SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The WaPo reports that Danielle and Alexander Meitiv in Montgomery County Maryland say they are being investigated for neglect after letting their 10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter make a one-mile walk home from a Silver Spring park on Georgia Avenue on a Saturday afternoon. “We wouldn’t have let them do it if we didn’t think they were ready for it,” says Danielle. The Meitivs say they believe in “free-range” parenting, a movement that has been a counterpoint to the hyper-vigilance of “helicopter” parenting, with the idea that children learn self-reliance by being allowed to progressively test limits, make choices and venture out in the world. “The world is actually even safer than when I was a child, and I just want to give them the same freedom and independence that I had — basically an old-fashioned childhood,” says Danielle. “I think it’s absolutely critical for their development — to learn responsibility, to experience the world, to gain confidence and competency.”
On December. 20, Alexander agreed to let the children walk from Woodside Park to their home, a mile south, in an area the family says the children know well. Police picked up the children near the Discovery building, the family said, after someone reported seeing them. Alexander said he had a tense time with police when officers returned his children, asked for his identification and told him about the dangers of the world. The more lasting issue has been with Montgomery County Child Protective Services which showed up a couple of hours later. Although Child Protective Services could not address this specific case they did point to Maryland law, which defines child neglect as failure to provide proper care and supervision of a child. “I think what CPS considered neglect, we felt was an essential part of growing up and maturing,” says Alexander. “We feel we’re being bullied into a point of view about child-rearing that we strongly disagree with.”
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 16 2015, @06:50PM
Let's avoid the knee-jerk Nanny state comments for a minute here, please.
The timeline that I am aware of is this:
Someone saw a couple of unaccompanied, youmg, children and reported it to the Police.
Once that happens the Police and CPS are obligated to investigate.
An investigation was conducted and no charges were levied.
This is how it is supposed to work!
(Score: 2) by buswolley on Friday January 16 2015, @06:54PM
Rationality? I don't think you understand how this is supposed to work.
be afraid be afraid the government's out to control you the nanny state is on the rise helicopter parents are controlling you be afraid be afraid also remember to click on the link to support our sponsors
subicular junctures
(Score: 3, Informative) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Friday January 16 2015, @07:25PM
Between 7 and 12 years old, I would often spend 1-6 hours in a Public Library, by myself - at least twice a week. This was a privileged existence - where I was neith a nuisance nor in danger of anything but increased learning.
We live in an insane, panic state - divorced from reality and managed by our irrational fears. These are constantly appealed to, deliberately and pruriently.
A mass of people, busy managing their own anxiety-states through the policing of other people's behavior are in no danger of threatening the massive injustice and inequality of their condition.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by edIII on Saturday January 17 2015, @05:52AM
When I was 9 years old I walked 4 miles total every day to school for that entire school year. We absolutely do live in an insane panic state all the time now if CPS is threatening people now for their kids having a normal childhood.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 16 2015, @06:59PM
Except that this is a waste of time, and often results in great stress for the families. Being obligated to investigate every ridiculous case is absurd.
(Score: 1) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 16 2015, @07:04PM
Being obligated to investigate every ridiculous case is absurd.
Young kids wandering around alone in a park long enough to be reported by a bystander is not a ridiculous case.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Friday January 16 2015, @07:17PM
Yes, it is. How old are you, anyway? I'm in my early thirties, and when I was 7 my parents let me walk around the block alone. When i was 9 I was allowed to ride my bike wherever I wanted as long as I was back before dinnertime. When I was in second grade I walked alone through the snow to school (as MechanicJay did as stated below). I was chased by dogs and bullies, jumped my bike and often fell off of it.
My parents never screamed in horror whenever I came home with a cut or scrape, taught me at an early age how to dress my own wounds and scream and fight back against would-be kidnappers, stay away from the bad parts of town, they would tell me that sometimes shit just happens and that's a fact of life, and told me I'd better not be caught be doing anything bad or I would (and often did) receive an ass-whoopin'.
And the cops back then didn't give a flying fuck about any of that. They were too busy catching real criminals and eating real donuts.
You know another thing my parents didn't do? They didn't push drugs and video games on me as a substitute for real parenting like so many parents do now.
I would be fine with having a kid of my own, but not in this fucking psychological climate. I'd rather have no kid than deny a potential child of mine the joy and exploration I experienced as a kid.
Even Calvin and Hobbes' parents would have had CPS called on them nowadays...unsupervised sled and wagon rides? Child abuse!
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 16 2015, @08:03PM
So you are saying when someone reports some lost kids the Police should not check it out. Got it...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday January 16 2015, @08:20PM
So are you saying that every kid walking around without an adult is automatically lost? You seem to be saying, "Investigate absolutely everything no matter how slim the chances are that there is trouble." That's what leads to zero tolerance policies.
Humans have brains, and they should use them, rather than resorting to zero tolerance-type policies.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 16 2015, @09:22PM
So are you saying that every kid walking around without an adult is automatically lost?
No. I'm saying it is the police's job to find out if the kid is lost when someone reports a potentially lost kid. They might actually have to ask some questions to do that.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anal Pumpernickel on Friday January 16 2015, @09:46PM
They did more than ask questions, though. Apparently some threats were made. Also, not every report of a missing child from a fearmongering loser should be taken seriously. It absolutely should not be the police's job to investigate absolutely every claim no matter how stupid they sound. And of course, the one who reported this should also grow a brain; maybe *they* could've asked the child some questions if they were so concerned, but really, you shouldn't be concerned about a child simply walking around to begin with.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Saturday January 17 2015, @10:04AM
A simple observation could have provided all the information they needed. Just having a uniformed officer say "hi" and looking for any signs of distress or duress (beyond the natural fear of cops that has been growing in the population).
Crap like this is why parents advise their kids to AVOID cops if they get lost and go ask an adult with kids for help. Honestly, it's good advice since random strangers are far less likely to bring the family to harm these days.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by VitalMoss on Friday January 16 2015, @08:20PM
There's a difference between lost kids and "kids walking home from school."
Don't use word-phrasing that doesn't line up with the story. People who are walking somewhere and people who are lost look completely different, and even then if they were truly worried about the children's well being, they could have just asked.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Jesus_666 on Monday January 19 2015, @07:35PM
As far as the cops are concerned, I'd expect them to behave rationally* and ask the kids if everything's alright and if they need a ride home. If the kids say that they're fine and they know the way home that should be it. They should definitely investigate the call but they should also be able to tell whether any further action beyond talking to the kids is neccessary.
Assuming that an unsupervised ten-year-old is automatically lost and neglected only makes sense if you assume that children never leave their homes except to travel by car, during which they don't look out the windows. Real children make friends and explore their neighborhood and after a while they know it pretty damn well. In fact, they can cover fairly large areas that way, especially if they have access to bikes. Being able to navigate from a known location a mile away to one's home is not exactly a great feat for a ten-year-old.
* unless you live in one of those towns that gave American cops their current reputation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday January 16 2015, @10:25PM
In my early 50's here, and i know what you are talking about: I think one of the reasons so many kids are coming up ADD/ADHD/WMD is because they aren't out by themselves/in a small group/a bunch of kids playing!
Football
'Super heroes'
Climbing trees
Getting into trouble!
Just running around/biking until you are exhausted, so you lay in the grass for a while until you catch your breath and then you run some more.
Today, kids sit and play video games or text or....
Kids aren't allowed to run the streets unless they are in sight of their parents (they don't even have to walk 50 feet to catch the school bus in a group: the bus stops every 5 freaking feet to pick them up... my brother and i used to have to run along the highway and up into the subdivision to catch the bus).
And we wonder why kids are on drugs (meaning Ritalin alone!, for gods sake).
Kids aren't allowed to play baseball on school property because someone might get hurt.Kids aren't allowed to play on the monkey bars on school property because someone might get hurt.Kids aren't allowed to play football on school property because someone might get hurt.Kids aren't allowed to play "fill in the freaking blank" on school property because someone might get hurt.
Kids need to get hurt. They need to experience failure AS WELL as success. They need to experience life. And they need to have parents teach them and then back off slowly to let them experience it.
Damn.
Glad the cops did check it out, though. It used to be everyone knew everyone and said hi to everyone. Now....
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday January 17 2015, @01:05PM
And that made me think that perhaps society did have a future. These kids were free to *discover* that falling off a boulder that's taller than you *fucking hurts*, and that way, they learn. They learn to evaluate risks and danger, with realistic perspectives. I'm guessing that the one of them that grows up to be a politician is not going to wage a "War On Boulders" when their own kid gets a graze one day, for example.
Another funny tale about that school I have is of the swings they had. There were 2 swings, and there were 4 kids who wanted to play on them, two boys and two girls. The two boys were fighting over one of the swings, if one of them briefly got onto the tyre, the other would do his best to stop it from swinging, and try to pull him off, lose lose all the way. The two girls were squeezed snugly onto the other swing and both having a whale of a time swinging merrily - win win all round. It was in some ways unsurprising, but it still stood out and was a great, powerful, even, commentary on gender, even if it is only an anecdote about 4 people.
That was Finland, if anyone's interested.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 17 2015, @07:39PM
Call me heartless, but fact is I think it's better for the greater good if more of stupidly careless kids die out (or render themselves less likely to breed or qualify to vote).
The cops should be working to make the area safe enough for kids to walk home alone, rather than harassing kids and their parents.
If the area is safe enough already, there's no need to bother the kids or their parents. The cops can escort them home if they want. And maybe imprint a "Cops are good guys" image to the future generation. Rather than cause problems and cause the kids to realize that "Cops are bad people to be avoided".
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 16 2015, @07:05PM
What is outrageous is, the fact that some moron felt the need to report two children walking along a street. There is nothing remarkable about two healthy, happy children strolling along, in public.
It is only somewhat less outrageous that the cops MUST report to child services every time they encounter a child.
It is equally outrageous that child services MUST investigate every incident.
In short, the helicopter parents have managed to get laws passed that seem to justify their need to hover over their children.
In this case, some moron calls in to report two children walking along. The cop shows up, he talks to them for a minute, determines that they are on their way home, and that home is less than a mile away. The cop should have the option of just sitting back, and watching the children complete their little walk. When they get to their home, and run in the door, he dismisses the incident, and goes about his business. No CPS, no investigation, no nothing. THAT is the way things should go.
Only if the cop saw, heard, or felt some suspicion that things weren't kosher should things have gone any further.
(Score: 2) by e_armadillo on Friday January 16 2015, @09:24PM
Amen, wish I had mod points. I could not have said it better myself.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 16 2015, @07:05PM
> An investigation was conducted and no charges were levied.
The story is not over yet.
On front of the children, the cop who brought the kids to their home threatened to shoot the father in front of the children because he would not provide ID in his own house.
A CPS investigator forced him to sign a paper saying he would not let the children be unaccompanied else the CPS would take his children from him immediately.
A CPS investigator interviewed the children at their school without the parents knowledge or consent.
(Score: 5, Informative) by tynin on Friday January 16 2015, @07:32PM
I didn't see that in the original article, so I went looking to see what you were talking about. Found an article where the wife was interviewed. [reason.com]
At the door the police officer asked to see my husband's ID, but did not explain why. When he refused, she called for backup.
A total of six patrol cars showed up.
Alexander then agreed to get his ID and went to go upstairs. The officer said—in front of the kids—that if he came down with anything else, "shots would be fired." She proceeded to follow him upstairs, and when he said she had no right to do so without a warrant, she insisted that she did.
Our 10 yr. old called me crying and saying that the police were there and that Daddy was going to be arrested. Alexander stepped outside to continue the conversation away from the kids. When he disagreed with one of the officers about the dangers that walking alone posed to children, she asked him: "Don't you realize how dangerous the world is? Don't you watch TV?"
I swear this country is doing its best to fuel some home grown terrorism.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday January 16 2015, @08:06PM
This is why a friend of mine quit the force, he said too many of the new recruits were "brown shirt wannabes" that go out of their way to look for a fight. He said they'd go out of their way to be "little fucking pricks" in his words because they were hoping to get some shit started so they could crack some skulls or whip out the taser. He was the kind that would just give a kid a lecture and drive them home if he found one driving buzzed, tell 'em to drop it down a couple of notches so the neighbors can sleep when called to a loud party, that sort of thing, but he said it ended up with him having to stand between the public and whatever wannabe he got paired with that night and he figured that sooner or later one of the wannabes would fuck with the wrong one and he'd end up caught in the crossfire.
So sadly none of this surprises me one bit, just another junior SA using the badge as a license to be a giant douche.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 16 2015, @08:41PM
I wish he stayed on the force. We need more police like him.
Too bad you won't see this complement. Some of us don't like being tracked on every site we visit.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bzipitidoo on Friday January 16 2015, @09:33PM
It's a problem that services like policing have to face. The job is all too attractive to bullies, control freaks, and power trippers. The services have a rough time screening those sorts of people out before they're hired.
From what I've heard, you don't want to call in the police unless you absolutely have to. If you're not sure, don't call. They will take something minor and escalate it to ridiculous extremes. They're more interested in bullying citizens, racking up crime fighting statistics, and using their toys than in being sensible. Drug users, the mentally ill, and people of the "wrong" color are especially at risk of becoming the victims of police brutality, even when they haven't done anything threatening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 17 2015, @03:16AM
They're more interested in bullying citizens, racking up crime fighting statistics, and using their toys than in being sensible.
No, that's not true. If it were true, the outcry would have crushed them long ago because nearly everybody would know someone who got fucked over by a cop. As it is now, only poor people have that experience.
In reality, nearly all cops are interested in doing the right thing. The problem is two-pronged.
(1) Their definition of the right thing has been warped by factors like racism and 'professional courtesy' among others
(2) The relatively tiny amount who are as you say, they are general immune to consequences so they can devastating and recourse is rare
Remember: Risk = Probability x Severity. So even though #2 is rare, if you happen to run into one of them there is a good chance your life will be ruined. That's reason enough to avoid the cops unless you are desperate without having to make claims that will cause normal people to dismiss you as a kook.
(Score: 1) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday January 18 2015, @10:43PM
In reality, nearly all cops are interested in doing the right thing.
Then they would be casting out these "bad cops," but rarely do the supposedly "good" cops actually speak out, and when they do, they often get in trouble for it and/or it's swept under the rug. That makes them bad, too.
without having to make claims that will cause normal people to dismiss you as a kook.
"Normal" people are why we have the Patriot Act. "Normal" people are why we have the TSA. "Normal" people are why we have the NSA's mass surveillance. "Normal" people are gullible, ignorant, and unintelligent, and tend to ignore facts in favor of naive optimism. Most cops are good! The government would never abuse mass surveillance! Let's sacrifice our liberties and our constitution for safety!
So being accepted by "normal people" isn't that much of a concern for me.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 22 2015, @01:50PM
If you ever get a chance, watch Canada's version of 'Cops': it's called 'Protect and Serve', or something like that.
Cops is all "Get down on the ground, get down on the ground!"
Protect and serve is: "How's it going, eh? Had a couple drinks? You think you should be driving after drinking? How's about you give me the keys and take the subway home. Thanks... have a good night."
Gotta laugh, but i think the testosterone/terrorism levels are a lot lower here.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Saturday January 17 2015, @10:16AM
Yeah, a world where you have to fear the cops is indeed dangerous. More dangerous than a world where you just have to fear the criminals, because there are far more cops than criminals, and unlike criminals, cops don't have to fear getting caught by the police.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Saturday January 17 2015, @10:53AM
Wow that is pretty egregious on the part of the police. Not surprising, though. I have heard about this kind of abuse my whole life. People with badges, abusing their power. I know things are different in the big city, but in the small Western town where my mom and sister's family still live, this sort of thing does frequently result in deputies no longer having jobs and the sheriffs they report to getting dumped by the voters. The Blue Wall of Silence doesn't help you all that much when everyone in town saw you misbehave and then have nothing else to talk about for weeks until the mayor dumps you unceremoniously on your ass.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Friday January 16 2015, @10:52PM
That is how it's supposed to work but usually not how it ends.
What you say is then followed by incessant nagging and investigation by the CPS, a permanent mark put on your record in case you ever stick but a single follicle beyond the invisible line of child abuse laws, at which point the CPS will be waiting to swoop down and take your kids away from you to give to a less competent caretaker, like some twisted vulture/cuckoo hybrid.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday January 16 2015, @11:47PM
No it isn't. Investigations are supposed to require probable cause and warrants. Police aren't allowed to just go nosing into whatever they want.
Do you know who the largest demographic to issue legal complaints is? Spouses? Family?
Not at all. It's the police. With all of the "victimless" crimes that exist, your #1 enemy is the police. No one has to complain about drug use for the police to arrest you for it. No one has to complain about about consensual sales for the police to arrest you for not having paid your license extortion. I guarantee you that today you have committed many victimless crimes just by browsing the Internet that you are unaware of.
Did you help a stock clerk at a store pick up something he dropped? Legally that is a crime, since you were not paid to do it. If a bird which is endangered in Honduras dies in midflight in the US and lands on your head, you just committed a felony. Most people have so much trouble coming to terms with this that denial is their only defense. "Well they would never enforce it against me" is how they comfort themselves and each other, because accepting what is demonstrably true is just too emotionally anguishing.
So no, police are not supposed to go around "investigating". You are safer being robbed than being visited by the police.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Saturday January 17 2015, @09:58AM
Of course, that investigation COULD have been just having a patrolman ask the kids "Everything OK?" and closing the investigation when they say "Yes".
Alas, they had to make a big deal of it and leave the parents feeling threatened. There was absolutely NO sense in:
The Meitivs say that on Dec. 20, a CPS worker required Alexander to sign a safety plan pledging he would not leave his children unsupervised until the following Monday, when CPS would follow up. At first he refused, saying he needed to talk to a lawyer, his wife said, but changed his mind when he was told his children would be removed if he did not comply.
Which sounds more than a little threatening.
I would say that family ties are amongst the most inalienable rights yet the various child 'services' routinely violate it on thin or non-existant evidence, even going so far as to split up already traumatized siblings for the sake of convenience.