Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Hey, Joe. Watching these kids is exhausting! I heard about this free range thing where you don't need to watch your kids. You can just let them roam around and you probably won't get in trouble for it if you say it's not neglect because you're fostering independence. Sound good? Great! Pass the doobie and print out the free range card for the lanyard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, if it's completely unsupervised. That doesn't include on the block or on the street where the parents can see them or in the yard where the parents can check through the window every once in a while.

[Anonymous]

"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."

That may be true, pp...but I've never been investigated by CPS.

Cue the music for the Church Lady's Superiority Dance :0)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

1) I did not know that everyone agrees with every law -- news to me

2) I do not think it is over reach -- and I let my kids outside unsupervised (within defined parameters)

3) Extreme hubris, narcissism and a hell of a white privilege to compare this issue to anything in which people laid down their lives

4) No body's going to die over this shit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

No we do not live in a police state. The laws were passed by duly elected representatives and then enforcement was delegated by those duly elected representatives to the state agency. Just like with every other facet of our legal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, if it's completely unsupervised. That doesn't include on the block or on the street where the parents can see them or in the yard where the parents can check through the window every once in a while.

OK, so you're saying it's only legal for kids under 8 to play outside without an adult if parents can see them out the window? Where does the law stipulate this?

[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!

No, that is a different argument. Here is the argument the poster was addressing:

PP#1: The people who fought for civil rights didn't put their children in harm's way.
PP#2. That is factually incorrect.

And if sending Ruby Bridges to this school instead of that school is about integration and civil rights, then letting your children walk home from the park alone is about parental vs. state rights (aka freedom). It's incredibly reductive to say that the whole case is about the age that kids can walk home from the park alone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, if it's completely unsupervised. That doesn't include on the block or on the street where the parents can see them or in the yard where the parents can check through the window every once in a while.

Right. Do you really think that's the definition of supervised that would be okay to CPS? A former CPS worker posted on one of these threads that it's clearly neglect. What you're doing is clearly neglect to CPS, they just haven't been by yet.

[Anonymous]

Here's an updated story from the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/04/15/listen-to-the-911-call-that-led-cops-to-take-the-free-range-kids-into-custody/?hpid=z2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, if it's completely unsupervised. That doesn't include on the block or on the street where the parents can see them or in the yard where the parents can check through the window every once in a while.

OK, so you're saying it's only legal for kids under 8 to play outside without an adult if parents can see them out the window? Where does the law stipulate this?

Also, does a parent have to watch the child continuously? Anything can happen in just a second or two, you know. And what if the family has a really big yard? Does the child have to remain in plain sight near the window, or can the child go to the other end, or behind a tree where the parent can't see them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

Better tell the kids they should be seen and not heard too.

[Anonymous]

Big difference between playing in your yard and playing a mile away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!

No, that is a different argument. Here is the argument the poster was addressing:

PP#1: The people who fought for civil rights didn't put their children in harm's way.
PP#2. That is factually incorrect.

And if sending Ruby Bridges to this school instead of that school is about integration and civil rights, then letting your children walk home from the park alone is about parental vs. state rights (aka freedom). It's incredibly reductive to say that the whole case is about the age that kids can walk home from the park alone.

I was the poster she was correcting and I said she was right on the historical fact -- but it is an overblown comparison and only someone who's forefathers and mothers were not lynched, denied basic liberties would make this dumb ass comparison.

Fight for an equitable education system, fight for the elimination of childhood hunger and poverty, fight to end police brutality
Pure entitlement, tantrum crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's an updated story from the Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2015/04/15/listen-to-the-911-call-that-led-cops-to-take-the-free-range-kids-into-custody/?hpid=z2

The caller didn't want to scare the kids, so he called 911 and had the police come get them.

Good grief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I was the poster she was correcting and I said she was right on the historical fact -- but it is an overblown comparison and only someone who's forefathers and mothers were not lynched, denied basic liberties would make this dumb ass comparison.

Fight for an equitable education system, fight for the elimination of childhood hunger and poverty, fight to end police brutality
Pure entitlement, tantrum crap.

We get it, you don't think this is important. So why do you keep posting on this thread?