Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are traumatizing these kids by being rigid with this fight. They would rather take a stand, despite being told it is frowned upon by the police and subjecting their children to being detained by the police and CPS. Their children will probably grow up to be anti-government radicals or worse.

Actually I think that CPS and the police are traumatizing these kids.

Ok sure. Which wouldn't happen if their parents weren't stubbornly refusing to supervise them.

Why on earth does a 10 yo need constant supervision?!

Okay did you forget the 6yo? That's why.

[Anonymous]

Would you let your 1st grader walk across the street and play in Chevy Chase Park (near Lafayette ES) unsupervised?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are traumatizing these kids by being rigid with this fight. They would rather take a stand, despite being told it is frowned upon by the police and subjecting their children to being detained by the police and CPS. Their children will probably grow up to be anti-government radicals or worse.

Actually I think that CPS and the police are traumatizing these kids.

Ok sure. Which wouldn't happen if their parents weren't stubbornly refusing to supervise them.

Why on earth does a 10 yo need constant supervision?!

Okay did you forget the 6yo? That's why.

Is the 6 yo in K or 1st? I was often put in charge of my little sister as a kid. I see nothing wrong with what they did.

[Anonymous]

To be honest, I don't really know that I think it is a great idea for a 10 year old to supervise a 6 year old at a park on his/her own. Last summer, I had a 9 year old kid come up to me, a random stranger, and tell me that she thought her 5 year old brother had broken his leg, they lived 12 blocks away, and she didn't know what to do. I helped her deal with the situation (stayed with her brother while she went to get their mom and called 911). But I wouldn't say the 9 year old really seemed on top of the situation.


Sounds like she was on top of it--she knew she needed help and she asked a grown up for help.

While it wasn't the end of the world and of course I will always help a child who is injured, I was late getting my dad to his chemo appointment as a result of the incident, and would have much preferred that the 5-year-old child's own parent be responsible for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:new poster here. Parents should be concerned about CPS and the police overstepping. Do we want a police state? Since when is letting your 2 kids play and walk together somewhere a crime?

If the neighbor actually was concerned, it would have made sense for the neighbor to call the parents. This whole incident sounds like 1984 the book.

How do you know the neighbor hasn't raised it with the parents? If the parents don't listen to cps (which they clearly don't) then I'm sure they'd blow off a neighbor. I'd much rather live in a world where people intervene and even the police intervene if they think something's not right with kids than one where they turn a blind eye. Again, why are you so sure these are good parents? Because they're white?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are traumatizing these kids by being rigid with this fight. They would rather take a stand, despite being told it is frowned upon by the police and subjecting their children to being detained by the police and CPS. Their children will probably grow up to be anti-government radicals or worse.

Actually I think that CPS and the police are traumatizing these kids.

Ok sure. Which wouldn't happen if their parents weren't stubbornly refusing to supervise them.

Why on earth does a 10 yo need constant supervision?!

Okay did you forget the 6yo? That's why.

Is the 6 yo in K or 1st? I was often put in charge of my little sister as a kid. I see nothing wrong with what they did.

How old were you when you were in charge of a 6yo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

But we have a generation of entitled, self centered, unable to cope with any negativity, shelter brats. Look at these kids who take parents to job interviews!!! They have been given no freedom. It's a generation ladeled from one opportunity to the next!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are traumatizing these kids by being rigid with this fight. They would rather take a stand, despite being told it is frowned upon by the police and subjecting their children to being detained by the police and CPS. Their children will probably grow up to be anti-government radicals or worse.

Actually I think that CPS and the police are traumatizing these kids.

Ok sure. Which wouldn't happen if their parents weren't stubbornly refusing to supervise them.

Why on earth does a 10 yo need constant supervision?!

Okay did you forget the 6yo? That's why.

Is the 6 yo in K or 1st? I was often put in charge of my little sister as a kid. I see nothing wrong with what they did.

How old were you when you were in charge of a 6yo?

9 yo. My father was a police officer as well. We rode our bikes all over!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, I don't really know that I think it is a great idea for a 10 year old to supervise a 6 year old at a park on his/her own. Last summer, I had a 9 year old kid come up to me, a random stranger, and tell me that she thought her 5 year old brother had broken his leg, they lived 12 blocks away, and she didn't know what to do. I helped her deal with the situation (stayed with her brother while she went to get their mom and called 911). But I wouldn't say the 9 year old really seemed on top of the situation.


Sounds like she was on top of it--she knew she needed help and she asked a grown up for help.

While it wasn't the end of the world and of course I will always help a child who is injured, I was late getting my dad to his chemo appointment as a result of the incident, and would have much preferred that the 5-year-old child's own parent be responsible for him.

Also, what if the child had asked for help from a perfectly nice looking adult who ended up being a predator or a kidnapper? This child lucked out by choosing a responsible and helpful parent, but let's face it, not everyone out there has good intent.

Things were not so perfect back in the seventies. I lived through them, but I knew and knew of lots of kids who had bad things happen to them because adults were not keeping close track of what was going on. That is exactly why I was a much more involved parent than many of the parents in the seventies were. Too much can go wrong when parents are so far out of the picture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

No, they weren't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

But we have a generation of entitled, self centered, unable to cope with any negativity, shelter brats. Look at these kids who take parents to job interviews!!! They have been given no freedom. It's a generation ladeled from one opportunity to the next!

I don't think that's because parents walk them across the street until they're 8

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, I don't really know that I think it is a great idea for a 10 year old to supervise a 6 year old at a park on his/her own. Last summer, I had a 9 year old kid come up to me, a random stranger, and tell me that she thought her 5 year old brother had broken his leg, they lived 12 blocks away, and she didn't know what to do. I helped her deal with the situation (stayed with her brother while she went to get their mom and called 911). But I wouldn't say the 9 year old really seemed on top of the situation.


Sounds like she was on top of it--she knew she needed help and she asked a grown up for help.

While it wasn't the end of the world and of course I will always help a child who is injured, I was late getting my dad to his chemo appointment as a result of the incident, and would have much preferred that the 5-year-old child's own parent be responsible for him.

Also, what if the child had asked for help from a perfectly nice looking adult who ended up being a predator or a kidnapper? This child lucked out by choosing a responsible and helpful parent, but let's face it, not everyone out there has good intent.

Things were not so perfect back in the seventies. I lived through them, but I knew and knew of lots of kids who had bad things happen to them because adults were not keeping close track of what was going on. That is exactly why I was a much more involved parent than many of the parents in the seventies were. Too much can go wrong when parents are so far out of the picture.

Odds are that they won't be kidnapped. The vast majority of kidnaps are due to divorce/custody issues. Fear mongering!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

But we have a generation of entitled, self centered, unable to cope with any negativity, shelter brats. Look at these kids who take parents to job interviews!!! They have been given no freedom. It's a generation ladeled from one opportunity to the next!

I don't think that's because parents walk them across the street until they're 8

Yes. That's part of it.

It continues as the get older. And in Maryland, it's mandated by the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents are traumatizing these kids by being rigid with this fight. They would rather take a stand, despite being told it is frowned upon by the police and subjecting their children to being detained by the police and CPS. Their children will probably grow up to be anti-government radicals or worse.

Actually I think that CPS and the police are traumatizing these kids.

Ok sure. Which wouldn't happen if their parents weren't stubbornly refusing to supervise them.

Why on earth does a 10 yo need constant supervision?!

Okay did you forget the 6yo? That's why.

Is the 6 yo in K or 1st? I was often put in charge of my little sister as a kid. I see nothing wrong with what they did.

How old were you when you were in charge of a 6yo?

9 yo. My father was a police officer as well. We rode our bikes all over!

. Yep. And we also rode in the front seat of cars with no seatbelt. Doesn't mean it was safe.