Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

When I was a child -- definitely free-range -- if I or any of my friends had been picked up by the police for any reason we would have been grounded. Staying out of trouble is one skill these particular children don't seem to have yet. For one thing, how could they not notice that the dog-walker was following them? In this case he was well-intentioned, but he's still a grown man and a stranger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

We, the residents of the village, are the law. We elect our lawmakers as our representatives. People who are concerned about the safety of children and make phone calls to the appropriate professionals are also residents of our village. There have been quite a few members of the village who have been willing to spend time and energy on making sure kids who were strangers to them were safe.

No, actually, the law is the law.

Laws don't spring into being on their own. People make laws, people with whom we are fellow citizens of the village.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was a child -- definitely free-range -- if I or any of my friends had been picked up by the police for any reason we would have been grounded. Staying out of trouble is one skill these particular children don't seem to have yet. For one thing, how could they not notice that the dog-walker was following them? In this case he was well-intentioned, but he's still a grown man and a stranger.

I know. That is a creepy thought.

[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.

I guess you don't.

[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?

You don't practice law. They have some hope if winning, because anything can happen, but know they win the PR no matter what.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Laws don't spring into being on their own. People make laws, people with whom we are fellow citizens of the village.

Do you think that laws about minimal ages at which children no longer need supervision have ever been put up for public vote? Or did CPS dream them up independently?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws don't spring into being on their own. People make laws, people with whom we are fellow citizens of the village.

Do you think that laws about minimal ages at which children no longer need supervision have ever been put up for public vote? Or did CPS dream them up independently?

So wait. You think all laws have gone by referendum? Dear God that would be unworkable. Please read an elementary school Government or civics book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws don't spring into being on their own. People make laws, people with whom we are fellow citizens of the village.

Do you think that laws about minimal ages at which children no longer need supervision have ever been put up for public vote? Or did CPS dream them up independently?

So wait. You think all laws have gone by referendum? Dear God that would be unworkable. Please read an elementary school Government or civics book.

PP's idea seems to be that laws and regulations exist, and there are elections, therefore all laws and regulations represent the will of the people (or the "village").

[Anonymous]

The PR is already a win for the firm. I'm a public interest lawyer in DC and I've never heard of the firm...until now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The PR is already a win for the firm. I'm a public interest lawyer in DC and I've never heard of the firm...until now.

Really? I'm not any kind of lawyer, and I'd heard of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The PR is already a win for the firm. I'm a public interest lawyer in DC and I've never heard of the firm...until now.

Really? I'm not any kind of lawyer, and I'd heard of them.

Why? Where?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Laws don't spring into being on their own. People make laws, people with whom we are fellow citizens of the village.

Do you think that laws about minimal ages at which children no longer need supervision have ever been put up for public vote? Or did CPS dream them up independently?

So wait. You think all laws have gone by referendum? Dear God that would be unworkable. Please read an elementary school Government or civics book.

Happens quite often in California and that's why it's such a mess. But I do to think that's what PP was saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I was a child -- definitely free-range -- if I or any of my friends had been picked up by the police for any reason we would have been grounded. Staying out of trouble is one skill these particular children don't seem to have yet. For one thing, how could they not notice that the dog-walker was following them? In this case he was well-intentioned, but he's still a grown man and a stranger.

Agree completely.

[Anonymous]

If you read this woman's blog and Facebook page there are far more issues of concern to child welfare than just the kids roaming around to the park and back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you read this woman's blog and Facebook page there are far more issues of concern to child welfare than just the kids roaming around to the park and back.

Such as?

Being an ideologue does not constitute child neglect. Neither does being somebody that you personally dislike (based on reading their blog and Facebook page).