Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very possible, but what's your point? IF the norms have been different from what you're used to this long, then the 40 year olds of today should be completely incapable, right? But that's not what we're seeing.

My point is that it did used to be normal.

But so what? So did beating your kid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not what happened according to the police report. They were stopped by the garage, where they'd been for at least 5 min. It doesn' t take 5 min to walk past a parking garage.

That is not what the police report says.

The police report puts the kids at that garage for at least 5 min. The caller spotted them there and they were still there when the cop got there.

That is not what the police report says. This is what the police report says:

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.

Anyway, so what? If children stand in front of a parking garage for 5 minutes, they must be abandoned, lost, or neglected?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

My point is that it did used to be normal.

But so what? So did beating your kid.

People keep saying it didn't used to be normal. That's what's so what.

But if you want to compare letting a six-year-old and ten-year-old walk home from the park to beating your kid, go right ahead, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

4:45? Then did the kids leave the park immediately to walk home? The 911 call was at 5

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not what happened according to the police report. They were stopped by the garage, where they'd been for at least 5 min. It doesn' t take 5 min to walk past a parking garage.

That is not what the police report says.

The police report puts the kids at that garage for at least 5 min. The caller spotted them there and they were still there when the cop got there.

Not the PP but you really need to read the police report again. You are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I was 4 when my parents started teaching me and practicing. Why? Because come Sept. 4 I had to walk to school by myself and cross many streets - all at the age of 4. I was not 5 until December of that year. The largest 4-lane road had a crossing guard. There weren't any children my age in my neighborhood, so I didn't meet up with other kids until I was out of my neighborhood. And they were all elementary kids as well. We practiced all summer and played games about what to do if certain situations arose. Many other families practiced as well. I felt so proud and prepared on my first day! And no this wasn't some small town. I grew up just outside of DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you really think that's CPS's motivation? You probably also thing "big pharma" is just tricking us into getting vaccines.

Then what would CPS's motivation for putting the kids in foster care be? Do you think it's in the best interests of these children to be in foster care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not what happened according to the police report. They were stopped by the garage, where they'd been for at least 5 min. It doesn' t take 5 min to walk past a parking garage.

That is not what the police report says.

The police report puts the kids at that garage for at least 5 min. The caller spotted them there and they were still there when the cop got there.

That is not what the police report says. This is what the police report says:

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.

Anyway, so what? If children stand in front of a parking garage for 5 minutes, they must be abandoned, lost, or neglected?

That's not the police report. There's the officer's report (linked either earlier in this thread or another one). It has the stuff about the garage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very possible, but what's your point? IF the norms have been different from what you're used to this long, then the 40 year olds of today should be completely incapable, right? But that's not what we're seeing.

My point is that it did used to be normal.

But so what? So did beating your kid.

Wow - beating your kid was normal? When.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you really think that's CPS's motivation? You probably also thing "big pharma" is just tricking us into getting vaccines.

Then what would CPS's motivation for putting the kids in foster care be? Do you think it's in the best interests of these children to be in foster care?

The kids aren't in foster care, first of all. And the only reason they would do that is if they made a finding that the kids really weren't safe. I'm not saying they're always right, but I think they err on the side of NOT removing the kids. And if they do remove the kids, the motivation is to protect the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

4:45? Then did the kids leave the park immediately to walk home? The 911 call was at 5

Who knows? And why does it matter? The kids were supposed to walk home from the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Very possible, but what's your point? IF the norms have been different from what you're used to this long, then the 40 year olds of today should be completely incapable, right? But that's not what we're seeing.

My point is that it did used to be normal.

But so what? So did beating your kid.

Wow - beating your kid was normal? When.

Seriously? Read books. Look at all the references to "getting a whupping". Kids were hit with belts, sticks, etc. It didn't used to be considered abuse. Point is, just because something used to be accepted doesn't make it a good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you really think that's CPS's motivation? You probably also thing "big pharma" is just tricking us into getting vaccines.

Then what would CPS's motivation for putting the kids in foster care be? Do you think it's in the best interests of these children to be in foster care?

The kids aren't in foster care, first of all. And the only reason they would do that is if they made a finding that the kids really weren't safe. I'm not saying they're always right, but I think they err on the side of NOT removing the kids. And if they do remove the kids, the motivation is to protect the kids.

The implicit threat with CPS is always that they will remove the kids. If you think that CPS would not remove the kids over this, that's good news.

[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.

My six year old relative was with a group of kids ages 6-10 playing at a park with no adults around. They were playing in a part of the park that an adult would have warned them away from because it was too close to the street. He was hit and his life was changed forever. I have talked to kids who were there when it happened and it truly would not have happened had an adult been there.

I get that kids are different but certain developmental milestones are fairly universal. Six year old children need supervision, and a ten year old is not yet ready for that and it is not fair to a ten year old to bear that responsibility. The kids who were there the day my relative was hit are adults now and they still think about that day.

If developmental milestones are universal, how come different cultures have such very different expectations of children's age-related capabilities?

Many reasons, not all of which pertain to this discussion, but partly because of differences in types of dangers that young children might be presented with.
Why expose kids to dangers that can harm them in a blink of an eye when you have the capability to teach them to protect themselves as they grow and develop? It is a rare six year old that understands the dangers of cars the way an adult does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That's not what happened according to the police report. They were stopped by the garage, where they'd been for at least 5 min. It doesn' t take 5 min to walk past a parking garage.

That is not what the police report says.

The police report puts the kids at that garage for at least 5 min. The caller spotted them there and they were still there when the cop got there.

Not the PP but you really need to read the police report again. You are wrong.

Nope. You're missing that. You just saw the timeline and think that's the police report.