Anonymous wrote:[I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Really? I think that the Meitivs, like most of us, are trying to raise their children as they find reasonable and appropriate, but CPS is telling them that they're not allowed to.

Well, ultimately, at the end of the day, that is CPS's call and the court's call. There is obviously a range of what people may view as appropriate or neglectful, and that is why we have chosen to have CPS and the courts be the authority that makes the call. I don't really agree with the call in this particular instance, but that really isn't here or there.

Anonymous wrote:

To be honest, I don't really know that I think it is a great idea for a 10 year old to supervise a 6 year old at a park on his/her own. Last summer, I had a 9 year old kid come up to me, a random stranger, and tell me that she thought her 5 year old brother had broken his leg, they lived 12 blocks away, and she didn't know what to do. I helped her deal with the situation (stayed with her brother while she went to get their mom and called 911). But I wouldn't say the 9 year old really seemed on top of the situation.


Sounds like she was on top of it--she knew she needed help and she asked a grown up for help.

While it wasn't the end of the world and of course I will always help a child who is injured, I was late getting my dad to his chemo appointment as a result of the incident, and would have much preferred that the 5-year-old child's own parent be responsible for him.

Anonymous wrote:Would you let your 1st grader walk across the street and play in Chevy Chase Park (near Lafayette ES) unsupervised?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes, they were. They were found guilty of "unsubstantiated child neglect" and the case was kept open.

Having no basis in reason or fact of child neglect. That makes no sense, everyone could be guilty of that-or shall I say innocent of that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

No, they weren't.

Yes, they were. They were found guilty of "unsubstantiated child neglect" and the case was kept open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

No, they weren't.

Yes, they were. They were found guilty of "unsubstantiated child neglect" and the case was kept open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

No, they weren't.

Yes, they were. They were found guilty of "unsubstantiated child neglect" and the case was kept open.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

They must now surrender and comply. Resistance is futile.

"First they came for the parents of free range kids . . . . "

Seriously? You are equating letting your kids go to the park with the World War 2 resistance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

They must now surrender and comply. Resistance is futile.

"First they came for the parents of free range kids . . . . "

Seriously? You are equating letting your kids go to the park with the World War 2 resistance?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

No, they weren't.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Someone has to take a stand against Big Brother government. It's none of their business!!!

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure it can vary. My friend was the subject of a CPS investigation in Philly - a neighbor heard her son crying and he bruised easily. She felt that CPS conducted the investigation professionally and closed it out quickly. That's not to say others may not have had a bad experience, but in some cases, CPS does its job well.


Thus proving that point that reasonable parents should be aware they could be investigated by CPS at any time.

So what? I'm fine with that, if CPS is following up on complaints, they will be more likely to identify situations where there is actually abuse and/or neglect.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm absolutely on the side of free-range parenting, but at this point, the Meitev are just trying to make a point using their children as pawns. They know the CPS is out to get them. And their children are traumatized and scared. As a parent, they should do what it takes to get the CPS out of their lives. I would get someone to supervise the children from 50 feet away. They can still criticize the stupidity of the CPS and the police all they want.

For those of us who were children in the 1970s - when there was much more street violence and crime - first grade readiness for a 6 year old included being able to walk 4-8 blocks from home to a store, playground, or friends house. Since its safer now, it makes complete sense for these parents to expect their children to be able to play 2 blocks from home.

I agree. They've had 3 run ins over the issue. After the second incident, they were taken to court and found guilty of child neglect. I am sure that CPS has told them, in no uncertain terms, not to let their kids walk around alone. They've even stated to the media that they aren't changing their behavior, and that they weren't surprised by the outcome.

At this point, the only thing that I can conclude is that it matters more to them to be in the spotlight and make a point, than it does to keep their kids emotionally safe. Whether or not I agree with CPS's decision, I can't agree with a decision to do something that they knew would likely lead to a situation like this.

I'll also say that I think the bolded in a misreading of the statistics. In the 70's there were lots of children playing outside, and walking places outside. Let's simplify it and say there were a million kids outside, and 4 kidnappings a year, so the odds were 4 in a million that your particular kid would be the victim of a kidnapper. Now there are far fewer kids outside. Let's say there are a quarter million kids still playing outside. Even if the number of kidnappings is halved, to 2, it still means that the odds for any particular child are doubled.

Of course the odds are still quite low, the greater odds are of being hit by a car, but I'm not convinced they're actually lower. Since I can't find statistics on the number of kids allowed to play alone unsupervised, I can't come up with any real statistics.

The nail that sticks up gets hammered down.

They must now surrender and comply. Resistance is futile.

"First they came for the parents of free range kids . . . . "