Without, admittedly, understanding the parenting philosophy, I wrote an earlier article about the new and growing fad of “free range parenting” where children of (unknown minimum) an age are permitted to pretty much wander wherever they like, unsupervised by adults.  I was overly critical.  While I still have my reservations, especially regarding children being allowed free, unsupervised access to known dangerous inner-city areas, (or tightly–packed public areas where children can be seized by perverts and never seen again) I will side with parents 999 times out of a thousand, if the alternative is to side with so-called “child protective” “services,” (CPS)—a known child predatory agency of the modern nanny state.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmUTxauLAYoSZ8RGNoLiaeRV4KT8JyJnBqi1wPF62kfojk/image.png)
(Image courtesy of imom.com.)

Only in cases where the parent(s) could be proven to be intentionally endangering children would I side with any type of government intervention, and even then, I’d much prefer the police to handle such matters rather than incompetent, overpaid, ill-trained and overbearing “social workers.”  This case (following)  appears to be right on the line, and should probably spark further public discussion of what free-range-parenting limitations government should employ, if any:

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/mother-charged-after-her-4-year-old-twins-found-wandering-alone

The case is about a woman whose four-year-old twins were found wandering alone in a dangerous part of Austin, TX after four previous quasi-“neglect” cases had already been reviewed with regard to this same parent.  Here is a key excerpt from the link above:

“The distance from the victims’ apartment complex to the place they were picked up from at is approximately 500 feet, police stated.  Authorities compiled past CPS reports involving Scarleth and her children and found four reports to inadequate supervision.  

The reports showed in 2011, Scarleth locked her two daughters (one of them now an adult) out of their apartment while she went to jail to visit her boyfriend.  The second incident was in 2014 when one of the twins was taken to the ER for burns on his legs after a pot with boiled water fell on him while in care of the now 15-year-old sister.  The third one occurred in 2015 when the now 15-year-old sister had to stay home from school for two days to take care of her twin brothers.  And the fourth one happened in October of 2018 when a bystander saw one of the twins was left unattended and nearly walked into a street.”

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmcZhXHHuEGhRsqCetmDebR83r7Ud5NSv3kbiY17y9j6SX/image.png)
(Image courtesy of psychologytoday.com.)

That’s quite a pattern.  Even so, none of the above, except the second, is particularly egregious and could be explained as over-active imagination of a jealous neighbor.  What is missing, of course, (And that is another major problem with CPS accepting anonymous calls, and with parents and caregivers not being allowed to know the identity of the accused) is the circumstances of the call.  If it was the same caller in more than one incident, those cases could pretty much be dismissed as “busy bodyism” on the part of the reporter.

The 2011 incident could be excused as a poor decision by a very young parent, and not much more.  Still, at some point, if these were all calls by different reporters, it is time to probably at least sit down with this parent and develop a plan that can keep these children safer, and to determine how the mothering can be improved.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmYutgauRaxwHLR8QxvhEkU3RS1Gp4zE2eRuvmoUmybmCJ/image.png)
(Courtesy of wafb.com.)

There is no specific mention of “free range parenting” in this very recent story, either, so that complicates the defense a bit more.  Still, one set of parents claiming the parenting style, and called on the carpet for identical offenses should face no difference in possible sanctions than another set of parents not claiming the style.

What these types of situations may call for is clear legal guidance, perhaps even legal local ordinances, proscribing unacceptable times and places for “free-range” kids to be found.  For example, I see nothing wrong with the City of Austin (or any other city) insisting that four-year olds not be permitted in certain vice-related areas after dark.  I know that can be a slippery slope, but there ARE bad people in the world who will take children and rape and/or kill them, and certain standards may be needed to make “free range” parenting an acceptable and safe parenting style for everyone involved.

![](https://cdn.steemitimages.com/DQmdRtzyu4kPrFngg4ryVipo9kWkuErYacNHGxAZvLbLW1K/image.png)
(Image courtesy of babble.com.)

Again, though, I see no reason for CPS to be involved in police matters, as these types of potentially dangerous situations most adamantly would be—NOT the purview of people charged with examining cases of actual abuse—something they are notoriously poor at doing.  Leaving the door even slightly cracked for these petty tyrants to drive their truck of “neglect” through is certainly not wise, and would be the detriment of all parents, and to society as a whole.  The standard for CPS proving a case of neglect should be set very high, indeed, and to the point where any reasonable adult would find that CPS has (for once) actually acted responsibly.  

As for this specific case, this mother probably should get out of range of Texas DCFS, ASAP…and she may want to “keep her nose clean” from now on.  Once your children (like her three) are already in the clutches of these dangerous profit-driven bureauRATS is probably not the best time for personal re-assessment of one’s parenting choices.