Is it against the law to let kids play outside? This week an area teacher is standing trial for letting kids play outside. Perhaps you have been reading my columns and thinking to yourself, “Yes, yes, we know, children don’t spend enough time in nature. But that’s not really a problem here in fair Santa Barbara. That’s an urban issue. Besides, we all like to go to the beach and ride mountain bikes, so our kids are fine, right?”
Wrong.
A friend of mine runs a preschool during the school year and an outdoor program during the summer. The Department of Social Services only licenses home preschools and daycares, and has no jurisdiction over camps and outdoor programs. In spite of that fact, they yanked her childcare license for “exposing the children to the natural hazard of the ocean front” during her summer program.
Yes friends, it’s true. She let kids play at the beach. They even climbed on the hillside, and splashed in the waves. The state’s case against this teacher says that “letting them climb this hill is conduct inimical to the health, welfare, and safety of children.” In fact, I think we’ve learned enough about the hazards of the indoor childhood to know that this sort of “conduct” is precisely what they need.
I know this woman. She’s one of those magical teacher types with eyes in the back of her head and an uncanny ability to stay calm around gaggles of small children. She’s been working with kids for 20 years, and working with kids outside for more than half of that time.
I happened to hear about the fateful event on the day it occurred. I was with a friend when he received a call from the police. “Your son was climbing the hill at Hendry’s Beach, and somebody called 911.” I think my friend’s response went something like this:
“Right, my son was climbing the hill. That’s what he does. That’s why we chose this program, where my kid is actually allowed to be a kid.”
The small group of little ones and the summer program supervisors was gathered at their usual spot at Hendry’s just a bit west of the Boathouse restaurant. Two of the boys, both of whom happen to be masterful little climbers, scrambled up a trail in the shale hillside. Some passersby looked up, got scared, and called the lifeguard and 911.
Nobody got hurt, and no family members complained. In fact, as investigators phoned each of the parents in the school, every one of them re-stated their pleasure with this teacher and her school. Seems like that would be the end of the story, right?
But the story didn’t end there. The investigators decided to revoke this woman’s license, and now she’s spending a pile of money for legal help and standing trial in an attempt to get her license reinstated.
This already sounds like something Orwell would have written, but it gets worse. The current trial is conducted by an “administrative judge,” which means that the decision is not even necessarily binding. The agency essentially gets to choose whether or not they want to listen to the judge’s decision. Now we’re south of Orwell, somewhere in Brazil.
I personally am not a big fan of heights. I like to stand a few feet back from the cliff’s edge, and ever since my high school boyfriend demonstrated his poor judgment by taking me climbing for my first time, without ropes, up a highly technical “pitch,” I confess I’m just a little cowardly about climbing.
But I had to see for myself, so I brought my family and met some friends at “the cliff.” Five kids ranging from four to nine scrambled up the hillside, and I scrambled up right behind them. At most points of the “climb” I could sit down comfortably on a ledge, or stand up. My heart rate never went up. There was a trail, clearly previously traveled by plenty of other semi-adventurous beachgoers.
“This is it?” I asked, incredulously. That was it. One small climb for a couple of kids, one giant legal snafu for that teacher, her family, and all of the parents who depended on that preschool. Not to mention the fear this kind of “precedent” strikes in the hearts of aunts, uncles, educators, schools, and any other groups that count on the character building qualities of nature to help shape the next generation.
So the state is practically bankrupt, and this is what we’re spending our tax dollars on? Prosecuting heroic adults who choose a low-earning high-stress profession to try to set a few young children on a good path in life? Who are the real criminals here?
I attended part of the hearing, and was dumbstruck by the goings on. The investigator stated in no uncertain terms that his department has no jurisdiction over outdoor programs or summer camps. His report, which was offered as evidence, contained multiple pages of detailed notes from his telephone interview with the eyewitness who filed the complaint. Apparently he never met her in person, because when she came to the trial she showed up with her seeing-eye dog. She never did get called to take the stand.
In stark contrast with the detailed notes from the complainant, the investigator’s report contained almost no notes from his interviews with my friend or her assistants. He filed a list of questions he planned to ask.
I imagine the passersby that day meant well. I can’t see through the eyes of the woman with the seeing-eye dog. The youngest boy who was climbing has the clearest explanation I’ve heard yet as to what was going through the minds of those strangers who called to complain about kids playing outside. He says: “Mama, I know why those people were afraid. They couldn’t climb the hill themselves.”


Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Great. Another person making life and progression really hard for someone. There's thousands of them out there, they are called idiots from the window of my car. And the coolest thing is, they keep on coming. Like sleeping zombies, having no clue to what kind of actual impact it has on people, other than to stroke their own neurotic habit of complaining.
I needed to get that off my chest, thank you.
a_native_man (anonymous profile)
November 14, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)
as always with advocacy pieces, the above description is far from "the whole story".
sbsleuth99 (anonymous profile)
November 14, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, again some people have too much time on their hands! Children have always climbed those hills. I have to admit that once I was there when a young boy fell and landed on the rocks below, I was a child myself, I don't think he survived. That was on the cliffs directly underneath the Douglas Preserve side... and steeper I think than the area in question.
I would think that if none of the parents were concerned, which is a miracle with how protective we are of our children, then the case should have ended there.
santabarbarasand (anonymous profile)
November 14, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wait, the person who made the report in the first place was blind? And this wasn't thrown out immediately!? What a ridiculous sham!
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
November 14, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Where is this trial? This is outrageous!!! And, SBSleuth99, since you say this is not the whole story, what is?
BetsyR (anonymous profile)
November 14, 2009 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is pathetic... am I getting this right? A visually impaired woman plus an obviously narrow-minded hard of hearing investigator plus a ridiculous out-of-touch dept. of social services all wasting our taxpayers money? Incidences like this make me want to puke.
LRaf (anonymous profile)
November 14, 2009 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I remember there was a trail my mom always warned me about climbing and I don't know if that's the same one as mentioned here. Having said that, from the case Howard has presented, it sound as though certain departments have *way* too much power.
For the benifit of us readers it would be helpful to take a picture of area in question and post it in this article.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
November 14, 2009 at 8:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The little boy in the last paragragh had it right.The caller was afraid because she coud not do it herself.For a handicapped person to impose his or her own inability or fear on to an adept child who has proper supervision is inexcusable.
When I think of all the trees I climbed, an oil rig and a long way up the Devil's Tower without supervision, I gratefully remember those times. It was fun. Of course the grownups sometimes got upset with me.
Especially one Easter Sunday when they called me home to dinner and I did not dare to answer. I was stuck in a very high tree by a branch caught on my new undies (very pretty ones) and I was embarrassed to call out for help. but my pretty lacy dress was not damaged. I was 5 years old then.
Children must allowed to be children and take little risks before they enter the world of big risks.
I took my own children, in Goleta, on daily walks through the wilds to the beach before the bike path was in and we explored nature. Some parents said this was dangerous. Why? Because they did not take the time to do it. I took my kids to the ocean to body surf, boogie board and then surfing. Some neighbors said I was irresponsible. My boys are men now and have the pleasure of being surfers yet, and have had many trophies and magazine articles when they were amateur surfers.
My kids love to hike, climb, fish and camp. (One did become a diver without my knowledge, because he thought I may get overly momish, but what can I say?) He now has a captains licence to use when he has the opportunity.
What a shame that this wonderful gal has to defend her giving children good lifetime experiences.
bajamama (anonymous profile)
November 15, 2009 at 1:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel as if, even is we don't know the whole story... we know enough! For the love of all that's holy, is this where we've come in this society. I know of children who are actually being abused, and when it is reported, nothing is done. But god forbid you let a child play outside when a woman with a seeing eye dog is around. Then you're screwed. Heaven help us all.
sbbob3 (anonymous profile)
November 15, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
In fact, sbsleuth99 and others, this account pretty much tells the whole story as it actually occurred (not accounting for the fear and loathing in the minds of certain folks who accordingly reported seeing things in a different and far darker light). The so-called investigation and the revocation proceedings are farcical reminders of why Shakespere and other great minds remind us that we should give to the law and legal officials all the respect that it and they deserve, and no more.
marcmcginnes (anonymous profile)
November 16, 2009 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have you seen that "Funny Home Video" of the cat way atop a utility pole. Someone called 911 to come and rescue it. After taking the fire-truck basket all the way to the top of the pole, the cat jumped through the lasso, being used to save him, and ran off. Sounds like the same thing to me. Things that look really bad for one person, can be just an every day occurrence for another and not a reason to call 911!
francine (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)