Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was speeding down the road and everything would have been fine if the police didn't pull me over. Really, the only trauma experience was by me having to stop the car and wait for the ticket ... Stupid police.

Do you think that letting your children walk home from the park is analogous to speeding? I don't.

Speeding is far more dangerous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was speeding down the road and everything would have been fine if the police didn't pull me over. Really, the only trauma experience was by me having to stop the car and wait for the ticket ... Stupid police.

Do you think that letting your children walk home from the park is analogous to speeding? I don't.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was speeding down the road and everything would have been fine if the police didn't pull me over. Really, the only trauma experience was by me having to stop the car and wait for the ticket ... Stupid police.

Do you think that letting your children walk home from the park is analogous to speeding? I don't.

Speeding is far more dangerous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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".

This just goes to show how out of touch you are. A good family law attorney for a neglect case is a local lawyer with a ton of experience, not some pro bono associate who has never set foot in court.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was speeding down the road and everything would have been fine if the police didn't pull me over. Really, the only trauma experience was by me having to stop the car and wait for the ticket ... Stupid police.

Do you think that letting your children walk home from the park is analogous to speeding? I don't.

Anonymous wrote:

I was speeding down the road and everything would have been fine if the police didn't pull me over. Really, the only trauma experience was by me having to stop the car and wait for the ticket ... Stupid police.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the parents should pay for their own lawyer. But if they aren't inclined to supervise their kids, are you surprised they are expecting the community to pay their legal fees? I'm not surprised.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who put them in the situation to be picked up by the cops? The parents who had been told explicitly by CPS not to let them go to the park alone.

Actually, what did CPS explicitly say? Do you know?

In any case, that's like "Don't make me hit you again," and it's not how I assign moral responsibility. The kids would have been fine if the police and CPS hadn't picked them up.

Well, CPS initially investigated these parents because they let their kids go to a park in DTSS alone...and they weren't found innocent...so in think it's safe to assume that letting their kids to the park alone again wouldn't be cool with CPS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And a good family law attorney for a neglect case will likely ask for a $5k retainer (at least).

Which the family should pay - or do they believe in free range lawyering too?

Anonymous wrote:And a good family law attorney for a neglect case will likely ask for a $5k retainer (at least).

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".

Anonymous wrote:

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".