Connecticut Parents Arrested for Letting Kids, Ages 7 and 9, Walk to Dunkin' Donuts
"I have never felt threatened by a single person in this town until meeting those officers and the social worker."

It was Super Bowl Sunday in February 2019. Cynthia Rivers and her husband decided that their kids, ages seven and nine, deserved a long-promised treat for cleaning their rooms: the right to walk to Dunkin' Donuts by themselves. (Reason has changed her name to protect the family's anonymity.)
This was in Killingly, Connecticut, a suburban town in the northeast part of the state. The Rivers' lived near an elementary school, library, state police barracks, sidewalks, crosswalks, many Victorian-style homes, and the aforementioned donut shop. The kids gathered $7, and off they went.
A few minutes later, the River parents heard a knock at the door. It was the police.
The first cop to show up "said he didn't think it was safe for the kids to walk by themselves," Rivers tells Reason. "We told him that while we did feel it was safe, we agreed to not allow them to walk around town unsupervised."
"We thought that would have been the end of it," Rivers added, "until three more officers showed up."
The first cop sent Rivers' husband to retrieve the kids, who had only made it about two blocks. Then mom, dad, and the kids faced a barrage of questions.
"They told us that it wasn't safe for kids to walk down the street, that there are registered sex offenders all over town that could take them, that drug dealers were going to give them drugs, and that it was 'a different world now,'" says Rivers.
She tried to dispute what the police were saying, and one of them asked if she watched the news.
The police report, which was reviewed by Reason, makes clear that the police were obsessed with the possibility of sex offenders harming the children. Indeed, they pressed the Rivers to search the sex offender registry to learn which of their neighbors were on it.
The officers also claimed that they had received a dozen 911 calls about the kids during the short time they were gone. Rivers thought this was unlikely, as they had only made it past four other homes. But whatever the rationale, the officers proceeded to charge Rivers' husband with risk of injury to a minor. They charged Rivers separately for the same thing. Then they arrested her husband and took him away.
"I tried to convince the officers that we weren't doing anything wrong," says Rivers. "This was obviously futile, but I had to try. Then I went back inside to help with the kids. I found out later from my husband that after I went inside, the arresting officer said to him, 'If she talks to me again, I'm going to arrest you both and take away your kids.'"
Rivers husband was back home quickly after the arrest, and they began searching for a lawyer. But a few days later, a police sergeant visited the house and let the Rivers know that they were dropping the charges. He admitted that the law concerning child negligence was open to interpretation on the question of letting kids walk by themselves. Happily, the Rivers told the lawyer that his services wouldn't be necessary after all, because everything was settled.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the case. The police charges had gone away, but the Department of Children and Families (DCF) pursued its own investigation.
The DCF caseworker visited the family twice and interviewed everyone about their complete history.
"She was looking for problems," says Rivers.
Rivers tried to explain to the caseworker that the police had overreacted, but the caseworker maintained that the parents had somehow jeopardized their kids safety. When Rivers revealed that she had received therapy for depression some years before, the caseworker weaponized this information—and insisted she return to therapy.
Eventually, DCF closed the case, too. While this may seem like a happy ending, it has had a lasting, negative impact. Rivers says she waited three years—until her daughter turned 12—to let her go for another walk unsupervised.
Let Grow, the nonprofit I helm, is trying to change the neglect laws so that simply trusting your kids in the outside world is not reason enough to trigger investigations like the ones the Rivers endured. Connecticut is contemplating a "reasonable childhood independence" law that would establish a clearer bar for neglect: likely danger, rather than any danger an imaginative person might think of.
"I've lived in this area most of my life," says Rivers. "I've gone walking and jogging all around this town, by myself, at all hours of the day and night, and met and talked to many local people. I have never felt threatened by a single person in this town until meeting those officers and the social worker."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can’t have those kids burning off the empty calories they got at Chunkin.
Can't have those kids thinking that they can do anything at all without getting the government's permission first.
"Can’t have those SUBJECTS thinking that they can do anything at all without getting the government’s permission first."
FTFY
Admitting the rogue government in Washington is illegitimate, and you owe your allegiance to King Charles? Brave, although not too surprising here on treason.com...
But you can certainly suggest that the rogue government in Washington is illegitimate without having to owe your allegiance to any other particular government.
Home earnings allow all people to paint on-line and acquire weekly bills to financial institutions. Earn over $500 each day and get payouts each week instantly to account for financial institutions. (bwj-03) My remaining month of earnings was $30,390 and all I do is paint for as much as four hours an afternoon on my computer. Easy paintings and constant earnings are exquisite with this job.
More information→→→→→ https://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
No end of trolls, is there?
I try not to feed them, but some are kind of worth the entertainment, I guess.
Rouge, not rogue. And your children belong to ANGKA, comrade.
You'll make a good slave.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,300 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,200 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.SmartJob1.Com
Asshole
Unfortunately all too common in far left states like CT - I wouldn't raise kids there on a bet...here in the Rockies we let kids hike into the back country at age 9 and have never had a reason to worry (then again mountain lions kill far less people than people do...)
The ticks are the biggest threat, not the mountain lions.
Ah yes, killingly, CT a veritable cesspool of child trafficking and drug gangs. And the kids could have been attacked by the neighbors chickens. Can’t believe the cops didn’t mention that.
Well, duh, with a name like Killingly.
I checked the Killingly zip codes. There is one registered sex offender in Killingly and one in East Killingly.
That is hardly "all over town".
There is zero sourcing on this article and web searches only point back to this same article.
And then we have the writer, Lenore Skenazy, who hasn't provided any evidence that any of this happened. And then we learn that Lenore Skenazy is also monetarily tied to all of this (promoting a group tied to all of the likely fake stuff in this story).
I am not saying this is fake, but this story (and its complete lack of supporting evidence) is probably fake or not what really happened.
We're moving to the what is not explicitly allowed is forbidden territory of legal theory. Which is really really bad in the long run.
Killingly softly? Hardly.
There’s quite a few Carpenters in that town—and even more Karens!
I'm going to have to give you some (Roberta) Flack for the Carpenters reference.
Well done!!!
Nothing in this story has been confirmed and its author (Lenore Skenazy) is using this story to push a non-profit and begging for donations.
While I am not saying that this story is fake, I can't help but think this story is probably fake.
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn , The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956
Yeah.
'If she talks to me again, I'm going to arrest you both and take away your kids.'
It's like they've never even seen a Liam Neeson movie.
Seriously, meth addict with the kids chained to the radiator, OK. They probably don't want the kids and, even if they did, their thirst for vengeance runs out of gas halfway through cooking another batch of meth. But taking some John Doe's kids because he let them walk to Dunkin' while the Superbowl is on? I don't know how you don't think you'd be looking over your shoulder for the rest of your life. Even with the meth addicts, enough times and it's going to catch up to you, and actions will have to be justified one way or the other. Adding no-abuse John Does into the mix just increases the odds of it catching up to you and the ends not justifying the means.
Seriously, meth addict with the kids chained to the radiator, OK. They probably don’t want the kids
The DCF caseworker probably wouldn't even put in half as much effort looking into the meth head and they would probably get to keep their kids and continue raising them in squalor. Meanwhile, the suburban soccer mom who let the kids walk to Dunkin and then had the temerity to talk back to the cops when they were called?
DCF caseworker: "Fuck that bitch, let's make their lives hell and try and find an excuse to take their kids. Because FYTW."
That's because a meth den is actually dangerous, and these social workers aren't interested in danger.
A suburban home is so safe they feel like they can do whatever they want to flex their power over those who live better than the social worker.
Nanny state, indeed.
Also, the suburban home is like that in which her ilk typically grew up in. Only this time, she’s the one with power over mumsy and pops!
But what if the suburban home has a.... (gasp)... gas-burning stove?????
That't's attempted suicide.
Yet social workers are who police haters say should respond to crime!
Thinking about it further, Lenore could be doing everyone a favor by leaving us with something other than "DCF Caseworker". Reason is all about citizen journalists getting doxxy with information they glean by collusion with police. Why Reason then gets all 'protect the identity of state-employed kidnappers' is rather bizarre. That's exactly the sort of power that should be lorded over those bureaucrats. You should be able to look the public in the eye and explain why you took someone's kids and, if you can't, you shouldn't be taking their kids.
Huzzah!
"...axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?…"
You know, gun control is a process....can't have just anyone possessing an ax, hammer, or poker, now can we? Will need to show a good reason for having a screw driver in your home. Must be a bona fide occupational requirement or such.
Knife control in action.
https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
Google pays an hourly wage of $100. My most recent online earnings for a 40-hour work week were $3500. According to my younger brother’s acquaintance, he works cs-02 roughly 30 hours each week and earns an average of $12,265. I’m in awe of how simple things once were.
.
.
See this article for more information————————>>>GOOGLE WORK
I've seen and posted that myself a number of times.
Of course when you begin with a false premise [i.e., the weapon, or tool, is the problem and not the person using it], you get progressivism. And this is a prime example; hey, it's not like we have a constitutional right to possess a hammer. All downhill from there.
Will take a stab at this but likely all that will do is give criminals an edge.
Yes, knife bans could be the grist for some cutting edge legislation. A poker ban, alas, is not in the cards.
Also, they need to take care not to drive home to sheeple about how they’re getting screwed. Otherwise, their thoughts might turn to “If I had a hammer…”
what bu11sh1t...why bother actually dealing with the issue of violent crime when you can just pass a sweeping ban on any type of tool that can be used as a weapon then when said weapons are used in the commission of a crime you can point to the fact that they were made illegal? Goes to show that you really care about the community right? In actuality it shows that you don't care at all and that you're simply passing 'feel good legislation' to make yourself look like you care...
My sword-cane was outlawed too, at my London flat. But this? This is just a fancy walking sticker.... er, walking stick.
"We're from Government Almighty and we're here to help... Help ourselves to ass much tax money, and ass much power, ass we can possibly grab, and get away with."
She sent her young kids unattended to a donut shop? You know what kind of people hang around donut shops? I'll bet you do - and I'll bet this woman knew as well. But hey, she's a decent patriotic woman who regularly votes Democrat, what does she have to fear from Officer Friendly? I'll bet even now she's complaining to anyone who'll listen that the town needs to get rid of those couple of bad apple cops and social workers. But she still votes Democrat because that's the party of caring and compassion.
You know what kind of people hang around donut shops? Armed thugs with attitude problems and a state-sanctioned monopoly on violence.
Sadly, Dunkin’ has cut back their donut selection to a few varieties, making them into coffee shops with a donut sideline and breakfast sandwiches. My local one is just the side wall of a Citgo station’s convenience store, albeit with a drive-through window. It’s a 0.3 mile walk from my door to theirs. A round trip is a mere stretch of the legs, but good for some exercise. There’s another one in an Exxon location 1.2 mi further down the road. If I go another mile there is a rival donut shop with a much better selection and a parking lot large enough to hold classic car “cruise nights.” I was at DD today, but bought neither pastry nor donuts.
In New England, unless you are in a strictly rural area, anywhere you walk is on the way to Dunkin'.
These are only and always problems of suburbs. Never of cities or of rural areas.
I was just about to comment; get out of the fucking city [and, even worse, the suburbs; where do you think the Karens live, who called the police in the first place?]!
It's in Killingsy, Connecticut. It is a small rural town. Not a suburb of any city. The nearest city is in a different state. Close enough to Hartford for commuting, but it's not a suburb.
Nor is it a Democrat thing. While registered Democrats do outnumber Republicans slightly, the number of unaffilated voters more than doubles the total of the duopoly. So you can't blame the proggies.
It's karenism, pure and simple. The damn town is too affluent and too white. (Who do you think the karens are?)
Suburbs and small towns. I didn't mean to imply an exact relationship to a city. It seems to have something to do with population density and lifestyle. In the open country these problems don't seem to arise; the local constable is a friend or at least knows everybody. In a city of large population walking down the street is taken for granted, police have better things to do. But small towns seem to have engendered a society wherein walking is strange, children are foreign to each other, the police are as foreign as they are in cities, and Mrs. Kravitz is always suspicious,
Yeah, a Dunbar Number-esque relationship where a community and police force grows too large for an elected constabulary and/or duly appointed citizens serving the peace are able to ‘grok’ one another and the police become just another ‘department’ and the public are all just animals.
At some point in the growth of the community and the police force, Andy and Barney keeping an eye on the sleepy town of Mayberry turns into The Shield.
Huzzah!
But there are no Dunkin Donuts to walk to out in the country. They could walk out to the cow pasture, but the donuts aren't as good. And Dunkin's donuts suck.
And Dunkin’s donuts suck.
I think you're wrong, but I also think you're misconceptualizing the purpose of the Dunkin Donuts. That is, there are certainly better donuts to be had, but a $0.99 plain, vanilla donut cannot possibly suck as bad as a $2.49 plain, vanilla scone.
My problem with Dunkin (or rather the people who go there, Dunkin clearly has an effective business model and good for them) is that there used to be lots of good donut shops that weren't fancy or trendy or overpriced and made really good, fresh donuts. Dunkin seems to have driven them all out of business. And their donuts do suck in comparison.
I guess I wasn't clear enough. This isn't exactly a Dunkin problem, this is a Starbucks/Beatnik/Grunge problem that only Dunkin and, maybe, Tim Horton's (who's donuts, I don't think you'll disagree, aren't much better) are able to survive.
Prior to the 90s, the business model was a $0.50 cup of coffee upselling a $2.50 box of donuts for $2.65 profit on the whole affair, every morning, for the office or the carpool, on the way to work. Once Starbucks came along and stoners and snooty college students would lay up $4.65 all day long for just coffee, the donut game became the gimmicky upsale. The reason the donuts are the way they are is so that people who still do the 'donuts and coffee for the office' thing like it's still 1955 can afford 'competitive' coffee *and* donuts.
There are other, analogous problems as well (minority-owned or community-enhancement business grants going to specialty or dedicated bakeries like cupcakes and specialty donuts), but really, Starbuck coffee overtly upended the traditional coffee and donuts game.
I've had Starbucks and Dunkin coffee and pastries I'm not suffering any delusions about the quality of Dunkin donuts. I'm just telling you, the reason the other donuts tasted better is because you were taking the baker to the cleaners and that's why they aren't around any more.
Fun anecdote: We had exactly one donut shop in the town where I grew up. For 30+ yrs., the same one shop. One day, somebody in the kitchen suggests making something other than donuts and coffee. Within a year, they've got a full breakfast and lunch menu and staff and new facilities to support it. Within 3 yrs. they've got 3 locations doing more business every year than they did in the first decade. Make no mistake, the donuts were and are still really good, but "donuts" or "cupcakes" or "chocolate chip cookies" is not a... fully developed... business model. At least not anymore.
Two words: Krispy Kreme.
One word: diabeetus
Are you holding the donut shop chain that got sorta big and then had to file for bankruptcy after going public because of their shoddy accounting practices as an example of a donut shop chain can still make it or are you holding it up because you think their donuts are significantly different/better than Dunkin/TH/truckstop fare?
Zero words:
How the heck did we get round to debating donuts? That’s a hole other conversation!
Blueberry, or skip it.
You probably like their lattes too don't you?
Old Fashioned with coffee, black, and a cigarette, or GTFO, pussy.
[Drops butt in CE's open coffee cup.]
🙂
Point taken. It's not the locality; just the assholes who live there and thrive on fucking with others.
+1
Of course we are talking about Connecticut; seems I've encountered the most stories like this coming out of that State, or even worse places [like New Jersey].
My only question; how the hell did the cops get there twice before the kids got two blocks away?
I know math is racist and all that jazz, but really!
A visit and leaving for the first block, and a visit and arrests for the second block?
My only question; how the hell did the cops get there twice before the kids got two blocks away?
Small town police with nothing better to do? And in all likelihood the additional cops were probably called in at the first sign that she wasn't just going to roll over for their ridiculous "child molesters are everywhere" paranoia. A peasant wasn't showing the proper level respect for their AUTHORITAH therefore backup was needed.
first cop probably saw the kids because HE was also on his way to the doughnut shop. the other cops heard the call and said, "we could use and excuse to go that way." (or, the other ones were already at the shop and the reason they were all pissy was getting called away.)
The snitching neighbors have more than one phone number and were prepared to cause trouble.
I'm lucky to see a police response in 15 mins, and I live relatively close to a police station in a smallish community. Were they sitting at the end of the block with nothing to do or something ?
Cops were undoubtedly pissed because the kids didn't bring back any donuts for them.
Don't suppose you are the same Liberty Bell with the You Tube channel?
Nope, I haven't had a youtube account since Google bought it and started enforcing logins and mandatory accounts. Google is too 'Big Brother" for my tastes.
Cops in affluent small towns do often have long stretches of time with nothing to do.
How do these stories keep happening? Are no parents protesting? Are the fragiles and karens really running all of the local towns and burbs?
If something like this happened in my home town back then, the parents would have tossed out the mayor for hiring such a dumbshit chief of police, and then run that chief out of town on a rail.
Two blocks from home? Really? I was a lightweight as a kid so further than that I would have taken my bike. I always made sure to let my mom know where I was going, because that was the era of the stranger danger scare, but the idea that kids today cant' walk two blocks without an escort is bullshit.
Fuck, I see kids walking home from school TODAY without supervision or escorts. In a suburb. Of a major metropolitan area. In a deep blue county of a deep blue state. So maybe this is just a Connecticut thing.
Or maybe it's a class divide thing. Where I am seeing kids walking by themselves are in lower class neighborhoods. And they seem to be mainly Latino.
And maybe times are changing. I notice my hometown elementary school I went too now has a "pick up/drop off" lane. A local elementary school, whose students all live within a mile of the school. The actually took out part of the playground to install some parking spots they have so much car traffic. The attendance has not risen that much.
"Are no parents protesting? Are the fragiles and karens really running all of the local towns and burbs?Are no parents protesting?"
Maybe if there was a local Libertarian Party and it protested issues like these instead of, say, demanding the Fed be ended or social security abolished (or other pie in the sky issues that have no chance of succeeding.)
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website. http://Www.workstar24.com
Yes, blame libertarians for this. Makes total sense...especially considering maybe five people in that whole town might be a part of it since ultimately 'ending the fed' or 'abolishing social security' are bound to come up and turn off the normies no matter what.
Last I checked, people can protest more than one thing at a time.
Then those "five people" need to be out there, visible to the community, instead of maybe working to nominate some unknown for president. The LP won't grow or have it's message heard until it is visible in the local life of your town.
While I am sympathetic to that, I don't think that's the problem. People ignore the LP regardless if they are Mises Caucus purists or Gary Johnson pragmatists.
The problem comes in thinking you need a political party devoted to such reforms. Instead, think of political parties as part of government, and that what the squeaky wheel needs is to get their attention. It's as mad.casual wrote upthread: that jurisdictions have gotten too big for the people who need it to have influence, and only those who seek graft and power do, because it's too big a job to be worth all that work just to get relief in some small facet of life like kids walking places. But in the very biggest of jurisdictions, it's not a problem because there are much bigger problems that get authorities' attention, so people generally are ignored, to their relief.
https://www.lpct.org/
I have four kids, when we were kids our parents really didn't care where we were, we came home to eat, we walked to and from school, which was like a mile and a half. Nowadays, I can't get parents to carpool, every playdate has to be put on the schedule a week in advance. You have to be on time to a freaking kids' playdate, give me a break! But the liberals and conservatives are identical in this. Their kid is too precious to be outside, or not be watched at all times, or too stupid to cross a street without being hit by a car. Now many of the kids suffer from anxiety and depression. How would you not when you are constantly told that you are stupid and inept?
Also, I dislike this whole 'Karen' thing, its just a catchall for denigrating anything a white woman thinks or says, it does not mean anything, enough already.
Also, I dislike this whole ‘Karen’ thing, its just a catchall for denigrating anything a white woman thinks or says, it does not mean anything, enough already.
This isn't an A. A. meeting Karen, you don't have to stand up and tell us all a little bit about yourself.
And that was her first mistake: thinking that they cared about anything she had to say that wasn't folding like a cheap suit and begging for forgiveness. This peasant thought she had the right to question The King's Men. Obviously she was mistaken and would have to be taught a lesson.
Never talk to cops. That includes social workers.
Probably because they were thinking of it themselves.
You know who else was obsessed with sex offenders?
Reason commenters?
Joe Biden’s victims?
Have no clue why living near buildings and such or e.g. living on campus (Ted Bundy, Richard Speck) would be relevant when it comes to kids (or adults) being snatched. I looked at a map and found the Dunkins, Police, school, etc. so I have a good idea how they would have walked. No way I let those kids walk to the Dunkins alone, even in Mayberry RFD. Any parent who would consider buildings as providing security per se, for their kids is an idiot. But obviously the 'government' overacted and I believe violated their civil right to be a parent.
Because you are creating a nanny state of imbeciles. I'm reading a biography called "A Sense of the World" and it takes place around 1800, and 12 year olds were training in the Royal Navy, commanding ships by 16. Kids live up to our expectations, and in the US in 2023 ours are incredibly low.
Why wouldn't you "no way" let the kids walk to the Dunkin' alone? That's truly bizarre. Would you drive them there? The risk of stranger abduction is vanishingly small and the risk of dying in a car crash is much higher. We have lost all sense of proportion in this country and ignore statistics (which is a science). Those nanny-staters who decry anyone who doesn't support their climate change agenda as "science deniers" are just as guilty of science denying when it comes to statistics around child abduction and gun violence.
"I have never felt threatened by a single person in this town until meeting those officers and the social worker."
Welcome to the collective.
What do you think Killary meant when she wrote that little book?
Reverend Arty's betters know what's good for you, clinger!
This is actually a good era to be getting old and childless.
Really glad I don't have minor children any more. It will be up them to deal with this stupidity on a direct level.
They'd be calling the cops on me for the reaction I would have.
I'm with the parents here, but... " Killingly, Connecticut"? What sorts of people choose to live in a place with that name?
People live in places with weird names like Hell (Michigan) and Toad Suck (Arkansas)
Boring, Oregon.
Truth or Consequences, New Mexico
Intercourse Pennsylvania (which oddly enough is very close to Blue Ball Pennsylvania).
You can't let kids out by themselves, there are Russians everywhere!!
The woke sheep that called the police should be executed. It is a certainty that the sheep knew the kids and the parents.
Now do drag shows.
The woke
sheepgroomers thatcalled the policedo drag shows for kids should be executed.That work?
For freedom people, you sure have a long list of people you want to murder for practicing a different lifestyle from yours.
What is so great about your lifestyle anyway? Or are you just mad that you wasted it all on dour, 9-5 bullshit, sexual repression, and sports, and want everyone else to suffer too?
For anyone paying attention, Tony just said he supports grooming children.
He wants his interactions with minors to be touching.
You want to protect children from sex abuse, keep them out of church first of all. Then encourage them to spend as much time outdoors as possible, away from their families, the most likely place sex pests might be lurking relative to any particular abused child.
As for drugs, do the opposite. Use drugs in the carefully regulated environment of your parents' living room, and they'll lose their mystique.
Sex Pests would be a good band name.
Uncle Ernie has been known to fiddle about.
They told us that it wasn't safe for kids to walk down the street, that there are registered sex offenders all over town that could take them
How many of them have badge numbers?
Those aren't registered.
I was a single Dad of two daughters and was regularly subjected to treatment similar to that described in the article: Aggravating, scary, and absolutely unfair.
Is it me or does anyone else remember the days of…
Me: “Mom, going out to play.” (this is 11am) Mom: “Be in before dark. Where are you going to be?” Me” “Maybe Mark’s or Jason’s. Not sure. Probably go to the gravel pit or dirt hills with our bikes. Maybe the part if we can get enough for football.” (this is the longest answer, usually it was “Don’t know. See yah”)
Everyone 25 years ago or further back that was a parent would now be arrested or have CPS called on them.
We are pussifying the generations more and more each cycle.
At least I'll be dead soon.
LOL.
For us it was "Go outside and find something to do, I'm not going to entertain you."
The police weren't protecting the children, they were protecting their donuts from the children.
Good thing the kids didn't bring their dog.
In Killing Fields, CT your children belong to ANGKA!! Don’t make our comrade cadres pay a home visit.
Kids walking to the store should be no problem. Letting them eat sugar-laden deep-fried donuts could be considered reckless endangerment though.
Sounds like it's time to sue the police for harassment.
Oh wait, qualified immunity.....
Sorry, I thought I was still living in the United States of America.
Install TBN App on Roku
The most dangerous thing these irresponsible parents are doing is allowing their children to eat doughnuts.
Sugar is the world's most addictive substance, with almost a 100% relapse rate.
They should have sent them to a bagel shop.
This happened three years ago and you're reporting it now? Why?
Slow news day, perhaps...
Great article just keep on posting this.
There are NO peaceful solutions.
When people have had enough, ONLY THEN will this "STUPID"... Stop!
When people have had enough, they'll disappear.
Fuck those jack booted thugs. Worry about raising your own little fuck tards. Here's a concept...go after real criminals or is that part of the job too scary?
This is an unusually candid admission by the police that they can't or unwilling to do their job to keep the town's residents safe.
Sounds like the POLICE know exactly their shortfalls and need to step up protection of the town. THE PEOPLE OF THE TOWN SHOULD BE SAFE AND FREE TO HAVE THEIR KIDS WALK THE STREETS, PLAY AT THE PLAYGROUNDS WITHOUT CRIME INTERFERENCE! So rather than fight crime, by letting the pedophiles know they are being watched, by showing a police presence, to monitor and look after the kids WALKING THE STREETS; they instead want to intimidate and put fear in the COMMON CITIZEN to cower and FEAR normal activities in this CRIME RIDDEN TOWN! SHAME ON POLICE, SHAME ON MAYOR, SHAME ON TOWN LEADERSHIP!
Jim, your computer seems to be having issues with its Caps Lock key. You might want to look into it.
To stop police-state oppression, you organize into guerilla units, encounter police personnel covertly, torture them to death. That will stop a lot of police-state activity. Then go on ahead and eradicate the police-state.
Rivers tried to explain to the caseworker that the police had overreacted, but the caseworker maintained that the parents had somehow jeopardized their kids safety. When Rivers revealed that she had received therapy for depression some years before, the caseworker weaponized this information—and insisted she return to therapy.
Eventually, DCF closed the case, too. While this may seem like a happy ending, it has had a lasting, negative impact. Rivers says she waited three years—until her daughter turned 12—to let her go for another walk unsupervised.
Let Grow, the nonprofit I helm, is trying to change the neglect laws so that simply trusting your kids in the outside world is not reason enough to trigger investigations like the ones the Rivers endured. Connecticut is contemplating a "reasonable childhood independence" law that would establish a clearer bar for neglect: likely danger, rather than any danger an imaginative person might think of.
"I've lived in this area most of my life," says Rivers. "I'v
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
I sell crack and pimp for a living and I clear $5K every day, except Sunday. You gotta take a day off. Pimpin' is hard.
Well, yes, the parents did expose their children to danger. Parents do that every day when they tote their kids around in a car. The problem is that life is about trade-offs. Keep your kids inside more--they are at greater risk for X, Y or Z.
I can understand if they are both thirteen and the place is close. I would have them take a phone. I DON'T believe in free range parenting. The police and DCF typically overreact.
Good one. Thank you, rhinoblue.
I can't believe Reason can't do anything to scrub all these make X-thousand a week posts to crowd the comments section following every article. Oh, wait. They're libertarians. That explains it.