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:5863 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 state’s database for five years if no further reports are added to the file.
“I don’t want there to be a file. We never should have been on their radar in the first place. We shouldn’t 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 that’s 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 we’re going to keep them home because we’re scared of CPS?’ That’s just insane. That’s 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.
"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.
1) 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.
2) 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".
3) 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.
1) & 2) I completly agree with... spot on.
3)... not so much agreeance. Personal responsibility is out the door, that I agree with but try to regulate behavior is always a slippery slope.
Example... manufacturing meth. Make a law that dictates its unlawful... I have no problem with that... but making it illegal to buy more than one package of Sudafed a month, to make it harder on meth heads to manufacture is just ignorant. They find ways to buy it... and it just hurts the law abiding people who now have to ask for it from some secure vault and now can't buy two boxes on sale.
What we need to do is PUNISH THE SHIT out of criminals for breaking our existing laws... but since most of America is to weak and soft to punish, Personal responsibility takes a shit... and it's then that politicians sell votes with feel good laws designed to "regulate behavior"... which really isn't possible in s free society.
1) Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period.
There he goes again, claiming that "society" has the power to make valid law on the basis of what is "acceptable". -- NOT true, as such law must comply with our Constitution, before it is deemed acceptable..
No one expects any law to eliminate any activity. We can hope that it minimizes it.
Prohibitive laws tries to eliminate all activity, thus encouraging scoflaws and black markets.
2) 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".
Human nature hasn't changed. -- Over 100 years ago people in the USA were free to buy and use 'dangerous' drugs and weapons. Some still call the late 1800's a golden age...
3) 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.
Misterwhite is chanting the proggresive 'line', the one they used to justify their takeover early in the 1900's. -- Progressivism is over, and a return to constitutionalism is near.
GrandIsland --- 1) & 2) I completly agree with... spot on.
That's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments.
3)... not so much agreeance. Personal responsibility is out the door, that I agree with but try to regulate behavior is always a slippery slope. --- Example... manufacturing meth. Make a law that dictates its unlawful... I have no problem with that...
You should. The after affects of booze prohibition still linger on, not to mention the general lawless culture brought on by drug prohibitions.
…. but making it illegal to buy more than one package of Sudafed a month, to make it harder on meth heads to manufacture is just ignorant. They find ways to buy it... and it just hurts the law abiding people who now have to ask for it from some secure vault and now can't buy two boxes on sale. --- What we need to do is PUNISH THE SHIT out of criminals for breaking our existing laws... but since most of America is to weak and soft to punish, Personal responsibility takes a shit... and it's then that politicians sell votes with feel good laws designed to "regulate behavior"... which really isn't possible in s free society.
Punishing the shit out of criminal blackmarketeers has never worked, as you well know, and as you admit just above in your regulating behavior comment.
Thanks.. Hope I wasn't too "intolerant and argumentative".
That's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments.
I try not reading past what was written down.
If you tried that, you might not be so argumentative during a discussion. When YOU try and word or spin someone else's response into what you believe it meant... is when communication stops.
1) Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period.
There he goes again, claiming that "society" has the power to make valid law on the basis of what is "acceptable". -- NOT true, as such law must comply with our Constitution, before it is deemed acceptable..
You agreed with whitey, and that's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments.
I try not reading past what was written down.
I tried to explain to you that whitey has become very adept at choosing his words, - in order to mask his majority rule/anti-constitutional beliefs. (Reread my post#18) -- But believe me, over the years, he has exposed himself many times.
If you tried that, you might not be so argumentative during a discussion. When YOU try and word or spin someone else's response into what you believe it meant... is when communication stops.
Robertpaulsen/misterwhites political positions are well documented over at FR. - - I'm not being argumentative about them, I'm stating facts. -- This is why whitey stopped communicating with me. -- He couldn't counter those facts.
Robertpaulsen/misterwhites political positions are well documented over at FR. - - I'm not being argumentative about them, I'm stating facts. -- This is why whitey stopped communicating with me. -- He couldn't counter those facts.
You could be 100% right. I didn't follow LP after Goldi banned me on election night, 2012.
I honestly never returned with a retread... I respected her decision. To me, that's trespassing. I lurked about once every month.
1) Our laws reflect what is not acceptable to society. Period.
There he goes again, claiming that "society" has the power to make valid law on the basis of what is "acceptable". -- NOT true, as such law must comply with our Constitution, before it is deemed acceptable..
You agreed with whitey, and that's a pity. I don't believe you would agree, if you knew what misterwhite really meant with his carefully worded comments.
I try not reading past what was written down. I tried to explain to you that whitey has become very adept at choosing his words, - in order to mask his majority rule/anti-constitutional beliefs. (Reread my post#18) -- But believe me, over the years, he has exposed himself many times.
If you tried that, you might not be so argumentative during a discussion. When YOU try and word or spin someone else's response into what you believe it meant... is when communication stops. Robertpaulsen/misterwhites political positions are well documented over at FR. - - I'm not being argumentative about them, I'm stating facts. -- This is why whitey stopped communicating with me. -- He couldn't counter those facts.
