Remember those parents in Maryland...?

[LucyStoner]

The problem with fighting it only in the courts is that precious time is lost. Time those kids can never get back. What good is winning an appeal that says you get to parent your 6-7yo as you see fit, if the case isn't finalized until your kid is in middle school?

That's a bit dramatic. Presumably the 6 year old will be 8 in less than 2 years regardless of any litigation or lobbying.

[creekland]

This is a heck of a scolding. I am sorry you are scared to death but your fears of the government and of your neighbors aren't a reason to miss the fact that I'm on the same side. Aside from differences in battle tactics I'm on the same side regarding what's happening to this family.

 

FWIW, I read it as if she was agreeing with you - not scolding you.  I'm not sure if that was the intent, but it's how I read it.

[Murphy101]

That's a bit dramatic. Presumably the 6 year old will be 8 in less than 2 years regardless of any litigation or lobbying.

I don't think it was dramatic at all considering the family is facing 5 years of extra scrutiny by CPS.

 

I highly doubt the kid will turn 8 and miraculously CPS will no longer be grossly overstepping. If not with these people, then with someone else.

[Sdel]

I think these papers should be illegal. CPS does it all the time. Either sign this document saying you will do X, Y, and Z or not sue us for A, B, C and that we can come to your home anytime we want for blank amount of time to further our investigation or search your private medical records and so forth or you can't have your kids, so duh, of course the parents sign.

 

It's obviously coersion and under duress. It should be illegal.

 

Coming in a bit late, but I want to point something out.....

 

Mental health records are not considered private when the welfare of children is being considered.  It really is a courtesy that you are asked to sign a release because they don't really have to have your permission. 

 

Stefanie

[luuknam]

I recently told my 7.5yo's school that we want to try him on the regular school bus instead of the short bus. I love the short bus - we live in WNY, so in the neverending winter it's great not to have to walk 0.2 miles through the snow (or rather, on the street, since everyone walks on the street when it's too snowy, which is dangerous because it's often also slippery which means a car could slide into you even if they saw you and tried to avoid you) to the bus stop and then wait for the bus when it feels like -15F or w/e (they cancel school if it feels worse than about -15F). But, I want to be able to let him walk places in summer, and I'm concerned that if he's on the short bus, it will be held against me if CPS or the police were to get involved.

 

The reason the school put him on the short bus was because he got overwhelmed waiting for the bus in the very noisy hallways, not because of any inability to walk to or from the bus stop. That was in K, when I would have had to walk him to the bus stop and pick him up. 1st graders are allowed to walk on their own though. He's doing great walking to the bus stop and back on his own, btw. :)

 

When I started 1st grade some of my classmates made fun of me because my mom walked me to school. When I asked her about it, she said that the only reason she walked me to school was so that she could meet other parents and socialize (we'd moved in the summer before 1st grade). My mom also says her neighbors let their 4yo tricycle laps around the block while they sit in the front yard (in 2014, but in The Netherlands). I'm not sure if it's okay for me to let my 4yo play in the backyard alone here in WNY. I could ask our neighbor, who is a senior CPS caseworker, but I don't want to create a situation where I'm asking him for permission for all of my parenting decisions. That said, I'm less concerned about him than about random busybodies. He's presumably seen enough cases of real abuse and neglect to not worry so much about minor things.

[LucyStoner]

I don't think it was dramatic at all considering the family is facing 5 years of extra scrutiny by CPS.

 

I highly doubt the kid will turn 8 and miraculously CPS will no longer be grossly overstepping. If not with these people, then with someone else.

 

OTOH, if the younger child was 8-10 now instead of 6 this probably would have never been an issue.  Because there is a clear age cut off for inside and being alone, at some point this becomes moot by the young child's age.  Should the parent's judgment prevail?  Yes.  That said, there are certainly plenty of 6 year olds who would cause a lot of people to wonder, especially in an urban area.   Changing a state law (which is what should really happen here) is going to take 1+ to 2 years minimum, and quite often longer.  That's democracy in 2015.  

[SKL]

 Changing a state law (which is what should really happen here) is going to take 1+ to 2 years minimum, and quite often longer.  That's democracy in 2015.  

 

But what the Meitivs did was not what the law talks about at all.  So while I may not agree with the law, it is not relevant here.  CPS' misinterpreting the law shouldn't take that long to fix - but nevertheless, it may in practice.

 

Then again, I am not sure CPS is relying on that law in this case.  That's what we keep hearing, but we don't have the file.  They may just be saying the 6yo (and/or the 10yo) in question is not mature enough to be outside without an adult companion.  In that case it might be more complicated to address.

[Sahamamama]

http://www.freerangekids.com/a-statement-from-the-meitivs-about-the-detainment-of-their-kids/