Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you are all a bunch of paranoid lunatics. always expecting the worse. Sad life to live.

Plenty of people would call me a helicopter parent and you might call me a lunatic. I'm ok with that. I'm not always expecting the worst, but am well aware of the worst than can happen. My analysis is that the worst may not be likely but if it does it would be devastating -- life ending or significantly life altering. And for a lot of things, like my kid walking to the park alone or the like is simply not worth it.

Please show me the data you use in your risk analysis. Do you run profiles on your relatives and close friends too? If not, you should. They are more likely to harm your kids.

No Shit Sherlock, that's why I teach my kids to tell if anyone does something inappropriate or makes them feel uncomfortable, ANYONE, if that someone was me. And yes, I say exactly that, "you tell if ANYONE HURTS YOU, even if It was mommy, YOU TELL"

So so socialize with relatives people more likely to harm you than talk to a stranger who probably won't.

[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.

You Neglect Brown-Shirts are a scandal. I can't help wondering if you are the same moms with 5-year-old in diapers. In any case, DCUMS are supposed to be well informed. Please read up on the well-documented corruption and incompetence of CPS before screaming "neglect" in relation to this family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So I can decide to let my 12 drink whiskey?

Or sell her for sex?

Focus, please. We're talking about children playing outside and walking to the park.

What? Different parents, different decisions? YOu make your decisions that are best for your family, some others make other decisions, right?

In some countries, parents make the decision for their young daughters to be married by 12. Different parents and different decisions.
In other countries they start to work as young as 6. The family needs the money. Different parents and different decisions once again.

The law is clear on the matter and the parents signed away that they would comply. I think you would be really stupid to test CPS and the police. Why would you put your kids through an ordeal like that to prove a point? Oh, yeah, to make them more independent right?

[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?

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.

You Neglect Brown-Shirts are a scandal. I can't help wondering if you are the same moms with 5-year-old in diapers. In any case, DCUMS are supposed to be well informed. Please read up on the well-documented corruption and incompetence of CPS before screaming "neglect" in relation to this family.

Cops was not incompetent. If anything, the parents are by failing to supervise their kids. They sent them out for hours not knowing where they were, who they were with, no food, no water and no way to call them in case of emergency. Cps has limited workers on the weekend. Parents set this up on purpose looking to sue to prove they have the right do free range parent. They have more interest in suing and media publicity than their kids health, welfare and safety.

[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?

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.

You Neglect Brown-Shirts are a scandal. I can't help wondering if you are the same moms with 5-year-old in diapers. In any case, DCUMS are supposed to be well informed. Please read up on the well-documented corruption and incompetence of CPS before screaming "neglect" in relation to this family.

CPS in Montgomery County? Do you have links to something? I've never heard anything like that.

[Anonymous]

100 pages?!

[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?

Me too.

[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.

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.

Yep, totally agree.

[Anonymous]

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.

Yep, totally agree.

No one would talk about it unless there was something like this. Personally I wouldn't do what they're doing, but I'm glad the issue seems to have a bit of traction.

[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?

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.

You Neglect Brown-Shirts are a scandal. I can't help wondering if you are the same moms with 5-year-old in diapers. In any case, DCUMS are supposed to be well informed. Please read up on the well-documented corruption and incompetence of CPS before screaming "neglect" in relation to this family.

You are really unhinged. No one screamed neglect (and no 5yos in diapers here. What's wrong with you?). Now you are calling people nazis for not thinking it's overreach to prevent 6yos from wandering unsupervised. Get help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you are all a bunch of paranoid lunatics. always expecting the worse. Sad life to live.

Plenty of people would call me a helicopter parent and you might call me a lunatic. I'm ok with that. I'm not always expecting the worst, but am well aware of the worst than can happen. My analysis is that the worst may not be likely but if it does it would be devastating -- life ending or significantly life altering. And for a lot of things, like my kid walking to the park alone or the like is simply not worth it.

Please show me the data you use in your risk analysis. Do you run profiles on your relatives and close friends too? If not, you should. They are more likely to harm your kids.

No Shit Sherlock, that's why I teach my kids to tell if anyone does something inappropriate or makes them feel uncomfortable, ANYONE, if that someone was me. And yes, I say exactly that, "you tell if ANYONE HURTS YOU, even if It was mommy, YOU TELL"

So so socialize with relatives people more likely to harm you than talk to a stranger who probably won't.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of that statistic. Kids are more likely to be abused by relatives than other people because they spend more time with relatives than other people. That does not mean that any given relative is more likely to be an abuser than any given stranger. It's analogous to the statement that most accidents happen at home. That doesn't mean your home is more dangerous than any other place. It just means you spend more time at home than other places. Get it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, you are all a bunch of paranoid lunatics. always expecting the worse. Sad life to live.

Plenty of people would call me a helicopter parent and you might call me a lunatic. I'm ok with that. I'm not always expecting the worst, but am well aware of the worst than can happen. My analysis is that the worst may not be likely but if it does it would be devastating -- life ending or significantly life altering. And for a lot of things, like my kid walking to the park alone or the like is simply not worth it.

Please show me the data you use in your risk analysis. Do you run profiles on your relatives and close friends too? If not, you should. They are more likely to harm your kids.

No Shit Sherlock, that's why I teach my kids to tell if anyone does something inappropriate or makes them feel uncomfortable, ANYONE, if that someone was me. And yes, I say exactly that, "you tell if ANYONE HURTS YOU, even if It was mommy, YOU TELL"

So so socialize with relatives people more likely to harm you than talk to a stranger who probably won't.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of that statistic. Kids are more likely to be abused by relatives than other people because they spend more time with relatives than other people. That does not mean that any given relative is more likely to be an abuser than any given stranger. It's analogous to the statement that most accidents happen at home. That doesn't mean your home is more dangerous than any other place. It just means you spend more time at home than other places. Get it?

These are kids, not statistics. The problem with statistics is it only tracks known issues, so anyone not caught is far more a risk than known abusers. These parents are on a crusade and aren't thinking about the kids needs and only their own.

[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?

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.

You Neglect Brown-Shirts are a scandal. I can't help wondering if you are the same moms with 5-year-old in diapers. In any case, DCUMS are supposed to be well informed. Please read up on the well-documented corruption and incompetence of CPS before screaming "neglect" in relation to this family.

You are really unhinged. No one screamed neglect (and no 5yos in diapers here. What's wrong with you?). Now you are calling people nazis for not thinking it's overreach to prevent 6yos from wandering unsupervised. Get help

PP here. Yes, I am concerned that people like you think it is a police matter for children to be out and about.
If you live in Montgomery Co., your passion for justice would be put to better use clearing out the sexual predators working in your schools.

[Anonymous]

I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would the police even pick up the Kids? I'd laugh at the person who called. You'd think they have more important issues to deal with.

Except that sometimes you see kids alone that truly are being NEGLECTED. Hey, I send my kid down the street to the playground without adult supervision, however if I was approached by the police and/or CPS and they had an issue with it, I WOULD STOP. Would I agree, not necessarily, however that is my issue to fight, not my kids who would be the ones caught in the middle. I can move, I can lobby to change the laws and/or ordinances. I can write to my council person, governor, the President. However, I am not going to take the chance that my kids would be put in the system because I have a philosophical difference with the authorities. That is just stupid, and for that reason alone I think the parents are demonstrating PISS POOR judgement.
Not only that, but I would rather a neighbor was looking out, noticing if kids could possibly be in danger, than for something happen to a kid and everyone stood around MYOB.

The neighbor didn't look out for the kids. The neighbor called the police.

The neighbor was a man unknown to the family. You know, a stranger. So involving the authorities was his best bet.