Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Look, there does not have to be a law or reg encompassing thisbspecific conduct. CPS has to investigate allegations of "child neglect," which is broadly defined. They had to check their databases and interview the kids to assess whether they were in danger. Given that this family has an open file, that would have taken a while. All told, 5 hours is not an unreasonable time to assess whether the kids were in danger. If the parents object then they should have been more careful about observing community norms about the capacity of childreb to be alone. Similarly if they were a family that chose to defy community norms by giving harsh spankings and punishment, they should expect to be scrutinized for possible abuse. They are the ones deliberately choosing to flout norms about child safety, so it is hypocritical in the maximum for them to act like victims when they attract attention.

They are not acting like victims when they attract attention. They are acting like victims when the police pick their children up, take the children to CPS, don't tell the parents where the children are, and hold the children for 6 hours. Which is what they're suing about. Good for them.

As for flouting norms -- speak for yourself. They're not my norms.

Those are all reasonable actions for a credible report of neglect, which this was. What you insist on ignoring is that once the poloce received a credible report of neglect there were a series of steps they and CPS were obliged by law to take. How were the police to immediately know these were "free range" kids, as opposed to lost or abandoned? They needed time to figure it out. That is what happens when you insist on doing things that appear to be neglect to some reasonable observers.

[Anonymous]

IMO, walking to school is different than what happened here. Walking to school is a preset path generally, and for a certain, brief amount of times between two points where there is appropriate supervision. "Be home by 6" gives much more flexibility that means the parents or other responsible person can be unsure of where the kids are for hours. So if something goes wrong, there will likely be a much longer period of time before that parents are aware of the problem.

And, just speaking as a food allergy parent, I think lack of supervision by a knowledgable adult for extended periods of time is risky, particularly for the six year old. Who was carrying the epipen? You generally aren't mature enough to self administer at 10.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Arlington and expecting my first child soon. I find this case disturbing, regardless of the particular situation, but because it made me look up the Arlington County rules.

8 years and under : Should not be left alone for any period of time. This includes leaving children unattended in cars, playgrounds and yards.
9 to 10 years : Should not be left alone for more than 1 ½ hours and only during daylight and early evening hours.
11 to 12 years : May be left alone for up to 3 hours, but not late at night or in circumstances requiring adult supervision.
13 to 15 years : May be left unsupervised, but not overnight.
16 to 17 years : May be left unsupervised for up to two consecutive overnight periods.


Seriously, this is saying a 6 year old cannot EVER be alone, even in your own yard! It makes me anxious just thinking about it! I'm a child of the 90's. As soon as I was capable of riding a bike (at 5) I was allowed to ride to the corner and back. My mom sent me out into the yard ALL THE TIME, pretty much every day. I walked to school which was about 5 blocks starting in first grade (and on weekends to the playground), and now that would be neglect?! I can't believe most of the board is saying that's legitimate neglect and the children deserve to be picked up by CPS to allow young siblings to feel some freedom. To never be out of your parents watchful gaze until your 8 years old seems like a recipe for anxiety and mental health issues to me, and just hatred from your kid. My partner and I really have to think about leaving this damn town if the general consensus here would be we're bad parents and don't deserve children.

I suspect that those who are the most militant in their support for the CPS involvement and cop-callers have some serious skeletons to hide.

[Anonymous]

I think both parties are wrong here. From the police side, why they did not scoop the kids up, drive them home, write up the parents or call CPS while at the home makes no sense. That would have been a logical solution to the issue, taking them to the station is extreme. On the parents side, if these kids had been abducted, hit by a car etc they would be to blame for that, and the area where they live is populated enough that there is a chance something bad could happen. I ran around when I was a kid but it was on a cul de sac in a small tight neighborhood far removed from big streets, high volume areas. Even though they were going to the park it is still a very dense, high population area, and I do think there is a substantive difference between a neighborhood in clarksburg for example and a neighborhood in silver spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So how come in 1980 it was said that for a 6yr old 1st grader to be ready for 1st grade, they should be able to walk 4-8 blocks on their own? What changed besides parent's paranoia.

A lot of what changed involved the child in New York City who was abducted and killed on the first day he'd been allowed to walk to school by himself. That have a lot of parents pause and a realization that something can go drastically wrong in a moment. We can't protect our children from every possible danger but I do believe that we are morally and ethically bound to do our best to keep them safe in appropriate ways.

So you think that was the first child to have ever been abducted? No one ever was in 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's? Kids die in car crashes everyday. Do you still drive them? Kids die in schools multiple times a month? Do you still send your kids to school?

And as a matter of fact in 1980 there was 2.8 abductions per 1000 kids. In 2012 it is now down to 1.3 per 1000 kids. 73% of those 1.3kids are from people the child knew. So just that alone shows that the internet and 24hr news channels are doing their job to keep you tuning in. Paranoia.

No, but it really affected that generation of parents because of the amount of publicity it got. It's entirely possible that the rate of child abductions went down between 1980 and 2012 because parents were more alert and supervised their kids more than they had in the past.

I have two relatives who were hit by cars while playing alone as kids. One was killed, the other had very serious injuries, was hospitalized for a long time and had long term effects from the injuries that have lasted into adulthood. One of these children was six when the accident occurred. Neither of these events would have happened had the children been better supervised.

I grew up knowing how quickly bad things can happen and I have used that knowledge in my parenting to balance freedom and supervision to keep my children safe and healthy. I know that we can't protect our kids from any possible harm, but I will do my best to keep from putting them in situations that are beyond their age to handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO, walking to school is different than what happened here. Walking to school is a preset path generally, and for a certain, brief amount of times between two points where there is appropriate supervision. "Be home by 6" gives much more flexibility that means the parents or other responsible person can be unsure of where the kids are for hours. So if something goes wrong, there will likely be a much longer period of time before that parents are aware of the problem.

And, just speaking as a food allergy parent, I think lack of supervision by a knowledgable adult for extended periods of time is risky, particularly for the six year old. Who was carrying the epipen? You generally aren't mature enough to self administer at 10.

I had at least four different routes to and from school.

Also, I don't understand how you got from: two children dropped off at 4:45 pm at a park 1/3 of a mile from home and told to be home by 6, to: the parents being unsure of where the kids were for hours. As it happens, the parents actually didn't know where the kids were for hours, but that's because the kids were in police and CPS custody, and nobody called the parents.

Also, why do you assume that the food allergy was severe enough to warrant an epipen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Of course, most of the time, the bad stuff that happens to unsupervised kids doesn't make the news. And I also think that a *lot* of the reason that people think these parents are good parents is simply because they look like us and our friends. A lot packed into that level of bias.

A lot of "bad stuff" happens to children while they are being supervised as well.
Those 500,000 child poisonings of children per year under 5 didn't happen because a parent wasn't at home.

In fact "bad stuff" happens while a parent is actually looking directly at the child. Ask any ER nurse or doctor.

I also notice tons of very young kids riding the subway alone with me going to and from school in DC.

So I guess they don't matter to DC CPS? Or could it be that DC CPS actually thinks more reasonably than MD CPS?

And if we here carry that level of trust bias, why am I not then faulting the families of color who let their children ride to school unsupervised on public transportation?

Just saying...

Helicopters beware: Look up how many children are run over and killed in their own driveways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I grew up knowing how quickly bad things can happen and I have used that knowledge in my parenting to balance freedom and supervision to keep my children safe and healthy. I know that we can't protect our kids from any possible harm, but I will do my best to keep from putting them in situations that are beyond their age to handle.

I am certain that the Meitivs are also doing their best to keep from putting their children in situations that are beyond their age to handle. And since the Meitivs know their children, and you don't, there's a good chance that the Meitivs have a better idea of what their children can handle than you do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[Of course, most of the time, the bad stuff that happens to unsupervised kids doesn't make the news. And I also think that a *lot* of the reason that people think these parents are good parents is simply because they look like us and our friends. A lot packed into that level of bias.

A lot of "bad stuff" happens to children while they are being supervised as well.
Those 500,000 child poisonings of children per year under 5 didn't happen because a parent wasn't at home.

In fact "bad stuff" happens while a parent is actually looking directly at the child. Ask any ER nurse or doctor.

I also notice tons of very young kids riding the subway alone with me going to and from school in DC.

So I guess they don't matter to DC CPS? Or could it be that DC CPS actually thinks more reasonably than MD CPS?

And if we here carry that level of trust bias, why am I not then faulting the families of color who let their children ride to school unsupervised on public transportation?

Just saying...

Helicopters beware: Look up how many children are run over and killed in their own driveways.

And I suppose it is a helicoptering nanny state to interfere with your freedoms by requiring back up cameras to be installed to prevent this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I grew up knowing how quickly bad things can happen and I have used that knowledge in my parenting to balance freedom and supervision to keep my children safe and healthy. I know that we can't protect our kids from any possible harm, but I will do my best to keep from putting them in situations that are beyond their age to handle.

I am certain that the Meitivs are also doing their best to keep from putting their children in situations that are beyond their age to handle. And since the Meitivs know their children, and you don't, there's a good chance that the Meitivs have a better idea of what their children can handle than you do.

No, these parents are putting their kids repeatedly in situations that lead to them being picked up by police and eventually foster care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Those are all reasonable actions for a credible report of neglect, which this was. What you insist on ignoring is that once the poloce received a credible report of neglect there were a series of steps they and CPS were obliged by law to take. How were the police to immediately know these were "free range" kids, as opposed to lost or abandoned? They needed time to figure it out. That is what happens when you insist on doing things that appear to be neglect to some reasonable observers.

But the police didn't receive a credible report of neglect. They received a report of two kids walking along.

As for how were the police to know that the kids weren't lost or abandoned? Like this:

Police: Are you lost?
Kid: No, we're two blocks from home.
Police: Is that where you're going?
Kid: Yes.

Or the police could even put the children in the car and drive them home. That's what they did the last time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well I was there too, and it wasn't normal for me or in my area. So it was normal for you, but not normal for all.

When were you there? What year were you 6?

1981

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing. Let's assume at some point in a child's life something bad is going to happen when a parent isn't there.

Going to happen; no avoiding it.

Wouldn't it be nice to know that your child has the capacity and self-assuredness to effectively neutralize the situation or know how to access someone who can?

This kind of knowledge and confidence has to be taught and practiced so when the time comes that the child has to act, they are prepared.

No amount of "don't talk to strangers and hold mommy's hand while crossing the street" will ever help your child not get victimized or run over by a car.

No one disagrees that you have to teach them how to exist in the world. The question is at what age can they do that unsupervised. A line has to get drawn somewhere. You think it should be younger than 8. What age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I grew up knowing how quickly bad things can happen and I have used that knowledge in my parenting to balance freedom and supervision to keep my children safe and healthy. I know that we can't protect our kids from any possible harm, but I will do my best to keep from putting them in situations that are beyond their age to handle.

I am certain that the Meitivs are also doing their best to keep from putting their children in situations that are beyond their age to handle. And since the Meitivs know their children, and you don't, there's a good chance that the Meitivs have a better idea of what their children can handle than you do.

No, these parents are putting their kids repeatedly in situations that lead to them being picked up by police and eventually foster care.

CPS is supposed to act in the best interests of the children. Do you think it's in the best interests of the children to be in foster care, just to show the parents that CPS can take the children away if CPS wants to?

I don't see any reason to doubt the children's ability to walk home from the park. I don't think that they're capable of handling CPS and the police, but things are totally messed up if a child has to be capable to handle CPS and the police in order to be able to walk home from the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Well I was there too, and it wasn't normal for me or in my area. So it was normal for you, but not normal for all.

When were you there? What year were you 6?

1981

You're too young, then. Things were already changing by the time you were 6.