Why are we criminalizing childhood independence?

[Berkut]

Some of my nieces' classmates were ramping up as early as 9, although she's had a graduated entry monitored closely by my sister.  I think by 12, if you're not totally plugged in with social media, you're treated worse than I am on Languish about voicemail.   

You mean they still bother to verbally taunt people? I mean, nasty tweets won't have much impact if she's not online to read them. 

No they still have an impact, I'm pretty sure.

If half your classmates have been sending nasty tweets about you, they'll be referencing them and snickering about them to your face when you're in school whether you read them or not. You won't even know what they're talking about, so anything you do to defend yourself will be hillarious because you'll be missing the point and the context. You'll be the hillariously ignorant outsider, perfect fodder for another round of mocking tweets for the next day.

Dear God! We need to ban the Internets!

No, we just need to not tolerate bullying.

Lucky for us, modern non-cro-magnon schools have in fact recognized this and the culture has shifted so that there isn't much tolerance for the kind of things you seem to be such a fan of, like tormenting kids for being "different" in a fashion you don't approve of...

[Jacob]

So I see.

Up to you how to raise your own kids obviously, but I think it's probably worthwhile to try to understand the role social media plays for today's kids. As you say, at some point not having access will make you "a total weirdo," so completely avoiding it is probably a pretty stark scenario for the kid.

At the same time, it's pretty clear that the social dynamics of bullying can play themselves out pretty well via social media, and not just for kids. Online harassment is a thing, obviously.

For my part, my kid's young enough that I don't have to worry about it for a while. In fact, I expect the technology will be different by the time he's old enough for it to matter; but I also expect that bullying - by which I mean systematic cruelty endorsed or at least ignored by the social group - is going to manifest itself one way or the other.

[CountDeMoney]

So I see.

What's your copy of The Modern Parents' Handbook of Amish 19th Century Child Rearing say, d?

[mongers]

.....

Parents should teach their children to have empathy and respect for others, and not physically or mentally abuse them in an effort to obtain the social acceptance they fear they cannot achieve on their own.

It is a crazy thought, I know.

I'm not sure that'll work too well, given I think the wider society helps shapes parents and their conduct; you have to be mean, competitive and kick the other guy when he's down to succeed?

[derspiess]

Up to you how to raise your own kids obviously, but I think it's probably worthwhile to try to understand the role social media plays for today's kids. As you say, at some point not having access will make you "a total weirdo," so completely avoiding it is probably a pretty stark scenario for the kid.

No shit.  That's why I'm listening to you ladies prattle on about it.  Taking mental notes and all that.

At the same time, it's pretty clear that the social dynamics of bullying can play themselves out pretty well via social media, and not just for kids. Online harassment is a thing, obviously.

I guess.

For my part, my kid's young enough that I don't have to worry about it for a while. In fact, I expect the technology will be different by the time he's old enough for it to matter; but I also expect that bullying - by which I mean systematic cruelty endorsed or at least ignored by the social group - is going to manifest itself one way or the other.

To think, back in my day you had to use a shitty dial-up modem on your C-64 to connect to a BBS to post mean messages about people's clothes or hair or weight.  Maybe in a few years you can just think it and it pops up on some holographic screen in front of them.

[derspiess]

So I see.

What's your copy of The Modern Parents' Handbook of Amish 19th Century Child Rearing say, d?

"Go to church."

[crazy canuck]

Wouldn't parents be privy to that?  Or are you saying kids are told about practice times & whatnot and parents are not?

Yeah, happens all the time.

I am beginning to think the disconnect is your kids are not old enough yet for you to know how much of the communication they will have will be over social media.  And really who knows what kind of social media once they get to that age.

The point is shutting out of what has been become essential is no solution at all.

[derspiess]

The point is shutting out of what has been become essential is no solution at all.

Working fine so far

[MadImmortalMan]

The worst thing that ever happened to modern society is the erosion of the concept of acceptable losses.

Actually, I agree with this. A risk-free society would be hell on earth.

[Maximus]

So I see.

What's your copy of The Modern Parents' Handbook of Amish 19th Century Child Rearing say, d?

"Go to church."

And we all know how bullying isn't a problem in 19th century Amish churches.

[Ideologue]

I've heard about her before. It's very sad but the answer is not to lock kids up in their homes.

Who suggested that is the answer?

This comes back to the same point as was made earlier in this thread (before it went to bullying). People no longer understand the concept of understandable losses. You can't build your rules to provide everybody with 100% protection.

How many kids like that are there? One in 10,000? One in a million?

All I said was I didn't care if a kid got hit by a car every now and again.

I don't think you understand what ostracism can do to people, especially young people.  And yeah, tons of young people committed suicide before Facebook.  It's never really been an epidemic, but they're more susceptible to it--partly because their brains are still mushy, but also because unlike an adult they lack the option to walk away from a negative situation.

[CountDeMoney]

I let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone. I got labeled the 'world's worst mom.'
I founded the "Free Range Kids" movement to get parents to let their kids go. It's great for children, but society hasn't gotten the memo.
By Lenore Skenazy

Lenore Skenazy is host of the reality show "World's Worst Mom" on the Discovery Life Channel. She is also a blogger at Free Range Kids and Reason.


Two Maryland parents stand accused of doing the unthinkable: They trusted their kids, 10 and 6, to walk home from the park. The children got about halfway there when someone saw them and called the cops.

For this, parents Danielle and Alexander Meitiv have been visited by the police and child protective services. Their kids were interviewed at school, without their consent. CPS even threatened to take their children away.

All because we are having a hysterical moment in American society. We believe children are in danger every single second they are unsupervised.

I learned this firsthand six years ago, when I let my 9-year-old ride the subway alone (we live in New York). I wrote a column about it. Two days later I found myself decried as "America's worst mom" on the "Today" show, MSNBC, Fox News and NPR.

That weekend I started my Free-Range Kids blog to explain my philosophy. Obviously, I love safety: My kid wears a helmet, got strapped into a car seats, always wears his seat belt. But I don't believe kids need a security detail every time they leave the house. When society thinks they do — and turns that fear into law — loving, rational parents get arrested.

Six years of daily letters from readers later,  I know my work is only too necessary. Consider these examples:

Over the summer, a South Carolina mom who sent her 9-year-old to play in a popular park was arrested for not supervising her child. She was held overnight in jail, and her daughter spent 17 days as a ward of the state.

In the fall, an Austin, Tex., mom who let her 6-year-old play outside within view of the house was also visited by the cops and then child protective services. CPS interviewed her kids individually and even asked her 8-year-old daughter "if she had ever seen movies with people's private parts," the mom told me. "So my daughter, who didn't know that things like that exist, does now. Thank you, CPS."

Just this week, I got an e-mail from a mom in Maryland. She'd left her 10-year-old in the car, watching her 1-year-old, while she — the mom — ran into the grocery. Someone called the cops.

"I told him my daughter is responsible enough to watch her sleeping sister for 10 minutes, that I've never done it in the past but needed to get a few items, and [that] I didn't want to wake her sister for that short a period of time," she said. "He told me that a murderer that has never murdered anyone in the past doesn't make him less of a murderer."

Look at that language. Murder. As if the mom had intentionally endangered her child's life.

The authorities act as if these children are "lucky" they made it out alive. But the facts don't bear that out. Childhood abduction is exceedingly rare. As of 1999, the latest year for which we have statistics, the number of American children abducted in what's known as a "stereotypical kidnapping"  was 115, according to the Department of Justice. Of those, 40 percent, or about 50, were killed in a country of 72 million children under age 18.

Sadly, children are in far more danger of being abused, kidnapped or killed by their parents than by any stranger on the street.

That's why, when I interviewed Ernie Allen, then head of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, for my book, he told me, "We have been trying to debunk the myth of stranger danger." He added that the safest kids are the ones with self-confidence.

Consider that word. It isn't "parent-assisted-confidence." To become street smart and self-reliant requires spending some time doing things on your own. Like walking home from the park, once your parents let you.

On my television show "World's Worst Mom," I try to help parents do just that. I take parents who are too afraid to let their kids play on the front lawn, or go to a public bathroom by themselves (at age 13!) and make them let go. Then I whisk the kids off to play in the woods or walk to the park.

When they come tumbling back, happy and hungry, the parents do something surprising: They grin. They're so proud!

So, that is my prescription now for America, including — especially! — its cops and case workers: Instead of imagining the worst, send your kids out to do something you did at their age. You can even have them wait in the car a few minutes.

Reality will break through the terror. And maybe we'll stop criminalizing the parents who love their kids and also let them go.

[jimmy olsen]

I hope they win, but I'm not optomistic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/free-range-parents-plan-to-file-lawsuit-after-police-pick-up-children/2015/04/14/ed4f7658-e2b7-11e4-b510-962fcfabc310_story.html

'Free-range' parents plan to file lawsuit after police pick up children

By Donna St. George and Brigid Schulte April 14 

A D.C-based law firm will file suit and pursue "all legal remedies" to protect the rights of the Maryland parents whose two young children were taken into custody for more than five hours Sunday after someone reported them as they made their way home unsupervised from a Silver Spring park, the firm said Tuesday.

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv were "rightfully outraged by the irresponsible actions" of Maryland Child Protective Services and Montgomery County police, said attorney Matthew Dowd, of the firm Wiley Rein, in a written statement.

"We must ask ourselves how we reached the point where a parent's biggest fear is that government officials will literally seize our children off the streets as they walk in our neighborhoods," he said.

Dowd was not immediately available for comment Tuesday, but said through a spokeswoman that the firm would file the legal action "soon." He declined to say through the spokeswoman who the suit is being filed against. The firm is representing the family pro bono.

The Meitivs' children were picked up by police as they walked home from Ellsworth Park at 5 p.m. Sunday. Their parents had expected them home by 6 p.m. and Danielle Meitiv said they frantically searched for Rafi, 10, and Dvora, 6, before being notified at 8 p.m. that CPS had the children.

The statement issued Tuesday said the children were three blocks from their house when they were stopped by officers in three squad cars and "subjected to a terrifying detainment that no child should have to experience."

"Shockingly, the Meitiv children experienced this maltreatment at the hands of the very government officials who are entrusted to uphold the law and ensure that children in need are taken care of," it said.

The Meitivs are believers in a "free range" style of parenting, which holds that children learn to be self-reliant by progressively testing limits and being allowed to roam the world without hovering adults.

The statement alleged that the pair were detained in a police car for almost three hours, kept from their parents for over six hours without access to food, and "not returned to the parents until almost midnight on the night before school."

In an interview with The Washington Post, Danielle Meitiv said that her son told her the children were misled into believing police would take them home. Police had all the Meitivs' contact information and did not call the parents, or allow the children to call their parents, the statement alleges.

Danielle Meitiv said that she and her husband arrived at a CPS crisis center at 8:30 p.m. and were allowed to see their children at 10:30 p.m. and take them home. Meitiv said the family had to sign papers saying the children would not be unattended while CPS followed up on the case.

Montgomery County police said Monday that a call came in to check on the children's welfare shortly before 5 p.m. and that an officer found the children in a parking garage. Police said an officer saw a "homeless subject" who was "eyeing the children."

Police said the officer notified CPS, as is required in circumstances involving possible child abuse or neglect. After a series of calls, police say the children were left at CPS at 7:43 p.m. Police said the officer followed the direction of CPS in the matter.

CPS officials would not answer direct questions Monday, but issued a statement saying that "protecting children is the agency's number one priority. We are required to follow up on all calls to Child Protective Services and will continue to work in the best interest of all children."

The Sunday episode followed an earlier incident when the Meitiv children were picked up by police as they walked home from a different Silver Spring park, about a mile from their home. In both instances, callers reported the children to police.

In the earlier case, the parents were held responsible for "unsubstantiated neglect" and informed that CPS would keep a file on the family for at least five years.

[jimmy olsen]

Common sense prevails?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/state-seeks-to-clarify-views-about-young-children-walking-alone/2015/06/11/423ce72c-0b99-11e5-95fd-d580f1c5d44e_story.html

Md. officials: Letting 'free range' kids walk or play alone is not neglect

By Donna St. George June 11

Maryland officials have taken steps to clarify their views about children playing or walking alone outdoors in a new policy directive that says Child Protective Services should not be involved in such cases unless children have been harmed or face a substantial risk of harm.

The directive, part of a public statement to be issued Friday, follows a nationally debated case involving "free range" parents Danielle and Alexander Meitiv, who let their young children walk home alone from parks in Montgomery County.

The Meitivs say they have gradually allowed their son, Rafi, 10, and daughter, Dvora, 6, more freedom to walk on their own in areas they know. But police twice picked up the siblings as they made their way home in Silver Spring, and CPS neglect investigations ensued.

The Meitivs were cleared on appeal last month in one neglect case. They are awaiting a decision in the other, they say.

State officials did not comment Thursday on the Meitivs' experiences, saying such matters are confidential by law. But they stressed that they have no interest in trumping the individual choices parents make.

"We are not getting into the business of opining on parenting practices or child-rearing philosophies," said Katherine Morris, spokeswoman for the Maryland Department of Human Resources. "We don't view that as our role. We see our role as responding when a child is harmed or at a significant risk of harm. It's all about child safety."

The statement echoes that thought, saying the state agency is "mindful that every family applies its members' personal upbringing, life experiences and expectations to parenting, and it is not the department's role to pick and choose among child-rearing philosophies and practices."

Morris said the updated directive, which focuses on CPS screening practices, does not reflect a new position. It instead comes from a regular agency review process as "additional clarification" to the public and local departments of social services, she said. It aims to ensure consistency and alignment with laws and regulations.

The document replaces a similar one issued last year and includes new sections on unattended and unsupervised children.

Touching on an issue central to the Meitiv case, it says: "Children playing outside or walking unsupervised does not meet the criteria for a CPS response absent specific information supporting the conclusion that the child has been harmed or is at substantial risk of harm if they continue to be unsupervised."

The document lists factors that CPS considers, including the nature of any injury, any parental actions taken to manage risks, a child's age, and the period of time and setting involved.

Danielle Meitiv said Thursday that the state's move could be a positive development but that it does not go far enough.

"I'm glad they're clarifying it, but it still doesn't give reassurance to parents that their desire to give their children freedom will be respected," she said.

The state directive comes two months after the Meitivs' last involvement with CPS, on April 12, when CPS and police held the Meitiv children for more than five hours. The family has said it intends to file a lawsuit.

Matthew Dowd, the family's attorney, said the state's updated policy "validates our position all along that there was never any neglect or potential neglect with the Meitiv children."

Dowd said that although the directive could provide CPS workers with guidance, it remains short on detail. It lists factors that CPS would consider, for example, with "no insight as to how CPS will apply those factors," he said.

"I think it's written so broadly it will depend on how CPS implements this policy moving forward," he said. "It doesn't give you any guidance where they will draw the line in the future."

Morris, the state DHR spokeswoman, said each potential neglect scenario is unique and CPS staff are trained to go through an extensive interview process. "I don't think communities would want us to do a one-size-fits-all approach to assess whether a situation requires CPS to respond," she said.

The new directive also addresses a state law on unattended children that says children younger than 8 in a building, enclosure or vehicle must be with a responsible person who is at least 13.

When the Meitiv case came to light, county CPS officials said they could look to that state law for guidance during investigations. But many who have followed the case have questioned whether the law applies because it does not mention children outdoors.

The new policy directive says the law was originally written as part of a fire code.

"The statute does not apply to children left unattended outdoors," it says.

Dowd said CPS told the Meitivs the law did apply to their circumstances. The position that it does not apply is "long overdue," he said, and "doesn't undo the harm already caused by CPS's improper investigations and detainments."

Morris said she could not say whether such an assertion was made and declined to comment.

[Valmy]

So glad. CPS in Texas has historically made it its job to be as hostile and adversarial as possible with child care providers of all varieties. To them you are a monster just for daring to care for children. It is good to see a little push back from the 'all adults are demons' mentality that dominates these bureaucracies.