Anonymous wrote:Well, in the Ramona books, Ramona and Beezus went all over town by themselves when Ramona was in kindergarten! Art class, the library...

Anonymous wrote:

I know what my parents did. I posted my dad was walked by teenage sister in the fifties. I just don't buy the "most 6 year olds" claim. Unless it was totally residential, not far, with packs of kids. Most 8-9 year olds, sure I buy that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is extremely doubtful that this firm has md family court experience. You do not want glamour lawyers for this stuff. You w want a local lawyer with experience in the local courts who nows the judges and prosecutors.

I've been practicing 20+ years in all of Virginia, DC and MD and I respectfully disagree. The family in all likelihood does not have the type of income necessary to retain and pay for a very good lawyer and law firm. This is not their criminal attorney, this is their litigation attorney and this particular attorney has substantial trial and appellate experience. I wouldn't be surprised if they do hire a local co-counsel t anticipate this will be a large lawsuit, going after the State, the municipality, the police department and the state agency (CPS). In all honestly I think this lawsuit is needed, to clarify once and for all what exactly the law says. That is what lawsuits do, establish case law to prove how laws are to be interpreted and carried out. As I read the Maryland code, the age restriction deals with being in a building, house or car. It does NOT discuss being in a public, open space. So does that mean that the law only excludes instances that are listed, is that list exhaustive, does that mean if it isn't explicated excluded it's included? There is too much discretion left to individuals in law enforcement and state agencies now with the law written as it is.

Wiley Rein is a respected and good law firm. they have the money to pay for out of pocket for good research, experts, analysis, and legal work. Sure, there is some free publicity for the firm, but all large firms these days are required to participate in pro bono and that is a very good thing. Many people cannot afford any legal representation whatsoever.

Anonymous wrote:Well, in the Ramona books, Ramona and Beezus went all over town by themselves when Ramona was in kindergarten! Art class, the library...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Let's just for a minute think like the kids. Why do they really want to go to the playground by themselves?

Answer: To get away from their parents or exercise independence and show maturity?

My children want to go to the playground by themselves because they think it's fun.

I really didn't care whether my parents came to the playground with me or not. When they were there they chatted with other parents or read a book. It wasn't as if they were involved in what I was doing or cramping my style.

That's nice. My children do care, though. Different people are different people!

What is it that your kids think is so much fun about going to the park without an adult with them?

Really? Is this what both kids said to you in a private exclusive interview? Or was it from the parents?

They like being out on their own. They like being independent. They like being unsupervised. They like being able to make their own decisions. They like the feeling of being responsible for themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It is extremely doubtful that this firm has md family court experience. You do not want glamour lawyers for this stuff. You w want a local lawyer with experience in the local courts who nows the judges and prosecutors.

Anonymous wrote:I rarely see children without parents at the playgrounds we go to. Where does pp live where she is accosted by gangs of thirsty, hungry, heavy orphans?

If you're 40, you're too young to remember. If your parents are still alive, talk to them about what they used to do. Talk to older relatives and neighbors about what they used to do. Read books (fiction as well as non-fiction) published before 1980, or referring to times before 1980. I honestly don't understand why it's evidently so difficult for people who are too young to have experienced this themselves that it really was so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, we're back to the idea that urban areas are dangerous for children.

What kind of evidence would you accept to support the claim that it used to be routine, normal, and unremarkable for six-year-olds to walk to school by themselves at least part of the way? (And how old are you?)

I'm 40. Do you have any stats? Never said urban areas are per se dangerous. But certainly more traffic there than there used to be.

If you're 40, you're too young to remember. If your parents are still alive, talk to them about what they used to do. Talk to older relatives and neighbors about what they used to do. Read books (fiction as well as non-fiction) published before 1980, or referring to times before 1980. I honestly don't understand why it's evidently so difficult for people who are too young to have experienced this themselves that it really was so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I'm surprised any attorney would waste their time, especially for free defending them. These parents are setting up this fight even though they are clearly neglectful. Its one thing to send two 11 year olds, but not a 6 and 11 year old without any way to contact the parents, no food, water, nothing. That is neglect. Neglect is failing to properly supervise your child and not adequately providing them with the things they need, such as food and water (especially kids with food allergies).

Why would the kids have needed food and water? The parents dropped the kids off a little before 5 pm, 1/3 of a mile from home, and told them to be home by 6 pm. It's not like they were hiking the Pacific Crest Trail.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, we're back to the idea that urban areas are dangerous for children.

What kind of evidence would you accept to support the claim that it used to be routine, normal, and unremarkable for six-year-olds to walk to school by themselves at least part of the way? (And how old are you?)

I'm 40. Do you have any stats? Never said urban areas are per se dangerous. But certainly more traffic there than there used to be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh, we're back to the idea that urban areas are dangerous for children.

What kind of evidence would you accept to support the claim that it used to be routine, normal, and unremarkable for six-year-olds to walk to school by themselves at least part of the way? (And how old are you?)

I'm 40. Do you have any stats? Never said urban areas are per se dangerous. But certainly more traffic there than there used to be.

Anonymous wrote:

I'm surprised any attorney would waste their time, especially for free defending them. These parents are setting up this fight even though they are clearly neglectful. Its one thing to send two 11 year olds, but not a 6 and 11 year old without any way to contact the parents, no food, water, nothing. That is neglect. Neglect is failing to properly supervise your child and not adequately providing them with the things they need, such as food and water (especially kids with food allergies).