I wrote last week about Free-Range Kids with The Creek Boys. Free-Range Kids highlights just how much things have changed in the last 50 years regarding unjustified fears . . . of everything.
And that everything includes the pervasive fear of going barefoot.
I thought I’d relate some recent free-range incidents and how their occurrences might relate to barefooting.
The worst thing about these stories, from my point of view, is how accepting people are about them. They rarely fight back. Or if they do, their response is minimal. Often, the response is minimal because the risk of penalties just for fighting back is too great, so people are forced to acquiesce, or put themselves in a position of greater jeopardy.
The first incident I want to discuss is Lego Store Detains Boy, 11, for Being Too Young To Shop Alone.
This happened in Calgary, Alberta. It seems that the Lego store required that any child under age 12 be accompanied by a parent. The boy was only 11½, and somehow a “suspicious” Lego employee asked him his age. The kid answered, not knowing what would ensue.
So they had their security guard detain the boy until his dad showed up.
This is kidnapping. The boy was doing nothing illegal and so the store had no cause to detain him. Instead, they took the boy against his will. If they didn’t want the boy in there without a parent, they can ask him to leave, but they cannot grab him against his will and prevent him from leaving.
Again, this is kidnapping.
The father got the boy and ended up writing a letter to Lego (and will never go there again). But I’m thinking he should have filed kidnapping charges. The only way to fight this sort of idiocy it to makes stores afraid of doing it.
That’s how barefooters have problems. Somehow stores have gotten afraid of being sued for some sort of barefoot injury (though over the years, such cases are ridiculously rare—you can count them on the toes of one foot).
It would be so much better if stores were afraid of being sued for kicking out barefooters, just as it would be better if stores would be afraid of charges being leveled when they illegally detain kids.
Unfortunately, detaining kids really is illegal. Kicking out a barefoot patron generally isn’t.
However, that’s also why I try to inform barefooters of some of the tools that they might be able to use, like the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (though those can only be used by barefooters for whom they apply). But if stores get to be afraid of being sued by such barefooters, then they might start to give all barefooters a pass.
That was kind of what I was hoping with my library lawsuits, but I didn’t count on the ability of judges to carve out exceptions to general case law just to maintain barefoot bans. (I also have to admit to being concerned that special ADA and FRFA exceptions could get carved out, simply to thwart barefooters.)
Another recent incident, one that made a lot of national news, is the one with the Meitivs of Maryland. They let their kids, ages 6 and 10, walk to and from the neighborhood park alone (accompanied only by each other). See Cops Pick Up Maryland Kids Again, Hold Them For Hours Without Informing Parents.
The Meitivs are fighting this, and good for them. In this instance, the cops held the kids, and it probably wasn’t illegal (but only because it was the cops, who are allowed to do things that regulars citizens cannot). But they are being harassed (you can be sure the cops did that on purpose). The Meitivs now have legal counsel and we’ll see where it goes. However, there is a strong Constitutional presumption that parents make the primary decisions regarding their kids, and it is only when there are clear dangers or unfitness that the State can get involved. Unfortunately, Child Protective Services don’t seem to be able to distinguish, and also clearly must have too many resources if they can waste them on this sort of stuff instead of real problems.
When I look through state court cases, I find that when parents do challenge the crap in court, the parents usually win. It’s just that there is all that hassle. It is also the case that CPS is rarely penalized for their over-zealousness.
Let me wrap up with one from here in Ohio, Kid, 8, Skips Church to Play. Dad Arrested. In this one, the boy was supposed to get on a bus to go to church. Instead, he went to a Family Dollar store, a half-mile up the road. The father was arrested for child endangerment.
Now, I’ve read the Ohio statute regarding child endangerment, O. R. C. 2919.22:
(A) No person, who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under twenty-one years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support.
That clearly does not apply to what happened here. Where is the substantial risk for an 8-year-old child who doesn’t have a hovering parent? And when I look at Ohio case law, there is also nothing that would support this charge.
Yet, the father, Jeffery Williamson, was charged.
The result hasn’t really made the news as far as I can tell, but I was able to check up on it: In exchange for doing community service, the charges were dropped.
On the one hand, I guess we should be happy that he wasn’t convicted or jailed. On the other hand, he was still treated as if he were guilty—you don’t make random people on the street do community service.
It was a situation with coercion. Williamson had this awful threat of conviction hanging over his head, even if that really wasn’t supported by law, but the power of the state meant that they could coerce him into the community service because he could not risk a conviction.
This is fear running the other direction.
In the end, when it comes to barefooting, barefooters are often forced to put on shoes because of the fear of society’s expectations, or the fear of a business kicking us out, or even the fear of possibly getting arrested.
I’d really like to work to put the fear back where it belongs: on those who try to restrict us from just innocuously going about our daily business just like everybody else. But doing it barefoot.
Ahcuah 
That is, if the business owners really are afraid of injury lawsuits, and not of losing shod customers because of the presence of those hippie folks.
If you want your children to grow up, to be independent, give them freedoms, let them take decisions, trust them.
It’s a sad world when shops make this impossible to parents and force them to supervise their kids all the time! Perhaps until they are adult and have a boss to look over them … so when they are old and look back, they wonder where their childhood was.
There is a similar mentality when the police stop me and concern troll me. They think that they have to err on the side of giving me a hard time just in case I was really in trouble and they left me alone.
I really hope the Meitivs win, because if they do, all kids win. I wonder how many kids will be able to walk home from the park by themselves tomorrow. (It’s strange, because I almost never see kids without parents around at the park, and yet there’s a school next door and kids walk there by themselves all the time.
The stuff that really bothers me is parents not only at the park, but also supervising their kids’ every move on the playground apparatus. I mean, not letting your kids go down a slide by themselves? Helping them up the stairs so that it really might be dangerous for them to slide down by themselves? Not how my mother did things.
“Somehow stores have gotten afraid of being sued for some sort of barefoot injury (though over the years, such cases are ridiculously rare—you can count them on the toes of one foot).”
On a related note, there is a store on one of the islands here that bills itself as a bakery/deli/store, that has all sorts of artsy and “bohemian” type items in it. It’s located across the street from the beach. I was in there a few times, barefoot, a few years ago, but have not been in there for over a year, but I drive by it often. Last week I gave it double take as I drove by. There appeared to be a new sign on the door. I pulled to the curb, and there it was – a sloppy hand written sign on a piece of paper – “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service, sorry, old uneven floors”, and a frowny face. (You need a shirt because of uneven floors??). And this place had painted, stenciled-on bare footprints along the sidewalk leading up to the door for years before. These were now removed. I wonder what prompted that? Did someone actually get hurt in there recently? I have seen that every so often, no sign on a business, then suddenly they put one up. This on an island that bills itself as being so laid back. And that town has more signs than any other beach town in the area……though there are actually 2 businesses that have a sign that says “No Shirt, No Shoes, No problem”, one on a bar and another is a store. So all is not bad here – LOL
I wonder if it is worth the bother to just go in (barefoot of course!) and ask them about the sign. And maybe suggest a different sign that says something like: “Barefoot? Old floor may have splinters. You’ve been warned.”
Or say “the sign says ‘no service’ not ‘no entry’. I’m just browsing and not expecting service”. Though that would probably not go over too well…..LMAO
I wish you all the courage and good luck you need to fight the nanny state! You can always look to other countries as examples for “free-roaming” children and no-problems barefooting. Take good ol’ Germany: Not only was I as a child part of a “Bande” that had countless – unsupervised – adventures in the street and on an empty building lot we called the “wilderness” (it was a little weedy), but even today, right here in the street, children play football (soccer), ride their bikes, or whatever, with no parent or guardian in sight. I always thought this was common around the world. Their parents trust them, and over here no one thinks of calling the cops on an 11-year old shopping alone. (In Germany, “die Polizei rufen” – calling the police – is rather a serious matter anyway. German police are always correct, polite, and helpful, but you just do not call them unless there is any real harm done. Big difference to the U.S., I guess.) How accepted barefooting is over here, I have alreday mentioned. So, courage!, and keep those feet bare!