“Unfounded,” you say? I have a different perspective on that. Assertions that children are more at risk today than they were two decades ago? Unfounded. Claims that kids face life-threatening dangers without constant adult supervision? Unfounded. The idea that a predator will strike any child left alone for even the briefest moment? Unfounded.
What is NOT unfounded? The conscientious and involved parenting of Mark and Julia Smith, the Maryland couple who allowed their 10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter to walk home from a park without adult supervision, much to the dismay of anxious officials and armchair critics everywhere.
Brace yourself for this shocking truth: when state laws grant parents the authority to make decisions (Maryland law only addresses children left at home or in vehicles, not those outside), it means—hold onto your hats—it is THE PARENTS’ DECISION. It’s not yours, passerby. It’s not yours, online critic. Who knows those kids best? THEIR PARENTS. Who understands their family dynamic best? THE FAMILY. And what does the law state? MIND YOUR BUSINESS. The only judgment you need to make, stranger, is whether you feel comfortable approaching an unfamiliar child and questioning her. If she requests help, certainly assist her. If she appears safe and self-sufficient, how about refraining from calling the authorities? Trust your instincts. That’s the discretion you can exercise.
Now, taking a deep breath… yes, there are exceptions. Some family situations are undeniably unacceptable for the children involved. There are indeed parents who neglect their kids. Instances of abuse and true neglect do exist and require investigation. Law enforcement and Child Protective Services walk a delicate line between safeguarding children and instilling fear in families. One would expect the distinction between what constitutes harm and what does not would be clear-cut. Yet, we are discovering that many so-called “well-meaning” strangers instigating investigations against ordinary families reveal that this line is more blurred than ever.
In this particular case, the allegations against the parents were thoroughly examined. The children and the parents were interviewed. It became evident that the kids were not just released into the wild with no guidance. The family’s approach is focused on teaching independence, fostering freedom, and allowing the children to practice these lessons. This is what law enforcement and Child Protective Services were informed of. The parents exercised their legal right to assess their children’s maturity, and then that discretion was undermined.
As a swarm of bureaucrats and online commentators zero in on these so-called “neglect” cases, allow me to say: if you disagree with a family’s choices, that’s perfectly fine. However, you shouldn’t vilify them for having a different parenting philosophy than your own. If they were breaking laws, if they were endangering their children, or if true neglect were evident, then by all means, take action.
Nonetheless, condemning a clearly loving and thoughtful family for “unfounded” neglect is both cowardly and unjust. If you in Child Protective Services believe these children were neglected, then have the courage to state it. If not, then leave this family alone. Tainting their record to shield yourself behind ambiguous paperwork is cruel. If Maryland’s laws classify allowing children to walk unattended as neglect of ANY kind, then change the law. Leaving families in prolonged uncertainty due to vague interpretations of protective laws is, in the words of my 12-year-old (who recently faced an unwarranted CPS inquiry), “not cool.”
The unattended children laws in several states aim to give parents the benefit of the doubt. They were designed to keep the law out of our private lives. However, we are learning that a law meant to protect parents instead grants strangers the first opportunity to judge. Then come the police. Then Child Protective Services.
In the Smith family’s case, the only truly unfounded aspect of their situation is the efficacy of Maryland’s Unattended Children’s Law. This is unfortunate because some children genuinely need safeguarding, but not necessarily from parenting styles that differ from those deemed acceptable by strangers in the community.
If you’re interested in learning more about home insemination, check out this informative article. For insights on what to expect at 14 days past ovulation, visit Intracervical Insemination. Furthermore, Facts About Fertility serves as an excellent resource for pregnancy and home insemination.
In summary, the ruling regarding “unfounded child neglect” not only reveals the ignorance of outsiders but also exposes the need for a more nuanced understanding of parenting in our society. True care for children involves recognizing the importance of parental discretion and the need for society to support diverse parenting approaches rather than stigmatizing them.