Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Big difference between hovering and knowing where your kids are. These parents didn't know where their kids were. They were dropped at the park and were supposed to be home at a certain time. The kids were wandering around SS in the opposite direction from where they live (so they weren't walking home) when the guy called 911. They were within blocks of DC. And their parents never called the police even when the kids had been missing for hours. That's very different from hovering. Honestly, walking your kids to the park and sitting on a bench reading is different than hovering. Hovering would be climbing on the playground equipment.

Do you know where they live? If not, why are you speculating? I do know where they live, and yes, they were walking towards home.

As for "within blocks of DC" -- how many blocks, exactly, is it from Fenton St and Easley St to the DC line? Also, so what? All of DTSS is "within blocks of DC".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really think it matters whether kids that age used to be able to walk around on their own in the past. Kids that age used to be able to hold jobs at factories in the past. They did it successfully, much of the time. But society decided that wasn't what most people felt that kids should be doing.

I don't think that six-year-olds walking places by themselves, let alone with their ten-year-old siblings, is comparable to six-year-olds working in factories.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So I keep coming back to the question: why do the Meitivs experience so much difficulty with authorities and their children -- when no one else does? Is it that EVERYONE else is a helicopter parent? Or is it possible that the Meitivs are, for their own warped reasons, deliberately seeking out confrontations with the police (and the school secretary) in order to promote some ideological agenda?

Why is this the question you keep coming back to? It's not child neglect to be an ideologue.

The question I keep coming back to is whether it's child neglect to let elementary-school aged children walk around by themselves. And my answer is that under normal circumstances, it's not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care whether people don't like them, think it is a scam or a set up. The fact is kids should be able to walk to and from locations when parents decide they can. Not the government.

They are young children and need supervision. As a child, your rights are different and the parents are deliberately neglecting them.

Well I guess my parents neglected me then. I walked home from school everyday starting in K.

Not hovering over kids does not mean neglect.

My parents deliberately neglected me too. I will tell them so, this afternoon. Also, their parents deliberately neglected them.

Also, when did a ten-year-old become "a young child"?

[Anonymous]

Also, when did a ten-year-old become "a young child"?

What would be a better term? An "old child"?

Maybe if your oldest child is ten you don't think of ten as young, but in the big scheme of things, ten is very young still. When you have older kids, you realize how young ten is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Also, when did a ten-year-old become "a young child"?

What would be a better term? An "old child"?

Maybe if your oldest child is ten you don't think of ten as young, but in the big scheme of things, ten is very young still. When you have older kids, you realize how young ten is.

And when you're 80, you realize how young 60 is. My mother tells me so, all the time. Nonetheless, she rarely refers to 60-year-olds as "young adults".

I would call a ten-year-old a child. An old child would be a 17-year-old.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if this was a calculated plot to give these privileged kids something to write about on their college applications...how they overcame the adversity of run ins with CPS and want to dedicate their lives to being advocates, etc.

If these kids wind up at an Ivy, then maybe there's a method to the Meitiv madness?

[Anonymous]

I don't really care about the legalities, I care about kids. I have seen the results of hands-off, let the kids be responsible for themselves parenting. So much can go wrong, so quickly and easily, with this type of parenting. Abduction is the very least of the concerns.

Legal or not, parents should be aware of the ramifications of their choices to back off from keeping an eye out for their young children. It's nice to romanticize how much fun it was to roam the city without adults, but reality for a lot of kids was never quite so rosy. Parents should appreciate the complexity and range of what can go wrong for kids who are by themselves.

The fact that something is legal will not protect someone from the bad results of a choice. It may be perfectly legal for people to make bad choices, but it's too bad when children have to live with the results of those choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is very clear and the lawsuit will go nowhere.

How much experience do you have practicing law, and did your law school issue a crystal ball along with the diploma?

Family law, 20 years... You have no clue.

The kids got picked up on Sunday. It was in the news on Monday. By Tuesday, Wiley Rein was representing them pro bono. Do they also have no clue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really care about the legalities, I care about kids. I have seen the results of hands-off, let the kids be responsible for themselves parenting. So much can go wrong, so quickly and easily, with this type of parenting. Abduction is the very least of the concerns.

Legal or not, parents should be aware of the ramifications of their choices to back off from keeping an eye out for their young children. It's nice to romanticize how much fun it was to roam the city without adults, but reality for a lot of kids was never quite so rosy. Parents should appreciate the complexity and range of what can go wrong for kids who are by themselves.

The fact that something is legal will not protect someone from the bad results of a choice. It may be perfectly legal for people to make bad choices, but it's too bad when children have to live with the results of those choices.

However, in fact, the issue in this case is the legality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really care about the legalities, I care about kids. I have seen the results of hands-off, let the kids be responsible for themselves parenting. So much can go wrong, so quickly and easily, with this type of parenting. Abduction is the very least of the concerns.

Legal or not, parents should be aware of the ramifications of their choices to back off from keeping an eye out for their young children. It's nice to romanticize how much fun it was to roam the city without adults, but reality for a lot of kids was never quite so rosy. Parents should appreciate the complexity and range of what can go wrong for kids who are by themselves.

The fact that something is legal will not protect someone from the bad results of a choice. It may be perfectly legal for people to make bad choices, but it's too bad when children have to live with the results of those choices.

However, in fact, the issue in this case is the legality.

But the bigger, more important issue is the children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really care about the legalities, I care about kids. I have seen the results of hands-off, let the kids be responsible for themselves parenting. So much can go wrong, so quickly and easily, with this type of parenting. Abduction is the very least of the concerns.

Legal or not, parents should be aware of the ramifications of their choices to back off from keeping an eye out for their young children. It's nice to romanticize how much fun it was to roam the city without adults, but reality for a lot of kids was never quite so rosy. Parents should appreciate the complexity and range of what can go wrong for kids who are by themselves.

The fact that something is legal will not protect someone from the bad results of a choice. It may be perfectly legal for people to make bad choices, but it's too bad when children have to live with the results of those choices.

However, in fact, the issue in this case is the legality.

But the bigger, more important issue is the children.

Not for you, it isn't. Because they are not your children. Apart from the legality, all we have is parents making choices that you disagree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really care about the legalities, I care about kids. I have seen the results of hands-off, let the kids be responsible for themselves parenting. So much can go wrong, so quickly and easily, with this type of parenting. Abduction is the very least of the concerns.

Legal or not, parents should be aware of the ramifications of their choices to back off from keeping an eye out for their young children. It's nice to romanticize how much fun it was to roam the city without adults, but reality for a lot of kids was never quite so rosy. Parents should appreciate the complexity and range of what can go wrong for kids who are by themselves.

The fact that something is legal will not protect someone from the bad results of a choice. It may be perfectly legal for people to make bad choices, but it's too bad when children have to live with the results of those choices.

However, in fact, the issue in this case is the legality.

But the bigger, more important issue is the children.

Not for you, it isn't. Because they are not your children. Apart from the legality, all we have is parents making choices that you disagree with.

So, we, the members of the community, to whom CPS and the police represent, should not care about these children and should not weigh in? No. That would mean abdicating our responsibility to ne responsible members of the community. Just as the Ameritech may have abdicated their responsibility to be engaged parents thus requiring police, CPS and community involvement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really care about the legalities, I care about kids. I have seen the results of hands-off, let the kids be responsible for themselves parenting. So much can go wrong, so quickly and easily, with this type of parenting. Abduction is the very least of the concerns.

Legal or not, parents should be aware of the ramifications of their choices to back off from keeping an eye out for their young children. It's nice to romanticize how much fun it was to roam the city without adults, but reality for a lot of kids was never quite so rosy. Parents should appreciate the complexity and range of what can go wrong for kids who are by themselves.

The fact that something is legal will not protect someone from the bad results of a choice. It may be perfectly legal for people to make bad choices, but it's too bad when children have to live with the results of those choices.

However, in fact, the issue in this case is the legality.

But the bigger, more important issue is the children.

Not for you, it isn't. Because they are not your children. Apart from the legality, all we have is parents making choices that you disagree with.

So, we, the members of the community, to whom CPS and the police represent, should not care about these children and should not weigh in? No. That would mean abdicating our responsibility to ne responsible members of the community. Just as the Ameritech may have abdicated their responsibility to be engaged parents thus requiring police, CPS and community involvement.

Riddled with autocorrect. Most obvious: should have been Meitev rather than Ameritech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big difference between hovering and knowing where your kids are. These parents didn't know where their kids were. They were dropped at the park and were supposed to be home at a certain time. The kids were wandering around SS in the opposite direction from where they live (so they weren't walking home) when the guy called 911. They were within blocks of DC. And their parents never called the police even when the kids had been missing for hours. That's very different from hovering. Honestly, walking your kids to the park and sitting on a bench reading is different than hovering. Hovering would be climbing on the playground equipment.

Do you know where they live? If not, why are you speculating? I do know where they live, and yes, they were walking towards home.

As for "within blocks of DC" -- how many blocks, exactly, is it from Fenton St and Easley St to the DC line? Also, so what? All of DTSS is "within blocks of DC".

Not PP, I just listened to the 911 call. The guy first saw them in Ellsworth Park and they were headed in the direction of their home. Which is on Woodbury. But they were wandering around, it seems, in the commercial area on Fenton. And at one point were walking toward Georgia. Which isn't on the way home. Which may be fine, but maybe it wasn't. Maybe they'd lost their way a bit.