Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There weren't any school buses at my elementary school and anybody whose mom drove them was considered a pansy and picked on. So, yep, everybody else walked in from all over the area. K through 6. (Downtown Silver Spring)

Downtown silver spring was a smidge different in 1970s wasn't it? And were you walking in groups of kids? And again, you have not supported your claim that most 6yos walked by themselves.

Totally by myself for most of the trip. And then after that it was 5,6, and 7 year olds. Downtown Silver Spring was really quite frightening in the 1970s. My mom stopped shopping there because it had gotten a little too seedy and scary. My family was standing on the street waiting to buy tickets for an event at the only Tickettron, when a cop stopped to tell my mom to put her purse strap across her chest and have the flap face her body to prevent snatch-and-grab or pickpocketing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

I am not a lawyer, and I never said that I was. Here are the assumptions you're making:

1. retaining pro bono big law demonstrates poor judgment
2. the law firm has no expertise in Maryland child welfare cases
3. the parents are out for attention

Do you know any of this stuff? No, you don't.

Meanwhile, the reason they shouldn't have been picked up on a report of child neglect in general is because walking home from the park neither harmed the children’s health or welfare nor placed the children in substantial risk of harm. Or rather, wouldn't have harmed them/placed them in substantial risk of harm, except for that whole 911/police/CPS thing.

Actual lawyer here. 1 and 2 are very good assessments. Do know the firm. 3 is certainly a matter of opinion, but with some pretty solid basis since they could have resolved this quietly with no fuss very easily and chose not to.

[Anonymous]

I wonder how many of the parents arguing this is ok actually go to the playgrounds on a regular basis and see what is going on. When we go, very few parents are engaged or involved. Its amazing how many kids are dropped off or checked out parents on their phones or tablets. It is so frustrating when kids come up to you and expect you to help them and they are big and heavy and harass you till you do it. Given the sue happy world we live in, no way are we doing that. We will play with and engage the kids but it is so frustrating to basically be babysitting another child, many of whom are not social to our child or even near the same age. Then, the demands for food and drink come. If you are going to drop off your kid, be responsible - give them food, water, and a way to contact you in case of emergency. It should not be other parents responsibility to care for your kids, especially in an emergency. If you are at the playground, look up and come help your kid.

I'm surprised any attorney would waste their time, especially for free defending them. These parents are setting up this fight even though they are clearly neglectful. Its one thing to send two 11 year olds, but not a 6 and 11 year old without any way to contact the parents, no food, water, nothing. That is neglect. Neglect is failing to properly supervise your child and not adequately providing them with the things they need, such as food and water (especially kids with food allergies).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There weren't any school buses at my elementary school and anybody whose mom drove them was considered a pansy and picked on. So, yep, everybody else walked in from all over the area. K through 6. (Downtown Silver Spring)

Downtown silver spring was a smidge different in 1970s wasn't it? And were you walking in groups of kids? And again, you have not supported your claim that most 6yos walked by themselves.

Totally by myself for most of the trip. And then after that it was 5,6, and 7 year olds. Downtown Silver Spring was really quite frightening in the 1970s. My mom stopped shopping there because it had gotten a little too seedy and scary. My family was standing on the street waiting to buy tickets for an event at the only Tickettron, when a cop stopped to tell my mom to put her purse strap across her chest and have the flap face her body to prevent snatch-and-grab or pickpocketing.

So your mother thought it was too scary for her to go shopping there, but okay for her six year old alone. Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

I am not a lawyer, and I never said that I was. Here are the assumptions you're making:

1. retaining pro bono big law demonstrates poor judgment
2. the law firm has no expertise in Maryland child welfare cases
3. the parents are out for attention

Do you know any of this stuff? No, you don't.

Meanwhile, the reason they shouldn't have been picked up on a report of child neglect in general is because walking home from the park neither harmed the children’s health or welfare nor placed the children in substantial risk of harm. Or rather, wouldn't have harmed them/placed them in substantial risk of harm, except for that whole 911/police/CPS thing.

It is extremely doubtful that this firm has md family court experience. You do not want glamour lawyers for this stuff. You w want a local lawyer with experience in the local courts who nows the judges and prosecutors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

I am not a lawyer, and I never said that I was. Here are the assumptions you're making:

1. retaining pro bono big law demonstrates poor judgment
2. the law firm has no expertise in Maryland child welfare cases
3. the parents are out for attention

Do you know any of this stuff? No, you don't.

Meanwhile, the reason they shouldn't have been picked up on a report of child neglect in general is because walking home from the park neither harmed the children’s health or welfare nor placed the children in substantial risk of harm. Or rather, wouldn't have harmed them/placed them in substantial risk of harm, except for that whole 911/police/CPS thing.

Actual lawyer here. 1 and 2 are very good assessments. Do know the firm. 3 is certainly a matter of opinion, but with some pretty solid basis since they could have resolved this quietly with no fuss very easily and chose not to.

The parents are looking for attention and for a battle. They are deliberately sending their kids out after being told not too and using them in the media to prove their point. Its interesting that the Washington Post published a pro article so quickly after the incident. This sounds like it was all preplanned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Downtown silver spring was a smidge different in 1970s wasn't it? And were you walking in groups of kids? And again, you have not supported your claim that most 6yos walked by themselves.

Oh, we're back to the idea that urban areas are dangerous for children.

What kind of evidence would you accept to support the claim that it used to be routine, normal, and unremarkable for six-year-olds to walk to school by themselves at least part of the way? (And how old are you?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how many of the parents arguing this is ok actually go to the playgrounds on a regular basis and see what is going on. When we go, very few parents are engaged or involved. Its amazing how many kids are dropped off or checked out parents on their phones or tablets. It is so frustrating when kids come up to you and expect you to help them and they are big and heavy and harass you till you do it. Given the sue happy world we live in, no way are we doing that. We will play with and engage the kids but it is so frustrating to basically be babysitting another child, many of whom are not social to our child or even near the same age. Then, the demands for food and drink come. If you are going to drop off your kid, be responsible - give them food, water, and a way to contact you in case of emergency. It should not be other parents responsibility to care for your kids, especially in an emergency. If you are at the playground, look up and come help your kid.

I'm surprised any attorney would waste their time, especially for free defending them. These parents are setting up this fight even though they are clearly neglectful. Its one thing to send two 11 year olds, but not a 6 and 11 year old without any way to contact the parents, no food, water, nothing. That is neglect. Neglect is failing to properly supervise your child and not adequately providing them with the things they need, such as food and water (especially kids with food allergies).

This exact post shows up in General Parenting frequently. They are usually referring to 2 year olds, though, not 6 and 10 year olds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

I am not a lawyer, and I never said that I was. Here are the assumptions you're making:

1. retaining pro bono big law demonstrates poor judgment
2. the law firm has no expertise in Maryland child welfare cases
3. the parents are out for attention

Do you know any of this stuff? No, you don't.

Meanwhile, the reason they shouldn't have been picked up on a report of child neglect in general is because walking home from the park neither harmed the children’s health or welfare nor placed the children in substantial risk of harm. Or rather, wouldn't have harmed them/placed them in substantial risk of harm, except for that whole 911/police/CPS thing.

It is extremely doubtful that this firm has md family court experience. You do not want glamour lawyers for this stuff. You w want a local lawyer with experience in the local courts who nows the judges and prosecutors.

Well, yeah. But you also want the lawyer you can afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There weren't any school buses at my elementary school and anybody whose mom drove them was considered a pansy and picked on. So, yep, everybody else walked in from all over the area. K through 6. (Downtown Silver Spring)

We moved right after the "purse" incident.

Downtown silver spring was a smidge different in 1970s wasn't it? And were you walking in groups of kids? And again, you have not supported your claim that most 6yos walked by themselves.

Totally by myself for most of the trip. And then after that it was 5,6, and 7 year olds. Downtown Silver Spring was really quite frightening in the 1970s. My mom stopped shopping there because it had gotten a little too seedy and scary. My family was standing on the street waiting to buy tickets for an event at the only Tickettron, when a cop stopped to tell my mom to put her purse strap across her chest and have the flap face her body to prevent snatch-and-grab or pickpocketing.

So your mother thought it was too scary for her to go shopping there, but okay for her six year old alone. Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

I am not a lawyer, and I never said that I was. Here are the assumptions you're making:

1. retaining pro bono big law demonstrates poor judgment
2. the law firm has no expertise in Maryland child welfare cases
3. the parents are out for attention

Do you know any of this stuff? No, you don't.

Meanwhile, the reason they shouldn't have been picked up on a report of child neglect in general is because walking home from the park neither harmed the children’s health or welfare nor placed the children in substantial risk of harm. Or rather, wouldn't have harmed them/placed them in substantial risk of harm, except for that whole 911/police/CPS thing.

Actual lawyer here. 1 and 2 are very good assessments. Do know the firm. 3 is certainly a matter of opinion, but with some pretty solid basis since they could have resolved this quietly with no fuss very easily and chose not to.

Thanks! Do you want to hire me? Promise to minimize dcum time at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Downtown silver spring was a smidge different in 1970s wasn't it? And were you walking in groups of kids? And again, you have not supported your claim that most 6yos walked by themselves.

Oh, we're back to the idea that urban areas are dangerous for children.

What kind of evidence would you accept to support the claim that it used to be routine, normal, and unremarkable for six-year-olds to walk to school by themselves at least part of the way? (And how old are you?)

I'm 40. Do you have any stats? Never said urban areas are per se dangerous. But certainly more traffic there than there used to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

There weren't any school buses at my elementary school and anybody whose mom drove them was considered a pansy and picked on. So, yep, everybody else walked in from all over the area. K through 6. (Downtown Silver Spring)

We moved right after the "purse" incident.

Downtown silver spring was a smidge different in 1970s wasn't it? And were you walking in groups of kids? And again, you have not supported your claim that most 6yos walked by themselves.

Totally by myself for most of the trip. And then after that it was 5,6, and 7 year olds. Downtown Silver Spring was really quite frightening in the 1970s. My mom stopped shopping there because it had gotten a little too seedy and scary. My family was standing on the street waiting to buy tickets for an event at the only Tickettron, when a cop stopped to tell my mom to put her purse strap across her chest and have the flap face her body to prevent snatch-and-grab or pickpocketing.

So your mother thought it was too scary for her to go shopping there, but okay for her six year old alone. Huh.

We moved right after the "purse" incident.

[Anonymous]

I rarely see children without parents at the playgrounds we go to. Where does pp live where she is accosted by gangs of thirsty, hungry, heavy orphans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

I am not a lawyer, and I never said that I was. Here are the assumptions you're making:

1. retaining pro bono big law demonstrates poor judgment
2. the law firm has no expertise in Maryland child welfare cases
3. the parents are out for attention

Do you know any of this stuff? No, you don't.

Meanwhile, the reason they shouldn't have been picked up on a report of child neglect in general is because walking home from the park neither harmed the children’s health or welfare nor placed the children in substantial risk of harm. Or rather, wouldn't have harmed them/placed them in substantial risk of harm, except for that whole 911/police/CPS thing.

Actual lawyer here. 1 and 2 are very good assessments. Do know the firm. 3 is certainly a matter of opinion, but with some pretty solid basis since they could have resolved this quietly with no fuss very easily and chose not to.

Thanks! Do you want to hire me? Promise to minimize dcum time at work.