Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[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

It is because there is pathological risk aversion!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No. I have no fear of CPS coming to my door. But, if I had a run in with CPS and it was a real fear of mine I would be more vigilant. The parents said, they were afraid something like this was going to happen. (Though I think they hoped something would happen because they are attention seekers.)

It's like your first DWI is a freebie... the 2nd time... not so much!

You should, though. Every rational parent should.

Don't be ridiculous. No they shouldn't. Has it ever happened to you? Or even anyone you know? Stop making stuff up.

Actually yes. A friend of mine living in California had 4 children. They lived in an apartment complex with mostly young urban types, with maybe one child. This family had 4 children in a 2 bedroom apartment. The neighbors thought the kids were too noisy and called CPS because the children played outside without shoes on. An investigation was opened and the husband who was applying to a job in the police department was not allowed to continue his application because of the open CPS case. It remained "under investigation" for over a year, with nothing coming of it. Just because you're privileged enough not to encounter CPS doesn't mean they don't have a scary amount of power to ruin your life with an "investigation". It takes VERY little for this to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually it isn't a law!! They broke no law. There are one law pertaining to children & age. One cannot leave kids in a car alone unless over 13.

[Anonymous]

It remained "under investigation" for over a year, with nothing coming of it. Just because you're privileged enough not to encounter CPS doesn't mean they don't have a scary amount of power to ruin your life with an "investigation". It takes VERY little for this to happen.

I'm sure it can vary. My friend was the subject of a CPS investigation in Philly - a neighbor heard her son crying and he bruised easily. She felt that CPS conducted the investigation professionally and closed it out quickly. That's not to say others may not have had a bad experience, but in some cases, CPS does its job well.

[Anonymous]

The article I read said that the parents started looking for the kids at 6pm and were still looking at 8pm.
The way I am reading it makes it sound like they didnt call the Police during this time? Why not?
If my kid was missing I would be calling the Police for help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article I read said that the parents started looking for the kids at 6pm and were still looking at 8pm.
The way I am reading it makes it sound like they didnt call the Police during this time? Why not?
If my kid was missing I would be calling the Police for help.

Why would this particular family think the police would help? Obviously, they wouldn't.

The kids will probably run and hide from the police, after this. Good going, cops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not I agree that these kids should be able to do this type of thing, I can't imagine doing it after the first instance of CPS involvement. Seems kind of stupid and asking for trouble.

Someone has to take a stand against Big Brother government. It's none of their business!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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!!

Maybe not, but that doesn't help the parent of the kid who is kidnapped.

In addition, unsupervised kids can be exposed to a lot of things they wouldn't be if an adult were around. Lots of inappropriate stuff went on in the seventies when there were no adults anywhere around. I was a free range kid before that was a term, and I secretly envied the kids who had their moms with them at the park or walking to school. I knew my mom loved me, but I thought those other kids must be somehow better than me that their moms cared so much about them.

Independence is something that kids can grow into over time. It doesn't have to happen all at once: it needs to be gradual and age appropriate. Kids need to learn to take care of themselves, but while they are kids they still need their parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It remained "under investigation" for over a year, with nothing coming of it. Just because you're privileged enough not to encounter CPS doesn't mean they don't have a scary amount of power to ruin your life with an "investigation". It takes VERY little for this to happen.

I'm sure it can vary. My friend was the subject of a CPS investigation in Philly - a neighbor heard her son crying and he bruised easily. She felt that CPS conducted the investigation professionally and closed it out quickly. That's not to say others may not have had a bad experience, but in some cases, CPS does its job well.

Thus proving that point that reasonable parents should be aware they could be investigated by CPS at any time.

[Anonymous]

I saw a bunch of parents letting their kids play soccer. None of the kids were within arms reach of the parents. Some parents were on there phone. Where are the police! These parents need to be arrested and their childern put into the state's care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It remained "under investigation" for over a year, with nothing coming of it. Just because you're privileged enough not to encounter CPS doesn't mean they don't have a scary amount of power to ruin your life with an "investigation". It takes VERY little for this to happen.

I'm sure it can vary. My friend was the subject of a CPS investigation in Philly - a neighbor heard her son crying and he bruised easily. She felt that CPS conducted the investigation professionally and closed it out quickly. That's not to say others may not have had a bad experience, but in some cases, CPS does its job well.

And CPS exists for a reason. Sadly, there are families that are greatly in need of help with parenting. CPS is there for the kids who need help. It is difficult to tell what is really going on sometimes, and we've all heard of cases where CPS should have been there and wasn't. They have a tough job and not always enough money or people to do it.

[Anonymous]

Whether or not I agree that these kids should be able to do this type of thing, I can't imagine doing it after the first instance of CPS involvement. Seems kind of stupid and asking for trouble.


Someone has to take a stand against Big Brother government. It's none of their business!!!

Ultimately, CPS may be wrong, but it isn't "none of their business." Here, we have a law saying that two kids of those ages cannot be alone together in a dwelling. It doesn't say anything about whether they can be alone together in the street. If the law is ultimately interpreted not to encompass situations where the kids are outside, and it doesn't otherwise fall under catchall negligence, fine. But it isn't as though it is crystal clear that this is a matter outside of the purview of CPS, whether you agree or disagree with the call they've made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually it isn't a law!! They broke no law. There are one law pertaining to children & age. One cannot leave kids in a car alone unless over 13.

Actually, the law is more than that.

The law in MD says that it is illegal to leave a child under 8 (the younger child in this case was 6) in a building, or a car, unless they are under the care of a person who is at least 13. That law is clear. What isn't clear is how CPS interprets the law in relation to kids who are outdoors and thus not in a building or car.

Having said that, I hear a lot that if there's no law then it's not CPS's business. I have to ask, then, if the law doesn't apply outside then there's no law that specifies the at which a child can walk to the park, or be outside alone, do we really believe that it would never appropriate for CPS to intervene in a situation where a child was outside unaccompanied? What if the child were 4, or 2, or just turned 1?

[Anonymous]

I'm sure it can vary. My friend was the subject of a CPS investigation in Philly - a neighbor heard her son crying and he bruised easily. She felt that CPS conducted the investigation professionally and closed it out quickly. That's not to say others may not have had a bad experience, but in some cases, CPS does its job well.


Thus proving that point that reasonable parents should be aware they could be investigated by CPS at any time.

So what? I'm fine with that, if CPS is following up on complaints, they will be more likely to identify situations where there is actually abuse and/or neglect.

[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.

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

They must now surrender and comply. Resistance is futile.

"First they came for the parents of free range kids . . . . "