Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I thought you were slightly changing the idea each time, so I wanted to make sure I understood clearly what you were saying.

As long as it's legal, that's the important thing.

If you really want to know whether it's legal, you should ask a lawyer, not an anonymous Internet commenter.

It appears that the people in the situation being discussed here believe that it is legal for kids to be without adult supervision as long as they are outside, not indoors or in a car. The law doesn't mention anything about the outdoors. Here is the law that appears to be the one being relied on:

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.

No mention of the outdoors in the law so it seems that the idea here is that there is no need to provide a "a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child" as long as the child is outdoors and not in a "dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle"? And that it is why it is legal for the six and ten year old to walk about a mile to a park and back? If the children were indoors or in a car, there would be a need to provide protection but as long as they are outdoors, there is no need to provide a reliable person to protect the children?

If the outdoors is not mentioned in the law, it must mean that children do not need the same level of supervision there that they would need indoors or in a car, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why aren't you answering the question?

Because I am busy pointing out how stupid your line of thinking is.

Call SS Police (your friends) and ask how many pedestrian accidents there are a year, then how many are in DTSS.

Well, or you could answer the question. Evidently your answer is that it's not safe for a 6-year-old to walk around in DTSS because there are car-pedestrian collisions in DTSS? I'm guessing that the vast majority of those collisions involve adult pedestrians. Does that mean it's not safe for an adult to walk around in DTSS?

Also, numbers don't tell the whole story. There are going to be more car-pedestrian collisions in places with lots of pedestrians than in places with no pedestrians. And there are lots of pedestrians in DTSS. (Maybe they don't know how unsafe they're being.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?

If you never see six-year olds driving cars, then how do you know that driving cars is not safe for six year olds? why do they have to wait until 16?

Well, for one thing, they can't reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

Now, how do you know that it's not safe for six-year-olds to walk around in DTSS?

My family is very tall. My 6 year old can reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel. So I think the govt. should stay out of my business on whether I let my 6 yo drive or not.

Why aren't you answering the question?

Because I am busy pointing out how stupid your line of thinking is.

Call SS Police (your friends) and ask how many pedestrian accidents there are a year, then how many are in DTSS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?

If you never see six-year olds driving cars, then how do you know that driving cars is not safe for six year olds? why do they have to wait until 16?

Well, for one thing, they can't reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

Now, how do you know that it's not safe for six-year-olds to walk around in DTSS?

My family is very tall. My 6 year old can reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel. So I think the govt. should stay out of my business on whether I let my 6 yo drive or not.

Why aren't you answering the question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?

If you never see six-year olds driving cars, then how do you know that driving cars is not safe for six year olds? why do they have to wait until 16?

Well, for one thing, they can't reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

Now, how do you know that it's not safe for six-year-olds to walk around in DTSS?

My family is very tall. My 6 year old can reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel. So I think the govt. should stay out of my business on whether I let my 6 yo drive or not.

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, I thought you were slightly changing the idea each time, so I wanted to make sure I understood clearly what you were saying.

As long as it's legal, that's the important thing.

If you really want to know whether it's legal, you should ask a lawyer, not an anonymous Internet commenter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?

If you never see six-year olds driving cars, then how do you know that driving cars is not safe for six year olds? why do they have to wait until 16?

Well, for one thing, they can't reach the pedals or see over the steering wheel.

Now, how do you know that it's not safe for six-year-olds to walk around in DTSS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How about six-year-old people who actually live in DTSS?

Yes, we see them wandering around DTSS a lot! Not.

What an odd neighborhood. People live there, but you never see them?

I see them with parents. Not alone.

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?

If you never see six-year olds driving cars, then how do you know that driving cars is not safe for six year olds? why do they have to wait until 16?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the likelihood of harm is so low that I don't need to worry about it, according to what I've read here. Knowing this will save me so much money. And it's apparently better for my kids to be by themselves. What's the point of paying someone to watch the kids when they can simply be out of doors and they'll be fine?
I can't think of even one possible pitfall in this plan.

You may worry about it if you want to worry about it, or not if you don't. However, the LEGAL question is whether the likelihood of harm is high enough to constitute "a substantial risk of harm".

Posters here are saying it does not pose "a substantial risk of harm" to allow young children to walk a mile or so to a park and back with four lane roads along the way as long as they stay outdoors. So I can tell my six and eight year old to go to the park and play when I need to run into work for a while on the weekend or even every day after school. As long as they stay outdoors, this is legal, so there is no reason for me not to do this, correct?

I've already agreed with you six times, at least. Why do you keep asking the same question?

Sorry, I thought you were slightly changing the idea each time, so I wanted to make sure I understood clearly what you were saying.

As long as it's legal, that's the important thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the likelihood of harm is so low that I don't need to worry about it, according to what I've read here. Knowing this will save me so much money. And it's apparently better for my kids to be by themselves. What's the point of paying someone to watch the kids when they can simply be out of doors and they'll be fine?
I can't think of even one possible pitfall in this plan.

You may worry about it if you want to worry about it, or not if you don't. However, the LEGAL question is whether the likelihood of harm is high enough to constitute "a substantial risk of harm".

Posters here are saying it does not pose "a substantial risk of harm" to allow young children to walk a mile or so to a park and back with four lane roads along the way as long as they stay outdoors. So I can tell my six and eight year old to go to the park and play when I need to run into work for a while on the weekend or even every day after school. As long as they stay outdoors, this is legal, so there is no reason for me not to do this, correct?

I've already agreed with you six times, at least. Why do you keep asking the same question?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But the likelihood of harm is so low that I don't need to worry about it, according to what I've read here. Knowing this will save me so much money. And it's apparently better for my kids to be by themselves. What's the point of paying someone to watch the kids when they can simply be out of doors and they'll be fine?
I can't think of even one possible pitfall in this plan.

You may worry about it if you want to worry about it, or not if you don't. However, the LEGAL question is whether the likelihood of harm is high enough to constitute "a substantial risk of harm".

Posters here are saying it does not pose "a substantial risk of harm" to allow young children to walk a mile or so to a park and back with four lane roads along the way as long as they stay outdoors. So I can tell my six and eight year old to go to the park and play when I need to run into work for a while on the weekend or even every day after school. As long as they stay outdoors, this is legal, so there is no reason for me not to do this, correct?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How about six-year-old people who actually live in DTSS?

Yes, we see them wandering around DTSS a lot! Not.

What an odd neighborhood. People live there, but you never see them?

I see them with parents. Not alone.

So DTSS actually is a safe area for six-year-olds to walk?

And if you never see six-year-olds walking by themselves, then how do you know that DTSS is not a safe area for six-year-olds to walk by themselves?

Anonymous wrote:

But the likelihood of harm is so low that I don't need to worry about it, according to what I've read here. Knowing this will save me so much money. And it's apparently better for my kids to be by themselves. What's the point of paying someone to watch the kids when they can simply be out of doors and they'll be fine?
I can't think of even one possible pitfall in this plan.

You may worry about it if you want to worry about it, or not if you don't. However, the LEGAL question is whether the likelihood of harm is high enough to constitute "a substantial risk of harm".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Okay, I never thought of this. So, I don't really have to have a babysitter at all, I can just send the kids to the park. We could save a lot of money and put it in the college accounts. It doesn't matter where I am, the kids can be alone as long as they stay outside?

Yes, as long as leaving the kids unattended doesn't harm their health or welfare or place them in substantial risk of harm (which is one of the ways that the Maryland regulations define child neglect: http://www.dhr.state.md.us/blog/?page_id=3969)

From what I've been reading here, it's perfectly safe and there is nothing that could harm my children while going to and from or while playing at the park, even if there are four lane roads to cross on the way.
Really, I shouldn't even have to arrange for after school care now that I know this. They could just walk from school to the park every day and then come home at a prearranged time. I just need to tell them to stay outdoors and it is fine, right?

Yes, it is fine for children to walk from school to the park, play at the park, and walk home.

But actually nobody has said that there is nothing that could harm the children. What people have said is that harm is highly unlikely.

But the likelihood of harm is so low that I don't need to worry about it, according to what I've read here. Knowing this will save me so much money. And it's apparently better for my kids to be by themselves. What's the point of paying someone to watch the kids when they can simply be out of doors and they'll be fine?
I can't think of even one possible pitfall in this plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How about six-year-old people who actually live in DTSS?

Yes, we see them wandering around DTSS a lot! Not.

What an odd neighborhood. People live there, but you never see them?

I see them with parents. Not alone.