Protection v Suffocation

     This semester I've been watching the telenovela, Sin Senos Si Hay Paraíso. In the telenovela, one of the protagonists is Hilda, a mother who has lost two of her three children. The children she has lost were murdered as a result of drug lords running the city. Because of the losses she has faced, when her third child is born, Hilda vows to protect her newborn daughter and ensure that she lives a better life than her first two children. In their city, it's typical for girls to fall into the traps of prostitution and being swayed by drug lords. Hilda decides that the only way to ensure her daughter doesn't fall into one of these traps is to paint a yellow border outside their house that her daughter, Catalina, isn't allowed to cross without one of her parents with her. 

    In my opinion, this tactic actually sounds like a good idea for parents to use, especially in a city like Hilda's, for children of young ages. However, as children grow up, they need freedom to make mistakes and learn right from wrong on their own terms. Catalina feels the same way, and as she's nearing her 15th birthday, she starts to plead with her parents for more freedom and the ability to cross the yellow border without them. 

    I understand where Hilda is coming from, simply trying to protect her youngest child from the things and people that took her first two, but is she going too far?

    I grew up in a single-parent household, probably not having as much supervision as other children my age. When I wanted to play outside or walk to my neighbors houses, I would let my mom know, but then I was pretty much free to roam and do as I pleased. My childhood was very clearly different than Catalinas, who was essentially cooped up in her house unless she left with her mom or dads escort. It's not a question that my mom loves me or cares about me, but she felt it was important that I have a sense of freedom from an early age. She trusted that I would stay on our street and play only with the neighbors I knew, and as I proved to be worthy of her trust, she gave me more and more freedom. 

    In Hilda's case, I view her parenting as suffocation more than protection. Catalina has proven herself to be very mature and intelligent, yet her parents give her no recognition for that or any form of freedom. I've always had the opinion that children with strict parents end up being the ones that go off the rails and rebel the most. When you make a child feel suffocated, all they're going to want to do is break that suffocation. In Hilda's case, Catalina "rebelling" could mean running off with a drug lord just in spite of her mother, which is what Hilda is trying to prevent the most. 

    I didn't grow up in a city filled with and ruled by drug lords, so when I left my house my mom didn't have to worry that I would come home a prostitute or a drug lords sugar baby. However, there is danger everywhere. There is tragedy everywhere. Children have to have firsthand experience with the dangerous parts of the world in order to learn how to protect themselves and what situations to avoid. While Catalina is mature and intelligent, she is naive to the realities of the world. She's fifteen years old, but she knows nothing about navigating a city on her own. In my opinion, that puts her in a far more dangerous position than a ten year old child that walks to and from school alone everyday. 

    Clearly every parent wants their child to be safe, but there comes a point when trying so hard to protect them takes away from their happiness. How is a parent supposed to identify the line between protecting their child and suffocating them?