Anonymous wrote:

Also I, personally, don't make decisions based on "What if I didn't do something, and then something extremely unlikely happened, and then I would feel terrible?" Do you? It's a really bad way to make decisions.

So you don't think about the consequences that may follow after taking or not taking an action that you are considering? That doesn't strake me as a particularly good way to make decisions.

Being able to imagine the effects of choices is part and parcel of good decision making. And yes, one should consider the possibility of unlikely events as a part of the process. Just as doctors learn to consider horses, not zebras when they hear hoof beats, they also know that there will be those times when it's zebras coming down the pike. You can't always assume that bad things will never happen or that they will happen to someone else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such BS. My kids had classmates at their DC public elementary that took the bus home ALONE at 4th and 5th grade.

4th and 5th grade is 9 and 10 (or 10 and 11). Taking the bus is going from point A to point B in a specific timeframe. MUCH different than wandering around a commercial neighborhood & busy intersections when you are 6 and 10.

Huh? Kids walking in a city to a bus stop then walking from bus stop home is MUCH different? It's also in a commercial neighborhood. Don't get this logic.

You really don't? Is your bus stop a mile or more from your house? Are you giving a 6 year old several hours to get home from your bus stop before checking on her? Really?

A mile or more? Several hours? A six-year-old by itself? You must be talking about a different incident.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:After listening to the 911 call, I'm less sanguine about the whole free range thing. There was an adult male following these kids for like 30 minutes and the kids didn't notice? That really freaks me out that my kids wouldn't notice if a predator was stalking them and waiting until they got into an area without good visibility. It seems to me that these kids were not as well prepared to protect themselves as their parents would have you believe.

He was a dude walking a dog. Why would they think he was a predator?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such BS. My kids had classmates at their DC public elementary that took the bus home ALONE at 4th and 5th grade.

4th and 5th grade is 9 and 10 (or 10 and 11). Taking the bus is going from point A to point B in a specific timeframe. MUCH different than wandering around a commercial neighborhood & busy intersections when you are 6 and 10.

Huh? Kids walking in a city to a bus stop then walking from bus stop home is MUCH different? It's also in a commercial neighborhood. Don't get this logic.

You really don't? Is your bus stop a mile or more from your house? Are you giving a 6 year old several hours to get home from your bus stop before checking on her? Really?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Nobody has said that they were doing anything other than walking home from the park*. Oh, and asking the 911 caller whether they could pet his dog. So I'm going to go with the assumption that what they were doing was walking home from the park.

*with not-clean clothes and uncombed hair -- on a child! imagine!

And you're comfortable substituting your judgment for the judgment of the people who were actually there and actually saw what they were doing. Miss Cleo, is that you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is such BS. My kids had classmates at their DC public elementary that took the bus home ALONE at 4th and 5th grade.

4th and 5th grade is 9 and 10 (or 10 and 11). Taking the bus is going from point A to point B in a specific timeframe. MUCH different than wandering around a commercial neighborhood & busy intersections when you are 6 and 10.

Huh? Kids walking in a city to a bus stop then walking from bus stop home is MUCH different? It's also in a commercial neighborhood. Don't get this logic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No, when the police receive a report of neglect, they are mandatory reporters and have to call CPS. They did not have the option, legally, to ignore the report and just send the kids home. When it turned out this family had an open file, CPS was likewise obliged to do an investigation. The kids were returned in 5 hours, which is a wholly reasonable time period.

But the police didn't receive a report of neglect. They received a report of two kids walking along without a parent.

That is neglect. Neglect is lack of supervision. Kids without someone of proper age supervising them is neglect.

If two kids walking along without a parent is neglect, then my parents neglected me, my neighbors' parents neglected them, my friends' parents neglected them -- basically everyone I know who is my age or older was a neglected child. Everyone. Every single last one.

Yes and my kids too. They walk home from the bus stop on their own a lot. Sometimes I come up with the dog, other times I am on a work call. They somehow survive but if a police officer ever picked them up, I would act just like these parents did.

Also I, personally, don't make decisions based on "What if I didn't do something, and then something extremely unlikely happened, and then I would feel terrible?" Do you? It's a really bad way to make decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Laws are of general application and then you apply the facts to them. That's just the way the law works, in general. The facts are usually the most important part of the case.

So in this case, there is a general law that could apply to children unaccompanied in public. One extreme is the Baltimore strip club at midnight, which we all agree is neglectful. The other extreme would be, say, turning your back on your kids for a second in the grocery store, which we all agree is NOT neglectful. In between is a lot of highly fact dependent grey area. In this case, multiple reasonable observers thought these kids looked at risk because of the area they were in and what they were doing. You're making a huge factual assumption when you say they were just "walking home from the park on Sunday afternoon." The crux of the matter is what WERE they doing? Were they walking safely home, or were they at risk? That is what this is all about -- the facts, not the law. You saying "they were just taking a walk" in fact ignores that the entire issue is what WERE they doing, and how?

Nobody has said that they were doing anything other than walking home from the park*. Oh, and asking the 911 caller whether they could pet his dog. So I'm going to go with the assumption that what they were doing was walking home from the park.

*with not-clean clothes and uncombed hair -- on a child! imagine!

Anonymous wrote:

Context is everything!

The point is that teaching kids that some people mean harm is not teaching them that every adult means harm. These kids were either unaware that a man was following them, or didn't know what they should do in that situation. If they had picked up their pace to get home faster, we never would have heard about this. How far away from home were they that they were walking for 20+ minutes and weren't home yet?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is foolish to think that no one, anywhere, ever, means anyone any harm. Most people don't mean harm, some do.

We need to teach our kids that some people do mean harm and what some possible danger signs are and what to do if they see those signs. It takes time to develop good judgement and we need to be there as parents to help our kids learn to be safe. Just as we don't throw kids in the water and say, "Swim!", we also can't just send them outside without teaching them how to avoid danger.

Who is advocating sending kids outside without teaching them how to avoid danger?

So to summarize, we live in a world where

1. Children should assume that all adults mean harm.
2. Adults who are worried about children should call 911 instead of approaching the children, because see #1.

There's something wrong here, and it's not two children walking home from the park.

Anonymous wrote:

You edited out the post I was responding to. Here it is:

Several people (including me) have mentioned that the helpful stranger basically stalked the kids for 20+ minutes before calling the cops on them. The kids may not have noticed him, may have been keeping an eye on him but not been alarmed enough to run off screaming bloody murder. If they had taken off screaming, that would absolutely have been evidence to the disapproving public that they're not ready to make this walk. These kids really have no way to win this one, besides the obvious, giving in to pressure and staying tied to their parents for the next several years.

Have you ever worked in a job that required you to take a sexual harassment prevention course? Do you have a security clearance? If you can answer yes to either of these questions, you will get why this gentleman handled the situation the way he did.

He did make sure the kids were safe by calling the police. He acted as the village here in making sure no harm came to these kids. How do you think he would have felt if he had just walked away from a situation that appeared to be not quite right and then later found out that these kids had been hit by a car?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, if they had run home as quickly as possible, no one would be talking about this at all.

This gentleman was smart to not approach two children without an adult nearby and instead keep an eye out for their safety from a distance. He put their safety first while also avoiding the possibility of appearing to be a person of bad intent himself. It's a balancing act, and I think he handled it well.

He put his safety first.

And why should they have run home as quickly as possible?

Several people (including me) have mentioned that the helpful stranger basically stalked the kids for 20+ minutes before calling the cops on them. The kids may not have noticed him, may have been keeping an eye on him but not been alarmed enough to run off screaming bloody murder. If they had taken off screaming, that would absolutely have been evidence to the disapproving public that they're not ready to make this walk. These kids really have no way to win this one, besides the obvious, giving in to pressure and staying tied to their parents for the next several years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From a legal perspective, Ilya Somin has written a piece on the Eugene Volokh's blog.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/04/16/how-the-constitution-protects-free-range-parents/

Well done. Disclaimer: Ilya is a friend. But I agree with his analysis.

Tell your friend job well done. And the fact that he added in helicopter parents makes it even better!

Anonymous wrote:

It is foolish to think that no one, anywhere, ever, means anyone any harm. Most people don't mean harm, some do.

We need to teach our kids that some people do mean harm and what some possible danger signs are and what to do if they see those signs. It takes time to develop good judgement and we need to be there as parents to help our kids learn to be safe. Just as we don't throw kids in the water and say, "Swim!", we also can't just send them outside without teaching them how to avoid danger.