Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents were previously explicitly told by CPS that it was unacceptable so whether they AGREE with it or not they should stop doing it (fight it legally in the meantime if they want but stop doing it) instead of risking losing their kids, right or wrong, to make a statement.

What about CPS, though? Is it ok for CPS to take custody of children who go to the park by themselves? Is this in the best interest of the children?

Apparently it is okay for CPS to do that...and your opinion doesn't matter.

But is it in the best interest of the children? And since CPS is acting in my name, and yours, and everybody else's, my opinion actually does matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents were previously explicitly told by CPS that it was unacceptable so whether they AGREE with it or not they should stop doing it (fight it legally in the meantime if they want but stop doing it) instead of risking losing their kids, right or wrong, to make a statement.

+1 million

And this is why I'm baffled. After going through the (largely self-inflicted) media circus and CPS process, who would let their kids go off to the park alone again??? Baffling. Just baffling.

Somebody who thinks it's important for kids to be allowed to go to the park by themselves.

Alternatively, somebody who trusted their neighbors more than they should have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No thanks! you can find the information in the previous thread on this if you care to inform yourself.

Oh, well, if all you're referring to is what was posted in the previous thread, then this is what you've got:

Maryland Family Law 5-701(s): “Neglect” means the leaving of a child unattended or other failure to give proper care and attention to a child by any parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of the child under circumstances that indicate:
(1) that the child’s health or welfare is harmed or placed at substantial risk of harm; or
(2) mental injury to the child or a substantial risk of mental injury.

The above is so general as to be useless. "Proper" care? "Substantial risk"?
I think a defense lawyer could establish that being at a park with your sibling, based on statistics alone, is not a "substantial" risk. Given the number of stranger abductions, roads surrounding the park, etc., I think it would be difficult for a prosecutor to prove that letting these kids go to the park alone created a substantial risk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents were previously explicitly told by CPS that it was unacceptable so whether they AGREE with it or not they should stop doing it (fight it legally in the meantime if they want but stop doing it) instead of risking losing their kids, right or wrong, to make a statement.

What about CPS, though? Is it ok for CPS to take custody of children who go to the park by themselves? Is this in the best interest of the children?

Apparently it is okay for CPS to do that...and your opinion doesn't matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents should NOT use their kids to make a statement. It should be clear to them that they do not live in an area where the community agrees with their style of parenting. So start a free-range advocacy group, write a book, or move to an area that agrees with your parenting philosophy. But for now, play by the rules. If CPS wants you to supervise your kids at public places, do it. If you don't, you have to know that the kids might be picked up again by CPS. That is simply TOO MUCH STRESS to put on these kids.

Neither should CPS or the police. The decisions of private citizens, such as the parents, are their business. The actions of public agencies, such as CPS and the police, are my business, your business, and everybody's business.

Nope. The illegal actions of private citizens are of course the business of cps and police

Agreed. Next question: what law says that a six-year-old and a ten-year-old are not allowed to walk to the park by themselves?

Anonymous wrote:The parents were previously explicitly told by CPS that it was unacceptable so whether they AGREE with it or not they should stop doing it (fight it legally in the meantime if they want but stop doing it) instead of risking losing their kids, right or wrong, to make a statement.

+1 million

And this is why I'm baffled. After going through the (largely self-inflicted) media circus and CPS process, who would let their kids go off to the park alone again??? Baffling. Just baffling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The parents should NOT use their kids to make a statement. It should be clear to them that they do not live in an area where the community agrees with their style of parenting. So start a free-range advocacy group, write a book, or move to an area that agrees with your parenting philosophy. But for now, play by the rules. If CPS wants you to supervise your kids at public places, do it. If you don't, you have to know that the kids might be picked up again by CPS. That is simply TOO MUCH STRESS to put on these kids.

Neither should CPS or the police. The decisions of private citizens, such as the parents, are their business. The actions of public agencies, such as CPS and the police, are my business, your business, and everybody's business.

Nope. The illegal actions of private citizens are of course the business of cps and police

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? As stated several times in this thread, it is crazy that these parents are so arrogant that they think their community's standards as enforced by CPS and the police and the neighbor who called, simply don't apply to them.

I was a free range kid and honestly, it wasn't always peachy. We played in construction sites, with rusty nails, occasionally did other nasty things kids do.

Has our society gone too far in mandating constant parental supervision? Yes. Do I get to unilaterally decide that the rules don't apply to me. No, I don't. If these parents were poor, the kids would have been in foster care weeks ago.
Also, I have a friend of a friend who lives in the neighborhood. Walking to the park alone isn't the only possibly unsafe thing that these kids did alone.

If these parents were poor, nobody would have batted an eye.

Also, please don't spread gossip that you learned from a friend of a friend.

Here's the real story.

+1. Observed several groups of poor kids walking around in groups in Alexandria this weekend. They seemed fine.

Anonymous wrote:The parents were previously explicitly told by CPS that it was unacceptable so whether they AGREE with it or not they should stop doing it (fight it legally in the meantime if they want but stop doing it) instead of risking losing their kids, right or wrong, to make a statement.

What about CPS, though? Is it ok for CPS to take custody of children who go to the park by themselves? Is this in the best interest of the children?

I'm looking forward to when this story is the "ripped from the headlines" basis for the beginning of an SVU episode (and the crime then turns out to have nothing to do with free range parenting. it's a red herring!).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what? As stated several times in this thread, it is crazy that these parents are so arrogant that they think their community's standards as enforced by CPS and the police and the neighbor who called, simply don't apply to them.

I was a free range kid and honestly, it wasn't always peachy. We played in construction sites, with rusty nails, occasionally did other nasty things kids do.

Has our society gone too far in mandating constant parental supervision? Yes. Do I get to unilaterally decide that the rules don't apply to me. No, I don't. If these parents were poor, the kids would have been in foster care weeks ago.
Also, I have a friend of a friend who lives in the neighborhood. Walking to the park alone isn't the only possibly unsafe thing that these kids did alone.

If these parents were poor, nobody would have batted an eye.

Also, please don't spread gossip that you learned from a friend of a friend.

Here's the real story.

The parents were previously explicitly told by CPS that it was unacceptable so whether they AGREE with it or not they should stop doing it (fight it legally in the meantime if they want but stop doing it) instead of risking losing their kids, right or wrong, to make a statement.

Anonymous wrote:The police and CPS likely spoke with their neighbors during the first investigation, and I suspect they heard that the kids are rarely supervised (and perhaps other info that raised flags). And I suspect they were told what they could and could not do following the proceedings, and this incident illustrates noncompliance...and that's why the cops called CPS the second time around.

I'm baffled. Just baffled.

You're baffled, based on your assumptions and suspicions of what people might or might not have done? I'd be baffled too.

Anonymous wrote:

No thanks! you can find the information in the previous thread on this if you care to inform yourself.

Oh, well, if all you're referring to is what was posted in the previous thread, then this is what you've got:

Maryland Family Law 5-701(s): “Neglect” means the leaving of a child unattended or other failure to give proper care and attention to a child by any parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of the child under circumstances that indicate:
(1) that the child’s health or welfare is harmed or placed at substantial risk of harm; or
(2) mental injury to the child or a substantial risk of mental injury.

Maryland Family Law 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.

Under 5-701(s), the only thing in this case that is placing the children's health or welfare at substantial risk of harm is getting picked up the police and held by CPS. And 5-801(a) applies only to dwellings, buildings, enclosures, or motor vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:The police and CPS likely spoke with their neighbors during the first investigation, and I suspect they heard that the kids are rarely supervised (and perhaps other info that raised flags). And I suspect they were told what they could and could not do following the proceedings, and this incident illustrates noncompliance...and that's why the cops called CPS the second time around.

I'm baffled. Just baffled.

Huh? That's not what unsubstantiated neglect means.