Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is it that your kids think is so much fun about going to the park without an adult with them?

They like being out on their own. They like being independent. They like being unsupervised. They like being able to make their own decisions. They like the feeling of being responsible for themselves.

What is it about being unsupervised that they like so much? What do they do without an adult with them that they can't do with an adult? Lots of bad things happened to kids in the old days when kids just ran around wild that wouldn't have happened if an adult were supervising.

What they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Don't you like being unsupervised? I do.

And yes, bad things happened to kids in the old days when there wasn't constantly an adult supervising, but lots of good things happened too. The good things aren't newsworthy, of course. (NOT a leading news story: Yesterday Joe went into the woods to play and came home in time for supper.) My question is: what won't my kids learn if there is always an adult supervising?

Can't you just wait until they are 10?

And then what, release them into unsupervised life, with zero experience?

What makes 10 magic?

If they are kept in a closet until they are 10 please call CPS.

[Anonymous]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/montgomery-county-free-range-children-taken-into-custody-again/2015/04/12/39987b08-e188-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop_b

This news article was dated on 4/12, which is Sunday, the day it happened. Its interesting to me that the post, on the same day the kids got picked up published an article regarding it especially since the kids were custody all evening. This was a set-up. Parents are looking for an excuse to sue and make a name for themselves. How did the post get the information so quickly and be able to publish an article given the time frames.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Kay.. They did not go to court, they signed a safety plan before CPS ruled on their case.

OK, I've found the safety plan, or at least a safety plan.. Here:

The Meitivs say that on Dec. 20, a CPS worker required Alexander to sign a safety plan pledging he would not leave his children unsupervised until the following Monday, when CPS would follow up. At first he refused, saying he needed to talk to a lawyer, his wife said, but changed his mind when he was told his children would be removed if he did not comply.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-couple-want-free-range-kids-but-not-all-do/2015/01/14/d406c0be-9c0f-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html

Was there another safety plan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/montgomery-county-free-range-children-taken-into-custody-again/2015/04/12/39987b08-e188-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop_b

This news article was dated on 4/12, which is Sunday, the day it happened. Its interesting to me that the post, on the same day the kids got picked up published an article regarding it especially since the kids were custody all evening. This was a set-up. Parents are looking for an excuse to sue and make a name for themselves. How did the post get the information so quickly and be able to publish an article given the time frames.

The county police spokesman must have been part of the conspiracy too, then, since the linked article contains a quote from him.

Although actually I think that the date is wrong, or the story was updated as more information became available, because I'm pretty sure that the it wasn't on the Post website until Monday morning (and not first thing either), and it didn't run in the newspaper until Tuesday.

[Anonymous]

Do any of you have changing opinions about this story if you knew how often and for what length of time each of these outings occur? Is it okay for the 6 year old to be out by herself? For how long? 1 hour versus 5 hours? What about frequency? Everyday after school plus several hours on the weekend? Is that okay? The two incidents which have resulted in police contact don't paint the full picture. That is why CPS had an investigation. We don't know what they found out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Don't you like being unsupervised? I do.

And yes, bad things happened to kids in the old days when there wasn't constantly an adult supervising, but lots of good things happened too. The good things aren't newsworthy, of course. (NOT a leading news story: Yesterday Joe went into the woods to play and came home in time for supper.) My question is: what won't my kids learn if there is always an adult supervising?

Can't you just wait until they are 10?

Why should I wait until they are 10? Is 10 a magic number?

Yes. It is the magic number just like 55 mph is the magic number on some streets.

55 is the magic number because the government says so. Where does the government say that a child isn't allowed to go to the park alone until the child is 10?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Neglect is failing to properly supervise your child and not adequately providing them with the things they need, such as food and water (especially kids with food allergies).

OMG these weren't puppies left at home for the week.

The kids had been in the car for 6 hours coming back from a trip and had been properly fed a late lunch on the way back. Am guessing they stopped at a McD's or something on the way home at a rest stop.

The parents dropped them off at the park to blow off some energy and told them to come home by 6 PM for dinner.

You do NOT need to give school aged kids a snack every 30 minutes contrary to apparently conventional wisdom, and actually they don't even need to tote water bottles all the live long day. If they are thirsty they can just deal or... walk the f home and get a drink for crying out loud.

Some of you people are raising helpless, helpless children with this overprotectivness. No wonder kids in college are crumbling at the slightest setback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Don't you like being unsupervised? I do.

And yes, bad things happened to kids in the old days when there wasn't constantly an adult supervising, but lots of good things happened too. The good things aren't newsworthy, of course. (NOT a leading news story: Yesterday Joe went into the woods to play and came home in time for supper.) My question is: what won't my kids learn if there is always an adult supervising?

Can't you just wait until they are 10?

Why should I wait until they are 10? Is 10 a magic number?

Yes. It is the magic number just like 55 mph is the magic number on some streets.

55 is the magic number because the government says so. Where does the government say that a child isn't allowed to go to the park alone until the child is 10?

8 to be alone
10 to cross streets
11 to watch a sibling
13 to babysit non-relatives.

The laws have been posted numerous times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/montgomery-county-free-range-children-taken-into-custody-again/2015/04/12/39987b08-e188-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop_b

This news article was dated on 4/12, which is Sunday, the day it happened. Its interesting to me that the post, on the same day the kids got picked up published an article regarding it especially since the kids were custody all evening. This was a set-up. Parents are looking for an excuse to sue and make a name for themselves. How did the post get the information so quickly and be able to publish an article given the time frames.

The first comment on the article was posted at 4/13/2015 12:11 AM EDT. While the WaPo article is dated 4/12, it probably was posted quite late on Sunday, close to midnight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do any of you have changing opinions about this story if you knew how often and for what length of time each of these outings occur? Is it okay for the 6 year old to be out by herself? For how long? 1 hour versus 5 hours? What about frequency? Everyday after school plus several hours on the weekend? Is that okay? The two incidents which have resulted in police contact don't paint the full picture. That is why CPS had an investigation. We don't know what they found out.

Are you just speculating? And if so, why? Is there any reason to think that the six-year-old was out by herself for five hours every day, besides that it's possible and we shouldn't exclude any possibility?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Neglect is failing to properly supervise your child and not adequately providing them with the things they need, such as food and water (especially kids with food allergies).

OMG these weren't puppies left at home for the week.

The kids had been in the car for 6 hours coming back from a trip and had been properly fed a late lunch on the way back. Am guessing they stopped at a McD's or something on the way home at a rest stop.

The parents dropped them off at the park to blow off some energy and told them to come home by 6 PM for dinner.

You do NOT need to give school aged kids a snack every 30 minutes contrary to apparently conventional wisdom, and actually they don't even need to tote water bottles all the live long day. If they are thirsty they can just deal or... walk the f home and get a drink for crying out loud.

Some of you people are raising helpless, helpless children with this overprotectivness. No wonder kids in college are crumbling at the slightest setback.

Loling at the water bottles ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

55 is the magic number because the government says so. Where does the government say that a child isn't allowed to go to the park alone until the child is 10?

8 to be alone
10 to cross streets
11 to watch a sibling
13 to babysit non-relatives.

The laws have been posted numerous times.

Suppose you post that "law" again, please? I must have missed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Neglect is failing to properly supervise your child and not adequately providing them with the things they need, such as food and water (especially kids with food allergies).

OMG these weren't puppies left at home for the week.

The kids had been in the car for 6 hours coming back from a trip and had been properly fed a late lunch on the way back. Am guessing they stopped at a McD's or something on the way home at a rest stop.

The parents dropped them off at the park to blow off some energy and told them to come home by 6 PM for dinner.

You do NOT need to give school aged kids a snack every 30 minutes contrary to apparently conventional wisdom, and actually they don't even need to tote water bottles all the live long day. If they are thirsty they can just deal or... walk the f home and get a drink for crying out loud.

Some of you people are raising helpless, helpless children with this overprotectivness. No wonder kids in college are crumbling at the slightest setback.

But these parents act like their kids not eating until 10:30pm is lawsuit worthy ... Talk about raising kids to be entitled and over protected. Welcome to montgomery county, md!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Speeding : ticket : : child neglect : signing a parenting plan with CPS

Sure. But CPS did not find that they committed child neglect.

They also didn't find they didn't commit child neglect. Yet, they did sign a parenting plan, just like I pay the ticket even though I thought I was driving safely and the speed limit is too low.

CPS didn't find that the parents didn't commit child neglect -- how Orwellian.

How do you know they signed a parenting plan, by the way? Perhaps you can also share with us what the parenting plan said?

The dad said so in the interview on that news clip with the washpo article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

55 is the magic number because the government says so. Where does the government say that a child isn't allowed to go to the park alone until the child is 10?

8 to be alone
10 to cross streets
11 to watch a sibling
13 to babysit non-relatives.

The laws have been posted numerous times.

Suppose you post that "law" again, please? I must have missed it.

No.