Local early childcare educator Lia Grippo has watched a day at Arroyo Burro Beach manifest into a Department of Social Services nightmare.
Grippo, a mother of two and accomplished outdoor educator in Santa Barbara County, had her childcare license suspended by the DSS on July 8, following investigation of an incident at Arroyo Burro Beach (formally Hendry’s Beach): On June 15, several children in her care climbed a cliff adjacent to the beachfront in beach attire, with the exception of one child who was nude. Although no one was injured, the incident was interpreted by several bystanders below as reckless conduct and subsequently reported to the DSS, which found the incident indicative of conduct that is “inimical to the health, welfare, morals or safety” of the ten children in her care that day. Five months and two DSS hearings later, Grippo’s license remains suspended, pending her testimony next Monday, November 24.
At a time when parents are encouraged to allot sufficient outdoor activity for their children, Grippo said she has been stripped of her childcare license for hosting a program which embodies outdoor exploration. “I think that there is a growing trend toward risk aversion in our society that has really gone over the edge,” Grippo said. “We live in a time that both our children and ourselves must be as safe as possible, rather than as safe as necessary.” According to the allegations by the DSS, Grippo violated the personal rights of children in her care by “not providing adequate care and supervision” to three children while they were “climbing a cliff approximately 125 feet high while naked or partially clothed.” Additionally, the DSS allegation states that Grippo allowed children in her care to be “expos[ed] to natural hazards (cliffs and ocean fronts), thereby placing the daycare children in substantial danger.” Grippo claims the children climbing-two of them her own and one the child of a close friend-are avid climbers who had scaled the beachside cliff before.
The incident occurred while Grippo led the first day of a Wild Roots Nature Education Program session, her entirely outdoor-based program for children ages 2 through 7. The program-which introduces children to the outdoors through exploration at a young age-is offered over the summer as an auxiliary service to Grippo’s DSS licensed, indoor childcare program, Seedlings. Included in Grippo’s charges, the DSS investigation-executed by Kevin Kielas of Community Care Licensing-claims Grippo’s outdoor program Wild Roots is synonymous with Seeds, the childcare program in her home. Additionally, the accusations exert that Grippo was operating an unlicensed program, employed an unscreened aide, and that she endangered the well-being of children in her care.
Lizelda Lopez, Public Information Officer for the Community Care Licensing Division of the DSS, said the department will continue to seek the revocation of Grippo’s license in spite of the appeal. “What happened could have killed these children, so we take this very seriously,” Lopez said. “That’s why we are seeking the revocation: she failed to protect these children from the potential of becoming seriously hurt.” Currently, there are 50,000 licensed childcare facilities in the state. The DSS only pursues revocation against only one percent of these facilities on average per year. “It is not our goal to shut these programs down,” Lopez said. “It’s our goal to make sure that our children are in safe environments.”
Key to this case is the DSS’s aligning of Grippo’s Wild Roots program to her home daycare center. Currently, the DSS only licenses preschools and daycares that are based in homes or facilities, Grippo said, not camps or outdoor programs which operate exclusively outdoors. In the preamble of the accusation, the DSS says that Grippo was operating a program that falls under the category of a “family child care home” and is therefore subject to Title 22 regulations and guidelines. However, the Wild Roots program is based outdoors, raising the question of whether or not the program is indeed subject to the California Child Day Care Facilities Act and Title 22. “I have searched for a number of years and there still is no licensing for programs based completely outdoors,” Grippo said. “You can get insurance for them however, which would be difficult if they were illegal.” Grippo said that although she has a strong case against the accusations, the DSS can still choose not to honor the judge’s decision from the hearing and could continue to suspend her license.
While Grippo strongly disagrees with the DSS suspension, she does concede that she was wrong to allow Maria Witcher to work in her programs without a criminal record clearance. Witcher, whose child was in the Wild Roots program June 15, was slated to work for only two days in the summer and for personal reasons had put off getting fingerprinted, Grippo said. She added that this charge normally results in a fine for first time offenders, very rarely a full revocation of one’s teaching license.
Working in childcare for over two decades, Grippo has fashioned her career by emphasizing exploration of nature in her programming for children. “When we keep children from testing their own abilities at a young age, I think we are doing them a great disservice,” Grippo said. “Our culture has become so litigious: children aren’t being allowed to get muddy, climb boulders, or play in the creek.” Before the incident, Grippo owned and operated three childcare programs: Seedlings, a pre-kindergarten program based in her home as well as in the local woods, Acorns and Oaks, a parent/child wilderness program offered over the summer, and Wild Roots, an entirely outdoor child daycare program.
Grippo’s appeal of the revocation of her license was not completed at the initial November 3-4 hearings. The second phase of the hearings-which will focus mainly on Grippo’s testimony-will be held on Monday, November 23 at 9:30 a.m. at 360 South Hope Ave, Building B in Santa Barbara and is open to the public.



Print friendly
E-mail story
Tip Us Off
Comments
Share Article
Myspace





Previous Month



Comments
Anybody have any contact info. for these govt. nutjobs who have nothing better to do than mess with a good teacher? Maybe the general public should comment directly to them about misusing tax dollars like this.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
November 17, 2009 at 9:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, AZ2SB!
Holly (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If stupidity were an Olympic sport...those government PinHeads would be wearing gold.
rstein9 (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 5:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Based on what I have heard, the by-standers who freaked out and called 911 bear some of the responsibility for their over-reaction. The DSS obviously compounds it. (Just because you can see something doesn't mean you can interpret it.)
maven12 (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 7:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
CCL is so far from reality it is ridiculous (believe me, it is my job to deal with them). These people don't care about the quality of programs that they oversee they care about paperwork and regulations. This is just another example of why California is basically bankrupt. Every layer of this state's bureaucracy is a ineffective money sink.
Num1UofAn (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is an agency which seems to fail in every state. Children with cigarette burns and bruises go unnoticed but whenever someone reports a good parent, or in this case, a good teacher, they're hell bent on making their lives miserable and taking the children away. What a wonderful program she has come up with. And how many of our kids have grown up climbing those cliffs (in the right places and supervised)? This is beyond ridiculous, but as more and more liberals are voted in we have more and more government intrusion into our lives... you get what you ask for! And then, they'll tax you to pay for it!!
beachwalker (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, this is absolutely ridiculous! Those children shouldn't be outside, they should be kept in cages repeating their times tables!!
Good luck Lia!!
loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 10:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ah beachwalker, I live for the day when politics stop polluting EVERY conversation and dialogue. Gee, if I'm not mistaken, the Repukes have been in charge the last 8 years, and CCL was still funded during that time. Grow a brain, and stay on topic please. Lia, best of luck with your fight with the bureaucrats. My son would have loved a program like yours (he's grown now). Perhaps gathering the community's support behind you can help.
crissyslucky7 (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just to clarify beachwalker, the majority of your post was dead-on. You just lost all credibility at the end when you teabagged the whole thing in politics. Just so lame.
crissyslucky7 (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Cliffs too dangerous for kids?? I'm sure the DDS can back that up with stats. I've never heard of an accident there. And we wonder why Sacramento is billions in debt and good businesses are leaving Calif. Meanwhile, illiterate kids advance to high school and live with doper loser parents with the DDS' approval. What a country!!
wonarrowfan (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)
... Huh, naked 2-7 year-olds climbing 125-foot cliffs as part of some sort of unlicensed outdoor child-care program? But it's cool 'cause its all wildernessy and naturey and stuff like that. And it's DSS that are "stupid," "nutjobs" and "pinheads"?
Sounds like a well intentioned lady and all, but I expect better judgment from those who take care of my kids, and a lot better judgment from those that take care of your kids.
wingnut (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
...The opinion of the judge is not binding?
So the hearing is a sham. Nothing but an exercise.
Chances are better these boys could be killed riding their bikes down the road than following a trail from the beach to the top of the bluff.
And if they had been permitted to swim would the issue be riptides, or staff infection from fecal bacteria? I wonder how many children were in the water that day?
Oh, but it's worse than that... Full disclosure: I spoke with an employee of the licensing agency. The one point she kept returning too? That one of the boys was unclothed. The risk, she conceded, was minimal. But a prepubescent boy naked at the beach on a hot summer day? Criminal, apparently.
cassandra (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just based on this article I don't know enough about this situation to comment on whether or not she should lose her license. Though, I do agree with her general argument that our society has become extremely risk averse.
FightWoo (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding the reporting bystanders...about 12-13 years ago we lived in an apt. on Alamar, and got a visit from the police. Our neighbor at the top of the stairs, a biologist, was watching the Coopers Hawks nesting in a big eucalyptus tree outside our building, and some passersby reported him as a possible peeping Tom (he had binocs).
Good intentions are appreciated, but instead of cowardly ratting out possible wrong-doers, please consider just asking them what they're doing; it'll save a lot of time and money better spent on real crime.
GregMohr (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I have seen the cliff that these kids climbed, and I would have to agree that this "outdoor exploration" was not an activity that I would have approved of if my child was under anyones care. Her ability to insure herself for these activities is wonderful for her, but does not make it any more comforting. I would suggest that anyone interested in this should go to Arroyo Burro Beach to see what these "bystanders" witnessed. There is no mention here that the lifeguard had to leave his lifeguarding duties to assist these kids to safety. I don't doubt that she may be, or may have been, a great teacher, but a little common sense should be practiced more often and a little less reliance on insurability.
humphrey (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
crissyslucky7, you have a point. Bush was a tyrannical goon, and it goes against everything that the word "conservative" is SUPPOSED to stand for. In fact, he nearly doubled government spending and almost doubled our Federal Debt!! What, exactly, is "conservative" about that? Sounds like GW was pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should think about that.
And how about some history on the tea parties. The first one was Dec. 16, 2007. It was a fundraiser for Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul who that day raised a record $6 million+, it was a one day fund raising record!!! I'll bet you didn't hear about that in the establishment media, did you? That's because the media is owned by the elite bankers and they ignore all good politicians. That's why all the politicians in the media, including Obama-I'm-gonna-replace-all-the-troops-in-Iraq-with-private-contractors, all those lying pieces of sht suck. Ron Paul wants to END OUR GLOBAL EMPIRE around the world, abolish the DEA, FBI, CIA, DOE, FDA, IRS and the income tax (if we had Clinton's 1998 budget in 2007, we could have paid for EVERYTHING without ANY Federal Income taxes!!)
OK, so a lot of warhawk, pro-war, anti-civil liberties people have tried to hijack to the tea parties. That doesn't mean that the intention of limiting government intrusion into our lives has been lost entirely, but if you are going to use liberal, bankster backed Republicans as an excuse for why people are not allowed to question these monolithic government agencies, then you need to re-think your stance.
loonpt (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Humphrey, you don't have to let your kids explore nature, but at least let the rest of us enjoy it without big brother telling us we can't.
I for one think more children need to explore nature. Video game kids seem to be out of touch with nature and themselves.
Georgy (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Big Brother would not have been involved if just a little common sense would have been used.
Have you even seen where these kids were? And how they got there? Have you ever climbed this cliff?
Do you have kids?
humphrey (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
your kids can enjoy nature wlth out climbing 150' cliffs. There is no trail from the beach to Douglas Pres. What kind of nut job would even be messing around with those very unstable cliffs, totally irresponsible
JamPenn (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, a lot to say but I'm wondering if Humphery has tried scrambling up the hill in question. One would have a seriously hard time falling more than a yard or two on that trial--given the slope (a person can sit or stand the whole way up) and the amount of foot and hand holds along the way. The lifegaurd merely showed the kids where the million dollar staircase (which is actually steeper than the trail in question in many places) leading down to the restaurant. The point is, the DSS brought zero expert witnesses in to justify the "danger" of the hillside because they have no clue how to assess such activities. This is why they truly had no jurisdiction over the activity in the first place. It would benefit us all if they would spend their time researching the needs our children have for a healthy happy future of this society and planet, and working toward making such values more prevalent in the programs available to our youth--not trying to scare people like Mrs.Grippo out of providing programs that are already doing that work.
scapegoatsrevenge (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
JamPenn, you should try to contain your ignorance more, it's not becoming. They were on a moderately sloped hill a short walk in the other direction past the restaurant. Checked a topo map and there is nothing over 100 feet NW of there!
Humphrey, my kids (3 & 5) have climbed that hill and I've climbed up to the top/trail using my left index finger as additional balance! You don't seem to have any real knowledge of it.
TO SEE A HILL IS NOT THE SAME AS KNOWING IT
Furthermore, to even CONDONE "Big Brother's" intervention reveals what a truly scared human you have become. How do you know where her kids were? Were you there? Did you call 911? You sound just paranoid enough to have done it . . .
Do you realize by clumsily intervening in a culture you know nothing about has had devastating results to Ms. Grippo's livelihood/passion, her family's stability, and to the lives of the families in her program?
Are those kids safer now that they're out of a school? lost a beloved teacher?
It's true what her son said (in an earlier article:
http://www.independent.com/news/2009/... )
"Mama, I know why those people were afraid. They couldn't climb the hill themselves."
shame on you!
Forward further grievances to:
Community Care(less) Licensing
360 S Hope Ave Ste C-105
Santa Barbara, CA. 93105
(805) 682-7647
Participates in committees related to CCL:
Assemblyman Pedro Nava
Santa Barbara County
101 W. Anapamu Street
Suite A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: (805) 564-1649
Fax: (805) 564-1651
Senator Tony Strickland
610 Anacapa Street, Unit B-4
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 965-0862
Fax: (805) 965-0701
wild_one (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Can anyone describe how to get to where the kids were climbing? I'd like to see for myself before forming an opinion.
As an aside, I've climbed the cliffs at Ellwood with little kids before. There are some safe routes that snake their way up, but you can't see them until you're right on top of them. Otherwise, the cliffs look pretty imposing to the casual observer.
EastBeach (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Please do NOT judge Ms. Grippo's acts from some of the misreported "facts" in this article. The section of the hill was not 125 feet and none of the kids were 2 years of age on the hill. My child was one of the climbers and he was only up about 15 feet on a very gentle slope. Her child was age 4 and at about the same height as my son. Also, the lifeguard did NOT have to rescue anyone. All the children came down safely - the lifeguard only came over to show the 6 year olds who reached the top to come down the trail on the side. He did not physically assist any of the children coming down.
My son climbs hills, boulders, and trees the exact same height in my care all the time. He is a very active boy and his body actually needs this kind of movement and exploration. Please keep in mind that these climbers were a very confident group.
I have NEVER felt my son was in danger in Lia's care. She is an outstanding educator and my child FLOURISHED in her care. He is a nature lover and protector thanks to her. We need more educators like Lia and less fear-based politics and agencies.
Please show your support for Lia in any way you can - her teachings would make this world a better place.
cocalla (anonymous profile)
November 18, 2009 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Wild One,
The Darwin Awards will be glad you contributed!
Allowing 5 year olds to climb this "hill" is irresponsible. You commented on how confident these kids were...? They were 4 and 6 years old. Of course they were confident! Does that mean they should have been allowed to do this?
East Beach, the aforementioned "hill" is immediately (NW) adjacent to the restaurant.
humphrey (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 7:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
silly scared humphrey . . .
1. The kids were 4, 6, and 7. Age has nothing to do with an individual child's ability; the two who made it to the top (6 & 7) were EXPERIENCED, not just confident. They have been climbing since before they could walk, but of course you wouldn't know that . . . you've already decided, without knowing Lia or the children, that they were in danger. Again, this is all you! Obviously, you wouldn't let your poor children do this and hence have assimilated your fears. Keep your irrational fears away from OUR children!
Irresponsible? Why? They were experienced climbers, on that very hill, essentially TRAINED.
It's far more irresponsible to judge and make accusations against another culture, community, parent, or child without truly knowing anything about it/them. Such behavior is divisive to community.
p.s. "East Beach" you truly are lost! That's next to SB Cemetery.
wild_one (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 7:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
More comments here:
http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/20...
Rich (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand the political bantering as it applies to this situation. A lot of people tried to do the right thing in the actual incident.. I include the Lifeguard, the bystanders, the teacher and even the children. The reporting and discussions are also the right thing but should not be the final word.
I don't see where this is the venue to try the teacher or the methodology of teaching. I'm sorry this hasn't or wasn't and isn't being decided by the involved parents and teacher. The parents should understand and know what their care provider is about and have some sense of the child's activities and teacher choices at the daycare or school.
Time and resources are and were misdirected in order to come to the ultimate adult "parental" choices. It means I'm not going to tell your children they have to climb a hill or do anything they aren't comfortable doing or allowed to do at (home or) the day care you enrolled them in....and you're asked kindly not to tell me or my children or my child's responsible party what my child can or isn't allowed to do at (home or) day care I enrolled them in. Good luck to the concerned teacher, children, and the parents.
Ken (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ken,
You're not refering to that outmoded concept of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit Of Happiness are you?
Don't you realize how many bureaucrats, politicians, lawyers and law enforcement personel would be put out of their high paying jobs if they were forced to stay the hell out of peoples lives?
And the Moralists...what would they do if you took away their soapboxes and pulpits? Write books or something? God forbid they should read books....
sa1 (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
In reading this article, it appears that there was just one adult supervising 10 young children at the beach. That doesn't seem adequate supervision to me.
Moonrunner (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Thank you Wild One for the contact info. If anybody else who feels strongly about this issue I recommend you write a letter and send it to the above mentioned people in Wild Ones post. Since these paper pusher, pencil pimps like paperwork so much lets give them some more to do.
AZ2SB (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here are a few common examples of child abuse:
1) Forcing children to believe in mythical gods who will burn them in hell for innocent behavior.
2) Driving children to nearby places that they should be walking or biking to.
3) Arranging "play dates" instead of letting kids make their own friends and meet each other.
4) Feeding them drinks sweetened with high fructose corn syrup as their primary source of liquid.
5) Organizing every minute of the child's time
6) Not letting kids play and explore and learn and grow and make mistakes and fall down and be kids.
Lia is a rare hero who should be commended for going against the prevailing culture of child abuse in the US.
sbrobert (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 4:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Moonrunner, I know there were at least two supervising adults on the day in question, making at most a 5:1 ratio. I think you'll be hard pressed to find that ratio at any day care, summer camp (other than Wilderness Youth Project), or K-6 outing (the "climbers" in question were school-aged).
There was no accident involved in this situation, and therefore any discussion of negligence is simply speculative. There are multiple playgrounds in the Cities of Goleta and Santa Barbara offering kids far more opportunities to injure and kill themselves than scrambling up the hill involved for these kids. When day care children are hurt on a playground, who is the big bad wolf then?
scapegoatsrevenge (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 9:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
wow. this is all very interesting. thank you sbrobert for those examples of common child abuse. so true & so sad.
curious (anonymous profile)
November 19, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All these people flapping their lips in defense would be the first ones screaming where was the government if one of those kids fell and were died from climbing the cliff.
Why was one of them naked? How old was the naked kid? Male or female? Why didn't she have her employee properly checked with her fingerprints submitted? Seems like some other issues are at hand here, not such the over-simplification of climbing the cliffs.
InTheKnow (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 4:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't live in Santa Barbara and I have never seen the beach in question. But I have known Lia for a long time. We were friends when we both lived for a while outside of the United States. Our children were friends and I frequently entrusted her with my kids.
I am not the sort of person who normally embraces alternative education. My children go to British school. They wear uniforms and start reading at age 4 and have very rigidly structured days. My husband and I for various reasons prefer this sort of school over educational philosophies such as Waldorf and the like.
But there is a difference between disagreeing over pedagogy on one hand, and calling into question a person's competency and responsibility and ability as a teacher. And I can say that Lia is one of the best teachers and caregivers I have ever met. I would trust her with my children in a heartbeat. That the state would accuse her recklessness and endangerment beggars belief.
PS: Her sons are not 2 and 4. There was another adult there with her on the trip. The one child was naked because, after he got wet, it was discovered the parent forgot to pack a change of clothes. All the parents in her programme are fully supportive of her. And, if you read the other article, the witness who called the DSS is visually impaired and uses a seeing eye dog...unclear then what she "saw".
bethannepratt (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we are in the land of the free and home of the brave... uh, I mean land of the over-regulated, over-criminalized, undereducated, underinformed, over-opinionated, and home of the whiney, cry-baby, Chicken Littles who are scared of their own shadows.
Children climbing hills?! Playing at the beach?! A naked child?!!!! Quick, get our the tar and feathers!
And what part of "the children climbing-two of them her own and one the child of a close friend" did non-supportive commentators here fail to understand? If it was really so dangerous, why is child protective services not trying to take her two climbers away?
MichelleR (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)
While everyone seems to be focusing on slamming beaurocracy here, keep in mind that we live in a democracy that makes and enforces laws that ideally benefit us all. While it seems to be clear that Lia is an outstanding teacher, she was provided a chance at stating her defense before an impartial judge. There are always two sides to a story, and as a believer in our democratic system, I do not think that the judge took this matter lightly. All of us may differ in our opinions regarding the safety of our children, as we may the risks that we take as adults, but we must have respect for the laws that are in place, and the persons that must enforce them. I will not judge Lia as to whether she chooses to climb this hill. She is an adult, but being very familiar with this hill, it is my opinion, as it was many others there that day, that this was not a responsible act on her part to allow children to climb this very unstable cliff. It would not be my decision to allow children under my care to climb this cliff. It is not safe, regardless of your experience or confidence. In regards to the laws put in place for our childrens safety, who here has the right to singularly decide? Whether or not she should have had her license suspended or revoked is not my decision either. Shouldn't there be some accountability here? Sooner or later, if allowed to climb hills like this one, one of her charges will be seriousy hurt or killed. Will she then just say, "When we keep children from testing their own abilities at a young age, I think we are doing them a great disservice,"... "but they knew the risks"? To Lia, and all of her supporters: Be accountable, and be responsible. If you do not like, or agree with our system...Change it!
"Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." -
-- George Bernard Shaw
humphrey (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Interestingly timely article for this thread...
http://www.slate.com/id/2236142/
sa1 (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
It's very clear that our society really has become risk averse. At this rate, we'll be putting our children in rooms with padded walls with video games. They can't play outside because they might scrape a knee or get a bruise.
Kids climb trees, ride bikes, play sports... I think our "protective" government agencies need to pick their battles. There are way more harmful people they should be focusing their time on.
blueskies12 (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Humphrey wake the f**k up! "We live in a democracy"???
1. Since 1890 the US has waged over 150 military interventions in the name of "freedom" & "democracy" (http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/gross...). "Whether in Vietnam, Central America, or the Persian Gulf, the U.S. was not defending "freedom" but an ideological agenda (such as defending capitalism) or an economic agenda (such as protecting oil company investments). In the few cases when U.S. military forces toppled a dictatorship--such as in Grenada or Panama--they did so in a way that prevented the country's people from overthrowing their own dictator first, and installing a new democratic government more to their liking."
2. The US has a history of tampering with their own elections as well as in other countries (see blackboxvoting.org).
3. Patriot Act and Warrantless Wiretapping.
4. A federal government literally controlled by corporate lobbyist to such an extent that there are now former CEOs/chairmen/etc. in high ranking political positions (Cheney is but one example).
Yes, we must respect the laws that are in place but Lia did not break any laws. NO ONE WAS HURT! Oh yes, but they have gotten hurt! Humphrey, you probably don't even think twice about putting your kids in a car.
Car Crash Stats:
There were nearly 6,420,000 auto accidents in the United States in 2005. The financial cost of these crashes is more than 230 Billion dollars. 2.9 million people were injured and 42,636 people killed. About 115 people die every day in vehicle crashes in the United States -- one death every 13 minutes.
In 2003 there were 6,328,000 car accidents in the US. There were 2.9 million injuries and 42,643 people were killed in auto accidents.
In 2002, there were an estimated 6,316,000 car accidents in the USA. There were about 2.9 million injuries and 42,815 people were killed in auto accidents in 2002.
There were an estimated 6,356,000 car accidents in the US in 2000. There were about 3.2 million injuries and 41,821 people were killed in auto accidents in 2000 based on data collected by the Federal Highway Administration
So what exactly do you mean "not safe"? It's certainly relative.
Who's holding YOU accountable? Obviously you were there, creating a mob of fear (frightening the children more!). Whoever called 911 should be investigated. How do we know he/she was not a paranoid schizophrenic?
Both the police and CPS saw through this pathetic fear mongering and dropped the case.
Thank God Lia is holding CCL accountable for making her a scapegoat. They're trying to validate their existence now that there's impending cuts in funding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQFoB7...
mayya (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Mayya,
Thanks for the education, but it appears your issues are much deeper than the issue at hand.
For Lia's sake, I hope your God hears your thanks.
For what it is worth, I do not wish any misfortune on Lia. Just a little accountability.
And no, I was not there that day, but if I had been there first to see the kids climbing up that cliff, I would not have just walked on by without offering some sort of assistance. It's called Human Nature!
sa1, good link. I would have to assume that all parents have been through similar instances of this "Mother Bear" instinct and I have often questioned my parenting values and inclinations to "over-protect". The media really does bring to light too much "dirty laundry" and has led many to live in fear. It is a very fine balance, this thing called parenting. Having raised my children in Cooperative and Alternative educations, after having been raised myself in the traditional system has had its challenges, but very rewarding as my kids are entering adulthood.
humphrey (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nice. This is better that Jon and Kate Plus Eight!
brimo7272 (anonymous profile)
November 20, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When my child was three, we spent a lot of time camping in Joshua Tree National Monument... now a National Park... She became so adept at climbing, I would constantly have to tell her to stop so that I could get my climbing shoes on, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to follow her...
Kids are natural climbers... and most kids are not stupid... and do not want to get hurt... my daughter told me when she wanted to climb stuff so that she had a 'spotter'... I guarantee you her climbs were far more extreme than a beach bluff...
Why didn't the folks making the report approach the teacher and ask about the situation... She's been working with kids for over two decades... Parents have faith in her... a lot of this just sounds like time that could be spent helping kids who have been hurt in their homes already... or in daycare or classrooms already... churches... etc...
I also agree that too many social workers are actually bureaucrats...
JanetPerry (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No one was hurt, none of the parents are anything but supportive of Lia, and the person who reported the "reckless" climbing is apparently visually impaired. This issue should be dismissed by the authorities, and quickly. I am sorry that Lia and her family are being dragged through this expensive, bureaucratic mess.
belkissa (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks for sharing your own story, Janet. It is most relevant. Children have a strong natural fear of falling, only overcome with confidence gained through experience. The species would not have survived if current pathological levels of vigilance really were needed.
I do not blame "bureaucrats". They are just doing what the public demands.
I blame ordinary citizens for demanding zero tolerance of risk. There is no such thing. Minimizing activity-based risk leads to far greater risks to personal well-being and to the environment.
sbrobert (anonymous profile)
November 21, 2009 at 8:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd rather have my kids climbing cliffs than sitting at home glued to the television or spending hours playing video games like zombies. This teacher doesn't have any ill-intentions, just a different perspective on what's good for kids. It's hard to judge until we all go out to the cliff and climb it ourselves.
radplace (anonymous profile)
November 22, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
i can't believe the venom in comments here. is the issue whether the boy was naked or because he climbed the hill or which miscreant was in the white house those fateful eight years.. i spent a good part of my youth at hendry's and fondly remember seeing a naked person just up the beach. she was an adult, and female and that made my day. i was too young to report the incident, or too smart.
richardsinclair (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2009 at 5:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
just amazing that the same people who wax eloquently-a la William Blake-- about the innocence of naked children climbing cliffs while "supervised" by a day care worker who was not fingerprinted---would be the first to cry foul and accuse the same agencies of inaction had there been some sort of injury or incident.
As with most stories methinks the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
sbsleuth99 (anonymous profile)
November 23, 2009 at 8:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Stories like this sort of make me long for the good old days when we ran around with sharp sticks and learned the hard way we couldn't fly.
Some here have called it natural selection. I call it living.
I spent my childhood in SB outdoors at the beach and I scaled a cliff or two. So did practically everyone I grew up with. We had two deaths in my school. Both of them were alcohol related. As far as I know, nobody died of beach misadventure.
I'm not saying throw caution to the wind (or your kid off a cliff) but please. Clearly children need to be kept safe. But there's a difference between safe and paranoia. I get that there's rules and regulations to follow and that you need more than one person for every few children you are watching. I personally don't think the most vigilant daycare person can watch more than three kids outside (specifically at the beach) at once without help. But what on earth happened to playing outside?
Native1 (anonymous profile)
November 27, 2009 at 2:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)