![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
So I picked up this link over on the FRK blog. I wish she'd crosspost it properly, I like the commenters there better.
Whether you should leave your child in the children's room for three minutes while you check out a book depends, of course, on your child, your librarian, your library, and your own sense. (Duh.) There are libraries that are little havens of defense, and libraries that aren't even remotely safe, and most fall somewhere in the middle. If it happens that children are molested at your local library every other week, you might not want to leave them alone there. I'm just sayin'. But if they aren't, use your best judgment, like always.
Some of these comments, now, are so wildly off as to be hysterical. A sampling:
When we have children leading other children out of stores and killing them, why would a mother leave a child for three minutes in a public place. WHY?
I heard about that case. Wasn't it, like, a decade and a half ago? In Canada? What have those kids done recently?
All the stories you hear about children being molested, abducted, sold into slavery in other countries etc. begin "I only took my eyes off him for a minute" Truthfully it only takes a second.
Sold into slavery in other countries? SOLD INTO SLAVERY IN OTHER COUNTRIES??? LOL! OMG that's the most messed-up shit I've ever heard.
Now, there was that little girl who died after being sold into prostitution... by her mother. But that hardly counts as "stranger danger". She'd've been safer with the librarian than her mom! As for being sold into slavery specifically in other countries, why? There's enough child slaves in the world (and street children and runaways all over the place) to realize that other places don't need to be importing spoiled Americans as slave labor. They have a big enough supply in their own countries. (And many of these kids aren't abducted either, but given up by their parents. It's tragic, but, again, "strangers" aren't the problem.)
Think of the poor Delaware parents who left their children alone for mere minutes with their pediatrician who turned out to be a monster!
Which goes to show what we've all been saying and saying. Strangers in the library? Not a risk. People in a position of power whom the children know and are expected to trust? Possibly risky. (Pediatricians are less likely to molest kids than the kid's own parents, though it's not common among parents either.)
I'm with you! Ask John Walsh of America's Most Wanted what he thinks about the dangers that do actually lurk around the corner and could get your child in 15 seconds flat.
Well, that's an interesting question. Let's ask John Walsh! (Whose son was kidnapped before I was even born, so, you know, while I feel for him I don't exactly think that says anything about modern crime rates.)
Well, I can't talk to him... but I can find a quote from the head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which he founded. That's almost as good, right? Let's see... "Our message to parents is you don't have to live in fear, you don't have to lock your children in a room." Gosh, I don't think that's "OMG! BAD PARENTS!" at all!
ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN IN 3 MINUTES. WHAT IF A PERV WALKED IN OFF THE STREET TOLD THE LIBRARIAN HE WAS AN UNCLE BROTHER OR EVEN FATHER HOW IS THE LIBRARIAN TO KNOW IF HE IS LYING OR TELLING THE TRUTH AND IN THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO FIND THE MOTHER AND ASK THE KID COULD BE GONE.
Well, she could use the method employed by the niece's school: "Honey, who is this person? Do you know him?" Or she could just refuse to hand over the kid until Mom shows up to confirm it.
But there was a case in Fall River, MA , in which a loving mother left her 4yr old child alone in a library for 3 minutes. When she found him he was being molested by a registered sex offender.
Let's go google this, why don't we?
Ah. It appears something actually happened. It also seems that the mother was gone for well more than three minutes, and that... the staff is *well* overreacting. But there we go.
What if your child got up and started to wander around? What if your child swallowed something? What if your child had a seizure? What is your child had to use the restroom?
I should hope that this woman knows her own child well enough to know that he doesn't wander. Swallowed something? He's five. Some kids are like that, most aren't, and again, I bet his mom knows the difference. Had a seizure? Would having his mother here really have made a huge difference if he had a random seizure? Had to use the bathroom? He'd go to the bathroom, I assume - I'm guessing the bathroom isn't three floors away down a dark hallway, but then, I'm still assuming this mother knew what she was doing.
Open your eyes,, children are taken from there homes in their beds,, there parents cars when they go in to pay for gas..
From their beds? Who? WHEN? The only one I can think of was Elizabeth Smart, and that wasn't a random incident with a stranger. (Moral message? If they're that determined to get YOUR kid, it's not your fault.)
You know. I had two sons that I lost in a fire 12 years ago. I left my sons with my sister for no more than a 10 minute window to run to the gas station to get a few items. When I returned my home was on fire and I ran into it. The fire was deemed an accident as to what happened, which it was. I was badly burned in the fire and almost lost my life. I was in a coma for about a month and barely made it out. My 2 year old son and my 1 year old son perished in the fire of smoke inhalation. The point of my whole explanation is this. You can never take your eye off of your child for one minute because in that fraction of a moment anything can happen.
1. I don't think this commenter is being honest.
2. If he is - he left his kids with his SISTER. If that fire had started when he was in the home instead of her, his kids would still have died.
Aside from the obviouse, sick people, a 5 year old has a boundless imagination. What's stopping this kid from climbing up bookshelves and falling or having it topple over on them.
Good manners and discipline? If this were likely, again I say it, the mother would probably have not trusted her kid to say "yes" or "no" but would have just brought her with to begin with.
Safeguarding children is not part of many job descriptions and employees even in children's library rooms refuse to stop pediophiles while mom is in the rest room.
Wait, wait, wait... so, like, she thinks the guy is raping a little kid, employees see it, and they go "Well, Mom will be out of the bathroom soon, I'll go do my cataloging"?
Where will I go when it becomes my fault... when she's shoved an unattended pencil into her ear?
THE KID IS FIVE!
Your child can be taken in an instant, even WITH you there. I know, I had my son litterally stolen from my hand. We were walking down the lane, this car slows down, the door opens and the next thing I know, he is snatched from my hand and the car sped off.
Seriously?
At any rate, if being there makes no difference you might as well go to the check-out while your kid stays in the kid's room. Why not?
And one last thing: To the dozens of people whose comment runs "BUT ADAM WALSH!" - Adam Walsh died some 30 years ago. Find something more recent.
Incidentally, I think it's perfectly in the librarian's rights to say "If you think your kid needs supervision, I'm not going to provide it." I just think these comments are wrong.
Whether you should leave your child in the children's room for three minutes while you check out a book depends, of course, on your child, your librarian, your library, and your own sense. (Duh.) There are libraries that are little havens of defense, and libraries that aren't even remotely safe, and most fall somewhere in the middle. If it happens that children are molested at your local library every other week, you might not want to leave them alone there. I'm just sayin'. But if they aren't, use your best judgment, like always.
Some of these comments, now, are so wildly off as to be hysterical. A sampling:
When we have children leading other children out of stores and killing them, why would a mother leave a child for three minutes in a public place. WHY?
I heard about that case. Wasn't it, like, a decade and a half ago? In Canada? What have those kids done recently?
All the stories you hear about children being molested, abducted, sold into slavery in other countries etc. begin "I only took my eyes off him for a minute" Truthfully it only takes a second.
Sold into slavery in other countries? SOLD INTO SLAVERY IN OTHER COUNTRIES??? LOL! OMG that's the most messed-up shit I've ever heard.
Now, there was that little girl who died after being sold into prostitution... by her mother. But that hardly counts as "stranger danger". She'd've been safer with the librarian than her mom! As for being sold into slavery specifically in other countries, why? There's enough child slaves in the world (and street children and runaways all over the place) to realize that other places don't need to be importing spoiled Americans as slave labor. They have a big enough supply in their own countries. (And many of these kids aren't abducted either, but given up by their parents. It's tragic, but, again, "strangers" aren't the problem.)
Think of the poor Delaware parents who left their children alone for mere minutes with their pediatrician who turned out to be a monster!
Which goes to show what we've all been saying and saying. Strangers in the library? Not a risk. People in a position of power whom the children know and are expected to trust? Possibly risky. (Pediatricians are less likely to molest kids than the kid's own parents, though it's not common among parents either.)
I'm with you! Ask John Walsh of America's Most Wanted what he thinks about the dangers that do actually lurk around the corner and could get your child in 15 seconds flat.
Well, that's an interesting question. Let's ask John Walsh! (Whose son was kidnapped before I was even born, so, you know, while I feel for him I don't exactly think that says anything about modern crime rates.)
Well, I can't talk to him... but I can find a quote from the head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which he founded. That's almost as good, right? Let's see... "Our message to parents is you don't have to live in fear, you don't have to lock your children in a room." Gosh, I don't think that's "OMG! BAD PARENTS!" at all!
ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN IN 3 MINUTES. WHAT IF A PERV WALKED IN OFF THE STREET TOLD THE LIBRARIAN HE WAS AN UNCLE BROTHER OR EVEN FATHER HOW IS THE LIBRARIAN TO KNOW IF HE IS LYING OR TELLING THE TRUTH AND IN THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO FIND THE MOTHER AND ASK THE KID COULD BE GONE.
Well, she could use the method employed by the niece's school: "Honey, who is this person? Do you know him?" Or she could just refuse to hand over the kid until Mom shows up to confirm it.
But there was a case in Fall River, MA , in which a loving mother left her 4yr old child alone in a library for 3 minutes. When she found him he was being molested by a registered sex offender.
Let's go google this, why don't we?
Ah. It appears something actually happened. It also seems that the mother was gone for well more than three minutes, and that... the staff is *well* overreacting. But there we go.
What if your child got up and started to wander around? What if your child swallowed something? What if your child had a seizure? What is your child had to use the restroom?
I should hope that this woman knows her own child well enough to know that he doesn't wander. Swallowed something? He's five. Some kids are like that, most aren't, and again, I bet his mom knows the difference. Had a seizure? Would having his mother here really have made a huge difference if he had a random seizure? Had to use the bathroom? He'd go to the bathroom, I assume - I'm guessing the bathroom isn't three floors away down a dark hallway, but then, I'm still assuming this mother knew what she was doing.
Open your eyes,, children are taken from there homes in their beds,, there parents cars when they go in to pay for gas..
From their beds? Who? WHEN? The only one I can think of was Elizabeth Smart, and that wasn't a random incident with a stranger. (Moral message? If they're that determined to get YOUR kid, it's not your fault.)
You know. I had two sons that I lost in a fire 12 years ago. I left my sons with my sister for no more than a 10 minute window to run to the gas station to get a few items. When I returned my home was on fire and I ran into it. The fire was deemed an accident as to what happened, which it was. I was badly burned in the fire and almost lost my life. I was in a coma for about a month and barely made it out. My 2 year old son and my 1 year old son perished in the fire of smoke inhalation. The point of my whole explanation is this. You can never take your eye off of your child for one minute because in that fraction of a moment anything can happen.
1. I don't think this commenter is being honest.
2. If he is - he left his kids with his SISTER. If that fire had started when he was in the home instead of her, his kids would still have died.
Aside from the obviouse, sick people, a 5 year old has a boundless imagination. What's stopping this kid from climbing up bookshelves and falling or having it topple over on them.
Good manners and discipline? If this were likely, again I say it, the mother would probably have not trusted her kid to say "yes" or "no" but would have just brought her with to begin with.
Safeguarding children is not part of many job descriptions and employees even in children's library rooms refuse to stop pediophiles while mom is in the rest room.
Wait, wait, wait... so, like, she thinks the guy is raping a little kid, employees see it, and they go "Well, Mom will be out of the bathroom soon, I'll go do my cataloging"?
Where will I go when it becomes my fault... when she's shoved an unattended pencil into her ear?
THE KID IS FIVE!
Your child can be taken in an instant, even WITH you there. I know, I had my son litterally stolen from my hand. We were walking down the lane, this car slows down, the door opens and the next thing I know, he is snatched from my hand and the car sped off.
Seriously?
At any rate, if being there makes no difference you might as well go to the check-out while your kid stays in the kid's room. Why not?
And one last thing: To the dozens of people whose comment runs "BUT ADAM WALSH!" - Adam Walsh died some 30 years ago. Find something more recent.
Incidentally, I think it's perfectly in the librarian's rights to say "If you think your kid needs supervision, I'm not going to provide it." I just think these comments are wrong.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 03:27 pm (UTC)Wrong continent, but yes, 1993. I was six at the time... And here's one of them, anyway.
Edited for typo.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-03 09:52 pm (UTC)But the point still stands that it's not a common occurrence. If it were, would we even remember these two at all?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 03:38 pm (UTC)And, of course, by "wonderful" I mean I want to beat these people with a dose of reality. *sigh*
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 03:44 pm (UTC)That would make them happier people though, and I also want to punish them for being so annoying. Making them happier and their lives easier? *sighs* I guess I have to stop being so punitive anyway.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 03:50 pm (UTC)Punitive would be me punching them in the face, and laughing at them when they cry their way home. Or something.
Arg. Serious pet peeve of mine.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 04:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 05:22 pm (UTC)In England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger), and we aren't allowed to know what one of them did recently (ie, this month), only it's serious enough to return him to prison (http://news.google.co.uk/news?hl=en&q=jon%20venables&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn). The rumour mill says child porn offences. You were slightly unlucky in picking that example ;)
My local library didn't allow children under 8 unsupervised - but as far as I'm aware, that was to make sure children were properly supervised to avoid fights and being unruly, rather than because they thought unsupervised children would be abducted.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 05:37 pm (UTC)My local library didn't allow children under 8 unsupervised - but as far as I'm aware, that was to make sure children were properly supervised to avoid fights and being unruly, rather than because they thought unsupervised children would be abducted.
Perfectly reasonable.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 11:36 pm (UTC)Hell, the unruliest brats around are the 12-14 bunch in Tenino. (Once some of them were horsing around LOUDLY and blundered into my back as I was making photocopies. I half-turned and did my best Ice Queen "ExCUSE me?" Wonder of wonders, they apologized and slunk off.)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 09:57 pm (UTC)Venables, now 27, was returned to custody last month for breaking the terms of his release on life licence after being found in possession of child porn. From the timesonline article. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7084174.ece)
no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 10:15 pm (UTC)BTW, logged into Neo today?
no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 11:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 10:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 10:22 pm (UTC)But, however, my point stands. ONE person who does horrific things (and did as a kid with a child partner) does not mean that ALL or even MOST or even MANY kids are doing the same thing now.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 11:22 pm (UTC)I completely agree with your point - one reason why it got so much publicity is precisely because it was one of those Things That Never Happen Here. All I wanted to say with that comment was that people can't just accuse him of child porn offences when they have no proof that that is what he did. If it eventually turns out that he was in possession of child pornography, fine - but given there's no proof either way yet, you can't state it as fact, and I'm not sure the Times is legally allowed to say what it's saying there. In all its other coverage, it's an alleged offence.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 11:08 pm (UTC)Also:
Ugh, that whole "lol you did something so heinous we will give you a whole new identity have fun living near people who apparently have no right to know what a dangerous criminal is living in their midst!!" crap over there bothers me to no end. 10 years old is MORE than old enough to know better than to do what he and his buddy did and then get whole new identities.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 11:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 11:24 pm (UTC)Then again, there are some crimes I don't believe warrant anything less than ACTUAL life in prison, so. You hurt a child, you don't deserve a chance to go hurt another, IMHO. Let alone KILL one.:(
no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 12:40 am (UTC)Of course, with at least one of the two, it doesn't seem to have helped anyway.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 12:45 am (UTC)Well, while they're children, they wouldn't go to an adult prison.
Juveniles get charged as adults in the US for major crimes. If they earn a life sentence, they stay in a juvenile prison until they're 18, and then are transferred. I don't see why that would be too difficult over there.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 12:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 12:48 am (UTC)And like I said, I would rather take the risk of their death than the risk of an innocent person who was mistaken for them.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 07:40 pm (UTC)By the article's account, from my perspective, it sounds like the mother was doing something quite unacceptable in the first place. Either she thinks it's OK to leave her kid unattended in that context or she doesn't, but what does the librarian have to do with it? Why is she telling the librarian, "I'll be right back"? This implies that either she has expectations of the librarian (will look after the kid) or that she perceives the librarian has expectations of her (that she is not permitted to leave her child unattended there) that need addressing. We don't know which of these things it is, but it does seem clear that she thinks simply up and going is not OK, and says something in an attempt to ameliorate that. What she says, however, is not a request, but a unilateral announcement.
So what does the librarian do in response? Well, a more professional thing might have been to say something like, "I'm sorry, children under age X aren't allowed in this room unattended," or, "If it's just a moment, why don't you take her with you," or something similar. But maybe the problem is this: unattended children are allowed, but the librarian can assume no responsibility for them and will not be looking after them.
The problem there is that that is a message a whole lot of parents are unprepared to hear. Both my college and my clinic have had serious problems with this. Originally unattended children were not particularly disallowed at either. But parents coming in for services would leave their children in the student lounge or waiting areas, where the kids are destructive and disruptive in their boredom, requiring staff oversight and intervention. Neither college nor clinic had the staff for that, or wanted the legal liability. So now both places now have hard no-child or no-unattended-child policies.
Since, "yeah, but you can't expect me to look after your kid", is not something some parents can hear, it's not a big surprise when someone does resort to something which is guaranteed to punch through the most cavalier parents' bubble: tap the "childsnatchers!" button.
To be clear: I strongly suspect that the librarian didn't for a moment believe the child would be in any danger, and was not bringing up risk to the child because she thought there was any. I think it was a possibly somewhat desperate and cynical and manipulative attempt to get the parent not to do what the parent was doing, the only way the librarian knew how.
And this is the thing: however else it may also be used, the childsnatchers panic button gets pressed by people trying to control the behavior of parents behaving badly. This is part of how the moral panic is spread and used, and what it's doing in our society. Whatever else it is, it's being used a check on entitled and selfish parent behavior: "well, if you aren't stopped by the thought of the potential effect of your choice on me, maybe you'll be stopped by the thought of the potential effect of your choice on your child."
There's a sense in which the debate around the protection of kids is a red herring, a permanent derail, from the real issue, a discussion of which we can't ever have, about how children (do/should) fit into society.
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 11:35 pm (UTC)I'm a librarian and I appreciate what you said. I don't like the fear-mongering approach but it really is the only thing that works.
People think they'll be gone for 3 minutes and about half of them are. The others get distracted or lied. In the meantime, those kids get bored and anxious and become our responsibility. It doesn't happen all the time but it is often enough that it's frustrating.
Fear-mongering
Date: 2010-03-31 07:47 pm (UTC)I have to wonder, first of all: if the commentors are so agitated over statistically-unlikely stranger-danger, what kind of nightmare anxiety must they suffer at the thought of children having anything to do with automobiles?
Seriously: most five-year-olds have been to pre-school at least a year already, and are quite capable of hanging out in the children's section of the library for five minutes on their own. Foreign slavers are not going to rush in the minute Mama goes to the bathroom; the librarians would hardly permit such a thing. Libraries are quiet, too; a scream would definitely draw some immediate attention.
Obviously, kids who can't comport themselves decently for five little minutes have to get dragged along to the bathroom with Mama, or (even worse!) with Auntie or Nanny. This is a big incentive to learning to behave like reasonable people.
I raised my own child free-range, and have done much the same with all the children I've auntied and nannied. "You can't teach children how to think by telling them what to do." You can't teach them to be confident yet careful independent explorers of their world by keeping them on a leash. They need to wander off and get a little lost a few times; they need to try things they're not supposed to do and get scolded by a stranger for it; they need to feel trusted to act like well-mannered young citizens, not trouble-making monkeys.
Re: Fear-mongering
Date: 2010-03-31 08:14 pm (UTC)I have to wonder, first of all: if the commentors are so agitated over statistically-unlikely stranger-danger, what kind of nightmare anxiety must they suffer at the thought of children having anything to do with automobiles?
One of the comments I didn't quote actually ran "it's good to be safe - unless of course you don't drive because driving is riskier than flying! - so you never can leave your kid unattended".
I WTF'd, but I couldn't even come up with a reply.
There are reasonable objections to make -- these aren't them.
Date: 2010-03-31 09:27 pm (UTC)2. It's perfectly reasonable to say that some five year olds can't be trusted to behave safely, quietly, and appropriate without mom.
3. It's perfectly reasonable to say that five-year-olds should simply be asked to come quietly along with mom as she checks out her book because they're fully capable of doing so and could stand to learn some small lessons in patience while waiting for others to do things that don't interest you.
But those aren't, for the most part, the objections those lunatics are raising. Essentially, they're perpetuating the belief that child molesters are people (who exist in vast numbers) who have nothing better to do than hide out 24/7 in library stacks waiting for unattended children to magically appear, or else have some sort of secret cabal or mysterious tracking system that enables them to show up instantly wherever, and whenever, a child under 16 is detected as being more than 50 feet from their parents, unless it's a magic building called a "school" where you can leave your kids out of your sight in the care of numbers of total strangers for most of their waking hours and it will be okay.
Makes you want to give up some days, doesn't it?
pentamom
no subject
Date: 2010-03-31 11:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-04-01 08:05 am (UTC)Oh, how likely is THAT. Next thing you know it'll be a flying saucer snatching them from the kitchen like in Close Encounters.
no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 09:26 pm (UTC)People are paranoid. My kids are 9 and 6, and you know what? I let them out of my sight. At the grocery store, I'll put the 6-year-old in the cart, with the 9-year-old pushing, and say "You all go get a loaf of bread, I'll go get the soup and meet you in the bread aisle," and they do it. It's not a problem. Nobody is looking to snatch children in the middle of Publix, and it keeps them occupied and cuts down on the shopping time. I sometimes leave them in the car, listening to the radio, while I go into a store to get some item or other. They're FINE. They know the rules, and they know the rules are for their safety. They don't destroy other people's property.
I also let them go to the kid's section at the bookstore by themselves.
They're good kids, they have earned a measure of freedom. And they're safer in Barnes and Noble than they are in the car.
The only real danger they've been in? We have a neighbor child who is emotionally disturbed who raped another neighbor child; both girls were playmates of my older daughter. Like you said over and over, hardly stranger danger. This was a kid we knew, whose parents didn't warn anybody (they knew, and said nothing).
no subject
Date: 2010-04-02 09:45 pm (UTC)Well, she's left a comment over at FRK which confirms that all she intended to do was make sure there wasn't a rule against leaving her child unattended for a short period of time. Best to find out these things in advance.
I did that the first time I left the nieces at the library, in fact. The librarian's response was "If you're okay with it, we are, but we're not babysitters".
We have a neighbor child who is emotionally disturbed who raped another neighbor child; both girls were playmates of my older daughter. Like you said over and over, hardly stranger danger.
Those poor children, both of them. But yeah, adults or kids, rape is rarely committed by strangers.