Laws in every state protect children under the age of eighteen from neglectful parents. These laws don’t share an accepted definition of a “neglected child.” Some laws focus on the parents’ indifferent or even willful disregard of their duty as parents, while others see neglect as the failure to use care that a reasonable person would employ in the circumstances. Regardless of the approach, every law addresses physical neglect (such as lack of food, shelter, and clothing); as well as educational, emotional, medical, and moral neglect.
Leaving a child alone at home can be a type of physical neglect. Whether doing so is against the law depends entirely on the circumstances, including the child’s age, the parents’ intent, and the danger actually or potentially presented by the situation. The parents’ intent can become a significant factor, particularly when parents deliberately leave their children alone in an effort to foster independence and maturity (“free-range parenting”). Whether this decision is a wise one in any given situation will often be hotly debated.
Nothing less than the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives parents great latitude in the way they raise their children. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court noted that “the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own.” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923).) (For more information on parental rights and responsibilities, see The Legal Rights and Responsibilities of a Parent.)
But constitutional liberties are not absolute, as we know in many other contexts (for example, your free speech right to cry “Fire!” in a crowded theater will not protect you from lawsuits and even criminal charges if your alarm was false and damages and injuries result). Society has an interest in protecting its most vulnerable, and will step in when the situation merits it.
Federal law addresses child neglect, in the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 5101-5106 (2012).) The law provides funding for Child Protective Services in situations where minors have suffered (or are in imminent danger of suffering) serious harm. The law provides practically no guidance on how to assess “imminent danger of serious harm.”
State laws are mostly centered around asking whether child’s best interests were harmed during the incident. Judges consider the opinion of the child and his or her family, acknowledge the child's sense of time, recognize the child's need for continuity, and address the risk of harm to the child. This approach allows the court to take into consideration the motives of the parent or guardian who was responsible for allowing the child to remain at home unsupervised.
Many states have carved out an exception to the application of the “child’s best interests” approach when it comes to leaving a child unattended in a vehicle. Several states provide for a minimum age, and also legislate a maximum time period. You can find a list of state laws, including those that specify when and for how long a parent may leave a child unattended, on the website Free-Range Kids.
As parents have become more and more involved in their children’s every waking hour, scheduling lessons and play time, they’ve earned the derisive moniker “helicopter parents.” These parents sometimes literally hover over their children, guiding and protecting. The child’s freedom to explore unaccompanied is severely restricted, and from this supervision flows the corollary, that to not hover is somehow a mistake—maybe even neglectful. If the need to constantly supervise becomes the societal norm, it’s an easy step to conclude that not being present (leaving a minor alone at home) qualifies as neglect.
By contrast, children raised in earlier times were much freer to explore on their own (and make mistakes and learn from them). A counter force to the helicopter parents can be seen in the “free range” (“FR”) approach, which is a throw-back to past child-rearing approaches. FR parents are not convinced that unsupervised play in the park, or walking home alone from school, or staying home alone is a bad thing—on the contrary, they argue that in selected situations, it’s completely safe and nurturing, for it fosters independence and maturity.
Because most state child neglect statutes provide few “bright lines” as to what constitutes neglect, the degree to which a judge identifies with either the extreme protection approach versus the free-range approach might color the judge’s decision. In close cases, where the child did not experience danger or harm and particularly where the child is arguably mature and self-sufficient, the judge’s attitude toward parenting styles could be a big factor.
Parents who leave their children home alone aren’t always doing so for philosophical reasons. They might have no choice. Single parents, those who work odd hours, and those who have few resources to pay for child care often have no better option. Saddling these parents with a charge of neglect does little to address the real problem (the lack of affordable child care in this country).
Unfortunately, there’s no simple answer (other than leaving children unattended in cars, in some states). Whether a judge would conclude that a parent or guardian had acted neglectfully by leaving a child alone will depend on many factors, such as the child’s age, maturity, the safety of the surroundings, how long the child was alone, whether the child in fact suffered harm, and more. In addition, the judge’s attitude towards child rearing—where the judge falls on the “free-range—helicopter parent” spectrum—will play a large part.
