Criminal Child Neglect and the "Free Range Kid": Is Overprotective Parenting the New Standard of Care?

David Pimentel — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:38:21 PST

In the last generation, American parenting norms have shifted strongly in favor of Intensive Parenting, placing particular emphasis on protecting children from risks of harm. Recently, a backlash to this trend has emerged. “Free Range” parenting is based on the concern that coddling children through overprotection inhibits the development of their independence and responsibility. Indeed, a growing body of literature suggests that parental overreaction to remote and even illusory risks of physical harm is exposing children to far more serious risks to their well-being and development. But the powerful influence of media has sensationalized the risks to children, skewing popular perceptions of the genuine risks children face and of what constitutes a reasonable or appropriate response to such risks. Consequently, individuals who do not buy into Intensive Parenting norms, including those from different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds, may be subjecting themselves to criminal prosecution for child neglect and endangerment. The criminal statutes are, for the most part, very vague, leaving these prosecutions—which amount to little more than one person’s second-guessing the parenting choices of another—in the discretion of prosecutors, who bring the charges, and of juries, who render verdicts. If prosecutors and jurors share the media-fed misperceptions of risk, overprotective parenting becomes the de facto legal standard of care. To counter this possibility, it is necessary to define criminal child neglect with far greater specificity and to allow defendants to introduce expert testimony to put the actual risks to children, as well as the downside risk of the precautions themselves, in perspective. Absent such changes, fear of prosecution may effectively force parents to conform to the overprotective parenting norm, to the detriment of society, families, and the children themselves.

SHACKLED: IS BANNING RESTRAINT IN THE COURTROOM ENOUGH

Kimber E. Strawbridge J.D. — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:07:31 PST

The use of waist chains, leg restraints and handcuffs are often assumed by the public to be reserved for the most hardened of criminals. Yet thousands of juvenile delinquents are restrained this way throughout the country as they are herded between detention facilities and courtrooms. Child advocate groups have long fought the use of restraints on juveniles due to the harmful psychological effects. In Florida children as young as six have been restrained in this manner until the Florida Supreme Court instituted a ban on this practice in its courtrooms when the delinquent’s case is to be heard before the trier of fact. The transition has not been easy and some counties still have not complied. This note attempts to addresses the arguments on each side of the debate which has not yet been settled in many states. Specifically this article discusses the difficulties in removing restraints from juvenile delinquents in the courtrooms and during transport. The article concludes by making recommendations for new procedures that could be utilized to reduce the need for restraints which simultaneously reduces the harmful effects restraints have on children who have too often been victims of abuse.

Florida Coastal School of Law

Criminal Child Neglect and the "Free Range Kid": Is Overprotective Parenting the New Standard of Care?

SHACKLED: IS BANNING RESTRAINT IN THE COURTROOM ENOUGH