Jump to content

Menu

update on MD kids who walked home 1 mile from park


Word Nerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

We had a recent thread and poll about this story (Danielle and Alexander Meitiv let their children, ages 10 and 6, walk home alone from a park a mile away from their house). The parents were found responsible for "unsubstantiated" child neglect, and their case will remain open for at least five years.

 

ETA: Here is the link to the other post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with having free range parenting-- I think we allow the media to make us afraid of shadows. 

 

However, my husband recently pointed out that the more we "demand/rely" on the state to take care of us-- the more the state has the right to demand of us to be cautious.   If we want state wide Amber Alerts and immediate response to a missing child (that requires man hours and public funds to make happen) then the state has the right to say-- "hey, YOU watch your kids better". 

 

It is a double edged sword-- I want less state control but I also want a child to be found quickly when something bad happens-- when you demand something from your state-- they get to demand something back.

 

This actually started as a discussion about making people wear motorcycle helmets-- I took the stand that people have the right to kill themselves and DH pointed out that the state would be taking care of the vegetable if he/she lived. 

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that they aren't under extra scrutiny. However, they will keep documentation on file from the investigation, and if there are new reports about the family, extra scrutiny and care in the investigation is likely, compared to what a first report would receive. It's a check against families with multiple reports over time none of which of itself is enough not slipping through the cracks when the big picture might be worse than any one incident.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did violate the law though. The 6 year old is supposed to be supervised by someone 13+ and the sibling is 10. I feel sorry for the 10 year old stuck with the responsibility of babysitting so his parents can prove whatever they're trying to prove. (Yes, I know some people babysat days old infants with the umbilical still attached while they were toddlers themselves, but it doesn't mean you should've been put in that position.)

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there no kids in Maryland who walk home from school? 

 

Growing up, I lived just under the 2 mile limit where the school district would have provided busing.  Starting at age 5, the kids in my neighborhood walked to and from school by themselves. 

 

It is a scary world we live in if school-aged kids don't even have the freedom to walk home from a park unsupervised.

  • Like 15
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did violate the law though. The 6 year old is supposed to be supervised by someone 13+ and the sibling is 10. I feel sorry for the 10 year old stuck with the responsibility of babysitting so his parents can prove whatever they're trying to prove. (Yes, I know some people babysat days old infants with the umbilical still attached while they were toddlers themselves, but it doesn't mean you should've been put in that position.)

 

If they had violated an actual law the CPS finding would not have been listed as "unsubstantiated" and the family would be subject to even more scrutiny than they are getting now.

 

There is no law that says a 10 year old cannot play outside at a public park with his 6 year old sister unsupervised and there is not law that says those two unsupervised children cannot walk home together.

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did violate the law though. The 6 year old is supposed to be supervised by someone 13+ and the sibling is 10. I feel sorry for the 10 year old stuck with the responsibility of babysitting so his parents can prove whatever they're trying to prove. (Yes, I know some people babysat days old infants with the umbilical still attached while they were toddlers themselves, but it doesn't mean you should've been put in that position.)

You're assuming he views it as babysitting and the parents forced it on him. When I was 10, I went to the park with my cousins who were 8 and 6 by ourselves all the time. It was always our idea because we wanted to play at the park together. We didn't care if our parents came or not, they usually didn't. Yes I knew I was the oldest so if something happened I had to deal with it but that wasn't a burden. But I would have been bored if I went alone

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did violate the law though. The 6 year old is supposed to be supervised by someone 13+ and the sibling is 10. I feel sorry for the 10 year old stuck with the responsibility of babysitting so his parents can prove whatever they're trying to prove. (Yes, I know some people babysat days old infants with the umbilical still attached while they were toddlers themselves, but it doesn't mean you should've been put in that position.)

 

No criminal charges were filed. He wasn't babysitting anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think "unsubstantiated" is the equivalent of a "not guilty" verdict. However, with CPS, they can keep a case file open (and may even have to?) even when they cannot substantiate. That sucks if the parents are innocent, but it's in place for those cases where they didn't substantiate a time or two (for instance for sexual or physical abuse) and they have a record that there were previous suspicions. The parents don't have a blank slate in that case.

 

I do hope the parents appeal this. It's a ridiculous diversion of the time that CPS workers have to be interfering with reasonable parenting choices even if some people don't agree with those parenting choices. There are SO many cases that are crying out for more monitoring from CPS where they have substantiated real, child-endangering abuse or neglect. Workers can't do everything, and the time taken to "investigate" this "case" is time taken from other cases where there are truly children in danger.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did violate the law though. The 6 year old is supposed to be supervised by someone 13+ and the sibling is 10. I feel sorry for the 10 year old stuck with the responsibility of babysitting so his parents can prove whatever they're trying to prove. (Yes, I know some people babysat days old infants with the umbilical still attached while they were toddlers themselves, but it doesn't mean you should've been put in that position.)

 

My kids would love to walk to the park together and it wouldn't be babysitting.

 

I do agree that IF there is a law then you shouldn't put your kids in the position of breaking it. But that's not what happened here. I was planning on sending my kids to the park at 9 and 7 (it's less than a mile, and other families do it) so I'm glad they weren't charged.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they had violated an actual law the CPS finding would not have been listed as "unsubstantiated" and the family would be subject to even more scrutiny than they are getting now.

 

There is no law that says a 10 year old cannot play outside at a public park with his 6 year old sister unsupervised and there is not law that says those two unsupervised children cannot walk home together.

Actually, MD is one of the few states that does have a law about this. Children have to be 8 before they can be without direct adult supervision.

I am techinically not allowed by law to let my 11 and 12 year old sons walk my 7 year old daughter down our (dead-end) street and through a friend's yard to drop-off or pick her up from her AHG meeting. They don't even have to cross a street.

I think it is ridiculous.

Luckily for me, next school year oldest DS will be 13 and DD will be 8 so I can legally allow them to have this small independence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 There are SO many cases that are crying out for more monitoring from CPS where they have substantiated real, child-endangering abuse or neglect. Workers can't do everything, and the time taken to "investigate" this "case" is time taken from other cases where there are truly children in danger.

 

 

Call me cynical. I think CPS workers like to keep cases like this on file because they do take some time and therefore they can say they are working on something. Those cases where CPS involvement is warranted are very difficult and the situations CPS workers may have to visit in those cases are downright scary.

 

I know two families that had dc with brittle bone disease. Before this disease is dx children's bones break, it doesn't matter how careful and conscientious a parent is. And bones will continue to break after dx. Both these families were reported to CPS by their pediatricians. Shortly after first report both children were dx. However, CPS did not stop hounding these families who were dealing with all kinds of medical issues at that point. One family decided to move to a new state. They moved closer to the mother's parents to get some support there, but they quit jobs and moved without finding new work first because they just had to get away. The second family stayed here and eventually CPS left them alone. I've watched there dd grow up and she is in college now. In both these cases I believe CPS should have dropped everything and closed files as soon as the medical diagnoses was made the children were in the care of a medical specialist. Spending time with these families, meant CPS workers were not spending time on children who really needed help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with having free range parenting-- I think we allow the media to make us afraid of shadows. 

 

However, my husband recently pointed out that the more we "demand/rely" on the state to take care of us-- the more the state has the right to demand of us to be cautious.   If we want state wide Amber Alerts and immediate response to a missing child (that requires man hours and public funds to make happen) then the state has the right to say-- "hey, YOU watch your kids better". 

 

It is a double edged sword-- I want less state control but I also want a child to be found quickly when something bad happens-- when you demand something from your state-- they get to demand something back.

 

This actually started as a discussion about making people wear motorcycle helmets-- I took the stand that people have the right to kill themselves and DH pointed out that the state would be taking care of the vegetable if he/she lived. 

I don't agree with free range parenting, but isn't that what's so great about this country? You do things your way, I'll do them mine and we don't have to worry about it. At least that's how it used to be.

 

Are there no kids in Maryland who walk home from school? 

 

Growing up, I lived just under the 2 mile limit where the school district would have provided busing.  Starting at age 5, the kids in my neighborhood walked to and from school by themselves. 

 

It is a scary world we live in if school-aged kids don't even have the freedom to walk home from a park unsupervised.

Don't use logic when dealing with government agencies. It hurts them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, MD is one of the few states that does have a law about this. Children have to be 8 before they can be without direct adult supervision.

I am techinically not allowed by law to let my 11 and 12 year old sons walk my 7 year old daughter down our (dead-end) street and through a friend's yard to drop-off or pick her up from her AHG meeting. They don't even have to cross a street.

I think it is ridiculous.

Luckily for me, next school year oldest DS will be 13 and DD will be 8 so I can legally allow them to have this small independence.

 

Are stating a "guideline" or an actual statute?

 

If there was a statute then the parents would have been charged.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did violate the law though. The 6 year old is supposed to be supervised by someone 13+ and the sibling is 10. I feel sorry for the 10 year old stuck with the responsibility of babysitting so his parents can prove whatever they're trying to prove. (Yes, I know some people babysat days old infants with the umbilical still attached while they were toddlers themselves, but it doesn't mean you should've been put in that position.)

 

A. Siblings can be friends.

B. Nobody thinks toddlers should babysit newborns.

 

 

What we actually did, back in the day, was watch out for each other. Older looking out for younger, stronger looking out for weaker, families all over the neighborhood doing the same thing -- it was better than a fragmented and isolated society in which every family is an island, but not to worry, the STATE is over all.

 

We have made some very real and important advances in human rights in this country and I would NOT want to go back to a time where civil rights issues were even worse than now. Of course not. But I would give my right arm to go back to a time and place that I personally experienced where everybody was stronger individually, yet more connected to the community at the same time.

 

Free range kids of my small farming community in the 70s and 80s had more eyes on them than the far more dependent and petted children of today. We were out, but while we were out we saw our neighbors, friends, peers, parents of friends, church members, school officials, law enforcement officers that we knew, elderly people out on their porches. If children are unsafe out and about today, it's because everybody else went indoors and stopped being part of their communities. We should never have done it. We shouldn't have abandoned this fundamental social behavior of participating in daily neighborhood life in favor of going inside to turn on televisions and the internet.

 

Putting parents on watch lists? Did they commit a crime or didn't they? If they didn't, let them go entirely. Don't put them on the list of "People Who Have Shown Themselves to be Subversives" just because they let their children do what they themselves did at the same age without harm. Society may shift toward helplessness but to require all citizens to do the same is wrong.

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are stating a "guideline" or an actual statute?

 

If there was a statute then the parents would have been charged.

Below is the actual MD law. I think's it's debatable whether this applies to the the original situation being discussed.

 

§5Ă¢â‚¬â€œ801.

(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is the actual MD law. I think's it's debatable whether this applies to the the original situation being discussed.

 

§5Ă¢â‚¬â€œ801.

(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both.

 

This doesn't apply.

 

They weren't in a building.

 

No one said the boy was charged with caring for his sister.

 

It appears that a 10yob and a 6yog who are siblings played together outside and walked home.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is the actual MD law. I think's it's debatable whether this applies to the the original situation being discussed.

 

§5Ă¢â‚¬â€œ801.

(a) A person who is charged with the care of a child under the age of 8 years may not allow the child to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent and the dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle is out of the sight of the person charged unless the person charged provides a reliable person at least 13 years old to remain with the child to protect the child.

(b) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding 30 days, or both.

 

Wow. I agree; hard to see whether/if it applies.

 

So you can't leave the 6yo home alone with the 10yo, or in a car away from home.

 

But to say the children therefore can't be ambulating down a public street without a 13yo is different...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They did violate the law though. The 6 year old is supposed to be supervised by someone 13+ and the sibling is 10. I feel sorry for the 10 year old stuck with the responsibility of babysitting so his parents can prove whatever they're trying to prove. (Yes, I know some people babysat days old infants with the umbilical still attached while they were toddlers themselves, but it doesn't mean you should've been put in that position.)

 

I've read in multiple sources that that law you mention only applies to kids in enclosed places such as houses or cars.  Not to kids out of doors.

 

I think parents are doing a great thing when they give their 10yo kids the opportunity to supervise younger kids.  I wish more people could do the same.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming he views it as babysitting and the parents forced it on him. When I was 10, I went to the park with my cousins who were 8 and 6 by ourselves all the time. It was always our idea because we wanted to play at the park together. We didn't care if our parents came or not, they usually didn't. Yes I knew I was the oldest so if something happened I had to deal with it but that wasn't a burden. But I would have been bored if I went alone

 

That's a good point.  A 4 year age difference doesn't mean a supervisory position.  When I was a kid my sibs and I went all over together (or paired off or alone), and our ages were all 2 years apart, so 6, 8, 10, 12.  When my then 10yo brother went walking with my then 6yo sister, that was not babysitting.  Only a couple times I remember my mom saying, "you're older, you should know better."

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

What we actually did, back in the day, was watch out for each other. Older looking out for younger, stronger looking out for weaker, families all over the neighborhood doing the same thing -- it was better than a fragmented and isolated society in which every family is an island, but not to worry, the STATE is over all.

 

We have made some very real and important advances in human rights in this country and I would NOT want to go back to a time where civil rights issues were even worse than now. Of course not. But I would give my right arm to go back to a time and place that I personally experienced where everybody was stronger individually, yet more connected to the community at the same time.

 

Free range kids of my small farming community in the 70s and 80s had more eyes on them than the far more dependent and petted children of today. We were out, but while we were out we saw our neighbors, friends, peers, parents of friends, church members, school officials, law enforcement officers that we knew, elderly people out on their porches. If children are unsafe out and about today, it's because everybody else went indoors and stopped being part of their communities. We should never have done it. We shouldn't have abandoned this fundamental social behavior of participating in daily neighborhood life in favor of going inside to turn on televisions and the internet.

 

 

This.  I remember playing outside and having neighbors watching what I was doing-- I had to behave myself because they would tell my mom if I did something bad. 

I live in a neighborhood similar to my neighborhood growing up.  In fact the people we gossip about are the ones that inherited a house-- they didn't choose to buy here -- they are more like the other neighborhoods-- we never see them, they don't let their children play in the front yard or at the park, they don't talk to the other neighbors.  

My children on the other hand know more of the neighbors than I do-- when they went trick or treating they were introducing me to people!!

 

Also-- part of being a free range parent is living in an area that is like minded.  I moved here when my children were young-- I knew someone who lived nearby and saw how they raised their children and wanted the same for mine-- and I saw how they were treated by their neighbors and knew it was the right place for my type of parenting

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, MD is one of the few states that does have a law about this. Children have to be 8 before they can be without direct adult supervision.

 

 

Nope, the law is that they have to be supervised under 8 by someone 13+ if they are at home, at school or in a car.

 

There is absolutely no law in MD specifying ages for walking around or playing at a park - hence 'usubstantiated'.  In fact, they could walk the same distance to a school.  Why it's okay to walk the same distance to a school but not a park is beyond me.

 

I'm also flabbergasted by a lot of places that still have the "walker" zone for school be 2 miles, usually on streets with no sidewalks, or you have to pay to have your kid take the bus, or drive them yourselves.  Okay, people, either it's okay and even expected that kids can walk 2 miles unsupervised, or it isn't.  If it isn't, the bus should pick up the kids from right across the street from the school for no extra money.

 

FTR - I think both 'kids can't walk to the park on a nice day on the sidewalk' and 'kids must walk to school in the winter among snowbanks with no sidewalks' are equally ridiculous.  But the first is apparently a big no-no, and the second one is apparently what is 'expected' the way things are written by most school districts.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This.  I remember playing outside and having neighbors watching what I was doing-- I had to behave myself because they would tell my mom if I did something bad. 

I live in a neighborhood similar to my neighborhood growing up.  In fact the people we gossip about are the ones that inherited a house-- they didn't choose to buy here -- they are more like the other neighborhoods-- we never see them, they don't let their children play in the front yard or at the park, they don't talk to the other neighbors.  

My children on the other hand know more of the neighbors than I do-- when they went trick or treating they were introducing me to people!!

 

Also-- part of being a free range parent is living in an area that is like minded.  I moved here when my children were young-- I knew someone who lived nearby and saw how they raised their children and wanted the same for mine-- and I saw how they were treated by their neighbors and knew it was the right place for my type of parenting

 

I was always mystified when I got home and my parents knew what I'd been up to many blocks away, where I myself didn't even know the names of the kids we met up with.  And those were the days when all folks had was land lines (and no voice mail).  Somehow adults I didn't know were spying, finding out my name and phone number (not from me), going to their home, and calling my parents at the right time to catch them home after work, just to tell them what I'd been up to.

 

AND they didn't even feel the need to call the cops.  Hmm.

 

A nosy neighbor also called my mom and went across the street to get me after I was seen being led into a garage by a much bigger neighbor boy.  (He was up to no good, but I didn't understand.)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're assuming he views it as babysitting and the parents forced it on him. When I was 10, I went to the park with my cousins who were 8 and 6 by ourselves all the time. It was always our idea because we wanted to play at the park together. We didn't care if our parents came or not, they usually didn't. Yes I knew I was the oldest so if something happened I had to deal with it but that wasn't a burden. But I would have been bored if I went alone

If the child has to be 8 or older to be alone, then the 10 year old is de facto left in charge of the 6 year old when the parents send them off together out of their supervision. Whether the 10 year old enjoys it or not at that particular moment is irrelevant.

 

If Maryland's law only applies to enclosed spaces, it is nuts. So parents can't leave 6 year olds at home indoors, but they can just drop them at a park instead? Don't stay in the car, kid, but here, wander the parking lot instead! What's the point of limiting that to only enclosed spaces?

 

The ruling does not exclude a violation of the law, or the spirit of the law. It could indicate a use of discretion in declining to prosecute or any number of things. Don't like the law? Lobby to change it. Move. Don't go on TV saying yep, we are still going to do this, and here's the park where my 6 year old will be unsupervised every afternoon. Neener neener.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there no kids in Maryland who walk home from school? 

 

Growing up, I lived just under the 2 mile limit where the school district would have provided busing.  Starting at age 5, the kids in my neighborhood walked to and from school by themselves. 

 

It is a scary world we live in if school-aged kids don't even have the freedom to walk home from a park unsupervised.

 

Probably, no.  

 

I don't live in MD, but some school districts near me don't even allow a kid off the bus unless a parent is there.  The rule works exceptionally well for the schools because parents just decide to pick up their kids at school.  Under a certain age, they don't let the kids walk home without a parent.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Maryland's law only applies to enclosed spaces, it is nuts. So parents can't leave 6 year olds at home indoors, but they can just drop them at a park instead? Don't stay in the car, kid, but here, wander the parking lot instead! What's the point of limiting that to only enclosed spaces?

 

Probably because school-aged kids are more likely to come to harm while locked up than while out in the neighborhood.

 

If you feel your kid needs constant direct supervision until age 8, then by all means supervise.  It should be your choice.  And it should be the Meitivs' choice to use their judgment and decide differently.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My children go to an enrichment program through the county.  It is in my dead end (no through street) neighborhood.  They aren't allowed to walk home without me (or their older sisters)-- the public school busstop is across the street from the enrichment site-- when they were in PS the bus dropped them off there!!   so the rules are different - even in the same school district!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing that law was a reaction to something horrible like a bunch of kids burning to death in a house while their parents were out boozing.

 

I'm betting that whoever pushed that law through was not trying to stop school-aged siblings from playing at the park independently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't apply.

 

They weren't in a building.

 

No one said the boy was charged with caring for his sister.

 

It appears that a 10yob and a 6yog who are siblings played together outside and walked home.

If we apply that law to daily life, letting a 6 year old go to the bathroom alone is breaking the law. God forbid the kid locks the door while using the toilet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, the law is that they have to be supervised under 8 by someone 13+ if they are at home, at school or in a car.

 

If we want to get really accurate. It says they cannot be CONFINED or ENCLOSED without supervision in those places. Soooo. If the front door is open...? If the windows are down.... As long as they can escape freely they don't need supervision?

 

What a moronic law.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My children go to an enrichment program through the county.  It is in my dead end (no through street) neighborhood.  They aren't allowed to walk home without me (or their older sisters)-- the public school busstop is across the street from the enrichment site-- when they were in PS the bus dropped them off there!!   so the rules are different - even in the same school district!

 

When my dd attended ps in 6th grade (11yo), I had her take the late bus once.  Turns out the late bus doesn't actually go down my street, so they dropped her off at the end.  She would have had to walk almost a mile home - the street is narrow, windy, and has no sidewalk.  Poison ivy grows right into the street, so you can't walk on the edge, you have to walk in the street.  I don't like walking on that street - the cars race, and it's hard to see around the corners. She ended up calling me from the house of a girl who lived near the stop (she didn't have a cell phone then), and I went and got her.  After that, I picked her up if she stayed after school.

 

But I thought, wow, if I had sent her off to walk that same stretch alone, someone could well have called and report I was being 'neglectful'.  But the bus can just drop her off over a mile from home with no heads-up, no safe way to walk (and no idea whether this kid even knows the way - not all kids get a good sense of direction from driving), and that's just dandy.  Huh.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there no kids in Maryland who walk home from school? 

 

Growing up, I lived just under the 2 mile limit where the school district would have provided busing.  Starting at age 5, the kids in my neighborhood walked to and from school by themselves. 

 

It is a scary world we live in if school-aged kids don't even have the freedom to walk home from a park unsupervised.

 

We live in MD and .2 miles from the school - if they attend, the school provides bus transportation.

 

Even the high school that is .9 miles only have the option of students taking the bus or parent/self transportation on their forms. However, we ignored that and my oldest walked to and from school and skipped the bus. 

 

At another house, we lived 1 mile from the busstop my oldest (then 8 or 9 I believe) rode a bike to the busstop... well a to a friend's house near it and then caught the bus. The overall sense I got from the other parents on that street was that I was an incredibly irresponsible parent because I did not drive them and pick them up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, the law is that they have to be supervised under 8 by someone 13+ if they are at home, at school or in a car.

 

There is absolutely no law in MD specifying ages for walking around or playing at a park - hence 'usubstantiated'.  In fact, they could walk the same distance to a school.  Why it's okay to walk the same distance to a school but not a park is beyond me.

 

I'm also flabbergasted by a lot of places that still have the "walker" zone for school be 2 miles, usually on streets with no sidewalks, or you have to pay to have your kid take the bus, or drive them yourselves.  Okay, people, either it's okay and even expected that kids can walk 2 miles unsupervised, or it isn't.  If it isn't, the bus should pick up the kids from right across the street from the school for no extra money.

 

FTR - I think both 'kids can't walk to the park on a nice day on the sidewalk' and 'kids must walk to school in the winter among snowbanks with no sidewalks' are equally ridiculous.  But the first is apparently a big no-no, and the second one is apparently what is 'expected' the way things are written by most school districts.

 

We actually have this in my town - "courtesy busing".   There are kids who live across the street from the school who get on the bus for the turn into the parking lot.

 

My town is not at all walking friendly.  Very few sidewalks and lots of narrow, winding, hilly roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe if the bathroom is a mile away down a six lane street.

 

I don't see how "a mile away" makes a difference, unless the kids don't know the way home, which obviously these kids do.

 

As for "six lane street," I believe it had sidewalks, on which the kids were walking, so who cares how many lanes the street had?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We actually have this in my town - "courtesy busing".   There are kids who live across the street from the school who get on the bus for the turn into the parking lot.

 

My town is not at all walking friendly.  Very few sidewalks and lots of narrow, winding, hilly roads.

 

The streets in your town sound just like mine.  Narrow, winding, hilly roads, no sidewalks - describes the road I live on, in fact.  Yep.  But you have to pay for the bus (over $250 per kid) if you're less than 2 miles from school.  Starting in Kindergarten.  Haha courtesy shuttle.  Not here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We actually have this in my town - "courtesy busing". There are kids who live across the street from the school who get on the bus for the turn into the parking lot.

 

My town is not at all walking friendly. Very few sidewalks and lots of narrow, winding, hilly roads.

Sigh.

 

I used to love the most walking the winding hilly roads as a kid. Trekking through the grass and crossing creeks. And slipping sliding on ice and playing through the snow. I think so much of this is based on how much an adult doesn't like doing something instead of whether it is likely okay for the kid.

 

I have to wonder if a huge part of the problem is Sweater Syndrome.

 

What's a sweater?

It's what you put on bc your mom is cold.

 

I do get the concern. I've not allowed my kids to walk and ride their bikes as much as I did bc of road concerns and such. But I admit, I also think 50% of my decision is likely based more on sweater syndrome than the actual liklyhood of danger occurring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

If Maryland's law only applies to enclosed spaces, it is nuts. So parents can't leave 6 year olds at home indoors, but they can just drop them at a park instead? Don't stay in the car, kid, but here, wander the parking lot instead! What's the point of limiting that to only enclosed spaces? 

 

 

 

 

I'm guessing that law was a reaction to something horrible like a bunch of kids burning to death in a house while their parents were out boozing.

 

 

One of the articles about this did credit the law to several deaths where children were locked in a building and couldn't get out - no mention of what the parents were doing or where they were.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked my kids if they'd be okay with walking a mile or so if it meant going through 2-3 ft snow banks.

 

They are really ticked off at me for getting them excited for nothing.

 

Presuming the kids are dressed for the weather and it isn't blizzard conditions, why not? It's snow, not some kind of white agent orange.

 

I walked 2-4 miles no matter what the weather to work and school when I was in middle school and high school. Sometimes I had a ride, but if I didnt, I still had to be where I had to be. No scars from it. Not even near occasions. Actually, the closest I gave to injury in bad weather was while in a car.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sigh.

 

I used to love the most walking the winding hilly roads as a kid. Trekking through the grass and crossing creeks. And slipping sliding on ice and playing through the snow. I think so much of this is based on how much an adult doesn't like doing something instead of whether it is likely okay for the kid.

 

I have to wonder if a huge part of the problem is Sweater Syndrome.

 

What's a sweater?

It's what you put on bc your mom is cold.

 

I do get the concern. I've not allowed my kids to walk and ride their bikes as much as I did bc of road concerns and such. But I admit, I also think 50% of my decision is likely based more on sweater syndrome than the actual liklyhood of danger occurring.

 

Sure, I'm fine with my kids walking the narrow, winding, hilly streets in my dead-end neighborhood, despite the lack of sidewalks.  

 

I am NOT okay with them walking the narrow, winding, hilly heavily traveled street just outside my neighborhood where the speed limit is 40 mph and most drive faster, line of sight can literally be under 5 feet in spots, there is no shoulder, no sidewalk and mostly brush on the sides of the roads or a fence that leaves no space to walk in at all, where grown adults on bikes or jogging have gotten in serious accidents (and in some cases would contribute to the danger for kids trying to walk).    

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the articles about this did credit the law to several deaths where children were locked in a building and couldn't get out - no mention of what the parents were doing or where they were.

Prime examples of why exceptional situations shouldn't be the foundation of a law.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, I'm fine with my kids walking the narrow, winding, hilly streets in my dead-end neighborhood, despite the lack of sidewalks.

 

I am NOT okay with them walking the narrow, winding, hilly heavily traveled street just outside my neighborhood where the speed limit is 40 mph and most drive faster, line of sight can literally be under 5 feet in spots, there is no shoulder, no sidewalk and mostly brush on the sides of the roads or a fence that leaves no space to walk in at all, where grown adults on bikes or jogging have gotten in serious accidents (and in some cases would contribute to the danger for kids trying to walk).

Then of course you shouldn't let them walk. Your kids = you get to parent them.

 

But I wouldn't judge a parent who did. Pedestrians ALWAYS have right of way. Any bikers or joggers or car that endangered any other pedestrian should be severely punished regardless of age of victim. And any locale with less than a 5 ft visual distance in the road should not have a 40mph limit. That's just nuts. Citizens should petition to have signs up cautioning to beware and reduce the limit. Especially if this is a known problem.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...