Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I don't know. I don't know these parents. And I'm not investigating them. All we hear is their side of the story. I do know they keep doing something they know puts their kids at the center of controversy, so that does make me wonder about their judgment.

They keep letting their white children walk unescorted, in a urban environment. They could do this if the kids weren't white; or if they lived in a suburb. But white kids aren't allowed to walk on city streets alone.

I actually think it's the opposite. If they weren't white, the media wouldn't be particularly interested, and CPS might well have kept the kids.

Fenton and Easley is not an "urban environment".

Anonymous wrote:I think it probably has something to do with the fact that they are breaking the law...despite having been investigated by CPS and told not to do this.

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.

ALL types of crime are down substantially since we were kids (well, except cyber crime, since that didn't exist decades ago...). And that's even with increased public awareness resulting in increased chances that certain types of crime (rape & child abuse, for instance) are reported.The rates at which adults are raped & murdered is down substantially. There aren't less adults to rape or murder. The rates at which children are abused or killed in their own homes & in schools is down. There aren't less children spending time in their own homes & in schools. So even if just as many children were outside unsupervised, it's highly unlikely that child kidnapping would be the ONLY type of crime for which rates have not gone down.