Unfounded, huh? I’ve got your unfounded right here! Assertions that children are more at risk today than they were two decades ago? Unfounded. Claims that kids are in extreme danger without constant supervision? Unfounded. The idea that a predator will harm any child left alone for even a moment? Unfounded.
What is NOT unfounded, however, is the intentional and engaged parenting of Laura and Tom Bennett, the Maryland couple who allowed their 10-year-old son and 6-year-old daughter to walk home from a park unaccompanied by an adult, much to the dismay of overzealous officials and keyboard warriors alike.
Now, brace yourselves for a shocking truth: when a state’s law leaves room for parental judgment (Maryland law only addresses children left at home or in a vehicle, not those outside), it means—hold onto your hats—IT IS THE PARENTS’ CHOICE. It is not your choice, passerby. It is not your choice, anonymous commentator online. The ones who know those children best? THEIR PARENTS. The experts on the family dynamic? THE FAMILY. And what does the law say? MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. The only discretion you should consider, stranger, is whether you feel comfortable approaching a child you don’t know and asking if they need assistance. If they seem secure and in control, why not refrain from involving the police? Trust your instincts. That is the discretion you can exercise.
Taking a moment to breathe deeply, I acknowledge that there are exceptions. Certainly, some family situations are downright unacceptable for the kids caught in them. There are indeed parents who neglect their children, and instances of abuse are real. Such cases must be investigated. Law enforcement and Child Protective Services (CPS) walk a precarious line between safeguarding children and instilling fear in families. One might assume the distinction between harming a child and not harming them is clear-cut. Yet, with the influx of “well-meaning” individuals initiating police and CPS probes against ordinary families, we see that the line is, regrettably, blurrier than ever.
In this instance, the allegations against the Bennetts were thoroughly examined. The children were interviewed, and the parents were questioned. It was clarified that the children weren’t merely abandoned in the wild but were being taught independence, encouraged to explore freedom, and then given the opportunity to apply those lessons. This is what both the police and CPS were informed. The parents, adhering to the law, exercised their own discretion regarding their children’s maturity. And then that discretion was overridden.
As a swarm of bureaucrats and internet pundits zeroes in on these so-called “neglect” cases, I’d like to say this: If you disagree with a family’s choices, that’s perfectly fine. But you don’t have the right to judge them for parenting differently than you would. If they were breaking the law or genuinely endangering their children, then by all means, criticize them. Prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law.
However, condemning a clearly loving and thoughtful family for “unfounded” neglect is both cowardly and heartless. If you, CPS, believe these children were neglected, then have the courage to say so. If not, then leave this family alone. Smearing their record while protecting your own interests with vague documentation is cruel. In Maryland, if allowing children to walk unaccompanied is deemed neglectful, then change the law. Keeping a family in limbo for years due to ambiguous interpretations of a law designed to protect them is, as my 12-year-old aptly put it, “not cool.”
The unattended children laws in many states were designed to give parents the benefit of the doubt, keeping governmental intrusion out of our private lives. What we’re realizing, though, is that a law meant to favor parents often prioritizes the concerns of strangers first. Then the police. Then CPS.
In the case of the Bennetts, the only truly unfounded claim is that the Unattended Children’s Law in Maryland is effective. This is disappointing, as some children do require protection—not necessarily from parenting styles that diverge from the preferences of strangers.
To learn more about the implications of parenting and personal discretion, check out Make a Mom for insights on various parenting methods. For a deeper understanding of the topic of artificial insemination and its relevance, this Wikipedia article serves as an excellent resource.
Summary
The article critiques the unsubstantiated claims of child neglect against parents who allow their children some independence, arguing that such judgments stem from adult misunderstandings of parenting. It emphasizes the importance of parental discretion in raising children and calls for a more supportive legal framework that respects families’ choices.
Keyphrase: unfounded child neglect claims
Tags: [“home insemination kit”, “home insemination syringe”, “self insemination”]