Wow! Tons of posts... I just wanted to say that whether or not B&N wanted to protect the child I'm sure they want to protect the store. If a child really was abducted there's a risk a parent might want to sue them.

It's up to you whether or not you want to leave a child unsupervised... and obviously you can choose not to shop there any more if you feel their actions were inappropraite. But I believe the company has a right to make rules that limit their risk.

For example, my family is going tubing on a river this weekend. We'll have to sign waivers that we won't sue the company if we drown. B&N doesn't make you sign a waiver that you can't sue them if your child gets abducted in the store (of course not, imagine how much work that wuld be), but they can try to make sure it doesn't happen by encouraging parents to stay with their kids. It's just common sense, like asking customers at Home Depot not to climb on ladders.

I also think it's important to remember that people whose children get abducted aren't always "bad" parents. I wouldn't personally let an 8-year-old go off without at least an older sibling accompanying him or her. But that doesn't mean that my vigilance will prevent something terrible from happening to my kids. Nor does it mean that if you truly are a negligent parent that something's automatically going to happen to your children.

While I like to think a little extra care makes the difference, I think all this discussion could have the unintended consequence of demonizing people whose children have been victimized (when there was nothing they could have done to prevent it).