Reply to Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police

Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers

Reply to "Free-range kids picked up AGAIN by police"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

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. [/quote]

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

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics