Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. I have no fear of CPS coming to my door. But, if I had a run in with CPS and it was a real fear of mine I would be more vigilant. The parents said, they were afraid something like this was going to happen. (Though I think they hoped something would happen because they are attention seekers.)

It's like your first DWI is a freebie... the 2nd time... not so much!

You should, though. Every rational parent should.

Don't be ridiculous. No they shouldn't. Has it ever happened to you? Or even anyone you know? Stop making stuff up.

Not that poster, but, um, yeah. My nuts, drunk neighbor reported us to CPS for educational neglect. Mind you, she'd seen our kid leave for school, in uniform, and had never had a conversation with us or anyone we know on the subject. And mind you, our kid reads at a college level and is at least a grade ahead in every subject. And she's healthy and well fed, and we don't hit ever and can count yellings on one hand. So the allegation was based on some nuts/drunk fabrication I can only imagine. And we still had to deal with this stressful, intrusive process that made our kid feel all weird and self-conscious. It's wasn't great. It wasn't CPS's fault, but it really, really wasn't great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. I have no fear of CPS coming to my door. But, if I had a run in with CPS and it was a real fear of mine I would be more vigilant. The parents said, they were afraid something like this was going to happen. (Though I think they hoped something would happen because they are attention seekers.)

It's like your first DWI is a freebie... the 2nd time... not so much!

You should, though. Every rational parent should.

Don't be ridiculous. No they shouldn't. Has it ever happened to you? Or even anyone you know? Stop making stuff up.

Not that poster, but, um, yeah. My nuts, drunk neighbor reported us to CPS for educational neglect. Mind you, she'd seen our kid leave for school, in uniform, and had never had a conversation with us or anyone we know on the subject. And mind you, our kid reads at a college level and is at least a grade ahead in every subject. And she's healthy and well fed, and we don't hit ever and can count yellings on one hand. So the allegation was based on some nuts/drunk fabrication I can only imagine. And we still had to deal with this stressful, intrusive process that made our kid feel all weird and self-conscious. It's wasn't great. It wasn't CPS's fault, but it really, really wasn't great.

So you think CPS did the wrong thing? Should they ignore the neighbor? Because they should just magically know the neighbors a nut without investigating? Interesting theory.

[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?

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.

I bet you think it's a police matter for kids to be out without adults too. If the kid were 2 anyone would agree. Where we differ is the right age cutoff. I'm okay with 8 ( the prevailing one). You think it should be 4 or something. But the difference there doesn't seem worthy of calling people nazis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. I have no fear of CPS coming to my door. But, if I had a run in with CPS and it was a real fear of mine I would be more vigilant. The parents said, they were afraid something like this was going to happen. (Though I think they hoped something would happen because they are attention seekers.)

It's like your first DWI is a freebie... the 2nd time... not so much!

You should, though. Every rational parent should.

Don't be ridiculous. No they shouldn't. Has it ever happened to you? Or even anyone you know? Stop making stuff up.

Not that poster, but, um, yeah. My nuts, drunk neighbor reported us to CPS for educational neglect. Mind you, she'd seen our kid leave for school, in uniform, and had never had a conversation with us or anyone we know on the subject. And mind you, our kid reads at a college level and is at least a grade ahead in every subject. And she's healthy and well fed, and we don't hit ever and can count yellings on one hand. So the allegation was based on some nuts/drunk fabrication I can only imagine. And we still had to deal with this stressful, intrusive process that made our kid feel all weird and self-conscious. It's wasn't great. It wasn't CPS's fault, but it really, really wasn't great.

Were you found guilty of unsubstantiated neglect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Were you found guilty of unsubstantiated neglect?

Nobody has been found guilty of unsubstantiated neglect. I don't even know how such a thing would be possible.

What actually happened: CPS made a finding of unsubstantiated neglect. And in case you (like me) wonder what on earth that means in plain English, here is what it means:

B. Unsubstantiated Child Neglect.
(1) A finding of unsubstantiated child neglect is appropriate if there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of indicated child neglect as described in §A of this regulation or ruled out child neglect as described in §C of this regulation.
(2) A finding of unsubstantiated child neglect may, but need not, be based on the following:
(a) Insufficient evidence that the individual alleged to be responsible for the child neglect was a parent or caretaker;
(b) Insufficient evidence of a failure to provide proper care and attention;
(c) Lack of a credible account by the suspected victim or a witness;
(d) Insufficient evidence that the child's health or welfare was harmed or was at substantial risk of being harmed; or
(e) An inability to complete the investigation due to such factors as not having access to the child or the individual alleged to be responsible for the child abuse or other relevant facts regarding the alleged child neglect.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/07/07.02.07.13.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

The law is not clear (which is why there is all of this discussion), and unless you work for CPS or know the parents, you don't know what the parents signed, or even whether they signed anything.

[Anonymous]

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

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

[Anonymous]

Yesterday, I came to an intersection while driving my car. Three little children (6, 6, & 7) ran through traffic to pick a flower. The 7 yo tried to stop the 6 yo, but she pulled free and ran into traffic. then they all panicked and ran back through traffic to get back where they thought they were safe (on the other side of the road) Traffic stopped until they were all safe, but I thought of those free range children. they were so little, running in between the cars ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Were you found guilty of unsubstantiated neglect?

Nobody has been found guilty of unsubstantiated neglect. I don't even know how such a thing would be possible.

What actually happened: CPS made a finding of unsubstantiated neglect. And in case you (like me) wonder what on earth that means in plain English, here is what it means:

B. Unsubstantiated Child Neglect.
(1) A finding of unsubstantiated child neglect is appropriate if there is insufficient evidence to support a finding of indicated child neglect as described in §A of this regulation or ruled out child neglect as described in §C of this regulation.
(2) A finding of unsubstantiated child neglect may, but need not, be based on the following:
(a) Insufficient evidence that the individual alleged to be responsible for the child neglect was a parent or caretaker;
(b) Insufficient evidence of a failure to provide proper care and attention;
(c) Lack of a credible account by the suspected victim or a witness;
(d) Insufficient evidence that the child's health or welfare was harmed or was at substantial risk of being harmed; or
(e) An inability to complete the investigation due to such factors as not having access to the child or the individual alleged to be responsible for the child abuse or other relevant facts regarding the alleged child neglect.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/comarhtml/07/07.02.07.13.htm

So the questions still remains. In the case above, where the PP was investigated by CPS, were CPS's findings "unsubstantiated Child Neglect"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I came to an intersection while driving my car. Three little children (6, 6, & 7) ran through traffic to pick a flower. The 7 yo tried to stop the 6 yo, but she pulled free and ran into traffic. then they all panicked and ran back through traffic to get back where they thought they were safe (on the other side of the road) Traffic stopped until they were all safe, but I thought of those free range children. they were so little, running in between the cars ...

I'm wondering what you mean by "ran through traffic" and "running in between the cars". Were they crossing the street at the intersection? If you are in Maryland, there is a legal crosswalk at every intersection, and the law requires drivers to stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Of course nobody should expect drivers to obey this law at unmarked crosswalks, since drivers don't obey the law at marked crosswalks, or even at traffic signals. Nonetheless, that's the law.

I am wondering what it has to do with the Meitiv children, though. Nobody has said that the Meitiv children "ran through traffic".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I came to an intersection while driving my car. Three little children (6, 6, & 7) ran through traffic to pick a flower. The 7 yo tried to stop the 6 yo, but she pulled free and ran into traffic. then they all panicked and ran back through traffic to get back where they thought they were safe (on the other side of the road) Traffic stopped until they were all safe, but I thought of those free range children. they were so little, running in between the cars ...

Cringe worthy surely, but how'd you manage to find out their ages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

You're simply wrong. Maryland's law refers to children in dwellings or cars. It does not prohibit children being in the care of other children younger than 12 for the purposes of walking to school, walking to the park, playing in your yard, or playing in the park. Thank goodness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I came to an intersection while driving my car. Three little children (6, 6, & 7) ran through traffic to pick a flower. The 7 yo tried to stop the 6 yo, but she pulled free and ran into traffic. then they all panicked and ran back through traffic to get back where they thought they were safe (on the other side of the road) Traffic stopped until they were all safe, but I thought of those free range children. they were so little, running in between the cars ...

Cringe worthy surely, but how'd you manage to find out their ages?

True, they could be malnutrition like the SS kids and look younger than their actual age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yesterday, I came to an intersection while driving my car. Three little children (6, 6, & 7) ran through traffic to pick a flower. The 7 yo tried to stop the 6 yo, but she pulled free and ran into traffic. then they all panicked and ran back through traffic to get back where they thought they were safe (on the other side of the road) Traffic stopped until they were all safe, but I thought of those free range children. they were so little, running in between the cars ...

Cringe worthy surely, but how'd you manage to find out their ages?

I'd like to know the answer to this too.