Anonymous wrote:I can't believe the Post published a column about this that only quotes the parents. They are hardly the most reliable narrators at this stage.

Kids roam all the time in MoCo without being picked up by police. I posted earlier about dozens of kids biking and walking up and down my very busy street every day; no parents and no one blinks an eye. These two kids have now repeatedly - at least 3 times - been in situations where random strangers have felt they were at risk.

There is no problem with kids being "free range" in this area; the issue is this family, and while I don't quite understand it, it doesn't sound to me that CPS is unwarranted here. Did anyone notice that in the police report, the kids were not found in a park - they were found in a parking garage. Enough with the rants against the police state. It's just not applicable here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scenario: 6 yo falls off the monkey bars and breaks his arm. What will the 10 yo do?

Call for help, presumably. What do you think?

So the kid has a phone? I didn't give my child a phone until middle school. Another poor parenting choice.

"Help, please!"<---calling for help

So, in the view of these parents, and in your view, the other parents are to be the safety net for their "free range" kids if something bad happens, but if anyone dare expresses concern that something bad MIGHT happen, they are to be scorned for interfering with a radical and anti-social lifestyle choice?

Spare me.

Anonymous wrote:I can't believe the Post published a column about this that only quotes the parents. They are hardly the most reliable narrators at this stage.

Kids roam all the time in MoCo without being picked up by police. I posted earlier about dozens of kids biking and walking up and down my very busy street every day; no parents and no one blinks an eye. These two kids have now repeatedly - at least 3 times - been in situations where random strangers have felt they were at risk.

There is no problem with kids being "free range" in this area; the issue is this family, and while I don't quite understand it, it doesn't sound to me that CPS is unwarranted here. Did anyone notice that in the police report, the kids were not found in a park - they were found in a parking garage. Enough with the rants against the police state. It's just not applicable here.

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the kids were in a parking garage, not a park (per that police report). Is that true?

Anonymous wrote:Apparently the kids were in a parking garage, not a park (per that police report). Is that true?

Anonymous wrote:

On Sunday, April 12 at approximately 4:58 p.m., the Montgomery County Emergency Call Center received a call to check the welfare of two children in the area of Fenton and Easley Streets. The call was dispatched at 5:00 p.m. and the first officer arrived in the area at 5:01 p.m. The officer made contact with the complainant who directed the officer to the Fenton Street parking garage where the officer found the children. This was at 5:03 p.m. The officer observed a homeless subject who he was familiar with, eyeing the children. This male subject remained in the area during the time that the officer was there with the children.

Anonymous wrote:Detectives from the Montgomery County Police – Special Victims Investigations Division and investigators from Child Protective Services are investigating possible child neglect allegations that occurred yesterday in Silver Spring.

On Sunday, April 12 at approximately 4:58 p.m., the Montgomery County Emergency Call Center received a call to check the welfare of two children in the area of Fenton and Easley Streets. The call was dispatched at 5:00 p.m. and the first officer arrived in the area at 5:01 p.m. The officer made contact with the complainant who directed the officer to the Fenton Street parking garage where the officer found the children. This was at 5:03 p.m. The officer observed a homeless subject who he was familiar with, eyeing the children. This male subject remained in the area during the time that the officer was there with the children.

The officer began by identifying the victim children and notifying his supervisors. At 5:16 p.m., he contacted Child Protective Services (CPS), per established protocol. Under Maryland law, police officers who become aware of circumstances involving possible child abuse or neglect are mandated to contact representatives of Child Protective Services.

At approximately 6:10 p.m., the officer contacted another CPS employee for guidance. At 6:41 p.m., the original CPS worker contacted the officer and stated that a decision was still forthcoming from within CPS.

At 7:18 p.m., a decision was made to transport the children to the CPS offices located at 1301 Piccard Drive in Rockville. The officer was also advised that CPS would notify the parents. The officer followed the direction of the CPS worker as procedures dictate – due to the serious nature of a Child Protective Services investigation and concern for the welfare of the children, they cannot be returned home until their safety can be assured.

Prior to being transported to the CPS offices, one of the children asked to use the bathroom. After an approximate 20 minute ride to CPS, the officer and children arrived at CPS at approximately 7:43 p.m. A bathroom was made available at that time.

While the children were with the officer, they told the officer that they were hungry and thirsty, stating that they had last eaten hamburgers between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. that afternoon. The officer related these facts to the CPS employee and advised that he had provided his own bottles of water to them. The officer had his personal lunch with him as well and was giving it to the children when the older child advised that he and his sister had food allergies – at that point the officer did not want to provide any food item that might cause an adverse reaction to the children so he did not give them his lunch as planned.

Investigators from Child Protective Services as well as detectives from the Montgomery County Police – Special Victims Investigations Division continue to work together on this event. There will be no disposition regarding this case until the investigation is complete.

PRS

Anonymous wrote:Detectives from the Montgomery County Police – Special Victims Investigations Division and investigators from Child Protective Services are investigating possible child neglect allegations that occurred yesterday in Silver Spring.

On Sunday, April 12 at approximately 4:58 p.m., the Montgomery County Emergency Call Center received a call to check the welfare of two children in the area of Fenton and Easley Streets. The call was dispatched at 5:00 p.m. and the first officer arrived in the area at 5:01 p.m. The officer made contact with the complainant who directed the officer to the Fenton Street parking garage where the officer found the children. This was at 5:03 p.m. The officer observed a homeless subject who he was familiar with, eyeing the children. This male subject remained in the area during the time that the officer was there with the children.

The officer began by identifying the victim children and notifying his supervisors. At 5:16 p.m., he contacted Child Protective Services (CPS), per established protocol. Under Maryland law, police officers who become aware of circumstances involving possible child abuse or neglect are mandated to contact representatives of Child Protective Services.

At approximately 6:10 p.m., the officer contacted another CPS employee for guidance. At 6:41 p.m., the original CPS worker contacted the officer and stated that a decision was still forthcoming from within CPS.

At 7:18 p.m., a decision was made to transport the children to the CPS offices located at 1301 Piccard Drive in Rockville. The officer was also advised that CPS would notify the parents. The officer followed the direction of the CPS worker as procedures dictate – due to the serious nature of a Child Protective Services investigation and concern for the welfare of the children, they cannot be returned home until their safety can be assured.

Prior to being transported to the CPS offices, one of the children asked to use the bathroom. After an approximate 20 minute ride to CPS, the officer and children arrived at CPS at approximately 7:43 p.m. A bathroom was made available at that time.

While the children were with the officer, they told the officer that they were hungry and thirsty, stating that they had last eaten hamburgers between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. that afternoon. The officer related these facts to the CPS employee and advised that he had provided his own bottles of water to them. The officer had his personal lunch with him as well and was giving it to the children when the older child advised that he and his sister had food allergies – at that point the officer did not want to provide any food item that might cause an adverse reaction to the children so he did not give them his lunch as planned.

Investigators from Child Protective Services as well as detectives from the Montgomery County Police – Special Victims Investigations Division continue to work together on this event. There will be no disposition regarding this case until the investigation is complete.

PRS

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have complete faith that the parents' story is the whole story. Why is that?

I don't see any reason to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story. What reason do you have to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story? Besides the circular one of: it must not be the whole story, because otherwise CPS wouldn't be doing all this stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have complete faith that the parents' story is the whole story. Why is that?

I don't see any reason to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story. What reason do you have to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story? Besides the circular one of: it must not be the whole story, because otherwise CPS wouldn't be doing all this stuff.

How about because they seem to have a major agenda?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

You have complete faith that the parents' story is the whole story. Why is that?

I don't see any reason to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story. What reason do you have to doubt that the parents' story is the whole story? Besides the circular one of: it must not be the whole story, because otherwise CPS wouldn't be doing all this stuff.