In there recent headlines: https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/mom-arrested-after-son-reported-walking/story?id=115903965
An 10 year old walks to the store in rural GA in daylight. The mother receives call from authorities that they are concerned about the son walking alone. She indicated that she was not concerned. They bring the son home and authorities return to arrest the mother 5 hours later.
TL/DR: In the video the mother says "last time I checked it is not illegal for a kid to walk to the store", the office replies "it is if they are 10 years old". Mother is arrested for Reckless Conduct.
I don't have any children, however, when I was 10 I was rarely supervised by my parents. My local elementary school has plenty of children (under 10) walking to school unsupervised. The reporter indicates the son was not in in danger. There is no mention of any problems. I do detect a hint of obstinance in the mother, which usually results poorly with law enforcement.
What are the "Reckless Endangerment" requirements (i.e. age / context) that requires parents to supervise when a child goes outside for a walk?
Obviously, a two year old can NOT be left to walk to the store, however, I think it reasonable for a 10 year old to be outside and walk. The article indicates: "failure to provide a child with adequate supervision necessary for such child's well-being", which seems overly broad.
I ask this question, because if there is a requirement, then how is the parent in this case supposed to know that the 10 year old is not allowed to walk to the store unsupervised?
