School Bans Parents from Watching Field Day Unless They Get Background Check

Hi Folks! Over in England, parents at one school cannot attend their kids’ “sports day” unless they get (and pass!) a criminal background check. According to this dderdftrik
in The Telegraph, the  Isambard Community School is sorry, but, well, pedophiles could sneak from the fields into the school and start their pouncing. And so, with regret, yada, yada, yada.  As one school official put it:. “At Isambard we take safeguarding very seriously…”

So seriously, apparently, that the officials there have lost their minds. Really — has their nightmare scenario ever happened? Some predator pretends to be a parent and goes to school on game day just so he can sneak into the building where he will — what? Actually snatch a kid? Or start the grooming process right then and there, in the hallway? “Hey, saw you at field day, kid! You’re a really good long jumper. Come by my house tonight for a celebratory supper of fish and chips?”

What kind of outlandish fantasies are the bureaucrats fabricating? And how do we yank them back to reality? – L.

Terrifying! There appears to be an un-background-checked adult attending this field day!

, ,

48 Responses to School Bans Parents from Watching Field Day Unless They Get Background Check

  1. Warren October 1, 2012 at 2:23 am #

    Not only does this fly in the face of parental rights, but it is just insane. You wouldn’t think that anyone, much less a school could deny a parent access to their child.
    Pull your kids, because you know it is only going to get worse.

  2. Mark Davis October 1, 2012 at 2:27 am #

    Seriously? A _parent_ needs a background check to watch their own child? That is going too far.

  3. facie October 1, 2012 at 3:05 am #

    I thought this happened only in Catholic schools. At my kid’s school, pretty much anyone can attend after-school events (plays, concerts, sports events, etc.). But unless you have two clearances and have taken the “Protecting God’s Children” class, you cannot do lunch duty (which you must pay to opt out of), help out/show up for a class party, or pretty much do anything else during the day, other than pick up or drop off your kid.

    At least I knew what I was getting into, even if I have issues with it. I feel for parents that go through this at a public school.

  4. Jenny Islander October 1, 2012 at 3:05 am #

    Yes, it’s not as though pedophiles tend to prey on their own family members first and foremost if not exclusively. It’s not as if most sexual crimes against minor relatives go unprosecuted because they are never reported. It’s not as though a criminal background check is useless at catching people who prey on children.

    Ohwait. We don’t live in Opposite Land.

  5. Gina October 1, 2012 at 3:12 am #

    Every time i think you’ve told me something that is the absolutely most ridiculous thing ever, you top it!

    Let somebody try to tell me I can’t watch my child without a background check.

    Dear God, the world has truly gone insane.

  6. ankle October 1, 2012 at 3:39 am #

    What if I’ve recently passed a background check? What if the background check I recently passed was performed because I applied for a concealed firearm permit? Devil’s advocate can be a fun job…

  7. C.J. October 1, 2012 at 4:01 am #

    That is just ridiculous.

  8. Yan Seiner October 1, 2012 at 4:05 am #

    I knew that name sounded familiar! Isambard Kingdom Brunel was one of the most brilliant thinkers and engineers in the last thousand years. I have no idea why the school shares a name with him but he must be spinning in his grave.

  9. Donna October 1, 2012 at 5:16 am #

    “The school introduced the new measure at the start of the term to prevent strangers from accessing other parts of the school from the playing fields.”

    Parents should not be considered “strangers” at the school that their children attend. Which begs the question – does this school have a large number of strangers attending its rugby games in the middle of the school day or, as I suspect, is the number of strangers with the ability to access the rest of the school naturally limited by the fact that they don’t want to attend the sporting events of children they don’t know?

  10. This girl loves to talk October 1, 2012 at 5:20 am #

    This is a worry but not the right way to go about it – our school backs onto a large football stadium – sports day is held there. The kids go back and forth and as they are put into teams different teachers are in charge of different students. They sit in the stadium and wait their turn to run and many toilet trips and a little mucking around. Many parents work these days so many children are left to their own devices. I go every year and cheer on and take photos of several children as they are sad their parents arent there.

    I said gee it would be easy for a kid to wander off, get lost, have an unknown adult aproach them, but it hasnt happened (as far as I know) and even the little kids realise not to wander away and go to the toilets in pairs. A teacher said she is a little nervy as there seems to be many ‘unknown to her’ adults in attendance (older siblings, uncles, aunties, grandparents etc) but there is no banning or the like, just a greater awareness to keep an eye out

  11. Donald October 1, 2012 at 7:23 am #

    The sad part is, schools are places where children go to learn to be intelligent.

  12. Donna October 1, 2012 at 8:13 am #

    Keep in mind that this is a SECONDARY school comprised of 11-16 year olds, not an elementary school with little kids who might be easily lured away. And they appear to be talking about ALL sporting events during school hours and not just a major event similar to field day in the US. I really can’t imagine that there is a wealth of parents going to see a regular Rugby game during the work day, let alone a measurable amount of uncles, aunts, grandparents and strangers.

  13. Warren October 1, 2012 at 11:30 am #

    Okay, so this is a school policy, right? Since when do school policies become law?

    Try this on for size. One’s teen is playing rugby. Work is slow, and Dad decides to go watch, when the original plans were that he wouldn’t. Dad shows up at the gate, and is told he cannot attend, because he has no background check. Dad then informs the teacher, or person at the gate,”That’s my son, this is property paid for in part by my taxes, and I am going in.”
    Would the school dare try to physically restrain him?
    Would they call the police?
    What can they actually do? There is no law being broken.
    Oh but wait, could the school actually be considered guitly of custodial interference, for denying Dad access to his son?

  14. Susan Jackson October 1, 2012 at 11:33 am #

    Are you kidding me? What about when there are plays going on? Our community is very supportive of our high school kids plays and football games…are you going to do background checks on those things, too?

  15. Warren October 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm #

    The real shame is that they will get away with this. So many parents will just give in, not want to rock the boat, and jump thru the hoops.
    People have to realize that everytime a school, or agency gets away with something like this, it just makes it easier for that school or agency to dictate more terms, policies and crap.
    If you do not stand up and fight, things are only going to get worse.

  16. Lollipoplover October 1, 2012 at 12:59 pm #

    It’s field day, not a peep show.

    So will they require cars that drive by the school to get background clearance next? They might get a look at the kids. If I were a parent at this school, I would speak up against this police state where parents are guilty until proven innocent by a worthless background check. And who is covering the costs of the background checks needed by parents to watch their own kids?

    Really, it’s just tug-o-war.

  17. Myriam October 1, 2012 at 1:16 pm #

    I knew this had to be England, even before reading the story, just from the headline.

  18. Beth October 1, 2012 at 2:03 pm #

    After passing the background check, I suppose the next thing will be banning cameras at Field Day. Because if there is a kid other than yours in the photo, and you post it on that Facebook thing everyone’s talking about, a pedophile in Valdosta GA will see it and immediately book a trip to England to track down that child.

  19. Melissa October 1, 2012 at 2:15 pm #

    I am so grateful to live in a place that has not gone insane. We have 1100 kids in our elementary school, yet no craziness. Field day= open campus.

    My child would be going to the other school that has not implemented such a ridiculous policy. It is one thing to require background checks on employees, but quite another to expect parents to have them to watch their own kids. Every parent in that school should be protesting.

  20. Bill Beeman October 1, 2012 at 2:28 pm #

    The worst part is that the UK is right where the US headed, they’re just about 15 years ahead of us on becoming the complete bureaucratic nanny state.

    We are a long way down the road to this particular hell.

  21. Earth.W October 1, 2012 at 2:44 pm #

    Ahh yes, England where competitive sports have been banned in many schools so children who don’t win don’t feel bad.

  22. E. Simms October 1, 2012 at 3:26 pm #

    If you think this is bad, read the above article. Surgerys are being delayed or cancelled because of delays in CRB checks. Doctors must have a CRB check at every hospital they operate in. One check that covers all hospitals just won’t do.

  23. Warren October 1, 2012 at 4:10 pm #

    Face it, until parents stand up to the schools it is only going to get worse.
    First it was school employees that needed background checks.
    Second came volunteers.
    Now it is all parents.
    It is beyond a slippery slope, now. We have slid down the hill and are at the bottom.
    Doctors and nurses are required to have background checks.
    Wait, because the day is coming that we will need a background check to go visit a sick relative in the hospital.
    Stand up and fight these stupid rules, or we will find ourlselves buried in paraniod red tape, just to use any service our taxes pay for.

  24. Hugo S. Cunningham October 1, 2012 at 4:28 pm #

    The schools to worry about are ones which deny parents ready access. Unscheduled visits by parents protect both children from wrongdoing by staff, and staff from unfounded and hysterical accusations.

  25. ifsogirl October 1, 2012 at 4:43 pm #

    I am so glad this type of silliness has not even touched my children`s school. The only form we need to fill out is a drivers abstract IF you are going to be driving other children for feild trips. Any parent can volunteer in the classroom, all they have to do is inform the teacher when they can be availiable.

    Now here`s the best one. Our school does their end of year Fun Day at a local park. All the kids are driven to the park and basically set free. They have a few scheduled activities, they get to throw whipped cream pies at some teachers, buy their own lunches at the hot dog stand, and there are some class by class tug of war competitions. Parents sign the permission slip and let the teacher know if they will be picking up their kids at the park or at the school. If picking up at the park we must inform the teacher when we leave. That`s it, no background checks, no child quarantine, nothing. They let children from age 5 to 13 play basically unsupervised at a public park. They have never lost a child.

    I`m even planning on meeting my kids for lunch once a week at school as my work schedule has changed and that will be the only time that day I can see them. All I had to do was let the teachers know verbally. I will get to sit in the lounge area with my kids and spend time with them. And I appreciate it wholeheartedly.

  26. Donna October 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm #

    @ Warren – You have no absolute right to be in a school as a tax payer or parent. You can be asked to leave. (There is no place other than your own property that you cannot be legally asked to leave). If asked to leave and you refuse, you are guilty of trespass, can be arrested and can be jailed. This is not a false arrest. You may feel justified but if you remain in ANY place (other than your own property) after you are asked to leave, you are 100% guilty of trespass.

    You can decide if it worth it to you to go to jail, but need to understand that you are guilty of a crime.

  27. Warren October 1, 2012 at 5:12 pm #

    The laws must be different where you are. Schools are public property, not private, up here. That has been tested in the courts, and upheld. The underlying reason being the school and it’s property is paid for by our provincial gov’t, even the catholic school board.
    Secondly, I would relish the opportunity to challenge a school volunteer’s or employee’s authority to deny me access to my child, on school property. That would be one helluva an interesting trial, don’t you think.
    Even if it came to a tresspassin charge, I can live with that, to protest an idiotic rule, set down by paranoid administrators.
    If all the parents just showed up, and refused to recognize the schools rule, and went on in, what could happen? Will they press charges for trespassing against a few hundred parents? I doubt it. Would they cancel the field day? I doubt it, because if they did, there would be such a media backlash, that the school board would be looking for new jobs. Can you see the headlines, “School Track and Field Day Cancelled. Why? Parents Showed Up to Cheer On Their Kids!!”

  28. Donna October 1, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

    And it is only custodial interference if they refuse to give you your child. They don’t have to let you onto the property. They can’t withhold your child from you, but they can get him and bring him to the gate.

    The one thing schools do that I do question as custodial interference is the insistence that an adult pick up a child from school. If you want your child to leave alone, I’m not sure that they can legally do anything other than report you to CPS. They can’t simply refuse to let the child leave. They would have to call CPS and CPS would have to take emergency custody of the child. Again, each individual would have to decide for themselves if the risk of CPS involvement (and/or years of antagonistic relationship with your child’s school) is worth it.

  29. mollie October 1, 2012 at 5:34 pm #

    Well, as someone who had to get a background check just to *become* a parent, I guess this kind of outrageous indignity came early.

    That’s right, folks, the waddling, pregnant social worker came to our house to *interview us* and inspect our home before we could adopt a child. The question she got hung up on was, “How much do you have in your savings account?” We told her we didn’t have one. “Oh, okay, zero then?” she said, unsure. “We have a portfolio of investment holdings, we don’t have a savings account,” my husband said to clarify. “Well, I can’t put that on the form, so I will have to put down ‘zero,'” she said, still confused, but suddenly getting quite stern. At that point, I couldn’t contain myself, and said to her, “Who came over to your house and asked you how much money you’ve got in YOUR savings account?!”

    So. Background checks to attend your own child’s school sporting event: outrageous. Ridiculous. But then think about what adoptive parents are put through: assumed to be inept, irresponsible, or even predators from the start, the very start. At that point, I thought, “By what magic does biology make you an instantly competent parent?” And at this point, I think, “in the name of ‘safety,’ people do all sorts of tragic things, without really understanding why, or if they are getting closer to ‘safety’ or not.”

    I hold the space for wisdom to prevail.

  30. Silver Fang October 1, 2012 at 5:40 pm #

    @ifsogirl: Guard that. If you ever hear rumors of change on the wind, rise up against them and encourage other parents to do the same. Don’t take what your school has for granted because there are bureaucrats who can’t wait to come in and take it all away.

  31. Donna October 1, 2012 at 5:52 pm #

    It may be different in Canada but I’d look very closely. I highly doubt that courts have decided that non-students can enter a school anytime they wish and the school has no right to set requirements or to control access in anyway.

    Public property, in the US anyway, does not mean that the public has unlimited access to the property 24/7. It is allowed to have hours of operation. People can be asked to leave. There can be reasonable age limits. Access can be limited in many ways as long as it is not done in a discriminatory fashion. A hoop everyone is required to jump through is rarely discriminatory (although I think you have an argument that this discriminates against the poor but that doesn’t automatically mean the rule goes away).

    And a trial is only fun if you win (and truthfully my sane clients who win still think the process was about as far from fun as you can get). Jury nullification cases – where you agree you committed the crime but had a valid reason so should not be found guilty – are always hard to win because you can’t actually argue jury nullification at trial. Even if you can testify as to why you stayed after being asked to leave, if public opinion in your area is “requiring background checks is perfectly reasonable for the safety of the children,” you lose. Not saying you would definitely lose. I don’t know, but I do doubt you’d find the process fun.

  32. missjanenc October 1, 2012 at 6:25 pm #

    @Warren, I am with you. As far as the trespassing thing, a cop told me that a sign must be posted indicating such. In that regard, the public often makes use of the tennis courts, track and basketball courts during non-school hours. However, I believe a no trespassing sign has been posted for my benefit (ignored) because of my feeding a feral cat colony under one of the portable classrooms.

    @Beth, if you have been following the FRK posts, there are actually schools in the UK that prohibit parents from filming their own children during plays and Christmas pageants.

    That being said, unless I am applying for a job that pays for it, there is no way, no how that I will submit to a background check. I used to coach my boys’ soccer/baseball teams and was a scout leader/merit badge counselor and never had to deal with that crap. And as long as parents act like little sheep and go along with the program it will continue.

  33. Warren October 1, 2012 at 7:17 pm #

    The trial would be fun, because someone has to stop operating out fear. I do not fear CAS, Canada’s version of CPS. I do not fear police, courts or any of it. I have been brought up, and have my kids, that not only do we have certain rights, but we have a duty to make sure we do not lose them.
    Just, finished doing a set of tires, for a retired cop. Asked him if a volunteer or school employee has the legal right to keep me from seeing my child, in or on school property.
    His response, only if they wish to be possibly charged with forcible confinement of the child, and at the least custodial interference. Both carry jail time.
    I reminded him, that they could be refusing me on no background check. He said school rules do not come before the law. They can tell you whatever they want, but they cannot enforce rules that contradict law.

  34. Heather P. October 1, 2012 at 7:23 pm #

    Makes me think of my daughter’s dance performance costumes. Another mom was quite concerned about the spaghetti straps and length (or lack thereof). Yes, they can be overboard in the skimpy department BUT…
    Anyone in the audience is going to be related somehow to one of the onstage performers. If some sicko is going to show up at a dance recital to get his kicks, he’s got more issues than just that.
    Not to mention, what’s he going to do, rush the stage? In front of an AUDIENCE? And if he’s sitting in the audience, among parents and siblings “doing his thing,” does he think he won’t be noticed?!

    The day a school bans a custodial parent from their child’s activities–WHATEVER the reason–things have gone seriously out of kilter.

  35. Donna October 1, 2012 at 9:53 pm #

    @ Warren – Cops are never as well versed in the law as they like to pretend they are. If they were, every arrest would result in a conviction and motions to suppress evidence and the like would not exist. Trust what a cop says at your own risk.

    I’m not saying that you would be wrong to proceed as you say. I’m not saying that you will lose. I do think that you are convinced that you are right, you absolutely will win and you will show them who’s boss and that is far from clear in this case. School systems have lawyers who vet all their policies and the overwhelming number of schools that now require background checks tells me that you may be on the losing end of this battle. A social climate in favor of helicopter parenting and protecting children at all cost tells me that a jury may not treat you favorably. Losing the case in court HARMS the free range cause.

    Because of this (and the fact that my child is present), confrontational actions that could result in police presence would not my first plan of attack in this situation. I would view them as a last resort. That doesn’t mean that I would roll over. Just that I would try more diplomatic means of change first rather than trying to bulldoze through the front gate.

  36. linvo October 1, 2012 at 10:05 pm #

    It’s not just the sheer insanity of getting parents to get background checked, but it’s the illogical arguments that really get to me.

    What on earth do parents’ criminal history have to do with deterring strangers from entering the grounds?! It just makes no sense. I’d be embarrassed to have my child go to a school that so blatantly ignores the laws of logic!

    And I am so happy that my child goes to a school without fences. That’s right, no fences anywhere. There was apparently a directive from the education department that schools should start erecting fences, but it immediately caused parents to put pressure on their school to keep school grounds open. Yeah!

  37. Warren October 1, 2012 at 10:28 pm #


    And in the meantime while handling it diplomatically, we have two choices.
    1. Miss school events
    2. Give in.
    When the school board loses touch with reality, and thinks they have the right to place restrictions on me and my girls, the time to sign petitions, call for meetings, and the like are over. That is how we got into the shape we are in. School boards are the biggest bullies out there. Like a bully though they do not know what to do, when someone stands in their face, and won’t back down. They are used to people just rolling over, for the following reasons.
    1. For the kids.
    2. Everyone thinks it’s fine.
    3. Political correctness.
    4. Cowardice.

    All of which are poor lessons to teach our kids. You know as well as anyone, that the average person, can complain their ass off to everyone involved, and will never bring about any change.
    Now when a Dad says “Screw you, that is my kid playing soccer, and I am going to watch. And short of physically restraining me, you cannot stop me.”

    These admins., need more people to stand up to them, and we wouldn’t be in as bad a shape as we are.

  38. JJ October 1, 2012 at 10:37 pm #

    @Mollie, I hear you on that. What’s more, in our case (a step-parent adoption) the natural parent had to get all three of the same criminal clearances as the adoptive parent. I kept asking the “Are you sure? He is already their parent, you realize”. But yes it is the law. No one could explain to me why.

  39. Donna October 2, 2012 at 2:19 am #

    “Now when a Dad says “Screw you, that is my kid playing soccer, and I am going to watch. And short of physically restraining me, you cannot stop me.””

    And the likely result — Dad gets arrested. Now what exactly have you accomplished? Your child and, more importantly, all his friends have now seen you arrested at school. A restraining order forbidding you from entering school grounds at all will be in place at least until the case is resolved. You are now being prosecuted for a crime.

    You MAY (and that is a big may since refusing to leave a place after being asked to leave while disrupting the business of the place IS A CRIME) win the case many months later. Or you may very well lose. In that case, you now have a criminal conviction, probation and fines and the school has uncontroverted evidence that the rule is perfectly fine. No amount of diplomacy will change the rule now. It is 100% set in stone. Thanks for that, by the way.

  40. Donna October 2, 2012 at 2:29 am #

    And, in the states anyway, you could be prosecuted for a felony. You see, when an adult forces their way onto a campus after being denied admission, the school goes on lockdown. Most jurisdictions have statutes prohibiting the disruption of schools. In my state, that is a felony.

    “These admins., need more people to stand up to them, and we wouldn’t be in as bad a shape as we are.”

    The administration needs more people objecting to the rules. There is a reason that Martin Luther King’s calm demeanor achieved more than Malcolm X’s more militant stance. Bulldozing ANYONE rarely produces the results that you want. It does nothing but put people on the defensive. It also has the habit of making you look like an ass and nobody wants to support an ass so the odds of getting other parents on board is slim. Fighting a one-man battle against a school is rarely going to get you anywhere.

  41. Warren October 2, 2012 at 3:18 am #

    Okay Donna, try going to the school board and saying I object to the rules. Unless you have income to burn, by hiring attorneys to battle their attorneys, you are screwed behind a wall of ass kissing, butt covering administrators.

    We are in the shape we are in, because the vast majority of parents out there are cowards. They have been brought up that way. Don`t rock the boat. They run the school, they must know best. Oh no, they will call CPS. And so on. And as long as we have parents out there like this, things will only get worse.

    `does nothing but put people on the defensive`, the school boards and other agencies, have parents that want free range standards for our kids, on the defensive for years now. And it is only getting worse.

    Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the horns, stand up, be heard, and let the chips fall where they may. It has been my experience that when one man takes a stand against lunacy, and or oppression, that it can be infectious. I highly doubt that in my community, that I would be arrested for one, the cops have more common sense up here. Secondly, their would be a significant uproar from the community.

    There is a difference between bulldozing and standing your ground. One is aggresive the other assertive.

    I have more respect for the person who when threatened with the police, lends the other their cellphone to make the call with, than someone who backs down, compromising their integrity.
    There are those who rollover and follow like sheep. And then there are those who refuse to rollover and play dead. The meek shall not inherit the earth. The meek don`t have what it takes to run the place.

  42. Lucy October 3, 2012 at 10:57 am #

    I have mixed feelings about this article. I am the adoptive mother of a little girl who was molested and abused by her biological parents. Due to the state they were in making so many errors, they were not charged even though it was proven they did these things. They did take the children and all were adopted out. The mother is now working hard to birth more children, and sex offenders like this do not change. If she was to enter a school, she would be a threat. She is a pedophile. Would she slip into a bathroom and touch a child? Yes, she would.

    I am working hard to allow this little girl to live a normal life. To laugh and play, run through grass barefooted, to climb the monkey bars in a park, to be a kid. Because being a kid is something she was never allowed to be.

  43. Warren October 3, 2012 at 2:13 pm #

    Lucy, I feel for this young girl, and thank you for being there for her.

    Although as you said they were not charged. So a background check would turn up nothing. Therefore making all parents jump thru hoops, added expense, and inconveniences for nothing.

  44. Emily October 10, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    >>But unless you have two clearances and have taken the “Protecting God’s Children” class, you cannot do lunch duty (which you must pay to opt out of), help out/show up for a class party, or pretty much do anything else during the day, other than pick up or drop off your kid<<

    Isn't that extortion? Either way, you're being forced to give up something–you either have to pay for the two background checks (if they cost money for volunteers where you are), and then give up your time to get said checks, all for the "privilege" of giving up your time to do lunch duty, OR you have to pay money to get out of the whole deal. That doesn't seem quite fair…..and, while I know that you technically have a choice of which school to enroll your kids in, I also know that, for some parents, there are variables such as cost, distance/transportation/after care issues/space availability, etc., that eliminate a lot of so-called "choices." The pool of options is also significantly smaller if you're looking for a specific denomination of religious schooling for your kids, such as Catholic. So, I think it's wrong to make parents pay for their children to be enrolled in a so-called free public school, or hit them with tons of hidden fees (both monetary and time-commitment-wise) above and beyond the cost of tuition.

  45. JP November 11, 2012 at 5:21 pm #

    Or better yet – have pre-school registration of every student require background checks on everybody. Good for the whole school year.
    (sort of like renewing a driver’s license – a “parenting” license!)
    Or – we could switch to rfid implants. Every minute of every school day full of swipes and beeps.
    Personally, I like the idea of teachers standing around in dark suits, mirror sunglasses, wired ear buds.
    Every child is a president! yay!

    Thing is – an awful lot of smart adults will draw battle lines over this endlessly and ad nauseum (emphasis on the nauseous.)
    Meanwhile an awful lot of smart kids learn to disconnect their respect and trust in a system.
    Parental “authority” becomes conditional and compromised – all for the benefit of exactly whom?
    Did anyone notice that the age range of the school in question was 11-16?
    16 year-olds are ‘children’ at risk?

    When I was a kid, I grew to understand that safety existed in the home (even when being punished for misbehaving) at school (even when being punished for misbehaving) and in the community at large (even when – more of the same.)
    All those ‘safeties” required belief and trust in the common sense and competence of the adults that ruled my world. This was important.
    A kid’s perspective isn’t something that comes out of a crackerjack box at age 21. It happens all along the way.
    If that perspective is respected, they perhaps actually have the opportunity to grow into competent adults themselves. Marvelous concept.
    Apparently it is quite okay now to drive kids nuts in order to “save” them.
    But how safe do they really feel? If they’re normal, they should feel bloody well immortal. And if not? Someone has been messing with the software.

  46. Dad November 13, 2012 at 11:17 pm #

    I had this happen to me recently at my kids school. I filed for divorce and the childrens mother works at the school. I went to check them out of school. We both have joint custody as no custody hearing has been scheduled as of yet. When I went in,the secretary called my kids teachers and told them I was checking them out.5 minutes later my ex walks down the hall and gets the principal. The principal asks me into his office. He denies my right to get my kids.I ask him where it says on the papers she gave him,that she has full custody? He couldn’t,but still wouldn’t let me check them out close to the end of the day.I’m taking this further.No school has more rights over a child than their parents.


  1. Free Range Kids » Boys Over 11 Not Allowed in Church Bathroom with Boys Under 11 (And Other “Security” Measures) - October 5, 2012

    […] We’ve been talking about over-the-top “security” measures lately (including parents required to have background checks to watch their kids on field day, and parents not allowed to hold the door open at day care for other parents), but I do believe […]

  2. Voksne menn og småjenter | Oda Rygh - October 13, 2012

    […] Men synes det samtidig er fælt. Vi trenger mannlige forbilder og mannlig nærvær. Det kan ikke være sÃ¥nn at kun nærmeste familie kan være nær jenter i puberteten, i saudia-arabia-stil. Det kan ikke bli sÃ¥nn som denne historien fra mitt andre hjemland: […]