
Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone - nherment
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/maryland-couple-want-free-range-kids-but-not-all-do/2015/01/14/d406c0be-9c0f-11e4-bcfb-059ec7a93ddc_story.html?tid=hybrid_sidebar_alt1_strip_2
======
graeme
How odd. America is much safer than it used to be, but people are more afraid.

My father walked to and from school every day in Montreal when he was young,
for a good half hour each way I believe. He'd go in a group with kids from the
neighborhood, there were no adults.

I walked to school every morning in Canada starting from age six, alone. I
didn't live far from school, but if I had lived further I still would have
walked alone. Lots of kids in my neighborhood walked alone. This was the early
1990s.

~~~
pdabbadabba
I don't know whether I agree with your general sentiment or not. But maybe we
should consider whether your response to this article is itself an
illustration of the very phenomenon that leads us to perceive the world as
more dangerous as it is. The usual account of why we live in such irrational
fear is that nobody wants to hear about things going well, and everyone being
safe and happy on the news. Anyone who watches the news, therefore, sees a
distilled tale of conflict and woe.

But this article is may well be doing the same thing. What have we learned
from this article? Two kids, walking down the street, were stopped by police,
and a social services investigation was triggered. We get virtually no
information about the broader context: does this sport of thing happen often,
or was this an anomaly? What will be the outcome of the investigation be?

In short, just as the strife you see on the news can make a person think the
world is more dangerous than it is, the isolated examples of our culture
running off the rails can have the same distorting effect.

~~~
jrs235
The Police chided the parents for letting the children walk alone and about
how unsafe the world is. The Police have fallen prey to the "the world is
dangerous" narrative.

Did they just admit they can't keep/make it safe?

~~~
Florin_Andrei
But it is safer now, that's the paradox.

~~~
jrs235
Is it though? And even if it is, is it a world we want to live in?

(We need to name the evoking of Ben Franklin's "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty
For Security Deserve Neither" quote... _______'s Law).

~~~
Florin_Andrei
It's less _stable_ , but crime rates have been on a decrease-a-palooza for
decades.

------
talmand
A few here are giving examples of how this kind of thing wasn't a problem when
they were a kid. I had similar experiences.

But, I want to say that I actively do not allow my children to play in our
front yard. Not because I'm afraid a stranger will take them, not because I'm
afraid they'll wander into the street to get hit by a car, not because I'm
afraid they'll get hurt without an adult present, not because I'm afraid
they'll wonder off to get lost.

The reason I don't let them play in the front yard? I'm afraid a neighbor will
report me and the government will come take my kids away.

This is the true tragedy of these stories, society has only traded one type of
fear for another that is potentially far worse in nature.

~~~
jrs235
So true.

If anyone other than an officer or CPS agent takes your children, they will
face consequences and justice has an opportunity to prevail. If an officer or
CPS agent takes your children justice never enters the equation and
consequences don't exist for them.

ADD: What can you do? "You might be able to beat the rap but you can't beat
the ride. Now comply." In such situations you really are powerless. The worst
kind of fear and situation, one where you are powerless.

------
jacquesm
At the grand old age of 9 or so I walked all over Amsterdam and my mom being a
'working single mom' from when I was 6 taught my sister (aged 4) and me to
hold hands during the road crossings and to walk to the traffic light, cross,
the walk back the other way to get to school (about 1.5 km away from where we
lived). Nobody ever batted an eye and definitely were not the kids living
furthest from school and not the only ones walking unsupervised.

I'm pretty happy I didn't grow up in a nanny state where I'd have been more or
less confined to the house or where my mom would have had to give up her job
just so we could be sheparded to school and back twice per day.

This was all around 1971, I'm not sure how many parents let their children
that age walk alone to school in Amsterdam today. Traffic is much heavier than
it was back then (more cars, comparatively fewer bicycles) and definitely more
aggressive. Still, people respect the traffic lights (especially cars,
bicycles less so) and I'm pretty sure that that route could be walked safely
by a 6 and a 4 year old with proper instruction and a parent that has
confidence in their abilities.

Whatever would happen I doubt that that parent would be investigated for
neglect. In Canada (or so I was told) leaving your 10 year old unattended in
the house could lead to trouble with child protection services.

------
jgrahamc
"The first day of term coincided with the 1926 General Strike in Britain, but
he was so determined to attend that he rode his bicycle unaccompanied more
than 60 miles (97 km) from Southampton to Sherborne, stopping overnight at an
inn."

That's Alan Turing, aged 13.

I used to walk home from school middle school across the centre of the town I
lived in. That was about 1.5 miles. Was not considered weird or dangerous.

~~~
joezydeco
Kind of matches up with this:

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-
children-...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-462091/How-children-
lost-right-roam-generations.html)

 _" When George Thomas was eight he walked everywhere. It was 1926 and his
parents were unable to afford the fare for a tram, let alone the cost of a
bike and he regularly walked six miles to his favourite fishing haunt without
adult supervision.

Fast forward to 2007 and Mr Thomas's eight-year-old great-grandson Edward
enjoys none of that freedom.

He is driven the few minutes to school, is taken by car to a safe place to
ride his bike and can roam no more than 300 yards from home._"

------
jessep
Reading this, I felt real anger at our society. I have 1 year old twin girls
and I am genuinely scared and saddened by the limitations that paranoid adults
are going to put on us as parents, and them as children. We live in a world
driven by fear detached from the real risks and joys of life.

~~~
xrange
>Reading this, I felt real anger at our society.

I think everybody feels this way. I have a hard time imagining that anything
but the vast majority of parents would agree. So that makes we wonder if there
is some agenda behind this? A gas lighting effect maybe? People would say
"well things may not be ideal where I live, but at least it is not like _over
there_ ", and so they are less likely to act to change things locally? I don't
know, maybe I'm just being paranoid.

~~~
randallsquared
> I think everybody feels this way. I have a hard time imagining that anything
> but the vast majority of parents would agree.

I think this is typical mind fallacy.

Most parents, especially in these days of tiny family sizes, are probably more
heavily protective than parents used to be.

I was ten in 1983, and for most of my childhood my only present parent was of
the same age as most of my peers' grandparents (all of my siblings were
boomers), and the difference in protectiveness was noticeable: I could stay
out for hours at any time of the day or night when I was 13 and 14, except for
times that were scheduled (school, church, and homework, basically). He wasn't
surprised if he didn't see me for the entire weekend at that age.

------
justthisonce1
I grew up in Manhattan in 80's, early 90's... by 4th grade/age 10 pretty much
the whole class came to school by themselves - there is no school bus service
in Manhattan kids get buss passes (handed out at school) to use on the buses
and subways...

Additionally, most of our parents gave us $5-10 dollars that we were not to
spend but keep with us at all time as "mugging money" \- so that we had
something to give up if we were mugged.

Apparently, a whole generation of parents were "neglecting" their kids...

------
chpp
For reference, I graduated HS in 2005 so my childhood was mid to late 90s. My
friends and I used to tell our parents were were all going to each others
houses and then ride our bikes all around town, through construction sites,
abandoned factories, down highways, etc. None of us were abducted, died,
injuries happen but who doesn't fall off their bike now and then ;)

The only times cops were involved were when someone called them. Cops would
show up, talk to us, then leave once they knew we weren't making trouble and
were safe. Never followed up on us or our parents. The only scary situation is
once we were playing paintball and someone said a bunch of kids with guns are
running around, cops showed up, searched us then went home laughing.

I think the difference today is all related to liability and the helicopter
culture it created. Maybe the cops are just CYAing themselves by involving
CPS. Maybe the cops didn't like the parents attitude and involved CPS. There
is a huge stigma today about being up your kids ass and if you're not, you're
a bad parent. Politicians and the media bank big time on pushing these
"morals" and punishing anyone who thinks differently. It's not something that
will be fixed tomorrow.

I look at the kids in my neighborhood and I feel sad for them. They wont have
the experience I had. I am sure everyone feels that way though, the only
difference is 15 years ago no one was going to jail or losing their kids over
politics.

My comment is a little all-over-the-place but my point is, raising a kid in
America is too dangerous of a risk for me and it's a sad thing to think about.
The cultural fixes are all very obvious but then what will the news talk
about? What will politicians campaign about? How can our leaders show they are
"tough on the issues" unless they are relentlessly hammering insanity?

I always think of a quote from The Other Guys when topics like this come up
because the solution is so obviously simple but so obviously never going to
happen...

Gamble: What about nine million socially-conscious and unified citizens, all
just stepping up and doing their part?

~~~
RIMR
I used to ride my bike out of the county when I was in Elementary school. The
worst thing that ever happened was that some redneck threw a beer bottle at me
and knocked me off my bike. I got his license plate number and phoned the
police. In the semi-rural area I had managed to bike to (about ten miles from
my house) the police could care less about why I was biking, They thanked me
for the info, made sure I was ok, and sent me on my way. Phoned my mother
later (i borrowed her cell phone so I could call home while biking) to tell
her that they caught the guy and were charging him with assault of a minor and
DWI. I just had to speak to an officer on the phone for about 10 minutes and
that was the end of that.

Now we apparently are considering taking children away from their parents
because they were allowed to be 1/2 mile from their homes unattended? Was I
born in the last decade where one could experience childhood?

------
pnathan
I am looking for a house in part based on the criteria of letting my (future)
children be able to get on transit or their bike and be independent as soon as
reasonable. There is no reason I need to be in a helicopter over the children
until they are 16 or whenever the government lets them drive.

With respect to kidnapping, abuse, etc, the larger danger is friends and
family, not strangers. It is a fact that America is much closer to 1950s
levels of safety in the 2010s.

John Paul Jones joined the Navy at 13. Why hold your children back?

edit: I see these stories come out of NYC, DC, etc. Are there similar reports
from places that are, ahem, more known for freedom, i.e., Utah, Wyoming, etc?

------
xrange
So, I'm not up to speed on this issue, but can anyone give a brief summary or
link describing why we need a special "extra-legal" department like CPS?
Extra-legal probably isn't the exact wording I'm looking for, but why couldn't
issues of excessive cruelty to children be handled in the standard manner,
with due-process, etc.? I suppose I only hear about the outliers of extreme
overreach, but it seems like CPS attracts busybodies with power complexes. And
there is a potential that there is more of a backstory here that we aren't
hearing about. Is there a compelling reason we shouldn't we shut these
agencies down, or at least greatly curtail their activities? Or at the very
least, fire everyone who was involved in this particular investigation?

~~~
sophacles
Mostly it comes down to: division of labor is a thing.

CPS is responsible for things like foster care, finding if parents are (truly)
neglectful and abusive, helping teach ignorant parents how to not kill their
kids accidentally, and other related things. In most of the work they do, it
is just due process - Our society has decided that when a parent goes to jail,
or is ordered into an institution, or what not, and does so while caring for
children and having no backup means for caring for those children, we
shouldn't throw those kids out on the street and hope they survive.

In the case of neglect and abuse - it's apparent to people trained to find it
(even in clear cut cases) but not as often noticable just by a quick glance: A
common tactic of abusers is to hide it to the outside world, and scare the
abused into lying about it - cops are trained to handle one situation, CPS
investigators are trained to handle this different one. (Much like we have
forensic accountants investigate financial crime and homicide detectives
investigate murder).

When cops overstep and murder random people - the response is "well they have
hard jobs, and they are trained to be safe", but when CPS oversteps and asks
some uncomfortable questions, its "busybodies". Why does no one say "well they
also get kids into homes rather than putting them on the street, and they see
a lot of horrible abuse cases and are maybe a bit overcautious"?

Do you in general disagree with the notion of specialization and division of
labor, or is it a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that "government" is doing
it?

Why do you want to automatically shut down an agency that does a lot of good,
because some bureaucrat is overstepping (or legally mandated to do so,
whatever the case may be)?

~~~
chris_wot
It's because the general idea that someone can take away the children you love
due to a misunderstanding is pretty freaking terrifying!

Parents make mistakes all the time. When you see stupidity like this, you
realise there's a problem. It's very unfortunate, because at the same time as
ridiculous things like this one are occurring there really are abused kids out
there slipping through the cracks.

~~~
sophacles
I don't understand what you are saying? The CPS is required to follow up on
every report, as a result of hand wavy crap likee "there really are abused
kids out there slipping through the cracks". But when they act on it, they are
still the bad guy.

Whether I agree with the law or not - as it's reported by the article, the
children's ages, and them being unsupervised, does in fact _potentially_
qualify as neglect. The CPS wasn't there to take children, they were there to
find the facts. It isn't unreasonable for them to say "hey this takes a few
days, we're not taking your kids, but you have to not do the same actions
again, as they may be illegal".

Also: there is a giant hole in your argument: if kids are falling through the
cracks, perhaps it's an indicator that the boogey man of "the kids will
certainly be taken" is not as true as you think? Additionally, if kids are
falling through the cracks, perhaps its that abusers (and neglectors) are
known to be sneaky about it, so CPS needs to be thorough to prevent it?

~~~
snowwrestler
> It isn't unreasonable for them to say "hey this takes a few days, we're not
> taking your kids, but you have to not do the same actions again, as they may
> be illegal".

That's the opposite of what they said, though. Here's the part that pisses
people off:

> 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.

His children would be removed if he did not sign a piece of paper. That's
totally disproportionate, and it's ridiculous that an investigator would have
(or claim) the power to mete such an extreme punishment on their own judgment.

If a police officer came to your door, they would be absolutely prohibited
from making a similar threat against, say, your computer or car. Apparently
parents have more rights to inanimate objects than to their children.

This is why people get up in arms about CPS. The bar for removing kids from a
home is way too low.

~~~
sophacles
It's reasonable, in the same way it's reasonable to have people sign a receipt
saying they got the package, or that its reasonable to have people sign a
ticket (saying I am not admitting guilt by signing this, only that I was in
fact presented with this paper). If I refuse to do any of those things there
is an escalation (in the last case it's arrest and the impounding of the
car!).

CPS does need to document that they took certain steps with the parent, or it
doesn't count in court... instead they get in trouble for not being able to
prove the parent was there, and discussed the welfare of the child.

------
spiritplumber
I biked to school from grade 6 to grade 13 (Italy, we have 5 years of high
school). Walked to school before, but it was only a few blocks.

I moved to Texas for university, and people looked at me funny because I
preferred to bike around if it was less than a couple miles.

~~~
emeraldd
It Texas we have this thing called summer ... There are hotter times/places,
but it's enough ;)

On a more serious note, the size of the state is enough to pretty much force
people to own cars/drive on a daily basis. At least that's been my experience.

------
Kenji
Children already have way too few rights. I don't like the direction our
society is moving in. You can't just take away rights of a minority,
especially children. Getting taken in by the police is probably more harmful
and scarring than anything that could have happened to them (with a non-
negligible probability) on their short way.

------
TehCorwiz
Stay indoors citizen. It is for your protection.

------
jrs235
The perception is that CPS workers are egomaniacs that think they can't be
wrong and many appear power hungry.

The sad part is for ever time CPS "sign and agree or we'll make your life hell
and take your children" they end up screwing up and failing a child in real
need.

Their mentality is similar to that perceived of police forces... "you might
beat the rap but you can't beat the ride... now comply!" (regardless of
whether they are in the right or not)

ADD: It would seem that CPS focuses on making hell for parents who challenge
them instead of focusing on protecting children. They'll invest more time and
energy in showing people "who's the boss" than just using some common sense
and intelligent passive monitoring. Google "CPS failed"

~~~
PseudoRoach
Yea, my wife and I have had a run in with cps, luckily nothing bad came of it.
For a while though I was constantly thinking of the kids that actually are in
an abusive situation and haven't been helped by these cps jerks who would
rather waste their time threatening to shatter everything I live for. And yes,
I tried to stand up to them and they threatened to remove our kids. Wtf? How
can it be so easy for an entity to just do that? Something really wrong with
that.

------
pmontra
Different country and different times but at 10 I walked to and from school
alone, probably also before that age, can't remember. It would have been odd
to go there with a parent, are you a mummy's boy? Furthermore everybody did
it, no danger at all with the exception of one road crossing. One or two years
later I started walking to that very same school with my younger brother
before going to my new one. They started at the same time but luckily they
were only a couple of blocks apart so I could manage. I sympathize for those
kids and their parents and I'm worried seeing the same things happening here.
Luckily no police involved, only apprehensive and omnipresent parents.

------
landofthebrave
>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.

Protecting children from abduction, by abducting them. GG America!

------
brd
For me, the way we treat children has become the shining example of how broken
our society has become (in the US at least). I'm appalled by the lack of
freedom kids have these days. I'm appalled by how many parents opt to stick a
tablet in front of a kid instead of parenting.

From an objective perspective, it really does look like we're trying to breed
the most narrow minded, most uninquisitive, most docile versions of ourselves
possible and I'm mortified by this trend.

------
wtbob
> Danielle and Alexander Meitiv say they are being investigated for neglect
> for the Dec. 20 trek…

'Trek'? It was a mile walk! Not a big deal.

This country has become insane.

------
goodcanadian
"'The number one cause of death for children of their age is a car accident.'”

They're children. What else are they going to die of?

~~~
dalke
Gun-related deaths, drowning, suffocation are next on the list at
[http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.h...](http://www.childdeathreview.org/nationalchildmortalitydata.htm)
. However, motor injury outnumbers all of the other listed fatalities due to
unintentional injury.

A lot of the numbers in that list are due to infants <1 year old. The CDC more
generically says "malignant neoplasms" \- cancer - is about 55% as likely as
as unintentional injury for the ages of the children in the report.
[http://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-
charts/leading_causes_of...](http://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-
charts/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2012-a.gif)

To answer your question, gun-related deaths and cancer.

------
cafard
As a boomer, I think of this from time to time. One point that strikes me is
that there were a lot of maternal eyes exercising loose but not infrequent
surveillance. And there weren't a lot of latch-key kids around back then: moms
knew when school got out, when would be a reasonable time for the kid to show
up, dump the book bag and run out back to play. And adults didn't mind leaning
out the door and rebuking you if they thought they should. Admittedly, I
remember only the case of the lady who objected to a couple of us kicking snow
at each other and incidentally onto her well-cleaned sidewalk.

[http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/08/03](http://www.gocomics.com/pearlsbeforeswine/2014/08/03)

------
nextweek2
There are two counter points that are not covered. Kids getting hurt in car
accidents doesn't distinguish between them being in the car or being hit by a
car. All of the car accidents I have heard where a child was hurt have been
when the kid was crossing.

Secondly, its not a question of if the world is safer. The issue is with how
litigious the world is, if the cops hadn't called CPS and something was wrong
they would have gotten in trouble, if the CPS hadn't followed standard
operating procedure their jobs would have been on the line.

In my opinion, as a parent, the people to blame are the over protective
parents that call for "Think of the children" laws/rule just because of
statistically insignificant tragedies.

------
ianbicking
I was curious about laws and such (since they said in the article that
children under eight were legally supposed to be under supervision in that
jurisdiction), and came upon this study on unsupervised kids:
[http://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2003/04/unsupe...](http://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2003/04/unsupervisedRB.pdf)

That says that 7% of kids age 6-9 are under self care. Not a huge percentage,
but millions of kids. Which is to say, there's nothing unusual about kids on
their own – but maybe to avoid criticism, keep them hidden away inside when
they are on their own.

------
cyphunk
People, you are likely not a monster parent but the CPA and police are there
to try to find the rare monsters. I understand resisting someone making rules
for how you parent, and I support "free range" roaming "liberty fry" eating
parenting, but just let the CPA search your house, see all is well, interview
your kids. If they don't find dead bodies in your basement they will probably
move along.

------
godkingjim
Peoples perception of the probability of criminal victimization is directly
tied to the frequncy and intensity of media reporting on criminal activity.

------
jwatte
I'm 45. I walked alone to and from school every day of my youth since I was 7.
My kids do the same. This is totally normal.

However, some states are still ruled by people who want to teach creationism,
or legislate that pi is 3, because America values freedom to ignore observable
evidence in favor of opinion.

~~~
jff
> some states are still ruled by people who want to teach creationism, or
> legislate that pi is 3

sweet dig but this is Maryland we're talking about, they go in for a different
kind of loony there.

------
tokenadult
I remembered a website with a visual illustration of how much the walking
range of children has declined in Britain during four generations of a family
living in the same town. The map, based on where the great-grandfather,
grandfather, mother, and son in the same family walked, shows a stark
narrowing in how far children walk on their own.[1] In my town, in Minnesota
in the United States, I walked regularly on the city trail system with my
children to the county library branch (about a mile away, in one direction
from our home) or to the shopping district (about a mile away in the other
direction on our same city trail system). All of my children have been able to
do those walks on their own, or with an older sibling accompanying a younger
sibling, for a long time. My children can be out and about in our neighborhood
without anyone hassling them. It should be that way for more children. Most
cities in the United States these days are objectively safe enough for
children to walk outdoors alone at the ages described in the article kindly
submitted here (I don't know specifically about that part of greater DC in
suburban Maryland,[2] but I would guess it is safe enough too), and children
are better off walking and exploring more rather than being confined indoors
or in cars on parental drives to other buildings all day.

AFTER EDIT: Many comments posted after mine here was posted are bemoaning the
lack of freedom children have to roam outside today, but that remains to be
proven. I think the most astute comments here point out that we really don't
know whether there are a lot of external pressures on parents to keep their
children from walking outside alone, or just a change in parenting practices
that makes that less common. I can testify that here in Minnesota, my children
are far from the only children who walk outside by themselves at the ages
reported in the news anecdote here. Compared to my childhood growing up not
far from where I live now, I think children spend too much time indoors in
general, and not enough time outside, but I have no fear of the police or the
child protection authorities here when my children are outside. We are
homeschoolers, so my children have spent a lot of time outdoors during normal
school hours. That has never been a problem here, as everyone knows that
homeschooling is legal in Minnesota. My children have often walked to the
public library by themselves during school hours. New parents (some of the
commenters on this thread) need not be afraid of bringing up their children to
take walks by themselves outdoors.

[1] [http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/571-the-great-indoors-or-
ch...](http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/571-the-great-indoors-or-childhoods-
end)

[2]
[https://www.google.com/maps/place/Woodside+Park,+Silver+Spri...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/Woodside+Park,+Silver+Spring,+MD+20910/@39.0064983,-77.0302548,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m2!3m1!1s0x89b7c8b4e374455b:0xa022de7872e035fd)

~~~
laurenbee
I grew up in Silver Spring and was allowed to walk to nearby parks and
friends' houses alone or with other friends starting around kindergarten. If I
had kids and lived there now, I would definitely allow them to walk around the
neighborhood.

------
tincholio
In Finland, kids as young as 6 or 7 routinely walk to school on their own, and
when it's winter time, that means they do it during night time. No one thinks
this is weird, and nothing happens to them.

------
chris_wot
This might be off topic, but go check Google News for "meitiv", and look at
how much spam is there from _The Week_!

~~~
danielweber
I don't see any.

