talking about here, not as an abstract principle. It's meant to extend to *this situation* -- kids playing in the park is not inherently dangerous, no one was harmed here, this should not be a criminal act. It is not intended to extend to every situation where no harm results -- the guy shot his gun at me, he had bad aim, and I wasn't hurt.

"Yeah, again you failed to see the sarcasm. I said repeatedly that you parent yours and we'll parent ours."

Wait, we're talking about Mr. Narayanasamy, who when he "parented his" got a free ride in a governmentally decorated vehicle. But now you're saying it's about parenting your own kids your own way? I'm really confused.

@pentamom... Just so you know, the father wasn't cuffed or arrested. In misdemeanors, the police take your name and information, and send you a summons in the mail. He went home with his kids that afternoon.

And here's the law that police cited in the charges. It's pretty vague, but seems to give them the ability to make that judgment...

4304. Endangering welfare of children.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a
duty of care, protection or support.

@Resident... I mentioned that in the comments section, but that's apparently a red herring and we don't want any of those when forming an opinion about someone's parenting skills.

Geezzzz...even the Dad who did it admits it was wrong...Would love to hear what the MOM thinks...I am saddened to read comments from so many who have no clue about the ramifications of young CHILDREN left alone in a public park. Aren't they "lucky" to have never witnessed a child without supervision, get hurt or even MISS their parent and become afraid of being alone. How "lucky" they are that their children have never been in that situation. How wonderful for them that their 6 and 9 year olds, and they at age 6 and 9, were so mature that they could handle adult (emergency) situations, and how LUCKY they will be, if none of these "could haves" ever happen to them or someone they know, in their lifetime...

fc, well said. Thank you. I do want to add too though, if it's illegal to do so.. how lucky they are for having never been caught before. (assuming if they did it before).

It is a red herring, because "I was wrong" does not come close to establishing that police should be involved and criminal charges should be brought. Everyone here has made an error in parenting judgment, I guarantee you. It takes a lot more than that to make it even a matter for police investigation, let alone criminal charges.

I wouldn't do what this guy did, but that's a far cry from saying it's a crime. Is the definition of crime now "something I consider poor judgment that actually doesn't have any negative effect on anyone?"

@pentamom ... Once again, if someone goes to the bar, gets drunk as a skunk, walks to his car and drives home without being involved in a car accident, was a crime committed. No one was harmed, right? What if he's driving home and is stopped by police as he pulls into his driveway? Would his legal defense be: "Nothing bad happened"?

@Mike There have been studies to show what blood alcohol level affects driving. And they don't just say "everyone that has had x amount of drinks is drunk" - they actually test each person's blood alcohol level, because the amount of drinks needed to get to the unacceptable level varies from person to person.

Until there are a comparable number of studies that show at which maturity level children are likely to be harmed at a park without direct parental supervision, and until there is a device to measure each individual child's maturity level comparable to a breathalyzer for testing blood alcohol level, drunk driving is not a valid analogy.

@Amanda... That wasn't Penamom's argument. She questioned why someone should be charged if no one was harmed. Causing injury or harm isn't a requirement for criminal charges. The Free Range Group has a philosophy about raising children that I'm sure not everyone agrees with. In fact, I'm sure there are people out there who think Free Range's ideas are reckless. Opinions go both ways, as I'm sure you know.

I also wonder how people who don't live in this community and who know nothing about this area can form an opinion about whether Scott Park is safe or not. Do you know what it looks like? Do half the people on this message board even know where Scott Township is located?

I alluded to the crime issue in this area earlier, and no one answered. Is this area rampant with crime? (And I'm not talking about one kid who set up a meeting with an alleged pedophile at this park.) Is this park full of unsavory characters that pose a threat to children? Are there drive-by shootings at all hours?

@Beth... It's near a neighborhood, but is surrounded by the public works garage, wooded hillside and railroad tracks. A heavily-traveled road is right over the hill. Someone posted info about an incident at the park a few years ago.

@Mike I am aware of what pentamom was saying. I'm explaining to you why your analogy in response to pentamom is invalid. True, I don't know the area. But the father of those particular children felt his children were safe there. That's all that matters. It's fine that you disagree with the free range philosophy. I disagree with the "never let your children out of your eyesight" philosophy; but I'm not going to encourage the cops to arrest parents that use that method. It should be the parents' choice, and no one elses', whether or not each specific child is mature enough to be in each specific place.

Oh please. Once the psychopathic beaurocrats from Child Protective Services are involved, one does and says whatever it takes to make them go away.

Of course he's going to agree with the authorities who have arrested him and told him it's wrong. Agreeing it was wrong and agreeing not to do it again is probably his lawyer's advice.

He is not of American decent. Many people from other countries were taught to agree with authorities and that you do not argue with them. It is the American way to argue and fight for what you think is right. But in most other cultures, that is not the way things are done. Being that he is likely of Pakastani or Indian descent, he very likely would not disagree with someone who is an authority figure.

Wow. The cops must be pretty busy arresting all those negligent parents.

</sarc>

Thank you!!!! In Denmark, parents leave strollers outside stores while they run in to grab groceries. Why? Because they feel a part of a community that trusts one another, and feels a communal responsibility to all its children. We in America like to think we have this same attitude, but instead of watching out for one another, we rat each other out to cops and police. Then we wonder why everyone is so lonely and disconnected...

Most are posting because they found the story on their movement's website, as a commentary to Mike's story. They aren't local to us. But they seem to think they know what's best for our children.

If I was a stranger to this area, I would think that Dean and Regina bubble wrap their children and keep them under lock and key 24/7. It's not that you don't give your children freedom. But there are limits to that freedom. I'm interested in hearing what the Free Range Group plans on doing for their Park day on May 19. No one has explained what that means.

lol Mike, I think that's because people aren't reading the entire stream of conversations. Anyone who knows me, knows I managed a good balance between their right to grow up and their right to have a parent provide a safe home.

Oh, one final comment, I'm going to go spend time with my adult or semi adult kids, they need resized for their bubble wrap suits, and I need to measure their heads for new helmets.

@Mike "Take your children to the park and leave them there" day is self explanatory. You take your children - the ones that are mature enough to do so - to the park (or let them walk to the park) and leave them there, to interact with other children without their parents hovering. It's something that a generation or two ago, all kids did on regular basis, but nowadays, it turns out, it will land you in court.

@Regina you sure are a pot calling the kettle black.

@Amanda... Is this nationwide, or at community parks where Free Range is located? And what is Free Range's definition on what child is mature enough? That seems to be the heart of the issue in this situation.

Yeah, again you failed to see the sarcasm. I said repeatedly that you parent yours and we'll parent ours.

Because they were playing outside, which is healthy and fun and good for kids. I know if I gave my child the option to be dropped off at the park, she would take it in a heartbeat. She would not, however choose to be left in a car while I was off gambling. And, no one could argue that being trapped in a car for hours is healthy in any way.

@Regina- By your logic then, people outside of Treyvon Martin's area have no right to be outraged that the police in his town did not charge the shooter with a crime. By your logic, we should just let that be since they know what is best for their community.

WHAT is the law? Citation, please? Is there really a law that says a 6 and 9 year old can't play in a public park together? Or is the law more specific -- the parents has to be within a certain number of yards or miles, and there's a time limit -- 20 minutes? One hour? But one hour and one minute and it's hello, slammer?

Laws are not written that way so I am HIGHLY doubtful that there is a law that unambiguously pertains to this situation.

Nice generalization. Really nice. Best I've seen.

"Aren't involved enough in their children's lives" ??

Really? That's the problem with parenting today?

We really are on different planets Dean.

bye!

The problem with parenting today is the parents are too involved with their children's lives. Give them some damn space. They do not need every min of their day planned. They do not need activities planned for them for every waking moment. They should be allowed to make mistakes, fall down, meet people we have not had vetted by the FBI. My god people let your helicopter up a couple feet.

On the case at hand the father did not break any laws in the state of PA. There is no age restriction for leaving your children alone in the state of PA. The father used his own judgement. I am sorry if you heli-parents don't understand his decision, but this is how most of us were raised in the past in the united states. I am sorry if some how you think that there is a pedophile around every corner. There prob is but they know your kids already and are prob related to you and you don't know they are one.

Once again the FATHER has not broken any specific laws in the state of PA.

I'm sorry, but we are now living in a police state. People in the Soviet Union probably thought they were being responsible law abiding citizens when they turned their neighbors into the KGB.

That the police assuming the right to swoop on anyone anywhere is justified by 'protecting children' does not make it any more acceptable. It's about curtailing the liberties of ordinary peopel and cowing the populace.

What happend to 'home of the free'?

@Gareth... The people who actually live in this community and haven't helicoptered in from some faraway website don't feel like they're living in the Soviet Union. They're proud of this area and their police force. Most people who typically comment on this website and live here are praising the vilified woman for her concern about the situation.

Hi Mike,

So the locals are praising a woman who saw a couple of kids . . . evidently ones she knew, and decided to call the police after a period of time that she decided upon her own was too long w/o a parent nearby.

A thought: Would you call the cops on a neighbor who didn't supervise his preteen kids the way you liked? If you were truly concerned about their safety, absent any clear and obvious danger, ***AND YOU KNEW THEM*** don't you think that you might just go over and talk with them? Because that's what good neighbors do.

But she called the cops. And now their father is under investigation. The trauma to the children is real.

I'm really glad I don't live in your community.

@RailMeat... I was actually having a problem on my road last year of kids playing on the street. The problem is that cars were coming downhill around a sharp bend and couldn't see the kids, although they could see when cars were coming down the hill. They didn't move and left their toys in the road. But it was their parents who yelled at me for speeding. Sorry, but 15 mph is hardly speeding when the speed limit is 25.

It finally reached a boiling point and I stopped my car when they yelled at me to "slow the (bleep) down." It wasn't pretty or fun. I never called the cops and never intended to. But you know what? They admitted to calling the police on me and reporting my license plate number. I did nothing wrong so no tickets are charges were filed.

I doubt the woman who called police over the weekend was trying to be a tattletale. I can't speak for her, but I wonder if she ever imagined the father might be charged. I'm sure she just wanted to make sure the kids were safe. Your group disagrees, but I don't think there was anything malicious on her part.

Thanks for the reply Mike, and the illustrative story. It's too bad that the situation you describe on your street turned out as adversarial as it did. Streets are for everybody, not just cars, but it sounds like you were willing to meet half way with your neighbors. I suspect you took the wrath that the folks there were reserving for *all* the cars on that street that were driving too fast, but as you have quite correctly pointed out, I don't live there.

I suspect most folks don't intend to cause harm when they start messing in others lives, or have malicious intent. But harm is caused regardless of intent. She knew the kids, she spoke with them, and then she sic'd the cops on them. She had many courses of action open to her. The kids had dad's cell number. Somehow, I don't think safety was what was on her mind.

@RailMeat... I think the biggest problem is that the parents of those kids wouldn't teach their kids to get off the road when cars approach. Play on the street and ride your bikes all you want. But they were oblivious to traffic. It'ss a cul-de-sac, so they could've played at the end of the street and never had to move.

After talking to the police chief, it seems leaving the kids alone wasn't the problem. It's that he lied to police, didn't tell his kids what he was doing (parking the car three miles away?) or really tell them what to do if there was a problem. The chief said if they had a cell phone and gave the officers a straight answer, the father probably wouldn't have been charged. I think that's a reasonable explanation of what happened.

Kimberly...I agree with you 200%!

Good luck finding her name!

@Slaqueur... Were you able to reach Scott Township police with the number I supplied you? Any luck in exposing the busybody woman? I'll make sure to keep trying on my end.

Yes, thank goodness that woman foiled that family's evil plan to interact with people outside of their apartment complex!

Get involved in what?? Why is this woman a hero - NOTHING WAS HAPPENING!!! If she foiled a potential abduction or performed CPR or applied a tourniquet or something, sure, give her a parade. She called the cops for no reason! I don't call her a hero, I call her a meddling busybody with nothing better to do than sit in the park and pass judgement.

Someone tried to abduct me as a child and my mom did not take away my freedom. Thanks to her, I am an independent healthy adult who knows how to assess risks and take chances. I let my child do the same.

It's funny how the people from the area think this is an issue unique to them and can't see the big picture.

I've read all your posts. You're so sure what you say is right that you do not see how you are offending people that disagree with you. I'm sure there is at least one law in existence that you didn't know about that you have broken in your lifetime. And as I said earlier, something being a law does not make it morally right.

If you're read all my posts then obviously you're choosing to ignore the fact that I said parenting is a judgement call. Each person is different. Also you're choosing to ignore that i said that if the law is wrong then it should be changed. And I said that you raise your kids and I'll raise mine. So how is that thinking I'm right and you're wrong?

How can these kids possibly "win"?
Their dad is now fighting criminal charges for letting his kids play at a community park. These kids will be picked on and teased at school, CPS will try it's best to make him a monster and tear this family apart. Dad will miss work fighting this legal battle and pay hefty attorney fees instead of spending money on his family. How is this a win again?

4304. Endangering welfare of children.
(a) Offense defined.--
(1) A parent, guardian or other person supervising the
welfare of a child under 18 years of age, or a person that
employs or supervises such a person, commits an offense if he
knowingly endangers the welfare of the child by violating a
duty of care, protection or support.

Pretty vague, huh? The police officer made a judgment call using that law. Your group disagrees with it. Maybe Free Range should come to Pittsburgh to support the father during his preliminary hearing later this month.

Lesson learned, don't let your kids play in the park and end up perfectly fine. Or was it stay in your own apartment complex?

I assume the younger ones are sleeping, but I could be wrong, since they aren't within my eyesight. I haven't got the slightest idea what the oldest one is doing. I wouldn't have wanted my parents by my side at his age. If he wants to share what he is doing, he will share it with me. I'm confident he will be alive tomorrow, whatever it is.

That still isn't correct, and that would have been a good use for the reply button.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

My issue is your grammar, spelling, and (lack of) punctuation. You are right, if I were staring at my children as they slept, I would not instead be trying to decipher your messages. Fortunately for both them and myself, I do things other than stay by their side 24/7.

@Wilma... Obviously there is a serious disagreement about this issue, but I'm not sure how contacting police is either fear-mongering or a waste of taxpayer money. Their only purpose is to make sure the community and its residents are safe.

I'm not proposing we keep all our kids under house arrest. I walked to school when I was 6. During lunch breaks, the kids 9 and older were allowed to walk up to the local pizza parlor, cross a busy road and spend 30 minutes there. I played on my mom's street growing up. I played at the neighborhood parks with friends.

The only reason I think this situation is different is that the father dropped the kids off there and left. He was three miles away taking a shower. They were three miles away from home. I don't think this would even be an issue if they lived in that neighborhood, walked to that park and played there all day. You may disagree, but each situation is not black and white. This has shade of gray and the mother/officer made a decision with the details they had at the time.

They were found playing in a park not running down the middle of the road. I fail to see where this proves the dad didn't teach them "safety in transportation". Actually, wouldn't the fact that the kids stayed at the park waiting for dad like they were told to kind of prove he did teach them "safety in transportation"? They didn't try to walk around on no sidewalks or use public transportation because dad was coming back for them, just like he did.

By the way, I agree with the swearing. I don't think it's necessary nor does it add anything constructive to the conversation. @Beth - Can't we disagree and not get along while using respectable language?

@Chris Johnson, I didn't say that I approved of the swearing or believe that it is in any way necessary. But it is not even remotely a form of bullying.

"Good thing neither kids feel on their head and broke their neck." How would Dad watching have prevented that? I assume that if this had happened, the woman that called police could have instead called an ambulance. "No public phone to call for help" - but there were people nearby with phones. It seems to me the plan was that they play at the park until dad came back, which is what happened.

Speaking of bullying, has anyone seen the new "Bully" movie? If so, what did you think?

No, the father would have been called, just as he WAS called.

@Laurie... The police said that the father checked into the gym at noon and didn't return until 1:02 p.m. So that's about an hour. He also told them that he went to Walmart to buy snacks, but the Easter weekend made it impossible to get around the store, so he didn't buy anything and left. The traffic also was apparently barbaric trying to turn out of Raceway Plaza, so that added another 20 minutes trying to get out of the parking lot. It also takes about 10 minutes to drive each way from Scott Park to LA Fitness, so putting all the time together, the two hour figure is probably pretty close to accurate.

What does a pedophile look like Beth? They don't exactly wear a sign advertising it. That is why parents have to always be cautious when it comes to their kids and not take chances. I grew up when it was safe to do this too but our world has changed! Sad but true. BTW my grandaughter attends a supervised rec program at Scott park and though I think it is a great place I would NEVER leave her there alone and she is 11!

@Steven... I'm 29 years old and wouldn't walk on Greentree Road. I don't have a death wish. I'd like to live to see 30.

Steven, there is no need to get so hostile! Did you or any other of the people who are condoning this behavior ever consider that this type of crime is down because people have become more vigilant? I will NOT apologize or do I feel the need to defend common sense. I can see by the tone and the lame arguments from you and the other people on here that there is little chance that any of you are going to see the light on this issue. I guess the only thing we can do is pray for your children. I'm done wasting my time here!

Janet and Ellen... I've deleted his comment. I don't need that trash on this website. And I don't watch Nancy Grace.