Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since it is neglectful per se in Maryland to have a 6 year old out of a parent's sight at any time, that's the "some neglect" right there. But CPS found no other neglect, presumably.

[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.

NP here. I don't want the system to tell me how to raise my kids and at what ages they think it is okay for my child. Kids in MCPS walk to school sometimes up to a mile away. They do not need to go assisted with a parent and many of them do not. Many walk alone, many with friends, many with siblings. If the kids can walk to school, they can walk to a park, to a friends house, to a store, or anywhere else they want to go. There is no set law in MC that says they can not. These parents have done nothing wrong and I for one think CPS is wasting their time fighting this, when like you said, there are better battles to fight. How about if CPS wants to cry neglect on parents like this, THEY go and change the regulations first and then start hunting kids down and harassing them with legal cause. Because until them, my kids are still walking to the bus stop and to the park on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since it is neglectful per se in Maryland to have a 6 year old out of a parent's sight at any time, that's the "some neglect" right there. But CPS found no other neglect, presumably.

No such law is in place at this time. So there is no neglect, just an opinion by a broken system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. And I'm not betting on that winning. On the other hand, judges often substitute their own feelings for the law, so you never know!

[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.

Yes, I am okay with that, because if that didn't happen then Child protective services would miss a lot more cases of abuse them they miss now. And they miss plenty now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since it is neglectful per se in Maryland to have a 6 year old out of a parent's sight at any time, that's the "some neglect" right there. But CPS found no other neglect, presumably.

No such law is in place at this time. So there is no neglect, just an opinion by a broken system.

You are clearly not a lawyer, and reading must not be your strong suit.

[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.

NP here. I don't want the system to tell me how to raise my kids and at what ages they think it is okay for my child. Kids in MCPS walk to school sometimes up to a mile away. They do not need to go assisted with a parent and many of them do not. Many walk alone, many with friends, many with siblings. If the kids can walk to school, they can walk to a park, to a friends house, to a store, or anywhere else they want to go. There is no set law in MC that says they can not. These parents have done nothing wrong and I for one think CPS is wasting their time fighting this, when like you said, there are better battles to fight. How about if CPS wants to cry neglect on parents like this, THEY go and change the regulations first and then start hunting kids down and harassing them with legal cause. Because until them, my kids are still walking to the bus stop and to the park on their own.

Your understanding of the law is incomplete, to put it generously. Please go back and read the very thoughtful and comprehensive post on what the applicable regulations are.

[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.

NP here. I don't want the system to tell me how to raise my kids and at what ages they think it is okay for my child. Kids in MCPS walk to school sometimes up to a mile away. They do not need to go assisted with a parent and many of them do not. Many walk alone, many with friends, many with siblings. If the kids can walk to school, they can walk to a park, to a friends house, to a store, or anywhere else they want to go. There is no set law in MC that says they can not. These parents have done nothing wrong and I for one think CPS is wasting their time fighting this, when like you said, there are better battles to fight. How about if CPS wants to cry neglect on parents like this, THEY go and change the regulations first and then start hunting kids down and harassing them with legal cause. Because until them, my kids are still walking to the bus stop and to the park on their own.

You just don't get it. And yes, we do need some regulations as to what can and cannot with their kids -- we do. People do not mind that their are car seat laws or leaving kids alone in a car, etc. . I let my kids do stuff that technically may be against the regs and if I got called out on it -- I'd get over it and comply. Why? Because I know that I am responsible, but their are a lot of other people that are not and it is not going to kill me or my kids to not walk to Starbucks by themselves. Folks get pissed because things are no longer old-school and neighbors are not friendly and looking out, but as soon as someone does -- there is hell to pay. These parents are loud mouth grand standers who are more interested in a cause then the possibility of losing their kids. Horrible execution on their part, so much else they could have done to change the regs if they disagree. Just another example of the privileged, all about me, entitlement epidemic in this area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. And I'm not betting on that winning. On the other hand, judges often substitute their own feelings for the law, so you never know!

I understood they are suing MPS and CPS for holding their children for too long without calling the parents. If they address the laws and regulations as well, so much the better. Anyway, if and when suit is filed, we'll all find out what and whom they are suing.

[Anonymous]

I am sad to live in a county that does not allow kids to walk to and from a park without getting paranoid people calling 911 and getting pulled over by police. My siblings and I definitely were this age on our own playing outside daily. And not right in our front yard. As soon as the training wheels were off, we were free to ride to friends homes, the park, the baseball field, and the convenience store. The last 3 were at least a half mile away and the store was crossing a busy 2 lane road. We didn't have cell phones, we had watches and were told what time to be home. Made a lot of friends and had a lot of fun. Great childhood. Kids these days are so coddled and structured it is scary. And the fact that so many of you think that walking a mile back home from a park is abuse is even scarier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP here. I don't want the system to tell me how to raise my kids and at what ages they think it is okay for my child. Kids in MCPS walk to school sometimes up to a mile away. They do not need to go assisted with a parent and many of them do not. Many walk alone, many with friends, many with siblings. If the kids can walk to school, they can walk to a park, to a friends house, to a store, or anywhere else they want to go. There is no set law in MC that says they can not. These parents have done nothing wrong and I for one think CPS is wasting their time fighting this, when like you said, there are better battles to fight. How about if CPS wants to cry neglect on parents like this, THEY go and change the regulations first and then start hunting kids down and harassing them with legal cause. Because until them, my kids are still walking to the bus stop and to the park on their own.

You just don't get it. And yes, we do need some regulations as to what can and cannot with their kids -- we do. People do not mind that their are car seat laws or leaving kids alone in a car, etc. . I let my kids do stuff that technically may be against the regs and if I got called out on it -- I'd get over it and comply. Why? Because I know that I am responsible, but their are a lot of other people that are not and it is not going to kill me or my kids to not walk to Starbucks by themselves. Folks get pissed because things are no longer old-school and neighbors are not friendly and looking out, but as soon as someone does -- there is hell to pay. These parents are loud mouth grand standers who are more interested in a cause then the possibility of losing their kids. Horrible execution on their part, so much else they could have done to change the regs if they disagree. Just another example of the privileged, all about me, entitlement epidemic in this area.

I live in Virginia, where we are able to get by without these regulations. Of all the reasons to not live in Maryland, this was not previously on my list, but it is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Since it is neglectful per se in Maryland to have a 6 year old out of a parent's sight at any time, that's the "some neglect" right there. But CPS found no other neglect, presumably.

I don't presume that. I don't presume there is. Neither you nor I know what the 10 yo and 6yo told CPS.

[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.

unsubstantiated = not established as valid or genuine ? unsubstantiated allegations

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/unsubstantiated

What definition does CPS use?

And no, merely being a mile away from home does not constitute neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You just don't get it. And yes, we do need some regulations as to what can and cannot with their kids -- we do. People do not mind that their are car seat laws or leaving kids alone in a car, etc. . I let my kids do stuff that technically may be against the regs and if I got called out on it -- I'd get over it and comply. Why? Because I know that I am responsible, but their are a lot of other people that are not and it is not going to kill me or my kids to not walk to Starbucks by themselves. Folks get pissed because things are no longer old-school and neighbors are not friendly and looking out, but as soon as someone does -- there is hell to pay. These parents are loud mouth grand standers who are more interested in a cause then the possibility of losing their kids. Horrible execution on their part, so much else they could have done to change the regs if they disagree. Just another example of the privileged, all about me, entitlement epidemic in this area.

Usually I don't put "friendly and looking out" in the same sentence with "calling 911 on".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What deal did they sign?

I agree that it's a waste of taxpayer money and CPS time, though. CPS should stop wasting their time and taxpayer money on this and (as you say) get worked up about kids who are really in trouble.