On the other hand, sound judgement includes the ability to recognize and obey “no trespassing” signs. The way this case could have been handled:

(1) Store clerk asks kid to point out accompanying adult or produce proof of acceptable age. When kid is unable to, clerk asks him to leave.

(2) If kid refuses to leave, clerk calls in security.

(3) If kid still refuses to leave, store calls cops. Kid, *not* mother, is arrested on petty delinquency charge. When parent comes in, social worker agrees to dismiss delinquency charge on condition parent and kid talk through some maturity issues.

(4) If parent sues store for kicking kid out, parent (and lawyer) should be assessed costs for filing frivolous lawsuit.

However, there is exactly zero evidence that the kids in any of the actual cases cited were screaming.

Of course we were talking about a case if a child got hurt and the general discussion of the policies.

We do know that the kid’s parents decided they were above the rules and policies of the stores. We do know that instead of spending time with their kids in the stores (which is the point of the policy.) the parents thought “cool! I don’t have to watch or interact with my kids.”

If you think that dumping a kid off against a store policies and walking away without anyone being able to contact the parents is a good idea, there is very little left to say.

The policy is reasonable and promotes the atmosphere the store wants based upon their vision and their experience.

As for me, I grow weary of parents such as those cited in the story who believe “you aren’t the boss of me,” and teach their kids that same lesson.

If you have rules of conduct in your home, it is hypocritical for you to think that the rules the store has enacted are “unreasonable.”

The specific policy at issue is not reasonable.

This is going nowhere. Unless you think that the store should not have the right and the ability to make policies that are in their best interests and based on their experiences, the policies are reasonable.

That can be handled with an anti loitering policy better than it is with a blanket age restriction.

Handled better how? You want store personnel to get into a fight and arguments with kids over what is loitering? It is much better and much more productive to just stop them at the door. Malls across the country are enacting policies that restrict kids under the age of 18 because they are disruptive and don’t purchase anything.

The question is then, who’s experience is more informed? Yours or retailers?

Who owns ./ controls the property? You or the retailers?

You are more than free to put your money on the line to rent space and open a store. What you shouldn’t do is tell a store they must comply with your wishes.

Also look at the other side of the policy. I couldn’t go to the Lego Land store to shop for presents for my nice or my cousin’s kids without violating their absurd policy.

Actually you can. The stores and LegoLand locations have nights just for adults.

Ask the kid for his mother’s name and call mall security to have the mother paged……….

What’s her name? “Mommy.” Yeah, that’s a big help.

So the store is responsible to resolve the mothers wrongful acts? Is that really where you want to go? If there is a kid in the store and no parent around, the store should call the police. The police are there to resolve the situations like this and not force retail stores to play detective.

I am sure you are aware that there are other companies and retail outlets that have similar policies. McDonalds, for example says kids in the play area must be accompanied by an adult. Is that policy “unreasonable” as well?

It’s a funny thing about retail stores. They are in the business of selling products. They are not in the business of having babysitting duties forced upon them by inconsiderate people.

Those who think they are special and that the rules of property owners don’t apply to them are the ones being unreasonable.

“But still an indication that Legoland is obsessed with age liability whether that originates from prompts by an insurer or not.”

Not necessarily.

Retail outlets are required by law and the practical realities of doing business to carry liability insurance.

If their liability insurer tells them to adopt policy X or we will cancel your coverage, how is the story having policy X a sign that the store is obsessed with anything?

“You mean a screaming kid in the middle of a store that caters to kids and their parents doesn’t horrify you? ”

A screaming kid? sure.

An unaccompanied but well behaved child? no.

However, there is exactly zero evidence that the kids in any of the actual cases cited were screaming.

“the bottom line is that it is more than reasonable for the store to have certain policies in place.”

Sure, it’s reasonable for them to have certain polices, but that doesn’t make any and every possible policy reasonable. The specific policy at issue is not reasonable.

” Unless the 15-17 year olds are there to purchase something”

That can be handled with an anti loitering policy better than it is with a blanket age restriction.

Also look at the other side of the policy. I couldn’t go to the Lego Land store to shop for presents for my nice or my cousin’s kids without violating their absurd policy.

“Still, what was the store supposed to do?”

Ask the kid for his mother’s name and call mall security to have the mother paged.
Did they even bother asking the kid if he knew where mom was?
Ask the kid for mom’s cell number and call her.

But still an indication that Legoland is obsessed with age liability whether that originates from prompts by an insurer or not. It is also consistent with tendencies in society which Skenazy is against–infantilizing minors and demonizing adults interacting with unrelated minors.

Okay, leaving a 10 year old to shop on their own is a bit of a stretch.

Is “bit of a stretch” another way of saying “unreasonable?”

Is it remotely reasonable to call letting an older teen 15-17 shop on their own using the store as a babysitter?

I didn’t realize that we were talking about 15-17 year olds, but I’ll play along with your argument. Are the 15-17 year olds there to purchase something? Unless the 15-17 year olds are there to purchase something, get out. The store doesn’t have the time to babysit them either. Do the 15-17 year olds want to come in and play with the bricks? Get out. They’re in the way of little kids and their parents trying to build and play. The 15-17 year olds are most likely in there to kill time at the mall (who didn’t walk the malls at that age?) and so yeah, the store is acting as a babysitter.

The store’s policy is not reasonable.

While I would never say you don’t have the right to your opinion and the privilege to voice that opinion in a forum like this, the bottom line is that it is more than reasonable for the store to have certain policies in place.

It is not reasonable for people to try and circumvent those policies. If you don’t like the policy and can’t get it changed, the remedy is quite simple: don’t shop there.

The mother’s actions probably aren’t reasonable…..

A mother demonstrating to a kid that the policies and rules of other people’s property don’t apply to her or the child is not reasonable.

I agree that the actions of the police were over the top. Still, what was the store supposed to do? Violate its own policies? If you want to argue that the store should have held onto the child and watched them for 2 hours, then you have to concede the store was being used as a babysitting service.

If the mother had followed the rules and policies of the store, none of this would have happened. Instead, it almost seems like people are saying “the store has to do what *I* think, and not what they want on their property.”

That’s really unreasonable.

…..actually had money and was going to buy stuff. That’s not being a babysitter, that’s serving a customer…..

While I agree with you on the idea of detaining the child, once again, the 11 year old was not allowed in the store without an adult. If you want to argue that the kid should be allowed to enter into a sales contract with the store, shouldn’t he at least be required on some level to read the rules of the store?

I fail to be horrified at that.

You mean a screaming kid in the middle of a store that caters to kids and their parents doesn’t horrify you? You want the image of a kid screaming and crying for their parent to be burned into the memory of other patrons? In the real world of retail, that’s not just horrifying, that’s a nightmare of epic proportions.

And does the store think that will change just because an adult is present?

One would hope that the presence of a parent would lower the risk of the kid doing something that causes an injury, but you never know.