Rachel Flynn, a professor of child development and therapist, recently testified in support of Nevada’s “Reasonable Childhood Independence” bill, saying that over her 23 years in practice she has seen kids in decline as their unstructured, unsupervised time evaporated.
This, she testified, was across the board:
The decade prior to my doctorate I was a director of youth development programs working closely with children and families from diverse backgrounds — ethnicities, socioeconomic status, urban and rural populations. The children I’ve worked with also range in their cognitive abilities — the gifted and talented as well as those who are non-verbal with severe intellectual delays.
Regardless of these differences, adults were doing ever more for their kids, and trusting them with less freedom. At this went on, kids were getting more depressed and anxious. This was true of rich kids, poor kids, kids with disabilities and those without.
The antidote, Flynn believes, is simple: Trusting kids to do more — handle more, absorb more, try more, bounce back from more — while loving and cherishing them just as much as ever. Parents can’t do this unless they are sure that giving their kids some old-fashioned independence will not be mistaken for neglect. Nevada’s “Reasonable Childhood Independence” law does just that — tells parents that, unless they are grossly under-estimating peril or over-estimating their child’s abilities — giving their kids some freedom is no cause for government intervention. (This frees child protective services up, too — allowing them more time to investigate serious cases.)
Read Dr. Flynn’s testimony here. And if you’d like to work on getting a Reasonable Childhood Independence law passed in your state, please visit Let Grow’s Legislative Advocacy Page.
Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash
Even these laws provide sanctions for conferring ‘too much’ independence? However determined, by whom, pursuant to no written standards?
While providing no sanctions for failure to afford kids even minimally adequate, reasonable independence, etc. I imagine people are appreciated, reassured, impressed w/ the Let Grow crusade, objectives — as I am. Most worthy of support. The laws themselves . . . ?
>”Parents can’t do this unless they are sure that giving their kids some old-fashioned independence will not be mistaken for neglect.” — I fear absolute assurance is impossible to genuinely provide. I doubt this the prime impetus for helicoptering. I also wonder how to soundly, meaningfully measure collective mental illness over time. I find the association with helicoptering presented most compellingly. Still, jumping from association to causation can be mighty fraught. Even genuine causation may not be exclusive of other factors.
Let Grow has other worthy targets for advocacy IMO: Ones that it impressively, effectively pursues. Overly touting fear of negligence accusations as THE key to expanding kids’ independence can undermine other objectives worthy and I suspect more impactful.