Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You need to read all the comments. This was not a "neighborhood park" - it was an urban park, in a dangerous traffic area, blocks away from a gang hangout spot. The "neighbor" likely was just a concerned citizen, not somebody who knew the kids or parents.

Which park? Be specific, please. Also, an "urban park" actually is a neighborhood park.

http://www.montgomeryparks.org/PPSD/ParkPlanning/Projects/urban_parks_masterplan/

"Urban" doesn't mean "Scary! Stay away! Watch out for the gangs and graffiti!"

It might not mean "scary" but it definitely for reasonable parents means "keep an adult eye on a 6 year old."

Thesd parents need to move to a small town or commune somewhere.

Why?

Here's an urban park: http://www.montgomeryparks.org/parks_facilities_directory/fentonstreetup.shtm
Here's another one: http://www.montgomeryparks.org/parks_facilities_directory/ellsworthup.shtm

What terrifying dangers am I missing?

It is the proximity to Downtown SS and the need to cross dangerous intersections and being surrounded by strangers that is the issue. Not the park itself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But I don't think people are as worried about the destination as they are about the journey. Are there any major roads or busy intersections nearby?

Do you think that a six-year-old and a ten-year-old are inherently incapable of crossing a major road by themselves, or do you think it depends on the specific six-year-old and ten-year-old and the specific major road?

Studies suggest this is not until about 8 years old to be reliable.

Which studies?

Here's one for starters - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3256780/

6 years olds 11 times more likely to make unsafe judgments than 10 year olds.

But that doesn't mean that every six-year-old will make an unsafe judgment, or that every 10-year-old will make a safer judgment than every six-year-old.

You don't make laws based on the one six year old who can do it. You have to draw the line somewhere at a reasonably safe age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. It seems to me that these parents expect other people (neighbors, parents at the park, etc) to look out for their kids. Maybe the people who called CPS are tired of feeling like they are supposed to do that. It doesn't seem reasonable that these FR parents put responsibility for care taking (even at a low level) but think it outrageous that someone observing their kids alone would call CPS for help. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, they do. Just as I expect other people to look out for my kids, and I expect other people to look out for me, and I look out for other people (including kids). Because that's what people do in a civil society -- they look out for other people, and they help other people who need help.

Basically you expect strangers to look after your kid?
Sorry, that is not how it works. A tight knit community where everyone knows each other - ok. But to entrust your 6 year old to random strangers in an urban setting is nuts.

Basically I expect people to look after people.

Now, if you don't want to be looked after, then please indicate that in some way when you're out in public -- maybe a hat or a T-shirt? -- and I'll be sure to not look after you, if you have a mishap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You need to read all the comments. This was not a "neighborhood park" - it was an urban park, in a dangerous traffic area, blocks away from a gang hangout spot. The "neighbor" likely was just a concerned citizen, not somebody who knew the kids or parents.

Which park? Be specific, please. Also, an "urban park" actually is a neighborhood park.

http://www.montgomeryparks.org/PPSD/ParkPlanning/Projects/urban_parks_masterplan/

"Urban" doesn't mean "Scary! Stay away! Watch out for the gangs and graffiti!"

It might not mean "scary" but it definitely for reasonable parents means "keep an adult eye on a 6 year old."

Thesd parents need to move to a small town or commune somewhere.

Why?

Here's an urban park: http://www.montgomeryparks.org/parks_facilities_directory/fentonstreetup.shtm
Here's another one: http://www.montgomeryparks.org/parks_facilities_directory/ellsworthup.shtm

What terrifying dangers am I missing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. It seems to me that these parents expect other people (neighbors, parents at the park, etc) to look out for their kids. Maybe the people who called CPS are tired of feeling like they are supposed to do that. It doesn't seem reasonable that these FR parents put responsibility for care taking (even at a low level) but think it outrageous that someone observing their kids alone would call CPS for help. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, they do. Just as I expect other people to look out for my kids, and I expect other people to look out for me, and I look out for other people (including kids). Because that's what people do in a civil society -- they look out for other people, and they help other people who need help.

Basically you expect strangers to look after your kid?

Sorry, that is not how it works. A tight knit community where everyone knows each other - ok. But to entrust your 6 year old to random strangers in an urban setting is nuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You need to read all the comments. This was not a "neighborhood park" - it was an urban park, in a dangerous traffic area, blocks away from a gang hangout spot. The "neighbor" likely was just a concerned citizen, not somebody who knew the kids or parents.

Which park? Be specific, please. Also, an "urban park" actually is a neighborhood park.

http://www.montgomeryparks.org/PPSD/ParkPlanning/Projects/urban_parks_masterplan/

"Urban" doesn't mean "Scary! Stay away! Watch out for the gangs and graffiti!"

It might not mean "scary" but it definitely for reasonable parents means "keep an adult eye on a 6 year old."

Thesd parents need to move to a small town or commune somewhere.

Many posters seem to think that the parents are sending their kids to the park alone at of laziness or a lack of interest in parenting or similat reasoning. I don't think thats the case at all. I get the impression that they are very involved in raising their children and want to raise confident, responsible individuals and have actively decided to gradually allow their children incremently more freedom and responsibility instead of hovering over them. This is not neglect but a parenting choice.

I think the term "free-range parenting" and the accompaning movement is silly and find active participation in it (using the label for yourself, blogging, the stupid cards etc.) possibly cringe-worthy and would certainly roll my eyes at it but I have no issue with the underlying parenting choice only making a big deal about it.

As many have posted this type of parenting is nothing new.

I'm suprised by the number of posters who really don't think a 6 yo and 10 yo can't play at a local park unsupervised and that this hasn't been going on in urban areas for decades. I will add my antetotal evidence.

Here are some of the things my sister and I did at ages 9 and 6:
- commute home from our parochial school by ourselves, including crossing two major streets, transfering buses and walking
- visit the zoo on our own walking to and from our home in Mt. Pleasant
- ride our bikes unaccompanied in Rock Creek Park
- in Disney World take the monorail from our hotel to the Magic Kingdom (we had watches and had to be back at a specified time)
- while living in another country for the summer walk to a nearby store alone to return bottles
There are plenty more examples but these I can pinpoint to a specific age and know that we were without a pack of friends, though we also did trips ot the zoo or rode our bikes with others too.

My parents were never considered neglectful and by the standards of friends and family were not considered permissive and were generally thought of as some of the more restrictive parents among my friends - they always wanted to know what we were doing, with whom and would not just let us run free all day. Also, we weren't jut let loose one day - the freedom came in small increments and responsibity was demanded.

I am trying not to be a helicopter parent but admit I do not allow my 4 yo the same level of freedom I had. But I do try to give him unsupervised time and hover less and less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. It seems to me that these parents expect other people (neighbors, parents at the park, etc) to look out for their kids. Maybe the people who called CPS are tired of feeling like they are supposed to do that. It doesn't seem reasonable that these FR parents put responsibility for care taking (even at a low level) but think it outrageous that someone observing their kids alone would call CPS for help. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, they do. Just as I expect other people to look out for my kids, and I expect other people to look out for me, and I look out for other people (including kids). Because that's what people do in a civil society -- they look out for other people, and they help other people who need help.

+100

Anonymous wrote:NP. It seems to me that these parents expect other people (neighbors, parents at the park, etc) to look out for their kids. Maybe the people who called CPS are tired of feeling like they are supposed to do that. It doesn't seem reasonable that these FR parents put responsibility for care taking (even at a low level) but think it outrageous that someone observing their kids alone would call CPS for help. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, they do. Just as I expect other people to look out for my kids, and I expect other people to look out for me, and I look out for other people (including kids). Because that's what people do in a civil society -- they look out for other people, and they help other people who need help.

Anonymous wrote:

You need to read all the comments. This was not a "neighborhood park" - it was an urban park, in a dangerous traffic area, blocks away from a gang hangout spot. The "neighbor" likely was just a concerned citizen, not somebody who knew the kids or parents.

Which park? Be specific, please. Also, an "urban park" actually is a neighborhood park.

http://www.montgomeryparks.org/PPSD/ParkPlanning/Projects/urban_parks_masterplan/

"Urban" doesn't mean "Scary! Stay away! Watch out for the gangs and graffiti!"

Anonymous wrote:This might have been said, but whoever keeps claiming the park is 1/3 mile from their house is incorrect. Park is a mile away, according to the article.

Which article? They were 1/3 of a mile away from home, according to this:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/04/13/maryland-free-range-kids-taken-into-custody-by-child-protective-services-again/

In any case, so what? A mile away is not exactly the moon. A mile is a 20-minute walk. My elementary school was a mile away, and I walked there and back every day.

Anonymous wrote:Did they lose custody of the 10yo too or just the 6yo?

10 is fine to walk to the park. 6 is too young to not have proper supervision.

No, they didn't lose custody of either child. Unless you have a source for that?

Wait! Did someone post here that the parents lost custody of one child?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever.

+1 Everyone was doing what they thought was right.

I have no interest into getting into another long thread about this again. OP just wants to find fault. Boring.

I'm not the OP, and I want to find fault. You know all those worries about kids being abducted by strangers? For these kids, that worry became reality yesterday, thanks to a busybody neighbor.

http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/28783266/free-range-kids

What? They weren't abducted. These parents care more about publicity and ideology than their kids.

PP, read the post. They walked to their neighborhood park and a neighbor saw them and called the police. This is ridiculous!

You need to read all the comments. This was not a "neighborhood park" - it was an urban park, in a dangerous traffic area, blocks away from a gang hangout spot. The "neighbor" likely was just a concerned citizen, not somebody who knew the kids or parents.

That's just factually not true. I live there. It's a neighborhood park.

Anonymous wrote:NP. It seems to me that these parents expect other people (neighbors, parents at the park, etc) to look out for their kids. Maybe the people who called CPS are tired of feeling like they are supposed to do that. It doesn't seem reasonable that these FR parents put responsibility for care taking (even at a low level) but think it outrageous that someone observing their kids alone would call CPS for help. You can't have it both ways.

I TOTALLY disagree. If you feel you have to do this, then look at yourself and your own control issues. Parents expect other people to be reasonable human beings. If anyone fell down, broke a leg anywhere a reasonable person would offer to help the person.