Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Child neglect is their business. This is not child neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Child neglect is their business. This is not child neglect.

Even if it's within the realm of possibility that they would investigate unaccompanied children outside, holding children against their will who's family they know to not be guilty of neglect (DUE TO A PRIOR INVESTIGATION) is stepping way over what is or is not possibly in their purview.

[Anonymous]

Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.

Suppose I be concerned about the things I'm concerned about, and you be concerned about the things you're concerned about -- how does that sound?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.

No, this is exactly the point several of us have been making. Just because you're privileged enough to never have to hear about CPS overstepping, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to poor people all the time. Ditto to police abuse and brutality at all levels. But I guess a lot of people here would say Walter Scott's family is just seeking attention and people who run from cops deserve what they get.

[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!!!

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.

It's none of your business or CPS. I want to hire these kids when they grow up. Bet they won't need their parents to negotiate their employment contract.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.

No, this is exactly the point several of us have been making. Just because you're privileged enough to never have to hear about CPS overstepping, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to poor people all the time. Ditto to police abuse and brutality at all levels. But I guess a lot of people here would say Walter Scott's family is just seeking attention and people who run from cops deserve what they get.

Yup. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/relisha-rudds-brothers-to-remain-in-foster-care-for-now-court-rules/2015/03/16/5a321b84-cc17-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

Her child was kidnapped and murdered and CPS has ruled it's her fault and that she cannot parent.

[Anonymous]

Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.


Suppose I be concerned about the things I'm concerned about, and you be concerned about the things you're concerned about -- how does that sound?

Cool, you stick with things that affect affluent white people and I'll go for travesties against a broader cross section of humanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.

No, this is exactly the point several of us have been making. Just because you're privileged enough to never have to hear about CPS overstepping, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to poor people all the time. Ditto to police abuse and brutality at all levels. But I guess a lot of people here would say Walter Scott's family is just seeking attention and people who run from cops deserve what they get.

Yup. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/relisha-rudds-brothers-to-remain-in-foster-care-for-now-court-rules/2015/03/16/5a321b84-cc17-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

Her child was kidnapped and murdered and CPS has ruled it's her fault and that she cannot parent.

Nope, not a good example. No way should Relisha Rudd's mother have custody of other children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.

No, this is exactly the point several of us have been making. Just because you're privileged enough to never have to hear about CPS overstepping, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to poor people all the time. Ditto to police abuse and brutality at all levels. But I guess a lot of people here would say Walter Scott's family is just seeking attention and people who run from cops deserve what they get.

Yup. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/relisha-rudds-brothers-to-remain-in-foster-care-for-now-court-rules/2015/03/16/5a321b84-cc17-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

Her child was kidnapped and murdered and CPS has ruled it's her fault and that she cannot parent.

Nope, not a good example. No way should Relisha Rudd's mother have custody of other children.

Whys that exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever, while I disagree with CPS's call, I find it ridiculous that people are more concerned about this perception of government intrusion into civil liberties than that which it is increasingly apparent that the African American community is facing at the hands of law enforcement.

No, this is exactly the point several of us have been making. Just because you're privileged enough to never have to hear about CPS overstepping, doesn't mean it doesn't happen to poor people all the time. Ditto to police abuse and brutality at all levels. But I guess a lot of people here would say Walter Scott's family is just seeking attention and people who run from cops deserve what they get.

Yup. See

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/relisha-rudds-brothers-to-remain-in-foster-care-for-now-court-rules/2015/03/16/5a321b84-cc17-11e4-8c54-ffb5ba6f2f69_story.html

Her child was kidnapped and murdered and CPS has ruled it's her fault and that she cannot parent.

Nope, not a good example. No way should Relisha Rudd's mother have custody of other children.

Whys that exactly?

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/461661.page#6737687

[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.

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 . . . . "

Seriously? You are equating letting your kids go to the park with the World War 2 resistance?

I am equating the state's threat to take your child from you.

What do you hold dear?

Think about your own kid: under what circumstances would you support the state of Maryland taking your child from you?

Do you think "free range parenting" justifies Maryland making this threat in this case? Because that is the eventual penalty Maryland will impose if the parents don't comply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

One person. With 4 kids in a 2 berm apartment. So you think we should all fear CPS. Silly

[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.

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 . . . . "

Seriously? You are equating letting your kids go to the park with the World War 2 resistance?

I am equating the state's threat to take your child from you.

What do you hold dear?

Think about your own kid: under what circumstances would you support the state of Maryland taking your child from you?

Do you think "free range parenting" justifies Maryland making this threat in this case? Because that is the eventual penalty Maryland will impose if the parents don't comply.

No they won't. In another year the older kid will be old enough to babysit the younger. You're hysterical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No they won't. In another year the older kid will be old enough to babysit the younger. You're hysterical.

CPS has already said "sign this form or we'll take your children".

And if next week the children walk to the park again, and the neighbor calls the police again, then what? Is it better for the children to get put into foster care than to stay with parents who let them walk to the park?