Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, they will lose. There is no specific law needed - the general law on child neglect is enough.

Also, the Meitevs are just demonstrating further poor judgment bu retaining pro bono biglaw with presumably no expertise in MD child welfare cases. They need a family law expert first to resolve the CPS case. Then once the kids are safe from being taken away they can sue. Their present strategy belies more attention seeking motivation than actual desire to protect the kids.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

I am not a lawyer, and I never said that I was. Here are the assumptions you're making:

1. retaining pro bono big law demonstrates poor judgment
2. the law firm has no expertise in Maryland child welfare cases
3. the parents are out for attention

Do you know any of this stuff? No, you don't.

Meanwhile, the reason they shouldn't have been picked up on a report of child neglect in general is because walking home from the park neither harmed the children’s health or welfare nor placed the children in substantial risk of harm. Or rather, wouldn't have harmed them/placed them in substantial risk of harm, except for that whole 911/police/CPS thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter what I think... it's what CPS, and ultimately a judge thinks.

Allowing the children to stay with parents who repeatedly ignore what CPS tells them not to do, is not a great way to get CPS to say that it is the kids best interest to reamain with their parents. At best you are rolling the dice that they will say it's not worth putting the kids in foster care, at worst you lose your kids... not a gamble i think any parent, who wants to keep their kids would take.

Hence why one of the best lawyer teams is helping them sue pro bono. Because CPS can not base an opinion when there is no law to follow and make up a safety clause. And then hold their kids without notifying them and then hold them hostage once they arrive until they sign it. Guarantee the parents will win this case.

If the law is changed in the future maybe. But for now CPS has no grounds for what they did

We'll see. As a lawyer who's read the regs, I disagree. But I do think it will be tough on the kids, but of course the parents don't care about that.

Well as a lawyer, I am shocked that you would just assume the parents don't care. And I for one am glad they are taking a stand against being harassed for a law they are not breaking. There is no law for outdoor play ages in MD. And the fact that some people think there should be is scary. Government sure likes to tell everyone what to do all the time.

Omg you are not a lawyer

+100

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That still doesn't explain why they picked up the 10-year-old.

Because it's against the regs for a kid under 11 to be left to supervise a kid under 8.

No, actually, it's against the regs for a kid under 8 to be supervised by a kid under 11.

Not to mention that he wasn't supervising the six-year-old, after the police picked her up. Or maybe the police picked the 10-year-old up first, the way that banks used to process checks, with the withdrawals before the deposits so that the banks could charge bounced-check fees?

You just said the same thing I did. Reading.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what? That doesn't support the notion that "four year olds can do it". My brother could read at 2. Doesn't mean "two year olds can read".

It doesn't mean that all two-year-olds can read, but it actually does mean that two-year-olds can read.

So you think we should expect them to because some few do it. I think I see the source of the disconnect here

No. Nobody has said that all two-year-olds can or should read. And nobody has said that all four-year-olds can or should walk to school safely by themselves. What people have said is that many four-year-olds and most six-year-olds did used to walk to school safely by themselves.

No they didn't. More mythologizing of the good old days. Support your "most" claim.

There weren't any school buses at my elementary school and anybody whose mom drove them was considered a pansy and picked on. So, yep, everybody else walked in from all over the area. K through 6. (Downtown Silver Spring)

Downtown silver spring was a smidge different in 1970s wasn't it? And were you walking in groups of kids? And again, you have not supported your claim that most 6yos walked by themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That still doesn't explain why they picked up the 10-year-old.

Because it's against the regs for a kid under 11 to be left to supervise a kid under 8.

No, actually, it's against the regs for a kid under 8 to be supervised by a kid under 11.

Not to mention that he wasn't supervising the six-year-old, after the police picked her up. Or maybe the police picked the 10-year-old up first, the way that banks used to process checks, with the withdrawals before the deposits so that the banks could charge bounced-check fees?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter what I think... it's what CPS, and ultimately a judge thinks.

Allowing the children to stay with parents who repeatedly ignore what CPS tells them not to do, is not a great way to get CPS to say that it is the kids best interest to reamain with their parents. At best you are rolling the dice that they will say it's not worth putting the kids in foster care, at worst you lose your kids... not a gamble i think any parent, who wants to keep their kids would take.

Hence why one of the best lawyer teams is helping them sue pro bono. Because CPS can not base an opinion when there is no law to follow and make up a safety clause. And then hold their kids without notifying them and then hold them hostage once they arrive until they sign it. Guarantee the parents will win this case.

If the law is changed in the future maybe. But for now CPS has no grounds for what they did

We'll see. As a lawyer who's read the regs, I disagree. But I do think it will be tough on the kids, but of course the parents don't care about that.

Well as a lawyer, I am shocked that you would just assume the parents don't care. And I for one am glad they are taking a stand against being harassed for a law they are not breaking. There is no law for outdoor play ages in MD. And the fact that some people think there should be is scary. Government sure likes to tell everyone what to do all the time.

Omg you are not a lawyer

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, they will lose. There is no specific law needed - the general law on child neglect is enough.

Also, the Meitevs are just demonstrating further poor judgment bu retaining pro bono biglaw with presumably no expertise in MD child welfare cases. They need a family law expert first to resolve the CPS case. Then once the kids are safe from being taken away they can sue. Their present strategy belies more attention seeking motivation than actual desire to protect the kids.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lot of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

I'm not the PP, but she's right about needing an attorney who is actually experienced in handling these kinds of cases vs. a big firm with no expertise. I have seen big firms in action when they take on pro bono cases in areas they don't practice in and it's not pretty. If for no other reason than the juvenile court judges think they are arrogant a*holes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, they will lose. There is no specific law needed - the general law on child neglect is enough.

Also, the Meitevs are just demonstrating further poor judgment bu retaining pro bono biglaw with presumably no expertise in MD child welfare cases. They need a family law expert first to resolve the CPS case. Then once the kids are safe from being taken away they can sue. Their present strategy belies more attention seeking motivation than actual desire to protect the kids.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lotp of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

If you are a lawyer take a look at the MD code and explain why thw kids could not have been picked up on a report of child negkect in general. Please also outline all the steps mandated reporters must take, and cps must take after a report when the children are in their custody, and explain your theory about why taking 5 hours to complete these legally mandated steps violates anyone's rights under any source of law.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

So what? That doesn't support the notion that "four year olds can do it". My brother could read at 2. Doesn't mean "two year olds can read".

It doesn't mean that all two-year-olds can read, but it actually does mean that two-year-olds can read.

So you think we should expect them to because some few do it. I think I see the source of the disconnect here

No. Nobody has said that all two-year-olds can or should read. And nobody has said that all four-year-olds can or should walk to school safely by themselves. What people have said is that many four-year-olds and most six-year-olds did used to walk to school safely by themselves.

No they didn't. More mythologizing of the good old days. Support your "most" claim.

There weren't any school buses at my elementary school and anybody whose mom drove them was considered a pansy and picked on. So, yep, everybody else walked in from all over the area. K through 6. (Downtown Silver Spring)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn't matter what I think... it's what CPS, and ultimately a judge thinks.

Allowing the children to stay with parents who repeatedly ignore what CPS tells them not to do, is not a great way to get CPS to say that it is the kids best interest to reamain with their parents. At best you are rolling the dice that they will say it's not worth putting the kids in foster care, at worst you lose your kids... not a gamble i think any parent, who wants to keep their kids would take.

Hence why one of the best lawyer teams is helping them sue pro bono. Because CPS can not base an opinion when there is no law to follow and make up a safety clause. And then hold their kids without notifying them and then hold them hostage once they arrive until they sign it. Guarantee the parents will win this case.

If the law is changed in the future maybe. But for now CPS has no grounds for what they did

We'll see. As a lawyer who's read the regs, I disagree. But I do think it will be tough on the kids, but of course the parents don't care about that.

Well as a lawyer, I am shocked that you would just assume the parents don't care. And I for one am glad they are taking a stand against being harassed for a law they are not breaking. There is no law for outdoor play ages in MD. And the fact that some people think there should be is scary. Government sure likes to tell everyone what to do all the time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No, they will lose. There is no specific law needed - the general law on child neglect is enough.

Also, the Meitevs are just demonstrating further poor judgment bu retaining pro bono biglaw with presumably no expertise in MD child welfare cases. They need a family law expert first to resolve the CPS case. Then once the kids are safe from being taken away they can sue. Their present strategy belies more attention seeking motivation than actual desire to protect the kids.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lot of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

I'm a lawyer and I think the pp's assumptions and analysis are spot on. Though I'm sure Wiley will consult closely with family law experts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Maybe. I thought the family, wrongly it seems, expected a sensible safe place to raise their children.

The point is that a downtown parking garage is not safe - they aee so stuck on their philosophy that they cannot assess facts.

Oh, do the Meitivs live in a parking garage? Or did the Meitivs send the children to go play in the parking garage? I didn't know that. In fact, as far as I know, the children were never actually even in the parking garage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want to donate to the family's legal defense, you can do so here:

https://www.causes.com/posts/942411-montgomery-county-schools-and-cps-at-odds-over-children-walking?hc_location=ufi

Why the HELL would I do that

Because you are as messed up as the parents and their FB page? I am saving my money for my kids and not for some parents who are trying to fight a cause by using their kids. Just shameful.

Anonymous wrote:

No, they will lose. There is no specific law needed - the general law on child neglect is enough.

Also, the Meitevs are just demonstrating further poor judgment bu retaining pro bono biglaw with presumably no expertise in MD child welfare cases. They need a family law expert first to resolve the CPS case. Then once the kids are safe from being taken away they can sue. Their present strategy belies more attention seeking motivation than actual desire to protect the kids.

I hope that you're not a lawyer, because there are an awful lot of unfounded assumptions right there in your post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think it's even worse - they are doing this because they consider themselves adherents of an internet parenting philosophy, based on some blogs and facebook groups. Instead of actually considering their children and actual community, they are just following the label of "free range parwnt." The exact way people decide to be anti-vax or attachmdnt parents based on blogs and then get those decisions reinforced through online forums rather than the realbworld. They are adopting an internet based identity and defending it, not actually figuring out what is best for their kids.

Maybe. I thought the family, wrongly it seems, expected a sensible safe place to raise their children.

The point is that a downtown parking garage is not safe - they aee so stuck on their philosophy that they cannot assess facts.