Safety, Compassion, and Other Issues

We've all seen those letters or heard those stories about parents, particularly moms, who let their kids run wild. Venice wrote a letter about this exact issue on Monday.

But sometimes the situation isn't so cut and dried.

This past rainy weekend, Jennie took her kids to Burger King so they could work off some pent-up energy in the play area. All was well until a woman came in with her daughter. The daughter was clearly bigger than the other children, so much that Jennie assumed the girl was in high school. The daughter then entered the play area, and after an argument with her mother, sat at the end of the one of the tunnels, blocking it. When Jennie approached a manager about enforcing the play area's age limit, the manager simply shrugged his shoulders and said the girl was handicapped.

Until that exchange, Jennie had no idea the girl was handicapped. (And I'm using the word "handicapped" in lieu of another word, only because I don't know what this girl's particular disability is.) At first, I was in with the majority and thought that since the girl wasn't doing any harm, there shouldn't have been a big deal in letting her stay there. My compassion for a girl who may not be the same size physically but the same age mentally as the other kids took over.

And my compassion is still there. But as I thought about it, I realized that above all, safety should come first. Take out the girl's disability, and you still have a situation where a much-larger child is playing in an area designed for smaller kids, and let's be perfectly honest; a much-larger child could easily hurt a smaller one just by horsing around, however unintentional. I've seen this with my three-year-old niece and son. She'll give him extended body hugs, and while he's a big boy, he's still smaller than she is. And she's inadvertently hurt him a few times.

But take away even that situation, and you still have a situation where a child is blocking access to part of the equipment, causing a traffic jam for the other kids. This also could result in injuries, as the others make a mad dash and scramble to be the first to get in the other part of tunnel. I'm actually surprised this didn't happen. To me, the girl wasn't using the equipment appropriately, and while I agree play is at your own risk, and parents should be supervising at all times, management still has the responsibility to make sure his/her establishment is as safe as it can be for all patrons. There were no injuries this time, but what about the next time? Or the time after that?

So, what does this have to do with children running wild? Well, although this girl was certainly not running amok through the restaurant, the mother still had an obligation to make sure her daughter was not causing inconsideration to the other children, etc. Surely the mother in the latter case could see her child was blocking the other children and causing problems for them to use the equipment. There was apparently an argument between them about whether the girl should be in the play area or not, but the mother clearly lost that one. But should she have dragged her daughter off, kicking and screaming?

Several people suggested Jennie use this experience to teach her children about tolerance, compassion, and people who are different. I agree. Many more said Jennie should've just dealt with it; the girl was doing no harm, and Jennie should've let it go. I disagree, for the reasons I stated above. And still several more suggested Jennie should've talked to this mom herself. Maybe. I really don't know how that would've gone over. Should Jennie have to enforce a parent's lax supervision or should the manager? Which is more preferable?

I think this letter clearly illustrates how parenting isn't always black and white.

-Contributed by Dawn

Comments

[thepsychobabble]

Hey there! I'm Jennie from PFB:)

Just wanted to share a quick update. Apparently corporate agreed with the view point that the manager should have at least made an attempt to speak to the mother. I actually received a phone call from a representative, which was unexpected.
She basically said that, regardless of the child's mental age, if she was physically too large to be on the play equipment, then it was a safety hazard for both her and the other children.

[Dawn]

I'm glad you got a response from BK, Jennie. I agree that if the daughter was physically too large to be in the play area, it was a safety hazard.

We discussed your letter on our monthly Mommage podcast last week (you can listen to it via the link on the front page), and I think it's entirely possible that the manager HAD spoken to the mother at some point. Obviously, he knew them.

No matter what, your letter brought up a lot of interesting issues for parents. Thanks for sharing it and again for the update.