Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But the report indicates the cop met the person who called 911 in the garage.

No, it doesn't.

On Sunday, April 12 at approximately 4:58 p.m., the Montgomery County Emergency Call Center received a call to check the welfare of two children in the area of Fenton and Easley Streets. The call was dispatched at 5:00 p.m. and the first officer arrived in the area at 5:01 p.m. The officer made contact with the complainant who directed the officer to the Fenton Street parking garage where the officer found the children. This was at 5:03 p.m. The officer observed a homeless subject who he was familiar with, eyeing the children. This male subject remained in the area during the time that the officer was there with the children.

The police report doesn't say that anybody was in the parking garage. Not even the homeless person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Back in the day, this mythical "free range" thing involved kids moving in packs. Safety in numbers, be in a group.

Two siblings rarely played alone at a park, even in the 1970s.

BTW, I lived the 1970s. The fondness for them that is expressed here sometimes if misguided. It wasn't that great.

I lived in the 1970s too, and that was not the case for me. Sometimes kids moved in packs, sometimes they didn't.

+1

My sisters and I used to run around by ourselves, exploring in the woods, walking to the store, etc. Most of you are piss poor at judging risk. Are you going to pick your child's college classes too? Accompany your child to a job interview? Negotiate their raise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:they told the officer that they were hungry and thirsty, stating that they had last eaten hamburgers between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. that afternoon. The officer related these facts to the CPS employee and advised that he had provided his own bottles of water to them. The officer had his personal lunch with him as well and was giving it to the children when the older child advised that he and his sister had food allergies – at that point the officer did not want to provide any food item that might cause an adverse reaction to the children so he did not give them his lunch as planned.

Here's an idea officer -- call the parents! I bet they could tell you what their children are allergic to! Heck, they might even show up and take the kids off your hand for you and, you know, feed them!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They keep letting their white children walk unescorted, in a urban environment. They could do this if the kids weren't white; or if they lived in a suburb. But white kids aren't allowed to walk on city streets alone.

[Anonymous]

So at 5:16 pm, the police officer had the children, and at 7:43 pm, the police officer and the children arrived at CPS, and at -- well, at what time did somebody call the parents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They keep letting their white children walk unescorted, in a urban environment. They could do this if the kids weren't white; or if they lived in a suburb. But white kids aren't allowed to walk on city streets alone.

I wonder if the problem is that it actually isn't really an urban environment, or that it's an urban environment in a suburban jurisdiction. If they lived on Capitol Hill, for example, would any of this have happened?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They keep letting their white children walk unescorted, in a urban environment. They could do this if the kids weren't white; or if they lived in a suburb. But white kids aren't allowed to walk on city streets alone.

I actually think it's the opposite. If they weren't white, the media wouldn't be particularly interested, and CPS might well have kept the kids.

Fenton and Easley is not an "urban environment".

[Anonymous]

I think it probably has something to do with the fact that they are breaking the law...despite having been investigated by CPS and told not to do this.

[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.

ALL types of crime are down substantially since we were kids (well, except cyber crime, since that didn't exist decades ago...). And that's even with increased public awareness resulting in increased chances that certain types of crime (rape & child abuse, for instance) are reported.The rates at which adults are raped & murdered is down substantially. There aren't less adults to rape or murder. The rates at which children are abused or killed in their own homes & in schools is down. There aren't less children spending time in their own homes & in schools. So even if just as many children were outside unsupervised, it's highly unlikely that child kidnapping would be the ONLY type of crime for which rates have not gone down.

[Anonymous]

I hope they sue the shit out of MoCo and the state of MD and win big.

[Anonymous]

It's almost sweet how people are suspecting these parents must have done some unspecified additional thing other than just let their kids play outside by themselves. Maybe that means everybody actually agrees that it doesn't make any sense for the cops to have reacted this way if all that was going on were a 6 and 10 year old allowed to play by themselves outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it probably has something to do with the fact that they are breaking the law...despite having been investigated by CPS and told not to do this.

Which law are they breaking? The sidewalk isn't a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle, and letting your children walk to and from the park oa a weekend afternoon isn't child neglect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They keep letting their white children walk unescorted, in a urban environment. They could do this if the kids weren't white; or if they lived in a suburb. But white kids aren't allowed to walk on city streets alone.

I actually think it's the opposite. If they weren't white, the media wouldn't be particularly interested, and CPS might well have kept the kids.

Fenton and Easley is not an "urban environment".

Well, it's not suburban. It is downtown SS. What is it, if not urban?

[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.

ALL types of crime are down substantially since we were kids (well, except cyber crime, since that didn't exist decades ago...). And that's even with increased public awareness resulting in increased chances that certain types of crime (rape & child abuse, for instance) are reported.The rates at which adults are raped & murdered is down substantially. There aren't less adults to rape or murder. The rates at which children are abused or killed in their own homes & in schools is down. There aren't less children spending time in their own homes & in schools. So even if just as many children were outside unsupervised, it's highly unlikely that child kidnapping would be the ONLY type of crime for which rates have not gone down.

I don't disagree with what you typed, but it doesn't change the fact that even if there are a half as many child molesters looking for kids playing outside, the fact that there are a quarter as many kids playing outside means that the risk to those children goes up. That doesn't mean that there aren't other factors at play that are reducing the risks. After all, just that those factors have been counteracted by our tendency, as a society, to have our kids spend more time inside than they did in the 1970's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Well, it's not suburban. It is downtown SS. What is it, if not urban?

A dense, walkable suburb? Unless you're a child without a parent, of course. Actually then it still is walkable, it's just that if you try to walk, the police will pick you up and take you to CPS.