4 ms·

So I expect there will be a lot of "when I was a kid we did this all the time" type stuff in te replies here. Before jumping on that bandwagon (I took lots of w

So I expect there will be a lot of "when I was a kid we did this all the time" type stuff in te replies here. Before jumping on that bandwagon (I took lots of walks like this in a city far less friendly in some ways), let me say that I think at least the question deserves to be asked. Then again, the way this happened, the parents seem to have no recourse. They are "found" to be neglecting, yet there is no actual trial. Perhaps they should sue the state over libel, and settle this once and for all. I am sure if they win they could claim quite a bit of damage to their character not to mention inconvenience of having the nation watch their personal decisions. Best of all, that would create a precedent which can then be referenced. As is, this is just an administrative record. Also, if this is neglect, then what is withholding vaccines for deadly diseases from your child? What actually puts you in more danger?

robotresearcher 12y ago
They were not found to be neglecting. The finding was that the allegation of neglect was unsubstantiated. That's totally different. The parents quite understandably wanted to be absolved. It's a shame they weren't. But they were not found guilty of anything.
- IgorPartola 12y ago
  I see. I misread the article. Thanks for the clarification.
  - bmelton 12y ago
    Honestly, it's debatable whether or not you did misread it. The way it reads, they weren't found innocent of child neglect, they were found to be held responsible for the unsubstantiated child negligence charges. Their names will be placed in a file, and if the cops responsible pick up the kids again for equally unsubstantiated claims, it will trigger a more thorough investigation. At present, for the next five years, they're on the CPS equivalent of "probation".
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- zaroth 12y ago
  There are 3 possible outcomes. Definitely not neglect, could be neglect but not convincingly substantiated, or definitely neglect. The only right answer is that this is definitely not neglect, and CPS failed the test. This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, because there is no trial. It is an administrative finding, and they screwed up badly on it.
logn 12y ago
> Also, if this is neglect, then what is withholding vaccines If you take the stance that children are inherently property of the state, then withholding vaccines is neglect too. > What actually puts you in more danger? In Maryland, letting your kids walk alone is far more dangerous. Armed men and bureaucrats have been kidnapping them.

robotresearcher 12y ago

They were not found to be neglecting. The finding was that the allegation of neglect was unsubstantiated. That's totally different. The parents quite understandably wanted to be absolved. It's a shame they weren't. But they were not found guilty of anything.

IgorPartola 12y ago
I see. I misread the article. Thanks for the clarification.
- bmelton 12y ago
  Honestly, it's debatable whether or not you did misread it. The way it reads, they weren't found innocent of child neglect, they were found to be held responsible for the unsubstantiated child negligence charges. Their names will be placed in a file, and if the cops responsible pick up the kids again for equally unsubstantiated claims, it will trigger a more thorough investigation. At present, for the next five years, they're on the CPS equivalent of "probation".
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
zaroth 12y ago
There are 3 possible outcomes. Definitely not neglect, could be neglect but not convincingly substantiated, or definitely neglect. The only right answer is that this is definitely not neglect, and CPS failed the test. This has nothing to do with guilt or innocence, because there is no trial. It is an administrative finding, and they screwed up badly on it.

logn 12y ago

> Also, if this is neglect, then what is withholding vaccines If you take the stance that children are inherently property of the state, then withholding vaccines is neglect too. > What actually puts you in more danger? In Maryland, letting your kids walk alone is far more dangerous. Armed men and bureaucrats have been kidnapping them.