Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[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.

Choices that can put children in harm's way.

Free range parents appear to be very focused on the very low possibility of children being abducted, with little mention of the wide range of other dangers posed to young children without an adult around looking out for them. As someone who knows all too well of the other hazards out there, I feel a moral obligation to at least write about them on an Internet forum.

So, is there any point at which the village should step in to protect children whose parents make choices that put them in danger, or should parents be free to make any choice they wish in regard to how they rear their children?
'

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It was on the news on Sunday night with the post. So, instead of looking for the kids, they were busy either calling the post or the post had someone waiting as everyone knew the event would happen and the family was warned about the consequences if they did not comply with the earlier agreement.

[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.

The problem is these are the sand parents who will cry wolf if/when something happens to their kids. That free range garbage will be out the window and they will be crying foul play. Claiming that the government services did not step in/respond.
People who are looking for causes- law suits are committed only insofar as they can stir up trouble in any direction.
Like it or leave it the government steps in a lot in how we rasie our kids. Truancy laws, vaccinations, occupancy restrictions. This is not unprecedented.
My advice: take your kids to SW where we live. There are kids roaming the streets all day/night. And cops don't care. Or- continue to make a selective stink in silver spring. You know- where you can free range with other white kids.

Actually if you take them anywhere but around here you will be fine. We are a military family and this is the only area we have lived where kids walking to a park constitutes neglect. If you check the comments on the msn links, people think we are insane. It is just that people around here that think it is normal.

And no I don't think it is okay for the government to step in on this issue. Make it a federal law across the board if it is that big of a safety issue. Don't allow one area full of paranoid helicopter parents dictate some local CPS to overstep their boundaries. But you realize normal parents would go ape-shit of having to keep their kids supervised every second as ridiculous.

There is a huge difference between living on a military base and living in a community in terms of what you'd allow your kids to do. I'd let a younger child do a lot more on a military base vs. living where we live now and its safe enough.

[Anonymous]

Once again, media fueled hysteria coupled with mommy wars coupled with the irresistable impulse to blame mothers distorts everything, with a serving of white privilege to boot.

There is no gestapo out to stop your kids from going to the park alone. But if you let your small kids wander alone in a commercial area near lots of traffic, and they appear lost, then yes, bystanders may be concerned.

There is no helicopter parent epidemic. Most mothers are doing the best the can with their time and resources. Kids ramble around neighborhoods less because mother work and neighborhoods are less tight knit, not because mothers have become universally smothering.

Conversely, the mothers of color who have to leave their kids alone because they have no childcare options have no voice here. Little to do with any upper middle class "parenting philosophy." And because black bodies are always perceived as needing more discipline, they are the ones who face more serious consequences if their kids are perceived as left alone inappropriately.

[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.

The problem is these are the sand parents who will cry wolf if/when something happens to their kids. That free range garbage will be out the window and they will be crying foul play. Claiming that the government services did not step in/respond.
People who are looking for causes- law suits are committed only insofar as they can stir up trouble in any direction.
Like it or leave it the government steps in a lot in how we rasie our kids. Truancy laws, vaccinations, occupancy restrictions. This is not unprecedented.
My advice: take your kids to SW where we live. There are kids roaming the streets all day/night. And cops don't care. Or- continue to make a selective stink in silver spring. You know- where you can free range with other white kids.

Actually if you take them anywhere but around here you will be fine. We are a military family and this is the only area we have lived where kids walking to a park constitutes neglect. If you check the comments on the msn links, people think we are insane. It is just that people around here that think it is normal.

And no I don't think it is okay for the government to step in on this issue. Make it a federal law across the board if it is that big of a safety issue. Don't allow one area full of paranoid helicopter parents dictate some local CPS to overstep their boundaries. But you realize normal parents would go ape-shit of having to keep their kids supervised every second as ridiculous.

SIGH
I let my kids go unsupervised to out neighborhood playground.
But there are places I would not let them go to by themselves.
Stores in which I let them go clear across the store to the restroom unaccompanied, stores in which I would feel uncomfortable doing that.
The idea of all or nothing is beyond the pale of ridiculous, you adapt to tbe circumstances .
And if some stranger saw my kids, thought they may be lost or could get in trouble , I would be gratef that while not in my line of sight, I someone else's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I haven't listened to the call, but I agree it sounds like they had lost their way. Otherwise the parents would have known what way the kids were walking home and would have known exactly where to "frantically search". Instead, it sounds like they had no clue the route their kids were taking. Very strange, IMO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I haven't listened to the call, but I agree it sounds like they had lost their way. Otherwise the parents would have known what way the kids were walking home and would have known exactly where to "frantically search". Instead, it sounds like they had no clue the route their kids were taking. Very strange, IMO.

No one seems to know where they were looking or how many people were looking for the kids. It just seems that this could have been a tragedy if something had happened to the kids. Either the kids were on the route they were supposed to take and the parents or neighbors walked right by the police car and didn't see the kids, or the kids were taking completely different, unexpected route.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Free national marketing

Their nation wide begging for $$$$ has not even hit $5000.

[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.

And I have seen the results of overprotective parenting. So much can go so wrong....when parents finally decide these kids are old enough to be "off the leash". Crippling anxiety is the very least of the concerns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Charles Dickens was working in a factory and living in a boarding house when he was about nine because his dad was in debtors prison. He went on to lead a pretty successful life, so maybe that would be a good route for a lot of kids today. A little self-reliance and independence is a good thing.

Good ole Charlie was a horrible person who kicked his wife out of his house moved in his mistress and 9 out of his 10 children never saw their mother again.

Good example of how having callous cold parents can make somebody a horrible parent and life partner.

But he had fame and fortune so it's ok.

[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.

And I have seen the results of overprotective parenting. So much can go so wrong....when parents finally decide these kids are old enough to be "off the leash". Crippling anxiety is the very least of the concerns.

You have an example where somebody was let "off the leash" at 8 and they have crippling anxiety? Not!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Charles Dickens was working in a factory and living in a boarding house when he was about nine because his dad was in debtors prison. He went on to lead a pretty successful life, so maybe that would be a good route for a lot of kids today. A little self-reliance and independence is a good thing.

Good ole Charlie was a horrible person who kicked his wife out of his house moved in his mistress and 9 out of his 10 children never saw their mother again.

Good example of how having callous cold parents can make somebody a horrible parent and life partner.

But he had fame and fortune so it's ok.

Right, and there is a reason why "Dickensian" is a synonym for a horrible childhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Free national marketing

Their nation wide begging for $$$$ has not even hit $5000.

Look at her Facebook page. She was begging long before this incident. And, look at her website. Apparently she is working on a book. Between her being an advocate for free range parenting, writing a book, begging for media attention, etc. she doesn't have time to sit at the playground or take her kids anywhere.

[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.

And I have seen the results of overprotective parenting. So much can go so wrong....when parents finally decide these kids are old enough to be "off the leash". Crippling anxiety is the very least of the concerns.

You have an example where somebody was let "off the leash" at 8 and they have crippling anxiety? Not!

No, I have seen examples of kids who grew up being very overprotected, never being allowed to do things by themselves "because something could happen, just in case of emergency I need to be right here, here's a cell phone call me every hour so I know you are OK" type of mentality. Very short leash.

[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.

And I have seen the results of overprotective parenting. So much can go so wrong....when parents finally decide these kids are old enough to be "off the leash". Crippling anxiety is the very least of the concerns.

You have an example where somebody was let "off the leash" at 8 and they have crippling anxiety? Not!

No, I have seen examples of kids who grew up being very overprotected, never being allowed to do things by themselves "because something could happen, just in case of emergency I need to be right here, here's a cell phone call me every hour so I know you are OK" type of mentality. Very short leash.

Extremely different from not letting your 6 yr old cross Georgia Ave alone!