Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then I suspect the forthcoming lawsuit will serve as a mechanism to make the law more specific. But the judge can interpret the law in a reasonable way. And if the goal of the law is to make sure kids are supervised, then it's reasonable to interpret it broadly to encompass all situations.

Kids playing in the backyard while mom is in the house = supervised.

Kids wandering around DTSS while mom is a mile away = not supervised.

That's a reasonable interpretation (and common sense).

The backyard is in DTSS. They live in DTSS. They are "wandering around" the neighborhood they live in.

And the goal of the law should be to make sure that kids aren't neglected. Which these kids aren't. Even CPS did not find that they were neglected.

I continue to find it amazing that people who don't know the family, are not part of the investigation, and didn't witness the incidents are certain these kids aren't neglected. Amazing bias.

No, I don't know the family. I assume there's no neglect because CPS found no neglect in their first investigation. I assume nothing has changed since then, although perhaps the family has changed since January.

That's my bias.

They did not find "no neglect". Let's try and analogous scenario. If someone reported that she saw children being hit, and child protective services investigated and came to a conclusion of unsubstantiated abuse. That means there's some evidence of abuse, but we don't know that there's really abuse, and there's not enough evidence for us to remove these children. Then a couple months later someone else reports that they've seen the children being hit. Do you think child protective services needs to investigate? Yes. Of course they're required to. Same with neglect reports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

If there were evidence, it would be substantiated neglect. "Unsubstantiated" means "there is no evidence". Unless CPS uses its own definitions of words?

No that's not what that means. You can look it up. Of course there was evidence of neglect. The fact that they were alone a mile from home was SOME evidence. Just inconclusive evidence. Just not enough evidence to prove neglect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do the cops/CPS know that? Oh... they do an investigation.

CPS/cops don't want to bothered with the elitist MoCo parents... they are required to deal with elitist MoCo parents. They just want citizens to stop calling them about this family. I wish the kids were a little more savy and would stop drawing attention to themselves.

If they don't want to bother themselves with this family, how come they keep bothering themselves with this family?

Because people keep calling about this family and if they fail to thoroughly investigate they are responsible if something happens. Duh. They deal with neglected and abused children all day long. Even rich white educated people abuse and neglect Children. I know, that blows your little mind.

But they already investigated in January -- presumably thoroughly. Now they have to do another thorough investigation?

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

Exactly. What people are ignoring is that multiple, different bystanders have seen these children and had cause for concern, and called 911. I really don't think the police are out looking for them just to make a point. Whether or not this is neglect, the police and CPS had an obligation to investigate the situation - especially once they realized there was already an open file on the family.

Multiple different bystanders = 2 bystanders. So the word of 2 people means the family is neglectful? The word of 1 stranger in January was not enough to show the family was neglectful then. How should the word another stranger make the family neglectful now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then I suspect the forthcoming lawsuit will serve as a mechanism to make the law more specific. But the judge can interpret the law in a reasonable way. And if the goal of the law is to make sure kids are supervised, then it's reasonable to interpret it broadly to encompass all situations.

Kids playing in the backyard while mom is in the house = supervised.

Kids wandering around DTSS while mom is a mile away = not supervised.

That's a reasonable interpretation (and common sense).

The backyard is in DTSS. They live in DTSS. They are "wandering around" the neighborhood they live in.

And the goal of the law should be to make sure that kids aren't neglected. Which these kids aren't. Even CPS did not find that they were neglected.

I continue to find it amazing that people who don't know the family, are not part of the investigation, and didn't witness the incidents are certain these kids aren't neglected. Amazing bias.

No, I don't know the family. I assume there's no neglect because CPS found no neglect in their first investigation. I assume nothing has changed since then, although perhaps the family has changed since January.

That's my bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do the cops/CPS know that? Oh... they do an investigation.

CPS/cops don't want to bothered with the elitist MoCo parents... they are required to deal with elitist MoCo parents. They just want citizens to stop calling them about this family. I wish the kids were a little more savy and would stop drawing attention to themselves.

If they don't want to bother themselves with this family, how come they keep bothering themselves with this family?

Because people keep calling about this family and if they fail to thoroughly investigate they are responsible if something happens. Duh. They deal with neglected and abused children all day long. Even rich white educated people abuse and neglect Children. I know, that blows your little mind.

But they already investigated in January -- presumably thoroughly. Now they have to do another thorough investigation?

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

Exactly. What people are ignoring is that multiple, different bystanders have seen these children and had cause for concern, and called 911. I really don't think the police are out looking for them just to make a point. Whether or not this is neglect, the police and CPS had an obligation to investigate the situation - especially once they realized there was already an open file on the family.

Anonymous wrote:

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

If there were evidence, it would be substantiated neglect. "Unsubstantiated" means "there is no evidence". Unless CPS uses its own definitions of words?

Anonymous wrote:Bus stops are within a quick walk of their home and typically in residential areas. There are usually other kids and parents at the stop or nearby, and this happens at two specific times of the day (when foot traffic by other kids and parents is almost guaranteed). Do you think that's different than dumping your kids off at a quasi urban park late on a Sunday afternoon and having them walk by a garage that is a ghost town (on a Sunday)? I do.

Did you know that it's against mcps policy to let your kids play on the school playground unattended while you wait to pick up your kids? Why? Because accidents can happen so it's a safety issue.

But in fact what they did was drop off the kids at a park in their neighborhood (what is a "quasi urban park?") on a sunny spring afternoon, at least 3 hours before sunset, so that the kids could walk home.

I have long known that "urban" is a scare word, but I never before knew that "parking garage" is also a scare word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then I suspect the forthcoming lawsuit will serve as a mechanism to make the law more specific. But the judge can interpret the law in a reasonable way. And if the goal of the law is to make sure kids are supervised, then it's reasonable to interpret it broadly to encompass all situations.

Kids playing in the backyard while mom is in the house = supervised.

Kids wandering around DTSS while mom is a mile away = not supervised.

That's a reasonable interpretation (and common sense).

The backyard is in DTSS. They live in DTSS. They are "wandering around" the neighborhood they live in.

And the goal of the law should be to make sure that kids aren't neglected. Which these kids aren't. Even CPS did not find that they were neglected.

This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do the cops/CPS know that? Oh... they do an investigation.

CPS/cops don't want to bothered with the elitist MoCo parents... they are required to deal with elitist MoCo parents. They just want citizens to stop calling them about this family. I wish the kids were a little more savy and would stop drawing attention to themselves.

If they don't want to bother themselves with this family, how come they keep bothering themselves with this family?

Because people keep calling about this family and if they fail to thoroughly investigate they are responsible if something happens. Duh. They deal with neglected and abused children all day long. Even rich white educated people abuse and neglect Children. I know, that blows your little mind.

But they already investigated in January -- presumably thoroughly. Now they have to do another thorough investigation?

What to Do you think? Family is investigated once, result is "unsubstantiated neglect". Which essentially means "some evidence of neglect but it's not clear". Then another report happens. Do you think they're obligated to investigate? Of course they are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Then I suspect the forthcoming lawsuit will serve as a mechanism to make the law more specific. But the judge can interpret the law in a reasonable way. And if the goal of the law is to make sure kids are supervised, then it's reasonable to interpret it broadly to encompass all situations.

Kids playing in the backyard while mom is in the house = supervised.

Kids wandering around DTSS while mom is a mile away = not supervised.

That's a reasonable interpretation (and common sense).

The backyard is in DTSS. They live in DTSS. They are "wandering around" the neighborhood they live in.

And the goal of the law should be to make sure that kids aren't neglected. Which these kids aren't. Even CPS did not find that they were neglected.

I continue to find it amazing that people who don't know the family, are not part of the investigation, and didn't witness the incidents are certain these kids aren't neglected. Amazing bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How do the cops/CPS know that? Oh... they do an investigation.

CPS/cops don't want to bothered with the elitist MoCo parents... they are required to deal with elitist MoCo parents. They just want citizens to stop calling them about this family. I wish the kids were a little more savy and would stop drawing attention to themselves.

If they don't want to bother themselves with this family, how come they keep bothering themselves with this family?

Because people keep calling about this family and if they fail to thoroughly investigate they are responsible if something happens. Duh. They deal with neglected and abused children all day long. Even rich white educated people abuse and neglect Children. I know, that blows your little mind.

But they already investigated in January -- presumably thoroughly. Now they have to do another thorough investigation?

Anonymous wrote:

Then I suspect the forthcoming lawsuit will serve as a mechanism to make the law more specific. But the judge can interpret the law in a reasonable way. And if the goal of the law is to make sure kids are supervised, then it's reasonable to interpret it broadly to encompass all situations.

Kids playing in the backyard while mom is in the house = supervised.

Kids wandering around DTSS while mom is a mile away = not supervised.

That's a reasonable interpretation (and common sense).

The backyard is in DTSS. They live in DTSS. They are "wandering around" the neighborhood they live in.

And the goal of the law should be to make sure that kids aren't neglected. Which these kids aren't. Even CPS did not find that they were neglected.

Anonymous wrote:If those kids were another race and low income they probably would have been in care or at a minimum had court supervision.

And yet, others have speculated that if the kids were another race, no one would have noticed them unsupervised and called the police at all.

If those kids were another race and low income they probably would have been in care or at a minimum had court supervision.

Anonymous wrote:[quote]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.

Thought I had posted this before, but can't find it. Does anyone know if the parents grew up in more or less supervised family situations themselves? Some people like to recreate their own childhood circumstances, some prefer the opposite. I am wondering how their own experiences have affected their decisions in these incidents.