Slashdot Mirror


Parents Investigated For Neglect For Letting Kids Walk Home Alone

HughPickens.com writes The WaPo reports that Danielle and Alexander Meitiv in Montgomery County Maryland say they are being investigated for neglect after letting their 10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter make a one-mile walk home from a Silver Spring park on Georgia Avenue on a Saturday afternoon. "We wouldn't have let them do it if we didn't think they were ready for it," says Danielle. The Meitivs say they believe in "free-range" parenting, a movement that has been a counterpoint to the hyper-vigilance of "helicopter" parenting, with the idea that children learn self-reliance by being allowed to progressively test limits, make choices and venture out in the world. "The world is actually even safer than when I was a child, and I just want to give them the same freedom and independence that I had — basically an old-fashioned childhood," says Danielle. "I think it's absolutely critical for their development — to learn responsibility, to experience the world, to gain confidence and competency."

On December 20, Alexander agreed to let the children walk from Woodside Park to their home, a mile south, in an area the family says the children know well. Police picked up the children near the Discovery building, the family said, after someone reported seeing them. Alexander said he had a tense time with police when officers returned his children, asked for his identification and told him about the dangers of the world. The more lasting issue has been with Montgomery County Child Protective Services which showed up a couple of hours later. Although Child Protective Services could not address this specific case they did point to Maryland law, which defines child neglect as failure to provide proper care and supervision of a child. "I think what CPS considered neglect, we felt was an essential part of growing up and maturing," says Alexander. "We feel we're being bullied into a point of view about child-rearing that we strongly disagree with."

47 of 784 comments (clear)

  1. The Dangers of the World by Tokolosh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not who or what you think they are.

    All power to the Meitivs.

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:The Dangers of the World by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. Apparently these children will be learning very young about the risks of allowing anyone to have special powers over someone else under the law and the importance of restricting those powers to people competent to wield them.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    2. Re:The Dangers of the World by trout007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is a dangerous world. These kids were kidnapped on the way home. Luckily for them the kidnapper returned them to the parents.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    3. Re:The Dangers of the World by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Also, maybe it's time for the Montgomery County Maryland finest to turn in their badges, radios, and guns, then go have their PTSD flash backs somewhere else.

      If the local police feel that the world is such a dangerous place, perhaps they would be better employed fixing that, rather than interfering with young kids going out to play.

      Entirely plausible six-year-old perspective: "Mummy, why did the police take us away after we went to play in the park today? I thought only bad people got arrested by the police. Did I do something wrong?"

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    4. Re:The Dangers of the World by NotDrWho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The more I read stories like this, the more I'm kind of glad that my dad passed away a long time ago. No way could he live in this world. Hell, I would be embarrassed to even let him *see* it.

      Dad: "I faked my age to enlist at fifteen and fight at D-Day."
      Me: "In this world, leaving a twelve-year-old home alone can be considered child abuse."
      Dad: "And you're properly ashamed of this, right?"
      Me: "Every day I want to jump off a building."

      --
      SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
    5. Re:The Dangers of the World by idontgno · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the local police feel that the world is such a dangerous place, perhaps they would be better employed fixing that, rather than interfering with young kids going out to play.

      It's easier to corral the sheep than face the wolves. Even if some of the sheep don't want to cooperate. That's why you castrate them.

      Maybe it's not so baaaad.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    6. Re:The Dangers of the World by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Dad: "I faked my age to enlist at fifteen and fight at D-Day."

      That was neither a good thing, nor the right thing. Just because your dad believed something doesn't mean it should dictate your view on life.

      That was a great thing, and I would gladly shake his father's hand and say thank you. I doubt you can claim to have done anything remotely as significant.

    7. Re:The Dangers of the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In some states, CPS cares about meeting metrics set by the state legislature. They will leave children in abusive homes in order to meet these metrics, unless the News Media gets involved, or a child dies. Here there a case where the investigator knew the perpetrator in a personal manner, and altered interviews from a licensed psychiatrist in the case. When it was reported to the head of CPS, they ignored it. Thankfully those kids are now all 18 and do not have to deal with an abusive parent anymore. They had to deal with it for four years though.

    8. Re:The Dangers of the World by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The trauma caused by the police and child protective services far outweigh any damage that could have rationally and reasonably been expected otherwise.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    9. Re:The Dangers of the World by sycodon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You parents have been through more tan you have, they have faced more adversity than you have, they have overcome more than you have.

      Only an idiot would discount what your parent tells you. Of course, this is a given for most people above the age of 12 and below, say 20 something. But if you are over thirty and don't take advantage of your parents experiences and knowledge, you are a complete moron.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    10. Re:The Dangers of the World by MitchDev · · Score: 4, Insightful

      CPS needs to be disbanded and re-built from the ground up. Nazis indeed.

    11. Re:The Dangers of the World by ranton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if you are over thirty and don't take advantage of your parents experiences and knowledge, you are a complete moron.

      While I don't agree with the post you are replying to, this is a pretty silly statement. I have friends whose parents are complete degenerates. One who beat his wife and kids and was regularly unemployed. He had absolutely nothing of value to teach my friend except for what not to do (which is not the same as taking advantage of his experience and knowledge).

      My father in law was in a similar situation where he grew up in a very bad home with bad parents. He decided to let that experience shape his parenting by going the complete opposite direction and being a great father and excel in his career. If his father ever tried to give him advice on parenting or his career or basically anything, my father in law would probably just tell him to screw off (his father is dead now, but they didn't have a good relationship when he was alive).

      Anyone can be a parent. Just being the parent of a 30 year old does not magically make your advice worth anything. My parents are wonderful and I eat up any advice they can give me when parenting my 5 month old or even pursuing my career, but not everyone is in the same position.

      --
      -- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
    12. Re:The Dangers of the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uh huh. CPS intervened because you were on a different level of the house. They just happened to by spying on you?

      These stories you guys always bring up in these articles are ridiculous. CPS isn't out to "get you". They are understaffed. TAKE CARE OF YOUR CHILDREN.

      My guess is that they busted you for something.

    13. Re:The Dangers of the World by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My father-in-law enlisted in the Navy at sixteen or seventeen with parental consent, during WWII.

      Where do you draw the line? Eighteen? We cannot prepare youth for the realities of the world while completely isolating them from those realities under the guise of protecting them. Life is all about risks and understanding how to mitigate them and when to take them.

      By the time I was eight I had a half a square mile area in which to roam, a one-mile by half-mile area. By the time I was ten, that had expanded ot a full-square-mile, basically the other half of the neighorhood. I was not allowed to cross the major one-mile streets except for going to and from school, but otherwise it was fair game. I was taught to pay attention to my surroundings and the body language of the people, and to not assume that people had my good interests in mind. Those lessons still apply 25 years later.

      Six might be a little young, but ten isn't, depending on the kinds of streets they have to cross and how safe the crossings are.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    14. Re:The Dangers of the World by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a parent, my first thought was, "who the fucked called up about the children?"

      My kids bike to school (about a mile) and I have had several busybody neighbors comment to me that it was unsafe, because they "might get kidnapped." I explained that they are a THOUSAND TIMES more likely to be hit by a car, and THAT is what I worry about. But the only dangerous intersection has a crossing guard, so even that is not much of a concern. People are very poor estimators of risk.

    15. Re:The Dangers of the World by rjstanford · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What happened to your family was terribly unfortunate.

      It bears repeating though that it is also terribly unusual - more so now than it was in the '80s. We live in a far, far safer (although not perfect) world today then we did when we were kids by almost every possible measurement.

      I'm sure that the independence you got from your paper route and your relative freedom helped to make you the strong person that you are today, even though it wasn't without some small risk.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    16. Re:The Dangers of the World by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      CPS needs to be disbanded. Nazis indeed.

      Removed the superfluous portion...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    17. Re:The Dangers of the World by Totenglocke · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Background: At 10 years old I was getting up at 4:30 in the morning to deliver newspapers (1980's Los Angeles County). I would never allow my children to do this today.

      Despite the fact that crime rates are less than half of what they were 20 years ago and that you were are far more risk than your kids would be? Once again, the 24/7 "news" channels win by convincing parents that there's a boogeyman around every corner and that crime is through the roof.

      --
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
    18. Re:The Dangers of the World by BasilBrush · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's still not the right thing regardless of your admiration. 15 year olds should not be fighting in wars, D-Day or otherwise.

    19. Re:The Dangers of the World by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The risk starts at almost zero. Your children are far more likely to die in a car accident while you drive them home from school than they are to be abducted while walking - it is only your illusion of control which is notably improved.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:The Dangers of the World by xeno · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An how many of those runaways are in response to aggressively controlling parenting behaviors? This is not a facetious comment; my otherwise model children (12 and 15) have in recent years begun to sharply rebel against their mother's strict control of their travel and other normal expansion of responsibility, to the point where they now simply ignore her and leave her home, and she calls them in as missing to the police. (They turn up at the local coffee shop doing their homework, more often than not.) In contrast, I have given both children guidance on how to travel safely, made sure they have state ID cards, bus passes, mobile phones, and bank cards, and I get to know their friends. When I call, the kids always pick up. Always.

      The path of fear feeds on itself, and leads to very dark places. I fear for children who are sheltered and smothered in this way, because it just delays a child's process of learning how to manage risk. When these same innocent and ignorant kids are turned loose on college campuses at 17-18yo without the survival skills of my 12yo and without parental support when learning to manage their own risk, they end up with alcohol poisoning, stoned, roofied, fucked, pregnant, infected, robbed, indebted, flunked out, helpless, and ground down on the grit of all the other things they were never told about.**

      I let my kids walk home, thank you very much.

      ( ** Nothing has changed about this, btw. Decades ago it was sad to see the home-schooled and mormon kids fall this way among their college freshman peers, but more often than not... in the long run, being sheltered just makes you soft and unprepared. It's the same today.)

      --
      I think not...(*poof*)
    21. Re:The Dangers of the World by mysidia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every town/city in the US is different as far as risk. That said, the risk that a child will be kidnapped is not zero.

      It is never zero. However, we do not charge parents with neglect for driving their children around, even though we know that sometimes cars get in accidents, and sometimes passengers die.

      Therefore, for it to be said to be irresponsible, the risk should be at least greater than that of other modes of transportation.

      In other words: there must be more than residual risk, for sure.

      We also let children 'play' and engage in sports, therefore.... to be neglecting required supervision... the risk for the child in question in that situation should be at least greater than that involved in normal 'play' and sports engagements, including some dangerous sports that children are allowed to participate in with parental consent, where they could be at risk of serious injury or death from effects such as snakebite or drowning, hockey puck to the temples, for example.

      I think the question about whether the child was adequately supervised will depend on time, and also.... the local area.

      I wouldn't be comfortable with a child left alone.... that said, their kids were not alone apparently they were accompanied by each other. Therefore, if the kids have the proper skills, they would not be in particular danger, and if something did happen: the other child should be able to find help.

    22. Re:The Dangers of the World by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That said, the risk that a child will be kidnapped is not zero.

      It rounds to zero. There's something like one kidnapping a month in the US (the kidnapping that people "fear" the kidnapping by a stranger with a violent history). There are tens to hundreds of thousands of kidnappings a year in the US, almost all by family members (most by parents). So you see the huge numbers thrown up, and nearly all are warring exes fighting.

      If you do nothing to "secure" your children from kidnapping, they are more likely to be struck by lightning than kidnapped.

  2. Biased Institutions FTW by Jesrad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "I think what CPS considered neglect, we felt was an essential part of growing up and maturing," says Alexander. "We feel we're being bullied into a point of view about child-rearing that we strongly disagree with."

    The "child protection" services have all the apparent responsibilities of caring, without having to pay the price for the efforts they demand. That's why they are intrinsically biased in favor of perpertually inflating the needs of childs and the duties of caretakers... to the point of ridiculous extremes.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
    1. Re:Biased Institutions FTW by butalearner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In their defense, I want them to do their due diligence whenever they get a report. A lot of people would be pissed at the police and at CPS if they got called in and missed neglect or abuse. But it's quite obvious in this case that they went way overboard, and they still are.

      I haven't seen it discussed in this thread, but in brief, Maryland state law says that any child under 8 must be supervised by a child 13 or older while in a dwelling or a vehicle. It says nothing about being outside, but they are considering stretching the interpretation and charging the parents.

    2. Re:Biased Institutions FTW by towermac · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "(they'd see me pouring it and my kids love to try things, so I'd have to explain they couldn't drink it)"

      I think my Dad's plan was better. Whenever I asked him what he was drinking, he'd answer and offer me some. So at the age of 8 or so I fell for it, and took a big ol' sip of scotch on the rocks. Scotch to an 8 year old is worse than kerosene.

      It was 10 years later before I took my second drink (back when drinking age was 18). In hindsight, a brilliant plan, Dad.

    3. Re:Biased Institutions FTW by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the point is that he cant do something he can legally do because of something that he had nothing to do with, and that is wrong.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  3. Add another one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... to the long list of reasons i don't consider the US a good place to live in.
    With rules like this, no wonder you have 40 year old virgins living in their parents' basements.

  4. the good old days... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember back in the day playing miles from home in the hills up past the artillery range.

    I also remember breaking my arm on such a trip, and having to push my bike home one-handed.

    Not something I think Maryland CPS would have approved of, I suspect.

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:the good old days... by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To make a point. You had seriously injured yourself and still you were able to take care of yourself long enough to get back.
      We have gotten overly cautious with our children, and to make it worse, the legal system has bought into the hype as well.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. Parents by countach · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know if letting kids this age walk home is the right thing, but I respect the right of the parents to make that decision. The world over child services staff are self-righteous twerps, who give all the signs of knowing very little about the range of problems parents face, and know even less about helping, rather than punishing parents trying to do the right thing.

    1. Re:Parents by ubersoldat2k7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The sad thing is that this probably happened in a mid-level neighborhood. If it was a poor slum the police wouldn't care if the kids walked 5 miles under snow and surrounded by gang members.

    2. Re:Parents by Ichijo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's a neighborhood "liveability" metric called the Popsicle Test: can a kid get to a store on her own, buy a popsicle, and get home again before it melts?

      Today, unlike before WWII, most residential neighborhoods in the USA probably won't pass this liveability test. What's worse is we simply aren't allowed to build neighborhoods like that anymore because small neighborhood corner stores violate single-use zoning laws, and because we've decided that moving auto traffic quickly is more important than pedestrian safety. (In fact, they removed roadside trees because motorists kept hitting them. Now motorists hit pedestrians instead. How's that for progress?) So we've legislated our own independence away.

      "So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  6. nanny state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    you get the nanny state you asked for.

    you want the government to make internet a public utility. you want the government to take over health care. you want the government to invent educational standards. you want the government tell companies what to pay. you want the government to tell companies who to hire.

    and you are mad one day when the government decides it can tell you how to be a parent?

    people have been busy handing over power for the last 100 years. for every authority the government has given itself, some motherfucker said "there aught to be a law!" just like all of you do when its something YOU want, like say... "net neutrality".

    1. Re:nanny state by Shados · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Go in any of those "evil socialist" countries that have all those things, and see if parents get in trouble for letting a kid walk a mile. It has nothing to do with it.

      This is a state of black/white strong opinion. Thats where the problem lies and why shit like this happens.

  7. Cops are right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alexander said he had a tense time with police when officers returned his children, asked for his identification and told him about the dangers of the world.

    Yeah, there are cops out there who shoot children. They might think the kid's backpack is a thermal nuclear device or assault rifle and shoot him on site.

  8. Time for Layoffs by jbmartin6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is the kind of story I think of when I hear that these agencies need more money. It seems to me they are overstaffed and overfunded if they have time for activities like this.

    --
    This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
  9. Frank Herbert was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Fear is the mind killer. The fear of some vague threat is motivating CPS and the cops to do real harm to this family.

    I grew up in a small town near a woods on the Illinois river. I was roaming through those woods and walking 1.5 mi to school when I was 7. At 14, I often toted a gun with me or went fishing by myself with dangerous knives and sharp hooks. I cleaned the fish I caught and ate them, too. If only CPS had been there to put me in a risk-free bubble, what a great childhood I would have had.

  10. Times have changed. by Nyder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By the time I was 10, not only did I have a paper route that took me a few miles from home, I had a bike that gave me greater range. This was the late 70's to early 80's. Was normal. Today we have cellphones, gps and people are tripping because a 6 & 10 year old was walking home together?

    I don't believe the USA is more violent then it was before, I believe that people are just more aware of bad shit that happens because you have a non stop stream of information, pictures and videos coming from various sources. Bad shit happens, yes, but it doesn't mean you need to lock your kids in your house and never let them out of your sight.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Times have changed. by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't believe the USA is more violent then it was before

      It's actually as safe as it's ever been, safer even than the "Leave It to Beaver" 50s, and the decline in violence and crime is continuing. It's possible that some of the improvement in child safety is due to hypervigilant parents, but I suspect not much. Most of it is just that the nation is more... "civilized" is the best word I can come up with. It's still more dangerous and violent than many other developed nations, but in a better place than it has been, and heading the right direction.

      I believe that people are just more aware of bad shit that happens because you have a non stop stream of information, pictures and videos coming from various sources.

      Yup. Our perceptions are badly skewed by media. Our inbuilt mechanism for judging risk is heavily biased towards shocking narratives, and it's also observation-frequency biased. In evolutionary terms, those make sense. Without the range-extending capabilities of technology, our observations were limited to the personal, so observation frequency made sense. For rarer but more severe risks, the information communicated by others also provided a pretty good measure of frequency, since the aggregate perceptive range of our acquaintances and their acquaintances, etc., was pretty small.

      That's clearly not the world we live in today.

      Of course, we do have excellent tools for judging risk, vastly better than anything our ancestors had. Statistical methods provide a more accurate, more precise and more nuanced view of relative risk than anything our "gut" could ever do. If we use them.

      In this case, these children's parents clearly do make use of the statistical tools available to us today, correctly judging the relative risk of their children walking as being lower than driving in an automobile. The CPS agency, not so much.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  11. Re:One mile? by delt0r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well our bus stop was 7km away. And there was a lot of broken glass, and of course bare feet and snow and stuff.

    On a more seruous note. The city must be very safe if the police don't have anything better to do than be a Chief Wiggum level dumb arse.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
  12. Coddling = Fail by rmdingler · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The sad state of affairs is such that it is even necessary at all to have a Child Protective Services. That's on a relatively small minority of people not ready for the responsibility of parenting, but the governmental overreach is to be expected.

    In the absence of obvious abuse, the simple test should be: is the child fed, clothed, sheltered, and schooled?

    The sadder state of affairs is that a child justifiably separated from his/her parents by the State is unlikely to do much better in the foster parent system.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Coddling = Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A better, and even simpler test would be: Would this child be better off under the supervision of the state in the foster system as opposed to remaining with his or her parents?

      The answer almost 90% of the time is: no fucking way.

  13. Re:For one mile? by AntEater · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I spent a few years of my childhood in Mass. and regularly walked to school since 1st grade - that was just under two miles each way. (Yeah, in the cold, waist-deep in snow, uphill both ways....) This is pathetic. After school many of us kids ranged all over the town playing in streams, walking the residential streets, etc. Times have changed, but I don't think this is for the better.

    --
    Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
  14. Not an isolated incident by mepperpint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The police in the DC area appear to have very strong beliefs that children should be accompanied very closely by parents at all times. About a year ago, my wife and I were walking to the air and space museum with our 8 year old daughter and her 8 year old cousin in DC. We walked by a park and the children thought it would be fun to walk through the park and meet us on the other side. They were stopped in the middle of the park by a police officer who demanded to know where their parents were. They pointed at us, about 50 feet away. The police officer first demanded that we come meet him in the middle of the park to pick up the children and, after we refused, settled for escorting them the 50 feet to meet us.

    We felt like the officer was acting ludicrously and a royal jerk. It's discomforting to see that this problem is more wide spread, so I hope these parents are able to get the police and CPS to back down. I completely agree that children do not magically become grownups on their 18th birthday, they need to slowly expand their boundaries and comfort zone over time as they grow into adults.

  15. I grew up 30 miles from here, in N.VA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I grew up 30 miles from here, in N.VA, Fairfax.

    In kindergarten, I walked over a mile to/from the school every day unaccompanied. So did all the other kids in the neighborhood. There wasn't bus service and at the time, we would probably have still walked unless it was raining.

    Oh - and it was downhill to the school, uphill back home.

    CPS is out of control, IMHO. When a 7yr old cannot walk themselves to/from school that isn't across town, that is going too far.

  16. Montgomery County's own guidance allows 1mile walk by xeno · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to the Montgomery County school website, having the kids walk a mile with a sibling is within normal community standards, and in line with guidelines set forth by the county itself.
    (See www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/parents/basics/transportation/ )

    In Montgomery County where this occurred, school bus transportation is only provided for elementary school children who live further than 1mi from school, and for middle schoolers (11yo+) further than 1.5mi. The county's guidance for elementary school kids walking 1 mile or less is "Younger walkers are encouraged to walk to and from school with siblings, older children from their neighborhood, or parents. At many schools, Montgomery County crossing guards help walkers cross at busy intersections near the school. In most elementary schools, student safety patrols guide younger children in crossing smaller neighborhood streets."

    I don't see how CPS has a leg to stand on here; the children were simply practicing what they are expected to do by the county school system itself.

    --
    I think not...(*poof*)