Free-range parents cited but not charged

[Anonymous]

Just have to accept that in Maryland it is considered child abuse to let you 8,9,10 year olds bike to the park and play ball. Also need to accept that walkability in Maryland does not mean safe walkability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the 10 year old walking out alone, but IMO that's too young to supervise a 6 year old sibling on a 1- mile walk.

Unless she has been raised in a bubble, any neurotypical 6-year-old should certainly know enough to walk on the sidewalk, cross at the cross walks when the sign says walk, look both ways for cars before crossing, etc. & should be well beyond the age where darting out into the street is a risk! So the need for the 10-year-old to supervise in a situation like this is pretty minimal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

People. Not kids. I have 40 years of navigating urban traffic on the 10-year-old. He may be the most mature child in the country, but he does not have the experience to read drivers in an area that is that traffic-heavy. I won't even discuss how wrong it is that the 6-year-old is out there without adult supervision. Not a CPS situation, but I won't budge in my opinion that these parents are idiots.

Kids are people too.

And I'm astonished that you think it is wrong for a 6-year-old to be out in public without adult supervision. If you are 50, you should know from your own experience that 6-year-olds used to do this routinely. People's jaws would have dropped in disbelief at the idea that a 6-year-old needed a parental escort to walk to school.

Misquote my posts if you like, but in the meantime, I said "out there" without adult supervision. As in, *Georgia Avenue in downtown Silver Spring.* I myself walked to kindergarten alone for 9/10ths of a mile every day, but the street was not *Georgia Avenue in downtown Silver Spring.*

Personally, I feel it's generally safer walking in downtown areas during the day than it is in less populated areas. More people around = a greater chance of there being someone around who is ready, willing & able to provide help should something go awry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As noted above, the way the parents have revelled in the media attention without any evident concern for how all that attention might affect the kids demonstrates they are unfit parents.

Lots of parents do things I wouldn't do. That doesn't make them unfit parents.

These parents are sticking to their principles, and there is a lot to admire about that.

Sticking to your principles is saying, 'hey we think this law is antiquated and ineffective, I'm going to lobby to change the law. In the meantime, I'm going to obey the law as it is, and find another way to foster independence and maturity in my kids. The emotional and finacial cost of legal wrangling and public/media exposure is not worth it to my family if no one is being harmed or abused." These people are not fighting to give their dying children to receive experimental treatment or medicine, they are not fighting to overturn an illegal adoption. They are not fighting to establish Amber Alerts. These people are making a big deal out of their kids not being able to walk down GA by themselves. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but these folks are using very little judgement.

Civil disobedience has long been a crucial step towards legislative change.

[Anonymous]

CPS is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As noted above, the way the parents have revelled in the media attention without any evident concern for how all that attention might affect the kids demonstrates they are unfit parents.

Lots of parents do things I wouldn't do. That doesn't make them unfit parents.

These parents are sticking to their principles, and there is a lot to admire about that.

Sticking to your principles is saying, 'hey we think this law is antiquated and ineffective, I'm going to lobby to change the law. In the meantime, I'm going to obey the law as it is, and find another way to foster independence and maturity in my kids. The emotional and finacial cost of legal wrangling and public/media exposure is not worth it to my family if no one is being harmed or abused." These people are not fighting to give their dying children to receive experimental treatment or medicine, they are not fighting to overturn an illegal adoption. They are not fighting to establish Amber Alerts. These people are making a big deal out of their kids not being able to walk down GA by themselves. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but these folks are using very little judgement.

Civil disobedience has long been a crucial step towards legislative change.

Dramatic much ??

[Anonymous]

There are real problems in the world, this crap ain't one of them!

[Anonymous]

I think someone reported the kids because the older son had long blond hair and from far looked like a girl. If it had been a black or Latino 10 year old boy with a sibling no one would have batted an eye. My inner city 3rd grade students routinely walk their younger siblings home in really rough, crime ridden areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As noted above, the way the parents have revelled in the media attention without any evident concern for how all that attention might affect the kids demonstrates they are unfit parents.

Lots of parents do things I wouldn't do. That doesn't make them unfit parents.

These parents are sticking to their principles, and there is a lot to admire about that.

Sticking to your principles is saying, 'hey we think this law is antiquated and ineffective, I'm going to lobby to change the law. In the meantime, I'm going to obey the law as it is, and find another way to foster independence and maturity in my kids. The emotional and finacial cost of legal wrangling and public/media exposure is not worth it to my family if no one is being harmed or abused." These people are not fighting to give their dying children to receive experimental treatment or medicine, they are not fighting to overturn an illegal adoption. They are not fighting to establish Amber Alerts. These people are making a big deal out of their kids not being able to walk down GA by themselves. There is more than one way to skin a cat, but these folks are using very little judgement.

Civil disobedience has long been a crucial step towards legislative change.

Dramatic much ??

Accusing parents of negligence for allowing their children to do something kids have been doing for generations is also pretty dramatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the 10 year old walking out alone, but IMO that's too young to supervise a 6 year old sibling on a 1- mile walk.

Unless she has been raised in a bubble, any neurotypical 6-year-old should certainly know enough to walk on the sidewalk, cross at the cross walks when the sign says walk, look both ways for cars before crossing, etc. & should be well beyond the age where darting out into the street is a risk! So the need for the 10-year-old to supervise in a situation like this is pretty minimal.

There is a classic series of books on child development, one for each year, called Your One Year Old, Your Two Year Old, etc. They were published in the 70s. In the Your Six Year Old book, they lay out the indicators of readiness for school (1st grade). One of the readiness indicators is the ability to travel alone in the neighborhood (four to eight blocks) to store, school, playground, or to a friend's home. Sometime in the last 20 years it seems we've completely lost the ability to see kids as capable people.

[Anonymous]

Most kids in major cities in the US and internationally, walk to school and even take the subway or bus without their parents. This is completely normal.

Something about parenting got lost along the way. Parenting your kids is teaching them, not doing for them. Not hovering over them. And we should all be parenting other kids too. Not calling the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think someone reported the kids because the older son had long blond hair and from far looked like a girl. If it had been a black or Latino 10 year old boy with a sibling no one would have batted an eye. My inner city 3rd grade students routinely walk their younger siblings home in really rough, crime ridden areas.

This. Pretty much.
In fact, the kids in my neighborhood are so "free range" that they get in fights after school, after getting off the bus and walking back home. Usually I just give them the stink eye from my car and they break up. Never even considered calling CPS or the cops, but maybe I should?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the 10 year old walking out alone, but IMO that's too young to supervise a 6 year old sibling on a 1- mile walk.

Unless she has been raised in a bubble, any neurotypical 6-year-old should certainly know enough to walk on the sidewalk, cross at the cross walks when the sign says walk, look both ways for cars before crossing, etc. & should be well beyond the age where darting out into the street is a risk! So the need for the 10-year-old to supervise in a situation like this is pretty minimal.

There is a classic series of books on child development, one for each year, called Your One Year Old, Your Two Year Old, etc. They were published in the 70s. In the Your Six Year Old book, they lay out the indicators of readiness for school (1st grade). One of the readiness indicators is the ability to travel alone in the neighborhood (four to eight blocks) to store, school, playground, or to a friend's home. Sometime in the last 20 years it seems we've completely lost the ability to see kids as capable people.

Remember the Sesame Street animation where Wilhelmina's mom asks her to go to the store to get a stick of butter, an carton of milk, and a loaf of bread. She does it all by herself, too! Then again, the store is probably a block away... One of my daughter's favorite books is "Down the Lane" in which a girl maybe 7 or 8 years old, gets permission to walk alone down the dusty lane, through the old orchard, across the stream, and into town to get a dozen eggs: "Twelve big beauties, no cracks!" admonishes her dad. Mom's not sure she's ready, but dad says, "Look at this big girl. She can do it!"

Still, there's NO WAY I'd let my 7 yo into the village on her own. She's not ready. Maybe next year, at age 8, in third grade. I'd have to think about it. We live in a pretty safe-feeling little urban village. Then again, two years ago, a 13 year old fought off someone who jumped from a car and tried to drag her into it from the sidewalk. Broad daylight. Yeesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see anything wrong with the 10 year old walking out alone, but IMO that's too young to supervise a 6 year old sibling on a 1- mile walk.

Unless she has been raised in a bubble, any neurotypical 6-year-old should certainly know enough to walk on the sidewalk, cross at the cross walks when the sign says walk, look both ways for cars before crossing, etc. & should be well beyond the age where darting out into the street is a risk! So the need for the 10-year-old to supervise in a situation like this is pretty minimal.

There is a classic series of books on child development, one for each year, called Your One Year Old, Your Two Year Old, etc. They were published in the 70s. In the Your Six Year Old book, they lay out the indicators of readiness for school (1st grade). One of the readiness indicators is the ability to travel alone in the neighborhood (four to eight blocks) to store, school, playground, or to a friend's home. Sometime in the last 20 years it seems we've completely lost the ability to see kids as capable people.

Remember the Sesame Street animation where Wilhelmina's mom asks her to go to the store to get a stick of butter, an carton of milk, and a loaf of bread. She does it all by herself, too! Then again, the store is probably a block away... One of my daughter's favorite books is "Down the Lane" in which a girl maybe 7 or 8 years old, gets permission to walk alone down the dusty lane, through the old orchard, across the stream, and into town to get a dozen eggs: "Twelve big beauties, no cracks!" admonishes her dad. Mom's not sure she's ready, but dad says, "Look at this big girl. She can do it!"

Still, there's NO WAY I'd let my 7 yo into the village on her own. She's not ready. Maybe next year, at age 8, in third grade. I'd have to think about it. We live in a pretty safe-feeling little urban village. Then again, two years ago, a 13 year old fought off someone who jumped from a car and tried to drag her into it from the sidewalk. Broad daylight. Yeesh.

Here it is!
http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=sesame+street+stick+of+butter+carton+of+milk+loaf+of+bread&FORM=VIRE1#view=detail&mid=420FCBBDEF789672876E420FCBBDEF789672876E

[Anonymous]

Looks like the racist troll found this thread