Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't know why, but I have. There are only so many big law firms in DC, and their names come up in the news.

[Anonymous]

I read the first and last pages of this 129 page thread! Wow, such interest in this. Don't know anything about the mom's blog - can you share a link?
I ran free in our small town when I was a child. All the kids did. No helicopter parenting then. But Silver Spring is not the same as a very small, rural town.
But the older kid was 10! That's old enough to babysit his younger sister, so I don't get what all the fuss is about.
Anyway, were I this mom, I'd never let those kids out of my sight once they'd been picked up by the police! What are they thinking! Did they want more publicity! The police were wrong, but the parents were stupid! Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Actually it does equal neglect when she fails to pick up her child from school and doesn't pay aftercare. She fails to supervise her children at other times and doesn't know where they are. She fails to provide food and drink (or money or means of contacting her) when she sends them out for hours a day. She's not attending to their needs - and that is neglect. It is different than most people consider neglect but it is still neglect.

And, that little boy looks very young. It is easy confuse him with a much younger child especially depending on his behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Actually it does equal neglect when she fails to pick up her child from school and doesn't pay aftercare. She fails to supervise her children at other times and doesn't know where they are. She fails to provide food and drink (or money or means of contacting her) when she sends them out for hours a day. She's not attending to their needs - and that is neglect. It is different than most people consider neglect but it is still neglect.

And, that little boy looks very young. It is easy confuse him with a much younger child especially depending on his behavior.

No, those aren't neglect. Those are you and her disagreeing about the level of supervision a 10-year-old child needs.

Also not neglect: "failing to provide food and drink" when you drop your children off a bit before 5 pm with instructions to be home by 6 pm.

And finally, so what if he looks young? Is a young-looking 10-year-old less competent than a 10-year-old-looking 10-year-old?

[Anonymous]

Can someone provide the link to the mom's blog?

[Anonymous]

And finally, so what if he looks young? Is a young-looking 10-year-old less competent than a 10-year-old-looking 10-year-old?

The reason people mention how young the 10 year old looks is to explain why people are calling the police when they see these kids out and about. The caller last Sunday thought the boy was seven. Can we agree that a six and seven year old shouldn't be wandering about by themselves? A seven year old is typically less mature than a ten year old. People who don't know the kids think the boy is younger than he actually is, just judging by size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And finally, so what if he looks young? Is a young-looking 10-year-old less competent than a 10-year-old-looking 10-year-old?

The reason people mention how young the 10 year old looks is to explain why people are calling the police when they see these kids out and about. The caller last Sunday thought the boy was seven. Can we agree that a six and seven year old shouldn't be wandering about by themselves? A seven year old is typically less mature than a ten year old. People who don't know the kids think the boy is younger than he actually is, just judging by size.

No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the first and last pages of this 129 page thread! Wow, such interest in this. Don't know anything about the mom's blog - can you share a link?
I ran free in our small town when I was a child. All the kids did. No helicopter parenting then. But Silver Spring is not the same as a very small, rural town.
But the older kid was 10! That's old enough to babysit his younger sister, so I don't get what all the fuss is about.
Anyway, were I this mom, I'd never let those kids out of my sight once they'd been picked up by the police! What are they thinking! Did they want more publicity! The police were wrong, but the parents were stupid! Please.

Not legally. That's the crux of the whole issue. If you think the younger child required some sort of supervision, it has to be provided by someone 13 or older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the first and last pages of this 129 page thread! Wow, such interest in this. Don't know anything about the mom's blog - can you share a link?
I ran free in our small town when I was a child. All the kids did. No helicopter parenting then. But Silver Spring is not the same as a very small, rural town.
But the older kid was 10! That's old enough to babysit his younger sister, so I don't get what all the fuss is about.
Anyway, were I this mom, I'd never let those kids out of my sight once they'd been picked up by the police! What are they thinking! Did they want more publicity! The police were wrong, but the parents were stupid! Please.

Not legally. That's the crux of the whole issue. If you think the younger child required some sort of supervision, it has to be provided by someone 13 or older.

Which gets us right back to:

1. Which law?
2. Or which regulation?
3. Is the law/regulation reasonable?

When I was 6, I walked to school with my brother, who was 8. He wasn't supervising me. We were walking to school together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

And finally, so what if he looks young? Is a young-looking 10-year-old less competent than a 10-year-old-looking 10-year-old?

The reason people mention how young the 10 year old looks is to explain why people are calling the police when they see these kids out and about. The caller last Sunday thought the boy was seven. Can we agree that a six and seven year old shouldn't be wandering about by themselves? A seven year old is typically less mature than a ten year old. People who don't know the kids think the boy is younger than he actually is, just judging by size.

No.

Sadly, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I am 100% certain that when George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," he was not talking about children walking home from the park.

Not to mention that I think it's fine for a six-year-old and a seven-year-old to walk around by themselves precisely because I can remember the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone provide the link to the mom's blog?

I'm not aware of a blog but she is a writer of erotic novels and here is her web site
http://authorjoydaniels.com/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I am 100% certain that when George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," he was not talking about children walking home from the park.

Not to mention that I think it's fine for a six-year-old and a seven-year-old to walk around by themselves precisely because I can remember the past.

It's nice that you had a lovely childhood into which tragedy never stepped. Some of us had personal experience with kids whose lives were ruined or ended because parents did not supervise appropriately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sadly, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I am 100% certain that when George Santayana said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," he was not talking about children walking home from the park.

Not to mention that I think it's fine for a six-year-old and a seven-year-old to walk around by themselves precisely because I can remember the past.

It's nice that you had a lovely childhood into which tragedy never stepped. Some of us had personal experience with kids whose lives were ruined or ended because parents did not supervise appropriately.

You may make decisions for yourself, based on your personal experiences, which I am sorry about. You do not get to make decisions for other people, based on your personal experiences.

I have personal experience with people who died in car wrecks. And yet I don't call CPS when a parent puts a child into a car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone provide the link to the mom's blog?

I'm not aware of a blog but she is a writer of erotic novels and here is her web site
http://authorjoydaniels.com/

OMG, this is a whole new wrinkle to the situation. Has anyone read one of her books?