Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, for their "impact litigation" it might be a reasonable choice. But for dealing with ths CPS case? No way. This family has plenty of money to hire a competent practitioner skilled in these matters. And it is a questionable thing to be mounting your high profile civil suit before, you know, making sure your kods will not be removed.

How do you know that the family has plenty of money for a lawyer? Or maybe top-notch Maryland family lawyers are cheap?

Plus I keep reading here on DCUM that the kids will not be removed, that CPS has no interest in removing the kids.

[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.

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.

I've been practicing 20+ years in all of Virginia, DC and MD and I respectfully disagree. The family in all likelihood does not have the type of income necessary to retain and pay for a very good lawyer and law firm. This is not their criminal attorney, this is their litigation attorney and this particular attorney has substantial trial and appellate experience. I wouldn't be surprised if they do hire a local co-counsel t anticipate this will be a large lawsuit, going after the State, the municipality, the police department and the state agency (CPS). In all honestly I think this lawsuit is needed, to clarify once and for all what exactly the law says. That is what lawsuits do, establish case law to prove how laws are to be interpreted and carried out. As I read the Maryland code, the age restriction deals with being in a building, house or car. It does NOT discuss being in a public, open space. So does that mean that the law only excludes instances that are listed, is that list exhaustive, does that mean if it isn't explicated excluded it's included? There is too much discretion left to individuals in law enforcement and state agencies now with the law written as it is.

Wiley Rein is a respected and good law firm. they have the money to pay for out of pocket for good research, experts, analysis, and legal work. Sure, there is some free publicity for the firm, but all large firms these days are required to participate in pro bono and that is a very good thing. Many people cannot afford any legal representation whatsoever.

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

[Anonymous]

What makes you think they have "plenty of money"? Lawyers are expensive and their fees add up quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, in the Ramona books, Ramona and Beezus went all over town by themselves when Ramona was in kindergarten! Art class, the library...

True. How old was Beezus?

Ramona and Beezus went all over town by themselves before Ramona was in kindergarten. In Beezus and Ramona, Beezus is 9 and Ramona is 4.

And in case anybody points out the obvious, namely that this is fiction -- read Beverly Cleary's autobiography, A Girl from Yamhill. A lot of the Beezus and Ramona stories are based on her experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well, in the Ramona books, Ramona and Beezus went all over town by themselves when Ramona was in kindergarten! Art class, the library...

True. How old was Beezus?

Ramona and Beezus went all over town by themselves before Ramona was in kindergarten. In Beezus and Ramona, Beezus is 9 and Ramona is 4.

And in case anybody points out the obvious, namely that this is fiction -- read Beverly Cleary's autobiography, A Girl from Yamhill. A lot of the Beezus and Ramona stories are based on her experiences.

No I believe it. But I don't think it's at all comparable to this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

The law may well authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage. But does it authorize picking up two elementary-school-aged children who know where they're going, on a sidewalk next to a parking garage?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have to say I am always amazed at how I am requested to always have a snack and water for any two hour activity my child participates in.

I also have to say, having just moved from New York, downtown silver spring intersections seem shockingly dangerous. In New York, most would have traffic police monitoring the crossings... especially around the construction sites. Truth is, in New York we rarely cross six lane roads. Ever--except for Queens Blvd and Atlantic Ave.

I would have no issues having my nine year old brave the dangerous "gang infested" outdoor mall in dtss. I have issues even when I'm with her with crossing the intersections to get there. We walk everywhere and I've never seen a city with more empty parking garages and desolate sidewalks. Everyone in dtss sits in their car. This couple isn't the problem here. Your lousy urban planning is

I agree re urban planning. But the parents have to be realistic about where they are. It's not Mayberry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

The law may well authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage. But does it authorize picking up two elementary-school-aged children who know where they're going, on a sidewalk next to a parking garage?

Again, not consistent with the police report. I'm going to wait and see what the actual facts are. Not just believe one side's PR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I've been practicing 20+ years in all of Virginia, DC and MD and I respectfully disagree. The family in all likelihood does not have the type of income necessary to retain and pay for a very good lawyer and law firm. This is not their criminal attorney, this is their litigation attorney and this particular attorney has substantial trial and appellate experience. I wouldn't be surprised if they do hire a local co-counsel t anticipate this will be a large lawsuit, going after the State, the municipality, the police department and the state agency (CPS). In all honestly I think this lawsuit is needed, to clarify once and for all what exactly the law says. That is what lawsuits do, establish case law to prove how laws are to be interpreted and carried out. As I read the Maryland code, the age restriction deals with being in a building, house or car. It does NOT discuss being in a public, open space. So does that mean that the law only excludes instances that are listed, is that list exhaustive, does that mean if it isn't explicated excluded it's included? There is too much discretion left to individuals in law enforcement and state agencies now with the law written as it is.

Wiley Rein is a respected and good law firm. they have the money to pay for out of pocket for good research, experts, analysis, and legal work. Sure, there is some free publicity for the firm, but all large firms these days are required to participate in pro bono and that is a very good thing. Many people cannot afford any legal representation whatsoever.

Sure, for their "impact litigation" it might be a reasonable choice. But for dealing with ths CPS case? No way. This family has plenty of money to hire a competent practitioner skilled in these matters. And it is a questionable thing to be mounting your high profile civil suit before, you know, making sure your kods will not be removed.

What part about civil litigation and civil attorney do you not understand?? This isn't their criminal attorney. There isn't a criminal case against the parents yet. Do you have access to the parents' bank accounts? How in the world do you know how much money the parents have? A good attorney, a really, really good one, charges at a minimum $500 an hour, and will require a retainer in the thousands. As in, give us $20,000 for a retainer, and then we bill $500 an hour. The average person then doesn't have that much liquidity and flexibility.

And I don't see what is wrong with Wiley handling the CPS case. they are in fact based out of DC, they are a regional firm, who probably already has experience doing pro bono in family law matters. It amazes me what people just "think they know".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

The law may well authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage. But does it authorize picking up two elementary-school-aged children who know where they're going, on a sidewalk next to a parking garage?

Again, not consistent with the police report. I'm going to wait and see what the actual facts are. Not just believe one side's PR.

Yes, specifically consistent with the police report, which says nothing about "very small" OR "appear lost" OR "in a parking garage".

[Anonymous]

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

Your statement shows you know nothing about how lawsuits for case law work, with regards to any specific law. So to answer your question, yes I do think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes anything. That is why at the beginning of sections to statutes there is a definition section, and what the codes are annotated over the years. That is why the current law spells out car, building and house. Because at some point it needed to be specific, at some point there was some question, and now that question has arisen again.

Take some law classes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say I am always amazed at how I am requested to always have a snack and water for any two hour activity my child participates in.

I also have to say, having just moved from New York, downtown silver spring intersections seem shockingly dangerous. In New York, most would have traffic police monitoring the crossings... especially around the construction sites. Truth is, in New York we rarely cross six lane roads. Ever--except for Queens Blvd and Atlantic Ave.

I would have no issues having my nine year old brave the dangerous "gang infested" outdoor mall in dtss. I have issues even when I'm with her with crossing the intersections to get there. We walk everywhere and I've never seen a city with more empty parking garages and desolate sidewalks. Everyone in dtss sits in their car. This couple isn't the problem here. Your lousy urban planning is

I agree re urban planning. But the parents have to be realistic about where they are. It's not Mayberry.

If you're interested in urban planning, then either you have read Jane Jacobs, or you should read Jane Jacobs. Commercial places with lots of foot traffic are safe places.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

The law may well authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage. But does it authorize picking up two elementary-school-aged children who know where they're going, on a sidewalk next to a parking garage?

Again, not consistent with the police report. I'm going to wait and see what the actual facts are. Not just believe one side's PR.

Yes, specifically consistent with the police report, which says nothing about "very small" OR "appear lost" OR "in a parking garage".

Police report shows kids we're stopped at the parking garage. Not walking past it. Unless they move in super slo mo. There were at that spot for at least five minutes before the cop got there. And then sitting I. The car there for over an hour past when the parents say they were due home. Why didn't the parents look for them? There's enough fishy there that it warrants investigation. I hope it turns up nothing and the family lives happily ever after. But I don't blame CPs at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have to say I am always amazed at how I am requested to always have a snack and water for any two hour activity my child participates in.

I also have to say, having just moved from New York, downtown silver spring intersections seem shockingly dangerous. In New York, most would have traffic police monitoring the crossings... especially around the construction sites. Truth is, in New York we rarely cross six lane roads. Ever--except for Queens Blvd and Atlantic Ave.

I would have no issues having my nine year old brave the dangerous "gang infested" outdoor mall in dtss. I have issues even when I'm with her with crossing the intersections to get there. We walk everywhere and I've never seen a city with more empty parking garages and desolate sidewalks. Everyone in dtss sits in their car. This couple isn't the problem here. Your lousy urban planning is

I agree re urban planning. But the parents have to be realistic about where they are. It's not Mayberry.

If you're interested in urban planning, then either you have read Jane Jacobs, or you should read Jane Jacobs. Commercial places with lots of foot traffic are safe places.

Have. That's not what that area is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Oh and as to your legal points - you actually think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes child neglect? No. It is a brroad, flexible standard used everywhere. If you are saying it is constitutionally vague, I'd like to see that argument spelled out. i have ane extremely hard time believing the law does not authorize picking up two very small children who appear lost in a parking garage.

Your statement shows you know nothing about how lawsuits for case law work, with regards to any specific law. So to answer your question, yes I do think the law has to spell out in detail what constitutes anything. That is why at the beginning of sections to statutes there is a definition section, and what the codes are annotated over the years. That is why the current law spells out car, building and house. Because at some point it needed to be specific, at some point there was some question, and now that question has arisen again.

Take some law classes.

Not the pp you're responding to. But I'm HLS class of 2002. And you're full of it. Sure many laws are specific. And many give broad discretion to enforcement authorities. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.