Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. It's not at all comparable to this situation because middle-class white kids (like Beezus and Ramona) no longer go all over town, and so therefore on the rare occasions when people see middle-class white kids going all over town, they call 911.

A few weeks ago, everybody on DCUM insisted that a six-year-old was not old enough to walk by himself from his house in a cul-de-sac, past four houses on the same cul-de-sac, to the school bus stop -- partly because, if the school bus didn't come, he wouldn't know what to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh good, you have. But then what is that area? What is so dangerous about it? It's not a commercial area? There isn't lots of foot traffic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. It's not at all comparable to this situation because middle-class white kids (like Beezus and Ramona) no longer go all over town, and so therefore on the rare occasions when people see middle-class white kids going all over town, they call 911.

A few weeks ago, everybody on DCUM insisted that a six-year-old was not old enough to walk by himself from his house in a cul-de-sac, past four houses on the same cul-de-sac, to the school bus stop -- partly because, if the school bus didn't come, he wouldn't know what to do.

No it's not comparable because this is a much more commercial area and free parents who know the kids are around to see something and know the family so they can report it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right. It's not at all comparable to this situation because middle-class white kids (like Beezus and Ramona) no longer go all over town, and so therefore on the rare occasions when people see middle-class white kids going all over town, they call 911.

A few weeks ago, everybody on DCUM insisted that a six-year-old was not old enough to walk by himself from his house in a cul-de-sac, past four houses on the same cul-de-sac, to the school bus stop -- partly because, if the school bus didn't come, he wouldn't know what to do.

No it's not comparable because this is a much more commercial area and free parents who know the kids are around to see something and know the family so they can report it.

Meant "fewer" not "free"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh good, you have. But then what is that area? What is so dangerous about it? It's not a commercial area? There isn't lots of foot traffic?

Not much foot traffic on that spate by the garage on a weekend. No. That's the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, that's not what the police report says. In any case, at the parking garage is not in the parking garage, standing in front of a parking garage is not looking lost, and elementary-school-aged children are not very young children.

Also, the parents did look for them. And even if the parents hadn't looked for them (which they did do), it makes no sense to say that the police were justified in stopping the kids because an hour later the parents didn't look for them. The parents wouldn't have had to look for them (although they did look for them) if the police hadn't stopped the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No it's not comparable because this is a much more commercial area and few parents who know the kids are around to see something and know the family so they can report it.

It seems to me that the kids would actually have been better off with fewer people on the street -- or at least one fewer person on the street, namely the person who called 911.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Not much foot traffic on that spate by the garage on a weekend. No. That's the problem.

That's one block. How about the rest of the area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No, that's not what the police report says. In any case, at the parking garage is not in the parking garage, standing in front of a parking garage is not looking lost, and elementary-school-aged children are not very young children.

Also, the parents did look for them. And even if the parents hadn't looked for them (which they did do), it makes no sense to say that the police were justified in stopping the kids because an hour later the parents didn't look for them. The parents wouldn't have had to look for them (although they did look for them) if the police hadn't stopped the kids.

People are wondering where the parents were looking for the kids and why they didn't come across them sitting in the police car. Was the parking garage not on the route home? How far is it to the park where the kids were left playing and how much ground did they have to cover when they were looking after they realized the kids were late? Were the neighbors helping them look? In my neighborhood, the kids do run around playing and going from house to house. If we couldn't find a kid or two, lots of people would be out looking, and I would think they would notice a police car with the kids sitting in it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

People are wondering where the parents were looking for the kids and why they didn't come across them sitting in the police car. Was the parking garage not on the route home? How far is it to the park where the kids were left playing and how much ground did they have to cover when they were looking after they realized the kids were late? Were the neighbors helping them look? In my neighborhood, the kids do run around playing and going from house to house. If we couldn't find a kid or two, lots of people would be out looking, and I would think they would notice a police car with the kids sitting in it.

What are you saying? The parents say that they were looking for the kids; but the parents didn't find the kids; therefore the parents are lying and actually didn't look for the kids?

[Anonymous]

I haven't read all 66 pages of this thread yet.

Did the police car have car seats for the kids as it was transporting them on the highway to Rockville?

Especially the 6 year old.

I believe it is illegal to transport a child younger than 8 without her being properly restrained in a car seat.

[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.

I suspect many here would think even Mayberry would be too dangerous for 'modern' children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I haven't read all 66 pages of this thread yet.

Did the police car have car seats for the kids as it was transporting them on the highway to Rockville?

Especially the 6 year old.

I believe it is illegal to transport a child younger than 8 without her being properly restrained in a car seat.

Yes, but certain commercial vehicles like taxis are exempt. No car seat required to ride taxi to any washington area airport! I suspect government vehicles are also exempt, eg police cars.

[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.

Finish reading the paragraph you are quoting from, pp. Those specific parents who were already put through the CPS ringer were stupid to put their kids in that situation again...especially after they commented his the kids were traumatized the first time around. So those kids most certainly did not benefit from being traumatized again. Duh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I believe it is illegal to transport a child younger than 8 without her being properly restrained in a car seat.

Exception for taxis, buses, and I assume police cars also.