JCC Mother of 9 year old arrested for letting her child play in park

http://childcare.sc.gov/main/help.aspx

Seems like it was actually impossible for her to apply unless she was already on welfare. How useful.

'Because of limited funding, the agency is only able to help about 20% of the citizens who qualify for child care services; therefore, we are not able to take applications for child care assistance from the general public at this time.

In South Carolina, funding is primarily used for:

• welfare clients who become employed or who are training for work
• children involved in the child welfare system, such as foster kids

Vouchers are sometimes paid for other low-income working families, although funding for this group is extremely limited because there is not enough money to serve all of the families who need it.'

 

What a surprise.

 

Well, there you go.

 

Could you imagine how much worse it would be if the Demmycrats get their way and have safety nets like minimum wages? Un-Christian.

 

We have a minimum wage... it's just too low.

 

Ah, well, the IL program I'm describing isn't a federal grant, it's administered by the county on behalf of the state of IL. Any time the federal government is involved, the complexity increases 10x.

For this specific story, one of my points is that originally, people here were claiming that this parent didn't have any options. Except there were options available, including health care vouchers provided by the state, even factoring in the effort required. The controlling factor is that I think it's a poor excuse to simply say "wow, these grants have a lot of paperwork, so I won't even apply."

Again, one of the articles mentioned that the child spent an unknown quantity of time at the workplace when they had a laptop. That practice ended when the laptop was stolen. Obviously, that demonstrates that the McDonald's were she worked allowed the child to stay in a back room or had some sort of arrangement. The McDonald's wouldn't care if the child had a laptop or not. It would have been a better decision to get a library card and continue taking the child to work loaded up with library books, than it would be to leave her at a park without any contact. Yeah, dropping off and picking up library books would be an extra effort, but having children is filled with effort. Taking the child to work with a .99 coloring book and crayons from the dollar store would have been a better decision than dropping her off at a park. This child does seem to have a solid head on her shoulders, as unfortunately, situations like this have the effect of maturing a child beyond their years. But the fact is that a 9 year old is still only a 9 year old, and lacks adult decision making ability, especially if something out of the routine happened, from the gambit of stepping on a rusty nail, to a hail storm, and anything in between, especially if the only responses would come from strangers.

These are just hypotheticals. But what doesn't make sense to me are those here who don't see anything wrong here, or have indicated that dropping a child off at a public park while the parent is away at work all day is normal. And are puzzled why the state would get involved in this case once it was discovered and reported.

 

So... take a look at Marcus' post up there, and we're back to the issue being a lack of affordable childcare.

 

You don't really, harps. I mean, it's more just the Republicans taking the piss.

 

What do you mean?

 

And that's not fair at all E_S. What does politics have to do with anything, and when was any such politics claimed or mentioned? It's one thing to be dismissive. It's another to simply default to red herrings, and you already know this.

 

I mean the $8/hr or wahtever it is now is a pittance and a joke, albeit a cruel one. Int he UK I think it's about US$11/hr and Australia's nearly $17/hr.

EDIT: Mr44, it is fair. The GOP has been opposed to raising the minimum wage for some time and the US is the single most unequal Western country in terms of income distribution.

 

Ah, ok. So you're interested more in a general ES rags on 'Murica type of post.

Not that it matters, but there is the dual federalist/state system that the US operates under. The federal minimum wage is just that. A limit that the states can't go below. Seattle, for example, has a $15 dollar minimum wage. DC is at $10, I think, going up next year. The point is not that the federal limit is admittedly lower that your examples, but that the states also have more control than exists in the UK or Australia, so it's not a direct "one is better than the other" comparison.

None of this really matters to this specific example though.

 

Yeah, that's pretty much what I said.

 

Seattle has $15/hour! ...in a few years. With exceptions. All this impoverished McDonald's employee needs to do is move to the other side of the country and to a place with a higher cost of living.

 

Ah, the obfuscation machine is revving into gear.

 

To which I must ask: In broad daylight? In a crowded park? Just because something happened on Law & Order



This whole case, the racial-politics involved, the overtly-concerned adult, etc, can easily be an over-the-top episode of SVU; there have been enough with elements of this story, though.

 

Yeah, and I think it's pretty safe to say that this parent was getting minimum wage at the McDonald's, although again, we don't know how long she has worked there or what kind of raises she got. Probably not much more than that at fast food. While Marcus linked to the Q&A section which detailed how the federal grant portion was limited, here are more options listed at the same website:

• You may want to check with the local S.C. First Steps to School Readiness Office in your county to see if they have any funding available for child care.
  [*]In addition, Head Start offers services to low-income children
  [*]Find out about before and after school programs, summer camps and other services offered in your area. Think about your child and the type of program that would best serve your child and family. by Child Care Aware.

So, there are the federal grants (which don't seem to apply in this case) There is head start program. There is the the First Steps program. There is the Child Care Aware after school program and summer camp, which might not cover the entire period needed, but would still help. There were no less than 4 options provided by the state which may or may not apply, and which would all potentially help this parent so she wouldn't have to leave her child in a park. But this still comes down to choices and options, and about how this entire story is much more than a parent simply getting arrested for letting their child play in the park.

 

There again, you slipped in that old canard about how it's really just people's own fault that they end up in situations like this. Choices! It's all about choices you make, and obviously this woman made bad choices (according to you).

It's complete nonsense, and it's particularly harmful to think that way when there's really no good choices at all. The red tape involved in those programs is massive, and it's that way in part because of budget cuts and underfunding as a way of killing the programs, or at least making them almost impossible to use or access.

But, in your white male privileged world, it's just about choices.

This particular parent made a reasonable choice, given the circumstances, and I think it's highly likely that both she and her daughter would have been completely fine if no one had interfered with the child. She had a phone, no doubt directions and guidance on what to do, and probably a decent amount of intelligence.

The mother did make a choice, and I for one am pretty okay with it. It's unfortunate that it was seemingly necessary, but in the times we live in, helping the poor and particularly poor minorities is really not in fashion in most places. South Carolina is definitely one of those places.

 

Well, again, KW, I'm not sure why you're hung up on this whole "white male privileged world" kick, especially since it's typed triumphantly on a computer nestled safely in your own privileged computer room. if what you just posted was true, is the yuppie guilt version that you're operating from include the delusion that money just rains from the sky and everything has unlimited budgets? Rhetoric like that isn't productive, and it has no bearing on this situation. OK, now that that's out of the way, can you discuss things in a normal manner?

I don't even know what your original point was, because the original link was extremely skewed. I think by now we all realize that this situation is more complex than simply a mother being arrested for letting her child play in the park.

1)Do you honestly see nothing wrong with that?
2)That the potential for harm outweighs any inconvenience that may have resulted from other options?
3)What expectation do you have when a caller reports to social services and/or the police that there is a child left in a park with no supervision?
4)If this parent had at least 4 different support services available, even if some of them didn't work out, does that fact relieve her responsibility to care for her child in relation to an expectation that others (strangers) would take over?

 

I think the fact that the caller made no attempt to ascertain the facts of the situation before calling is pretty sad.

 

Summer camp is expensive... this girl is too old for head start and first steps, and before/after school programs don't apply, because.... July.

 

I have to admit, I feel awkward around poor people, regardless of colour. They're just so poor.

 

I have some thoughts and reactions on this but first I wanted to ask some clarification, particularly from parents and people who believe the mother should not have left her kid there...

1) At what age do you feel comfortable leaving your kids to play on their own? Is it different for staying home vs. playing outside?

2) Would you have the same objections had the mother left her child at home rather than in a public park?


Genuinely curious to know since I'm not a parent and the only kids my friends have are a few years old so it doesn't apply. I'm curious what some of the feelings of parents are currently.

 

That's not what the article indicated. From the story:

The caller went to the park at 9:30, before she went to work herself. When she returned from work that evening, she saw that the same child was still at the same park. She did not notice an adult in the area. The woman said she asked the little girl where her parents were, and the little girl reportedly told her that her mother dropped her off at the park in the morning before going to work. The child reportedly went on to tell the woman that she is dropped off all the time to play at the park while her mother is at work. When the woman asked the little girl what she eats for lunch, the girl said the "Feed A Child" people come by or she walks over to McDonalds in Wal-Mart. The caller then notified the police. The officer met with the child and the child told the officer the same story about being dropped off at the park. The child also told the officer that no adult was at the park with her. The child was taken to NADPS headquarters.

I don't know. How much more information are you supposed to get from the child at the park?

 

About ten, but within reason... knowing where he is and will be is key. Basically, "if I can find you, if need be, we're cool."

What do you mean, staying home alone, or if I'm also at home? If we're both at home, I don't hover over him.

No, not really. By that age, most kids know not to turn on the stove, and to not answer the door for people they don't know, so I'd feel better leaving my son at home than in a park. He's at an age now, where I can leave him for a few hours, and he's totally fine. I'm not comfortable leaving him all day yet, though.