What's new

Welcome to Offtopix 👋, Visitor

Off Topix is a well-established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public in 2009! We provide a laid-back atmosphere, and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content, and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register and become a member of our awesome community.

🎁

Member Interviews

Feel free to start a thread here! We'd love to ask you some questions and get to know you better. Can't wait to chat!

In the News

Share all current news stories here to inspire discussion and comments. Check here for engaging articles that spark curiosity.

Member Introductions

Welcome to Off Topix! We're excited to have you here. Take this opportunity to introduce yourself to our vibrant community and start connecting with others!

Let kids walk home?

Randy

Aw, awww!
Thread Creator
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
3,697
Reaction score
134
Points
1,995
Location
USA
Website
google.com
http://www.today.com/parents/free-range-parents-appeal-unsubstantiated-child-neglect-decision-2D80524066

Parents who let kids walk home alone found responsible for 'unsubstantiated' child neglect

The Maryland parents under investigation over letting their children walk home by themselves have been found “responsible for unsubstantiated child neglect” by local child protective services.

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv said they received a letter last weekend notifying them of the Feb. 20 decision in a case that has garnered national debate over parenting styles and philosophy. They plan to appeal the finding but said they first consulted with an attorney before commenting publicly Monday.

Officials began investigating Meitiv and her husband after someone called police last Dec. 20 to report that their children — Rafi, 10, and Dvora, 6 — were walking home from a playground about a mile away from their house in Silver Spring, a Maryland 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.


2D274907922447-1D274907628427-today-kids-playground-150116-1.blocks_desktop_large.jpg

The Meitiv children, Dvora, 6 and Rafi, 10, are allowed to walk unattended to neighborhood parks.

A finding of “unsubstantiated” child neglect is essentially a middle ground of three possible findings local child protective service departments can reach; the other two are “ruled out” or “indicated.” It indicates there may be some evidence but not enough information to prove neglect occurred. An "unsubstantiated" case remains in the state’s database for five years and then is expunged — if no additional reports are added to the file.

“If it doesn’t mean anything, then they should close the case,” Danielle Meitiv told TODAY.com. “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.”

Montgomery County Child Protective Services referred calls to state officials. A spokeswoman for the Maryland Department of Human Resources said she could not comment on specific cases because of confidentiality rules.

Meitiv, a science consultant and writer, said she and her husband, a physicist at the National Institute of Health, do not plan to change their parenting style, which they believe helps their children better learn independence.

On Monday, snow and ice closed down her children’s school but by mid-day, temperatures had warmed up far above freezing so Meitiv sent both her children outside.

“It’s a gorgeous day and I kicked my kids out, because that’s what you do on a beautiful day. You say, ‘Play outside, kids, and go have some fun,’” she said. “They just ran down the block and they’re probably going to the park that’s a block away. Well, that’s the same park the first time CPS was called.”

2D274907922449-1D274907642841-1D274907628524-2015-01-15-16-01-36-1.blocks_desktop_large.jpg


The first step in the appeals process is to have a conference with a CPS supervisor, said Sandra Barnes, an assistant attorney general in the Maryland Department of Human Resources, who could only address the general process and not the specific Meitiv case. Sometimes, family members want a chance to air their side if they feel their concerns haven't been heard, she said. Other times, they just want to know where the case stands.

“Sometimes, when they understand how little an unsubstantiated finding is ever going to come back to haunt them, that’s plenty. They just want to put their side in, perhaps explain extenuating circumstances,” she said.

The conference can often be enough to result in a resolution. But it also can lead to a full administrative hearing which could escalate the case to an “indicated” level, Barnes said.

Meitiv said despite her unwavering approach to parenting, she does worry about someone reporting her again to the local authorities.

“I absolutely am nervous, and that’s why we have to fight this,” she said. “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.”


Thoughts?

Should kids be allowed to walk home alone from school? Go to the park unattended?
 
Thats a good question. If I had kids, no. You never know what could happen to them.
 
If I had children, I would never allow them to go unattended anywhere. Not only could they be snatched but what if they got hurt and no one was there to help them. These parents are playing a very dangerous game, IMO, by allowing their children to go unattended. You read about horrible things happening to children every day. Why take the chance? I never would.
 
The world is different now. A lot more corrupt and sick. It depends on the area you live in but still, anything can happen.
 
Well, I'll never have children, so...problem solved?
 
Jazzy said:
If I had children, I would never allow them to go unattended anywhere. Not only could they be snatched but what if they got hurt and no one was there to help them. These parents are playing a very dangerous game, IMO, by allowing their children to go unattended. You read about horrible things happening to children every day. Why take the chance? I never would.

I agree with this too. Add to that the fact being outside after 18:00 is dangerous due to robbers and smokers walking around.
 
What a huge wussy society we are creating. These parents are trying to make these kids confident and independent. And it is the suburbs, they are not crossing major highways and walking through the slums. America was much more dangerous when I was a kid at 8 walking half a mile to and from school for the school bus. And then 3 miles from my home to my Tae Kwon Do classes three times a week. It no wonder the millennial generation are a bunch unconfident schizophrenic individuals. People only think crime is worse because we have so many avenues of information hitting us from all sides to make us think that way.


America is actually much safer than it used to be in the 1980s and early '90s.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/america-has-gotten-much-safer-2013-7#ixzz3TgrO0aOC
 
Nebulous said:
The world is different now. A lot more corrupt and sick. It depends on the area you live in but still, anything can happen.

Agreed; why take the chance?
 
depends on the age
really young kids; no never
12+... sure but at least with a group of kids all together, like 4 / 5 kids
and tell my kid, scream for help as loud as you can when something goes wrong
 
I was allowed to walk home from school alone from the age of 10 i think.
To be honest in this day an age, with kidnappers, i dont know. 10 + i think would be ok in a group, but I dont think I would be happy with my kid (not that I want any) walking alone.
 
From what I have heard on the radio yesterday they have stopped letting there children walk home from school. All because the government is threatening them and rightfully so in this day and age sadly have more fear of government then people who might do there children harm.
 
While I *get* what the parents are attempting to do with their "free range" philosophy, like most of the other posters here, I disagree.

Science has proven the last part of the brain which develops is the frontal lobe region; this happens at approximately 25 years of age. The frontal lobe area is where the understanding that there are consequences to one's chosen actions is processed.

It's one of the reasons military personnel like to recruit 18-23 year olds...they can be ordered to run head-long into danger and they don't *know* to question it...and don't understand that there's a good chance they might not survive.


Sending children out into the world, unattended and unsupervised, when they lack the necessary equipment to understand cause-and-effect seems a tad negligent...and maybe even [deliberately] abusive.
 
Seems these parents didn't learn the first time:
Maryland 'Free Range' Kids Taken Into Custody Again
Two children in Silver Spring,Maryland, Sunday were taken into custody again after they were found at a park alone; their parents are proponents of what’s known as “free-range parenting,” a philosophy that encourages kids to explore their independence.

Officers responded to a report of children without an adult at a park Sunday afternoon, according to The Associated Press, and took the 10-year-old boy and 6-year-old girl to Maryland Child Protective Services.

The children have since been released to their parents, Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, Montgomery County police told ABC News today.

Danielle Meitiv did not immediately respond today to an ABC News request for comment, but she posted on Facebook Sunday night she and her husband were allowed to bring their kids home after signing a "safety plan."

Maryland law says that children younger than 8 must be under the care of a person who is at least 13, according to Child Protective Services.

In a previously aired "Nightline" interview, Danielle Meitiv said, "Frankly I think that raising independent children and responsible children and giving them the freedom that I enjoyed is a risk worth taking."

"In the end, it's our decision as parents," she added.


There are 116 registered sex offenders living in their town. If something were to happen they have themselves to blame for "a risk worth taking". It's not the same world the parents grew up in.

It seems like the parents are now doing this purposefully to try and push their agenda. The parents know the law and are intentionally breaking it time after time. The police are trying to protect the children while the parents are putting them in harms way.

Your thoughts?

 
What a huge wussy society we are creating. These parents are trying to make these kids confident and independent. And it is the suburbs, they are not crossing major highways and walking through the slums. America was much more dangerous when I was a kid at 8 walking half a mile to and from school for the school bus. And then 3 miles from my home to my Tae Kwon Do classes three times a week. It no wonder the millennial generation are a bunch unconfident schizophrenic individuals. People only think crime is worse because we have so many avenues of information hitting us from all sides to make us think that way.

I'm sorry but all I can think of when reading this post is the old timer who walked to school everyday uphill 10 miles both ways in the snow, barefoot..

277.jpg
 
And, were grateful for the opportunity TO walk to school 10 miles, uphill - both ways - with no shoes upon their feet.
 
I also believe they held hot baked potatoes to keep their hands warm...:lol:
 
I'm sorry but all I can think of when reading this post is the old timer who walked to school everyday uphill 10 miles both ways in the snow, barefoot..

603.jpg


No snow and hardly any hills in Florida. But my god it truly shows with these answers why we have some of the worst young generations America has ever seen. Those years as a kid to learn and experience independence is a big part of what forms a kid and makes him and her a independent free thinking person who can be confident when a adult instead of someone who can't cope on there own. My gosh with these kids today you can barely get them outdoors and when they want to get out parents want to hold there hands the whole step of the way.

Nothing better was at the age of 10 or 11 on a Saturday morning having my father sending me to the grocery store to get bagels on my bike to have breakfast. And my gosh I actually had to cross a road on my own! The horror! Then all my friends would meet up and be back home just before sundown to have dinner or then you would actually be in trouble. Crime was worse then and guess what the overwhelming of us made it just fine into today's world. Today's American suburbs are some of the most crime free areas in the world and the parents have become hypochondriac's passing that on to there kids.

And the person showing the child molester listings it needs to break it down because there are so many variations of what they call a child molester. Like the 19 year guy sleeping with the 17 year girl friend.

QUOTE -
If you believe the near-daily news stories, sexual predators lurk everywhere: in parks, at schools, in the malls—even in teens' computers. A few rare (but high-profile) incidents have spawned an unprecedented slate of new laws enacted in response to the public's fear.

Every state has notification laws to alert communities about released sex offenders. Many states have banned sex offenders from living in certain areas, and are tracking them using satellite technology. Officials in Florida and Texas plan to bar convicted sex offenders from public shelters during hurricanes.

Most people believe that sex offenders pose a serious and growing threat. According to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, "the danger to teens is high." On the April 18, 2005, "CBS Evening News" broadcast, correspondent Jim Acosta reported that "when a child is missing, chance are good it was a convicted sex offender." (Acosta is incorrect: If a child goes missing, a convicted sex offender is actually among the least likely explanations, far behind runaways, family abductions, and the child being lost or injured.)



On his "To Catch a Predator" series on "Dateline NBC," reporter Chris Hansen claims that "the scope of the problem is immense" and "seems to be getting worse." In fact, Hansen stated, Web predators are "a national epidemic."

The news media emphasizes the dangers of Internet predators, convicted sex offenders, pedophiles, and child abductions. Despite relatively few instances of child predation and little hard data on topics such as Internet predators, journalists invariably suggest that the problem is extensive, and fail to put their stories in context. The "Today Show," for example, ran a series of misleading and poorly designed hidden camera "tests" to see if strangers would help a child being abducted (see "Stranger Danger: ‘Shocking' TV Test Flawed").

New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald wrote a front-page article about Justin Berry, a California teen who earned money as an underage Webcam model, seduced by an online audience who paid to watch him undress. Berry's story made national news, and he appeared on Oprah and in front of a Senate committee. Berry's experience, while alarming, is essentially an anecdote. Is Berry's case unique, or does it represent just the tip of the sexual predation iceberg? Eichenwald is vague about how many other teen porn purveyors like Berry he found during his six-month investigation. Three or four? Dozens? Hundreds or thousands? Eichenwald's article states merely that "the scale of Webcam pornography is unknown," while suggesting that Berry's experience was only one of many. (Acosta, Hansen, and Eichenwald did not respond to repeated requests for clarification of their reporting.)

Sex offenders are clearly a threat and commit horrific crimes, but how great is the danger? After all, there are many dangers in the world—from lightning to Mad Cow Disease to school shootings—that are real but very rare. Are they as common—and as likely to attack the innocent—as most people believe? A close look at two widely-repeated claims about the threat posed by sex offenders reveals some surprising truths.

One in five?

According to a May 3, 2006, "ABC News" report, "One in five children is now approached by online predators."

This alarming statistic is commonly cited in news stories about prevalence of Internet predators. The claim can be traced back to a 2001 Department of Justice study issued by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ("The Youth Internet Safety Survey") that asked 1,501 American teens between 10 and 17 about their online experiences. Among the study's conclusions: "Almost one in five (19 percent)…received an unwanted sexual solicitation in the past year." (A "sexual solicitation" is defined as a "request to engage in sexual activities or sexual talk or give personal sexual information that were unwanted or, whether wanted or not, made by an adult." Using this definition, one teen asking another teen if her or she is a virgin—or got lucky with a recent date—could be considered "sexual solicitation.")

Not a single one of the reported solicitations led to any actual sexual contact or assault. Furthermore, almost half of the "sexual solicitations" came not from "predators" or adults but from other teens. When the study examined the type of Internet "solicitation" parents are most concerned about (e.g., someone who asked to meet the teen somewhere, called the teen on the telephone, or sent gifts), the number drops from "one in five" to 3 percent.

This is a far cry from a "national epidemic" of children being "approached by online predators." As the study noted, "The problem highlighted in this survey is not just adult males trolling for sex. Much of the offending behavior comes from other youth [and] from females." Furthermore, most kids just ignored (and were not upset by) the solicitation: "Most youth are not bothered much by what they encounter on the Internet…Most young people seem to know what to do to deflect these sexual ‘come ons.'" The reality is far less grave than the ubiquitous "one in five" statistic suggests.

Recidivism revisited

Much of the concern over sex offenders stems from the perception that if they have committed one sex offense, they are almost certain to commit more. This is the reason given for why sex offenders (instead of, say, murderers or armed robbers) should be monitored and separated from the public once released from prison.

The high recidivism rate among sex offenders is repeated so often that it is usually accepted as truth, but in fact recent studies show that the recidivism rates for sex offenses is not unusually high. According to a U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics study ("Recidivism of Sex Offenders Released from Prison in 1994"), just five percent of sex offenders followed for three years after their release from prison in 1994 were arrested for another sex crime. A study released in 2003 by the Bureau found that within three years, 3.3 percent of the released child molesters were arrested again for committing another sex crime against a child. Three to five percent is hardly a high repeat offender rate.

In the largest and most comprehensive study ever done of prison recidivism, the Justice Department found that sex offenders were in fact less likely to reoffend than other criminals. The 2003 study of nearly 10,000 men convicted of rape, sexual assault, and child molestation found that sex offenders had a re-arrest rate 25 percent lower than for all other criminals. Part of the reason is that serial sex offenders—those who pose the greatest threat—rarely get released from prison, and the ones who do are unlikely to re-offend.

If sex offenders are no more likely to re-offend than murderers or armed robbers, there seems little justification for the public's fear, or for the monitoring laws tracking them. (Studies also suggest that sex offenders living near schools or playgrounds are no more likely to commit a sex crime than those living elsewhere.)

Putting the threat in perspective

The issue is not whether children need to be protected; of course they do. The issues are whether the danger to them is great, and whether the measures proposed will ensure their safety. While some efforts—such as longer sentences for repeat offenders—are well-reasoned and likely to be effective, those focused on separating sex offenders from the public are of little value because they are based on a faulty premise. Simply knowing where a released sex offender lives—or is at any given moment—does not ensure that he or she won't be near potential victims.

While the abduction, rape, and killing of children by strangers is very, very rare, such incidents receive a lot of media coverage, leading the public to overestimate how common these cases are. Most sexually abused children are not victims of convicted sex offenders nor Internet pornographers, and most sex offenders do not re-offend once released. This information is rarely mentioned by journalists more interested in sounding alarms than objective analysis.

One tragic result of these myths is that the panic over sex offenders distracts the public from a far greater threat to children: parental abuse and neglect.

The vast majority of crimes against children are committed not by released sex offenders, but instead by the victim's own family, church clergy, and family friends. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, "based on what we know about those who harm children, the danger to children is greater from someone they or their family knows than from a stranger." If lawmakers and the public are serious about wanting to protect children, they should not be misled by "stranger danger" myths and instead focus on the much larger threat inside the home.

http://www.livescience.com/776-predator-panic-reality-check-sex-offenders.html

-QUOTE
 

Create an account or login to post a reply

You must be a member in order to post a reply

Create an account

Create an account here on Off Topix. It's quick & easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Welcome to Offtopix 👋, Visitor

Off Topix is a well-established general discussion forum that originally opened to the public in 2009! We provide a laid-back atmosphere, and our members are down to earth. We have a ton of content, and fresh stuff is constantly being added. We cover all sorts of topics, so there's bound to be something inside to pique your interest. We welcome anyone and everyone to register and become a member of our awesome community.

Theme customization system

You can customize some areas of the forum theme from this menu.

  • Theme customizations unavailable!

    Theme customization fields are not available to you, please contact the administrator for more information.

  • Choose the color combination that reflects your taste
    Background images
    Color gradient backgrounds
Back