Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Paranoia people - calm down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Do you think nine and ten year olds should be babysitting?

9 and 10yr olds are not middle schoolers. Please reread. Yes, middle schoolers are old enough to babysit.

Reread the second post. The poster was babysitting starting at age nine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More oversight = less deaths

There are not less deaths because the world is safer so lalalala.. let the kids roam free. There are less deaths because parents are required to follow laws.

All violent crime is down, not just violent crime affecting children. Is that also because of child neglect laws?

Some economists say it's due to legalizing abortion in the 70s. A lot of future criminals weren't born.

I think it's a mix, including better policing, better reporting (everyone has a cellphone), and better awareness. Regardless, it means that statistically you're less likely to be a victim of violent crime now vs 30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

More oversight = less deaths

There are not less deaths because the world is safer so lalalala.. let the kids roam free. There are less deaths because parents are required to follow laws.

All violent crime is down, not just violent crime affecting children. Is that also because of child neglect laws?

Some economists say it's due to legalizing abortion in the 70s. A lot of future criminals weren't born.

I think it's a mix, including better policing, better reporting (everyone has a cellphone), and better awareness. Regardless, it means that statistically you're less likely to be a victim of violent crime now vs 30 years ago.

Don't forget phasing out leaded paint and leaded gasoline.

[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?

You are taking an extremely narrow view, IMHO. It's not like we don't allow a group of 12 year olds to ride bikes around the neighborhood, play at the park and walk to 7-11. There's plenty of time for kids to be independent, so why the rush to send a 10 year old and his 6 year old to the park?

My 11 year old (who will be 12 soon and looks much older) is allowed to venture off with the neighborhood boys (ages 11-13), but I don't make him take his 7 year old brother with him. My 7 year old still has plenty of time to be independent when he gets a little older. What's the rush?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Even an adult reading a book or an iPhone would have been enough to save my cousin. Most people can read and be aware of what's going in around them at the same time and would recognize a dangerous situation that a child most likely would not.

That is not true. What is true is that most people BELIEVE that they can fiddle with their phones and be aware of what's going on around them at the same time. Which explains why texting while driving is so common.

Driving a moving, three ton vehicle is very different from sitting on a bench watching children playing. Maybe not all adults but many can read or carry on a conversation while supervising children playing. I'd rather have an adult with a book or a phone watching out for my little kids than no adult at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:]

You are taking an extremely narrow view, IMHO. It's not like we don't allow a group of 12 year olds to ride bikes around the neighborhood, play at the park and walk to 7-11. There's plenty of time for kids to be independent, so why the rush to send a 10 year old and his 6 year old to the park?

My 11 year old (who will be 12 soon and looks much older) is allowed to venture off with the neighborhood boys (ages 11-13), but I don't make him take his 7 year old brother with him. My 7 year old still has plenty of time to be independent when he gets a little older. What's the rush?

If they're ready to go, and they want to go, why the delay?

[Anonymous]

9 and 10yr olds are not middle schoolers. Please reread. Yes, middle schoolers are old enough to babysit.

What do you view as middle school? Where I live, it is grades 6-8. Unless there is redshirting, the law requiring a babysitter to be 13 if the charge is under 8 would not allow babysitting in 6th and 7th grades for most kids.

[Anonymous]

My 11 year old (who will be 12 soon and looks much older) is allowed to venture off with the neighborhood boys (ages 11-13), but I don't make him take his 7 year old brother with him. My 7 year old still has plenty of time to be independent when he gets a little older. What's the rush?


If they're ready to go, and they want to go, why the delay?

Because her 11 year old wants to play with his friends as opposed to babysitting his 7 year old brother, perhaps?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

My 11 year old (who will be 12 soon and looks much older) is allowed to venture off with the neighborhood boys (ages 11-13), but I don't make him take his 7 year old brother with him. My 7 year old still has plenty of time to be independent when he gets a little older. What's the rush?


If they're ready to go, and they want to go, why the delay?

Because her 11 year old wants to play with his friends as opposed to babysitting his 7 year old brother, perhaps?

In that case, obviously the "they want to go" condition doesn't apply.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous
Interesting how most of the posters in that thread think it is inappropriate for a 14 year old to be babysitting, but here there are some who are okay with nine and ten year olds being responsible for younger children.



A child in DC died from chocking with its parents in the room. The parents phoned 911 within seconds, but the child died at the hospital.

My sister almost drowned in the ocean because the lifeguard wouldn't believe she was in trouble. I had to go out and pull her in myself with a beach full of people watching.
I was 13.

Bad things happen to children in front of full grown adults. Don't think for an instant that your child is totally safe because you are sitting there.

BTW, you can get married at 15 in some states with your parent's permission.

[Anonymous]

...and my 11 year old can ride his bike faster and more safely across the street than my 7 year old. And sometimes older siblings are jerks to their younger siblings.

I think many posters are recalling their childhood through rose colored glasses. If you had an older sibling, then you'd remember getting ditched or struggling to keep up.

Another thought: height. Drivers can easily see my 11 year old (he's tall), but my 7 year old is on the short side...so are the Meitiv kids (both of them).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

BTW, you can get married at 15 in some states with your parent's permission.

You can get married at 15 in Maryland if you're pregnant or have given birth.

http://www.courts.state.md.us/clerks/washington/marriage.html

So maybe 15 is old enough to babysit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...and my 11 year old can ride his bike faster and more safely across the street than my 7 year old. And sometimes older siblings are jerks to their younger siblings.

I think many posters are recalling their childhood through rose colored glasses. If you had an older sibling, then you'd remember getting ditched or struggling to keep up.

Another thought: height. Drivers can easily see my 11 year old (he's tall), but my 7 year old is on the short side...so are the Meitiv kids (both of them).

If the older sibling doesn't want to go with the younger sibling, that's one thing. But what if the older sibling does want to go with the younger sibling?

Also, are you suggesting that the laws should be height-related, like roller coaster rides? For example: you must be at least 4 feet 5 inches tall to walk home from the park by yourself; if you are under 4 feet 5 inches tall, you must be accompanied by somebody who is at least 5 feet tall. That would be really hard on the adults I know who are 4 feet 11.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn't the kids speak up and demand to call their parents? Why come the kids didn't fight back, run off, refuse to go, use their cell phone to immediately call their parents? What happened to the mature, knows what to do even In a frightening situation 10 yr old?

Imagine now it wasn't the police who came along and took the kids.

Clearly the 10 yr old and 6 yr old aren't equipped to deal with situations like the parents believed.

Clearly the biggest threat to these kids are the police and CPS.

I think the parents are the biggest threat to the kids. Why would you put your kids in that situation?