Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Do you seriously not recognize the difference between playing in your backyard (supervised) and being a mile away from home (not supervised)??? Because the cops and CPS recognize the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because people keep calling about this family and if they fail to thoroughly investigate they are responsible if something happens. Duh. They deal with neglected and abused children all day long. Even rich white educated people abuse and neglect Children. I know, that blows your little mind.

But they already investigated in January -- presumably thoroughly. Now they have to do another thorough investigation?

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

Exactly. What people are ignoring is that multiple, different bystanders have seen these children and had cause for concern, and called 911. I really don't think the police are out looking for them just to make a point. Whether or not this is neglect, the police and CPS had an obligation to investigate the situation - especially once they realized there was already an open file on the family.

Multiple different bystanders = 2 bystanders. So the word of 2 people means the family is neglectful? The word of 1 stranger in January was not enough to show the family was neglectful then. How should the word another stranger make the family neglectful now?

No one is saying the word of two bystanders means the family is neglectful. What we are saying is that the word of two bystanders merits an investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

If there were evidence, it would be substantiated neglect. "Unsubstantiated" means "there is no evidence". Unless CPS uses its own definitions of words?

No that's not what that means. You can look it up. Of course there was evidence of neglect. The fact that they were alone a mile from home was SOME evidence. Just inconclusive evidence. Just not enough evidence to prove neglect.

According to CPS, "unsubstantiated neglect" means a file is open and that's about it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/decision-in-free-range-case-does-not-end-debate-about-parenting-and-safety/2015/03/02/5a919454-c04d-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

Tolson said as a general practice, CPS officials in Maryland reach one of three possible findings after neglect investigations: ruled out, unsubstantiated or indicated.

An unsubstantiated finding is typically made when CPS has some information supporting a conclusion of child neglect, or when seemingly credible reports are at odds with each other, or when there is insufficient information for a more definitive conclusion, she said.

Tolson said a conference involving a CPS supervisor is the first step of the appeals process in cases of unsubstantiated neglect. It can often resolve some issues, she said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then I suspect the forthcoming lawsuit will serve as a mechanism to make the law more specific. But the judge can interpret the law in a reasonable way. And if the goal of the law is to make sure kids are supervised, then it's reasonable to interpret it broadly to encompass all situations.

Kids playing in the backyard while mom is in the house = supervised.

Kids wandering around DTSS while mom is a mile away = not supervised.

That's a reasonable interpretation (and common sense).

The backyard is in DTSS. They live in DTSS. They are "wandering around" the neighborhood they live in.

And the goal of the law should be to make sure that kids aren't neglected. Which these kids aren't. Even CPS did not find that they were neglected.

I continue to find it amazing that people who don't know the family, are not part of the investigation, and didn't witness the incidents are certain these kids aren't neglected. Amazing bias.

No, I don't know the family. I assume there's no neglect because CPS found no neglect in their first investigation. I assume nothing has changed since then, although perhaps the family has changed since January.

That's my bias.

Do you also think that a finding of not guilty in a murder trial means that the person is incapable of murdering someone after that finding of not guilty? That's pretty bizarre.

[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.

They have to investigate to be sure the kids do not need protection. You cannot be that stupid. This is a waste of tax payer money and CPS time. If these dummies would have just complied with the regulations and the deal they signed and then gone off and lobbied to change the regulations/write a book/write their state rep, etc.
Instead people are all up in arms about these little privileged kids not being allowed to swing on the monkey bars by themselved. BOO-FREAKKING - HOO.
Get worked up about kids who are really in trouble, kids who DO NEED SUPERVISION/LUNCH/MENTORS. Instead all of this sound and fury about some privileged ass kids not being able to walk to the park. Yep, we have all of our priorities straight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They have to investigate to be sure the kids do not need protection. You cannot be that stupid. This is a waste of tax payer money and CPS time. If these dummies would have just complied with the regulations and the deal they signed and then gone off and lobbied to change the regulations/write a book/write their state rep, etc.
Instead people are all up in arms about these little privileged kids not being allowed to swing on the monkey bars by themselved. BOO-FREAKKING - HOO.
Get worked up about kids who are really in trouble, kids who DO NEED SUPERVISION/LUNCH/MENTORS. Instead all of this sound and fury about some privileged ass kids not being able to walk to the park. Yep, we have all of our priorities straight.

Amen. Can we be friends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

None of that matters. It matters to you, and you think you can argue it. But when the police start picking up your kids, lawsuits start flying, the best interest of the child goes out the window. It has already happened. and leaving a 6 year old with a 10 year old unattended at a park is against the law in MD. So far the police have not pressed charges.

The law refers to kids being in a home, car or building, right? So if you apply it to a park, does it also apply to anyplace outdoors where an adult is present? I am not being snarky -- I'm genuinely uncertain. I frequently see young children walking to and from school with no adult. Kids under the age of 11 play outside without an adult present. Are these things illegal in Maryland? Surely I'm not the only person confused by this.

The way it works in MD (and in the law in general) is that there are two sets of applicable law, one narrow and one broad, plus additional regulatory interpretations.

First, the MD code generally prohibits child neglect, and defines neglect to include "leaving child unattended or failure to give proper care and attention." MD Code 5-701. CPS further defines "unattended child" under this statute as, inter alia, a "child who has been abandoned" or a child under the age of 8 who has been left in the care of a child younger than 12. It also specifically says that children from ages 8-12 "may not be left to care for children under the age of 8." MD Screening Procedures SSA 95-13. http://www.mccpta.com/parentInvolve_dir/prin_hb_0910/G_Safety_Security_and_Health/03b-MontgomeryCountyDHHSChildWeflareServices.pdf.

Second, the MD code gives a specific example of leaving unattended children confined to buildings and cars - this is prohibited unless they have a babysitter older than 13. MD Code 8-101. Since there is no allegation here of the kids being left unattended in a building or car, this section does not apply.

The Meitev's allowing their 10 year old to be in charge of their 6 year old would appear to trigger the MD screening procedures, which interpret the MD Code's general prohibition on child neglect. 5-701. So at a minimum, a report of a 6 year old left in the care of a 10 year old (whether in a building or not) is going to trigger a CPS investigation at a minimum. It may not be a per se finding of neglect, because SSA 95-13 does not appear to be an administrative rule with the force of law, but rather an agency interpretation of its own procedures. But it definitely means that every official in this case acted properly and within the governing law & regs to investigate reports of a 6 year old left in the care of a 10 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

If there were evidence, it would be substantiated neglect. "Unsubstantiated" means "there is no evidence". Unless CPS uses its own definitions of words?

not enough evidence is not no evidence

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

None of that matters. It matters to you, and you think you can argue it. But when the police start picking up your kids, lawsuits start flying, the best interest of the child goes out the window. It has already happened. and leaving a 6 year old with a 10 year old unattended at a park is against the law in MD. So far the police have not pressed charges.

The law refers to kids being in a home, car or building, right? So if you apply it to a park, does it also apply to anyplace outdoors where an adult is present? I am not being snarky -- I'm genuinely uncertain. I frequently see young children walking to and from school with no adult. Kids under the age of 11 play outside without an adult present. Are these things illegal in Maryland? Surely I'm not the only person confused by this.

The way it works in MD (and in the law in general) is that there are two sets of applicable law, one narrow and one broad, plus additional regulatory interpretations.

First, the MD code generally prohibits child neglect, and defines neglect to include "leaving child unattended or failure to give proper care and attention." MD Code 5-701. CPS further defines "unattended child" under this statute as, inter alia, a "child who has been abandoned" or a child under the age of 8 who has been left in the care of a child younger than 12. It also specifically says that children from ages 8-12 "may not be left to care for children under the age of 8." MD Screening Procedures SSA 95-13. http://www.mccpta.com/parentInvolve_dir/prin_hb_0910/G_Safety_Security_and_Health/03b-MontgomeryCountyDHHSChildWeflareServices.pdf.

Second, the MD code gives a specific example of leaving unattended children confined to buildings and cars - this is prohibited unless they have a babysitter older than 13. MD Code 8-101. Since there is no allegation here of the kids being left unattended in a building or car, this section does not apply.

The Meitev's allowing their 10 year old to be in charge of their 6 year old would appear to trigger the MD screening procedures, which interpret the MD Code's general prohibition on child neglect. 5-701. So at a minimum, a report of a 6 year old left in the care of a 10 year old (whether in a building or not) is going to trigger a CPS investigation at a minimum. It may not be a per se finding of neglect, because SSA 95-13 does not appear to be an administrative rule with the force of law, but rather an agency interpretation of its own procedures. But it definitely means that every official in this case acted properly and within the governing law & regs to investigate reports of a 6 year old left in the care of a 10 year old.

Thanks for actually writing that all out. Only reasonable legal interpretation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They have to investigate to be sure the kids do not need protection. You cannot be that stupid. This is a waste of tax payer money and CPS time. If these dummies would have just complied with the regulations and the deal they signed and then gone off and lobbied to change the regulations/write a book/write their state rep, etc.
Instead people are all up in arms about these little privileged kids not being allowed to swing on the monkey bars by themselved. BOO-FREAKKING - HOO.
Get worked up about kids who are really in trouble, kids who DO NEED SUPERVISION/LUNCH/MENTORS. Instead all of this sound and fury about some privileged ass kids not being able to walk to the park. Yep, we have all of our priorities straight.

Amen. Can we be friends?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

If there were evidence, it would be substantiated neglect. "Unsubstantiated" means "there is no evidence". Unless CPS uses its own definitions of words?

Under the MD Code, there are three possibilities for findings in a child neglect case: "indicated," "ruled out," or "unsubstantiated." "Unsubstantiated" means "there is an insufficient amount of evidence to support a finding of indicated or ruled out." MD Code 5-701(y). So "unsubstantiated" does not mean "no evidence." It means not enough evidence. Presumably, having a finding of unsubstantiated neglect in your file means that if there is another complaint against you, CPS will take a very close look. Which is what they did in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

None of that matters. It matters to you, and you think you can argue it. But when the police start picking up your kids, lawsuits start flying, the best interest of the child goes out the window. It has already happened. and leaving a 6 year old with a 10 year old unattended at a park is against the law in MD. So far the police have not pressed charges.

The law refers to kids being in a home, car or building, right? So if you apply it to a park, does it also apply to anyplace outdoors where an adult is present? I am not being snarky -- I'm genuinely uncertain. I frequently see young children walking to and from school with no adult. Kids under the age of 11 play outside without an adult present. Are these things illegal in Maryland? Surely I'm not the only person confused by this.

The way it works in MD (and in the law in general) is that there are two sets of applicable law, one narrow and one broad, plus additional regulatory interpretations.

First, the MD code generally prohibits child neglect, and defines neglect to include "leaving child unattended or failure to give proper care and attention." MD Code 5-701. CPS further defines "unattended child" under this statute as, inter alia, a "child who has been abandoned" or a child under the age of 8 who has been left in the care of a child younger than 12. It also specifically says that children from ages 8-12 "may not be left to care for children under the age of 8." MD Screening Procedures SSA 95-13. http://www.mccpta.com/parentInvolve_dir/prin_hb_0910/G_Safety_Security_and_Health/03b-MontgomeryCountyDHHSChildWeflareServices.pdf.

Second, the MD code gives a specific example of leaving unattended children confined to buildings and cars - this is prohibited unless they have a babysitter older than 13. MD Code 8-101. Since there is no allegation here of the kids being left unattended in a building or car, this section does not apply.

The Meitev's allowing their 10 year old to be in charge of their 6 year old would appear to trigger the MD screening procedures, which interpret the MD Code's general prohibition on child neglect. 5-701. So at a minimum, a report of a 6 year old left in the care of a 10 year old (whether in a building or not) is going to trigger a CPS investigation at a minimum. It may not be a per se finding of neglect, because SSA 95-13 does not appear to be an administrative rule with the force of law, but rather an agency interpretation of its own procedures. But it definitely means that every official in this case acted properly and within the governing law & regs to investigate reports of a 6 year old left in the care of a 10 year old.

Thanks for actually writing that all out. Only reasonable legal interpretation.

Well, there is still the question of what kind of regulation SSA 95-13 is. Presumably their fancy pro bono lawyers are going to try to argue that it is somehow unconstitutional or violated MD administrative law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

If there were evidence, it would be substantiated neglect. "Unsubstantiated" means "there is no evidence". Unless CPS uses its own definitions of words?

Under the MD Code, there are three possibilities for findings in a child neglect case: "indicated," "ruled out," or "unsubstantiated." "Unsubstantiated" means "there is an insufficient amount of evidence to support a finding of indicated or ruled out." MD Code 5-701(y). So "unsubstantiated" does not mean "no evidence." It means not enough evidence. Presumably, having a finding of unsubstantiated neglect in your file means that if there is another complaint against you, CPS will take a very close look. Which is what they did in this case.

And, Meitivs aside, you really think that's okay? If CPS comes after you for something a stranger saw, and does not find neglect but does not close the file, wouldn't you be uncomfortable or angry about that? I would be. Why should we allow CPS to do that? This is our government, and a service that our government provides. Not some scary entity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because people keep calling about this family and if they fail to thoroughly investigate they are responsible if something happens. Duh. They deal with neglected and abused children all day long. Even rich white educated people abuse and neglect Children. I know, that blows your little mind.

But they already investigated in January -- presumably thoroughly. Now they have to do another thorough investigation?

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

Exactly. What people are ignoring is that multiple, different bystanders have seen these children and had cause for concern, and called 911. I really don't think the police are out looking for them just to make a point. Whether or not this is neglect, the police and CPS had an obligation to investigate the situation - especially once they realized there was already an open file on the family.

Multiple different bystanders = 2 bystanders. So the word of 2 people means the family is neglectful? The word of 1 stranger in January was not enough to show the family was neglectful then. How should the word another stranger make the family neglectful now?

It's actually at least the 3rd time... the family did not get their friends to write about it in the paper until the "2nd" incident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

If there were evidence, it would be substantiated neglect. "Unsubstantiated" means "there is no evidence". Unless CPS uses its own definitions of words?

Under the MD Code, there are three possibilities for findings in a child neglect case: "indicated," "ruled out," or "unsubstantiated." "Unsubstantiated" means "there is an insufficient amount of evidence to support a finding of indicated or ruled out." MD Code 5-701(y). So "unsubstantiated" does not mean "no evidence." It means not enough evidence. Presumably, having a finding of unsubstantiated neglect in your file means that if there is another complaint against you, CPS will take a very close look. Which is what they did in this case.

And, Meitivs aside, you really think that's okay? If CPS comes after you for something a stranger saw, and does not find neglect but does not close the file, wouldn't you be uncomfortable or angry about that? I would be. Why should we allow CPS to do that? This is our government, and a service that our government provides. Not some scary entity.

They did not find "no neglect" they found some neglect but not enough to charge the parents criminally.