The context of the prohibitions on children left alone is that it is, allegedly, a symptom of “child abandonment”. The notion is that a parent cannot leave a child to fend for him or herself, at home, without making arrangements. For example, a parent cannot decide to take a weekend trip to Niagara Falls, leaving the kid to fend for him or herself overnight.
You can see this in the Ontario statute, the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c C.11, which states as follows in context:
If the intention was to prevent less-that-16 year olds from being out in public without a parent at all, of what purpose is the prohibition in subsection (5) against ‘loitering’ or ‘entering places of entertainment unless accompanied’ at night?
Obviously, the intent was otherwise - that parents of under-16s must make ‘reasonable arrangements’ when they ‘leave the child’; that the onus shifts to them to prove the arrangements were ‘reasonable’ when the kids are under-10; and that they cannot allow the kids to ‘loiter’ in public at night. The clear implication is that they are perfectly well allowed to have kids ‘loiter’ or enter ‘a place of public entertainment’ during the day.
Now, I know this case was in Alberta, not Ontario; and Alberta doesn’t even have this legislation - but the principles at work are exactly the same. There is no actual legal justification for the level of ‘helicoptering’ supervision you are assuming is required.
To the store’s credit, they aren;t claiming their policy was dictated by law.
Well, count me surprised at the Canadian stand against free-ranging children (regardless of said children’s capacity or actual conduct, or their parents’ judgement).
I’m not a big fan of so-called “free range parenting.” I think it’s often an excuse to just not parent the kid. But I can’t see any way the store’s policy is reasonable. If the policy is about troublemaking kids, then you make it about the kids who cause trouble. It’s the classic example of losing sight of the real reason for the rule.
The idea that the kid is being babysat is also ridiculous. The store is no more responsible for the kid without a parent than they would be with a parent. A babysitter is someone you hire to act in loco parentis.
It’s also just financially stupid. This kid is going to get donations from people who think the store was wrong, and he’d be an idiot to buy his Legos from that store–assuming he’s even still into Legos after that. It is never a good business practice to turn away good customers, no matter what their age.
Do I think parents should allow their kids to bike for three hours to get to a store? No, not really–at least, not until their teenage years. But I don’t think the store was right to do what they did, either.
Especially if they did in fact insult the father’s parenting. That would prove it wasn’t about any policy but junior policing. “How dare you raise your kid a way I don’t approve of!”