At long last, states and parents are coming to the same conclusion: It is harmful to punish parents for letting their children take some risks.
I completely agree with the attitude expressed here by Ms. Skenazy and have advocated for it for many years (our oldest is pushing forty). When I advocate for it, I make sure to highlight the likelihood that some small number of children will suffer terrible tragedy as a result of this extra freedom. And by "small" I mean minuscule, but if we don't take account of that in advance, we'll find ourselves confronted with people saying "See what happens when you let kids roam free?!"
We have to be prepared to answer a parent who has suffered an unspeakable tragedy and asks "Was it worth it?" that "Yes, yes it was worth it." Of course I mean that rhetorically -- it would be cruel to say it to this hypothetical parent. But when it comes to public policy, as well as our individual parenting decisions, we must be able to say that the total cost of letting kids roam is less than the total cost of keeping them under surveillance.
I support these laws and appreciate the authors advocacy. I was taken aback by her willingness to take so much credit for social change. “The trend is starting to reverse, thanks in large part to the efforts of Let Grow, a nonprofit I co-founded in 2017 to advocate for change.”