Keeping the Free‐Range Parent Immune from Child Neglect: You Cannot Tell Me How to Raise My Children

• Published date: 01 January 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fcre.12269
• Author: Nicole Vota
• Date: 01 January 2017

KEEPING THE FREE-RANGE PARENT IMMUNE FROM CHILD

NEGLECT: YOU CANNOT TELL ME HOW TO RAISE MY CHILDREN

Nicole Vota*

Granting children a level of independence to travel unsupervised to local neighborhood areas lies within the parents’ discretion

to raise their children as they see fit. Failing to recognize that such discretion is grounded within the Fourteenth Amendment of

the U.S. Constitution, states criminalize parental actions, including unsupervised travel to local areas, as child neglect. Crimi-

nalizing such parental actions leads to both unjustified prosecutions and convictions of child neglect, along with unjustified

removals by Child Protective Services (CPS) and the unnecessary and detrimental overprotection of children. The overprotec-

tion of children referred to as “helicopter parenting,” does not render the safety, physical, or emotional benefits most parents,

police officers, and CPS reason. Further, criminalizing such parental actions distracts CPS from focusing on the real cases of

child neglect. Creating a model free-range parenting statute that provides full immunity from criminal charges of child neglect

can effectively facilitate parental rights that are already implemented. However, the model statute must be limited as to the

parental actions protected in order to preserve safety. This Note proposes a recognition of the protection needed among free-

range parents and urges the creation of a model statute based on the language of The Rule of Construction Regarding Travel to

and from School, permitting children of any age to travel to and from school unsupervised, while negating a charge of child

neglect, and the language of the Maryland directive policy regarding unsupervised travel and play.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:

The right to free-range parenting currently rests in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution. No state has a specific free-range parenting statute.

Free-range parenting encompasses a hands-off approach in raising children and includes, in addition to unsupervised

travel, leaving children home alone or with a minor babysitter.

Creating a model free-range parenting statute will allow parents to carry out their constitutional right while eliminating

criminal consequences; however, it must be limited in the acts free-range parents can carry out in order to ensure the

safety of children.

The statute will not be mandated law; rather, it will provide protection for those parents wishing to carry out their con-

stitutional right.

The Rule of Construction Regarding Travel to and from School and the Maryland directive policy both provide worthy

model language; however, both should be expanded to define specific safety elements to help determine thereasonable

free-range parenting standard.

Keywords: Child Endangerment; Child Independence; Child Neglect; Child Protective Services; Free-Range Parenting;

Helicopter Parenting; and Unsupervised Travel.

I. INTRODUCTION

“Bye bye! Have fun!”

1

A simple phrase uttered by most parents as their children hasten out the

front door; but can these children really “have fun?”

2

Like most children, Rafi, age six and Dvora,

age ten,

3

were consumed with excitement as their parents, Alexander and Danielle Meitiv, dropped

them off at the nearby park to play on Sunday, April 19, 2015, at 4:00 PM.

4

The Meitivs thoroughly

instructed their children, as they have done repeatedly in the past, to walk one mile home from the

park at 6:00 PM.

5

As the evening reached 6:30 PM, the children had yet to return home.

6

As any oth-

er concerned parent would, the Meitivs became extremely worried as to the whereabouts of their chil-

dren and began searching for them.

7

When the children could not be found, the Meitivs contacted the

police.

8

Reality set in as the Meitivs realized that their children were not abducted, were not lost, and

Correspondence: Nicolevota@yahoo.com

[Corrections added on 6 February, after first online publication: Grammatical and formatting changes have been made to

the article to improve clarity.]

FAMILY COURT REVIEW, Vol. 55 No. 1, January 2017 152–167

V

C2017 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

had not run away, but rather were “coerced into the back of a patrol car” and “trapped in there for

three hours.”

9

Rafi and Dvora spent less than one hour in the park before the police, absent any evidentiary

safety reasons, picked them up.

10

This was the second time Rafi and Dvora were picked up by the

police on their walk home from the park.

11

This was, however, the first time that the police inten-

tionally detained the children and refused to contact the Meitivs.

12

Rather than having fun and

returning safely home on April 19, 2015, the children spent the remainder of the night in CPS cus-

tody, where they were “kind of scared.”

13

This unnecessary taking and confinement of the chil-

dren did not go unnoticed by the Meitivs or by CPS.

14

In the days that followed, CPS arrived at

the Meitivs’ home, threatening to take the children if the parents did not “ensure safety protective

measures for their children,”

15

despite the fact that the police and CPS failed to include safety in

their consideration for taking and detaining the children.

16

The innocent fun the Meitivs’ encour-

aged their children to have led to the Meitivs’ unjustified charge of “unsubstantiated child

neglect.”

17

The Meitivs reside in Silver Spring, Maryland;

18

a state which recognizes “leaving anyone under

the age of [eighteen] unsupervised” as child neglect.

19

Under Maryland law, an officer is required to

contact CPS when they “become aware of any possible case of child abuse or neglect.”

20

Also under

Maryland law, a child may not return home, due to the “serious nature of a [CPS] investigation and

concern for the welfare of the children” until “their safety can be assured.”

21

Had the Meitivs resided

in any other state at this time, their actions would still constitute child neglect.

22

Under New York

law, if a child under the age of eighteen is left without “proper supervision or guardianship,” the

child is considered a neglected child.

23

The Meitivs’ experience opened the eyes of many parents to the modern trend of free-range par-

enting (FRP)

24

and its consequences. FRP refers to “everyday parental decisions,” such as allowing

children to independently walk to parks, play outside, or remain unattended inside a car.

25

However,

there is no uniform statute describing which parental decisions are simply FRP decisions and which

are criminal decisions.

26

FRP is driven by the notion, ascribed to by many parents,

27

that granting a “longer leash” is much

more beneficial to the child as it encourages independence and growth.

28

Many parents did not view

the acts of the Meitivs as criminal; in fact, many parents referred to the actions of CPS and the police

as the “real abuse,” as neither provided reasonable justifications for taking the children.

29

In response

to the Meitivs’ experience, parents have expressed their frustrations with the lack of clarity in FRP

decisions.

30

They are unable to pinpoint on the child neglect spectrum when it is legally acceptable

to leave children unattended and when it is criminal to do so.

31

Unfortunately, unsupervised travel often falls on the side of child neglect, as all destinations do

not maintain the same level of safety. Consequently, parents are unconfident about granting their

children the freedom to travel alone.

32

Further, dealing with cases of unsupervised travel unnecessar-

ily uses the resources of CPS and diverts their attention from actual cases of child neglect.

33

Regard-

less of where a child is left unsupervised, such a decision is within the parents’ discretion pursuant to

the due process of law.

34

However, a specific FRP statute to balance FRP and child neglect is

needed.

35

As noted above, there is no uniform FRP statute focused on unsupervised travel,

36

despite the fact

that the right to permit such travel is embedded within the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment as a parental right.

37

Instead, states are allowing police and CPS intervention without

proper safety guidelines.

38

Thus, the states’ failure to permit parents to exercise their constitutional

right of granting unsupervised travel along with permitting unwarranted CPS intervention is

problematic.

The fight by free-range parents for the constitutional right to permit unsupervised travel to any

and all locations has had some success.

39

Two measures have been taken to help rectify the FRP

problem. First, the Maryland Department of Human Resources Social Service Administration

(MDHRSSA) recently implemented a new policy directive regarding unsupervised travel and play,

stating that such activity does not warrant CPS intervention.

40

In addition, the new policy directive

Vota/PROTECTING THE FREE-RANGE PARENT 153