The recent case of the Meitiv children aged ten and six, whose parents allowed them to walk to a park near their home without adult supervision and who have since found themselves charged with neglect over the practice, has divided parents and the general public both in America and here in Britain.

The Meitivs, both scientists, practice free range parenting, a form of parenting which gives children total independence from infancy. As part of this practice, the Meitiv’s children have been walking regularly to and from their local park, which is an eighth of a mile from their home. The children were alerted to the local authorities after a man out walking became concerned for their welfare. It is not known from what age the children have been allowed to walk around their neighbourhood without adult supervision.

Parents around the globe are up in arms over the state’s interference with this family’s way of life. The Meitivs themselves have now hired an attorney and are looking to sue for the intrusion – they have had to sign a parenting plan saying they will not let their children walk alone – though who they are going to sue is not yet clear. It’s a messy state of affairs, which calls into question the extent to which the state should be allowed to interfere with family life and the boundaries of child neglect.

For us, though, it’s a no brainer.

Whilst parents should have the ability, and freedom, to take care of their children and bring them up in a way which they consider appropriate and in their best interests, there are always going to be instances where a parent’s judgement falls foul of basic common sense and puts their children’s wellbeing at risk. For us, free range parenting is one of those exceptions.

It is pseudo-intellectual clap trap, spouted by the same parents who’ll tell you that their two year old speaks fluent Chinese and learned to handle a Brazilian wandering spider blindfold, whilst listening to Baby Mozart. And we’ve heard it all before. These are the parents that will insist children need to be toughened up, that they need to be pushed out of the nest – that they mustn’t be wrapped up in cotton wool, and God forbid we should watch them like a hawk in the playground as they swing upside down like crazed monkeys on LSD.

But are these parents really doing their kids a favour, or is it just pure vanity?

There is no denying that introducing the element of risk is necessary and important for children. It teaches them boundaries, situational assessment, trial and error and develops their sense of awareness. Most of us would agree that the level and type or risk employed depends on the age of our children and what they can handle as growing individuals. And yet, one thing no one can argue is that a ten year old and a six year old walking around alone have no ability to defend themselves from child abusers or murderers.

It’s at this point that the free range parent will stand up and tell you with confidence, “Ah, yes, but the likelihood of that happening is so small, that it’s not even relevant.”

And that, for us, is the most bizarre argument for free range parenting there is. Even if there was only a microscopic chance of our children meeting that fate out and about on their own, we simply wouldn’t take it. Why? Because we don’t need to.

Children can develop and gain their independence without being thrust into the outside world before they’re physically and mentally able to take it on. They can be taught to think for themselves and be accountable for their actions in safe spaces, where they can grow and flourish, without being placed in situations which harbour the potential to harm them.

When children are good and ready to go out and walk the perhaps not so mean streets of a city or town on their own, they will have ample opportunity to hone their independence then, without being placed in environments which could get the better of them, before they acquire the necessary survival skills. Most ten year olds can’t fend off a fully grown adult, and there is no reason why they should have to. If free range parents must let their children walk the streets alone, they could at least walk behind them undetected, and make sure they’re safe.

When the Meitiv’s children didn’t return home that day at 6pm (they were being held by the police who were trying to locate the parents), we wonder what must have gone through their minds. Were their children lost or dead? Was the free range parenting really worth it? Given that they’re now fighting to uphold their parenting technique, we can only assume that they’ve let the horrifying possibilities fade away, and instead have chosen to ignore them. And that in itself, is utterly daft.

That is the suggestion that has been made by South Australian Coroner Mark Johns, who has this week been presiding over a tragic inquest involving the death of Chloe Valentine, a four-year old girl, at the hands of her parents.

The remark was made after Johns felt that not enough was being done to protect children from harm, and his growing concern that children’s rights may be being gazumped by the rights of dysfunctional parents. He has called for the Families Government Department in South Australia to be overhauled, which many feel is at breaking point, to ensure that children can be properly protected from unfit parents.

Johns’ most controversial recommendation, and the one which has divided professionals, refers to changing the state’s law to ensure that babies born to parents previously convicted of killing their children (by criminal neglect, murder or manslaughter) are automatically placed in government care.

It will then be up to the parents to prove they are fit to care for their children.

If enacted as law, this move could have the potential to set precedent in Australia, and perhaps even others parts of the world like the UK, which tends to follow Australia’s lead on child welfare matters. In light of horrific British cases like the Natalie Allman case, which saw a mother who was almost killed by her partner in front of their twins being forced to write to him about their children’s progress whilst serving his prison sentence, and effectively having to engage their children in this exercise, it’s easy to see how such a measure might be welcomed here. The case resonated around the world, and although different to the Chloe Valentine case (the father attacked Ms Allman, rather than the children, directly), many questioned whether this father’s right to contact with his children had usurped their right to be protected from harm. And, ultimately, whether he was fit to be a parent.

However some took the view that upon serving his jail time, the father in this case may be able to reform and could, with support, parent his children competently. And that is the argument child welfare professionals in Australia, like National Children’s Commissioner Megan Mitchell is making. Mitchell takes the view that a blanket recommendation to remove children automatically in this way, does not take into account the details of each case and could also negatively impact the children involved, if they were to be deprived of a parent who had the capacity to reform.

Mitchell recommends instead, a system of increased early surveillance in instances where a parent has been deemed unfit.

Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston though, disagrees, and would like to see Johns’ recommendation taken one step further – her concern relates to paedophiles, and registered sex offenders. Hetty would like anyone who has demonstrated a capacity to harm children in any way to be put on a watch list.

One thing all the professionals who have so far commented on this recommendation agree upon, is that there needs to be a re-focusing of rights generally, so that children’s rights come before anyone else’s, including the rights of the parents involved.

So what do you think? Should parents who have been convicted of killing their children have any further children born to them automatically removed from their care?

Chloe Valentine

It is election time, and our party leaders are doing everything they can to rouse the troops and blaze their campaign trails. That the televised leaders debate diminished rather than bolstered each party’s campaigns means Miliband, Farage and Cameron amongst others, will be looking to bounce back from their lacklustre performances this week. And although we have no doubt Farage and Miliband will offer equally galling comeback strategies, it is David Cameron’s latest election stunt which we find unacceptable, and a step too far.

Whilst we have every sympathy for the Camerons losing their oldest son, we think this piece by David’s wife Samantha is nothing more than a vulgar prostitution of their child’s memory.

The piece, in which Mrs Cameron talks about the pain of losing her severely disabled son, is clearly designed to appeal to traditional Conservative voters. It focuses on stereotypical gender divides (not as a personal choice but as an implied universal directive), and uses the worst kind of manipulation, both for its thin veneer and the Cameron’s use of their son’s death to gain leverage with families and in particular those who have disabled children. Published just before the election, which coincides roughly with the anniversary of their son’s death, and with her husband’s leadership in jeopardy, it can be no accident that Samantha has chosen to speak about Ivan for the first time, now.

That the article is filled with photographs designed to send out various subliminal, not so subtle messages, is in itself embarrassing. A large photo of their deceased son, Ivan. A photo of David kissing Ivan. A family photo where David is pushing a pram. A photo of the family attending a Christian service. A photo of the Camerons at their late son’s funeral – there appears to be no end to the display of private emotion they are willing to share to secure votes.

The photos tick all the right conservative boxes. David is a family man, a sensitive man, a religious man, a man who, it would seem, feels as deeply as the rest of us, and an excellent father. The last photo, which shows the Camerons with their daughter (the one they left in the pub), hovers over a statement which their daughter allegedly made about the now infamous incident – “I’m on chapter five of Daddy, How Your Life as Prime Minister Has Affected Me. Chapter two is when you left me in the pub.”

That Mrs Cameron says her daughter continues to tease her father about this incident, and chooses to put that down to her daughter’s sharp sense of humour, rather than down to a traumatic experience their daughter appears to be reliving regularly, perhaps says more about this desperate attempt to spin a bad PR incident better than it does about the Cameron’s parenting skills.

And yet many would not have judged the Camerons for this incident. All parents make mistakes. But it is David’s singular lack of tolerance when it comes to other parents around the country (remember his myopic take on single fathers?) that makes it so hard for any of us to buy this pre-election propaganda. And to use their late son’s memory as a call to action is beyond redemption.

If we were to assume for even a moment that this was just a badly timed exercise, in which Mrs Cameron felt the need to speak out about her loss, perhaps even to offer a supporting voice to other parents who have experienced the same (though there is no evidence of that in the article), any PR company worth their salt would have told Mrs Cameron not to publish her thoughts during the campaign. (Even if she really did just want to do an Angelina Jolie and share a very private affair in order to highlight the issue for the greater good).

The voting public is not as naive as it once was. With a greater ability to question party politics thanks to online debate and social media, there isn’t a great deal which escapes the voters’ attention today. And now, having underestimated the general public, the Camerons can look forward to other voices condemning their choice to use their late son’s demise as a way to pull heart-strings, and votes in.

In the game of politics, it can seem as if everything, and everyone, is a pawn. Mrs Cameron’s piece has not solidified her husband’s status as a caring and sincere human being. It has achieved the very opposite.