Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: 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).

OMG these weren't puppies left at home for the week.

The kids had been in the car for 6 hours coming back from a trip and had been properly fed a late lunch on the way back. Am guessing they stopped at a McD's or something on the way home at a rest stop.

The parents dropped them off at the park to blow off some energy and told them to come home by 6 PM for dinner.

You do NOT need to give school aged kids a snack every 30 minutes contrary to apparently conventional wisdom, and actually they don't even need to tote water bottles all the live long day. If they are thirsty they can just deal or... walk the f home and get a drink for crying out loud.

Some of you people are raising helpless, helpless children with this overprotectivness. No wonder kids in college are crumbling at the slightest setback.

But these parents act like their kids not eating until 10:30pm is lawsuit worthy ... Talk about raising kids to be entitled and over protected. Welcome to montgomery county, md!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Don't you like being unsupervised? I do.

And yes, bad things happened to kids in the old days when there wasn't constantly an adult supervising, but lots of good things happened too. The good things aren't newsworthy, of course. (NOT a leading news story: Yesterday Joe went into the woods to play and came home in time for supper.) My question is: what won't my kids learn if there is always an adult supervising?

Can't you just wait until they are 10?

Why should I wait until they are 10? Is 10 a magic number?

Yes. It is the magic number just like 55 mph is the magic number on some streets.

55 is the magic number because the government says so. Where does the government say that a child isn't allowed to go to the park alone until the child is 10?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:6 is way too young to be without adult supervision.

Maybe for some kids, or even a lot of kids, but definitely not every kid.

No, for every kid. The end.

Six-year-olds used to be capable of being out without adult supervision. Six-year-olds in other countries to this day are capable of being out without adult supervision. Do middle-class people in the US just have particularly incompetent six-year-olds, these days?

Kids raise in environments like DC tend to be less competent because their parents are involved in every decision they make. Kids (like mine) who were raised in more rural environments are very different. It's not a US thing. It's a helicopter parent thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Don't you like being unsupervised? I do.

And yes, bad things happened to kids in the old days when there wasn't constantly an adult supervising, but lots of good things happened too. The good things aren't newsworthy, of course. (NOT a leading news story: Yesterday Joe went into the woods to play and came home in time for supper.) My question is: what won't my kids learn if there is always an adult supervising?

Can't you just wait until they are 10?

Or 8, for that matter?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is a huge difference between a 10 year old and 6 year old. I have a 5 year old and there is no way I'd let her walk to a playground, play and walk home again. As parents it is our responsibility to take her and supervise. You can teach independence and responsibility by showing, working with your kids and so much more. It isn't just about them doing things alone at a very young age and hoping for the best.

Nobody has advocated children doing things alone at a very young age and hope for the best.

If you don't think that your five-year-old is ready to walk to a playground, play, and walk home again, then don't have her do it. You should do what's right for you and your daughter. Other parents, with other children, at other playgrounds, may make different decisions that are right for them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/montgomery-county-free-range-children-taken-into-custody-again/2015/04/12/39987b08-e188-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop_b

This news article was dated on 4/12, which is Sunday, the day it happened. Its interesting to me that the post, on the same day the kids got picked up published an article regarding it especially since the kids were custody all evening. This was a set-up. Parents are looking for an excuse to sue and make a name for themselves. How did the post get the information so quickly and be able to publish an article given the time frames.

The first comment on the article was posted at 4/13/2015 12:11 AM EDT. While the WaPo article is dated 4/12, it probably was posted quite late on Sunday, close to midnight.

OK, I was wrong. They put something up late Sunday night, after the kids were home.

Meanwhile, how did the Post get the information so quickly? Well, maybe somebody at the Post monitors the local news channels.

How did the local news channels get the news so quickly? Well, maybe friends or relatives of the parents called a news channel to say that CPS had the children. It seems a reasonable and obvious thing to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Speeding : ticket : : child neglect : signing a parenting plan with CPS

Sure. But CPS did not find that they committed child neglect.

They also didn't find they didn't commit child neglect. Yet, they did sign a parenting plan, just like I pay the ticket even though I thought I was driving safely and the speed limit is too low.

CPS didn't find that the parents didn't commit child neglect -- how Orwellian.

How do you know they signed a parenting plan, by the way? Perhaps you can also share with us what the parenting plan said?

The dad said so in the interview on that news clip with the washpo article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is it that your kids think is so much fun about going to the park without an adult with them?

They like being out on their own. They like being independent. They like being unsupervised. They like being able to make their own decisions. They like the feeling of being responsible for themselves.

What is it about being unsupervised that they like so much? What do they do without an adult with them that they can't do with an adult? Lots of bad things happened to kids in the old days when kids just ran around wild that wouldn't have happened if an adult were supervising.

What they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Don't you like being unsupervised? I do.

And yes, bad things happened to kids in the old days when there wasn't constantly an adult supervising, but lots of good things happened too. The good things aren't newsworthy, of course. (NOT a leading news story: Yesterday Joe went into the woods to play and came home in time for supper.) My question is: what won't my kids learn if there is always an adult supervising?

Can't you just wait until they are 10?

And then what, release them into unsupervised life, with zero experience?

What makes 10 magic?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in the area, and you are wrong.

I will also point out that many, many people who live here in Silver Spring 20910 DO know one another. In a sense, it is like Mayberry, in that neighbors are very neighborly. My kids would know where to go for help within ten or 15 blocks of our house - they know someone, or know of someone on most blocks.

In my experience, people who haven't lived in urban areas seriously underestimate the degree to which people in urban areas know each other and look out for each other.

Right like all those people walking back and forth around the parking garage on sunday evening. Right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I live in the area, and you are wrong.

I will also point out that many, many people who live here in Silver Spring 20910 DO know one another. In a sense, it is like Mayberry, in that neighbors are very neighborly. My kids would know where to go for help within ten or 15 blocks of our house - they know someone, or know of someone on most blocks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What is it that your kids think is so much fun about going to the park without an adult with them?

They like being out on their own. They like being independent. They like being unsupervised. They like being able to make their own decisions. They like the feeling of being responsible for themselves.

What is it about being unsupervised that they like so much? What do they do without an adult with them that they can't do with an adult? Lots of bad things happened to kids in the old days when kids just ran around wild that wouldn't have happened if an adult were supervising.

What they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Don't you like being unsupervised? I do.

And yes, bad things happened to kids in the old days when there wasn't constantly an adult supervising, but lots of good things happened too. The good things aren't newsworthy, of course. (NOT a leading news story: Yesterday Joe went into the woods to play and came home in time for supper.) My question is: what won't my kids learn if there is always an adult supervising?

Can't you just wait until they are 10?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in the area, and you are wrong.

I will also point out that many, many people who live here in Silver Spring 20910 DO know one another. In a sense, it is like Mayberry, in that neighbors are very neighborly. My kids would know where to go for help within ten or 15 blocks of our house - they know someone, or know of someone on most blocks.

In my experience, people who haven't lived in urban areas seriously underestimate the degree to which people in urban areas know each other and look out for each other.

Anonymous wrote:

But these parents act like their kids not eating until 10:30pm is lawsuit worthy ... Talk about raising kids to be entitled and over protected. Welcome to montgomery county, md!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/montgomery-county-free-range-children-taken-into-custody-again/2015/04/12/39987b08-e188-11e4-905f-cc896d379a32_story.html?tid=pm_local_pop_b

This news article was dated on 4/12, which is Sunday, the day it happened. Its interesting to me that the post, on the same day the kids got picked up published an article regarding it especially since the kids were custody all evening. This was a set-up. Parents are looking for an excuse to sue and make a name for themselves. How did the post get the information so quickly and be able to publish an article given the time frames.

The first comment on the article was posted at 4/13/2015 12:11 AM EDT. While the WaPo article is dated 4/12, it probably was posted quite late on Sunday, close to midnight.