Remember those parents in Maryland...?

[Daria]

I don't understand that they wouldn't expect or at least worry about this. The article I read had the mother saying they had been worried this would happen again. There was already pending legal action. They have previously been required to agree that they won't leave the kids unsupervised. They have an attorney set up. They know that apparently the cultural norm in their very local area is that their kids look too young to be roaming and apparently people do call 911 for that. They live in a state where the law is apparently interpreted as 8 being the cut off and they have a 6 year old. The law is silent on the whole matter of if 10 is old enough to supervise someone below 8. IF the parents were surprized, and I don't think they were really, they had no reason to be.

 

While I am very sympathetic and want to see not only this case resolved favorably for them but the law clarified and CPS and the cops required to adjust their mode of operation in cases like these, I feel that it is possible that these parents might be, at least on some level, making a political point with their kids. I have a pretty low tolerance for such shenanigans. I'm not sure that is what is happening but I just am not sure what they expected to happen. They were interviewed before saying that their kids were, to quote, "terrified" the last time this happened. Fair or not, right or not, ideal or not, I don't put my kids in the exact same situation to be terrified again without some backup plans.

 

No, the law in MD is clear that 6 year olds who are in the company of 10 year olds are considered "unsupervised".  What isn't clear is whether the park, which is where the kids were playing when the 911 call was made, or the sidewalk where they were picked up are locations where 6 year olds need to be supervised.  The law is clear that you can not leave an "unsupervised" 6 year old in a building or vehicle.  However, the law as written isn't clear as to whether or not you can leave an "unsupervised" 6 year old at the park, or send them to play outside "unsupervised".  

 

My suspicion as far as the "unsubstantiated child neglect" is that at some point when they were interviewed, either the kids or the parents made a statement that lead CPS to believe that the kids were sometimes left home alone, but CPS was not able to substantiate this belief.  Leaving the six year year home with the ten year old is illegal in MD.  I say this because it doesn't make sense to me that they were unable to substantiate whether the kids were walking alone.  That doesn't seem in doubt.  Whether it was child neglect to let them do it was debatable, but it seems clear that it happened, and that CPS has witnesses, including the parents themselves who have admitted that it happened on national TV.  

[Murphy101]

So letting your kids walk alone less than a mile to a park is a publicity stunt worthy of government retribution to the so called foolish parents?

 

So much for the land of the free and the brave.

 

Heck no I don't think that should be quietly dealt with in court by cowering parents fearful of losing their kids. I think every citizen should be screaming for the firing of the cops and CPS workers. And if letting your kid walk to the park is illegal, I think it's a law every citizen should break. They can't put us all in jail. In theory anyways.

 

I freely admit I don't know if I'd have the guts to do it. I think it's normal for a mother to place fear of losing her children above doing the right thing. But I fully support a more courageous mother.

[LucyStoner]

So letting your kids walk alone less than a mile to a park is a publicity stunt worthy of government retribution to the so called foolish parents?

 

So much for the land of the free and the brave.

 

Heck no I don't think that should be quietly dealt with in court by cowering parents fearful of losing their kids. I think every citizen should be screaming for the firing of the cops and CPS workers. And if letting your kid walk to the park is illegal, I think it's a law every citizen should break. They can't put us all in jail. In theory anyways.

 

I freely admit I don't know if I'd have the guts to do it. I think it's normal for a mother to place fear of losing her children above doing the right thing. But I fully support a more courageous mother.

I think it is possible to have some questions about why they did this again when they were facing an ongoing investigation and have a court date and why they wouldn't they take some precautions like a phone in 2015 without being against what the parents are pushing for or against the parents.

 

As for the rest of your post, it should be abundantly clear that I don't think they should be cowering or kowtowing. Or that I'm am against freedom or land of the free and the home of the brave, lol. I've never said the police action was justified or that the law should not be changed.

[Jean in Newcastle]

When my boys where maybe six and seven we were packing up for a trip. I wanted some ketchup chips for the trip so I sent them with money to the corner store to buy some. I must not have been clear since they came home with Ketchup and chips.  :lol:

Quick thread highjack.  What are ketchup chips?  I would have come home with ketchup and chips for you too.  

[SKL]

I don't know that we should assume the parents decided to outright disobey the safety plan (which, who knows what the plan even says).  I could see them sending their kids out to play on a lovely spring day, and the kids ending up at the nearby park.  I could see it happening with my kids if we had a park that near.  In fact, I'm sure it would happen frequently, unless I told my kids:  "you are not allowed to go past x line because if you do, the police will take you away."  Were they wrong to not say that to their kids?

[SparklyUnicorn]

So letting your kids walk alone less than a mile to a park is a publicity stunt worthy of government retribution to the so called foolish parents?

 

So much for the land of the free and the brave.

 

Heck no I don't think that should be quietly dealt with in court by cowering parents fearful of losing their kids. I think every citizen should be screaming for the firing of the cops and CPS workers. And if letting your kid walk to the park is illegal, I think it's a law every citizen should break. They can't put us all in jail. In theory anyways.

 

I freely admit I don't know if I'd have the guts to do it. I think it's normal for a mother to place fear of losing her children above doing the right thing. But I fully support a more courageous mother.

 

What I don't get is why they can walk to school.  At least here one is expect to if they live a mile and a half or less away.  There is nothing in that rule that says they can't walk alone at any age if they are going to school. 

[KungFuPanda]

I'm not understanding the timeline. If the kids waited with the cops for two hours before being transported to CPS, then why didn't the parents find the kids and cops during their frantic search?

[LucyStoner]

I don't know that we should assume the parents decided to outright disobey the safety plan (which, who knows what the plan even says). I could see them sending their kids out to play on a lovely spring day, and the kids ending up at the nearby park. I could see it happening with my kids if we had a park that near. In fact, I'm sure it would happen frequently, unless I told my kids: "you are not allowed to go past x line because if you do, the police will take you away." Were they wrong to not say that to their kids?

The news articles quoted mom as saying she dropped them off at the park at 4 and told them to be home by 6. She knew they were alone at that park. Which I don't really have an issue with. OTOH, in her shoes, I do think I would adjust my plans a bit (call me the first thing if approached) to prevent a repeat of what happened before and in light of pending legal matters. I don't think she's a crappy parent, but I do think that in imperfect situations, parents adjust.

[SKL]

I think it is possible to have some questions about why they did this again when they were facing an ongoing investigation and have a court date and why they wouldn't they take some precautions like a phone in 2015 without being against what the parents are pushing for or against the parents.

 

As for the rest of your post, it should be abundantly clear that I don't think they should be cowering or kowtowing. Or that I'm am against freedom or land of the free and the home of the brave, lol. I've never said the police action was justified or that the law should not be changed.

 

But isn't it like asking why  the dead unarmed black guy didn't just shut up and lie down on the ground at the traffic stop?  Or why the rape victim thought it was a good idea to walk around in a short skirt and high heels in that neighborhood?

[snowbeltmom]

I will clarify and say that it is sad that they were frantically looking for their children. From what I gathered their previous case is still open and has yet to be resolved in court. You would think they would want to lay low for a bit at least until that is resolved. Instead of knowingly sending their kids off in a neighborhood where they have already had problems and been warned by police not to do it again. I agree with what LucyStoner said a few posts up. It seems like a publicity stunt to me. I'm always a bit skeptical of these kind of one sided stories since we do not know anything from the police or CPS side. The story as told in this article doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If they have broken a law then this needs to be resolved soon. If not then the police and CPS need to leave them alone. If the parents don't like the local laws they need to either move or fight to change them the legal way. Not by using their kids to publicly go against them.

 

What local law did the parents break by permitting their kids to play at the park?  From the articles I have read, there was no law broken.

 

[SKL]

Also, if the "safety plan" was signed under duress, should it be treated as valid?

[twoxcell]

 

What I don't get is why they can walk to school.  At least here one is expect to if they live a mile and a half or less away.  There is nothing in that rule that says they can't walk alone at any age if they are going to school.

Presumably if they are walking to school it is a direct short path with a crossing guard and groups of kids. Also if they don't make it there you would hope that would be noticed quickly. To me that is completely different than just sending the kids out to roam and saying be back in a few hours. We live very close to an elementary and Jr. High. All of the kids in our neighborhood have to walk or be dropped off. The younger elementary kids I see walk with their parents. Upper elementary and Jr. High kids walk in groups.

[Murphy101]

I think it is possible to have some questions about why they did this again when they were facing an ongoing investigation and have a court date and why they wouldn't they take some precautions like a phone in 2015 without being against what the parents are pushing for or against the parents.

 

As for the rest of your post, it should be abundantly clear that I don't think they should be cowering or kowtowing. Or that I'm am against freedom or land of the free and the home of the brave, lol.

What's the point of the question other than to paint them as bad parents in some sinister manner? Why does it matter to you? Sure I might have sent a phone too. But so what? It really has nothing to do with anything wrt to the case at hand.

 

I didn't quote you bc my post was not directed to any one poster but rather this subversive undercurrent that well they can't really be decent parents bc they let their kids walk to the park alone again after being warned and they should have planned ahead for the police to be more malicious than last time so maybe that justifies the police/CPS actions. Bc well they had it coming for being stubborn or foolish, so don't feel bad for them.

 

I categorically disagree with that. I'm think it is nothing more than distraction from the issue at hand in an effort to try to convince ourselves to feel more comfortable with an unjust authority.

[twoxcell]

 

What local law did the parents break by permitting their kids to play at the park?  From the articles I have read, there was no law broken.

 

I don't know their local laws so I couldn't say. That is why I said "if" they broke a law it should be dealt with and if not then they need to be left alone.

[LucyStoner]

I'm not understanding the timeline. If the kids waited with the cops for two hours before being transported to CPS, then why didn't the parents find the kids and cops during their frantic search?

Because apparently the parents didn't call the cops. And the cops didn't call the parents. I find that outrageous.

[Murphy101]

Also, if the "safety plan" was signed under duress, should it be treated as valid?

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.

[Stellalarella]

I wrote down a quote from Rob Dreher the other day.  He was speaking on those who would want to closet their religious beliefs in order to still be accepted in their professions, but his words have meaning beyond that issue for me.  Of course I am not equating children with things.  But if government agents can take away your discretion in how to raise your children, then I guess you have the children "with" you but you've lost the ability to PARENT. And if you can't parent your children...

 

"If you stand to lose everything by standing up for yourself, you have already lost those things, because they can and will be taken from you. And if they never are, if you stay hidden and prosper within the system that hates you, you will lose something more valuable than your professional status."

[LucyStoner]

What's the point of the question other than to paint them as bad parents in some sinister manner? Why does it matter to you? Sure I might have sent a phone too. But so what? It really has nothing to do with anything wrt to the case at hand.

 

I didn't quote you bc my post was not directed to any one poster but rather this subversive undercurrent that well they can't really be decent parents bc they let their kids walk to the park alone again after being warned and they should have planned ahead for the police to be more malicious than last time so maybe that justifies the police/CPS actions. Bc well they had it coming for being stubborn or foolish, so don't feel bad for them.

 

I categorically disagree with that. I'm think it is nothing more than distraction from the issue at hand in an effort to try to convince ourselves to feel more comfortable with an unjust authority.

Here's the thing though:

 

I am not painting the parents as bad parents in some sinister manner.

 

I am not comfortable with unjust authority.

 

I am wondering about the whole situation. As a lot of people are. Nothing more, nothing less. There's no need to paint me in a sinister light for thinking that in this set of circumstances, I don't really understand their precise course of action. I also spelled out I wasn't sure they were pulling a stunt. In the case at hand, they now have a second supervision plan in place. It need to take legal action to undo that. Like it or not, that takes time. We do not live in a perfect world.

[Murphy101]

I wrote down a quote from Rob Dreher the other day. He was speaking on those who would want to closet their religious beliefs in order to still be accepted in their professions, but his words have meaning beyond that issue for me. Of course I am not equating children with things. But if government agents can take away your discretion in how to raise your children, then I guess you have the children "with" you but you've lost the ability to PARENT. And if you can't parent your children...

 

"If you stand to lose everything by standing up for yourself, you have already lost those things, because they can and will be taken from you. And if they never are, if you stay hidden and prosper within the system that hates you, you will lose something more valuable than your professional status."

I don't know who that is, but the quote is dead on true.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Presumably if they are walking to school it is a direct short path with a crossing guard and groups of kids. Also if they don't make it there you would hope that would be noticed quickly. To me that is completely different than just sending the kids out to roam and saying be back in a few hours. We live very close to an elementary and Jr. High. All of the kids in our neighborhood have to walk or be dropped off. The younger elementary kids I see walk with their parents. Upper elementary and Jr. High kids walk in groups.

 

It's not though.  There are some crossing guards, but not at every intersection. 

 

I often didn't have anyone to walk with and walked alone.  Here I don't see kids so my kids would probably have to walk alone. 

[Happygrl]

A comment I've seen on FB several times now is that the cops picking them up is proof that anyone could have kidnapped them.  Sure, someone else COULD have...but no one else did, not this time and not any other time.  And car accidents prove that you can be in an accident if you drive, so that logic would say no one should ever drive then.  I can't live/parent that way.  

 

 

For those that think letting the 10 yo and 6 yo neurotypicals walk to the 600 steps to a park is negligent, what do you make of the school bus stops and the walks that kids routinely make to them? 

In my neighborhood, the bus stops at every single house that needs a pick-up, there is no central bus stop.  I remember growing up that the bus stop was the next block up and was the single bus stop in about a 2-block radius.  Now, at least in this neighborhood, kids can't even walk a couple houses down to have less stops.  I don't get it.  And its not like we are at all a busy neighborhood, just a pretty typical subdivision.  I watch the bus go down the street behind us and he has to stop at six times in a 8-house distance.  On the street in front of our house, its more like every 2-3 houses.  

[KungFuPanda]

Because apparently the parents didn't call the cops. And the cops didn't call the parents. I find that outrageous.

No, I'm asking about their physical movement. If your kid is missing, you would walk towards where they are supposed to be. If they left even an hour after the kids were supposed to be home, then wouldn't they walk towards the park where the kids and cops were likely watching for them to come? Or did the cops drive away and have them waiting in he car somewhere else? It seems unlikely that they would move the kids since they were awaiting CPS instruction. It seems equally unlikely that the parents wouldn't search the park.

 

I've seen MD cops wait with under aged kids who have been dropped in a public place. When the parents arrive, they lecture them not to drop them without legal supervision until they are eight years old, and send them on their way. I've seen a parent claim to have been in the parking lot waiting, but the cop calmly informed her that they searched the parking lot an hour ago. I've seen this a few times and they are fairly vigilant about it. They ask the kid how old they are and who is watching them. They ask the supervising child how old they are.

[Daria]

Because apparently the parents didn't call the cops. And the cops didn't call the parents. I find that outrageous.

 

It's not just that they didn't call.  They were frantically searching, but didn't see the kids.  They have also stated that they assumed they had been picked up by the police.  According to the police record, they were sitting in a marked police car on the side of the road they were walking on, the road that leads from their park to their home, for 45 minutes after the time when the kids were supposed to be home.

 

I feel as though, if my kids were missing from the park 1/3 of the mile from my house, the very first thing I'd do is to walk or drive to the park.  If I suspected the police had them, and I passed an occupied police car, I'd stop and check to see if those particular police officers had my kids.  

 

The police waited almost 2.5 hours before they left the location where they found the kids.  

[SKL]

A comment I've seen on FB several times now is that the cops picking them up is proof that anyone could have kidnapped them.  Sure, someone else COULD have...but no one else did, not this time and not any other time.  And car accidents prove that you can be in an accident if you drive, so that logic would say no one should ever drive then.  I can't live/parent that way. 

 

I agree with you.

 

I would also say that no, it doesn't prove anything of the sort.  If a cop picks kids up, the kids probably don't try to struggle like they would with a random stranger - whether because they aren't afraid of cops, or because they are afraid of cops and fear they will use guns/tazers, clubs, and handcuffs on them or throw their parents in jail if they don't cooperate.

 

And also, if bystanders see cops telling kids to get in a car, they are a lot less likely to intervene or call 911, compared to if they see some random stranger telling kids to get in the car.

[Farrar]

No, I'm asking about their physical movement. If your kid is missing, you would walk towards where they are supposed to be. If they left even an hour after the kids were supposed to be home, then wouldn't they walk towards the park where the kids and cops were likely watching for them to come? Or did the cops drive away and have them waiting in he car somewhere else? It seems unlikely that they would move the kids since they were awaiting CPS instruction. It seems equally unlikely that the parents wouldn't search the park.

 

I've seen MD cops wait with under aged kids who have been dropped in a public place. When the parents arrive, they lecture them not to drop them without legal supervision until they are eight years old, and send them on their way. I've seen a parent claim to have been in the parking lot waiting, but the cop calmly informed her that they searched the parking lot an hour ago. I've seen this a few times and they are fairly vigilant about it. They ask the kid how old they are and who is watching them. They ask the supervising child how old they are.

 

It's not totally clear what exactly happened. However, it is clear that the cops knew who the kids were, that the kids knew where they lived and their phone number, and that the cops did not contact the parents but instead kept the kids in the car for at least a couple of hours - the kids didn't even get to the CPS center - which is not that close to there either! - for hours. They were not picked up at the park. They were picked up about a block and a half away. The report said by the garage, but the garage is across from a large public square. There seemed to be some suggestion that maybe the kids had walked up to use the bathroom in the retail area - in any case regardless of the reason, if the cops even just pulled off the street or sat in the garage with them, I can totally imagine that they were out at the park and walking the roads looking and not be able to find them or see the cops.

 

I just can't comprehend any excuse for them not to have contacted the parents. The kids knew their number.

[SKL]

It's not just that they didn't call.  They were frantically searching, but didn't see the kids.  They have also stated that they assumed they had been picked up by the police.  According to the police record, they were sitting in a marked police car on the side of the road they were walking on, the road that leads from their park to their home, for 45 minutes after the time when the kids were supposed to be home.

 

I feel as though, if my kids were missing from the park 1/3 of the mile from my house, the very first thing I'd do is to walk or drive to the park.  If I suspected the police had them, and I passed an occupied police car, I'd stop and check to see if those particular police officers had my kids.  

 

The police waited almost 2.5 hours before they left the location where they found the kids.  

 

I'm not inclined to assume the cops are giving the full picture.

 

Even if they were sitting along that sidewalk for 2.5 hours, why the heck?  Why not take the kids home or call the parents?  Don't the cops have anything better to do in that neighborhood than sit in their cars babysitting kids?  What if a violent crime had been committed during that time?

 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I wouldn't risk my kids to force the issue, make my point, change the police protocol. Even though the point needs made and the changes need made.

 

I don't send a 6yo and a 10yo to navigate the repercussions of my decisions, as they are being waylaid in their reasonable travel, taken away from me and from their neighborhood, and held at a police station until I conform.

 

The whole thing has been asinine. I was on their side the first time, as a former free range kid who doesn't see an older sibling as a "babysitter" or the whole wide world as too dangerous for a child to walk through. But to do it again, when the local CPS and police have said to them personally, "Your kids are in danger out here, according to our sensibilities and our take on a rather vague law -- something horrible might happen to them due to your negligence. They might be waylaid or taken away. And by the way, WE are the most likely people to commit those violations against them so don't leave them out here where we can scare the snot out of all of you again."

 

HELLO. When people tell you who they are, believe them.

 

Yes, it's America. Yes, children had more freedom to travel behind the curtain than they do in this neighborhood in Maryland, USA. Yes, it's wrong and backward and stifling and wrong.

 

So fight it. Organize with other parents, call your congressman, I don't even know. But don't trot out the children to be the foot soldiers in this righteous battle unless you really think it's OK for your 6yo to be hauled off in the police car to sit down at the station for a few hours while everybody calls you an unfit and negligent parent. Unless you think that's not traumatizing or anything.

 

Just my opinion.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah if that were me, I'd try to move because that whole thing is absolutely crazy ridiculous.  And I wouldn't risk my kids to force the issue either. 

 

 

I wouldn't risk my kids to force the issue, make my point, change the police protocol. Even though the point needs made and the changes need made.

 

I don't send a 6yo and a 10yo to navigate the repercussions of my decisions, as they are being waylaid in their reasonable travel, taken away from me and from their neighborhood, and held at a police station until I conform.

 

The whole thing has been asinine. I was on their side the first time, as a former free range kid who doesn't see an older sibling as a "babysitter" or the whole wide world as too dangerous for a child to walk through. But to do it again, when the local CPS and police have said to them personally, "Your kids are in danger out here, according to our sensibilities and our take on a rather vague law -- something horrible might happen to them due to your negligence. They might be waylaid or taken away. And by the way, WE are the most likely people to commit those violations against them so don't leave them out here where we can scare the snot out of all of you again."

 

HELLO. When people tell you who they are, believe them.

 

Yes, it's America. Yes, children had more freedom to travel behind the curtain than they do in this neighborhood in Maryland, USA. Yes, it's wrong and backward and stifling and wrong.

 

So fight it. Organize with other parents, call your congressman, I don't even know. But don't trot out the children to be the foot soldiers in this righteous battle unless you really think it's OK for your 6yo to be hauled off in the police car to sit down at the station for a few hours while everybody calls you an unfit and negligent parent. Unless you think that's not traumatizing or anything.

 

Just my opinion.

 

[Farrar]

I don't know their local laws so I couldn't say. That is why I said "if" they broke a law it should be dealt with and if not then they need to be left alone.

 

The law is "ambiguous". It only refers to keeping kids in confined spaces. The police and CPS have interpreted the sidewalk and the park to be included in the confined spaces. The Meitevs have interpreted it that the park and sidewalk are not confined spaces. One of these things makes sense. And the other one doesn't, but has the weight of the police and government behind it.

[bettyandbob]

It's not just that they didn't call.  They were frantically searching, but didn't see the kids.  They have also stated that they assumed they had been picked up by the police.  According to the police record, they were sitting in a marked police car on the side of the road they were walking on, the road that leads from their park to their home, for 45 minutes after the time when the kids were supposed to be home.

 

I feel as though, if my kids were missing from the park 1/3 of the mile from my house, the very first thing I'd do is to walk or drive to the park.  If I suspected the police had them, and I passed an occupied police car, I'd stop and check to see if those particular police officers had my kids.  

 

The police waited almost 2.5 hours before they left the location where they found the kids.  

I saw the police timeline in the Washington Post this morning.

 

It does not say the police cruiser sat in that same spot the whole time. I suspect the cruiser drove back to it's local station and waited for CPS to tell them what they wanted to do with the kids.

 

The police did say CPS told them not call the parents. CPS told the police that CPS would call the parents.

 

The most stupid thing I read (perhaps I read it wrong as I was on my way out) was the new plan the parents signed does not allow the children to play in their own yard without an adult.

[SKL]

Well, I hope the police are happy that I tell my kids about these things, and when I make a decision solely based on my fear of cop / cps intervention, I tell my kids we're doing that because otherwise I could be arrested and thrown in jail.

 

So much for community building.

 

We need to fix this for the upcoming generations.

[Farrar]

I deeply struggle with this. Mostly because I don't know how things change otherwise. I believe that civil disobedience is one of the cornerstones of effecting change. And because - while I hate to equate this fight with anything so much more serious - because I have deep respect and admiration for the Civil Rights pioneers who did use their children in exactly this way.

 

In the end, I feel that even if someone disagrees with their parenting decision to continue to allow their kids to be outside when they know they're taking this governmental risk, that should not be a reason to feel that they deserve to be punished if you also believe the law is wrong. I don't think people should be punished just because rules are rules.I don't think that's justice. I don't think it's justice that they have the kids taken away or anything.

 

I wouldn't risk my kids to force the issue, make my point, change the police protocol. Even though the point needs made and the changes need made.

 

I don't send a 6yo and a 10yo to navigate the repercussions of my decisions, as they are being waylaid in their reasonable travel, taken away from me and from their neighborhood, and held at a police station until I conform.

 

The whole thing has been asinine. I was on their side the first time, as a former free range kid who doesn't see an older sibling as a "babysitter" or the whole wide world as too dangerous for a child to walk through. But to do it again, when the local CPS and police have said to them personally, "Your kids are in danger out here, according to our sensibilities and our take on a rather vague law -- something horrible might happen to them due to your negligence. They might be waylaid or taken away. And by the way, WE are the most likely people to commit those violations against them so don't leave them out here where we can scare the snot out of all of you again."

 

HELLO. When people tell you who they are, believe them.

 

Yes, it's America. Yes, children had more freedom to travel behind the curtain than they do in this neighborhood in Maryland, USA. Yes, it's wrong and backward and stifling and wrong.

 

So fight it. Organize with other parents, call your congressman, I don't even know. But don't trot out the children to be the foot soldiers in this righteous battle unless you really think it's OK for your 6yo to be hauled off in the police car to sit down at the station for a few hours while everybody calls you an unfit and negligent parent. Unless you think that's not traumatizing or anything.

 

Just my opinion.

 

[Farrar]

They are, by the way, apparently filing a suit against the government for the treatment of the kids.

[Bluegoat]

A comment I've seen on FB several times now is that the cops picking them up is proof that anyone could have kidnapped them.  Sure, someone else COULD have...but no one else did, not this time and not any other time.  And car accidents prove that you can be in an accident if you drive, so that logic would say no one should ever drive then.  I can't live/parent that way.  

 

 

 

Yes, I don't understand why people think that way.  All kinds of horrible things could happen all the time, but most of them aren't very likely at all and we don't worry about them. 

[Lang Syne Boardie]

I don't think the parents should be punished, either. I agree that this interpretation of the law is right up there with "don't allow your toddler out of your arms unless he's wearing a crash helmet" and it's not reasonable to follow it. My opinion that the children must be protected from their captors and harassers (parents' job) doesn't mean I think the parents should face any punishment at all.

[Farrar]

Because apparently the parents didn't call the cops. And the cops didn't call the parents. I find that outrageous.

 

I was thinking about this - about how they didn't call the cops. I think in the end that they probably trusted that if they had been picked up by the cops, they would be contacted. I have to admit... if my kids were missing after having been out with friends and not come home on time, it would probably be a solid hour or more before I called the cops. A good half hour or a bit more of thinking they had lost track of time, a half hour or a bit more of looking. And then a going back home and thinking, gee, now I'm freaking out. Only then would I call the police, honestly. Two hours is on the long side for that, but not terribly out of whack, especially if your family doesn't really trust the police or the state. If it was me, it would not have occurred to me that there was any chance that the police would have the kids and not contact me. Because my kids know my address and cell number.

[Word Nerd]

Also, if the "safety plan" was signed under duress, should it be treated as valid?

 

"Sign this or we're taking your kids" would count as "under duress" in my book.

[creekland]

I was thinking about this - about how they didn't call the cops. I think in the end that they probably trusted that if they had been picked up by the cops, they would be contacted. I have to admit... if my kids were missing after having been out with friends and not come home on time, it would probably be a solid hour or more before I called the cops. A good half hour or a bit more of thinking they had lost track of time, a half hour or a bit more of looking. And then a going back home and thinking, gee, now I'm freaking out. Only then would I call the police, honestly. Two hours is on the long side for that, but not terribly out of whack, especially if your family doesn't really trust the police or the state. If it was me, it would not have occurred to me that there was any chance that the police would have the kids and not contact me. Because my kids know my address and cell number.

 

As the mother of free range kids, it's a long time before we call the cops when they are late - whether they call home or not.  It's super easy for kids to lose track of time.  Heck, it's super easy for parents to lose track of time too.  I can't fathom calling the cops merely because they were a couple hours late.  We likely would have been out looking for them after the first hour late though.

[Murphy101]

I deeply struggle with this. Mostly because I don't know how things change otherwise. I believe that civil disobedience is one of the cornerstones of effecting change. And because - while I hate to equate this fight with anything so much more serious - because I have deep respect and admiration for the Civil Rights pioneers who did use their children in exactly this way.

 

In the end, I feel that even if someone disagrees with their parenting decision to continue to allow their kids to be outside when they know they're taking this governmental risk, that should not be a reason to feel that they deserve to be punished if you also believe the law is wrong. I don't think people should be punished just because rules are rules.I don't think that's justice. I don't think it's justice that they have the kids taken away or anything.

I have no qualms with the equation. It always starts somewhere and it often starts with something so minor, so trivial, that it's shocking it's even an issue. How basic it is is what illustrates so starkly how pervassive the problem has become. Be it refusing to sit at the back of the bus after a long day at work or letting kids play at a playground alone.

[Murphy101]

As the mother of free range kids, it's a long time before we call the cops when they are late - whether they call home or not. It's super easy for kids to lose track of time. Heck, it's super easy for parents to lose track of time too. I can't fathom calling the cops merely because they were a couple hours late. We likely would have been out looking for them after the first hour late though.

We are strict by some standards and if they are more than 30 minutes late, I get jittery. An hour late and I'm out looking and a mix of really pissed off and starting to get scared poopless. Bc my kids know this, they are almost never late and are very quick to let me know why asap.

 

All the police/CPS foolishness in Maryland does is discourage parents and children from calling police. It's rather a catch 22 isn't it? If your kid goes out unsupervised, you can't really call the police when they don't return as expected without risking being charged with a crime and kids are going to be leery of police officers asking them questions and telling them to get in cars lest I means they are taken away from their parents. I'm sure that feeling would go double or triple if you had just been warned that you better not let your kid play in the front yard alone either, even tho there's no law against it. (Not that there should be a law like that!) They set parents and kids up to distrust the police. I wouldn't have called them either unless I was really freaking out.

[staceyobu]

I just wonder what happens to this generation of children.

 

A generation that has been taught it is too dangerous to play in the front yard without parental supervision because you might be abducted.

 

A generation that is stuck inside playing video games because the park is too dangerous.  

 

And the odd reality is that it is safer to do these things than it was 30 years ago when no one thought twice about it.  

 

There may be a gain in "our children are safe".  But, wow, what have we lost?

[Ravin]

Quick thread highjack. What are ketchup chips? I would have come home with ketchup and chips for you too.

Wierd Canadian food.

[LucyStoner]

I was thinking about this - about how they didn't call the cops. I think in the end that they probably trusted that if they had been picked up by the cops, they would be contacted. I have to admit... if my kids were missing after having been out with friends and not come home on time, it would probably be a solid hour or more before I called the cops. A good half hour or a bit more of thinking they had lost track of time, a half hour or a bit more of looking. And then a going back home and thinking, gee, now I'm freaking out. Only then would I call the police, honestly. Two hours is on the long side for that, but not terribly out of whack, especially if your family doesn't really trust the police or the state. If it was me, it would not have occurred to me that there was any chance that the police would have the kids and not contact me. Because my kids know my address and cell number.

I don't know. I agree I wouldn't call right away. For sure. But the thing is that I would be calling not to see if the police had my kid but to *get the police to help me find them*. Perhaps because of the autism, perhaps because I have some crazy family members and too much first hand experience needing to call the police but I would assume as a parent that the police would help me. What is sad in this instance is that the parents had good reason to doubt that the police would help them or assist their family. The kids had already been with the police for awhile before the mom would have become alarmed. To be clear I find it outrageous that that police didn't call the mom (not the other way around).

 

ETA- for a 10-12 year old I wouldn't call right away. my comfort though would be maybe an hour though. For a 6 year old? I dunno, because I don't have the sort of 10-12 year old who could be relied on to keep an eye on his brother.

[MinivanMom]

I have a different take on this.

 

I don't live in Maryland, but our state has a similar law: children under 8 cannot be left home alone without supervision. The law does not specify how old a fellow child must be in order to supervise a younger child, but local practice is 11. A friend had a cop show up when her 11-yr-old was babysitting at home, and he called her from the house to let her know he was there and that it would have been a problem if the oldest were younger than 11. I see parents walking kids under 8 to school even though the elementary is literally only blocks away. Once kids are 8, parents let them walk to school by themselves, go down the street to the park alone, and ride bikes around the neighborhood. Kids under 8 always have a parent or a middle school age sibling (11+) to supervise them unless they are in their own fenced backyard.

 

I think the problem here isn't the parents being free-range or the cops overstepping; the problem is the six-yr-old. If the law specifically states that you must be 8 to stay at home or in a car without supervision, then I think common sense dictates that they must be 8 to play in a park up the street without supervision. I think it's splitting hairs to claim that the law only specifies enclosed spaces. Obviously, the intention of the law was that all under-8's must have supervision at all times. Whether you agree with that or not (and I don't agree that a 7-yr-old needs to be supervised playing in their own front yard), the real issue here is whether the 10-yr-old is old enough to supervise the 6-yr-old, since the law specifies that the 6-yr-old must have supervision. The parents can argue that the 10-yr-old is old enough to supervise the 6-yr-old, but they can't really argue that both children are simply free-range since (in my interpretation) letting a 6-yr-old free-range without supervision would be against Maryland law.

 

All my sympathy is with the parents, because obviously it was overkill to make them sign a parenting plan after the first incident, but it puts the cops in a terrible position when they have to respond to a call, and here is a 6-yr-old with only a 10-yr-old to supervise (which would be 4th or 5th grade in most places). The cops may have wanted to just drop the kids back at home, but they probably didn't have that option if the kids were already flagged as having an open CPS case. In that situation, they must notify CPS and defer to their authority. The police are not the bad guys here (though CPS may be for overreacting in the first place and engaging in power plays now).

 

The parents are really going about this the wrong way when they turn it into a referendum on free-range parenting (which is unlikely to go well in the public sphere) rather than a discussion of whether parents can use their own discretion in deciding whether an older child is responsible enough to supervise a younger child.

[ktgrok]

This thread has made me decide to start letting my 5 yr old have more feedom. There is no where to walk or go on our block, which is my limit right now, but she could at least walk to get the mail from the mailbox without me. I'll start there. My teen is already pretty free range, and has been for years. He rides his bike for miles, and stayed alone overnight for the first time at age 14. (we were 20 minutes away if there was a problem, and he had two big dogs with him.)

[Murphy101]

A friend had a cop show up when her 11-yr-old was babysitting at home, and he called her from the house to let her know he was there and that it would have been a problem if the oldest were younger than 11.

Wait. What? He demanded to come in the house and called the mom even tho there was no problem bc the kid was the acceptable age? What a donkey butt. I'd be really ticked off. I would restate to my kids the rule to not open our door to ANYONE bc apparently crazy can wear uniforms too.

 

I think the problem here isn't the parents being free-range or the cops overstepping; the problem is the six-yr-old. If the law specifically states that you must be 8 to stay at home or in a car without supervision, then I think common sense dictates that they must be 8 to play in a park up the street without supervision. I think it's splitting hairs to claim that the law only specifies enclosed spaces.

I don't think there should be such a law at all, but there is one and this is what it says. I really don't care about intent. Whose intent? The original writer? Some neighbor or cop on a power trip? No. The law is what the law actually says. So if it doesn't say that, then that is not the law. It isn't splitting hairs. It's literally written in black and white.

 

The parents are really going about this the wrong way when they turn it into a referendum on free-range parenting (which is unlikely to go well in the public sphere) rather than a discussion of whether parents can use their own discretion in deciding whether an older child is responsible enough to supervise a younger child.

Except many don't agree that's the problem. Many 6 year olds are more than okay walking a mile or less to a playground and playing for a few hours alone. And that any law denying that is unjust. It's great to have siblings along, but I don't think that is the issue at hand. The issue at hand is who has the legitimate authority to decide if a child of any age is mature enough to be out and about on their own, the government or the parents of the children. I argue it should be the parents.

[IfIOnly]

This thread has made me decide to start letting my 5 yr old have more feedom. There is no where to walk or go on our block, which is my limit right now, but she could at least walk to get the mail from the mailbox without me. I'll start there. My teen is already pretty free range, and has been for years. He rides his bike for miles, and stayed alone overnight for the first time at age 14. (we were 20 minutes away if there was a problem, and he had two big dogs with him.)

 

My 1st grader, 6, looooooves to check the mail. It's like going to Disneyland or something for him. It's so cute. Our mailbox is a couple hundred feet or so from our home, and he often goes alone unless a sibling wants to tag along.

[Farrar]

I think the problem here isn't the parents being free-range or the cops overstepping; the problem is the six-yr-old. If the law specifically states that you must be 8 to stay at home or in a car without supervision, then I think common sense dictates that they must be 8 to play in a park up the street without supervision. I think it's splitting hairs to claim that the law only specifies enclosed spaces. Obviously, the intention of the law was that all under-8's must have supervision at all times. Whether you agree with that or not (and I don't agree that a 7-yr-old needs to be supervised playing in their own front yard), the real issue here is whether the 10-yr-old is old enough to supervise the 6-yr-old, since the law specifies that the 6-yr-old must have supervision. The parents can argue that the 10-yr-old is old enough to supervise the 6-yr-old, but they can't really argue that both children are simply free-range since (in my interpretation) letting a 6-yr-old free-range without supervision would be against Maryland law.

 

All my sympathy is with the parents, because obviously it was overkill to make them sign a parenting plan after the first incident, but it puts the cops in a terrible position when they have to respond to a call, and here is a 6-yr-old with only a 10-yr-old to supervise (which would be 4th or 5th grade in most places). The cops may have wanted to just drop the kids back at home, but they probably didn't have that option if the kids were already flagged as having an open CPS case. In that situation, they must notify CPS and defer to their authority. The police are not the bad guys here (though CPS may be for overreacting in the first place and engaging in power plays now).

 

The parents are really going about this the wrong way when they turn it into a referendum on free-range parenting (which is unlikely to go well in the public sphere) rather than a discussion of whether parents can use their own discretion in deciding whether an older child is responsible enough to supervise a younger child.

 

I disagree with so many elements of this... Responding to some of the things I bolded...

 

I don't think it's splitting hairs to say that there's a difference between a park and a confined space. The way the law is written reads to me as though there is an extra danger in being alone in a confined space and I agree with that. A child who is locked in a house or a car *is* in a lot more danger than a kid on the street in some ways. In particular because it implies they cannot seek help. 

 

Honestly, police who pick up my kids, hold them for hours in a car despite knowing exactly who they are and where they live and how to contact me - not to mention that the kid needed a bathroom and they hadn't had dinner and the temperature dropped a lot because it got dark while they were being held there! - ARE THE BAD GUYS. I don't understand in what world that's not bad or inappropriate. I don't care what else the situation is. I could be a horrible drunk who's beating them and they should still call me to say, we have your kids and are taking them to the crisis center as soon as they're able, which, for kids who know their phone number and address should absolutely not be two and a half hours. And maybe at the crisis center if I'm really a terrible parent, I don't get them back. Fine. But these cops... I'm just appalled by the timeline on this.

 

I think turning it into a referendum on parental rights and free range kids is important, whether they meant to get into this trouble or not simply because I think more parents and the public need to be more tolerant of different approaches and stop calling the cops on good parents - understanding that means understanding that it's okay and safe for kids to be out and about. I think the two issues are tied very closely together in this situation.

[wendyroo]

This thread has made me decide to start letting my 5 yr old have more feedom. There is no where to walk or go on our block, which is my limit right now, but she could at least walk to get the mail from the mailbox without me. I'll start there. My teen is already pretty free range, and has been for years. He rides his bike for miles, and stayed alone overnight for the first time at age 14. (we were 20 minutes away if there was a problem, and he had two big dogs with him.)

 

Peter, who just turned 6 a couple weeks ago, loves taking the stairs in familiar buildings while I take the younger boys on the elevator.  Speech therapy, second floor.  Therapist, third floor.  Psychiatrist, second floor.

 

It is independence and exercise rolled into one.

 

Wendy

[Murphy101]

My 3.5 year old is finally tall enough to check the mail and has about a 50% success rate of not dropping it all on the way up the sidewalk to the house. The first time he checked the mail all by himself was a couple weeks ago. He waited for the mailman to pull away from next door and ran out to greet him at the box. You'd have thought he was running to see santa. Soooo stinkin cute.