Anonymous wrote:It is NOT against the law to let a child under the age of 8 play unsupervised outside. It is against the law from them to be in a home or car under that age unsupervised by someone who is at least 13.

No. Virginia does not have any similar law. Some counties have guidelines.

My now almost 13 year old started flying by herself (unaccompanied minor) at 8. Went completely solo at 12. (Southwest allows this.) She can navigate going several miles away by bike or foot.

She is EXTREMELY responsible and the opportunity to be responsible has allowed her to be EXTREMELY self-confident. (People meet her and can't believe she is not 16.)

My 11 year old is less mature and more nervous and she is still growing towards the same level of responsibilities (with joint parent-child decisions and discussions). She is becoming more and more self-reliant.

A child cannot learn to be on their own........ without getting opportunities to BE ON THEIR OWN. Kids are self reliant are more likely to be able to make good decisions WITHOUT parental "help" and are less susceptible to peer pressure.

None of what you're saying is relevant to this discussion, unless you think that in order for kids to learn to be on their own they need to be unsupervised before they're 8. Is that your position? If so, that is extreme.

The thing that really bothers me about all of this is the poor judgment shown by the cops and CPS. I don't care what your parenting philosophy is, but there is no excuse to delay calling the parents. They should have been notified right away or at least within the first hour.

The cops and CPS are supposed to be there to help keep children safe, not terrify them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which law?

Educate yourself.

I did. That's why I'm asking.

This law doesn't apply:

§5–801.
(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

This regulation doesn't either:

(8) "Child neglect" means one or more of the following by a parent or caretaker:

(a) A failure to provide proper care and attention to a child, including leaving a child unattended, under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or placed at substantial risk of harm; or

(b) Mental injury or a substantial risk of mental injury of a child that is caused by the failure to provide proper care and attention to a child.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=07.02.07.02.htm

Clearly the facts are still in question about whether this is child neglect.

How old are the parents in this case? Do they have personal experience of growing up with very little adult supervision? I did grow up that way myself and that is exactly why I wanted to make better choices in parenting my own kids.

Anyone?

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?

Hmm, what they like about being unsupervised is being unsupervised. Good luck with that.

Here's some things kids I've known who spent a lot of time being unsupervised learned about: being bullied, bullying other kids, smoking cigarettes, drugs, fighting with other kids, and getting hit by cars. I'm sure other people can chime in with lots of other things, I'm just sticking with kids I personally have known.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Which law?

Educate yourself.

I did. That's why I'm asking.

This law doesn't apply:

§5–801.
(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

This regulation doesn't either:

(8) "Child neglect" means one or more of the following by a parent or caretaker:

(a) A failure to provide proper care and attention to a child, including leaving a child unattended, under circumstances that indicate that the child's health or welfare is harmed or placed at substantial risk of harm; or

(b) Mental injury or a substantial risk of mental injury of a child that is caused by the failure to provide proper care and attention to a child.

http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/getfile.aspx?file=07.02.07.02.htm

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So I can decide to let my 12 drink whiskey?

Or sell her for sex?

Focus, please. We're talking about children playing outside and walking to the park.

No. We are talking about deciding a law does not apply to you.

Which law?

Educate yourself.

NP here. I was born in 1975 and grew up in SE DC. At age 5 I walked 1/2 mile to/from school everyday...sometimes with the other kids on our street, sometimes just me and my 1-2 cousins and sometimes me by myself. Its now 2015 folks...and I'm still alive and kicking at almost 40. Nothing catastrophic happened.

As a matter of fact, it was not only common for elementary-aged city kids to walk home without adult supervision, some of us (me included) had no supervision once we got there. By first grade I had a key to my house. I let myself in when I got home from school, locked the door behind me and called one of my parents at work to let them know I was home. I think the label given at that time was "latchkey kids" and it was perfectly legal. I was able to unlock the door, lock it back, not let anyone in the house, use the REAL phone to dial my parents work numbers from my own memory (no contact list or speed dial) get myself a snack and watch TV for an hour or so until one of my parents came home. When I got to 3rd grade we moved and my school was no longer in walking distance from our house...so my parents got me student bus tokens and taught me how to catch the bus to/from school....and again, it was perfectly legal, perfectly normal and turned out to be perfectly fine.

This helicopter parenting thing has got to stop. I mean, seriously folks, there is way too much kid coddling going on these days and people need to (gulp)....get a grip. Denying kids the chance to ever think for themselves or being the parent that is ever-present on the sidelines just waiting for the slightest little mishap to take place just so you can "fix" it, can be just as detrimental as the boogey man that many seem to think is lurking in the neighborhood park.

I have children too and I do ensure their safety, but teaching some level of independence is part of my job description and I think allowing school-aged kids to play at the playground near their house is a fine way to encourage independence. A common sense approach and compromise are in order here....lets hope this family can work with MD authorities to find one.

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, I live within a block of that comic books store. It is a mixed neighborhood. It was a beautiful sunny day and there is always plenty of foot traffic there at that hour.

There had to be foot traffic. Otherwise nobody would have called 911.

Anonymous wrote:

Not inclined to comb through 75 (!!!!) pages thoroughly. Has anyone eyer mentioned the Lyons sisters' disappearance? Was that not on a very busy street, during daylight hours? Was it the same, or similar area of MD?

That was at a mall in Wheaton, 40 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually, I live within a block of that comic books store. It is a mixed neighborhood. It was a beautiful sunny day and there is always plenty of foot traffic there at that hour.

Where is this parking garage? I can't find it on a map. And did they say what the park was the kids were playing at?

The Fenton Street parking garage and Ellsworth Park.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So I can decide to let my 12 drink whiskey?

Or sell her for sex?

Focus, please. We're talking about children playing outside and walking to the park.

No. We are talking about deciding a law does not apply to you.

Which law?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So I can decide to let my 12 drink whiskey?

Or sell her for sex?

Focus, please. We're talking about children playing outside and walking to the park.

What? Different parents, different decisions? YOu make your decisions that are best for your family, some others make other decisions, right?

Because letting your 6/7/8/-whatever-year-old child walk to the park belongs in the same discussion with letting your 12-year-old drink whiskey or selling your 12-year-old for sex why, exactly?

You know a thread has jumped the shark when the attorneys start getting into pissing contests.

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.

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.