Title: CPS Charges Parents With ‘Neglect’ For Allowing Kids to Walk Home From Playground (“We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families,” ) Source:
Infowars URL Source:http://www.infowars.com/cps-charges ... -to-walk-home-from-playground/ Published:Mar 6, 2015 Author:Paul Joseph Watson Post Date:2015-03-06 08:55:23 by Deckard Keywords:None Views:5893 Comments:47
Child Protective Services have charged two parents in Maryland with unsubstantiated child neglect after they allowed their 10-year-old and 6-year old to walk home one mile from their local playground.
Police were called after someone spotted the two children making their way home on December 20 in Silver Spring, a suburb outside Washington, D.C.
Police had also received an anonymous call about the kids two months earlier, on Oct. 27, after the kids were playing at a closer park, just blocks away from their home. That case was later dropped by CPS, reports the Today Show.
Parents Danielle and Alexander Meitiv received a letter from CPS last month informing them of the unsubstantiated child neglect charge, which means that the case will remain in the states database for five years if no further reports are added to the file.
I dont want there to be a file. We never should have been on their radar in the first place. We shouldnt be in their system at all and certainly not with some allegation of neglect, whether substantiated or not, said Danielle Meitiv, who is a science consultant and writer.
Both Danielle and her husband, Alexander Meitiv, a physicist at the National Institute of Health, have refused to allow the investigation to change their parenting style, which emphasizes independence and trust.
They plan on appealing the charge in an effort to expunge the record, although Sandra Barnes, an assistant attorney general in the Maryland Department of Human Resources, said that such a move could lead to the charge being escalated to an indicated case of child neglect.
I absolutely am nervous, and thats why we have to fight this, said Danielle. What happens the next time? I refuse to be bullied into this, We know this is right and healthy for our kids, but were going to keep them home because were scared of CPS? Thats just insane. Thats why we have to fight it.
Cases such as this emphasize how parents are increasingly being treated with suspicion merely for allowing their kids to be free range to a limited extent. A similar circumstance leading to a CPS investigation would have been unheard of 20 years ago.
Such incidents dovetail with media PR campaigns about how children to longer belong to their parents, but to the community and the state.
We have to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families, said MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry during a 2013 promotional campaign which argued for more public money to be used for government education.
"10-year-old and 6-year old to walk home one mile from their local playground."
A 10-year-old and a 6-year old at a playground one mile from home. The 10-year- old cuts her leg on the swing. Bad. Blood is gushing. She starts to faint from blood loss.
When I was 10, i didn't play a mile away from the house but I would be at least 4 or 5 blocks away... and if I cut myself, still too far for my parents to medicaly help me. In life, shit happens. Trying to protect everyone by trying to regulate away misfortune, is not viable Imho.
"In life, shit happens. Trying to protect everyone by trying to regulate away misfortune, is not viable Imho."
If you injured yourself severely on a swing when you were 10, would your parents have sued the swing manufacturer for a defective product, the park district for not maintaining playground equipment, and the city just because?
Look, I don't care how these parents raise their kids. Why should I? But if something bad happens to those kids, I expect the parents to take full responsibility. No lawsuits, no free medical care, no $500,000 manhunts, no Amber alerts, etc.
But we both know that won't happen. The parents will come whining to the rest of us to make things right. And of course we'll help.
But I'm saying we help on our terms. And our terms are, "Don't leave 6 and 10-year- olds unattended in the first place".
Unless, of course, you believe that people can do whatever they want and the rest of us have to pick up the pieces for them.
If you injured yourself severely on a swing when you were 10, would your parents have sued the swing manufacturer for a defective product, the park district for not maintaining playground equipment, and the city just because?
You of course have a valid point. I have many times tried to educate people to how liability lawsuits have changed the fabric of our society.
It's liability lawsuits that has changed police work and it's policies and procedures. It's not Serpico, Alex Jones, Cop Block, Deckard or some vast nazi conspiracy theory of a police state... it's expensive liability judgements that are mostly unfair and in civil lawsuits, everyone's culpability is often not factored.
Kinda like the black hoodlum that climbs up a Coke machine outside a walmart... Tips it over to commit a larceny of the machines coins... the machine squashes his ignorant inner city criminal zoo animal ass... and his parents win a liability suit because the machine wasn't bolted to the building.
Liability suits play a huge factor of why we are like we are. It can not be overlooked.
Grandi, I'd like your opinion on my previous post, seeing that misterwhite cannot work up the courage to answer: --- White claimed, at his post #6: ---
A 10-year-old and a 6-year old at a playground one mile from home. The 10-year- old cuts her leg on the swing. Bad. Blood is gushing. She starts to faint from blood loss. ---- Now what? Does the 6-year-old know first aid?
Of course not. But you are inferring that because they are alone, that laws should be written to prevent that happening. --- YOU - are promoting nanny state laws. Case in point: ---
But I'm saying we help on our terms. And our terms are, "Don't leave 6 and 10- year- olds unattended in the first place". - misterwhite
So what's your opinion, Grandi? -- Is whitey a nanny state promoter?
So what's your opinion, Grandi? -- Is whitey a nanny state promoter?
If Mr. White thinks that laws or regulations designed to PREVENT unfortunate or illegal incidents are a good idea, or work, then yes, he'd be promoting a nanny state ideology, in most cases. If Mr. White is realistic in that no law prevents any crime or unfortunate event in a free society, but a written law or regulation could be used for punishment towards unlawful or irresponsible behaviors, then maybe not.
Flat out ask him if he feels laws prevent crimes. In most cases, they don't. In some cases they do. If it wasn't for a speed law, everyone would most likely speed. The law, the posted signs and the enforcement along with a stiff fine if you get caught, really does reduce speeding.
Things like murder or rape... people that opt to do those don't really care about the consequences. I'll suggest that people with addictions or a pro drug agenda... don't either.
Flat out ask him if he feels laws prevent crimes. In most cases, they don't.
I can't flat out ask him anything, as he pretends to ignore me; -- due to the fact he can't win in a debate.
We used to debate a lot, years ago on FR. It developed that misterwhite/robertpaulsen was a die hard majority rule authoritarian, convinced that our govts have the power to write laws prohibiting ANY damn thing or type of behavior.
Govts do not have that power under our Constitution, of course, and when this was proved, whitey quit debating. --- Now he just spouts the same old authoritarian line, but will not debate it's principles. -- Or our Constitution.
"If Mr. White is realistic in that no law prevents any crime ..."
Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period. No one expects any law to eliminate any activity. We can hope that it minimizes it.
The main reason we have so many laws is that more people use laws as their guiding moral principle. It used to be that a person's moral character prevented them from behaving inappropriately. You know -- "With freedom comes responsibility".
But nowadays, personal responsibility is for suckers. Everyone's attitude is, "If it's legal I can do it and don't you dare judge me". So now we need more laws to regulate the behavior people used to regulate themselves.