A few years back, after the first "Free Range Parenting" law passed in Utah — a great day for childhood independence — my nonprofit received a query from a lawmaker. Inspired, he wanted his state to pass a similar law that allowed parents to grant their kids some freedom to play outside, stay home alone, walk to school, etc., and it would not be mistaken for neglect. And so, he said, he'd drafted a bill:

Parents are not to be investigated or accused of neglect simply for letting their children, age 10 and up, engage in independent childhood activities.

He expected us to be excited!

We were not.

In fact, as we gently explained, this was a law we could not endorse.

In the three years we've been advocating on this score, we've often encountered well-intended people such as that lawmaker who believe the right to childhood independence should be granted — but only to children above a certain age. Usually, the suggested age is much higher than we know many children could manage.

These lawmakers are well-intentioned, but they miss a basic fact of parenting: Sometimes a nine-year-old is playing outside with his four-year-old sister. Is that okay or not? Under a law with age limits, it isn't — not if a child can't be outside without adult supervision till age nine.

Or what if, suddenly, a mom has to leave her twin six-year-olds at home because of a work or family emergency? A law stating, "not until age nine" criminalizes this seat-of-the-pants decision that has nothing to do with neglect and everything to do with the fact that life is not perfect or predictable enough to insist on one-size-fits-all age limits.

We know people may say: "But without an age limit, parents may think they can send their two-year-old outside to play at 10 p.m.!" To which we reply: "We are not nuts. That behavior concerns us, too, which is why the laws always state that parents are allowed to determine what age they think their kids are ready for some unsupervised time, BUT they must not leave their kids in obvious danger."

A two-year-old allowed to wander in traffic in the dark IS in obvious danger, so it is prohibited by our "Reasonable Childhood Independence" laws.

Hence the term, "reasonable."

The laws passed with Let Grow's support this year in Oklahoma and Texas give parents back the right to make reasonable decisions while allowing (expecting!) the authorities to follow up when they don't.

It is easy to overestimate danger and underestimate children's sense, resilience and abilities.

But too many parents have been investigated for trusting their kids to be fine doing things that were always routine until our fretful times: Playing at the park, biking home from the pool or even letting their toddler play outside with her seven-year-old sister.

As my colleague, Let Grow's legal consultant Diane Redleaf, puts it: "Any legal age limit for childhood independence is likely to create a problem of over-inclusion of children who are capable of independence, and possible under-inclusion of children who are not yet able to exercise independence."

Parents know their kids better than anyone and usually love them more, too. If they think their kids are ready for a little independence, that's the age the apron strings should start to untie.

Lenore Skenazy is president of Let Grow, a contributing writer at Reason.com,and author of "Has the World Gone Skenazy?" To learn more about Lenore Skenazy ([email protected]) and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo credit: alteredego at Pixabay