Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From a legal perspective, Ilya Somin has written a piece on the Eugene Volokh's blog.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/16/how-the-constitution-protects-free-range-parents/

Well done. Disclaimer: Ilya is a friend. But I agree with his analysis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I'm not wrong. I'm not going to look up the law again for you, but I posted it yesterday. MD law has a specific section on kids at home alone. It has another section generally prohibiting "child neglect," including unattended children. This section is directly applicable to children in public places unattended. MD administrative guidelines further define "unattended child" to include a child younger than 8 being supervised by a child younger than 12. This could be in ANY location. So yes, MD laws and regs very much apply here.

Just think about it: do you really think there is NO MD law about unattended children in public places? So for instance, I could send my 6 year old to hang out in front of a Baltimore strip club at midnight on a Friday?

That would be child neglect.

In contrast, a ten-year-old and a six-year-old walking home from the park on a Sunday afternoon is not child neglect. If that's what the laws say, then the laws are not only stupid (according to me) but unconstitutional (according to the libertarians).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People can argue all day about whether or not the state regulations apply to these kids being alone at the park. However, it is abundantly clear that this family was told not to do it again, and they did. And knowing how the system works, I think it was piss ass funky ass judgement by this family to do it again and chance losing their kids. Maybe they are the type who are so smart, they're stupid(as grandma used to say). I could thing of 100 ways to fight this without chancing losing my kids.
I could have staged a sit in at CPS and the State House, but i bet they would not have found my kids alone at that playground, makes me lose all sorts of credibility, weakens my argument and makes me look more like a grandstanding malcontent than someone with a legitimate and solid concern.

Or they could move to a place where it is *actually* safe for a 6 and 10 year old to wander around unattended. Not downtown SS, not 6-lane dangerous intersections. The Meitavs seem to be in denial about the neighborhood they live in, and the features that actually make it safe to be "free range." But instead, they've decided to apply "logic" to the situation rather than examine the actual facts. They seem unwilling to actually assess and understand where they actually live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such BS. My kids had classmates at their DC public elementary that took the bus home ALONE at 4th and 5th grade.

4th and 5th grade is 9 and 10 (or 10 and 11). Taking the bus is going from point A to point B in a specific timeframe. MUCH different than wandering around a commercial neighborhood & busy intersections when you are 6 and 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Or they could move to a place where it is *actually* safe for a 6 and 10 year old to wander around unattended. Not downtown SS, not 6-lane dangerous intersections. The Meitavs seem to be in denial about the neighborhood they live in, and the features that actually make it safe to be "free range." But instead, they've decided to apply "logic" to the situation rather than examine the actual facts. They seem unwilling to actually assess and understand where they actually live.

Speaking of the actual facts, how do you know where they actually live is unsafe?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

People can argue all day about whether or not the state regulations apply to these kids being alone at the park. However, it is abundantly clear that this family was told not to do it again, and they did. And knowing how the system works, I think it was piss ass funky ass judgement by this family to do it again and chance losing their kids. Maybe they are the type who are so smart, they're stupid(as grandma used to say). I could thing of 100 ways to fight this without chancing losing my kids.
I could have staged a sit in at CPS and the State House, but i bet they would not have found my kids alone at that playground, makes me lose all sorts of credibility, weakens my argument and makes me look more like a grandstanding malcontent than someone with a legitimate and solid concern.

Or they could move to a place where it is *actually* safe for a 6 and 10 year old to wander around unattended. Not downtown SS, not 6-lane dangerous intersections. The Meitavs seem to be in denial about the neighborhood they live in, and the features that actually make it safe to be "free range." But instead, they've decided to apply "logic" to the situation rather than examine the actual facts. They seem unwilling to actually assess and understand where they actually live.

Is NYC safe? Why can kids walk or ride the subway alone to school then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such BS. My kids had classmates at their DC public elementary that took the bus home ALONE at 4th and 5th grade.

4th and 5th grade is 9 and 10 (or 10 and 11). Taking the bus is going from point A to point B in a specific timeframe. MUCH different than wandering around a commercial neighborhood & busy intersections when you are 6 and 10.

I really don't understand why people seem to believe that "commercial neighborhood" = unsafe. Maybe at midnight, when there's nobody around, but not at 5 pm on a spring afternoon.

[Anonymous]

This reminds me so much of the way anti-vaxers rely on herd immunity. Parents send their kids out alone and rely on the trust that there are other good adults around to keep an eye out for anything untoward that might happen to their kids just as some parents choose to not vaccinate their kids and rely on the fact that other parents have chosen vaccination to keep their kids from being exposed to contagious diseases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, I'm not wrong. I'm not going to look up the law again for you, but I posted it yesterday. MD law has a specific section on kids at home alone. It has another section generally prohibiting "child neglect," including unattended children. This section is directly applicable to children in public places unattended. MD administrative guidelines further define "unattended child" to include a child younger than 8 being supervised by a child younger than 12. This could be in ANY location. So yes, MD laws and regs very much apply here.

Just think about it: do you really think there is NO MD law about unattended children in public places? So for instance, I could send my 6 year old to hang out in front of a Baltimore strip club at midnight on a Friday?

That would be child neglect.

In contrast, a ten-year-old and a six-year-old walking home from the park on a Sunday afternoon is not child neglect. If that's what the laws say, then the laws are not only stupid (according to me) but unconstitutional (according to the libertarians).

Laws are of general application and then you apply the facts to them. That's just the way the law works, in general. The facts are usually the most important part of the case.

So in this case, there is a general law that could apply to children unaccompanied in public. One extreme is the Baltimore strip club at midnight, which we all agree is neglectful. The other extreme would be, say, turning your back on your kids for a second in the grocery store, which we all agree is NOT neglectful. In between is a lot of highly fact dependent grey area. In this case, multiple reasonable observers thought these kids looked at risk because of the area they were in and what they were doing. You're making a huge factual assumption when you say they were just "walking home from the park on Sunday afternoon." The crux of the matter is what WERE they doing? Were they walking safely home, or were they at risk? That is what this is all about -- the facts, not the law. You saying "they were just taking a walk" in fact ignores that the entire issue is what WERE they doing, and how?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a legal perspective, Ilya Somin has written a piece on the Eugene Volokh's blog.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/16/how-the-constitution-protects-free-range-parents/

Well done. Disclaimer: Ilya is a friend. But I agree with his analysis.

Tell your friend job well done. And the fact that he added in helicopter parents makes it even better!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me so much of the way anti-vaxers rely on herd immunity. Parents send their kids out alone and rely on the trust that there are other good adults around to keep an eye out for anything untoward that might happen to their kids just as some parents choose to not vaccinate their kids and rely on the fact that other parents have chosen vaccination to keep their kids from being exposed to contagious diseases.

Oh, please.

[Anonymous]

Hmm after reading the content of the 911 call I have to agree that the call was made cause the kids looked dirty, and frankly I think it was reasonable. The dog walker did a justifiable (maybe not right, but not outlandishly wrong) thing by observing them for a while and making the call. We are supposed to trust our guts and a big part of our perception will be based on the cleanliness/appearance of individuals. So while pp above was being sarcastic, yes! Dress your kids well and they will have less chance of being reported. The dog walker was being part of the village, if you ask me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This reminds me so much of the way anti-vaxers rely on herd immunity. Parents send their kids out alone and rely on the trust that there are other good adults around to keep an eye out for anything untoward that might happen to their kids just as some parents choose to not vaccinate their kids and rely on the fact that other parents have chosen vaccination to keep their kids from being exposed to contagious diseases.

Move along. The analogy is just not there. Not even close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmm after reading the content of the 911 call I have to agree that the call was made cause the kids looked dirty, and frankly I think it was reasonable. The dog walker did a justifiable (maybe not right, but not outlandishly wrong) thing by observing them for a while and making the call. We are supposed to trust our guts and a big part of our perception will be based on the cleanliness/appearance of individuals. So while pp above was being sarcastic, yes! Dress your kids well and they will have less chance of being reported. The dog walker was being part of the village, if you ask me.

No, the village would go up and see if they needed anything, not call 911. That is what paranoid people with little social skills do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.

People can argue all day about whether or not the state regulations apply to these kids being alone at the park. However, it is abundantly clear that this family was told not to do it again, and they did. And knowing how the system works, I think it was piss ass funky ass judgement by this family to do it again and chance losing their kids. Maybe they are the type who are so smart, they're stupid(as grandma used to say). I could thing of 100 ways to fight this without chancing losing my kids.
I could have staged a sit in at CPS and the State House, but i bet they would not have found my kids alone at that playground, makes me lose all sorts of credibility, weakens my argument and makes me look more like a grandstanding malcontent than someone with a legitimate and solid concern.


Or they could move to a place where it is *actually* safe for a 6 and 10 year old to wander around unattended. Not downtown SS, not 6-lane dangerous intersections. The Meitavs seem to be in denial about the neighborhood they live in, and the features that actually make it safe to be "free range." But instead, they've decided to apply "logic" to the situation rather than examine the actual facts. They seem unwilling to actually assess and understand where they actually live.

You mean safe from the government forcible detaining them?