Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 105 posts

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#81

Post by happyscrappy »

lsaferite wrote: post #68
graeme wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I don't think this kind of thing is common. But it's also not common to see children walking alone in America, at least in the parts I've been to. It's the latter that's the problem. The former is merely a symptom of the latter, whether or not it is common.

I lament this fact constantly. As a child I was super free-range. We would leave our house at sun-up and just had to be home by sun-down. We would explore for miles and miles. I'm so sad my children will never experience this freedom.

Don't punish your children out of your fear of dealing with CPS. They will be fine. You will be fine.

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#82

Post by snowwrestler »

sophacles wrote: post #24
xrange wrote: post #17

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 attrac…

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 d…

The concept of CPS is a good one, as you say--they are specially trained to protect a very vulnerable segment of the population.

The problem is when CPS threatens to remove children from a home because the parents are not compliant with their commands. For example a CPS officer will show up to a home unannounced and demand to inspect it, based on an anonymous tip. If the parent says "no," the CPS officer says, "let me in, or I will remove your child from your home."

In contrast if a police officer came to your home, they would need a warrant from a judge to enter against the owner's will. Do CPS officers need a judge's warrant for the above demand? Everything I've read says no.

A police officer also cannot threaten to take property without a warrant. They can't say, "let me in or I will take your computer." If they want the computer, they need to get a warrant that specifically says they can take the computer.

So: it seems like parents have more rights to inanimate objects than to their own children, who are far more precious to them.

There's also the matter of punishment without due process. Officers can get a warrant to take a computer only if they can show that the computer probably has evidence on it that will further an investigation. They can't take a computer just to force the owner to comply with some other command.

Removing a child from a home punishes the parent. CPS has the power to do so even if they have no evidence that the child will show proof of abuse, or indeed without any tangible evidence of abuse whatsoever. They explicitly say that they are doing it only because the parent refused some other command, like to inspect a home or interview the parent.

And removing a child from a home is traumatic to the child. A computer doesn't care that it's going to the evidence room; a child will be confused and terrified. The emotional impact can persist for months or years even if CPS says "oops!" a day later and returns the child.

There needs to be a high standard for removing a child from a home. It absolutely should not be just another tool in the investigator's toolbox.

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#83

Post by SiVal »

ashark wrote: post #51
graeme wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I don't think this kind of thing is common. But it's also not common to see children walking alone in America, at least in the parts I've been to. It's the latter that's the problem. The former is merely a symptom of the latter, whether or not it is common.

In much of Suburbia you'll at least get some funny looks walking along certain streets, unless you're obviously out specifically for exercise (wearing exercise clothes, walking/jogging with a purpose) or otherwise have some sort of suspicion-shield, like a stroller, and aren't wearing clothes that look too cheap or dirty. Skin color is probably also a factor. Walking to get places is for criminals or poor people :-(

I don't know what places you are referring to as "much of Suburbia", but a large number of us who read HN live in Silicon Valley suburbs where you see people walking around all the time. Kids on skateboards, groups of young, Indian software developers, joggers, solo guys like me walking along listening to podcasts, old Chinese couples, parents walking over to a student-teacher conference, teens walking over to friends' houses to play video games, etc.

That's the way it was where I grew up on the East Coast (minus the Chinese and Indians), and the way it was around Harvard when I lived in Cambridge, and the way it is now here in Silicon Valley.

I'm not saying that no such places exist. You might be describing those few neighborhoods that are mostly populated by wealthy retirees whose kids have grown up and left, but this is hardly the general case in American suburbs.

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#84

Post by snowwrestler »

sophacles wrote: post #57
chris_wot wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 C…

> 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.

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#85

Post by Florin_Andrei »

jrs235 wrote: post #65
Florin_Andrei wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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).

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

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#86

Post by 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

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#87

Post by ashark »

SiVal wrote: post #83
ashark wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In much of Suburbia you'll at least get some funny looks walking along certain streets, unless you're obviously out specifically for exercise (wearing exercise clothes, walking/jogging with a purpose) or otherwise have some sort of suspicion-shield, like a stroller, and aren't wearing clothes that look too cheap or dirty. Skin color is probably also a factor. Walking to get places is for criminals or poor people :-(

I don't know what places you are referring to as "much of Suburbia", but a large number of us who read HN live in Silicon Valley suburbs where you see people walking around all the time. Kids on skateboards, groups of young, Indian software developers, joggers, solo guys like me walking along listening to podcasts, old Chinese couples, parents walking over to a student-teacher conference, teens walking over to friend…

It's likely my middle-westernness is showing. My guess is most 'burb dwellers around here would consider the SV neighborhoods you're describing to be "in the city".

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#88

Post by alextgordon »

tristor wrote: post #80
alextgordon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this prove the point? A weapon only escalates a situation. If Americans were being robbed all the time, they would quickly realise that carrying one is a very very bad idea. However, because the US is generally a safe place, Americans can carry a weapon without much risk, because they will almost never have to use it.

There's some truth to your second statement, but your first statement doesn't follow from it. If it was commonplace for people to get involved in altercations where they had to defend themselves with a weapon, it'd be both a better idea to start carrying a weapon if you weren't already, and it'd also discourage people from committing petty crimes like muggings. It might be worth it to a criminal to potentially lose t…

The primary danger is that you might end up in jail. You are in a dark alley, someone tries to mug you, you shoot them dead. No witnesses.

Police find a lot of money and some drugs on your assailant. They suggest that foul play was involved. A drug deal gone wrong. Under pressure you misremember certain facts of that night. The police notice a discrepancy in your story and build a case out of it.

A second danger is that you might aim a gun but not be able to pull the trigger. A large percentage of soldiers in WWII found themselves unable to kill someone, even when their life was in immediate danger.

Subsequently, armed forces spend a lot of time on psychological training to turn recruits into killers. You presumably haven't had this training, so I would bet money that you wouldn't be able to kill someone.

A third danger is that your assailant might have a gun too. In this case, the fact that you are carrying a gun cannot help you if they point theirs at you first. It can definitely get you killed if they notice you are armed.

(for the record, I didn't downvote you)

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#89

Post by danielweber »

happyscrappy wrote: post #81
lsaferite wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lament this fact constantly. As a child I was super free-range. We would leave our house at sun-up and just had to be home by sun-down. We would explore for miles and miles. I'm so sad my children will never experience this freedom.

Don't punish your children out of your fear of dealing with CPS. They will be fine. You will be fine.

It only takes one call to CPS for things to suddenly go very very wrong.

Re: Parents investigated for neglect after letting kids walk home alone

#90

Post by bglazer »

SiVal wrote: post #83
ashark wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In much of Suburbia you'll at least get some funny looks walking along certain streets, unless you're obviously out specifically for exercise (wearing exercise clothes, walking/jogging with a purpose) or otherwise have some sort of suspicion-shield, like a stroller, and aren't wearing clothes that look too cheap or dirty. Skin color is probably also a factor. Walking to get places is for criminals or poor people :-(

I don't know what places you are referring to as "much of Suburbia", but a large number of us who read HN live in Silicon Valley suburbs where you see people walking around all the time. Kids on skateboards, groups of young, Indian software developers, joggers, solo guys like me walking along listening to podcasts, old Chinese couples, parents walking over to a student-teacher conference, teens walking over to friend…

There's an entire country chock full of low density suburbia in between Cambridge and Silicon Valley.
Post reply on HN