When the words in laws don't mean what they say....

Maryland CPS Threatens Dad: Let Your Kids Play Outside and We'll Take Them Away

Dec. 23, 2014 9:45 am

In Maryland a mom let her kids, ages 6 and 10, play at the park two blocks from home by themselves. Later county officials charged her with "allowing a child under age 8 to be locked or confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure, or motor vehicle while the person charged is absent."

You probably think this was just some sort of computer error:  How in the hell does allowing kids to play in a park amount to being "confined in a dwelling, building, enclosure..."?

It wasn't a computer error: The state agent--unable to find a specific statute against letting kids play in a park-- unilaterally decided that playing in a park was really being "confined in an enclosure."

Simple, eh?  The law means what any government employee says it means, regardless of what the actual, you know, words are. 

In this case the parents threatened to sue, and supervisors at child services had second thoughts and the case was closed—until this week.

But if you thought that was the end of the fight, you haven't been paying attention.  When ANY government agent gets pissy, they'll find a way to get back at you.

Sure enough, the mom emailed an update to a reporter at Reason.com:

It seemed that we had called their bluff and they were going to leave us alone. Not for long. This past Saturday while I was out of town, my husband dropped my kids off at a park about 1 mile from our house and said they could walk home together. They got 1/2 way when someone called the police.

"Shots Will Be Fired"

The kids were picked up in a patrol car and brought home. The policewoman asked to see my husband's ID. When he refused, she said she was going to call for back-up. He said he would get his ID and went to go upstairs. She said - in front of the kids - that if he came down with anything else, "shots would be fired."

At this point 10 yr old. called me crying, saying that the police were there and that Daddy was going to be arrested. My husband stepped outside to continue the conversation away from the kids. When he disagreed with one of the officers about the dangers that walking alone posed to the kids, she actually asked him: "Don't you watch TV?" (The answer was no). They took notes and left.

"Sign This or We Take Your Kids"

Two hours later someone from Child Welfare showed up with a temporary plan, which they wanted my husband to sign, stating that he would not leave the children unsupervised until Monday when someone from their office could contact him.
He refused.

She called the police, saying that if he didn't sign they would take the kids away right then.

He signed.

This is outrageous. We refuse to deprive our children of critical opportunities to develop responsibility and independence, and have no intention of fundamentally changing our parenting to accommodate this kind of paranoia and bullying, but it's not going to be easy. We are now looking for someone who can give us legal advice on these issues in Maryland.

I have to admit when I read stories on your site and elsewhere about CPS threatening to take kids away, I never thought it could happen to us. I'll keep you posted.
Best, Danielle Meitiv

One hardly know where to begin on this one.  The bullying speaks for itself:  "You will sign this paper promising to do X, right now, or we'll take your kids away."  

And that bullshit about playing in the park being "confined"--insane!  Again, laws being interpreted by some unelected official in a totally bullshit way.  It's everywhere.

But it shouldn't surprise you that crap like this is now routine in whatever the emperor calls this country.  Sort of like that whole section of the ACA that says federal subsidies for health insurance are only available to people who sign up through a State exchange.  Gruber is on video saying that this provision was deliberately included in the law as an incentive to get states to create their own exchanges--thus reducing the workload for the feds, as well as shifting the blame if it didn't work.

But now the emperor and his assistant Grubers have assured us that this is absolutely NOT what the law actually means.  Not at all.  Even though the exact words are there on the page, it doesn't mean what it says.  And Gruber simply dismisses his videotaped statements:  "I don't remember saying that."

Well there ya go, sparky!  That explains everything.  No problem!

This is obvious, in-your-face bullshit, but the emperor has armies of taxpayer-funded attorneys who will argue exactly this before the Supreme Court:  That the words actually present mean NOTHING.  That the ONLY thing that matters is what the emperor says the law means.  "Period."

When any government argues that the words in laws--or in a Constitution--don't mean what they say, how can it claim any legitimacy?  How can laws be coped with if no one but the emperor gets to say what they mean?

This nation's founders would not have believed it possible that what they so carefully planned and debated and bled and died to accomplish would be brought to this state.

I weep for what has been lost. 

You don't see it yet.

But eventually some of you will.