Remember those parents in Maryland...?

[IfIOnly]

We raise our children to be pretty independent.  For a long while before they could go to the park by themselves, we walked that way together. I showed them what route to take and how to navigate the road safely. For instance, they don't ride their bikes across cross walks but get off their bikes and walk across and two olders in the front and back and youngers in the middle as they ride and cross. Stranger danger and other possible circumstances with acting out scenarios at home.They are more than capable by the time I set them free.

[Stellalarella]

I'm kinda shocked that people can let their 8-ish year olds outside unsupervised?! I can't let mine be in another room of the house unsupervised! 0_o There is no way I could safely let my child go to a nearby park without an adult.

 

I'm sorry these kids had to go through this with CPS. It sounds more than a bit overblown (I agree, sounds like someone may be gunning for them, which isn't cool).

 

But I still can't wrap my brain around letting kids go off by themselves. Lol. They actually...go where they're supposed to? Come back?! Don't do incredibly dangerous and stupid things?

 

The reading I've done has convinced me that kids need time alone and unsupervised for proper brain development in decision making skills.

 

Yes, there are risks when the children are unsupervised.  Perhaps they will disobey and not come home on time.  Perhaps they will be mischievous.  Perhaps they will pick up broken glass.  Perhaps they will find themselves in an uncomfortable situation and be forced to think about what they should do.  

 

In weighing the risks, I believe more harm is done when kids are not given the opportunity to be independent.   

 

The kids first learn how to do things in the house when I am not supervising.  Then we work on being outside in our back yard unsupervised.  Then we work on being outside in the front yard and the street area unsupervised.  Then we train on how to walk places.  Then they bike and walk places unsupervised that we have preselected.   And then they get their driver's training permit and learn to drive with an adult driver.  And then they (or at least the oldest so far) gets a license at 16 and drives places BY HIMSELF.  

 

I think putting a 16 or 17 year old alone in a car (or worse!  with friends!!!!!) who has not had several years of learning to supervise him or herself is unwise.  

 

My 11 year old can cook (on a stove) a meal for our whole family.  She has done it enough times that she does not need to be supervised.  Even my 6 year old knows a thing or two in the kitchen.

 

My kids know how to walk places--how to get there and back.  

 

I feel sorry for kids who don't know how to get anywhere, how to cook anything on their own, how to clean on their own, how to try to fix broken things, how to use tools.

 

We had a 14 year old boy over the day and the kind soul asked if he could help out in anyway.  I asked him to sweep.  He did not know how to run a broom.So I taught him.  He can't cook.  He can't (couldn't) run a broom!  He isn't ever by himself.  He is a smart kid.  A really good and kind kid.  And I feel sorry for him.  

[Murphy101]

I'm kinda shocked that people can let their 8-ish year olds outside unsupervised?! I can't let mine be in another room of the house unsupervised! 0_o There is no way I could safely let my child go to a nearby park without an adult.

 

I'm sorry these kids had to go through this with CPS. It sounds more than a bit overblown (I agree, sounds like someone may be gunning for them, which isn't cool).

 

But I still can't wrap my brain around letting kids go off by themselves. Lol. They actually...go where they're supposed to? Come back?! Don't do incredibly dangerous and stupid things?

Hmm... I not sure where the 3 year old is in the house at the moment... Nevermind. He is alone with the 6 year old playing in her room. They are making tents out of sheets.

 

Kindergarten at age 5 and walking to and from the bus stop alone up to a few blocks over was perfectly normal when I was in kindergarten.

 

I'm sure they do some incredibly dangerous and stupid stuff. I did. My dh did. Pretty much every kid growing up in history has. I know my kids have. That's pretty much the best way humans in general, and young ones especially, learn new things. But most of the time they don't just survive, they thrive. Doing these things teaches them independence, challenges their thinking and relationship skills, and builds confidence and creativity. Not doing these things just teaches them to be scared of what might happen, even if the actual liklyhood is very unlikely. I don't want my children to be fearful of being a normal kid doing normal healthy kid things.

[Murphy101]

Oh I agree, I sorta wish the driving age was raised to 18. I'm more worried about 16 year olds driving than 6 year olds walking alone or with a sibling to the park a mile away.

[Stellalarella]

If anyone is interested, here are some links that inform about potential benefits for children being independent.

 

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/03/hey-parents-leave-those-kids-alone/358631/

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg-GEzM7iTk   The Decline of Play by Peter Gray.  The video isn't long.

 

Two other books that helped me were http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=The+power+of+play   The Power of Play by David Elkind and Last Child in the Woods by David Louv.

 

Food for thought.

 

 

[Stellalarella]

Oh I agree, I sorta wish the driving age was raised to 18. I'm more worried about 16 year olds driving than 6 year olds walking alone or with a sibling to the park a mile away.

 

A good number of my oldest son's peers have decided to delay driving.  They are very concerned and want to put it off.  It feels very intimidating to them.  And I would not ever want to force the timid to drive.    

[Ottakee]

Dr. Dobson once suggested leaving your highschool senior age kid home alone for the weekend etc. He said much better to find out then they aren't ready for that than 6 months later when they are in college with no supervision AND a lot of other kids with freedom for the first time.

 

Dh did lots of dumb stuff as a KO'd but that got it out of his system.before the consequences were life changing..... Dumb choices at 17 or 18 can land you in jail.

[Jasperstone]

I couldn't find my ds 5 at a park for around 10 mins the other day. The park has a huge lake, so I was freaking out he might have fallen in, or wandered away somewhere else etc....

 

Man, I was sooo shook up by it! I can't imagine what those poor parents went through with not knowing for 2 hours!!! Sounds like it was a punishment to scary them from doing that again. :-(

[PrincessMommy]

Sounds like the neighbor just doesn't like them.

 

It's totally ridiculous. 1/3 mile would be not that many houses away from their home. So, they were walking on their own street. I don't understand why CPS is wasting resources on this family when there are children within the same jurisdiction who need real intervention.

 

This is local to me too... and hearing on the news that is the first thing I thought.   I suspect there's some busy-body neighbor (or a neighbor who doesn't like the family or something)  and there's more behind this story than what is in the news.  It just seems fishy....  I seriously doubt these are the only kids in this area walking around .   My son's school, which is not far from this area, also has kids walking to the Metro or taking the bus to go home.  Those poor kids and those poor parents... what a nightmare.

[creekland]

My 6 year olds walked or rode their bikes home from our bus stop (6/10ths of a mile from our house) daily when the weather was good.  They never had any trouble.  The younger two had an 8 year old sibling with them assuming they weren't home sick for the day.

[Lisbeth]

Neighbors are highly, highly overrated. I really want a farm. That said, I am on edge when my kids are out of my sight outside, and under 13 it really never happens. Over 13 and my kids are with groups out, not alone. I am overprotective in some ways, but I know it. I feel a bit bad about it But we just got a letter a few weeks ago about a predator moving in a few blocks away. It is not a good feeling.

[Stellalarella]

This is local to me too... and hearing on the news that is the first thing I thought.   I suspect there's some busy-body neighbor (or a neighbor who doesn't like the family or something)  and there's more behind this story than what is in the news.  It just seems fishy....  I seriously doubt these are the only kids in this area walking around .   My son's school, which is not far from this area, also has kids walking to the Metro or taking the bus to go home.  Those poor kids and those poor parents... what a nightmare.

 

It is more than a CPS-on-speed-dial-neighbor problem.  The cops picked up the kids.  And didn't bring them home or call their parents.  CPS held the kids and didn't call the parents immediately.  The parents didn't get their kids back until late at night.  There was a whole chain of people making decisions. 

[Bluegoat]

Dr. Dobson once suggested leaving your highschool senior age kid home alone for the weekend etc. He said much better to find out then they aren't ready for that than 6 months later when they are in college with no supervision AND a lot of other kids with freedom for the first time.

 

Dh did lots of dumb stuff as a KO'd but that got it out of his system.before the consequences were life changing..... Dumb choices at 17 or 18 can land you in jail.

 

When I was 14 I went for a week long camp in the summer where we took classes at a university and lives in the university residences.  There was some supervision by university aged people, but mostly we were left to ourselves.

 

It was really empowering for me, I think I became independant and confident in a way I never had been before.  I felt a bit like I could see the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

My husband had a similar experience at that age on a school trip to new Orleans, and my mother when she was an exchange student for several weeks in Quebec. 

 

I worry that many kids aren't getting that kind of experience any more.  I know my friend who is a university prof finds that many of the undergraduates can't cope, they are totally overwhelmed, they get depressed.  I know he thinks there are a few reasons, but never having had to cope alone is one of them.

 

 

[BrookValley.]

You can't let an 8 year old be in another room? Really?

Not if I don't want someone hurt or something destroyed, no.

 

I can let the two-year old play in another room. Not the (nearly) 8-year old.

[Word Nerd]

It is more than a CPS-on-speed-dial-neighbor problem. The cops picked up the kids. And didn't bring them home or call their parents. CPS held the kids and didn't call the parents immediately. The parents didn't get their kids back until late at night. There was a whole chain of people making decisions.

Another article claims the kids weren't given a meal either.

[BrookValley.]

The reading I've done has convinced me that kids need time alone and unsupervised for proper brain development in decision making skills.

 

Yes, there are risks when the children are unsupervised. Perhaps they will disobey and not come home on time. Perhaps they will be mischievous. Perhaps they will pick up broken glass. Perhaps they will find themselves in an uncomfortable situation and be forced to think about what they should do.

 

In weighing the risks, I believe more harm is done when kids are not given the opportunity to be independent.

 

The kids first learn how to do things in the house when I am not supervising. Then we work on being outside in our back yard unsupervised. Then we work on being outside in the front yard and the street area unsupervised. Then we train on how to walk places. Then they bike and walk places unsupervised that we have preselected. And then they get their driver's training permit and learn to drive with an adult driver. And then they (or at least the oldest so far) gets a license at 16 and drives places BY HIMSELF.

 

I think putting a 16 or 17 year old alone in a car (or worse! with friends!!!!!) who has not had several years of learning to supervise him or herself is unwise.

 

My 11 year old can cook (on a stove) a meal for our whole family. She has done it enough times that she does not need to be supervised. Even my 6 year old knows a thing or two in the kitchen.

 

My kids know how to walk places--how to get there and back.

 

I feel sorry for kids who don't know how to get anywhere, how to cook anything on their own, how to clean on their own, how to try to fix broken things, how to use tools.

 

We had a 14 year old boy over the day and the kind soul asked if he could help out in anyway. I asked him to sweep. He did not know how to run a broom.So I taught him. He can't cook. He can't (couldn't) run a broom! He isn't ever by himself. He is a smart kid. A really good and kind kid. And I feel sorry for him.

Oh, I don't disagree with you. And my kid can cook several things, do a load of laundry, take care of several of our farm animals (e.g., bottle feed the goat kids), etc., by himself, and is better with tools than I am. Contrary to what it sounds like, I'm not an incredibly overbearing helicopter parent. I just *can't* safely let him go off himself because of his level of impulsivity. Consequences of any kind do not deter him, even the natural kind that result in broken bones (been there, done that). I guess where I'm wrong is that I thought most kids his age were similarly impulsive. Lol. That's why I'm so surprised.

[Daria]

Another article claims the kids weren't given a meal either.

 

The article I read said that they offered them food, and the older child explained that they had food allergies, so the offer was withdrawn.  It also made it sound as though they sat in the patrol car, 2 blocks from their home, from 5:03 to 7:18.  It seems to me that if they were due home at 6:00, the parents would have been out looking along the path they should have taken by 7, so I wonder why they didn't stumble upon the officer and the kids. I'm also not clear at what time the parents called the police looking for the kids, or whether the police contacted the parents.  

[Joker]

Dr. Dobson once suggested leaving your highschool senior age kid home alone for the weekend etc. He said much better to find out then they aren't ready for that than 6 months later when they are in college with no supervision AND a lot of other kids with freedom for the first time.

 

Dh did lots of dumb stuff as a KO'd but that got it out of his system.before the consequences were life changing..... Dumb choices at 17 or 18 can land you in jail.

 

My siblings and I stayed home for weekends during high school for sure.

 

Oldest went on a week long trip to DC with her 8th grade class. I think it was really good for her. Four girls to a room and no constant adult supervision. She had a blast and there were no issues. She will have an opportunity to go to Germany next year with her German teacher and class (10th grade). We will let her and I think it will be good for her.

 

Oldest actually was completely left behind once at Disney World in 7th grade on a class trip and it was a huge boost to her confidence that she was able to figure things out without using her cell to call home. I think these types of things are important for them to learn how to navigate different situation on their own. Youngest will have the same opportunities coming up and we will allow her to do them as well. They're hard on dh and I but in the long run I feel they pay off. 

 

[PrincessMommy]

It is more than a CPS-on-speed-dial-neighbor problem.  The cops picked up the kids.  And didn't bring them home or call their parents.  CPS held the kids and didn't call the parents immediately.  The parents didn't get their kids back until late at night.  There was a whole chain of people making decisions. 

 

oh, I agree... it's all very bad.  I was speaking about how it even happened in the first place.  Someone made a call.

[Ottakee]

 I just *can't* safely let him go off himself because of his level of impulsivity. Consequences of any kind do not deter him, even the natural kind that result in broken bones (been there, done that). I guess where I'm wrong is that I thought most kids his age were similarly impulsive. Lol. That's why I'm so surprised.

If he is that much more impulsive than the 2 year old and it is a danger, it might be time for an evaluation.  We ended up doing that for our then 7dd as she darted across a busy parking lot to my sister a ways down and her answer when we got to her was "I don't have to look for cars EVERY time"........then it became clear that her ADHD/impulsivity was a dangerous thing.  For her meds, made a huge difference.

 

I would say that in safe neighborhoods most 8 year olds could play outside in the back yard alone, likely take short bike rides around the neighborhood alone, be in the house alone while parents are in the yard (no cooking, etc).

[LucyStoner]

That family should move to the country! I know dozens of families in our rural area who have bought a farm, and who let their kids roam and pursue all kinds of intriguing hobbies.

But that may not be the experience the parents want for their kids. If their lives are centered in a population center, learning to navigate that landscape is part of growing up.

 

The summer I turned 10 I used to walk much longer than 1/3 of a mile and often had my little brother in tow. I recall they did kid movie matinees and it was cheap for us but pricey to add a ticket for my mom. My mom sent us to the business district in our city neighborhood, $$ in hand to see a movie. There is zero reason most kids can't do that now.

[Farrar]

I have been wondering about this, too. When I was little, I lived in a low rise apartment building in the area. Then we moved out to Columbia whe I was about 2. However, I have been in that area many times because my parents had friends there, it's how we drove into the city many times, we ate at Mrs Kay's Toll House, etc. Georgia Ave is the most dangerous road in Maryland for pedestrians, but I think that is in the area closer to Colesville Road (isn't that what 29 is called there?) than where these kids were. When I think of Georgia Avenue, I think of the really busy part, but I don't think that is where these kids were.

 

 

No, where they live is close to where Georgia and Colesville/29 meet in downtown Silver Spring. That intersection is where they were picked up last time when they were supposedly halfway home - and home is somewhere off Georgia, apparently. But I'm not sure exactly what that means for where they live. There are apartment buildings on both sides and also that neighborhood behind all the retail - you go a block or two off Georgia and there are houses.

 

Still, I don't think that should make a difference. I think kids are better road crossers than adults frankly. My kids are also urban kids and know how to cross a busy street. I see adults and older teens jaywalking a lot. I see kids looking both ways and waiting for lights to change.

[Farrar]

So they issued the 911 call that led to last night. The kids saw a man with a dog in the park and asked politely if they could pet his dog. He said yes. Then he turned around and called 911 because they were unaccompanied. He said they seemed fine, didn't seem to be in any danger, just felt someone should check on them. He misjudged their ages by several years - thinking that the 10 yo was "about 7."

 

Sigh... yeah, they checked on them all right.

[Murphy101]

I stayed home alone for hours at a time in elementary school from 3rd grade up, over night for as long as a three day weekend in middle school and went several weeks home alone in high school. So did my dh and many other kids we grew up with. It didn't matter where we were. Urban Houston or LA, or small rural town in Mississippi or on a boat at the lake or cattle ranch house in the middle of nowhere that only the cows would hear the screams. ;p

 

Personally, I feel more comfortable leaving my kids to their own in town than I did 45 minutes outside of town. It's unusual for me to be more than 20 minutes away and in town they are more likely to be able to access help if they need it too.

[swellmomma]

I'm kinda shocked that people can let their 8-ish year olds outside unsupervised?! I can't let mine be in another room of the house unsupervised! 0_o There is no way I could safely let my child go to a nearby park without an adult.

 

I'm sorry these kids had to go through this with CPS. It sounds more than a bit overblown (I agree, sounds like someone may be gunning for them, which isn't cool).

 

But I still can't wrap my brain around letting kids go off by themselves. Lol. They actually...go where they're supposed to? Come back?! Don't do incredibly dangerous and stupid things?

That's what it was like with my oldest, I still get nervous when he is out of sight because he gets into trouble.  However, I have no problem letting ds11 and dd7 out of sight.  dd7 walks to and from her friend's house by herself, including crossing 2 roads.  Now I can see the friend's house from mine, and we are in a rural village where rush hour traffic means 2 cars drove by, so it is quiet.  But she asks to go, I give a time to be home and carry on with what I am doing and she walks or rides her bike over there.  Ds11 also takes her to the park on his own sometimes.  I can sort of see the park from my house (it is the opposite way from her friend's house), they have rules to abide and they do.  Ds11 goes up to main street to the grocery store, or the post office alone too.  When I go to work in the next town over all my kids are home alone. Some days I leave the 3 oldest at the library in town and they do their own thing, or walk over to their extracurriculars, or youth drop in center.  ds11 has been known to walk across town to my work on fridays if the the teens are gone to camp, because the library closes 1 hour before my job ends, so he walks to me.  he and dd7 are good and doing what is expected of them and being mature about it.  when ds16 was that age, oh heck no, there was no way I could not even work, I had to stay home because he could not be trusted to even come to work with me, he could not be trusted to be in a different room than me in the same house.  It really is based on the kids and whether or not they are ready for it.

 

Back when we lived in the city I had just started letting my older 2 go off alone.  THey would leave our block, cross a road, take a path down to the lake, go 1/4 of the way around it and then take another path up to the library, mc donalds etc.  They would walk or ride bikes and I would meet them at the destination, then they would go back and I would meet them at home.  The lake was a favorite location for EMS, military and police to do laps each day as part of their PT training. Sh*t happened, ds then 11 fell through the ice on the lake in early spring and was pulled free by and off duty cop and EMT they just called me and met me at the path back to our street.  No one batted an eye at my kids being alone like that.  Another time they had a knife pulled on them by someone looking for drugs (long story but people thought my family was affiliated with the new gang on our street), ds then 11 took off running and left dd10 alone with the thug.  She grabbed the attention of a passer by that chased off the thug, and drove her home, again no one thought to call the cops (I did when I heard what happened) but the passerby and the police saw nothing wrong with my 2 being out without me.  

 

It really sounds like this family is being targeted to have the kids picked up and taken away like that

[Gentlemommy]

Am I the only one wondering what exactly they will tell the parents they are guilty of? What exactly was the issue that they felt they needed to keep the kids?

Was it the distance away from home? So what about those rural farming families that live on lots of land? Surely kids growing up on several acres can be more than 1/3 of a mile away from their home....is the same distance ok if it's on your property?

The fact that a ten year old was 'in charge' of a six year old? At what age then would it be acceptable to have an older child in charge of another? Does that change if, again, it is on your property? So could the same ten year old take the same six year old out to feed the chickens if they lived on five acres?

Does this vary with where you live? Like 1/2 mile is acceptable in a rural community, but only 200 feet in a city??? Or perhaps in an affluent vs poorer area? High crime vs low crime? Who makes these decisions? Are the 'rules' written anywhere or is it up to the individual police/CPS workers discretion?

 

In our state, children can be left alone at age 8. I haven't left my oldest because there is no need to, but if there was, I would absolutely trust that she would be just fine. We live on several acres. I let my 10 and 7 year olds take my 4 year old all over our property. They know what to do in case of an emergency, which here would be something like a snake bite or poison ivy. I've seen wonderful changes in all three of my children since we've moved here and been able to give them this freedom. They are fiercely protective of each other, whereas if I was there all the time, they wouldn't have to be. They have gained the confidence to navigate different situations, with each other, and with things like crossing the creek or climbing a tree. They are aware of their limitations.

 

I see nothing wrong with letting kids play alone at a park, but will not let mine do it for many years. Again, not because I think someone will kidnap them, but because of CPS. It's really sad. I remember coming home from elementary school, cooking myself and my younger sister food, doing my homework, and packing my dance bag. We got picked up a few hours later to go to class. I never did anything stupid, I felt like I had this great responsibility on me and made sure to prove myself. I worry about this generation of kids who's parents are covered into hovering and not allowing them to grow up for fear of being reported.

[Carrie12345]

I'm kinda shocked that people can let their 8-ish year olds outside unsupervised?! I can't let mine be in another room of the house unsupervised! 0_o There is no way I could safely let my child go to a nearby park without an adult.

 

I'm sorry these kids had to go through this with CPS. It sounds more than a bit overblown (I agree, sounds like someone may be gunning for them, which isn't cool).

 

But I still can't wrap my brain around letting kids go off by themselves. Lol. They actually...go where they're supposed to? Come back?! Don't do incredibly dangerous and stupid things?

 

Yup.  And he takes his 4yo brother outside with him.

They sometimes do stupid things that might be considered dangerous.

They do not have access to firearms, fireworks, or easy fire starting items, so I'm not too worried.

They do have to have full tick checks when they come in.  Lyme scares me.

[Stellalarella]

Am I the only one wondering what exactly they will tell the parents they are guilty of? What exactly was the issue that they felt they needed to keep the kids?

 

The issue they are guilty of is being non-compliant with newish values on constant on site supervision of children.  

 

It's not a law.  It's a value system driven by fear of something bad happening to kids, a seemingly kind hearted motive to "protect" kids and a lack of respect for parental discretion.

 

But because the decisions are made by government agents carrying those values, it looks like a law and feels like a law.  And it feels very intimidating.  

[Stellalarella]

Oh, I don't disagree with you. And my kid can cook several things, do a load of laundry, take care of several of our farm animals (e.g., bottle feed the goat kids), etc., by himself, and is better with tools than I am. Contrary to what it sounds like, I'm not an incredibly overbearing helicopter parent. I just *can't* safely let him go off himself because of his level of impulsivity. Consequences of any kind do not deter him, even the natural kind that result in broken bones (been there, done that). I guess where I'm wrong is that I thought most kids his age were similarly impulsive. Lol. That's why I'm so surprised.

 

I sincerely respect your personal assessment of your child.  I can't think of anyone who wouldn't.  Truly.  

 

I have six kids and they don't all get the same privileges at the same age because they have differed greatly in self-control.  Some of them have had privileges revoked.  :)  Part of the ole learning process.  

 

(As an aside, my responsible, non-impulsive, safety-conscious first born broke his arm jumping off a playground slide during "tag-you're-it" recess games at  school--off a slide that I had personally helped pick out, watched over the installation of and worked with the contractor and school district to get the safety ground-cover just right.  It's not like there weren't recess aides there to supervise.  And it's not like it wasn't "safe" equipment.  He was just playing.  

 

There isn't much room in our society's value system to say, "Sometimes bad stuff just happens."  We always seem to have to find someone to blame--which leads to thoughts like these:  Those Evil PTA parents bought dangerous swings and slides for the playground!!!  Overworked, distracted, poorly paid recess aides weren't paying attention!!  Tag is an evil game!!  Boys must be made not to run and jump!!  I should have know that he didn't have enough self-control to not purposely run and jump off the high slide!! I am a bad parent!! It's all my fault!!)

 

 

The very sad part of this story is that the parenting assessment and teaching of the family is disrespected by member(s) of their community and agents of the government.  

 

Who would call CPS on parents who make the judgment call to keep their kids close at hand?  No one, right?    And it burns my hide that someone would call CPS and that CPS would overreact over two parents who are intentionally, methodically, purposefully training their children to gain independence and critical thinking skills.  

[Catwoman]

One thing about this story bugs me.

 

The parents had already had run-ins with CPS and were scheduled for some sort of hearing in the very near future. What I can't understand is why they kept letting the kids roam around unsupervised when they had already been in trouble for it. I guess they were trying to prove their point that the kids should be allowed to roam around, but why would they have knowingly and intentionally put their kids in the position of potentially being picked up by the police once again when they knew full well that it could happen? Why are they complaining about how their kids are now terrified of the police (since this recent incident) without thinking that maybe they shouldn't have put the kids in a situation where they could get picked up again?

 

I understand the parents wanting the kids to be free range, but I don't understand essentially setting them up to be caught and frightened again just to show CPS that they are going to raise their kids exactly as they chose with no regard for the legal consequences. I can absolutely understand them fighting for their rights to allow their children more freedom, even though I wouldn't allow kids that age to walk around town unsupervised, because I think the parents should be able to make a choice like that. But I think they should ensure that they have the right to let the kids roam around before they keep allowing them to do it. It seems like a bad idea for parents to let their kids get into trouble just so they can make their point.

[Joker]

One thing about this story bugs me.

 

The parents had already had run-ins with CPS and were scheduled for some sort of hearing in the very near future. What I can't understand is why they kept letting the kids roam around unsupervised when they had already been in trouble for it. I guess they were trying to prove their point that the kids should be allowed to roam around, but why would they have knowingly and intentionally put their kids in the position of potentially being picked up by the police once again when they knew full well that it could happen? Why are they complaining about how their kids are now terrified of the police (since this recent incident) without thinking that maybe they shouldn't have put the kids in a situation where they could get picked up again?

 

I understand the parents wanting the kids to be free range, but I don't understand essentially setting them up to be caught and frightened again just to show CPS that they are going to raise their kids exactly as they chose with no regard for the legal consequences. I can absolutely understand them fighting for their rights to allow their children more freedom, even though I wouldn't allow kids that age to walk around town unsupervised, because I think the parents should be able to make a choice like that. But I think they should ensure that they have the right to let the kids roam around before they keep allowing them to do it. It seems like a bad idea for parents to let their kids get into trouble just so they can make their point.

 

I can't imagine the parents actually thought police would pick their kids up and keep them for hours. I can't imagine the parents thought the police would tell their kids to get into a cruiser and they would take them home only to take them away. The police and CPS are completely at fault now if the children fear them. They were wrong and really shouldn't be able to use the parents as scapegoats.

 

The laws are ridiculous there and, honestly, this is probably one of the only ways to get it changed. I wouldn't be able to do it with my own family and children but I also know someone probably has to for things to change. How else are things going to change? Doesn't this kind of change usually come about because of extremes?

 

[SKL]

One thing about this story bugs me.

 

The parents had already had run-ins with CPS and were scheduled for some sort of hearing in the very near future. What I can't understand is why they kept letting the kids roam around unsupervised when they had already been in trouble for it. I guess they were trying to prove their point that the kids should be allowed to roam around, but why would they have knowingly and intentionally put their kids in the position of potentially being picked up by the police once again when they knew full well that it could happen? Why are they complaining about how their kids are now terrified of the police (since this recent incident) without thinking that maybe they shouldn't have put the kids in a situation where they could get picked up again?

 

I understand the parents wanting the kids to be free range, but I don't understand essentially setting them up to be caught and frightened again just to show CPS that they are going to raise their kids exactly as they chose with no regard for the legal consequences. I can absolutely understand them fighting for their rights to allow their children more freedom, even though I wouldn't allow kids that age to walk around town unsupervised, because I think the parents should be able to make a choice like that. But I think they should ensure that they have the right to let the kids roam around before they keep allowing them to do it. It seems like a bad idea for parents to let their kids get into trouble just so they can make their point.

 

How far should a parent have to restrict developmentally-appropriate movements just because some official is an idiot?  How cooperative would you feel if CPS told you that your son was not allowed to go to a public toilet without you, or go swimming without floaties, or ride a bike without training wheels?  I guess you could simply keep the kid indoors, but wouldn't that also be punishing the child?

 

If it's true they were 1/3 of a mile away from their parents' house, that is practically in their own front yard.  These are school-aged kids.  Why should the kids be effectively grounded / tomato staked for 2 years until the youngest reaches 8yo (assuming they are allowed out even then)?  Some of us consider that to be harmful to our kids.

 

I think they may have realized the cops / CPS could complain to them about letting their kids go play, but thought they could negotiate as adults without doing anything horrible to the kids.  Who would think they would take and lock up the kids for playing in the nearby park, after they had investigated the home and found it safe?

 

And the fact that some parents would be too terrified to do what is developmentally appropriate for their kids is not OK.  It's true some of us make sucky choices to avoid the risk of CPS attention.  But that's all the more reason for the agencies to be called on the carpet for incidents like this.  The amount of power we give CPS / cops over kids' development is outrageous.

[Reflections]

One thing about this story bugs me.

 

The parents had already had run-ins with CPS and were scheduled for some sort of hearing in the very near future. What I can't understand is why they kept letting the kids roam around unsupervised when they had already been in trouble for it. I guess they were trying to prove their point that the kids should be allowed to roam around, but why would they have knowingly and intentionally put their kids in the position of potentially being picked up by the police once again when they knew full well that it could happen? Why are they complaining about how their kids are now terrified of the police (since this recent incident) without thinking that maybe they shouldn't have put the kids in a situation where they could get picked up again?

 

I understand the parents wanting the kids to be free range, but I don't understand essentially setting them up to be caught and frightened again just to show CPS that they are going to raise their kids exactly as they chose with no regard for the legal consequences. I can absolutely understand them fighting for their rights to allow their children more freedom, even though I wouldn't allow kids that age to walk around town unsupervised, because I think the parents should be able to make a choice like that. But I think they should ensure that they have the right to let the kids roam around before they keep allowing them to do it. It seems like a bad idea for parents to let their kids get into trouble just so they can make their point.

 

I agree with you, Cat, in some ways.  But I think that people pushing the limits of what the laws allow in a peaceful dissent has been how laws have been changed for a while now.  Look at homeschooling. It was pretty much illegal 30 years ago.  If it hadn't been for those people pushing what was a norm, we wouldn't be enjoying this freedom.

[Reflections]

But that's all the more reason for the agencies to be called on the carpet for incidents like this.  The amount of power we give CPS / cops over kids' development is outrageous.

 

I AGREE very strongly with this.  

[LucyStoner]

Did parents call the cops when them kids weren't home and they couldn't find them? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around why it took so long for them to be able to locate the kids.

 

I think it would have been smart, if they were going to continue doing this after the first run-in and bearing the pending legal stuff in mind, to give the kids a cell phone so they could call or text in case they ran into trouble. A cheap prepaid phone might have spared the kids that long of a wait. It's sad though that the police could be the trouble.

 

Honestly, I have given my son my iPhone when he's making a walk to a new location just so I can use "find my iPhone" to make sure he's headed the right direction. Kid lojack. My older son is not neurotypical and so while I let him ride his bike alone, walk to the library etc (especially with his best friend or my niece), I haven't had occasion to think he could successfully do that with his 6 year old brother in tow. I'm not sure if I would or not if he were NT.

[Tsuga]

Neighbors are highly, highly overrated. I really want a farm. That said, I am on edge when my kids are out of my sight outside, and under 13 it really never happens. Over 13 and my kids are with groups out, not alone. I am overprotective in some ways, but I know it. I feel a bit bad about it But we just got a letter a few weeks ago about a predator moving in a few blocks away. It is not a good feeling.

 

We have great neighbors who watch out for our kids.

 

Some people are just jerks. It doesn't reflect on the entire class of people.

[SKL]

Did parents call the cops when them kids weren't home and they couldn't find them? I am having a hard time wrapping my head around why it took so long for them to be able to locate the kids.

 

I think it would have been smart, if they were going to continue doing this after the first run-in and bearing the pending legal stuff in mind, to give the kids a cell phone so they could call or text in case they ran into trouble. A cheap prepaid phone might have spared the kids that long of a wait. It's sad though that the police could be the trouble.

 

Honestly, I have given my son my iPhone when he's making a walk to a new location just so I can use "find my iPhone" to make sure he's headed the right direction. Kid lojack. My older son is not neurotypical and so while I let him ride his bike alone, walk to the library etc (especially with his best friend or my niece), I haven't had occasion to think he could successfully do that with his 6 year old brother in tow. I'm not sure if I would or not if he were NT.

 

I suspect they may have been reluctant to call the cops before searching thoroughly, because the authorities could use that against them.

 

Also, the kids were old enough to provide their home address and phone number to the cops.  I would assume that if my kids were picked up by the cops, they would give my info and the cops would contact me right away, not sit waiting to see how long I'd wait to contact them.

 

I wouldn't give my kid a cell phone to go play 1/3 of a mile away.  I could hear my kids holler from that distance (and vice versa).  Plus, if anything happened to one kid, the other could quickly come and get me.  A cell phone would just be something to worry about them losing or damaging.

[chiguirre]

1/3 of a mile is about 600 steps. That's really not that far, less than 10 minutes from home.

[twoxcell]

 

One thing about this story bugs me.

 

The parents had already had run-ins with CPS and were scheduled for some sort of hearing in the very near future. What I can't understand is why they kept letting the kids roam around unsupervised when they had already been in trouble for it. I guess they were trying to prove their point that the kids should be allowed to roam around, but why would they have knowingly and intentionally put their kids in the position of potentially being picked up by the police once again when they knew full well that it could happen? Why are they complaining about how their kids are now terrified of the police (since this recent incident) without thinking that maybe they shouldn't have put the kids in a situation where they could get picked up again?

 

I understand the parents wanting the kids to be free range, but I don't understand essentially setting them up to be caught and frightened again just to show CPS that they are going to raise their kids exactly as they chose with no regard for the legal consequences. I can absolutely understand them fighting for their rights to allow their children more freedom, even though I wouldn't allow kids that age to walk around town unsupervised, because I think the parents should be able to make a choice like that. But I think they should ensure that they have the right to let the kids roam around before they keep allowing them to do it. It seems like a bad idea for parents to let their kids get into trouble just so they can make their point.

:iagree: A 6 year old has no business roaming the neighborhood without a parent. I don't consider a 10 year mature enough to babysit. :leaving:

[Farrar]

:iagree: A 6 year old has no business roaming the neighborhood without a parent. I don't consider a 10 year mature enough to babysit. :leaving:

So you think they should lose their kids?

[IfIOnly]

:iagree: A 6 year old has no business roaming the neighborhood without a parent. I don't consider a 10 year mature enough to babysit. :leaving:

 

Wow!  I really don't identify with those generalizations. I think some 6 year olds should be with a parent and some 10 year olds aren't mature enough to babysit.  My oldest is 11 and he is legally able to babysit and def. mature enough to. We pay him to watch his siblings while we go out on a coffee date once a week.

 

My kids work 8 plus hour days with their dad (Saturday side business that we're hoping develops into full time) to earn money, and they earn every dollar. They are great helpers and are not forced. They love the satisfaction of hard work and earning money. (And they have more spending money than I do!)

[LucyStoner]

I wouldn't give my kid a cell phone to go play 1/3 of a mile away. I could hear my kids holler from that distance (and vice versa). Plus, if anything happened to one kid, the other could quickly come and get me. A cell phone would just be something to worry about them losing or damaging.

If a child is mature enough to be looking after themselves, they are mature enough to keep track of a phone in their pocket. I wouldn't give a child a phone just because they were playing 1/3 of a mile away either but given the circumstances, it seems like a sound idea. If they are in a legal situation that makes them reluctant to call the police, they need to be thinking about contingencies.

 

Because of my son's particular limitations, having a cell phone offers us a way to give him some freedom while still being cognizant of the fact that we are dealing with a child who has trouble distinguishing left from right with 100% accuracy. If he feels overwhelmed, he has a backup plan. Backup plans are good.

[LucyStoner]

1/3 of a mile is about 600 steps. That's really not that far, less than 10 minutes from home.

You are right. But it's not hollering distance where I live and definitely not in a city. The library my son walks to all the time is approximately that far, that's several blocks and I might hear a holler from 1/2 a block away. Might. We live on the block which connects the small business district and residential district of a quiet suburb.

[Farrar]

My boys have a cell phone for being out alone. But I can understand the mentality of the child who would be absentminded about an object but know how to be responsible about him or herself in terms of interactions with people, neighborhood boundaries and so forth. I mean, I did buy my kids the cheapest phone I could.

 

Also, to add, I don't require that they keep it with them. Ds went down the block to the rec center without it this afternoon. No big.

[twoxcell]

 

So you think they should lose their kids?

No, I do not think that based on the info I know and I didn't say that. I just really don't feel that sorry for them, especially since they have already been warned. Now it is possible that the local police and CPS have gone overboard, but I don't know enough about the actual case to comment on that. I could see allowing a 10 year old to walk around alone but 6 is way too young. That is just my opinion anyways. Maybe I am overprotective but I can not imagine allowing something like that. :svengo:

[LucyStoner]

My boys have a cell phone for being out alone. But I can understand the mentality of the child who would be absentminded about an object but know how to be responsible about him or herself in terms of interactions with people, neighborhood boundaries and so forth. I mean, I did buy my kids the cheapest phone I could.

 

Also, to add, I don't require that they keep it with them. Ds went down the block to the rec center without it this afternoon. No big.

Yup, $10 tracfone. I think it was the $40 phone on sale for $10. It looks like my old blackberry curve. I don't worry if he loses it. I only swap phones with him (for the kid LoJack feature, lol) if he's trying a new destination, and that's only something I do because of the ASD. Except for short bike or scooter rides, I do require that he have it with him. I wouldn't think that necessary for an average child though.

[twoxcell]

 

Wow!  I really don't identify with those generalizations. I think some 6 year olds should be with a parent and some 10 year olds aren't mature enough to babysit.  My oldest is 11 and he is legally able to babysit and def. mature enough to. We pay him to watch his siblings while we go out on a coffee date once a week.

 

Being left in ones own home is completely different to me than walking around the neighborhood. Honestly I would be the most worried about kids crossing traffic alone.

[Murphy101]

I don't think it is irresponsible to have a phone damaged at a playground or wading through a creek and climbing trees .... I think it's natural potential collateral damage and a reasonable reason to leave it at home. I don't care if a parent gives their kid a cell when they go to their park, but no I do not at all think they should have to to protect themselves from the crazy cops and CPS.

[WagsWife]

:iagree: A 6 year old has no business roaming the neighborhood without a parent. I don't consider a 10 year mature enough to babysit. :leaving:

 

At 10 years old, I trusted my oldest DD to babysit her sisters FAR more than I trusted any teenager we knew.  DD knew our rules, she knew how to take care of her sisters, knew what do do in an emergency (ie: what deserved a call to me, when it was appropriate to go to a neighbor, and when she should go straight to 911)...and I knew that I could trust her to do things exactly as instructed.  My middle DD, I would not have given the same responsibilities to at that age...but by 11/12 she was also ready.  

 

I am FAR from being a free-range parent.  While I had not problems letting them stay home on their own for an hour or two when DD was 10...I was not keen on them roaming the neighborhood.  In fact when they were 10 they each received their own cell phone (with GPS tracking) so that I could check on them when I wanted.  That being said, what these parents are going through is insane.  It was MY prerogative  as a parent to require them to have a phone before I let them leave our street...and it is THEIR prerogative to be more free range.  There is not one correct way to parent, and the GOVT needs to stay out of it (this obviously does not apply in real cases of abuse or neglect.)

[LucyStoner]

I don't think it is irresponsible to have a phone damaged at a playground or wading through a creek and climbing trees .... I think it's natural potential collateral damage and a reasonable reason to leave it at home. I don't care if a parent gives their kid a cell when they go to their park, but no I do not at all think they should have to to protect themselves from the crazy cops and CPS.

Given the circumstances and the pending legal hearing, I think giving them a phone is hardly an unreasonable precaution.

 

Should they be in this situation? No. Are they in this situation? Yes. I admire their conviction on this and am basically sympathetic to their views but from a practical standpoint, the police have picked the kids up before, it's not unexpected that it would happen again. Setting idealism aside, I personally would want to know that my kids had a way to contact me if I were in their shoes.