Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, when the police receive a report of neglect, they are mandatory reporters and have to call CPS. They did not have the option, legally, to ignore the report and just send the kids home. When it turned out this family had an open file, CPS was likewise obliged to do an investigation. The kids were returned in 5 hours, which is a wholly reasonable time period.

But the police didn't receive a report of neglect. They received a report of two kids walking along without a parent.

That is neglect. Neglect is lack of supervision. Kids without someone of proper age supervising them is neglect.

[Anonymous]

I wonder where these parents grew up. Maybe on a farm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Nobody has said that they were doing anything other than walking home from the park*. Oh, and asking the 911 caller whether they could pet his dog. So I'm going to go with the assumption that what they were doing was walking home from the park.

*with not-clean clothes and uncombed hair -- on a child! imagine!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder where these parents grew up. Maybe on a farm?

Queens, actually.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/living/feat-md-free-range-parents-under-attack/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, when the police receive a report of neglect, they are mandatory reporters and have to call CPS. They did not have the option, legally, to ignore the report and just send the kids home. When it turned out this family had an open file, CPS was likewise obliged to do an investigation. The kids were returned in 5 hours, which is a wholly reasonable time period.

But the police didn't receive a report of neglect. They received a report of two kids walking along without a parent.

That is neglect. Neglect is lack of supervision. Kids without someone of proper age supervising them is neglect.

If two kids walking along without a parent is neglect, then my parents neglected me, my neighbors' parents neglected them, my friends' parents neglected them -- basically everyone I know who is my age or older was a neglected child. Everyone. Every single last one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, when the police receive a report of neglect, they are mandatory reporters and have to call CPS. They did not have the option, legally, to ignore the report and just send the kids home. When it turned out this family had an open file, CPS was likewise obliged to do an investigation. The kids were returned in 5 hours, which is a wholly reasonable time period.

But the police didn't receive a report of neglect. They received a report of two kids walking along without a parent.

That is neglect. Neglect is lack of supervision. Kids without someone of proper age supervising them is neglect.

If two kids walking along without a parent is neglect, then my parents neglected me, my neighbors' parents neglected them, my friends' parents neglected them -- basically everyone I know who is my age or older was a neglected child. Everyone. Every single last one.

Yes and my kids too. They walk home from the bus stop on their own a lot. Sometimes I come up with the dog, other times I am on a work call. They somehow survive but if a police officer ever picked them up, I would act just like these parents did.

[Anonymous]

I think the Dog Walker merits close scrutiny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, when the police receive a report of neglect, they are mandatory reporters and have to call CPS. They did not have the option, legally, to ignore the report and just send the kids home. When it turned out this family had an open file, CPS was likewise obliged to do an investigation. The kids were returned in 5 hours, which is a wholly reasonable time period.

But the police didn't receive a report of neglect. They received a report of two kids walking along without a parent.

That is neglect. Neglect is lack of supervision. Kids without someone of proper age supervising them is neglect.

No it is not neglect. Children existing in the world without an adult hovering over them is not, by definition, neglect. In fact, these parents are being very purposeful -- not neglectful -- in giving them opportunity to develop responsibility and self-efficacy by walking in their neighborhood without adults. Which, again, is not neglect. These kids are old enough to walk to school by THEMSELVES. But they had each other, and they were in a familiar location.

The only way that they turned out to be unsafe was because of the unsafe behavior of the police and CPS officials. Demonstrably unsafe -- they were kept away from their parents, held prisoner by strangers, not given food, and not allowed to contact their parents. That was certainly a scarier and more dangerous situation than simply walking home ever was, and it is the fault of misguided officials, not the parents.

[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.

Huh? Kids walking in a city to a bus stop then walking from bus stop home is MUCH different? It's also in a commercial neighborhood. Don't get this logic.

[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.

I think he called because they are small for their age and look younger-if you listen to the call he was saying he thought they were 7 and 5 or 7 and 6, something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the 911 call, I'm less sanguine about the whole free range thing. There was an adult male following these kids for like 30 minutes and the kids didn't notice? That really freaks me out that my kids wouldn't notice if a predator was stalking them and waiting until they got into an area without good visibility. It seems to me that these kids were not as well prepared to protect themselves as their parents would have you believe.

He was a dude walking a dog. Why would they think he was a predator?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the 911 call, I'm less sanguine about the whole free range thing. There was an adult male following these kids for like 30 minutes and the kids didn't notice? That really freaks me out that my kids wouldn't notice if a predator was stalking them and waiting until they got into an area without good visibility. It seems to me that these kids were not as well prepared to protect themselves as their parents would have you believe.

He was a dude walking a dog. Why would they think he was a predator?

Because in a helicopter's mind, all men are predators and teach their kids as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the 911 call, I'm less sanguine about the whole free range thing. There was an adult male following these kids for like 30 minutes and the kids didn't notice? That really freaks me out that my kids wouldn't notice if a predator was stalking them and waiting until they got into an area without good visibility. It seems to me that these kids were not as well prepared to protect themselves as their parents would have you believe.

He was a dude walking a dog. Why would they think he was a predator?

Most people walking dogs are not predators. Some predators do use animals as a lure to get close to children, so it is a good idea to be aware of this possibility when you don't know someone. Many predators have quite charming, appealing personalities in the presence of which both adults and children let down their guard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Sorry, it's on all fours for me.