Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously. That seems to be what's driving peoples assumption that these people are good parents. I mean theyre white and they live in Silver Spring and they have good jobs and they speak nicely on TV. So they never could possibly neglect their kids!

Actually the idea is:

1. The only "neglect" anybody has talked about is allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood.
2. Allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood is not neglect.

But they do not know that just by looking at the kids, that is the purpose of looking into it/investigation.

Which "they" are you talking about? "They" the police, or "they" the people who assume (having no reason to assume otherwise) that the Meitivs are not neglectful parents?

[Anonymous]

I am amazed at the legs this issue has. 103 pages? wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm curious, what constitutes "in their neighborhood"? I mean, if I let my kids walk a mile from my house I wouldn't call that still my neighborhood. I live in Bethesda, does that mean all of Bethesda is my neighborhood? Or my entire ZIP Code?

Also, you really don't know that the only issue here is that they were walking home from the park. The police report implies more than that, the 911 caller implies more than that, and CPS has rightly kept them investigation report private. You simply don't know.

The police report does not imply more than that, the 911 caller does not imply more than that, and as for the CPS investigation -- who knows?

The park is in DTSS; the kids evidently live in DTSS; so I think that the park is in their neighborhood. How do you define neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously. That seems to be what's driving peoples assumption that these people are good parents. I mean theyre white and they live in Silver Spring and they have good jobs and they speak nicely on TV. So they never could possibly neglect their kids!

Actually the idea is:

1. The only "neglect" anybody has talked about is allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood.
2. Allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood is not neglect.

But they do not know that just by looking at the kids, that is the purpose of looking into it/investigation.

Which "they" are you talking about? "They" the police, or "they" the people who assume (having no reason to assume otherwise) that the Meitivs are not neglectful parents?

Cops and CPS
I, for one, that wants things to be checked out when there is a report of kids in possible harm's way. Look into it, and if it is unfounded, so be it. Just like that horrible story of the kid in
Arizona, I think. He was being horribly abused, he called 911. Cops come to the house and the mom and boyfriend convinced the cops nothing was going on.
Within weeks, they murdered that kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Cops and CPS
I, for one, that wants things to be checked out when there is a report of kids in possible harm's way. Look into it, and if it is unfounded, so be it. Just like that horrible story of the kid in
Arizona, I think. He was being horribly abused, he called 911. Cops come to the house and the mom and boyfriend convinced the cops nothing was going on.
Within weeks, they murdered that kid.

But in this case, somebody else called 911 because there were two children at a park who then started walking home, and their clothes looked dirty.

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/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cops and CPS
I, for one, that wants things to be checked out when there is a report of kids in possible harm's way. Look into it, and if it is unfounded, so be it. Just like that horrible story of the kid in
Arizona, I think. He was being horribly abused, he called 911. Cops come to the house and the mom and boyfriend convinced the cops nothing was going on.
Within weeks, they murdered that kid.

But in this case, somebody else called 911 because there were two children at a park who then started walking home, and their clothes looked dirty.

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/

What difference does that make?\
The point is, if there is a call about kids, it needs to be checked out. Maybe you find out the caller is a kook, maybe you find out it was a false alarm, maybe you find out that the kids are in real trouble, but you have to investigate to come to any of these conclusions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cops and CPS
I, for one, that wants things to be checked out when there is a report of kids in possible harm's way. Look into it, and if it is unfounded, so be it. Just like that horrible story of the kid in
Arizona, I think. He was being horribly abused, he called 911. Cops come to the house and the mom and boyfriend convinced the cops nothing was going on.
Within weeks, they murdered that kid.

But in this case, somebody else called 911 because there were two children at a park who then started walking home, and their clothes looked dirty.

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/

What difference does that make?\
The point is, if there is a call about kids, it needs to be checked out. Maybe you find out the caller is a kook, maybe you find out it was a false alarm, maybe you find out that the kids are in real trouble, but you have to investigate to come to any of these conclusions.

Sure. And the police officer could have checked out the call by talking to the kids and then concluding that everything was ok. It isn't necessary to respond to every call with police/CPS custody and a CPS investigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cops and CPS
I, for one, that wants things to be checked out when there is a report of kids in possible harm's way. Look into it, and if it is unfounded, so be it. Just like that horrible story of the kid in
Arizona, I think. He was being horribly abused, he called 911. Cops come to the house and the mom and boyfriend convinced the cops nothing was going on.
Within weeks, they murdered that kid.

But in this case, somebody else called 911 because there were two children at a park who then started walking home, and their clothes looked dirty.

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/

What difference does that make?\
The point is, if there is a call about kids, it needs to be checked out. Maybe you find out the caller is a kook, maybe you find out it was a false alarm, maybe you find out that the kids are in real trouble, but you have to investigate to come to any of these conclusions.

Oh, of course, you take the kids' word for it. Yea, because abused kids never lie to protect their abuser. Neglected kids always realize they are neglected and think that their circumstance is the 'way it should be'. Yes, I take for gospel exactly what 10 and 6 yr old's tell me

Sure. And the police officer could have checked out the call by talking to the kids and then concluding that everything was ok. It isn't necessary to respond to every call with police/CPS custody and a CPS investigation.

Oh, of course, you take the kids' word for it. Yea, because abused kids never lie to protect their abuser. Neglected kids always realize they are neglected and think that their circumstance is the 'way it should be'. Yes, I take for gospel exactly what 10 and 6 yr old's tell me

[Anonymous]

Last time the kids were picked up they were taken home. Why weren't they this time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Oh, of course, you take the kids' word for it. Yea, because abused kids never lie to protect their abuser. Neglected kids always realize they are neglected and think that their circumstance is the 'way it should be'. Yes, I take for gospel exactly what 10 and 6 yr old's tell me

In that case, CPS should do a full investigation into every household, because every child might possibly be neglected or abused, including yours.

Not to mention, the police officer was presumably not going to ask the kids, "Are you neglected? Do your parents abuse you?" but rather the questions that would be logical under the circumstances, like, "Are you lost?", "Do your parents know where you are?", "Where do you live?", and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cops and CPS
I, for one, that wants things to be checked out when there is a report of kids in possible harm's way. Look into it, and if it is unfounded, so be it. Just like that horrible story of the kid in
Arizona, I think. He was being horribly abused, he called 911. Cops come to the house and the mom and boyfriend convinced the cops nothing was going on.
Within weeks, they murdered that kid.

But in this case, somebody else called 911 because there were two children at a park who then started walking home, and their clothes looked dirty.

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/

What difference does that make?\
The point is, if there is a call about kids, it needs to be checked out. Maybe you find out the caller is a kook, maybe you find out it was a false alarm, maybe you find out that the kids are in real trouble, but you have to investigate to come to any of these conclusions.

Sure. And the police officer could have checked out the call by talking to the kids and then concluding that everything was ok. It isn't necessary to respond to every call with police/CPS custody and a CPS investigation.

There had already been two reports, so apparently the names were flagged that CPS needed to be informed of any future police contact. CPS is there to protect kids who need help, who have no one to speak up for them. The only way to determine which kids need help and which kids do not is to investigate situations that are brought to their attention. The fact that CPS exists shows that our society values children and cares about their welfare when their families can not for whatever reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last time the kids were picked up they were taken home. Why weren't they this time?

Because the police officer reported it to CPS as possible child neglect or abuse, and then CPS told the police officer to take the children to CPS.

http://www.mymcmedia.org/police-and-cps-investigate-possible-child-neglect-in-silver-spring/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Cops and CPS
I, for one, that wants things to be checked out when there is a report of kids in possible harm's way. Look into it, and if it is unfounded, so be it. Just like that horrible story of the kid in
Arizona, I think. He was being horribly abused, he called 911. Cops come to the house and the mom and boyfriend convinced the cops nothing was going on.
Within weeks, they murdered that kid.

But in this case, somebody else called 911 because there were two children at a park who then started walking home, and their clothes looked dirty.

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/

What difference does that make?\
The point is, if there is a call about kids, it needs to be checked out. Maybe you find out the caller is a kook, maybe you find out it was a false alarm, maybe you find out that the kids are in real trouble, but you have to investigate to come to any of these conclusions.

Sure. And the police officer could have checked out the call by talking to the kids and then concluding that everything was ok. It isn't necessary to respond to every call with police/CPS custody and a CPS investigation.

How do you know he didn't talk to the kids and conclude that further investigation was needed in order to know if the kids were okay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How do you know he didn't talk to the kids and conclude that further investigation was needed in order to know if the kids were okay?

http://www.mymcmedia.org/police-and-cps-investigate-possible-child-neglect-in-silver-spring/

"Police said the officer began by identifying the children and notifying his supervisors."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm curious, what constitutes "in their neighborhood"? I mean, if I let my kids walk a mile from my house I wouldn't call that still my neighborhood. I live in Bethesda, does that mean all of Bethesda is my neighborhood? Or my entire ZIP Code?

Also, you really don't know that the only issue here is that they were walking home from the park. The police report implies more than that, the 911 caller implies more than that, and CPS has rightly kept them investigation report private. You simply don't know.

The police report does not imply more than that, the 911 caller does not imply more than that, and as for the CPS investigation -- who knows?

The park is in DTSS; the kids evidently live in DTSS; so I think that the park is in their neighborhood. How do you define neighborhood?

I read the police report and listened to the 911 call and do think it implies more. So clearly there's room for disagreement there. Which merits investigation