Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you people swing to the extreme with every rebuttal???

I'm the mom of four. I am a slacker mom. No birth plan. Heck, I didn't even breast feed. My kids walk to the bus stop, ride bikes to 7-11, etc. But if CPS put me through the ringer for anything, I'm smart enough to not repeat the behavior in order to prevent my kids from being picked up by the police and having CPS on my ass again...because I'm not a moron, and I recognize that I'm not above the law.

But the parents aren't saying that they're above the law. They're saying that there is no law.

Which is clearly just factually incorrect. Why don't I just speed and say there is no speed limit

Is it factually incorrect? There seems to be considerable dispute about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I never said I didn't support their right to protest the law or enforcement of CPS policies. They can mount a protest, pursue legislative advocacy or sue...that's fine with me. But given what they know about CPS (having just been investigated), I think that they gambled by dropping their kids off at the park...gambled and lost. A better parent would fight the system without involving their kids or putting them at risk of further traumatization by the cops and CPS (remember the Meitivs said the first incident was traumatic...why then did they put their kids at risk of another police and CPS encounter???).

Remember how we don't know all the facts? One of the facts that we don't know is what CPS told them to do or not do. It's possible that they said to themselves, "CPS specifically told us not to do this, but what the heck! Let's live on the edge and do it anyway! Whee!" It's also possible that they said, "Based on what CPS told us, we're pretty sure that this should be ok."

[Anonymous]

It seems like the law and regulations are unclear and that there's even some contradiction, since MCPS recognizes that children may walk to and from school without an adult. Some posters think what these parents did is illegal. Many others think it is not illegal.

It would help all parents if the authorities would issue clear guidance as to whether children under a certain age may be outside without an adult, walk to and from school or a park without adult supervision, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Your seven-year-old shouldn't be walking to and from school alone completely unsupervised. Wait till next year.

Is this parenting advice, or a rule you think the police and CPS should enforce?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the law and regulations are unclear and that there's even some contradiction, since MCPS recognizes that children may walk to and from school without an adult. Some posters think what these parents did is illegal. Many others think it is not illegal.

It would help all parents if the authorities would issue clear guidance as to whether children under a certain age may be outside without an adult, walk to and from school or a park without adult supervision, etc.

It sure would.

And if the clear guidance they issue says that a child is not allowed to cross a street by itself until it's 10, Montgomery County will be a laughingstock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bravo, very well stated!!! I totally agree that these parents have a huge sense of entitlement because they feel they are above the law. Sorry folks, no one is above the law. As others have said, work to change laws you don't agree with. These parents just continue to flaunt their disagreement with the law, thereby putting their own kids at risk in the meantime.

Sometimes going against a law you feel is unjust requires people willing to do the right thing. Personally, that is not the way I am wired to operate. But look at recent history -- whether you agree with the causes or not: gay marriage and pot laws (though still against federal law). In the 1930s people harboring Jews were breaking the law. Do you think that lawmakers would seriously take up the cause of children walking to the neighborhood playground unless there was public fervor about a case or several across the country??

Monkey Bars does not equal the Holocaust
Monkey Bars does not equal civil rights
Monkey Bars does not equal gay marriage
Monkey Bars does not equal Jim Crow

Know what all those things have in common?
ALL OF THEM WERE THINGS PEOPLE PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY TO CHANGE, NOT THEIR DAMN KIDS!
If I do not have enough common sense and discretion to know that walking to the park is something I can lobby to change WITHOUT GETTING MY KIDS PICKED UP BY CPS -- then I choose THAT!
These parents are more interested in doing the hell what they want then making real change. They are pissed because they did not get their way.
Honest to GOD, if the cops told me 'hey your kids cannot go to 7-11 unsupervised' -- I would think "OK", now I know and go on about my life. Not even a blip on my freaking radar. My life will go on, my kids' lives will go on and my kids will still have plenty to do and NUMEROUS ways to practice and develop independence even if they cannot buy a damn slurpie by themselves.
I have no problem with "free-range", I have a problem with STUPID.

You know what really helps, if you're trying to make a real change? Publicity.

Also, you're wrong about people not putting their kids in harm's way to fight the Holocaust, civil rights, gay marriage, or Jim Crow. (By the way, what is gay marriage, specifically, doing on that list? As opposed to gay rights?) Let's start with the Birmingham Children's Crusade and the Little Rock Nine, for civil rights. And you left apartheid off the list, but I will add it, and refer you to the Soweto uprising.

Shame on the parents of 6 year old Ruby Bridges Hall for sending her to school in a political spotlight. She had a right to go to school there, but it was a very dangerous environment. Thank God for her brave parents. These parents have the right to decide whether their children can handle going to a neighborhood park ... and clearly there are different opinions on whether the law is or isn't clear on whether the Metievs were within their legal rights.

[Anonymous]

I don't hover or follow my kids around. My kids play outside and have free reign on the cul de sac. My little kids can play outside with their older siblings, but the little ones cannot be a mile away from our home. My 11 year old can venture off with a few other neighborhood kids, but my 7 year old cannot.

I think it's truly odd that parents feel like letting very young kids play a mile away from home is somehow a critical developmental step in terms of fostering confidence and independence. There are many such mechanisms. How about let your kid order and pay for their own snack at Panera? We taught our kids from an early age how to read a menu, order and pay (and count change). That's a critical life skill. How about teaching your kid how to properly mow a lawn, rake leaves and shovel snow? Our kids can do this and now do it for neighbors. Great life skill.

I made the comment about what I consider selfish/lazy parenting because I've reached an age where I've witnessed a lot of selfish/lazy parenting justified as fostering independence or creativity. My pals who criticize organized sports and activities by citing too much pressure or not creative enough use excuses when the reality is that they don't want to be bothered with schlepping kids to activities and games because it cuts into their "me" time. These folks also tend to drink during their me time (cocktails as soon as they get home from work), so that's what prompted my comment. I'm not saying I think every parent does those things...but I happen to know a bunch of people who do...and I wonder if the Meitivs are those kinds of parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bravo, very well stated!!! I totally agree that these parents have a huge sense of entitlement because they feel they are above the law. Sorry folks, no one is above the law. As others have said, work to change laws you don't agree with. These parents just continue to flaunt their disagreement with the law, thereby putting their own kids at risk in the meantime.

Sometimes going against a law you feel is unjust requires people willing to do the right thing. Personally, that is not the way I am wired to operate. But look at recent history -- whether you agree with the causes or not: gay marriage and pot laws (though still against federal law). In the 1930s people harboring Jews were breaking the law. Do you think that lawmakers would seriously take up the cause of children walking to the neighborhood playground unless there was public fervor about a case or several across the country??

Monkey Bars does not equal the Holocaust
Monkey Bars does not equal civil rights
Monkey Bars does not equal gay marriage
Monkey Bars does not equal Jim Crow

Know what all those things have in common?
ALL OF THEM WERE THINGS PEOPLE PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY TO CHANGE, NOT THEIR DAMN KIDS!
If I do not have enough common sense and discretion to know that walking to the park is something I can lobby to change WITHOUT GETTING MY KIDS PICKED UP BY CPS -- then I choose THAT!
These parents are more interested in doing the hell what they want then making real change. They are pissed because they did not get their way.
Honest to GOD, if the cops told me 'hey your kids cannot go to 7-11 unsupervised' -- I would think "OK", now I know and go on about my life. Not even a blip on my freaking radar. My life will go on, my kids' lives will go on and my kids will still have plenty to do and NUMEROUS ways to practice and develop independence even if they cannot buy a damn slurpie by themselves.
I have no problem with "free-range", I have a problem with STUPID.

You know what really helps, if you're trying to make a real change? Publicity.

Also, you're wrong about people not putting their kids in harm's way to fight the Holocaust, civil rights, gay marriage, or Jim Crow. (By the way, what is gay marriage, specifically, doing on that list? As opposed to gay rights?) Let's start with the Birmingham Children's Crusade and the Little Rock Nine, for civil rights. And you left apartheid off the list, but I will add it, and refer you to the Soweto uprising.
Yes, you are right, kids were involved in most of these movements ... most of which were life and death issues and going to the park alone is equal to all of these.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Bravo, very well stated!!! I totally agree that these parents have a huge sense of entitlement because they feel they are above the law. Sorry folks, no one is above the law. As others have said, work to change laws you don't agree with. These parents just continue to flaunt their disagreement with the law, thereby putting their own kids at risk in the meantime.

Sometimes going against a law you feel is unjust requires people willing to do the right thing. Personally, that is not the way I am wired to operate. But look at recent history -- whether you agree with the causes or not: gay marriage and pot laws (though still against federal law). In the 1930s people harboring Jews were breaking the law. Do you think that lawmakers would seriously take up the cause of children walking to the neighborhood playground unless there was public fervor about a case or several across the country??

Monkey Bars does not equal the Holocaust
Monkey Bars does not equal civil rights
Monkey Bars does not equal gay marriage
Monkey Bars does not equal Jim Crow

Know what all those things have in common?
ALL OF THEM WERE THINGS PEOPLE PUT THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY TO CHANGE, NOT THEIR DAMN KIDS!
If I do not have enough common sense and discretion to know that walking to the park is something I can lobby to change WITHOUT GETTING MY KIDS PICKED UP BY CPS -- then I choose THAT!
These parents are more interested in doing the hell what they want then making real change. They are pissed because they did not get their way.
Honest to GOD, if the cops told me 'hey your kids cannot go to 7-11 unsupervised' -- I would think "OK", now I know and go on about my life. Not even a blip on my freaking radar. My life will go on, my kids' lives will go on and my kids will still have plenty to do and NUMEROUS ways to practice and develop independence even if they cannot buy a damn slurpie by themselves.
I have no problem with "free-range", I have a problem with STUPID.

You know what really helps, if you're trying to make a real change? Publicity.

Also, you're wrong about people not putting their kids in harm's way to fight the Holocaust, civil rights, gay marriage, or Jim Crow. (By the way, what is gay marriage, specifically, doing on that list? As opposed to gay rights?) Let's start with the Birmingham Children's Crusade and the Little Rock Nine, for civil rights. And you left apartheid off the list, but I will add it, and refer you to the Soweto uprising.

Shame on the parents of 6 year old Ruby Bridges Hall for sending her to school in a political spotlight. She had a right to go to school there, but it was a very dangerous environment. Thank God for her brave parents. These parents have the right to decide whether their children can handle going to a neighborhood park ... and clearly there are different opinions on whether the law is or isn't clear on whether the Metievs were within their legal rights.
Yea for you for understanding that intergration and civil rights is just as important as the age that kids can walk to the park alone. BRAVO FOR YOU!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the law and regulations are unclear and that there's even some contradiction, since MCPS recognizes that children may walk to and from school without an adult. Some posters think what these parents did is illegal. Many others think it is not illegal.

It would help all parents if the authorities would issue clear guidance as to whether children under a certain age may be outside without an adult, walk to and from school or a park without adult supervision, etc.

It's pretty clearly illegal. Many posters think it shouldn't be, not that it isn't. I bet we'll get plenty of clarity very soon. Though there's a lot to be said for agency discretion in these matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't hover or follow my kids around. My kids play outside and have free reign on the cul de sac. My little kids can play outside with their older siblings, but the little ones cannot be a mile away from our home. My 11 year old can venture off with a few other neighborhood kids, but my 7 year old cannot.

I think it's truly odd that parents feel like letting very young kids play a mile away from home is somehow a critical developmental step in terms of fostering confidence and independence. There are many such mechanisms. How about let your kid order and pay for their own snack at Panera? We taught our kids from an early age how to read a menu, order and pay (and count change). That's a critical life skill. How about teaching your kid how to properly mow a lawn, rake leaves and shovel snow? Our kids can do this and now do it for neighbors. Great life skill.

I made the comment about what I consider selfish/lazy parenting because I've reached an age where I've witnessed a lot of selfish/lazy parenting justified as fostering independence or creativity. My pals who criticize organized sports and activities by citing too much pressure or not creative enough use excuses when the reality is that they don't want to be bothered with schlepping kids to activities and games because it cuts into their "me" time. These folks also tend to drink during their me time (cocktails as soon as they get home from work), so that's what prompted my comment. I'm not saying I think every parent does those things...but I happen to know a bunch of people who do...and I wonder if the Meitivs are those kinds of parents.

I don't think of a six-year-old or a seven-year-old as "a very young kid".

Also, if your pals don't want to schlep kids to activities and games because they want time for themselves, why does it matter to you? (And yes, it also shouldn't matter to them if you do want to do it.) I see nothing wrong, and a lot of things right, with telling my kid to go outside and find something to do because I'm busy inside.

And finally, if you've read or heard even one interview with Danielle Meitiv, you will know that the Meitivs have put more thought into their parenting philosophy than you and I put together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the law and regulations are unclear and that there's even some contradiction, since MCPS recognizes that children may walk to and from school without an adult. Some posters think what these parents did is illegal. Many others think it is not illegal.

It would help all parents if the authorities would issue clear guidance as to whether children under a certain age may be outside without an adult, walk to and from school or a park without adult supervision, etc.

It's pretty clearly illegal. Many posters think it shouldn't be, not that it isn't. I bet we'll get plenty of clarity very soon. Though there's a lot to be said for agency discretion in these matters.

You may think it's clear. But other people think it isn't clear, and yet other people think it isn't illegal. If there's that much confusion, then it isn't clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems like the law and regulations are unclear and that there's even some contradiction, since MCPS recognizes that children may walk to and from school without an adult. Some posters think what these parents did is illegal. Many others think it is not illegal.

It would help all parents if the authorities would issue clear guidance as to whether children under a certain age may be outside without an adult, walk to and from school or a park without adult supervision, etc.

It's pretty clearly illegal. Many posters think it shouldn't be, not that it isn't. I bet we'll get plenty of clarity very soon. Though there's a lot to be said for agency discretion in these matters.

Is it? There seems to be disagreement. So you think it is illegal for children under the age of 8 to play outside without an adult present?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yea for you for understanding that intergration and civil rights is just as important as the age that kids can walk to the park alone. BRAVO FOR YOU!

We don't live in a police state. These are our public servants, and they should be enforcing sensible laws that are agreed upon and consented to by the people. Why is government overreach okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Your seven-year-old shouldn't be walking to and from school alone completely unsupervised. Wait till next year.

Is this parenting advice, or a rule you think the police and CPS should enforce?

I think it is a rule already, and the police and CPs only enforce it when it gets reported, and when they look into it and they think there's actually some risk of neglect. And I think that's probably as it should be.