Recently, a Facebook friend of mine was going into the Trader Joe’s by my house, and saw a minivan parked with two children inside. One of the children was young, 6 or 7 by her estimate. The other was an infant in a car seat.
She was alarmed by this, and stayed by the car until the mother came out of the store. She then proceeded to berate the mother for leaving her children in the car. She posted this on Facebook, with some pride.
Does it matter that I haven’t told you how long the mother was inside?
When I read this post, I trembled and waited to see everyone else’s response. Because the truth is, there probably hasn’t been a week in the past six months that I have not left my daughter inside our car while I go into the library to drop off returns and pick up holds. Every single time, I’m terrified of returning to find someone standing outside of my car, ready to berate me.
And the reaction of most of my friend’s Facebook community proves that I’m right to tremble. There are people waiting with timers in their cars ready to read me the riot act if I take longer than two minutes.
And I just don’t know if they’d be right to do so.
Our community has strong reactions to children being left alone, for good reason. But the truth is that Washington, like most states, does not legislate how old a child must be before they are left alone, at home or in a car. (They do make an exception for stating that a child must be 12 to be left in a car while the parent goes into a bar. Good call.)
This is one of the things left to the judgment of the parent.
In my case, my daughter had been begging for years to be left alone to read while I did this small chore, rather than be unbuckled, coated, shoed, and dragged along to put the books in the slot, grab the books off the shelf, and go back to the car. She loved coming in with me to go spend some time in the children’s section while I browsed, but this weekly drop off and grab was exasperating to her. She especially revolted when it rained.
And for years, I said firmly, “I can’t leave you. It’s not allowed.”
Until one day, probably after reading an article about free range parenting, I looked at my very responsible 8-year-old child. I thought about what she was asking me for. I really looked, and I thought, and I made my call.
I told her to lock the doors behind me and not to unlock them for anyone but her father or me. I put my cell phone—already set up to dial my husband at the push of a button—in her lap. And I went. I waited outside the car until I heard her click the locks closed, and then I sprinted. I was probably gone 60 heart-pounding seconds.
I returned breathless to find her happily undisturbed, buried in her book. I had to knock on the window to get her attention so that she would unlock the doors.
In a world where everything is not drive through, I’ve spent many parenting minutes sitting in the car pondering how worth it a stop somewhere is. Deciding if a trip to the grocery store was vital enough to risk waking the baby sleeping in the car seat carrier. Wondering how badly I actually had to pee compared to the process of waking, coating, and shoeing my child (Yes, my daughter takes her shoes off in the car. Yes, I’ve told her not to) and then racing through a storm into a place with a bathroom.
These kinds of decisions parents make every day. And if I’ve decided that this regular run into the library is one of those risk assessment choices that I’ve decided on the side of risk, should I be looking over my shoulder the whole time? For other parents instead of for the risk? I just don’t know.
For the record, the mother from my friend's story was gone for 20 minutes, which is far, far too long. And I don’t think the infant should have been left in the car at all.
But man, do I understand where that mother was coming from. And I don’t just mean Trader Joe’s.
Thanks
It was very hard to 'read the entirety' since it became merely more clear you were satisfying a need to attack Don. Please do not pretend it was nothing more than a personal attack at Don. It's that obvious. The one that is "hot under the collar" is you for posting what you did. The comments were totally uncalled for in this conversation. Hardly humble and definitely not nice. God Bless
It's funny/sad to read things from people that reflect exactly who THEY are. For example, I agree "you chose NOT to see anything besides the surface level in front of you". The point is that you are not talking about the topic Nguyen, but going off on a personal tangent. Now to me. What part of your response has to do with leaving kids unattended? NONE, that's what. Remember you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Time for you to learn that lesson. Sad, God Bless
Either way you react to the issue, it's a powderkeg!
I'll cut and paste the code again. "10.52.215 Leaving unattended children in parked or standing vehicles. No person, while operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, shall park or wilfully allow such vehicle to stand upon a public street, public way or in a public place open to the public, leaving any child or children under the age of eight years unattended therein. For the purposes of this section, “unattended” means where no responsible person over twelve years of age is physically present in such vehicle and has immediate control over such child or children or the person operating or in charge of such vehicle is not in the immediate vicinity where such child or children can be seen or heard by such person."
You've got me confused Malia. The law you quoted says "No person .. shall ... leaving any child or children under the age of eight years unattended therein ... no responsible person over twelve years of age is physically present " Was that a typo you made? That says it's not legal, unless attended. I meant to say it more or less as that ordinance though - 'can be seen or heard by such person'. So going to the ATM, for example, would be fine. I'd say anytime you can see your car+kids it's fine. I had a niece with kids that let them play in the car 'unattended' while parked on a hill. Would you let them do that? Sure every kid is different, but this set was bent on destruction. I think one problem might be that 'common sense' training was lost sometime in the past. No means No. One can't let kids climb all over everything and pretend it's ok. So I guess in a way, I'm agreeing with Tony in a specific way.
Here's a secret: 99 percent of posts on the internet are anonymous - for a good reason. Doesn't change the message dear. I'm really concerned about your farewell. That's why I go to the trouble to explain and help discover the meaning of sinning. I will pray for you twice today. God Bless
Tony Bussert mentions those who fail to try new things from fear of failure. That brings to mind two expressions that appeal to me: "A job worth doing, is worth doing poorly," and "Experience is the best teacher, if you can afford the tuition." These apply to parenting as well as other endeavors. While the probability of disaster from leaving a child in a car is small (see the stats at http://www.kidsandcars.org/statistics.html (Amber's alert)) they are non-zero. I would guess, though, if abduction is our concern, that more children are taken from a store, than from a locked car. Thus, a parent trying to keep track of a child and take care of an errand may expose their child to a higher, though still small, risk of abduction. As far as "Moms Talk," take a risk, even if you're not a mom, and join the conversation, though mom might wash your mouth with soap.
No, I would not let your niece's kids be in a car alone. On a hill or not. My daughter is my daughter. There are many 12 year olds I would be MORE concerned to leave her with in a car than by herself. It's true, I'm out of sight when I run into the library, but she has my phone, locks the doors, and reads. That's who she is.
I really don't care who you are. It was a rhetorical statement to Nguyen - obvious to most. But if you want to be prayed over and all that, God Bless you too. Sorry about your struggles that ALL of us have had.