Free-range Parenting vs. the Nanny State

 

Image source: CNN

Danielle and Alexander Meitiv want to teach their kids self-reliance and responsibility the same way parents have for millennia. By giving them a little space.

Their kids, ages 6 and 10, are regularly allowed to walk to and from a nearby park without mommy and daddy there to hand them fresh juice boxes, smother them in hand sanitizer, and re-adjust their safety helmets every five minutes. You know, the same way we were all raised.

But this won’t do in Silver Spring, Md. A “concerned citizen” witnessed the shocking sight of two children strolling through a neighborhood and called the police. The cops drove the kids home and notified Child Protective Services of what would have been called “parenting” in every generation but our own. That was four months ago but the local government upped the ante Sunday.

Once again, a neighborhood busybody called 911 because kids were caught walking without a permit. The police swung by, but instead of bringing the kids home, they turned them over to CPS. The parents weren’t able to bring their kids home until 10:30 that night and only then after they signed “a temporary safety plan saying their children would be supervised at all times until a follow-up visit.”

“This morning my daughter wanted to go play in the yard and I couldn’t let her out because I was making breakfast,” Danielle Meitiv said. “Are they prisoners? She’s 6 and she’s not allowed to play in the yard?”

“It’s beyond ridiculous,” Danielle Meitiv said Monday. “The world is safer today, and yet we imprison our children inside and wonder why they’re obese and have no focus.”

The Meitivs were notified in a February letter that they had been found responsible for “unsubstantiated neglect,” a ruling that’s made when there’s some information supporting child neglect, seemingly credible reports disagree or there isn’t enough information for a conclusion.

Capt. Paul Stark, a spokesman for the Montgomery County Police Department, said the agency and Child Protective Services are conducting a joint investigation of the Meitivs. Once that is finished, a decision will be made about whether any charges will be filed against the couple, he said.

“Child Protective Services has succeeded in making me terrified of letting my children out,” she said. “Nothing that has happened so far has convinced me that children don’t need independence and freedom, except that they’ll be harassed by police and CPS.”

I think these parents should be given a medal, not a citation. What say you, Ricochetti?

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 101 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. iWc Coolidge
    iWc
    @iWe

    I have many kids, some in that range. They walk around a lot, and my neighborhood is much tougher than Silver Spring. The risk is not, really, abduction. The risk is being mugged, and my kids are taught how to avoid getting into those situations.

    • #91
  2. Grendel Member
    Grendel
    @Grendel

    Arizona Patriot:I’m with Tommy on this one. Norms have changed, as have our views on safety….

    I have 2 girls, ages 5 and 10, and I would not leave them unsupervised at a public park. Never in a million years.

    I was raised the way you were, in Montgomery Co., MD, as it happens.

    You offer the quoted comments as though they were objective facts.  Actually, they are completely subjective, and probably hard to justify rationally.

    • #92
  3. Annefy Member
    Annefy
    @Annefy

    Ryan: sorry. Am on my iPad so I can’t quote.

    One sister got the knock on the door after one son broke his leg after being hit by a car and three weeks later her daughter broke an arm doing a cartwheel. Apparently two “traumas” flags a family. My best friend got a visit after being reported by a shopkeeper as her toddler had a bruise on his forehead. One flag, one phone call, andsomeone was at their door.

    I’m not necessarily complaining that they got visits. I’m complaining because it’s not unusual for me to read stories about children being found living in deplorable conditions and there having been multiple reports to CPS. The family related to the young disabled man abandoned by his mother in the woods had been fighting for custody.

    • #93
  4. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @GrannyDude

    Good conversation. And Tommy—you’re right. It depends a lot on the individual kids, the neighborhood and, if I may say so, the circumstances of the parents. Had I not been widowed, the kids probably would’ve gotten a lot more attention and supervision than they did because there would have been two of us around to provide it.

    Having said that, two notes;
    1.) Bad things happened to kids when we were young. I was sexually abused by a neighbor/employee, a friend of mine was raped by a man who snatched him from unsupervised play in a park, kids got run over by cars (remember the bouncing-ball signs?) another playmate’s older brother was killed falling out of his treehouse.

    2.) I do think that in the 1980s, horror stories made us particularly fearful of sexual abuse and the very sad part about that is that ordinary adults (especially men) are, or feel, proscribed from interacting with children except under very formal, supervised conditions. This deprives kids of the adult relationships necessary for their development, and speaking as the mother of fatherless children, discourages men from undertaking the informal, substitute “fathering” that my kids desperately wanted and craved.

    The above “stranger danger” stuff also discourages people (again, especially men) from feeling they have the right and duty to intervene when they see children who might need help. The woman who stopped her car and told my boy to take his frost bidden fingers home quick was being part of that “village” that Hillary used to tell us was so necessary for rearing a child. HRC was right—it does take a village, but an actual village, one full of interested neighbors. Otherwise the CPS, police and other professionals become the first line of defense rather than the last.

    BTW—I just talked to a grandmother from church who volunteers at the elementary school helping little kids learn to read. She tells me she isn’t allowed to touch the children. At all. Even though the most natural way to let a child read to you is to sit beside that child, or even have the child on your lap, she isn’t allowed to do this. They have to sit at a table, no touching. When one of the kids asks to sit on her lap, or leans against her, she has to discourage the kid. If he or she asks why, she’s supposed to say “because it isn’t safe.”

    • #94
  5. She Member
    She
    @She

    Spin:@Tommy –

    . . .

    I am. You and I don’t know the situation, and we don’t need to. Parents should be free to make parenting choices based on their own views and values. As you said, it’s none of our business. Is there risk that those kids might be taken? Not really. Busy body neighbor has an eye on them!

    I think, Busy Body Neighbor often had an eye on the kids in the bad old days too.

    And in the main, that was a very good thing.

    The difference is that  BBN (who was usually a stay-at-home-mom, with kids of her own, in the days when that was the norm) was an extension of the parents and her relationship to the kids was authoritative.  She didn’t need to call child services or the police if she saw the kids playing peacefully in the park where she was walking the baby.  And if the little turds were throwing stones at the dog or running out into the middle of the road after the ball, she didn’t need to call the authorities then, either–she could wade in and take care of it herself, safe in the assurance that society and the parents would back her up.

    Try that now, and lawsuits against, and arrests of Mrs Busybody are the more likely outcome–for bullying, threatening, interfering, aggressing, terrorizing, and worse.

    But back in the days when the vast majority of people were on the same page as to what was acceptable and what wasn’t, and what kids could do and what they couldn’t, people could be pretty sure that their values (note: not their race, their ethnicity, their religion, or their politics; rather, their values)  would be quite similar to those of the parents, and they would know what should be done, or even if anything should be done.

    In a perverse sort of way, the ‘it takes a village’ analogy worked rather well in bygone days.

    Now, there’s only Big Brother.

    • #95
  6. Tommy De Seno Member
    Tommy De Seno
    @TommyDeSeno

    Spin:Tommy,

    That’s a fine statement to make, but can that not be used to justify nearly every action of the state? Getting back to the specifics, as we know them, were the kids put in harm’s way? Were they abused in any way? By your logic, I suppose when my kids ride their bikes without a helmet, the state ought to come have a talk with me, right? We can all agree to an objective standard: kids are safer on their bikes when they wear a helmet. The child is inherently less safe if they ride without one. Is that justification for CPS to involve themselves? I think not. This thinking is exactly the thinking of your average grass roots liberal. Since something bad might happen, we ought force everyone to take measure to ensure it doesn’t.

    I know you aren’t a liberal, Tommy, but in this case you sound like one.

    Ouch!!  That hurt.

    Look – I know on all community standards you are going to be on a slippery slope, but you can’t have none when it comes to parenting.  The scale has to slide sometimes.

    Are you telling me you have 100% deference to all parenting decisions?  I know you don’t.

    If some parents decided to vacation for a week and leave a 3 and 2 year old at home with plenty to eat, you’d probably think an intervention was needed there.

    • #96
  7. Tuck Inactive
    Tuck
    @Tuck

    Tommy De Seno:

    If some parents decided to vacation for a week and leave a 3 and 2 year old at home with plenty to eat, you’d probably think an intervention was needed there.

    A nice post on the legal issues below.  I don’t think the parents should sue, they should file kidnapping charges, as that’s what happened:

    “…Forcibly detaining elementary school-aged kids for walking by themselves in a safe, middle-class neighborhood doesn’t even come close to meeting the necessary standard. Statistically, such walking is extremely safe, and probably less dangerous than police officers’ actions in forcibly detaining the children and driving them to a CPS office. According to the Center for Disease Control, car accidents are the leading cause of death among small children; riding in a car as a passenger is far more dangerous for kids than walking in most neighborhoods. Far from “protecting” the two children, the police and the CPS probably put them at greater risk than they were exposed to before (though the risk was still very low in an absolute sense). The Meitivs’ parenting practices are also much safer than numerous typical childhood activities, such as participating in contact sports like basketball and hockey, or going downhill skiing. If the CPS can force parents to stop letting their children walk home from the park, it can similarly target every other comparably risky activity, including numerous sports, and even driving the children in a car.

    “The bottom line is that the CPS’ actions here seem to be the result of exactly the kind of “mere disagreement” with parental choices that the Supreme Court specifically barred as a basis for overriding parents’ constitutional right to direct their children’s upbringing….”

    • #97
  8. Super Nurse Inactive
    Super Nurse
    @SuperNurse

    Stad:

    Here is where I get mixed emotions: these days, people are willing to snatch unescorted kids right of the street. Granted, it’s not every day, and thankfully rare, but the fear of something like that happening to my kids makes me wonder if the parents in the story really know what’s going on. Again, mixed emotions, but one thing is for sure: the parents don’t need the weight of the government bearing down on them, passing judgment. Given the track record of many state agencies, even somewhat negligent parents are better caregivers . . .

    Statistics do not support this assertion. In fact, stranger kidnappings have plummeted since the 1970’s. They live in our popular imagination, but really aren’t a reason to parent differently. In fact, the reduction would be a reason to be more lax, not less.

    • #98
  9. Super Nurse Inactive
    Super Nurse
    @SuperNurse

    Spin:@Tommy –

    You seem to be suggesting that you would come down on the side of the parents if the situation meets with your approval. If the situation doesn’t, and you yourself wouldn’t allow your own children to walk to the park unescorted, then you’d come down on the side of intervention.

    Here’s my problem with that: we all are conservative until we find a cause we think rises above political ideology. Who’s going to argue with you and say that no, my conservative principals are more important than protecting those kids from being kidnapped?

    I am. You and I don’t know the situation, and we don’t need to. Parents should be free to make parenting choices based on their own views and values. As you said, it’s none of our business. Is there risk that those kids might be taken? Not really. Busy body neighbor has an eye on them!

    Yup. Sadly, this is an issue that has bipartisan consensus on the side of illiberal nanny state interventions, I read 85% somewhere. I have a 2 year old, and plan on some sort of free ranging, but my sister has a 15 and 9 year old and won’t let either of them stay at home alone. Seriously. I think I was watching her when I was 10.  It’s insanity. The level of angst and intervention is nowhere near the risk.

    • #99
  10. Super Nurse Inactive
    Super Nurse
    @SuperNurse

    Tommy De Seno:

    DrewInWisconsin:

    What utility is on the other side? Independence can only be learned on the streets at 6 years old? There is no way to teach lessons in a manner that doesn’t risk them as bait?

    Why a lone 6 year old? Why choose such an extreme example? Perhaps you’d like to clarify that this 6 year old is walking home form the park in the ghetto at night. *cough* straw man *cough* In Illinois, i think the legal age your child may stay home alone is either 12 or 14, both ridiculous. We’ve lost our collective minds. Even if you choose to parent in your own way, what right do you have to make a determination for my child?

    • #100
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Super Nurse: I have a 2 year old, and plan on some sort of free ranging, but my sister has a 15 and 9 year old and won’t let either of them stay at home alone. Seriously. I think I was watching her when I was 10. It’s insanity. The level of angst and intervention is nowhere near the risk.

    I was watching my brother and sister when I was 13 years old, and babysitting other people’s kids when I was 15.  Not giving the child any responsibility at all is going to have a big effect later on.

    • #101
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.