Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

Your statement shows you know nothing about how lawsuits for case law work, with regards to any specific law. So to answer your question, yes I do think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes anything. That is why at the beginning of sections to statutes there is a definition section, and what the codes are annotated over the years. That is why the current law spells out car, building and house. Because at some point it needed to be specific, at some point there was some question, and now that question has arisen again.

Take some law classes.

Not the pp you're responding to. But I'm HLS class of 2002. And you're full of it. Sure many laws are specific. And many give broad discretion to enforcement authorities. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

So glad you dropped the H bomb, because seriously, what's a thread without some poster telling everyone they went to Harvard. Your Harvard degree in 2002 isn't more important than my law degree in 96. So take your H bomb and just stop already.

I don't care about the H bomb. I was responding to the obnoxious poster who said to "take some law classes". Because if I'd just said I want to law school, that a-hole would have just said I went to a crappy one. I didn't. Trust me, I'm not impressed with Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

Your statement shows you know nothing about how lawsuits for case law work, with regards to any specific law. So to answer your question, yes I do think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes anything. That is why at the beginning of sections to statutes there is a definition section, and what the codes are annotated over the years. That is why the current law spells out car, building and house. Because at some point it needed to be specific, at some point there was some question, and now that question has arisen again.

Take some law classes.

Not the pp you're responding to. But I'm HLS class of 2002. And you're full of it. Sure many laws are specific. And many give broad discretion to enforcement authorities. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

I think what he meansis, he went to Harvard so his opinion should betaken with a grain of salt. Right PP?
So glad you dropped the H bomb, because seriously, what's a thread without some poster telling everyone they went to Harvard. Your Harvard degree in 2002 isn't more important than my law degree in 96. So take your H bomb and just stop already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really bothers me about all of this is the poor judgment shown by the cops and CPS. I don't care what your parenting philosophy is, but there is no excuse to delay calling the parents. They should have been notified right away or at least within the first hour.

The cops and CPS are supposed to be there to help keep children safe, not terrify them.

I totally agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You know a thread has jumped the shark when the attorneys start getting into pissing contests.

For Realz!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is NOT against the law to let a child under the age of 8 play unsupervised outside. It is against the law from them to be in a home or car under that age unsupervised by someone who is at least 13.

No. Virginia does not have any similar law. Some counties have guidelines.

My now almost 13 year old started flying by herself (unaccompanied minor) at 8. Went completely solo at 12. (Southwest allows this.) She can navigate going several miles away by bike or foot.

She is EXTREMELY responsible and the opportunity to be responsible has allowed her to be EXTREMELY self-confident. (People meet her and can't believe she is not 16.)

My 11 year old is less mature and more nervous and she is still growing towards the same level of responsibilities (with joint parent-child decisions and discussions). She is becoming more and more self-reliant.

A child cannot learn to be on their own........ without getting opportunities to BE ON THEIR OWN. Kids are self reliant are more likely to be able to make good decisions WITHOUT parental "help" and are less susceptible to peer pressure.

+1

Like my mom always said. Doing is much better than seeing. I see moms still holding kids hands across the street when they are 8yrs old. Very weird.

[Anonymous]

why is it weird that a parent holds the hand of their 8 year old to cross the street, or at any other time? For one it may not be about a safety issue but simply a close bond. Second, linking a taller parent ot a shorter child is simply a good idea so cars can see the taller parent, if they may not be able to see the child.

Does this mean the parent doesn't trust the kid to walk next to them without darting off? NO, it's just a decision they have made for their child, which in no way harms them or anyone else so don't be so judgmental next time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:why is it weird that a parent holds the hand of their 8 year old to cross the street, or at any other time? For one it may not be about a safety issue but simply a close bond. Second, linking a taller parent ot a shorter child is simply a good idea so cars can see the taller parent, if they may not be able to see the child.

Does this mean the parent doesn't trust the kid to walk next to them without darting off? NO, it's just a decision they have made for their child, which in no way harms them or anyone else so don't be so judgmental next time.

Yup. That's what it is mostly, I'm sure. At least for most families. I hold my husband's hand when we are out walking. And it's not because either of us needs control or assistance. Those days will end. Enjoy them now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:why is it weird that a parent holds the hand of their 8 year old to cross the street, or at any other time? For one it may not be about a safety issue but simply a close bond. Second, linking a taller parent ot a shorter child is simply a good idea so cars can see the taller parent, if they may not be able to see the child.

Does this mean the parent doesn't trust the kid to walk next to them without darting off? NO, it's just a decision they have made for their child, which in no way harms them or anyone else so don't be so judgmental next time.

Yup. That's what it is mostly, I'm sure. At least for most families. I hold my husband's hand when we are out walking. And it's not because either of us needs control or assistance. Those days will end. Enjoy them now.

My 14 yo grabs my MIL's hand when walking. It was really nice. It's a nice thing to teach children to do. It is just natural now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The thing that really bothers me about all of this is the poor judgment shown by the cops and CPS. I don't care what your parenting philosophy is, but there is no excuse to delay calling the parents. They should have been notified right away or at least within the first hour.

The cops and CPS are supposed to be there to help keep children safe, not terrify them.

I totally agree with you.

Are you for real?
Do you know the job of CPS? It is to protect the kids. These people had history with CPS, they were familiar with them . If they think this family is in any way in violation, do you think their first call is to the parents??
No, they access and determine course of action. Do you think they call "Shaniqua" when they take her kids, you think she is their first call?
Miss me with your 1st world , privileged BA .

[Anonymous]

Those parents are crazy, or they are seeking publicity. It costs a fortune to bring or defend a civil lawsuit. They are in a p****ing contest with a fire hydrant. The police can just watch the house and keep picking up the kids and building their case, which does not cost the police a dime. In the meantime, the case builds against the parents. Just defending it would cost more than a legal babysitter. The police obviously feel they have some grounds to take the kids into custody. CPS can decide to take the kids while the court decides. The parents should watch out, unless they want the state to provide some free babysitting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The thing that really bothers me about all of this is the poor judgment shown by the cops and CPS. I don't care what your parenting philosophy is, but there is no excuse to delay calling the parents. They should have been notified right away or at least within the first hour.

The cops and CPS are supposed to be there to help keep children safe, not terrify them.


I totally agree with you.

Are you for real?
Do you know the job of CPS? It is to protect the kids. These people had history with CPS, they were familiar with them . If they think this family is in any way in violation, do you think their first call is to the parents??
No, they access and determine course of action. Do you think they call "Shaniqua" when they take her kids, you think she is their first call?
Miss me with your 1st world , privileged BA .

See you miss the point, the kids did not need protection. So it's just harassment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those parents are crazy, or they are seeking publicity. It costs a fortune to bring or defend a civil lawsuit. They are in a p****ing contest with a fire hydrant. The police can just watch the house and keep picking up the kids and building their case, which does not cost the police a dime. In the meantime, the case builds against the parents. Just defending it would cost more than a legal babysitter. The police obviously feel they have some grounds to take the kids into custody. CPS can decide to take the kids while the court decides. The parents should watch out, unless they want the state to provide some free babysitting.

Calm down, PP. The state isn't going to take their kids away. And yes, it costs a fortune to bring q lawsuit, which is why the firm is paying for it.

You think it's time to hold kids in a police cruiser for 2-3 hours before bringing them anywhere. I think it was a major failure by CPS and MPS, and if the lawsuit and encourages them to do better, then that's a great outcome. I also think clarification of the law here is needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The thing that really bothers me about all of this is the poor judgment shown by the cops and CPS. I don't care what your parenting philosophy is, but there is no excuse to delay calling the parents. They should have been notified right away or at least within the first hour.

The cops and CPS are supposed to be there to help keep children safe, not terrify them.


I totally agree with you.

Are you for real?
Do you know the job of CPS? It is to protect the kids. These people had history with CPS, they were familiar with them . If they think this family is in any way in violation, do you think their first call is to the parents??
No, they access and determine course of action. Do you think they call "Shaniqua" when they take her kids, you think she is their first call?
Miss me with your 1st world , privileged BA .

See you miss the point, the kids did not need protection. So it's just harassment.

How do the cops/CPS know that? Oh... they do an investigation.

CPS/cops don't want to bothered with the elitist MoCo parents... they are required to deal with elitist MoCo parents. They just want citizens to stop calling them about this family. I wish the kids were a little more savy and would stop drawing attention to themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those parents are crazy, or they are seeking publicity. It costs a fortune to bring or defend a civil lawsuit. They are in a p****ing contest with a fire hydrant. The police can just watch the house and keep picking up the kids and building their case, which does not cost the police a dime. In the meantime, the case builds against the parents. Just defending it would cost more than a legal babysitter. The police obviously feel they have some grounds to take the kids into custody. CPS can decide to take the kids while the court decides. The parents should watch out, unless they want the state to provide some free babysitting.

Build their case for what? That the parents let the kids walk home from the park? Do you think that's something the police and CPS should focus their resources on? And do you think it would be in the best interests of the kids to go into foster care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How do the cops/CPS know that? Oh... they do an investigation.

CPS/cops don't want to bothered with the elitist MoCo parents... they are required to deal with elitist MoCo parents. They just want citizens to stop calling them about this family. I wish the kids were a little more savy and would stop drawing attention to themselves.

If they don't want to bother themselves with this family, how come they keep bothering themselves with this family?