Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[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?

Or 8, for that matter?

The younger one is 8. She was ready earlier, but I was worried about somebody calling CPS.

So sad for you. It must have been terrible. But i guess that nightmare is over for you now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a huge difference between a 10 year old and 6 year old. I have a 5 year old and there is no way I'd let her walk to a playground, play and walk home again. As parents it is our responsibility to take her and supervise. You can teach independence and responsibility by showing, working with your kids and so much more. It isn't just about them doing things alone at a very young age and hoping for the best.

Nobody has advocated children doing things alone at a very young age and hope for the best.

If you don't think that your five-year-old is ready to walk to a playground, play, and walk home again, then don't have her do it. You should do what's right for you and your daughter. Other parents, with other children, at other playgrounds, may make different decisions that are right for them.

And then some parents make decisions that are bad for their kids. Which is the purview of CPS. You really don't know this case well enough to know.

I hope that you're saying "We don't know all the facts!' to the posters who think that the parents are attention-seeking child-abandoners and should be locked up.

But actually, if you believe that no five-year-old is capable of walking to a playground of any sort in any location, playing, and walking home again, without a parent, you are wrong on a matter of fact.

[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?

Or 8, for that matter?

The younger one is 8. She was ready earlier, but I was worried about somebody calling CPS.

So sad for you. It must have been terrible. But i guess that nightmare is over for you now.

Is it fun to post sarcastic messages anonymously on an Internet message board?

No, it wasn't terrible. It was annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. And they have food allergies but no epipen. Ok.

Are all food allergies severe enough to require an Epipen? Is it possible to have a food allergy that is mild enough for an Epipen to not be required?

[Anonymous]

^^^I am asking sincerely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in the area, and you are wrong.

I will also point out that many, many people who live here in Silver Spring 20910 DO know one another. In a sense, it is like Mayberry, in that neighbors are very neighborly. My kids would know where to go for help within ten or 15 blocks of our house - they know someone, or know of someone on most blocks.

In my experience, people who haven't lived in urban areas seriously underestimate the degree to which people in urban areas know each other and look out for each other.

Right like all those people walking back and forth around the parking garage on sunday evening. Right.

Did you look at a map? It's by the Safeway, the comic shop, a Citgo, etc. Yes, there are people around.

+1

I live here too. And in April, 6pm is not the "evening"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Or 8, for that matter?

Speaking for myself, my kids will get a lot more healthy, outdoor play time if they are allowed to go play outdoors without mom. I am busy. I have to do the things that keep the house running and the family clean, happy and healthy.

I come home from work at about 5 PM and need to start cooking dinner and taking care of whatever needs to be done. I am thankful that I can send the kids out to play BY THEMSELVES without needing supervision. Sometimes I do accompany them but it is great to just let them off to amuse themselves while I get my household chores done without them underfoot.

This is the way I was raised. Once we were about 4 years old my mom shooed us out of the house to "go play outdoors'" and no, she didn't follow us around.

Now that I know it is illegal in MD for kids under the age of 8 to play outside unaccompanied by an adult, I will have to just let them stay inside and play on the internet. It is really sad that MD has made this law! Does the state of VA also forbid kids under age 8 from playing outside without constant adult presence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a helicopter parent because u don't trust my kids - I don't trust weirdos at the park! My kids are very capable and as responsible as any 5 and 6 year old. But I don't let them walk anywhere alone because I would rather be safe than sorry. Period.

That can certainly be the correct decision, depending on you, your children, and your circumstances. But other people make a different decision, which is also a decision, even though it is a different decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a huge difference between a 10 year old and 6 year old. I have a 5 year old and there is no way I'd let her walk to a playground, play and walk home again. As parents it is our responsibility to take her and supervise. You can teach independence and responsibility by showing, working with your kids and so much more. It isn't just about them doing things alone at a very young age and hoping for the best.

Nobody has advocated children doing things alone at a very young age and hope for the best.

If you don't think that your five-year-old is ready to walk to a playground, play, and walk home again, then don't have her do it. You should do what's right for you and your daughter. Other parents, with other children, at other playgrounds, may make different decisions that are right for them.

And then some parents make decisions that are bad for their kids. Which is the purview of CPS. You really don't know this case well enough to know.

I hope that you're saying "We don't know all the facts!' to the posters who think that the parents are attention-seeking child-abandoners and should be locked up.

But actually, if you believe that no five-year-old is capable of walking to a playground of any sort in any location, playing, and walking home again, without a parent, you are wrong on a matter of fact.

Of course I would say "we don't know all the facts" to anyone saying the parents should be locked up. Clearly no one's been convicted of a crime here. I think the facts are very clear that they are attention-seeking. Whether there are factors that justify that, I don't know.
I never said that no 5yo is capable of walking to a park, playing, and coming back safely. Mine was capable of that, I'm sure. But I'm not sure that she was capable of outrunning someone, and she doesn't have a cell phone yet, and even though we've coached her on what is/isn't acceptable from strangers, I'm not sure she wouldn't have gotten nervous and made an unwise decision. Also, and this is key: I REALLY LIKE SPENDING TIME WITH HER. And I don't get enough time as it is. And she's only going to get older and want to spend less time with me. While she still loves playing with me and being around me? Heck, yeah, I'm holding that little hand on the way to the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. And they have food allergies but no epipen. Ok.

Are all food allergies severe enough to require an Epipen? Is it possible to have a food allergy that is mild enough for an Epipen to not be required?

It's probably a "gluten allergy" so yes, there are allergies that don't require an epipen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a helicopter parent because u don't trust my kids - I don't trust weirdos at the park! My kids are very capable and as responsible as any 5 and 6 year old. But I don't let them walk anywhere alone because I would rather be safe than sorry. Period.

That can certainly be the correct decision, depending on you, your children, and your circumstances. But other people make a different decision, which is also a decision, even though it is a different decision.

So I can decide to let my 12 drink whiskey?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. And they have food allergies but no epipen. Ok.

Are all food allergies severe enough to require an Epipen? Is it possible to have a food allergy that is mild enough for an Epipen to not be required?

It's probably a "gluten allergy" so yes, there are allergies that don't require an epipen.

Of course it's possible. It just fits perfectly that these kids have one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a helicopter parent because u don't trust my kids - I don't trust weirdos at the park! My kids are very capable and as responsible as any 5 and 6 year old. But I don't let them walk anywhere alone because I would rather be safe than sorry. Period.

That can certainly be the correct decision, depending on you, your children, and your circumstances. But other people make a different decision, which is also a decision, even though it is a different decision.

So I can decide to let my 12 drink whiskey?

Or sell her for sex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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?

Or 8, for that matter?

Speaking for myself, my kids will get a lot more healthy, outdoor play time if they are allowed to go play outdoors without mom. I am busy. I have to do the things that keep the house running and the family clean, happy and healthy.

I come home from work at about 5 PM and need to start cooking dinner and taking care of whatever needs to be done. I am thankful that I can send the kids out to play BY THEMSELVES without needing supervision. Sometimes I do accompany them but it is great to just let them off to amuse themselves while I get my household chores done without them underfoot.

This is the way I was raised. Once we were about 4 years old my mom shooed us out of the house to "go play outdoors'" and no, she didn't follow us around.

Now that I know it is illegal in MD for kids under the age of 8 to play outside unaccompanied by an adult, I will have to just let them stay inside and play on the internet. It is really sad that MD has made this law! Does the state of VA also forbid kids under age 8 from playing outside without constant adult presence?

If you are too busy and important to supervise your kids, then hire a babysitter. And, shouldn't they be underfoot helping with household chores to make them independent and able to do them on their own when they need to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not a helicopter parent because u don't trust my kids - I don't trust weirdos at the park! My kids are very capable and as responsible as any 5 and 6 year old. But I don't let them walk anywhere alone because I would rather be safe than sorry. Period.

That can certainly be the correct decision, depending on you, your children, and your circumstances. But other people make a different decision, which is also a decision, even though it is a different decision.

So I can decide to let my 12 drink whiskey?

What? Where did that come from?