Blayne Fox

I’m not claiming to be an expert on children. I don’t have kids and won’t for a long time, and because of my lack of experience, I know I don’t understand the true toils of parenting. Despite my ignorance, I know one thing for sure: leashes are for dogs, not wandering 3-year-olds.

Don’t get the wrong idea, there aren’t toddlers walking around with collars buckled around their necks. These are cute, fluffy, animal-shaped “backpacks” that harness in the front and conveniently have a “tail” attached to the back and a handle for parents.

Though disguised, these “backpacks” don’t fool anyone. Everyone can see that instead of storing toys and coloring books, they are objects of restraint and humiliation for any child forced to wear one.

Judith Goldberg, advice columnist, explained the problem in the April issue of Parents Magazine.

“Leashes are for dogs,” Goldberg wrote. “You wouldn’t put your child in a crate, or let him poop on the sidewalk, right? If you have a bolter, invest in a cheap umbrella stroller with a buckle.”

I understand that there are exceptions to the no-leash rule. On one of the many blogs where moms argue about the “right” way to parent, one mother submitted a post defending child leashes, saying her pediatrician actually recommended one to her because she had accidentally dislocated her 2-year-old son’s arm two different occasions while trying to keep a tight grasp on his hand in crowds.

Although it seems like this woman has no options other than tying down her tot, this also brings up another point: if someone’s child has such terrible behavioral problems they need to constantly be physically restrained, maybe they shouldn’t even be brought to public places.

Though small and squirmy, toddlers are not animals, and shouldn’t be treated as such.