Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you want to think that this only happens to other people, and it couldn't possibly happen to you, feel free. I hope that it doesn't happen to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't know. I don't know these parents. And I'm not investigating them. All we hear is their side of the story. I do know they keep doing something they know puts their kids at the center of controversy, so that does make me wonder about their judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you want to think that this only happens to other people, and it couldn't possibly happen to you, feel free. I hope that it doesn't happen to you.

Anything could happen, but this is not a realistic fear.

[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.

Says someone who assumes they know the whole story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't know. I don't know these parents. And I'm not investigating them. All we hear is their side of the story. I do know they keep doing something they know puts their kids at the center of controversy, so that does make me wonder about their judgment.

Here is what happened:

They let their children walk to a park. CPS investigated and said don't do that. Then they let their children walk home from a park. CPS investigated, said don't do that, and issued a finding of unsubstantiated neglect (sic). Then they let their children walk home from a park. The police took the children to CPS, who didn't release the children until 10:30 at night (on a school night), made the children very upset, and required the parents to sign a form saying that they would never for a minute leave the children unattended.

There is definitely questionable judgment here, but it's not the parents'.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you want to think that this only happens to other people, and it couldn't possibly happen to you, feel free. I hope that it doesn't happen to you.

Anything could happen, but this is not a realistic fear.

So who's the central authority on what is or is not a realistic fear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says someone who assumes they know the whole story.

You've got a lot of faith in CPS, huh? If CPS is investigating, then there must be a good reason?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you want to think that this only happens to other people, and it couldn't possibly happen to you, feel free. I hope that it doesn't happen to you.

Anything could happen, but this is not a realistic fear.

It's a lot more realistic than fearing a kidnapping!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you want to think that this only happens to other people, and it couldn't possibly happen to you, feel free. I hope that it doesn't happen to you.

Anything could happen, but this is not a realistic fear.

So who's the central authority on what is or is not a realistic fear?

You cower in fear if you want, but it's nutty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

If you want to think that this only happens to other people, and it couldn't possibly happen to you, feel free. I hope that it doesn't happen to you.

Anything could happen, but this is not a realistic fear.

It's a lot more realistic than fearing a kidnapping!

Uh ,no. You want to substantiate that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Says someone who assumes they know the whole story.

You've got a lot of faith in CPS, huh? If CPS is investigating, then there must be a good reason?

No, not blind faith. But you seem to think CPS is lurking trying to take kids from good parents. Why do you imagine they want to do that? They want to make work for themselves? Bored? It's nonsensical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't know. I don't know these parents. And I'm not investigating them. All we hear is their side of the story. I do know they keep doing something they know puts their kids at the center of controversy, so that does make me wonder about their judgment.

Here is what happened:

They let their children walk to a park. CPS investigated and said don't do that. Then they let their children walk home from a park. CPS investigated, said don't do that, and issued a finding of unsubstantiated neglect (sic). Then they let their children walk home from a park. The police took the children to CPS, who didn't release the children until 10:30 at night (on a school night), made the children very upset, and required the parents to sign a form saying that they would never for a minute leave the children unattended.

There is definitely questionable judgment here, but it's not the parents'.

You have complete faith that the parents' story is the whole story. Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

You have complete faith that the parents' story is the whole story. Why is that?

I don't see any reason to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story. What reason do you have to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story? Besides the circular one of: it must not be the whole story, because otherwise CPS wouldn't be doing all this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No, not blind faith. But you seem to think CPS is lurking trying to take kids from good parents. Why do you imagine they want to do that? They want to make work for themselves? Bored? It's nonsensical.

I don't have any idea why they're doing that. I wish they would stop doing it, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, not blind faith. But you seem to think CPS is lurking trying to take kids from good parents. Why do you imagine they want to do that? They want to make work for themselves? Bored? It's nonsensical.

I don't have any idea why they're doing that. I wish they would stop doing it, though.

So you realize that your theory makes no sense.