The middle- and upper-middle-class parents I interviewed never voiced those same concerns. For them, free-range parenting seems relatively risk-free. Consider Lenore Skenazy, the former columnist who coined the term. ...Actually, here is what Skenazy said:
And even if they had, I, like many well-off parents, probably would have been able to talk my way out of trouble. My own research finds that middle- and upper-middle-class parents are particularly good at exempting their children from many rules and punishments—partly because of savvy negotiating skills, but partly because their class or race affords them the benefit of the doubt. ...
Utah’s new law—and the free-range-parenting movement more generally — doesn’t seem to account for all this. The law doesn’t specify when free-range parenting becomes neglectful parenting, and that gives authorities an uncomfortable amount of discretion. Utah’s law protects parents from having their children taken away, but only if those children are of “sufficient” age and if those children’s “basic needs are met.” But what counts as sufficient? ...
The better-educated, better-paid parents who embrace free-range parenting aren’t preoccupied with questions like these.
Of course “sufficient age and maturity” is vague, but the law is clearly leaning in the direction of giving “Free-Range” parents the benefit of the doubt when they give their kids some unsupervised time, rather than charging negligence.The vagueness comes from left-wing nanny-state politicians, not from free-range parents.
This Utah law is overwhelmingly to the benefit of low-class poor parents.
This is just another example where the mainstream press uses any excuse to attack white ppl. Even when white ppl push thru a law that primarily benefits non-whites, the magazine blames whites.