Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, kids who are neglected tend to be very independent at a young age.

And kids who are coddled are whiny, anxious, have attention issues and run to Mommy for everything. They also say " I am bored" all the times because they can't entertain themselves.

Agreed. So find the happy medium. Tip: 6 year olds do not benefit from walking to the park in DTSS with their (tiny) 10 year old brother...especially when CPS has told their parents not to let them do this, thus putting the kids at risk of being picked up by cops and held by CPS. Duh.

I disagree completely. I think sibling playing together and learning their way without parents around is completely acceptable. I had two older sisters, one that was 5yrs older than me and even at 5 I could walk home from the half day bus alone. But if I was with her, I could go to the ball fields, park, up to the 7-11. It is no different. I was 6 and she was 11. I loved those times!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all of course realize we are discussing a mere pimple on the ass of an elephant - right?

I work with Department of Justice's Drug Endangered Children section.

This isn't even a pimple. It's a hair compared to what it is like to be one of these drug-endangered children!!!!!

Think about what you can do as a responsible parent to help the real children in need.
They wish walking to the park was the biggest and most dangerous problem in their lives!

How about: get CPS to stop wasting their resources on the Meitivs?

[Anonymous]

Hell, my parents pretty much let me do whatever I wanted, and if I knew how to entertain myself, I wouldn't spend so much time on this site.


Aren't you entertaining yourself by spending so much time on this site? Otherwise why do it?

Well, pretty much any kid can self entertain by starting at a TV or ipad as well. My point is that there's a difference between entertaining yourself and doing so productively, and I don't think that parents leaving you alone necessarily helps you do the latter. In some cases it may, in some it may not.

[Anonymous]

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.

You're certain that they're doing that, eh? Why? Do you know them?

Have you read interviews with them? They're not just saying, "Oh, what the hell, let's drop the kids off in the woods with bread crumbs in their pockets and let them make their way home, it seems like they ought to be ready for that." They have really thought about these questions systematically. In fact, they've probably thought about them much more than I have.

Agreed. They are looking at it based on math and science, and the way organizations assess risk, not beliefs based on emotions.

Oh, of course, that makes sense now. How silly to allow emotion to affect my decisions about parenting my children! I am sure that when they are adults my children will be much happier if I switch to a math- and science-based parenting system.

I think it's even worse - they are doing this because they consider themselves adherents of an internet parenting philosophy, based on some blogs and facebook groups. Instead of actually considering their children and actual community, they are just following the label of "free range parwnt." The exact way people decide to be anti-vax or attachmdnt parents based on blogs and then get those decisions reinforced through online forums rather than the realbworld. They are adopting an internet based identity and defending it, not actually figuring out what is best for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter what I think... it's what CPS, and ultimately a judge thinks.

Allowing the children to stay with parents who repeatedly ignore what CPS tells them not to do, is not a great way to get CPS to say that it is the kids best interest to reamain with their parents. At best you are rolling the dice that they will say it's not worth putting the kids in foster care, at worst you lose your kids... not a gamble i think any parent, who wants to keep their kids would take.

Hence why one of the best lawyer teams is helping them sue pro bono. Because CPS can not base an opinion when there is no law to follow and make up a safety clause. And then hold their kids without notifying them and then hold them hostage once they arrive until they sign it. Guarantee the parents will win this case.

If the law is changed in the future maybe. But for now CPS has no grounds for what they did

We'll see. As a lawyer who's read the regs, I disagree. But I do think it will be tough on the kids, but of course the parents don't care about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all of course realize we are discussing a mere pimple on the ass of an elephant - right?

I work with Department of Justice's Drug Endangered Children section.

This isn't even a pimple. It's a hair compared to what it is like to be one of these drug-endangered children!!!!!

Think about what you can do as a responsible parent to help the real children in need.

They wish walking to the park was the biggest and most dangerous problem in their lives!

Sure, we know that. That's why we think CPS should stop wasting time and resources on these kids and focus on kids who actually need help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, kids who are neglected tend to be very independent at a young age.

And kids who are coddled are whiny, anxious, have attention issues and run to Mommy for everything. They also say " I am bored" all the times because they can't entertain themselves.

Agreed. So find the happy medium. Tip: 6 year olds do not benefit from walking to the park in DTSS with their (tiny) 10 year old brother...especially when CPS has told their parents not to let them do this, thus putting the kids at risk of being picked up by cops and held by CPS. Duh.

They don't? Would they benefit from walking to the park in Silver Spring with the average-sized 10-year-old brother? What if instead they had a 9-year-old sister who was tall for her age? Then would they benefit?

Regardless, it's not for you to decide whether or not somebody else's children benefit from walking to the park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your kids are 8 and 11. Nobody cares.

So as long as you are over 8, it isn't illegal to be on your own at the playground or walk a couple blocks by yourself in MD?

I'm confused on this point, because the boy who got picked up by the police was 10.

I understand it was illegal for his 6 year old sister to be walking on the street without an adult (although this doesn't exactly seem to be a law that is officially spelled out anywhere, more like an understanding).

But why did they pick up the 10 year old?

Yes. You're confused. If the 10 yo we're alone it's no problem. Or if the youngest kid were 8.

[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.

You're certain that they're doing that, eh? Why? Do you know them?

Have you read interviews with them? They're not just saying, "Oh, what the hell, let's drop the kids off in the woods with bread crumbs in their pockets and let them make their way home, it seems like they ought to be ready for that." They have really thought about these questions systematically. In fact, they've probably thought about them much more than I have.

Agreed. They are looking at it based on math and science, and the way organizations assess risk, not beliefs based on emotions.

Oh, of course, that makes sense now. How silly to allow emotion to affect my decisions about parenting my children! I am sure that when they are adults my children will be much happier if I switch to a math- and science-based parenting system.

I think it's even worse - they are doing this because they consider themselves adherents of an internet parenting philosophy, based on some blogs and facebook groups. Instead of actually considering their children and actual community, they are just following the label of "free range parwnt." The exact way people decide to be anti-vax or attachmdnt parents based on blogs and then get those decisions reinforced through online forums rather than the realbworld. They are adopting an internet based identity and defending it, not actually figuring out what is best for their kids.

Maybe. I thought the family, wrongly it seems, expected a sensible safe place to raise their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what? That doesn't support the notion that "four year olds can do it". My brother could read at 2. Doesn't mean "two year olds can read".

It doesn't mean that all two-year-olds can read, but it actually does mean that two-year-olds can read.

So you think we should expect them to because some few do it. I think I see the source of the disconnect here

No. Nobody has said that all two-year-olds can or should read. And nobody has said that all four-year-olds can or should walk to school safely by themselves. What people have said is that many four-year-olds and most six-year-olds did used to walk to school safely by themselves.

No they didn't. More mythologizing of the good old days. Support your "most" claim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

What on earth would the costs possibly be? You get to take a nice walk with your kid, watch them go into school, and enjoy the assurance of knowing that they got in ok. It's not like there is a social cost to a kid that age walking with a parent, unlike a 5th grader, who might get made fun of.


New parenting style = up their asses at all times.

If you say so. I don't consider the hour and a half I see my 6 year old awake 5 days a week to be such. But apparently since part of that hour and a half involves walking him to school, you do.

Well that is a problem too. Overworked parents never around. Structured school, structured daycare, structured 1.5hrs with parents and off to bed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter what I think... it's what CPS, and ultimately a judge thinks.

Allowing the children to stay with parents who repeatedly ignore what CPS tells them not to do, is not a great way to get CPS to say that it is the kids best interest to reamain with their parents. At best you are rolling the dice that they will say it's not worth putting the kids in foster care, at worst you lose your kids... not a gamble i think any parent, who wants to keep their kids would take.

Hence why one of the best lawyer teams is helping them sue pro bono. Because CPS can not base an opinion when there is no law to follow and make up a safety clause. And then hold their kids without notifying them and then hold them hostage once they arrive until they sign it. Guarantee the parents will win this case.

If the law is changed in the future maybe. But for now CPS has no grounds for what they did

I really hope you're right.

No, they will lose. There is no specific law needed - the general law on child neglect is enough.

Also, the Meitevs are just demonstrating further poor judgment bu retaining pro bono biglaw with presumably no expertise in MD child welfare cases. They need a family law expert first to resolve the CPS case. Then once the kids are safe from being taken away they can sue. Their present strategy belies more attention seeking motivation than actual desire to protect the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your kids are 8 and 11. Nobody cares.

So as long as you are over 8, it isn't illegal to be on your own at the playground or walk a couple blocks by yourself in MD?

I'm confused on this point, because the boy who got picked up by the police was 10.

I understand it was illegal for his 6 year old sister to be walking on the street without an adult (although this doesn't exactly seem to be a law that is officially spelled out anywhere, more like an understanding).

But why did they pick up the 10 year old?

Yes. You're confused. If the 10 yo we're alone it's no problem. Or if the youngest kid were 8.

That still doesn't explain why they picked up the 10-year-old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, kids who are neglected tend to be very independent at a young age.

And kids who are coddled are whiny, anxious, have attention issues and run to Mommy for everything. They also say " I am bored" all the times because they can't entertain themselves.

Agreed. So find the happy medium. Tip: 6 year olds do not benefit from walking to the park in DTSS with their (tiny) 10 year old brother...especially when CPS has told their parents not to let them do this, thus putting the kids at risk of being picked up by cops and held by CPS. Duh.

They don't? Would they benefit from walking to the park in Silver Spring with the average-sized 10-year-old brother? What if instead they had a 9-year-old sister who was tall for her age? Then would they benefit?

Regardless, it's not for you to decide whether or not somebody else's children benefit from walking to the park.

But it's for you to decide the truth of a situation you didn't witness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Your kids are 8 and 11. Nobody cares.

So as long as you are over 8, it isn't illegal to be on your own at the playground or walk a couple blocks by yourself in MD?

I'm confused on this point, because the boy who got picked up by the police was 10.

I understand it was illegal for his 6 year old sister to be walking on the street without an adult (although this doesn't exactly seem to be a law that is officially spelled out anywhere, more like an understanding).

But why did they pick up the 10 year old?

Yes. You're confused. If the 10 yo we're alone it's no problem. Or if the youngest kid were 8.

That still doesn't explain why they picked up the 10-year-old.

Because it's against the regs for a kid under 11 to be left to supervise a kid under 8.