How Young Is Too Young To Let Your Teen/Tween Go To The Mall Unchaperoned?

[tropicsgoddess]

The older generations had more freedom than a good handful of the teens/tweens of the current generation. What age constitutes as being too young for a teen/tween to go to the mall unchaperoned?

http://blogs.trb.com/features/family...to_the_ma.html

Until I was about 16 or 17 my mother didn't approve of me and my sisters going to the mall unchaperoned (especially with boys). My parents were pretty strict. I think maybe once they reach 14 or 15 would be ideal (that is if the kid is mature enough) to have them be able to go to the mall by themselves. What's your take on this?

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'd say fourteen or fifteen is fine, as long as you don't mean alone alone, just without parents. If they are with a group of pals, it's fine.

Eleven is way too young. Eleven year olds are still children, and can still get into trouble or have accidents or in a worst case scenario, be snatched. A group of teenagers are a lot safer as long as they stick together and are sensible.

[BlaqueKatt]

I did actually like the one commentor's take on it-that the teen/tween should have an adult nearby to "blame" and save face for not misbehaving-peer pressure can be overwhelming for kids that age trying to fit in.

[powerboy]

I would have to say about 15 or 16 is young enough.

[XCashier]

I was going to the mall by myself when I was 14. Mind you, I didn't act like an ass, didn't break or steal anything, had enough sense not to go off with strangers and treated everyone with basic decency and courtesy. Maybe if more kids did, this wouldn't be an issue.

[joe hx]

I just watched an episode of Penn & Tellers Bullshit on this. Some woman let her 9 year old go through the New York subways alone. Nothing happened to the kid. They also noted that in 2006, more kids were abused by catholic priests than were snatched by complete strangers.

I also never liked the idea of attaching certain "freedoms" (can't think of a better word) to a particular age. I mean, why can you drink at 21, but not 20 years 11 months? Or drive at sixteen, but not at 15, so on and so on. It depends on the kids maturity level and the parents decisions.

[AdminAssistant]

It depends on the kids, the parents, and perhaps most importantly, the area or neighborhood. At the local mall where I grew up, yeah, a 15 year old would be fine. In the one I worked at in KC....not so much.

[Kheldarson]

Some woman let her 9 year old go through the New York subways alone.

I read the actual article for that a while ago:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/133103/page/1


I have to agree that it should be based on the family as a whole. My mom probably could have left me at the mall at age 12-13 and known I would've been fine. Mostly because I would have been in the bookstore only. But also because I knew what would happen if I didn't show up where I was supposed to be, when I was supposed to be there.

[fireheart17]

From memory, my mum used to let me go to my local mall by myself when I was about 11 or 12. This was only to run errands though, such as buying milk or bread.

She started letting me go to the larger mall by myself when I was about 14.

[McDreidel09]

I was about 11 or 12 when I was allowed to roam the mall alone. I was pretty mature for my age, so my mom and grandmother saw no reason why I shouldn't. A huge chunk of the time, I had friends with me, but there were times I went alone.

It should be up to the individual teen/tween. If they can handle it at age 12, then go ahead. If at 17, they can't handle themselves, don't let them go off on their own.

[Lace Neil Singer]

Sometimes, it's about liability. Some stores won't allow children to be there alone or unsupervised. I think there was a PFB letter where this woman was bitching about a staff member not letting her eight year old son browse alone in a bookstore. While I agree that the chances of being snatched are slight, there is still the chance of an accident or of the kid running into nasty older kids if alone.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

Sometimes, it's about liability. Some stores won't allow children to be there alone or unsupervised. I think there was a PFB letter where this woman was bitching about a staff member not letting her eight year old son browse alone in a bookstore. While I agree that the chances of being snatched are slight, there is still the chance of an accident or of the kid running into nasty older kids if alone.

You might have that backwards...at least in some cases. I know where I work we have a policy that we CANNOT EVER tell an unattended child to leave the store and go elsewhere, all we can do is attempt to locate a parent or contact police.

It's a liability thing because if we send the kid away and he gets hit by car...guess who's responsible?

[Lace Neil Singer]

No, I haven't. There are shops where I live where unaccompanied kids of a certain age; I think it's 12 - 16, are not allowed in there without an adult. It's cuz of not wanting to encourage truancy.

And you didn' address the second part of my post. Especially with bullying happening all the time, how would you feel if you sent your 11 year old to the mall, and they were set upon by a group of older kids?

[joe hx]

At one of my local gas stations they have a sign reading "Only one unsupervised child allowed at a time" or something like that...

The bullying aspect is probably a thousand times more relevant than the kid getting snatched. And it could work both ways - don't let your kid alone in the mall because he might be bullied (the bullies don't necessarily need to be older) or don't let your kid alone in the mall because he might bully others.

[jackfaire]

It's a liability thing because if we send the kid away and he gets hit by car...guess who's responsible?

Seriously how in any legal way are you liable for a child that you are not legally responsible for?

I mean unless you work in a day care they shouldn't ever be able to hold you responsible for the parents screwing up.