3 ms·

Right, well when I lived in Zurich children all walked to school without adults. The problem here in the USA is most of our built environment is completely uns

Right, well when I lived in Zurich children all walked to school without adults. The problem here in the USA is most of our built environment is completely unsuitable for walking or bicycling, even by adults, so adults with life-long windshield perspectives are understandably ignorant of walking.

zaroth 12y ago
The problem here is not the condition of the sidewalk. IMO the problem is too much immunity on the part of the CPS agents. Threatening to abduct a child from their parents in this situation, if they don't sign some absurd contract to not let their children walk outside, should open them up to a lawsuit that should most certainly win, and the agent making the threat should lose their job. Instead, in the current legal environment the lawsuit would be dismissed and the CPS agent is praised for doing a good job!
- zaroth 12y ago
  There are two ways an agency can react when presented with a case like this. On the one hand, by interpreting the law absurdly broadly, you expand your own authority until some check-and-balance comes along and pushes you back in line, which could very well be never. On the other hand, the more you push the boundaries, the less you can focus on where the real problems are. An agency which can't evaluate a situation like this, and in an hour walk away with a 'Have a nice day,' is a broken agency. The bar must be higher than this. Kids are incredibly safe in these neighborhoods, and the more kids that are out, the safer it gets. We need to be encouraging this behavior, not apply some seriously chilling effect. What can be more chilling than the threat of taking away the kids?! The idea that this could reach to that level is I think the worst part of the whole ordeal. This is so far removed from 'we need to get the kids out of here' it is absolutely ridiculous that could even come up. But I think, again, it's about the state trying to maintain 'easy access' to their biggest weapon, so they can use it easily when they need to. I think what there needs to be is a bright line test which assures parents their kids are not at immanent risk of being seized by the fucking state. For this, I think the answer is simple, you cannot ever remove children, you can merely arrest the parents. If you can't legally arrest the parents, then you shouldn't be taking the kids. I can't even imagine how traumatic that must be. I mean... if I was actually working at an agency like this, if I got a call about those kids walking on their own with multiple residents calling the police, the reasonable thing to do is first establish the parents knew where the kids were, and then second ask a few basic questions of the kids, and see if the eldest knows the right answers. It's really no different than if you encounter a park ranger, some of the questions they might ask you to ensure you are safe. We/They are there for your protection. So it's hugely concerning for such a simple case to get this out of hand.
- spiritplumber 12y ago
  In my family it would result in them having to repeat the threat in front of the child, and having to listen to the child being given the "stranger danger" lecture with them as Exhibit A. Then depending on whether they physically touched the kid or not, they could be allowed to go home with or without a quick beating. What we've been having to teach to kids lately has been, is this person a friend of the family? okay. is this person not a friend of the family? not okay. is this person claiming to be from a school, government, anything like that? ignore that, see the two rules above. (And yes if you look at our family picture, it looks like a Sopranos wrap-up party)

zaroth 12y ago

The problem here is not the condition of the sidewalk. IMO the problem is too much immunity on the part of the CPS agents. Threatening to abduct a child from their parents in this situation, if they don't sign some absurd contract to not let their children walk outside, should open them up to a lawsuit that should most certainly win, and the agent making the threat should lose their job. Instead, in the current legal environment the lawsuit would be dismissed and the CPS agent is praised for doing a good job!

zaroth 12y ago
There are two ways an agency can react when presented with a case like this. On the one hand, by interpreting the law absurdly broadly, you expand your own authority until some check-and-balance comes along and pushes you back in line, which could very well be never. On the other hand, the more you push the boundaries, the less you can focus on where the real problems are. An agency which can't evaluate a situation like this, and in an hour walk away with a 'Have a nice day,' is a broken agency. The bar must be higher than this. Kids are incredibly safe in these neighborhoods, and the more kids that are out, the safer it gets. We need to be encouraging this behavior, not apply some seriously chilling effect. What can be more chilling than the threat of taking away the kids?! The idea that this could reach to that level is I think the worst part of the whole ordeal. This is so far removed from 'we need to get the kids out of here' it is absolutely ridiculous that could even come up. But I think, again, it's about the state trying to maintain 'easy access' to their biggest weapon, so they can use it easily when they need to. I think what there needs to be is a bright line test which assures parents their kids are not at immanent risk of being seized by the fucking state. For this, I think the answer is simple, you cannot ever remove children, you can merely arrest the parents. If you can't legally arrest the parents, then you shouldn't be taking the kids. I can't even imagine how traumatic that must be. I mean... if I was actually working at an agency like this, if I got a call about those kids walking on their own with multiple residents calling the police, the reasonable thing to do is first establish the parents knew where the kids were, and then second ask a few basic questions of the kids, and see if the eldest knows the right answers. It's really no different than if you encounter a park ranger, some of the questions they might ask you to ensure you are safe. We/They are there for your protection. So it's hugely concerning for such a simple case to get this out of hand.
spiritplumber 12y ago
In my family it would result in them having to repeat the threat in front of the child, and having to listen to the child being given the "stranger danger" lecture with them as Exhibit A. Then depending on whether they physically touched the kid or not, they could be allowed to go home with or without a quick beating. What we've been having to teach to kids lately has been, is this person a friend of the family? okay. is this person not a friend of the family? not okay. is this person claiming to be from a school, government, anything like that? ignore that, see the two rules above. (And yes if you look at our family picture, it looks like a Sopranos wrap-up party)