Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Preventing cohousing “neighborly awareness” from becoming surveillance (with CPS calls)

[Diana Carroll (dianaecarroll]

Patricia says
"Free-range parenting is a basic tenet of cohousing"

I disagree. Community and consensus are basic tenets of cohousing. If a
community collectively decides to support that approach to parenting,
that's awesome, and presumably many do. But there's nothing inherent about
cohousing that would force a community to make that choice. Also it's not a
well defined term. Your "free range" might be my "overprotective" and his
"neglect".

When you say "these neighbors should have been aware of that before
joining", if you are referring to Kathy's original situation, she says that
the three or four households/individuals calling CPS are long time members
and leaders in the community. As such, they presumably helped establish the
norms of the community.

And even if they were new, the reality of any organization including a
cohousing neighborhood is that norms and cultural shift over time, and
people join and people leave, and even the people who stay evolve and grow
and change.

I joined my community nearly 10 years before we had houses to live in, and
we mostly but not entirely saw eye to eye on parenting before move in. But
of our 34 homes, only 13 were purchased by people who were members during
construction. We did our best to establish norms, guidelines and policies,
but 15 years have passed, and lots has changed and I'm not going to be one
of the "the old ways are always the best" sort. Nor do I simply accept new
ideas just because they are new.

My kids were 8 and 5 when we moved in and are now 25 and 23. You can bet
our parenting varied a lot over those almost 17 years. And we have two or
three cohorts of children also growing up up here after mine. Unreasonable
to expect that parenting expectations would be static across all that.

Diana


On Sun, Oct 12, 2025 at 9:59 AM Patricia Bailey via Cohousing-L <
cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> wrote:

> Muriel is correct. Free-range parenting is a basic tenet of cohousing and
> why many families join (we have 13 children so far). These neighbors should
> have been aware of that before joining. Plus it’s the way that many of us
> who are seniors grew up. You told your mom you were going out to play and
> were gone for hours. But apparently, based on your experience, we all need
> to make this clear in community policy.
>
> Here is what AI says:
> Yes, free-range parenting is common in cohousing communities and aligns
> naturally with their core principles. The design and culture of cohousing
> create a supportive environment where children can experience a high degree
> of independence and safety, similar to the village-like atmosphere of past
> generations.
> Architectural design promotes independence
> Cohousing communities are specifically planned to reduce risks to children
> while fostering their freedom.
> "Faces not fenders": Homes are clustered together, and cars are kept on
> the periphery of the community. This makes the central courtyards, paths,
> and shared green spaces safe for kids to play and roam freely, often
> unsupervised by parents.
> Pedestrian-friendly layouts: The design encourages walking and offers open
> outdoor areas, such as playgrounds and gardens, where children can easily
> find playmates and explore.
> Community culture supports collective childcare
> The social fabric of a cohousing community creates a built-in safety net
> that makes free-range parenting possible.
> Collective supervision: A key advantage is the "eyes-on-the-street"
> approach, where all neighbors know and look out for one another's children.
> This extended network of caring adults provides a sense of security that is
> rare in traditional neighborhoods.
> Informal arrangements: In many communities, it is common for neighbors to
> share childcare informally. This could involve parents taking turns
> supervising outdoor play or having kids play freely at each other's houses.
> Intergenerational connections: Multigenerational cohousing exposes
> children to a wide range of trusted adults and older kids who can act as
> mentors and role models. This provides children with a richer social
> experience and valuable life lessons beyond their immediate family.
> Benefits for children and parents
> The free-range aspects of cohousing benefit both children and their
> parents.
> For children: They gain confidence, social skills, and learn to resolve
> conflicts by interacting with a variety of peers and adults. They can also
> participate in community activities like preparing meals or working in the
> garden, which teaches them responsibility and teamwork.
> For parents: They experience less of the isolation common to modern
> parenting. The collective support system means parents can feel more at
> ease while their children play safely outdoors, reducing the need for
> constant, individual supervision. The sense of shared responsibility also
> helps parents feel less overwhelmed
>
> > On Oct 11, 2025, at 12:39 PM, Kathryn Lowry via Cohousing-L <
> cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I’m seeking guidance on how cohousing communities keep “neighborly
> > awareness” from drifting into surveillance—especially when it escalates
> to
> > CPS calls.
> >
> > *Context (specific examples):*
> >
> >   -
> >
> >   Our site was intentionally designed so that *every resident can observe
> >   community activity from their kitchen window*—a feature we value for
> >   safety and connection. Yet my neighbors have repeatedly called CPS
> alleging
> >   neglect *because I rely on the same visibility feature they use* to
> >   scrutinize my children’s outdoor play.
> >   -
> >
> >   During my *5th week of post-op recovery from knee surgery*, Dad was
> >   handling *100% of housekeeping and caregiving* for our two children and
> >   me (temporarily immobilized). During a sudden summer rain, a neighbor
> >   calmly walked our younger child toward our unit (Dad met them at the
> door)
> >   while another helped our older child close the sandbox—*no urgency, no
> >   distress*. Instead of being treated as a normal act of *neighborly care
> >   during a medically vulnerable period*, the incident was logged as
> *another
> >   CPS report* alleging neglect.
> >
> > *What I’m hoping to learn from this list:*
> >
> >   1.
> >
> >   *Community Agreements:* Do you have written norms/policies that
> >   distinguish *mutual visibility for safety* from *surveillance of
> >   neighbors*? Sample language welcome.
> >   2.
> >
> >   *Reporting Protocols:* How do you channel concerns (e.g., speak
> directly
> >   first, use a community safety/children’s committee, mediation) before
> >   external reporting? Any *decision trees* or *cooling-off steps*?
> >   3.
> >
> >   *Privacy & Documentation:* Policies on photographing/recording
> neighbors
> >   or children, posting to social media, or keeping “incident logs”?
> >   4.
> >
> >   *Design Solutions:* Has anyone adjusted *sightlines, screening,
> signage,
> >   or play-zone placement* to reduce friction while preserving the
> original
> >   design intent of casual oversight?
> >   5.
> >
> >   *Family-Centered Practices:* Ways to support *children’s independent
> >   mobility* (e.g., kitchen-window check-ins, buddy systems) without
> >   shaming or over-policing parents—especially during *temporary medical
> >   events* when roles shift.
> >   6.
> >
> >   *Governance & Remedies:* Which committees handle this? What
> *restorative*
> >   or *educational* steps have you used (e.g., bias/assumption training,
> >   “assume positive intent” agreements, appreciative check-in channels) to
> >   reset culture?
> >   7.
> >
> >   *When CPS Is Involved:* If your community has faced *frequent or
> >   unfounded CPS calls*, how have you responded as a community while still
> >   honoring good-faith safety concerns?
> >
> > If you can share *policy excerpts, onboarding materials, signage
> language,
> > or flowcharts*, I’d be grateful (on-list or off-list). I’m trying to
> *preserve
> > our design’s intent—mutual care and informal connection—without
> normalizing
> > surveillance* or weaponizing visibility against families.
> >
> > Thank you for any wisdom and documents you can offer,
> > *Kathryn Lowry*
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> > http://L.cohousing.org/info
> >
> >
> >
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://L.cohousing.org/info
>
>
>
>