Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

I do think it is strange that it took CPS so long to call the parents. I'm not suggesting that they should have handed the kids back over without investigating, but why not just inform them of the status and where the kids were?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's just for a minute think like the kids. Why do they really want to go to the playground by themselves?

Answer: To get away from their parents or exercise independence and show maturity?

My children want to go to the playground by themselves because they think it's fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you think kids should be able to roam unsupervised at 4. Ok. We definitely disagree. Just because you survived doesn't mean that's a good benchmark.

How many K students died walking to school in the 50-90's? I am curious. Paranoid much?

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These parents are horrible. They obviously didn't learn their lesson but they will. They seem so lazy. Would it kill them to spend time with the kids? Selfish idiots.

Totally agree. Sunday was a beautiful day. It was a real family day for us. We went to see the cherry blossoms and enjoyed a playground and scootering and lunch. We didn't just ditch the kids at a playground. I enjoy watching my kids play.

Pssst. Are you one of those parents my son tells me about? He teaches at UCLA and complains about the parents that follow their children to college and then complain to him about their kid's grades and how college isn't pandering to their every need.

I LOVE my children and totally enjoyed going places and doing things with them. However, nothing beats learning how to interact with other kids than being set loose on a playground. This leads to learning how to play nice as an adult too.

My next project at work is a poster for one of our departments explaining to new recruits how to play nice with their co-workers and not be a self-centered jerk. I am not making this up. We have to have a poster teaching 20-somethings how not to be a self-center jerk and that the world does not revolve around them and their needs. My photo pull was of braying asses. I think most of them could have used a good punch in the arm from a neighbor kid on the playground when they were younger. Oh, but they are "special."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

Just a guess, but two thoughts are fewer cars on the road and more mothers at home during the day? Plus other kids were likely walking the same route with them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again, or else -- right? Otherwise it's not a threat. And if the "or else" isn't that CPS will remove the kids, what is it?

Yes, I guess that's the implicit threat. That's also the implicit threat of what will happen if I physically abuse my kids. I think I'm okay with that.

So you think walking home from the park is so dangerous that the kids would be better off in foster care?

Never said that. Neither did CPs. Take your meds and calm down. CPS doesn't want your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Time to jail the parents

Totally agree. Something needs to be done with about the parents. Is it a 3 strikes and you're out policy for parents too?

And sooooooo helpful to the children too!

Nothing keeps a childhood full of potential like two parents in jail for the crime of letting your child walk on a public street.

Isn't that just in North Korea or somewhere like that?

Seems like anything else is better than the 2 parents they have now.

I get it. You don't like the parents. That's not a reason to put people in jail, and it's not a reason to remove children from their home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The part of this story that bothers me most is that the kids were picked up by the police around 5 pm and then held them in their car until 7pm before transporting them to CPS, presumably parked on road between the park and their home. The parents said they expected the kids to be back by 6pm.

While we can argue all day long about whether free range parenting is legal or not... what the heck did the parents due from 6pm-7pm when their kids were missing.... they obviously did not look for them on the way to the park because they would have found them right there with the police officers... they didn't go look for them until they got a call at 8pm from CPS... If my kids were missing for even 15 minutes I would have been frantically looking for them and flagged down the cop i saw on the way to the park they were playing at...

Maybe the parents did go looking, saw the kids with the police, knew they were safe, and decided to let this whole thing play out for maximum media coverage...

I can't really imagine anyone doing that, but it does make me wonder how quickly they would be able to get to the kids if they needed help. These were two little kids out by themselves and their parents couldn't find them even though they were apparently only two blocks away from home.

When I was at Girl Scout camp, we always had to have two buddies whenever we went anywhere. That way if one got hurt, one could go for help and one could stay with the girl who was hurt. These kids would have had to leave one alone if one got hurt.

[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."

How much of that is due to increased supervision?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again, or else -- right? Otherwise it's not a threat. And if the "or else" isn't that CPS will remove the kids, what is it?

Yes, I guess that's the implicit threat. That's also the implicit threat of what will happen if I physically abuse my kids. I think I'm okay with that.

So you think walking home from the park is so dangerous that the kids would be better off in foster care?

Never said that. Neither did CPs. Take your meds and calm down. CPS doesn't want your kids.

That's good. Then I don't have to worry that CPS will take the children. But how come CPS made the parents sign a paper pledging not to leave the children unattended, not even in their own yard or walking to the school bus stop? What if the parents let the children play in their yard by themselves after signing the paper? What would CPS do?

[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."

How much of that is due to increased supervision?

Since all violent crime is down, I'm guessing that the answer is "little or none".

[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.

Nah. I wasn't allowed to roam free before 8 and was a highly capable young adult. Don't be silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So now I'm paranoid for not thinking 4 is old enough to walk to school by yourself. Okayyyyy

How come four-year-olds used to be able to do it, and now they aren't?

Just a guess, but two thoughts are fewer cars on the road and more mothers at home during the day? Plus other kids were likely walking the same route with them?

Bingo! I think you've brought up some great points here. I walked to school with a big group of neighbor kids and there were moms in houses all along the route to school.

[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."

How much of that is due to increased supervision?

Since all violent crime is down, I'm guessing that the answer is "little or none".

Look closer at the stats. The decrease in most violent crime is due to the breakup of drug based gang violence. That doesn't answer the question of what's driving the decrease of violence against children.