Anonymous wrote:I don't understand this fear of "urban" neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo has a new article about MoCo and children walking unaccompanied. They also have a copy of a letter written by Montgomery County Council President George Leventhal (D-At Large) and County Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large) to to county police and human-services officials, asking for clarification of police and CPS procedures, responses to 9/11 calls, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/montgomery-council-seeks-clarity-stemming-from-free-range-debate/2015/04/22/a74fd086-e82e-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html?hpid=z4

Thanks for posting this. The 16 questions do not seem to hit on basics that mothers in my neighborhood have discussed: At what age may children play outside without a parent or guardian? At what age can a younger child walk to a park with an older one?

Anonymous wrote:WaPo has a new article about MoCo and children walking unaccompanied. They also have a copy of a letter written by Montgomery County Council President George Leventhal (D-At Large) and County Council member Marc Elrich (D-At Large) to to county police and human-services officials, asking for clarification of police and CPS procedures, responses to 9/11 calls, etc.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/montgomery-council-seeks-clarity-stemming-from-free-range-debate/2015/04/22/a74fd086-e82e-11e4-9767-6276fc9b0ada_story.html?hpid=z4

Anonymous wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2015/04/neighbors_of_free_range_kids_what_do_you_do_when_you_see_a_kid_alone.html

For locals, this article is enough to drive you bats! It references a parking garage adjacent to the Greyhound Station, but the police report says the kids were picked up at Fenton and Easley which is 4 blocks closer to Elsworth Park (they would not have reached the area of the Greyhound Station yet). There is a parking LOT adjacent to the Greyhound Station and a garage about a block away behind it (tucked behind the Nora School), but in most reports the garage is called the Fenton Street garage which for Silver Springers would not call to mind the lot tucked behind the Nora School which is not on Fenton Street.

This article is interesting, but the author needs to firm up her geography and think twice about using so many anonymous sources. It does raise a good point though (hypothetically speaking since I can make no sense of her geography), what would you do if you saw a child entering a parking garage unaccompanied?

Anonymous wrote:http://www.slate.com/articles/life/family/2015/04/neighbors_of_free_range_kids_what_do_you_do_when_you_see_a_kid_alone.html

For locals, this article is enough to drive you bats! It references a parking garage adjacent to the Greyhound Station, but the police report says the kids were picked up at Fenton and Easley which is 4 blocks closer to Elsworth Park (they would not have reached the area of the Greyhound Station yet). There is a parking LOT adjacent to the Greyhound Station and a garage about a block away behind it (tucked behind the Nora School), but in most reports the garage is called the Fenton Street garage which for Silver Springers would not call to mind the lot tucked behind the Nora School which is not on Fenton Street.

This article is interesting, but the author needs to firm up her geography and think twice about using so many anonymous sources. It does raise a good point though (hypothetically speaking since I can make no sense of her geography), what would you do if you saw a child entering a parking garage unaccompanied?

Anonymous wrote:Also, can anyone who hasn't lived in or around this area and who is not familiar with the particular attributes of this area stop commenting on whether it's safe for kids to be in this area without an adult. I'm very familiar with the area and I have very strong views on the subject. I also respect the differing views of some of my fellow silver springers and can appreciate why there is disagreement. But folks who have maybe driven through or have vague notions of growing up in a similar area just have no idea what they're talking about (and this goes for both sides of the issue). The national coverage is laughable because it's all based on assumptions and preconceived ideas of the reporter or news outlet covering the story.

Anonymous wrote:I believe the indoors law bit is intended to protect children who are abandoned in various places. Often abused/neglected children have been discovered inside places having been left alone with no food, diaper changes, water and so forth. Often locked up or afraid to go out and seek help, because of criminal activity occurring amongst the adults. I haven't kept up with the current thinking, but it used to be a "red flag" when kids were never seen outside.
(this would be because the injuries might be noticed) Then, being left in cars while a parent is in a bar drinking or somewhere buying/using drugs would be the reason kids shouldn't have to look after themselves in such situations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, that is the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.

Is there any chance that the spirit of the law might be different than the literal reading of the letter of the law?

What is different about the indoors as opposed to the outdoors that caused the law to be written this way?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Yes, that is the law. If you don't like the law, work to change it.

Is there any chance that the spirit of the law might be different than the literal reading of the letter of the law?

What is different about the indoors as opposed to the outdoors that caused the law to be written this way?