Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[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.

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!

But to many free range parents, the only two choices are to let your six year old walk a mile from home with only one ten year old child with her or to be ridiculously overprotective. Apparently, there is nothing in the middle between those two choices in their minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

PREACH
PREACH
PREACH
PREACH
YOU HIT EVERY SINGLE ISSUE!!!!
I LOVE YOU

[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?

Because this is a win win for that firm. They just won a bunch of PR and they have to do a certain number of pro bono hours anyway. Too bad they're not devoting those hours to people who actually need help.

[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.

No ones talking about overprotective parenting. Not letting your 6 year old wander around commercial areas with no adult does not equal overprotective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

PREACH
PREACH
PREACH
PREACH
YOU HIT EVERY SINGLE ISSUE!!!!
I LOVE YOU

+1

[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?

Because this is a win win for that firm. They just won a bunch of PR and they have to do a certain number of pro bono hours anyway. Too bad they're not devoting those hours to people who actually need help.

Are you saying that Wiley Rein is taking on a high-profile case they have no expectation of winning? Why would they do that? Maybe partners at Wiley Rein are fond of losing high-profile cases?

[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.

No ones talking about overprotective parenting. Not letting your 6 year old wander around commercial areas with no adult does not equal overprotective.

We're back to the commercial areas = SCARY DANGER! idea. I don't get it.

[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.

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?'

The issue in this case is not "the village" stepping in. The issue is the law stepping in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What earlier agreement, exactly? Everybody keeps saying that there was an earlier agreement. I wonder how they know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Because this is a win win for that firm. They just won a bunch of PR and they have to do a certain number of pro bono hours anyway. Too bad they're not devoting those hours to people who actually need help.

Are you saying that Wiley Rein is taking on a high-profile case they have no expectation of winning? Why would they do that? Maybe partners at Wiley Rein are fond of losing high-profile cases?

Yes
Publicity
Death penalty pro bono cases are rarely won.... So yes, pro bono cases are often loser cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What earlier agreement, exactly? Everybody keeps saying that there was an earlier agreement. I wonder how they know that.

If you read the article the 1st time, they had to sign a safety plan.

They were also flagged in the system.

[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.

No ones talking about overprotective parenting. Not letting your 6 year old wander around commercial areas with no adult does not equal overprotective.

We're back to the commercial areas = SCARY DANGER! idea. I don't get it.

That tells me that you're unfamiliar with the area we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Are you saying that Wiley Rein is taking on a high-profile case they have no expectation of winning? Why would they do that? Maybe partners at Wiley Rein are fond of losing high-profile cases?

Yes
Publicity
Death penalty pro bono cases are rarely won.... So yes, pro bono cases are often loser cases.

Presumably Wiley Rein wants GOOD publicity, though. Which they won't get by taking on a case that they immediately lose. They're not Hollywood stars, for whom any publicity is good publicity.

[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.

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.

No ones talking about overprotective parenting. Not letting your 6 year old wander around commercial areas with no adult does not equal overprotective.

We're back to the commercial areas = SCARY DANGER! idea. I don't get it.

That tells me that you're unfamiliar with the area we are talking about.

Nope, I've been there. Have you been there? What is SCARY DANGER! about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What earlier agreement, exactly? Everybody keeps saying that there was an earlier agreement. I wonder how they know that.

If you read the article the 1st time, they had to sign a safety plan.

They were also flagged in the system.

They signed a safety plan under duress in December. That safety plan lasted from the Saturday they signed it to the Monday two days after. Is there any other safety plan they had to sign? If so, when did they sign it, and what was in it?