No More "Sleep Overs" For Kids?

[Melissa569]

The ward in our area recomends that LDS members do not allow their kids to have sleep overs anymore, because of the risk of child molestation.

Is this in other wards as well, or just ours? I personally think that if you know the family very well, it should be ok. You just have to be more in touch with who your children are with, and watching their behavior for signs of being mistreated. If you think somebody might abuse your child, why would you let your child go anywhere near that family at all?

By blocking it in the church, they are only stopping members from having sleep overs at other member's houses. So the kids will have sleep overs with non-church-going families they meet in school. If I had kids, I would rather they spend the night in another LDS home, quite frankly.

I just don't know if I agree with it. Your child doesn't have to be "sleeping over" at a friend's house, for such a thing to happen. It can happen during a regular visit, in the daytime.

I suppose a concerned parent could just say "If there are any visits or any sleep overs, they will be at MY house". But if every parent insisted on that, nobody's kids would ever leave the house, lol.

So what's next? The kids won't be able to visit each other's houses at all?

Edited February 9, 2010 by Melissa569

[bmy-]

Sounds absolutely ridiculous.

[deseretgov]

Never heard of this council before.

[pam]

I haven't heard of this counsel but at the same time I wouldn't say it's totally ridiculous. As parents we should always be concerned and aware of the homes our children might sleepover at. Both LDS and non LDS alike. Even those we would think of as the epitome of the perfect family, may be different behind closed doors.

[HEthePrimate]

I've never heard of ward leaders offering such counsel. While we certainly do need to look after our kids, I think the most important thing to do is teach them "correct principles," so to speak, because it's impossible for parents to watch over their children 24/7. Teach them the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch," that it's ok to say "no" to adults in certain situations, etc. We do need to protect children, but it is possible to be overprotective, and rob them of many good childhood experiences.

HEP

[dazed-and-confused]

absolutely rediculous

[Melissa569]

Hmmmm, interesting to know that other wards are not doing this. I’ll have to find out some how if there was a case of “sleep over molestation” around here. Maybe that’s the cause? Of course with some people you just never can tell... But I think you can cut the risk down by 90% if you teach your kids the basics of safety.

My mother was abused that way when she was a child. So she always wanted to make sure that we knew what to watch out for, and that we were protected (which we were). She wasn't overly protective, we were pretty free, as long as she knew who we were with.

She also warned us about the things she was told by abusers. She said, “Abusers will threaten you; they will say you’re going to get in trouble if you tell. They will threaten to hurt your family. They will say that if you tell, the police will take you away from your parents. Or that your parents will blame you, and hate you. But none of that is true. No matter how they threaten you-- never believe it. Tell someone anyway, and never be afraid.”

I think its most important though to meet the parents of the child having the sleep over. You'd be surprised how many kids say, "Mom, Dad, so-and-so invited me to sleep over, can I go?" And the parents say, "Ok, but I want the address and phone number..." Meaning they have no idea who those people are. I think since they are the people you will be depending on to keep your kid safe, its your right to know who they are, and what they are all about. Letting someone you don’t know take care of your kids, is like hiring a stranger off the streets to baby sit. But following basic safety guidelines should keep your kids pretty safe.

[hordak]

If I had kids, I would rather they spend the night in another LDS home, quite frankly.

Do not fall into this LDS=good, line of thinking. Religions affiliation is not an indication of ones trustworthiness particularly on this issue (Look at GA George P Lee).

In fact the fact this was brought up by your Bishop in your ward wouldn't surprise me if a member was having a problem, maybe not full fledged yet, so your bishop chose to address the members as a whole rather then say, Stay away from Brother Smith. In the same way that as pornography has become a bigger problem for the member the church has addressed it more and more.

[Gwen]

keep 2 things in mind. it's counsel, not commandment so you may still do as you see fit for your family. it's also not just to protect your child from potential molestation. what if your child finds porn while at their house? or other material you that would be detrimental. you have to remember that is a rampant problem in our world today and sometimes the ppl you would think the last to be involved will be immersed in it. it is also a protection to you by not having kids over. false allegations can ruin a family as much as true reports of abuse.

someone suggested there may be an issue in your stake/ward that the bishop is aware of that you are not. pray about it and trust your leaders.

my kids will be having very few sleepovers, only with ppl i know really well.

[NeuroTypical]

The thing about child molesters, is they look exactly like you and me. They come from all demographics, education levels, races, languages, cultures, income levels, and faiths. As the story of George P. Lee illustrates, sometimes they are active in the church, and occasionally even come from the ranks of our trusted leaders.

They do tend to be mostly (90%) male, and probably the greatest number of them are in their teen years somewhere. Another similarity they all share: when caught, a serial molester will leave behind a big pile of people with surprised looks and jaws hitting the floor - all of them saying "but he's such a nice guy! We trusted him!"

The point is, you can't tell by looking at them. It's not enough to just say "I'll only let my kids go to houses where I know everyone and trust them".

Melissa's mom rocks - that's how you protect your kids from molestation. Another thing to do, is just be open about what you've told your kid. Going to a sleepover? Just casually mention to everyone in that house that you've taught your kid about molestation, and the lies that molesters tell kids. Nothing causes a cowardly violent offender to shrink and hide, then seeing that their intended victim already knows their 'best moves' and won't be falling for it.

LM

Edited February 9, 2010 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[hordak]

T, and probably the greatest number of them are in their teen years somewhere.

LM

That's another good point. Most people think "we have to check out the parents," but they don't start out as dirty 40 year old men. I have a lady down the street who is very nice i trust her, and she has offed to watch the kids but she has an older son who loves babies a bit to much for a 10 year old boy IMO so i never have and will not be taking her up on that offer. I could be wrong and it could be my loss but i like to err on the side of caution when it comes to my kids.

[Blackmarch]

The ward in our area recomends that LDS members do not allow their kids to have sleep overs anymore, because of the risk of child molestation.

Is this in other wards as well, or just ours? I personally think that if you know the family very well, it should be ok. You just have to be more in touch with who your children are with, and watching their behavior for signs of being mistreated. If you think somebody might abuse your child, why would you let your child go anywhere near that family at all?

By blocking it in the church, they are only stopping members from having sleep overs at other member's houses. So the kids will have sleep overs with non-church-going families they meet in school. If I had kids, I would rather they spend the night in another LDS home, quite frankly.

I just don't know if I agree with it. Your child doesn't have to be "sleeping over" at a friend's house, for such a thing to happen. It can happen during a regular visit, in the daytime.

I suppose a concerned parent could just say "If there are any visits or any sleep overs, they will be at MY house". But if every parent insisted on that, nobody's kids would ever leave the house, lol.

So what's next? The kids won't be able to visit each other's houses at all?

all it is, is a recommendation. If you know the family well enough to be comfortable with them sleeping over then no big deal.

If you don't know the parents then I'd suggest taking the advisement more seriously.

[RachelleDrew]

It may also be as a protection to the LDS families. Not from their children being molested, but from their husbands and wives being accused of such.

That's similar to all the rules about missionaries not being alone with a member of the opposite sex, no physical contact like hugging or letting kids sit on their laps. It's not like the church thinks they are going to go out and rape all their investigators, but they'd rather not risk them getting accused of doing it.

We don't have sleepovers of any kind at church activities here, but our leaders in our stake haven't asked that we nix sleepovers on our personal time. I think that's a little silly.

[Blackmarch]

It may also be as a protection to the LDS families. Not from their children being molested, but from their husbands and wives being accused of such.

That's similar to all the rules about missionaries not being alone with a member of the opposite sex, no physical contact like hugging or letting kids sit on their laps. It's not like the church thinks they are going to go out and rape all their investigators, but they'd rather not risk them getting accused of doing it.

We don't have sleepovers of any kind at church activities here, but our leaders in our stake haven't asked that we nix sleepovers on our personal time. I think that's a little silly.

that is also a good point.

Hmm if church activites become sleepovers I definitely think that is a no no.

[carlimac]

that is also a good point.

Hmm if church activites become sleepovers I definitely think that is a no no.

They used to be all the time for the young women. My daughters went to one just over a year ago but I don't think the bishop was even aware of it. I would have chosen differently about letting them go if I had to do it over again. Nothing bad happened but I just felt icky about it later. It was an unnecessary activity and I don't think it served any purpose at all.

I think all those problems with child molestation, exposure to porn, possible false accusations are realistic problems. But the biggest problem I see with sleepovers are that children lose sleep and are GRUMPY the next day. I remember feeling that way after sleepovers as a kid. I was always glad to just sleep in my own bed the next night.

We don't nix sleepovers altogether but we do limit them to special occasions only (birthday parties) and we'll often suggest the kids have a late night with games/ movies/ whatever and then the kids go home, or we retrieve our kid from the party by around 11 PM.

Works for us.

[Wingnut]

They used to be all the time for the young women. My daughters went to one just over a year ago but I don't think the bishop was even aware of it. I would have chosen differently about letting them go if I had to do it over again. Nothing bad happened but I just felt icky about it later. It was an unnecessary activity and I don't think it served any purpose at all.

I went to one or two as a young woman, and I'm now the ward YW president. I've been thinking it would be fun to have a Personal Progress Pink and Purple Pajama and Pizza Party, sleepover style. I would not, as my Beehive advisor did, take my girls out to toilet paper the stake president's house (partly because I don't want my girls terrorized by the image of the stake president's teenage son chasing them down the street in nothing but his boxers). There would be a specific purpose to the activity, in addition to sleepover fun. I would make sure that at least one of my counselors was also able to come as stay the night as well, not just me.

However, if it's just a sleepover for the sake of having a sleepover, it should neither be called a YW activity nor be held at a YW leader's home.

[pam]

Hmm if church activites become sleepovers I definitely think that is a no no.

Yet we have girls camps and scout camps.

[WillowTheWhisp]

Hmm if church activites become sleepovers I definitely think that is a no no.

We also have youth conventions where the children sleep in other members houses local to the convention location for the duration.

[Blackmarch]

Yet we have girls camps and scout camps.

yes but those are generally properly handled, which involves having multiple adults(both leaders and volunteer parents), consent forms, parents knowing about it, having it officially planned and etc..

[HEthePrimate]

Yet we have girls camps and scout camps.

Agreed. 'Course, those are single-gender affairs... (though before a certain age it might not matter, like if you're talking about a bunch of three year olds!).

Personally, I don't think it should be an all-or-nothing question. No reason to ban sleepovers altogether, but do exercise reasonable prudence.

HEP

[pam]

yes but those are generally properly handled, which involves having multiple adults(both leaders and volunteer parents), consent forms, parents knowing about it, having it officially planned and etc..

I just had a really bad experience once in allowing my boys to go to the weekly scout camp. I never signed any kind of consent form. They came home a day early and I was never informed. The boys all stayed over a leaders home. While I thought they were still 1 1/2 hours away I found out a day later that for 24 hours they were less than a mile away. I was furious. I complained and got no response whatsoever.

[Wisc]

The ward in our area recomends that LDS members do not allow their kids to have sleep overs anymore, because of the risk of child molestation.

Was this council given from the pulpit in sacrement or is this just going around the rumor mill in the halls between classes???

[Blackmarch]

I just had a really bad experience once in allowing my boys to go to the weekly scout camp. I never signed any kind of consent form. They came home a day early and I was never informed. The boys all stayed over a leaders home. While I thought they were still 1 1/2 hours away I found out a day later that for 24 hours they were less than a mile away. I was furious. I complained and got no response whatsoever.

really? the folks in the wards i've been in have been very "by the Book" type people. But on the other hand we didn't have a weekly camp. Suppose you can't everyone to be on the same page... I'd say that would be something to bring up to the bishop or young men leaders face to face, at least in the form of a reminder if nothing else.

And no matter how early or how late we arrived we always were back at home almost first thing.

[pyxiwulf]

I find this so incredibly enraging that I have to comment before reading all the responses. The reality is that child molestation is NOT any more common than it was in the past AND a child is more likely to be molested by their father, grandfather, or uncle. It bugs me to no end that overly paranoid people are taking away all the innocent joys of childhood. I teach my kids about keeping their bodies sacred and who is allowed to touch where and when and to trust that funny feeling in their tummies. And that anyone, including family, who tells them to keep secrets from mom or dad (including either one of us) should not be trusted until further notice.

[Just_A_Guy]

The ward in our area recomends that LDS members do not allow their kids to have sleep overs anymore, because of the risk of child molestation.

Consider that if there is a convicted/accused/significantly likely potential sex offender in your ward, the bishop is likely to know about it; but for both ecclesiastical and legal reasons he can't identify that person publicly. What are his other options? Openly announcing "yes, there's someone here who may do bad things to your kids" will only spur a ward witch-hunt.

I'd just take it on faith here that my bishop knows something I don't, and only allow my kids to stay with someone I know really, really well.

Edited February 9, 2010 by Just_A_Guy