Unsubstantiated Child Neglect

[Gilligan]

You mean the same CPS that opened a file on them and found it to be unsubstantiated. You do realize that CPS has very littl power, .

pffft. Those bureaucratic nazi azzhats can destroy a family at the drop of a dime and do so routinely.

 

[rdytogo]

pffft. Those bureaucratic nazi azzhats can destroy a family at the drop of a dime and do so routinely.

That has not been my experience or what I know. Can you tell me how they can destroy a family?

 

[Lurk]

Can't bother to exhaust the time to find the sleezy a-holes that actually harm children. It is far easier and a lot less work to just go after the parents that are sitting right at home! A statistic is a statistic. An arrest is an arrest right?

Isn't this case in one of those "Sanctuary Cities" where ANYONE can slink into town under cover of darkness and set up an abode?

 

[CRHS89]

The wording used in the article, "responsible for unsubstantiated neglect", is misleading. An unsubstantiated ruling, which is not a criminal charge by the way, means there is not enough evidence to either rule in or rule out neglect. A finding of "indicated neglect" would mean that there is evidence that neglect existed. Therefore you can't be found "responsible" for unsubstantiated neglect. As rdytogo pointed out, CPS cannot comment on such cases, as they are confidential. So the newspaper was getting their information from the parents. And didn't completely understand what the lingo in the CPS world means. And probably doesn't have the whole story.

 

[itsbob]

it means the court found it was wrong for this twit to let her 6 and 10 yo go to the park by themselves but there isn't technically a law against it. As i heard this lady claimed that the law "you can not leave a child under X home alone" didn't apply because her kids were not in her home. The court found that she was negelctful to let her kids wander the streets alone even if it wasn't against the letter of the law. This idiot is why we end up with laws about everything.

Pot meet kettle.. Parents are idiots for letting THEIR kids walk home from the park, not wander aimlessly around town like you believe but walk home from the park.

You cannot expect parents to make decisions on the one millionth of a percent chance that something could go wrong, in fact I'd bet the parents being with them doesn't reduce the chances of something bad happening to them by any measurable percent.

But speak out your ass more.?

 

[Gilligan]

That has not been my experience

It certainly has been mine.

 

[Midnightrider]

Pot meet kettle.. Parents are idiots for letting THEIR kids walk home from the park, not wander aimlessly around town like you believe but walk home from the park.

You cannot expect parents to make decisions on the one millionth of a percent chance that something could go wrong, in fact I'd bet the parents being with them doesn't reduce the chances of something bad happening to them by any measurable percent.

But speak out your ass more.?

You let me know when BG lets you send your 6 yo to the park with a 10yo to supervise...
the lady sent her kids to the park by themselves. They didn't just walk home and we don't know how much they wandered before they went home.

 

[Merlin99]

You mean the same CPS that opened a file on them and found it to be unsubstantiated. You do realize that CPS has very littl power, that they can, in some instances take children from a home in an emergency, but that that quickly gets into a court and the court rules if that removal was appropriate. If CPS removes a child without cause, they can also be sued. Further, it is a mandate that when CPS removes a child from a dangerous environment, they make every gaff effort to place that child or children with other family members. Please research this rather than letting the news media and the family who are letting the children write your narrative. Who cares if CPS keeps a "file" on the parents. It means nothing if it's a file of unsubstantiated complaints.

I believe you're wrong on this count, CPS gets the benefit of the doubt. The only way it wouldn't would be for the CPS agent to use their position to conduct a personal vendetta and then they could be sued personally.

 

[itsbob]

You let me know when BG lets you send your 6 yo to the park with a 10yo to supervise...
the lady sent her kids to the park by themselves. They didn't just walk home and we don't know how much they wandered before they went home.

So whatbis the probability in ANY case that harm would come to those kids.. oh, and my boy? He's been "free range" since about the age of 4. He's a stong, healthy boy.. knows his boundaries and abides by them. If we lived in town where there was a playground 2 blocks away you bet your ass he'd be walking himself there and back probably every day. Same way my parents raised me.

Issue here is MORE parents aren't like them. I used to go to the playground there would be 10 - 50 kids there any given day.. and God forbid your parents came to watch you.. you'd be ridiculed and shunned and would probably leave. We took care of each other, of somebody got hurt we went and got a parent.. we had fights, we had broken bones. We grew up aND were responsible at a much younger age than the kids today..

Come down to Southern MD.. The REAL SOMD and you'll see an entire community of free range kids..

 

[itsbob]

Again, I looked in the Maryalnd Judiciary Case search and can't find where these parents were charged with anything. Do you have a link to their charges?

That's because CPS operates outside and without the courts. They aren't powerless by any means, and they act like the constitution doesn't apply to them because they do operate at the fringes or totally outside of the law.

 

[Bann]

For a 10yo its arguable, but not for a 6yo. This lady wasn't busted for letting her kids walk home from school, it was for letting them go to the park by themselves. Maybe I am jaded because my kids had 'free range' friends and I spent plenty of time parenting them because their parents couldn't be bothered.


Care to explain the logic behind children being left in the home alone being illegal but leaving them alone in public shouldn't be?

When my parents lived in Lakehurst, NJ - I was in 2nd grade, my brother was in Kindergarten. He went for half a day, I went for the full day, but we ate lunch at home. Everyday, I walked him to school, walked him home from school, ate lunch and then back to school. Then I walked home again.

2nd grade. This was in 1966, so I was 7.

I lived in Italy for 5-1/2 years from 1967 to 1972. I can remember my mom sending me off to the bakery and vegetable stand for bread & veggies for dinner. (and I would get to go to the candy store, also) I had to be about 8-9 years old when I first started doing that. In a foreign country - with a different language and everything!

 

[Bann]

This comments on this story makes me sad. Unfortunately "free range" is an often misused term. Free range means parents who have let their children do this before, have trialed with them how to do it and prepped them for what they may encounter. They let them have progressively more responsibility and allowed them to think for themselves as an exercise of their growing independence and trust that they have the ability to WALK a couple blocks. And people act like they've beaten and starved them. Pathetic. Those children are about 1000 times more likely to be harmed in the car that drives them to school everyday than taking a short walk to play. THIS is why we have obese little ####heads who are incapable of solving any of life's problems and who melt into a puddle of rage and suicidal feelings the minute life gets the tiniest bit hard. I have great respect for these parents who didn't cave to the ridiculous pressure of overzealous people who need to mind their own business.

http://www.freerangekids.com/ Common sense, not fear. I am about the farthest away from hippy ever, btw and I adore Lenore Skenazy. There is nothing hippy about looking at facts, numbers, statistics and logic and saying..you know what...my kid is gonna be just fine when performing normal every day childhood activities. There shouldn't be any such thing as a free range kid...people used to just call it being normal.

Exactly! I had no idea of such a term. Thing2 was a free range kid, for the most part. He rode his bike to school 2 miles one way every day when he was in 1st and 2nd grade in FL before moving to MD. I taught him how to do this and we took it step by step. I went with him for a little while, I bought him walkie talkies (cell phones were just coming into popularity, but I don't think very young kids had them at that time) and we would communicate via walkie when he got out of school letting me know he was on the way home. We both knew how long it took him to get home, and he knew not to go off the pre-determined and agreed upon route. If he was 5 minutes late, I was in my car and off to look for him. I think that happened once. He'd had an issue with the chain on his bike and didn't take the time to let me know via walkie or he'd turned it off or something.

 

[Midnightrider]

So whatbis the probability in ANY case that harm would come to those kids.. oh, and my boy? He's been "free range" since about the age of 4. He's a stong, healthy boy.. knows his boundaries and abides by them. If we lived in town where there was a playground 2 blocks away you bet your ass he'd be walking himself there and back probably every day. Same way my parents raised me.

Issue here is MORE parents aren't like them. I used to go to the playground there would be 10 - 50 kids there any given day.. and God forbid your parents came to watch you.. you'd be ridiculed and shunned and would probably leave. We took care of each other, of somebody got hurt we went and got a parent.. we had fights, we had broken bones. We grew up aND were responsible at a much younger age than the kids today..

Come down to Southern MD.. The REAL SOMD and you'll see an entire community of free range kids..

Look up the sex offender map for REAL SOMD and you might rethink the risks....



But back to the point OP, if its illegal to do in your house why would it be legal in public. Are there any laws like that, illegal in the privacy of your own home but legal in public?

 

[GURPS]

pffft. Those bureaucratic nazi azzhats can destroy a family at the drop of a dime and do so routinely.

:this:


because the Courts are going to give more weight to the testimony of the CPS 'crats then the family

 

[Ken King]

Unsubstantiated child neglect - what does that even freaking mean?

It means that what these parents allowed did not result in the child's health or welfare being harmed or that the child/children were not placed at substantial risk of harm. In other words, it was not neglect.

 

[JeJeTe]

You can't watch your kids all the time. You just can't because if you did you'd constantly make their decisions for them and then how would they know to do that. I currently live in a tiny neighborhood. The whole thing is maybe 3 blocks. There are a couple kids in the neighborhood but none my 8 year old have bonded with. So he plays in the yard by himself. My backyard is fenced, the front is not. I'm usually in the house doing stuff and I'll poke my head out every 15 mins just to see where he is. If he wanted to walk down to a buddy's house in the neighborhood, I'd be ok with that.

 

[rdytogo]

It certainly has been mine.

My experience is this. A neighbor's two year grand son was beaten by the child's father to the point where the child had to have medical attention. The child was removed from the father's residence and the mother's residence because she failed to protect. The child was placed with my neighbors who were the maternal grandparents. The mother was not allowed to see the child. The day after the child was placed, they had a court hearing and the judge ruled on the placement. They had another court hearing a week later and again determined the mother had not taken steps to protect the child.

The second experienc I had was someone who worked for me had cps called on them by the school because they had disciplined their twelve year old son. During the discipline the son had a bruise on his cheek. CPS found that the incident involved parental discipline, requested the parents sign a safetly plan not to physically discipline the boy. The parents refused and they ruled the abuse allegation out.

The third experience is this incident we are talking about. Some sort of complaint was filed against these parents. The information as to the content of the allegation is coming from the parents who are saying someone said they were neglecting their child. What we know, is CPS did an investigation and child protective services ruled it unsubstantiated and the parents are refusing to sign a safety plan and nothing else is happening in reference to this incident.

Those are real experineces, I would be happy to hear your example.

 

[Midnightrider]

My experience is this. A neighbor's two year grand son was beaten by the child's father to the point where the child had to have medical attention. The child was removed from the father's residence and the mother's residence because she failed to protect. The child was placed with my neighbors who were the maternal grandparents. The mother was not allowed to see the child. The day after the child was placed, they had a court hearing and the judge ruled on the placement. They had another court hearing a week later and again determined the mother had not taken steps to protect the child.

The second experienc I had was someone who worked for me had cps called on them by the school because they had disciplined their twelve year old son. During the discipline the son had a bruise on his cheek. CPS found that the incident involved parental discipline, requested the parents sign a safetly plan not to physically discipline the boy. The parents refused and they ruled the abuse allegation out.

The third experience is this incident we are talking about. Some sort of complaint was filed against these parents. The information as to the content of the allegation is coming from the parents who are saying someone said they were neglecting their child. What we know, is CPS did an investigation and child protective services ruled it unsubstantiated and the parents are refusing to sign a safety plan and nothing else is happening in reference to this incident.

Those are real experineces, I would be happy to hear your example.

What you seem to be missing is that 'unsubstantiated' in this case means 'inconclusive' not 'innocent'. The result is that these parents were placed on double secret probation.

 

[rdytogo]

What you seem to be missing is that 'unsubstantiated' in this case means 'inconclusive' not 'innocent'. The result is that these parents were placed on double secret probation.

Do you have a copy of the complaint to CPS? All I have seen is what the parents are reporting. I'm not sure what the entire allegation was, because I haven't seen the complaint. I didn't see them placed on any probation.

You keep adding more to this than there is. First, you say the judge made a ruling. That is patently false! Now you are saying they are on some sort of probation. Neither of these allegations are true.

Could you tell me where you are getting your information? Did any of your information come from an official source? (After all, you so often request the official source. Why is that not an issue now?)

 

[Midnightrider]

,

Do you have a copy of the complaint to CPS? All I have seen is what the parents are reporting. I'm not sure what the entire allegation was, because I haven't seen the complaint. I didn't see them placed on any probation.

You keep adding more to this than there is. First, you say the judge made a ruling. That is patently false! Now you are saying they are on some sort of probation. Neither of these allegations are true.

Could you tell me where you are getting your information? Did any of your information come from an official source? (After all, you so often request the official source. Why is that not an issue now?)

But the finding of unsubstantiated child neglect means CPS will keep a file on the family for at least five years and leaves open the question of what would happen if the Meitiv children get reported again for walking without adult supervision.

The Meitivs’ decision letter, dated Feb. 20, said the CPS investigation had been completed and would be closed. It cited a finding of unsubstantiated child neglect and made note of an appeals process.

Montgomery County Child Protective Services officials referred calls Monday to state officials. Paula Tolson, spokeswoman for the Maryland Department of Human Resources, said the state cannot comment on specific cases because of confidentiality requirements.
Tolson said as a general practice, CPS officials in Maryland reach one of three possible findings after neglect investigations: ruled out, unsubstantiated or indicated.

An unsubstantiated finding is typically made when CPS has some information supporting a conclusion of child neglect, or when seemingly credible reports are at odds with each other, or when there is insufficient information for a more definitive conclusion, she said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...919454-c04d-11e4-ad5c-3b8ce89f1b89_story.html

Try reading the story and the links within it.....