At what age do you allow children to swim alone?

We are in South Carolina and our pool rules state that children under age 14 must be accompanied by a parent. Our HOA attorney said this is the violation of ADA. DHEC just says that “children must be accompanied by an adult” but does not define the word “children”
We do not have the money to hire a lifeguard. How do you balance protecting the HOA with not violating ADA?

It's not a violation of the ADA since the ADA has nothing to do with HOA's.
It is however a violation of the FHA. As far as age, I was about 10 when I went to the rec center with friends from
school, It was over a mile walk to and from. It was a more than a bit longer to walk or ride our bikes to the beach
in the summer.

Were their lifeguards at the rec. center and the beach?

Our rule is: "Those 14 and under must be accompanied by someone 18 or older." It might help to keep out any family- relationship words like "parents." And there's no need to use a word like "children."

I think your attorney must be wrong or somehow off target.

Yes on both Twas a different time then, everyone looked out for everyone. More often than not another
mom, grandma from the neighborhood or church was at the beach. We had more eyes on us than we ever knew.
The rec had a code of conduct, act up and you were out end of story sorry Charlie Tuna TBTS

Will you. please cite the exact words of the restriction against ppl. swimming alone, Lynn? And the exact name of the document?

Iniestra v. Cliff Warren Investments, Inc., C.D.Cal.2012, 886 F.Supp.2d 1161 (California).

In this California case, an apartment complex rule stated that “Children under the age of 18 are not allowed in the pool or pool area at any time unless accompanied by their parents or legal guardian”. After being cited for violations of this rule, the plaintiff’s (a husband and wife with 3 children) filed suit alleging that the pool rule violated the Fair Housing Act. The court found that the rule was “facially discriminatory”, in that it “treated children, and families with children, differently and less favorably than adult-only households”. Once determined to be “facially discriminatory”, a defendant must establish that the subject regulation is the “least restrictive means to meet a compelling business necessity”. Citing to similar cases, the court held that “a prohibition on unsupervised swimming which would prevent even a 17-year old certified lifeguard from swimming unaccompanied is overly restrictive”. Similarly, “while the Court recognizes the inherent dangers of unsupervised swimming, the requirement of parent or legal guardian supervision transforms this rule from one that could be reasonably interpreted as a safety precaution to one that simply limits children and their families”. Although the court offered no guidance regarding pool rules, it wrote the following concerning noise and adult supervision: “Indeed, children might make noise even if their parents are present. More appropriate policies might have simply prevented children from playing near gates or on the roof tops, or required all residents to maintain a certain noise level.”

Welcome back, Marshall. How long has it been since we've heard from you?