Anonymous wrote:

But home was almost a mile from where they were dropped off. To a thirsty six year old, that would feel pretty far.

I think that a thirsty six-year-old can probably walk less than a mile (or even a mile) home without much suffering, let alone neglect.

In fact, I know for this for a fact, both from my own experience and from my children's.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously. That seems to be what's driving peoples assumption that these people are good parents. I mean theyre white and they live in Silver Spring and they have good jobs and they speak nicely on TV. So they never could possibly neglect their kids!

Actually the idea is:

1. The only "neglect" anybody has talked about is allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood.
2. Allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood is not neglect.

But they do not know that just by looking at the kids, that is the purpose of looking into it/investigation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously. That seems to be what's driving peoples assumption that these people are good parents. I mean theyre white and they live in Silver Spring and they have good jobs and they speak nicely on TV. So they never could possibly neglect their kids!

Actually the idea is:

1. The only "neglect" anybody has talked about is allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood.
2. Allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood is not neglect.

I'm curious, what constitutes "in their neighborhood"? I mean, if I let my kids walk a mile from my house I wouldn't call that still my neighborhood. I live in Bethesda, does that mean all of Bethesda is my neighborhood? Or my entire ZIP Code?

Also, you really don't know that the only issue here is that they were walking home from the park. The police report implies more than that, the 911 caller implies more than that, and CPS has rightly kept them investigation report private. You simply don't know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

No. Of course they couldn't without first making sure Home was a safe place.

There are multiple ways the cop could have determined this.. Take the kids home and ... determine safety from:
1. parents skin color
2. parents ability to speak english
3. cost of the house
4. type of cars


Use common sense.

You are my friend!
I think some of these folks really and truly have no idea how CPS works.
It's truly sad

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You Neglect Brown-Shirts are a scandal. I can't help wondering if you are the same moms with 5-year-old in diapers. In any case, DCUMS are supposed to be well informed. Please read up on the well-documented corruption and incompetence of CPS before screaming "neglect" in relation to this family.

Cops was not incompetent. If anything, the parents are by failing to supervise their kids. They sent them out for hours not knowing where they were, who they were with, no food, no water and no way to call them in case of emergency. Cps has limited workers on the weekend. Parents set this up on purpose looking to sue to prove they have the right do free range parent. They have more interest in suing and media publicity than their kids health, welfare and safety.

No food, no water?!? They weren't dropped off in the fucking desert to fend for themselvest. They were a few blocks from home. They presumably were fed lunch and could have returned home for a snack or drink any time they liked. That's what is excellent and responsible about what these parents are doing -- they are teaching the children to self-regulate, to come home for a drink if they need one, etc.

But home was almost a mile from where they were dropped off. To a thirsty six year old, that would feel pretty far.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

Alternatively, the police officer could have checked on the kids, concluded that they were fine, and let them continue on their way.

No, he absolutely could not have done that. Do you think it's at all possible that the eyewitnesses and the police and CPS who are investigating might have a better sense of the totality of the circumstances with these kids than you, as a person who reads about it on the Internet, do? Do you think that's even possible?

Anonymous wrote:

Seriously. That seems to be what's driving peoples assumption that these people are good parents. I mean theyre white and they live in Silver Spring and they have good jobs and they speak nicely on TV. So they never could possibly neglect their kids!

Actually the idea is:

1. The only "neglect" anybody has talked about is allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood.
2. Allowing the kids walk to/from parks in their neighborhood is not neglect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

No. Of course they couldn't without first making sure Home was a safe place.

There are multiple ways the cop could have determined this.. Take the kids home and ... determine safety from:
1. parents skin color
2. parents ability to speak english
3. cost of the house
4. type of cars


Use common sense.

Seriously. That seems to be what's driving peoples assumption that these people are good parents. I mean theyre white and they live in Silver Spring and they have good jobs and they speak nicely on TV. So they never could possibly neglect their kids!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

Alternatively, the police officer could have checked on the kids, concluded that they were fine, and let them continue on their way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

No. Of course they couldn't without first making sure Home was a safe place.

Sure they could have. It's what they did before. What was different about this past Sunday?

what's different this time is there was already a report and now another report and the previous investigation did not rule out neglect. So of course they have to do due diligence and see if there's a problem.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

No. Of course they couldn't without first making sure Home was a safe place.

There are multiple ways the cop could have determined this.. Take the kids home and ... determine safety from:
1. parents skin color
2. parents ability to speak english
3. cost of the house
4. type of cars


Use common sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

No. Of course they couldn't without first making sure Home was a safe place.

Sure they could have. It's what they did before. What was different about this past Sunday?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep hearing about the "law". What law was broken?

This has been explained ad nauseum. Maryland generally prohobits child neglect, which includes leaving children unattended. The state agency further defines unattended, for screening purposes, to include a child under 8 left in the care of a child under 12. Whether this is actually neglect in this case has not been determined yet, but it is 100% clear that the police and cps acted correctly when they picked the kids up to investigate.

No, that's not clear either. The police could have taken the kids home.

No. Of course they couldn't without first making sure Home was a safe place.

Anonymous wrote:

Cops was not incompetent. If anything, the parents are by failing to supervise their kids. They sent them out for hours not knowing where they were, who they were with, no food, no water and no way to call them in case of emergency. Cps has limited workers on the weekend. Parents set this up on purpose looking to sue to prove they have the right do free range parent. They have more interest in suing and media publicity than their kids health, welfare and safety.

For hours with no food or water? The parents dropped the kids off at a park in the neighborhood somewhat before 5 pm and told them to be home by 6 pm. The only reason the kids were out for hours was because the police and CPS had the kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You Neglect Brown-Shirts are a scandal. I can't help wondering if you are the same moms with 5-year-old in diapers. In any case, DCUMS are supposed to be well informed. Please read up on the well-documented corruption and incompetence of CPS before screaming "neglect" in relation to this family.

Cops was not incompetent. If anything, the parents are by failing to supervise their kids. They sent them out for hours not knowing where they were, who they were with, no food, no water and no way to call them in case of emergency. Cps has limited workers on the weekend. Parents set this up on purpose looking to sue to prove they have the right do free range parent. They have more interest in suing and media publicity than their kids health, welfare and safety.

No food, no water?!? They weren't dropped off in the fucking desert to fend for themselvest. They were a few blocks from home. They presumably were fed lunch and could have returned home for a snack or drink any time they liked. That's what is excellent and responsible about what these parents are doing -- they are teaching the children to self-regulate, to come home for a drink if they need one, etc.