Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I grew up knowing how quickly bad things can happen and I have used that knowledge in my parenting to balance freedom and supervision to keep my children safe and healthy. I know that we can't protect our kids from any possible harm, but I will do my best to keep from putting them in situations that are beyond their age to handle.

I am certain that the Meitivs are also doing their best to keep from putting their children in situations that are beyond their age to handle. And since the Meitivs know their children, and you don't, there's a good chance that the Meitivs have a better idea of what their children can handle than you do.

You're certain that they're doing that, eh? Why? Do you know them?

Have you read interviews with them? They're not just saying, "Oh, what the hell, let's drop the kids off in the woods with bread crumbs in their pockets and let them make their way home, it seems like they ought to be ready for that." They have really thought about these questions systematically. In fact, they've probably thought about them much more than I have.

Agreed. They are looking at it based on math and science, and the way organizations assess risk, not beliefs based on emotions.

Oh, of course, that makes sense now. How silly to allow emotion to affect my decisions about parenting my children! I am sure that when they are adults my children will be much happier if I switch to a math- and science-based parenting system.

Anonymous wrote:Arlington County regulations are ridiculous! An 8 year old can't play in her own backyard without a parent sitting there and staring at her?! That's insane.

It is only going to get worse! Look how many people are backing up a messed-up system. MCPS will have the same laws in place soon thanks to helicopter moms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was 4 when my parents started teaching me and practicing. Why? Because come Sept. 4 I had to walk to school by myself and cross many streets - all at the age of 4. I was not 5 until December of that year. The largest 4-lane road had a crossing guard. There weren't any children my age in my neighborhood, so I didn't meet up with other kids until I was out of my neighborhood. And they were all elementary kids as well. We practiced all summer and played games about what to do if certain situations arose. Many other families practiced as well. I felt so proud and prepared on my first day! And no this wasn't some small town. I grew up just outside of DC.

So you think kids should be able to roam unsupervised at 4. Ok. We definitely disagree. Just because you survived doesn't mean that's a good benchmark.

I've never heard of walking to school described as "roaming" before.

Also, people here keep saying that five-year-olds CAN'T do it. But obviously they can, because the PP did. I did too.

These kids weren't walking home from school. So you think it's okay if it's to/from school, but nowhere else? Why did you mention it then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The implicit threat with CPS is always that they will remove the kids. If you think that CPS would not remove the kids over this, that's good news.

Uh, no. The implicit threat with CPS was they had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again. CPS isn't going to remove the kids unless they think the kids' welfare is in danger. That may happen, but not because they want to prove a point.

They had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again, or else -- right? Otherwise it's not a threat. And if the "or else" isn't that CPS will remove the kids, what is it?

Yes, I guess that's the implicit threat. That's also the implicit threat of what will happen if I physically abuse my kids. I think I'm okay with that.

Anonymous wrote:

What would you do if you saw a six-year-old and a ten-year-old walking without a parent?

NOTHING!!!

I'm another North Chevy Chase resident who agrees with her neighbor above that there are tons of kids out and about without parents. One of the neighbor kids walked himself home - about two blocks - from the bus stop (kids take the bus K-2) starting in 1st grade.

I'm also the PP from the very beginning of this thread who grew up here and walked herself home from half-day K starting at 4. Six blocks/ a third of a mile. I also walked home for lunch and back to school once a week all through ES. Born 1973.

The question actually is: what would you do if you saw a child eho looked lost in a commercial area where homeless people gsther, and children do not typically walk alone?

Kristin Wright ?@kwrightnbc4 4m4 minutes ago
#FreeRangeParents in MD will sue, after police picked up their unaccompanied children again this week. #Meitiv #FreeRangeKids

Anonymous wrote:I think both parties are wrong here. From the police side, why they did not scoop the kids up, drive them home, write up the parents or call CPS while at the home makes no sense. That would have been a logical solution to the issue, taking them to the station is extreme. On the parents side, if these kids had been abducted, hit by a car etc they would be to blame for that, and the area where they live is populated enough that there is a chance something bad could happen. I ran around when I was a kid but it was on a cul de sac in a small tight neighborhood far removed from big streets, high volume areas. Even though they were going to the park it is still a very dense, high population area, and I do think there is a substantive difference between a neighborhood in clarksburg for example and a neighborhood in silver spring.

So the police and CPS are wrong for what they did and the parents are wrong because there are possible dangers in the world? I grew up in an urban area. Should I have not have been allowed out because I didn't live in a cul-de-sac like you? Parents know their kids and their abilities. We teach them to become happy thriving independent kids in an area they are from and used to. These kids have been to these parks and down these roads multiple times. The only thing that keeps happening is crazy adults calling 911 and police harassing them. The kids are fine and even told he police so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I was 4 when my parents started teaching me and practicing. Why? Because come Sept. 4 I had to walk to school by myself and cross many streets - all at the age of 4. I was not 5 until December of that year. The largest 4-lane road had a crossing guard. There weren't any children my age in my neighborhood, so I didn't meet up with other kids until I was out of my neighborhood. And they were all elementary kids as well. We practiced all summer and played games about what to do if certain situations arose. Many other families practiced as well. I felt so proud and prepared on my first day! And no this wasn't some small town. I grew up just outside of DC.

So you think kids should be able to roam unsupervised at 4. Ok. We definitely disagree. Just because you survived doesn't mean that's a good benchmark.

I've never heard of walking to school described as "roaming" before.

Also, people here keep saying that five-year-olds CAN'T do it. But obviously they can, because the PP did. I did too.

Arlington County regulations are ridiculous! An 8 year old can't play in her own backyard without a parent sitting there and staring at her?! That's insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The implicit threat with CPS is always that they will remove the kids. If you think that CPS would not remove the kids over this, that's good news.

Uh, no. The implicit threat with CPS was they had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again. CPS isn't going to remove the kids unless they think the kids' welfare is in danger. That may happen, but not because they want to prove a point.

They had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again, or else -- right? Otherwise it's not a threat. And if the "or else" isn't that CPS will remove the kids, what is it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing. Let's assume at some point in a child's life something bad is going to happen when a parent isn't there.

Going to happen; no avoiding it.

Wouldn't it be nice to know that your child has the capacity and self-assuredness to effectively neutralize the situation or know how to access someone who can?

This kind of knowledge and confidence has to be taught and practiced so when the time comes that the child has to act, they are prepared.

No amount of "don't talk to strangers and hold mommy's hand while crossing the street" will ever help your child not get victimized or run over by a car.

No one disagrees that you have to teach them how to exist in the world. The question is at what age can they do that unsupervised. A line has to get drawn somewhere. You think it should be younger than 8. What age?

I was 4 when my parents started teaching me and practicing. Why? Because come Sept. 4 I had to walk to school by myself and cross many streets - all at the age of 4. I was not 5 until December of that year. The largest 4-lane road had a crossing guard. There weren't any children my age in my neighborhood, so I didn't meet up with other kids until I was out of my neighborhood. And they were all elementary kids as well. We practiced all summer and played games about what to do if certain situations arose. Many other families practiced as well. I felt so proud and prepared on my first day! And no this wasn't some small town. I grew up just outside of DC.

So you think kids should be able to roam unsupervised at 4. Ok. We definitely disagree. Just because you survived doesn't mean that's a good benchmark.

What would you do if you saw a six-year-old and a ten-year-old walking without a parent?

NOTHING!!!

I'm another North Chevy Chase resident who agrees with her neighbor above that there are tons of kids out and about without parents. One of the neighbor kids walked himself home - about two blocks - from the bus stop (kids take the bus K-2) starting in 1st grade.

I'm also the PP from the very beginning of this thread who grew up here and walked herself home from half-day K starting at 4. Six blocks/ a third of a mile. I also walked home for lunch and back to school once a week all through ES. Born 1973.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is not what the police report says. This is what the police report says:

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.

Anyway, so what? If children stand in front of a parking garage for 5 minutes, they must be abandoned, lost, or neglected?

That's not the police report. There's the officer's report (linked either earlier in this thread or another one). It has the stuff about the garage.

http://www.mymcpnews.com/2015/04/13/possible-child-neglect-in-silver-spring-investigated/

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

CPS is supposed to act in the best interests of the children. Do you think it's in the best interests of the children to be in foster care, just to show the parents that CPS can take the children away if CPS wants to?

I don't see any reason to doubt the children's ability to walk home from the park. I don't think that they're capable of handling CPS and the police, but things are totally messed up if a child has to be capable to handle CPS and the police in order to be able to walk home from the park.

Do you really think that's CPS's motivation? You probably also thing "big pharma" is just tricking us into getting vaccines.

Then what would CPS's motivation for putting the kids in foster care be? Do you think it's in the best interests of these children to be in foster care?

The kids aren't in foster care, first of all. And the only reason they would do that is if they made a finding that the kids really weren't safe. I'm not saying they're always right, but I think they err on the side of NOT removing the kids. And if they do remove the kids, the motivation is to protect the kids.

The implicit threat with CPS is always that they will remove the kids. If you think that CPS would not remove the kids over this, that's good news.

Uh, no. The implicit threat with CPS was they had to sign something saying they wouldn't do it again. CPS isn't going to remove the kids unless they think the kids' welfare is in danger. That may happen, but not because they want to prove a point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I grew up knowing how quickly bad things can happen and I have used that knowledge in my parenting to balance freedom and supervision to keep my children safe and healthy. I know that we can't protect our kids from any possible harm, but I will do my best to keep from putting them in situations that are beyond their age to handle.

I am certain that the Meitivs are also doing their best to keep from putting their children in situations that are beyond their age to handle. And since the Meitivs know their children, and you don't, there's a good chance that the Meitivs have a better idea of what their children can handle than you do.

You're certain that they're doing that, eh? Why? Do you know them?

Have you read interviews with them? They're not just saying, "Oh, what the hell, let's drop the kids off in the woods with bread crumbs in their pockets and let them make their way home, it seems like they ought to be ready for that." They have really thought about these questions systematically. In fact, they've probably thought about them much more than I have.

Agreed. They are looking at it based on math and science, and the way organizations assess risk, not beliefs based on emotions.