Until very recently, Karyann Parkinson lived in leafy Williamsburg, Virginia. She and her husband, Dallin, moved there from Utah so Parkinson could attend William and Mary Law School.

In June, when Parkinson was preparing for the bar—and also happened to be eight months pregnant with her fifth child—she and her then-youngest, Sam, went for a bike ride, as they often do. They stopped for her son's favorite activity: collecting goose feathers from the path near their community pond. When they got home, he asked if he could walk back and get some more.

Parkinson said yes. It's a short walk, along a sidewalk separated from the street by 10 feet of grass. Sam would have to cross two streets with crosswalks, which she'd seen him do safely hundreds of times—including six times that morning, she says. Off he went while she made lunch.

A passerby saw Sam and alerted security. One of the community's security guards escorted the boy back and gave Parkinson an earful. Pretty soon there were three cop cars, just as many cops, a security vehicle, and two Child Protective Services (CPS) workers at Parkinson's door.

CPS ended up investigating her for abuse and neglect.

The cops, meanwhile, charged her with contributing to the delinquency of a minor. CPS found the allegations substantiated and placed Parkinson on the state's child abuse and neglect registry. She will remain there for seven years.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 9 points 2 months ago (32 children)

Again, it comes down to how mature the child is and who do you think is the most qualified person to determine how mature a child is for handling a walk on their own?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (31 children)

    I think you’re missing my point. It’s not the walk I object to, it’s the lake.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 31 child comments
  • [–] [S] 11 points 2 months ago (29 children)

    And you're missing my point. This mother felt comfortable with her son walking back to pick up goose feathers.

    Why do you think you know better about what this boy can handle than his own mother?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (8 children)

    some parents are comfortable with exposing their child to drugs, too. i dont think thats a metric you should rely on.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    Wow, you escalated this from a boy taking a walk in his own neighborhood to being exposed to drugs.

    Clutch your pearls harder, why don't you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 0 points 2 months ago* (6 children)
  • [–] [S] 4 points 2 months ago* (5 children)

    I'm sorry for what you've had to deal with, but this is not what we're talking about here. THIS mom did not shoot a dog in front of her child, THIS mom did not rape her son, THIS mom isn't pushing drugs on her kids.

    also i hope you dont have a child, it sounds like you’d let them hang out near ponds without supervision, which is wildly irresponsible at best.

    This is rude as fuck.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -2 points 2 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    no, i believe you are arguing in bad faith, on the side of parental neglect. if you had read my original comment, i said i didnt think she should have gotten this response from letting her kid walk the neighborhood. i had a specific issue with letting him be unsupervised near a pond.

    first your argument was that parents should let their kids walk the neighborhoods. when i pointed out that that's not the real issue, you say parents know whats best for their kids. when i supplied evidence to the contrary, you brought it around to walking the neighborhood again.

    are...are you okay?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    We're talking about a specific case here and you've already devolved into calling me a jackass and hoping I didn't have kids.

    Are you okay?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    They're what we call in Spanish a nested egg or a broken egg, depending on their background.

    Nested egg for the ones who's parents hovered them so intensely they never hatched and are still an egg, never maturing and learning risks.

    A broken egg for the ones who saw way too much trauma way too young and it broke them, so they also never got to mature.

    But both will think a nearby pond is deadly, because they never had a parent teach them that ponds are dangerous so stay away until you're older.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    I had a park with a pond right in my childhood neighborhood, off my street, that was one of the main places I used to play (unsupervised), and I don't know of anyone who drowned. Because it's a pond, and there was also never some strange mystical gust of wind that blew me into it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago* (19 children)

    Why do you keep ignoring the part about the drowning threat? That's the only thing I object to. The walk by itself I take no issue with.

    I'm not missing your point; I agree with you that parents should have latitude- perhaps even wide latitude- in determining what's best. But we (society) also recognize there's a limit to that. We ensure children receive enough nutrition and health care to keep them healthy and alive, regardless of the parents opinions. Parents can't opt out of education, or of child safety seats in cars. Parents get a lot of say, but there's a certain threshold we make sure they meet.

    Keeping an unsupervised five year old away from a body of water is above that line. There's not a five year old alive who's safe next to a body of water unsupervised.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] [S] 10 points 2 months ago* (6 children)

    I think you've made a lot of assumptions about how close that pond was and you're ignoring that the pond wasn't a stated factor at all in this case. For the record, I agree with you about water safety wholeheartedly. I live in an area with a lot of water and a lot of accidental deaths due to that. It's tragic.

    This five year old was fine by the pond. This mother was unfairly prosecuted. That's all I'm saying with this post.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    You’re right, I’m making an assumption about the proximity of the pond. But because the story states it’s “near the community pond” and that it’s close enough to have goose feathers, I’m comfortable with that assumption.

    a lot of accidental deaths due to that. It's tragic.

    This five year old was fine by the pond.

    Those two statements do not reconcile. An unsupervised five year old is NOT EVER “fine” near a body of water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    The statement that this five year old was fine by that pond is referencing this specific instance. The kid was fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Was this a five year old Kal-El and this was Smallville? Was this child incapable of drowning?

    Yes, this kid was fine. Maybe he is fine because busy body security guard intervened before he chased a goose into the pond. We’ll never know, which is why the mother is charged with negligence and not something more serious.

    I hear what you’re saying that there are too many busy bodies out there being nosy and not letting kids be kids and parents be parents. I agree with that statement.

    This isn’t a good example of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Damn, you must have been one really dumb 5 year old.

    I'm guessing you're also one of those people that can't remember much of when they were young, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Have you been around five year olds? They don't yet have the skills to be safe around a body of water unsupervised. It's why people put fences around their pools.

    Seriously, you people should not be trusted with children if you think an unsupervised five year old is safe around a body of water.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Well, way to prove what I said 🤣

    Just because you were a little slower than your peers at learning something, doesn't mean most are.

    "Have you been around five year olds?" Nah man, I just hatched out of an egg already six years old 🙄 just imagined all the cousins I took care of growing up too.

    Edit: also want to address a pool isn't the same as a man-made pond. One has a steep immediate drop, the other is muddy and shallow as it slowly gets deeper. That's why a pool is more dangerous than a pond.

    The other reason they're fenced is because actual toddlers might wander into a pool. Just because you might've been breast fed at 5 still doesn't mean a 5 year old is a toddler.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Nobody is ignoring it we're telling you mom knows best and who are you to tell a mom her kid shouldn't be allowed near a pond??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago* (10 children)

    If mom is allowing five year old unsupervised near a pond she’s objectively wrong and does deserve a neglect charge.

    We can have that argument about an older kid, but not five years old.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    who are you to tell a mom her kid shouldn’t be allowed near a pond??

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    Near a pond unsupervised.

    If you saw someone driving a pickup truck with a five year old in the back unrestrained, would you not object?

    Who are you to tell a parent they can't let their five year old ride in the back of a truck unrestrained? /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Those are two totally different things, idk im not a parent but seems like you're in the minority here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    Downvotes only suggest a poor sample size. I suspect most down voters aren’t parents either, because no one displaying good parenting skills would allow a child that young to be by a body of water unattended. Nor would they have their child in a car inadequately restrained.

    It’s parenting 101, and the lack of it here disturbs me.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 2 months ago (5 children)

    does deserve a neglect charge.

    There it is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago* (4 children)

    And? She does deserve it.

    And it's not just me who thinks so, it's the professionals at child protective services who had all the information and chose to charge her.

    Listen, it seems like you don't like the coddling of children and not letting kids be kids. I almost entirely agree with you. But an unsupervised five year old near a body of water is not an example of that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Earlier you tried couching your comments with saying you didn’t think she deserved to be prosecuted. Now here you are walking it back.

    We’ve already gone over this extensively. You’re overblowing the pond’s dangers in this story. And now it seems like you’re doing it to bash parents.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (2 children)

    I don't think she deserves to be charged for letting him walk to a park a short distance away (which was the point of the original comment to which I replied.) I personally wouldn't have allowed my child at five to walk unsupervised across two cross streets, but I recognize children are different and I'm not aware of the specifics of the neighborhood. I do not judge the parent for this.

    But the moment it became apparent there was a pond at the park, it's a different ballgame. I'm not overblowing the danger of a pond to an unsupervised five year old, you're dramatically underplaying it. And nowhere did I bash the parents, I only agreed with the assessment of child protective services that charges were appropriate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I would trust my 3 yr old to walk near a pond unsupervised. Think he probably has more brains than you though. Its about the individual person. If they have shown a record of being cautious and independent then you trust them. Only non parents or control freaks pop off like you are in this thread.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    That is an extremely bad parenting decision. Like, take-your-kid-away, bad decision.

    Only non parents or control freaks pop off like you are in this thread.

    Parent to a tween. And most certainly not a control freak. He's been going to the corner park (about a quarter mile away) by himself since he was six or seven, and staying home alone for several hours since about that time too. I'm in agreement that there can be too much helicopter parenting out there, but man do we disagree what constitutes helicoptering.

  • source
  • parent