Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New post article up with actual statistics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/14/theres-never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/

"So where does that leave us in the debate over "free-range" children? Kids are dying less. They're being killed less. They're getting hit by cars less. And they're going missing less frequently, too. The likelihood of any of these scenarios is both historically low and infinitesimally small."

Shhhh - the helicopter moms will have none of this. They will say it is safer because of their helicoptering. I say they are making their teens and eventual college students and adults unsafe by smothering them. We will all continue to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

While I don't doubt their efforts and good intentions, if their kids are hanging out in a parking garage when the Meitivs told them to hang out at the park, no, they have not made an accurate assessment their children's responsibility, trustworthiness, and judgment.

But in fact the kids were not hanging out in a parking garage, nor did the Meitivs tell them to hang out at the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Uh, no. The implicit threat with CPS was they had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again. CPS isn't going to remove the kids unless they think the kids' welfare is in danger. That may happen, but not because they want to prove a point.

Did these parents sign somethng like that? Just curious.

Last night they did only because they were coerced by saying they wouldn't let them see their kids or take them home until they do. They fought for 2hrs before giving up and signing. They are now suring.

They have never signed anything previously

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New post article up with actual statistics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/14/theres-never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/

"So where does that leave us in the debate over "free-range" children? Kids are dying less. They're being killed less. They're getting hit by cars less. And they're going missing less frequently, too. The likelihood of any of these scenarios is both historically low and infinitesimally small."

Shhhh - the helicopter moms will have none of this. They will say it is safer because of their helicoptering. I say they are making their teens and eventual college students and adults unsafe by smothering them. We will all continue to disagree.

Shhhh - the Range Rover parents will have none of this. They will say it has nothing to do with child neglect laws being in place.

[Anonymous]

I guess I come at it from a somewhat different perspective. My parents constantly made me care for my sister (5 years younger) when I was a middle schooler (think every day all day long when we were not in school and every day after school). While I was able to handle most situations fine, a few arose that were really outside of my capabilities and it was traumatic for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is suggesting that it's a good idea for a six-year-old who has never walked anywhere ever to suddenly start walking to school by themselves. As you say, you teach them as they grow and develop, so that by the time they are six, they are capable of walking to school by themselves.

I'm suggesting that six year olds should not be playing in parks with their only supervision being 10 year olds. When kids are playing, they let down their guard and may do things that an adult would see and correct immediately. An adult will tell kids playing too close to the street to move farther away, another kid will not.

I can name a number of situations from the "old days" where kids were harmed because of lack of appropriate supervision. We can learn from the mistakes of previous generations and do better for our kids. I've seen the results of sending kids out without supervision when they are too young and I knew I wanted better for my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm suggesting that six year olds should not be playing in parks with their only supervision being 10 year olds. When kids are playing, they let down their guard and may do things that an adult would see and correct immediately. An adult will tell kids playing too close to the street to move farther away, another kid will not.

I can name a number of situations from the "old days" where kids were harmed because of lack of appropriate supervision. We can learn from the mistakes of previous generations and do better for our kids. I've seen the results of sending kids out without supervision when they are too young and I knew I wanted better for my kids.

But should it be child neglect for a six-year-old to play in the park with a ten-year-old and no parent supervision?

Also, what's the trade-off? Children don't go anywhere these days without a parent. The benefit (perhaps) is that they are safer. The cost is that they don't learn to be independent and rely on themselves. Do you think that the benefit is worth the cost?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess I come at it from a somewhat different perspective. My parents constantly made me care for my sister (5 years younger) when I was a middle schooler (think every day all day long when we were not in school and every day after school). While I was able to handle most situations fine, a few arose that were really outside of my capabilities and it was traumatic for me.

Yes, I have also had that experience. I was very mature and frequently was put in charge of younger siblings starting when I was about nine. It was not fair to me as I was a worrier and stressed a lot about doing the right thing. It also affects the sibling dynamics when one kid is in charge of the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is suggesting that it's a good idea for a six-year-old who has never walked anywhere ever to suddenly start walking to school by themselves. As you say, you teach them as they grow and develop, so that by the time they are six, they are capable of walking to school by themselves.

I'm suggesting that six year olds should not be playing in parks with their only supervision being 10 year olds. When kids are playing, they let down their guard and may do things that an adult would see and correct immediately. An adult will tell kids playing too close to the street to move farther away, another kid will not.

I can name a number of situations from the "old days" where kids were harmed because of lack of appropriate supervision. We can learn from the mistakes of previous generations and do better for our kids. I've seen the results of sending kids out without supervision when they are too young and I knew I wanted better for my kids.

Funny, all I see are parents buried in their iPhones, not actually watching their kids at the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New post article up with actual statistics

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/04/14/theres-never-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/

"So where does that leave us in the debate over "free-range" children? Kids are dying less. They're being killed less. They're getting hit by cars less. And they're going missing less frequently, too. The likelihood of any of these scenarios is both historically low and infinitesimally small."

Shhhh - the helicopter moms will have none of this. They will say it is safer because of their helicoptering. I say they are making their teens and eventual college students and adults unsafe by smothering them. We will all continue to disagree.

Shhhh - the Range Rover parents will have none of this. They will say it has nothing to do with child neglect laws being in place.

Which child neglect laws? I am curious how that even makes a difference in the article.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess I come at it from a somewhat different perspective. My parents constantly made me care for my sister (5 years younger) when I was a middle schooler (think every day all day long when we were not in school and every day after school). While I was able to handle most situations fine, a few arose that were really outside of my capabilities and it was traumatic for me.

Yes, I have also had that experience. I was very mature and frequently was put in charge of younger siblings starting when I was about nine. It was not fair to me as I was a worrier and stressed a lot about doing the right thing. It also affects the sibling dynamics when one kid is in charge of the others.

Oh good God. So now siblings can't babysit either? That should be the next MD law I guess

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Funny, all I see are parents buried in their iPhones, not actually watching their kids at the park.

I actually think that's a good thing. It's not good for kids to have their parents hovering over them constantly.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
Funny, all I see are parents buried in their iPhones, not actually watching their kids at the park.

ROFLMAO! How true; how true!

[Anonymous]

04/14/2015 14:23 poster:

If I remember correctly, they might have signed some sort of a safety plan before (during the last incident). This happened when the police brought the kids home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm suggesting that six year olds should not be playing in parks with their only supervision being 10 year olds. When kids are playing, they let down their guard and may do things that an adult would see and correct immediately. An adult will tell kids playing too close to the street to move farther away, another kid will not.

I can name a number of situations from the "old days" where kids were harmed because of lack of appropriate supervision. We can learn from the mistakes of previous generations and do better for our kids. I've seen the results of sending kids out without supervision when they are too young and I knew I wanted better for my kids.

But should it be child neglect for a six-year-old to play in the park with a ten-year-old and no parent supervision?

Also, what's the trade-off? Children don't go anywhere these days without a parent. The benefit (perhaps) is that they are safer. The cost is that they don't learn to be independent and rely on themselves. Do you think that the benefit is worth the cost?

Kids are perfectly capable of learning independence and responsibility without being sent out by themselves at six and ten. Some of my kids are adults now and have responsible jobs and support themselves. The oldest saved up and bought a house, with no help from us. They rely on themselves while being confident of the love and encouragement of their parents. I did my best to give them the safety and security they needed as a foundation to go out into the world on their own. They're doing great even though I didn't drop them off at parks and have them walk home by themselves at the ages of six and ten.