Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters that say "I walked x miles and crossed x streets alone when I was age X and survived, so it's ok for kids today to do it." Consider this:

The kids that didn't survive aren't here to present the other view.

Think about that every time you get on plane/train and especially when you put your kid in a car which is dangerous!

Yep. That's why we use car seats. Kids used to not do that either.

Kids in car seats die too.

Wow you must be an idiot. So do you reject car seats too?

I agree only to a point. If you know today that children riding in a car with a car seat (which are not fully t

I reject the idea that a kid in a car seat is safer than a kid walking to a neighborhood park made for kids.

You've entirely missed the point here. Entirely.

The point: People who claim that because they did something and survived, therefore it is fine for the next generation to do it, are completely overlooking the fact that the kids from their generation who didn't survive aren't here to make the counter argument.

I agree only to a point. If you know today that children in car seats (which aren't fully/appropriately tested yet) are less safe than walking to neighborhood park alone, then why give a pass to parents who drive their kids but not to those who let them walk around their neighborhood. By the way, my family STILL lives in the City of Detroit, and don't see that as less dangerous than SS.

Who is saying that a kid is a car seat is less safe than a kid walking to a neighborhood park alone? That's ridiculous.

Put your kid is a car seat and go. If you'd rather them walk to the park, WALK WITH THEM.

Must get back to work now. Will have to save the creationist versus evolutionist debate for another time.

Sorry, 12:35 was responding to 12:30

You risk it for a belief that hovering over your kids will do even more harm. Which I agree with. The seriously screwed up response from neighbor/police/cps might tip the scales. But should we as parents really bow to that? I'd hate to think so. Talk about bad precedents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters that say "I walked x miles and crossed x streets alone when I was age X and survived, so it's ok for kids today to do it." Consider this:

The kids that didn't survive aren't here to present the other view.

Think about that every time you get on plane/train and especially when you put your kid in a car which is dangerous!

Yep. That's why we use car seats. Kids used to not do that either.

Kids in car seats die too.

Wow you must be an idiot. So do you reject car seats too?

I agree only to a point. If you know today that children riding in a car with a car seat (which are not fully t

I reject the idea that a kid in a car seat is safer than a kid walking to a neighborhood park made for kids.

You've entirely missed the point here. Entirely.

The point: People who claim that because they did something and survived, therefore it is fine for the next generation to do it, are completely overlooking the fact that the kids from their generation who didn't survive aren't here to make the counter argument.

I agree only to a point. If you know today that children in car seats (which aren't fully/appropriately tested yet) are less safe than walking to neighborhood park alone, then why give a pass to parents who drive their kids but not to those who let them walk around their neighborhood. By the way, my family STILL lives in the City of Detroit, and don't see that as less dangerous than SS.

Who is saying that a kid is a car seat is less safe than a kid walking to a neighborhood park alone? That's ridiculous.

Put your kid is a car seat and go. If you'd rather them walk to the park, WALK WITH THEM.

I live in Arlington and expecting my first child soon. I find this case disturbing, regardless of the particular situation, but because it made me look up the Arlington County rules.

8 years and under : Should not be left alone for any period of time. This includes leaving children unattended in cars, playgrounds and yards.
9 to 10 years : Should not be left alone for more than 1 ½ hours and only during daylight and early evening hours.
11 to 12 years : May be left alone for up to 3 hours, but not late at night or in circumstances requiring adult supervision.
13 to 15 years : May be left unsupervised, but not overnight.
16 to 17 years : May be left unsupervised for up to two consecutive overnight periods.


Seriously, this is saying a 6 year old cannot EVER be alone, even in your own yard! It makes me anxious just thinking about it! I'm a child of the 90's. As soon as I was capable of riding a bike (at 5) I was allowed to ride to the corner and back. My mom sent me out into the yard ALL THE TIME, pretty much every day. I walked to school which was about 5 blocks starting in first grade (and on weekends to the playground), and now that would be neglect?! I can't believe most of the board is saying that's legitimate neglect and the children deserve to be picked up by CPS to allow young siblings to feel some freedom. To never be out of your parents watchful gaze until your 8 years old seems like a recipe for anxiety and mental health issues to me, and just hatred from your kid. My partner and I really have to think about leaving this damn town if the general consensus here would be we're bad parents and don't deserve children.

Anonymous wrote:Whether or not I agree that these kids should be able to do this type of thing, I can't imagine doing it after the first instance of CPS involvement. Seems kind of stupid and asking for trouble.

+1000 I wrote essentially the same thing in last thread, why risk it at that point!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters that say "I walked x miles and crossed x streets alone when I was age X and survived, so it's ok for kids today to do it." Consider this:

The kids that didn't survive aren't here to present the other view.

Think about that every time you get on plane/train and especially when you put your kid in a car which is dangerous!

Yep. That's why we use car seats. Kids used to not do that either.

Kids in car seats die too.

Wow you must be an idiot. So do you reject car seats too?

I agree only to a point. If you know today that children riding in a car with a car seat (which are not fully t

I reject the idea that a kid in a car seat is safer than a kid walking to a neighborhood park made for kids.

You've entirely missed the point here. Entirely.

The point: People who claim that because they did something and survived, therefore it is fine for the next generation to do it, are completely overlooking the fact that the kids from their generation who didn't survive aren't here to make the counter argument.

I agree only to a point. If you know today that children in car seats (which aren't fully/appropriately tested yet) are less safe than walking to neighborhood park alone, then why give a pass to parents who drive their kids but not to those who let them walk around their neighborhood. By the way, my family STILL lives in the City of Detroit, and don't see that as less dangerous than SS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you saying that the DC urban area isn't a safe place for kids?

If so, how do you justify raising your kids here if it's that dangerous?

And if you are advocating parental supervision to "make it safe" - how exactly?

What's your plan?

Call 911 and hope for the best?

Make a cell phone video of the kidnappers car driving away with your kids inside?

Karate-chop the attacker?

You seem awefully judgemental for a willing DC parent.

No, I am just saying use your brain. Free range 13 year old? Probably ok. 6 year old? No.

10 year old, not 6 year old. Let's stick to the facts.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Are you saying that the DC urban area isn't a safe place for kids?

If so, how do you justify raising your kids here if it's that dangerous?

And if you are advocating parental supervision to "make it safe" - how exactly?

What's your plan?

Call 911 and hope for the best?

Make a cell phone video of the kidnappers car driving away with your kids inside?

Karate-chop the attacker?

You seem awefully judgemental for a willing DC parent.

No, I am just saying use your brain. Free range 13 year old? Probably ok. 6 year old? No.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters that say "I walked x miles and crossed x streets alone when I was age X and survived, so it's ok for kids today to do it." Consider this:

The kids that didn't survive aren't here to present the other view.

Think about that every time you get on plane/train and especially when you put your kid in a car which is dangerous!

Yep. That's why we use car seats. Kids used to not do that either.

Kids in car seats die too.

Wow you must be an idiot. So do you reject car seats too?

I reject the idea that a kid in a car seat is safer than a kid walking to a neighborhood park made for kids.

You've entirely missed the point here. Entirely.

The point: People who claim that because they did something and survived, therefore it is fine for the next generation to do it, are completely overlooking the fact that the kids from their generation who didn't survive aren't here to make the counter argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters that say "I walked x miles and crossed x streets alone when I was age X and survived, so it's ok for kids today to do it." Consider this:

The kids that didn't survive aren't here to present the other view.

Think about that every time you get on plane/train and especially when you put your kid in a car which is dangerous!

Yep. That's why we use car seats. Kids used to not do that either.

Kids in car seats die too.

Wow you must be an idiot. So do you reject car seats too?

I reject the idea that a kid in a car seat is safer than a kid walking to a neighborhood park made for kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So why didn't the kids speak up and demand to call their parents? Why come the kids didn't fight back, run off, refuse to go, use their cell phone to immediately call their parents? What happened to the mature, knows what to do even In a frightening situation 10 yr old?

Imagine now it wasn't the police who came along and took the kids.

Clearly the 10 yr old and 6 yr old aren't equipped to deal with situations like the parents believed.

Yeah, blame the kids. This is Big Government run amok. And yet MCPS will say it can't support the school budget. Is CPS state-wide or under MOCo?

Don't be silly. No ones blaming the kids. We're saying the parents put the kids in a situation they weren't ready to handle. Totally the parents' fault.

How do you know that the kids weren't ready to handle it?

How do you know they were?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the posters that say "I walked x miles and crossed x streets alone when I was age X and survived, so it's ok for kids today to do it." Consider this:

The kids that didn't survive aren't here to present the other view.

Think about that every time you get on plane/train and especially when you put your kid in a car which is dangerous!

Yep. That's why we use car seats. Kids used to not do that either.

And bikes helmets.

I grew up in Fairfax County in the 70's.
Super safe, super suburban.

I was the only kid I knew who was allowed to walk anywhere that wasn't in our neighborhood. All the other parents were not on board with that. I had no friends who were left outside to play and supervise younger siblings either. In fact, I can recall the opposite. Moms telling younger siblings to stay with them instead of going off with a pack of older kids.

So I don't think today's parents are helicoptering anymore so than they were 30 years ago.

I think parents then and now are being realistic and looking at their kids and realizing that they are kids and their reactions to situations are going to be at the kid level.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would the police even pick up the Kids? I'd laugh at the person who called. You'd think they have more important issues to deal with.

Except that sometimes you see kids alone that truly are being NEGLECTED. Hey, I send my kid down the street to the playground without adult supervision, however if I was approached by the police and/or CPS and they had an issue with it, I WOULD STOP. Would I agree, not necessarily, however that is my issue to fight, not my kids who would be the ones caught in the middle. I can move, I can lobby to change the laws and/or ordinances. I can write to my council person, governor, the President. However, I am not going to take the chance that my kids would be put in the system because I have a philosophical difference with the authorities. That is just stupid, and for that reason alone I think the parents are demonstrating PISS POOR judgement.
Not only that, but I would rather a neighbor was looking out, noticing if kids could possibly be in danger, than for something happen to a kid and everyone stood around MYOB.

The neighbor didn't look out for the kids. The neighbor called the police.

That is a way of looking out for the kids.