Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are not that bright are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are not that bright are you?

Would you like to explain why this would be insufficient, or do you just want to insult anonymous people on the Internet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What parts of the police report and the 911 caller imply more than that the kids were walking home from the park? Their clothes were dirty? They asked to pet the caller's dog? A homeless man was eyeing them?

[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.

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.

Okay. We agree that CPS has a good mission. We agree that CPS should exist.

CPS has already interacted with this family, so they already know their names. They already know that the children walk home unaccompanied. Why detain them for hours, when they find them doing that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Okay. We agree that CPS has a good mission. We agree that CPS should exist.

CPS has already interacted with this family, so they already know their names. They already know that the children walk home unaccompanied. Why detain them for hours, when they find them doing that?

BECAUSE CPS JUST NOT JUST SAY 'OH, WE KNOW THESE PEOPLE, WE'VE HAD A FILE ON THESE PEOPLE, SO LET'S JUST TAKE THE KIDS HOME'
IT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS
IT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS
WHAT IN THE CRAP DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND????????
Are you playing stupid or do you really and truly think once you interact with CPS they are just going to turn ur kids back over to you easy, peasy?

[Anonymous]

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.

Stop it now. You are making too much sense. This is too simple for people to understand. Instead you need to add evil homeless people, dark scary night, abandon garages, previous crimes, kid is too tiny to be 10, dehydration and malnourished, wandering, lost, roaming, kids all kids walking without a parent can get kidnapped, etc.... Did I miss anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Okay. We agree that CPS has a good mission. We agree that CPS should exist.

CPS has already interacted with this family, so they already know their names. They already know that the children walk home unaccompanied. Why detain them for hours, when they find them doing that?

BECAUSE CPS JUST NOT JUST SAY 'OH, WE KNOW THESE PEOPLE, WE'VE HAD A FILE ON THESE PEOPLE, SO LET'S JUST TAKE THE KIDS HOME'
IT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS
IT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS
WHAT IN THE CRAP DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND????????
Are you playing stupid or do you really and truly think once you interact with CPS they are just going to turn ur kids back over to you easy, peasy?

Why the capital letters? Are you 13. You need to step away from the computer and take a deep breath. Not everyone agrees with your opinion. So what? The parents were never charged before and they won't be charged again. It really bothers you that some parents don't coddle their kids or do whatever someone tells them to do without question. We get it. No big deal.

[Anonymous]

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

I know you would think the helicopters are missing out on a lot of coddling by sitting here making everyone think hovering over their kids is the best thing.

[Anonymous]

This is not about middle class parents demanding some kind of special treatment. If they find Shaniqua's kid, even if he's 2 years old, on the side of the highway, and covered in poop, yes the mom should be their first call. This is not to say they should immediately turn him over to mom and forget about him. But since when does a previous interaction with CPS (interaction CPS themselves agreed did not rise to the level of "substantiated neglect") deprive the parents of the right to know their where their children are?

[Anonymous]

Do people realize that there is a middle ground between helicoptering and allowing young children to walk a mile from home without an adult? People who believe six years olds should have adult supervision are not necessarily helicopter parents. Most parents are not extreme in either direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do people realize that there is a middle ground between helicoptering and allowing young children to walk a mile from home without an adult? People who believe six years olds should have adult supervision are not necessarily helicopter parents. Most parents are not extreme in either direction.

Letting a six-year-old walk a mile from home with a ten-year-old sibling didn't used to be extreme. In fact, it would have been extreme to say you that shouldn't let a six-year-old walk a mile from home with a ten-year-old sibling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Okay. We agree that CPS has a good mission. We agree that CPS should exist.

CPS has already interacted with this family, so they already know their names. They already know that the children walk home unaccompanied. Why detain them for hours, when they find them doing that?

BECAUSE CPS JUST NOT JUST SAY 'OH, WE KNOW THESE PEOPLE, WE'VE HAD A FILE ON THESE PEOPLE, SO LET'S JUST TAKE THE KIDS HOME'
IT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS
IT'S NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS
WHAT IN THE CRAP DO YOU PEOPLE NOT UNDERSTAND????????
Are you playing stupid or do you really and truly think once you interact with CPS they are just going to turn ur kids back over to you easy, peasy?

Why the capital letters? Are you 13. You need to step away from the computer and take a deep breath. Not everyone agrees with your opinion. So what? The parents were never charged before and they won't be charged again. It really bothers you that some parents don't coddle their kids or do whatever someone tells them to do without question. We get it. No big deal.

This has nothing to do with coddling or agreeing with your opinon. It is a matter of understanding how the system works. Whether you like it or not, this family was already entangled with CPS, therefore once the kids were picked up, they had to take them back to the station for CPS to make an evaluation as to next steps.
Maybe the kids are not being "neglected", I don't think they are, but that was the nature of the previous investigation and now you have another report about the kids being out and about, CPS is OBLIGATED to investigate at the time and cannot just give the kids back. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
This protects ALL KIDS, most especially the ones who are being abused. Just because you do not like, just because you do not like that this family is entangled with the system, does not mean you can circumvent the process. What do you not get about that?
It has nothing to do with not agreeing with anything -- it's about how the system works. Use your brain

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is not about middle class parents demanding some kind of special treatment. If they find Shaniqua's kid, even if he's 2 years old, on the side of the highway, and covered in poop, yes the mom should be their first call. This is not to say they should immediately turn him over to mom and forget about him. But since when does a previous interaction with CPS (interaction CPS themselves agreed did not rise to the level of "substantiated neglect") deprive the parents of the right to know their where their children are?

The kids were in a police car a few blocks from the home but the parents could not find them. That fact makes me wonder what would have happened if the kids had needed help. Apparently, the area that needed to be searched was large enough that the parents were unable to find the kids even though they were so close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Okay. We agree that CPS has a good mission. We agree that CPS should exist.

CPS has already interacted with this family, so they already know their names. They already know that the children walk home unaccompanied. Why detain them for hours, when they find them doing that?

Because the parents are known to the system and refuse to comply with a safety plan for the kids. They already had an agreement and refused to follow it. The parents set this up to sue and win. It is not about the kids or their needs and all about the parents. They are failing to provide proper supervision to their kids. That is neglect. It does not matter where. If the kids were playing hard and walking a mile they should have water on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This has nothing to do with coddling or agreeing with your opinon. It is a matter of understanding how the system works. Whether you like it or not, this family was already entangled with CPS, therefore once the kids were picked up, they had to take them back to the station for CPS to make an evaluation as to next steps.
Maybe the kids are not being "neglected", I don't think they are, but that was the nature of the previous investigation and now you have another report about the kids being out and about, CPS is OBLIGATED to investigate at the time and cannot just give the kids back. IT DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY.
This protects ALL KIDS, most especially the ones who are being abused. Just because you do not like, just because you do not like that this family is entangled with the system, does not mean you can circumvent the process. What do you not get about that?
It has nothing to do with not agreeing with anything -- it's about how the system works. Use your brain

What many of us are upset about is the idea that letting your 10 and 6 year old out of your sight will trigger an investigation by CPS.

I have had friends with brief not-very-painful interactions with CPS and acquaintances who have had extended interactions with CPS. I certainly would not ever want to be entangled with the system or CPS. But why should two children walking along a sidewalk trigger entanglement with the system and CPS? That's what we're getting hung up on.