Child Neglect? Basically a woman gets charged with child endangerment because she left her kid in a car. The 2 year old was in her car for less than 10 minutes and the mother was no more than 10 yards away throughout the whole incident. Also the car had its car alarm on and it was locked.
Personally I can how both sides could make a fair argument here. 10 minutes is easily enough time for somebody to kidnap her child, had she not locked the car door. I can also recall a case not too long ago involving a family of 13 (that attended the same church that I do) that had a small child die in their car due to overheating. However, I think that the cops were being a bit overbearing this case. 10 minutes is not an hour and if you read the article it says that the mother was very close by to her car.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It was sleeting, I don't think overheating was at issue.
I think she's not guilty of child endangerment. If she had gone inside for 10 minutes or longer, maybe possibly. At least then she would have been out of sight of her car and kid.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
It's not child neglect.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:“As long as the car is not out of her sight, then the child is not unattended,” she said.
I agree with her attorney.
Babies die in cribs; more fatal accidents occur at home than anywhere else. Soon someone will claim it's child endangerment to leave a baby in their crib alone while you're downstairs.
I think this is nuts.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I think it's silly, the whole thing. Aren't we able to look at the whole situation and decide what action is best for the family in question and the community as a whole?
“I am talking tens of thousands of people who leave their kids in the car for any period of time all around America,” said Janette Fennell, founder and president of Kansas-based Kids and Cars. “People don’t appreciate the dangers of leaving a child alone in the car.”
That part from the article caught my eye; it seems to tell the motivation for the arrest. It may well be true, too, but fining this woman will only make life for her family more difficult, and jail time will just be more time she spends away from her kids. I don't think either would teach her a lesson or be good for her family in the long run.
Will finding her guilty help increase awareness of the dangers presented in leaving your child unattended in a car? Perhaps. Will it scare bad parents (or good parents too, I guess) into making extra certain to never ever leave their child "unattended" in a vehicle? Unlikely, at least in the long run. Most people leave their kids in the car out of necessity or apathy, and I don't believe this will change the majority of cases.
It sounds to me like the officer was having a bad day, or maybe there was a recent child abduction that happened when the parent was just a few yards away and the child was in a car, and that's the reason for the over-reaction. I personally could see a warning, even a strongly worded warning letting her know how serious this is.... I don't see that placing her under arrest was necessary.
Edit: Not that I'm an expert, but in trying to unravel exactly why the officer did this, I had an idea. The officer approached the mother and was very very angry, we got that. The rest is hypothesis. I think it's possible that the woman, believing fully that she's an excellent mother and had done nothing wrong, simply tried to brush off what the officer was saying. Not that all officers are power hungry, but when you're trying to tell a parent about the dangers of leaving a child unattended in a car, and they blow you off or act with a stuck-up, holier-than-thou attitude, I can see an officer arresting her more out of annoyance than anything else. Maybe that's what happened, maybe not.
I'm betting that, even though the official reason is child neglect, the real reason for the arrest has more to do with the attitudes of the mother and the officer involved. I'm interested to see both sides of the story.
[ March 12, 2008, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: DevilDreamt ]
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
If what is related in the article is true, this claim and arrest makes no sense. If it was sleeting then we can assume the temperature was 30-33 degrees (f) so leaving the kid in a presumably warm car for 10 minutes poses no danger of over-heating or freezing. Having the doors locked, an alarm on the car, and even the warning lights on for goodness sake (which in my opinion is excessive) and standing within sight of the car, I don't see what could be safer about having the child in her grasp than locked behind the structural support of glass and metal, she may have also seen the nearby police officer and thought well EVEN IF something were to happen, my alarm would go off and both myself and that police officer would come stop the guy. Ugh. Taking the kid out in the sleet seems worse than leaving it snug and warm in the car.
Honestly. Do they expect she would have been able to stop a determined 'napper? better than if the guy had to bust into a car, then get the kid out of a car seat and out of the car before she or the nearby police officer could stop said 'napper.
This is ridiculous.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
As someone who was left in the car for 5-10 minutes while Mom ran into get pizza or something, I find this ridiculous. Maybe were the situation extreme, but with the Mom within eyesight?!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Police departments are full of people who have seen the other side of these stories -- "I was only gone a minute..." "I was right there, just a few feet away...." and so on.
It doesn't really surprise me that an officer would take the situation seriously enough to arrest -- especially once the woman became uncooperative.
Ultimately, though, I'm very surprised that the prosecutor went forward with charges. That makes me wonder if there's more to this than just passively refusing to answer questions.
Posted by adfectio (Member # 11070) on :
Did the kids get the pizza? I think that not getting pizza is a bigger case of neglect than leaving them in a car with no chance of overheating.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Depends on how good the pizza is.
Posted by cassv746 (Member # 11173) on :
Well even if it wasn't great pizza. I would've been much more upset that I didn't get any pizza if I was told I was going to. I love pizza.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
So long as it wasn't Domino's...
Yay! A thread about child neglect can be derailed into a pizza thread!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think the officer was out of line in expressing interest in the situation. But having your children in the car with you not in it is not against the law, so that alone isn't good enough to make an arrest. If he had interviewed surrounding people for evidence and came up with something, then okay. But he even admits that she hadn't go far away and that it'd only been a couple minutes, so, where the justification is for making an arrest is beyond me.
A careful look and some good judgement should have led the office to dismiss this, thank her for being cooperative (as I imagine she would have been if she wasn't being verbally assaulted), and send her on her way.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
I'm not saying she should be prosecuted, but maybe I can see the other side of it. It doesn't take long for someone to break in the window of your car and hotwire the engine. A car alarm and flashing emergency lights isn't going to stop a determined crook. If she took the baby with her and something like that happened, then at least everyone is out of the car and (hopefully) safe from harm. With the baby in the car, if it's stolen (which could happen even with her only 10 yards away) then the child is now kidnapped and in danger. I can see the officer's point of view, even if I'm not sure I agree with it.
Bob has a good point, police hear the "I was only gone a minute" and "I only turned around for a second to do (fill in the blank)" all the time. The officer had a right to be concerned and to make inquiries.
Also, maybe overheating wasn't an issue, but if it was sleeting than we can assume that it was below freezing out, which was potentially dangerous as well. If the officer in question didn't know when the mother would be back or where she was she might be just as concerned as on a hot day. Never mind that the officer would probably have already put a call in to social services as soon as she found a 2 year old locked in a car with no parent in attendance (the article doesn't specify this so I am speculating here). It would be the responsible thing to do, especially if the officer did not see the mother leave the car. If that's the case, then they had no way of knowing that she was at the Salvation Army bucket with her two other kids and would be right back.
Again, not saying I agree with child endangerment charges, just looking at the other side.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Good for the prosecutor. Finally.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I think part of it was that she didn't cooperate with the officer (on the advice of her husband.)
From what I've read the officer SAW WHERE SHE WAS GOING and accosted her when she came back.
I'm on the "it's ridiculous" side.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I absolutely agree that her actions (as described in the articles) do not amount to a crime. Good for the prosecutors to drop the case.
The standard for arresting someone is "probable cause." This is a low standard.
We know the officer saw a child alone in a car. We know he saw the mother coming back from Wal-Mart with two kids. We don't know (from the two linked articles, at least) that he saw that she didn't go into the store or that he knew how long she was gone for. This is enough to create reasonable suspicion of child neglect, which justifies the officer conducting an investigatory stop of the woman.
We know that the mother gave her story to the officer then refused to continue the conversation. This is her right. And, while refusal to talk can't be used at trial against the mother, it can be used in evaluating whether reasonable suspicion gives rise to probable cause.
Refusing to continue the conversation makes it reasonable for the officer to believe that her story was not true. Lacking any way to continue to investigate, he was faced with two choices: drop it, or arrest her. I'm not sure dropping it was the right choice here.
As far as dropping it earlier, prosecutors often get cases like this (misdemeanors where all evidence is testimony about a single incident) assigned to them the day trial is set to begin. They often interview the officer that morning to prepare for trial. In such instances, the first real opportunity to drop the charges occurs at the trial, after the prosecutor interviews the officer.
Without drastically increasing the resources available to prosecutors, there's no real way around this.
The police chief seems to be ignoring reality here. I kind of understand his annoyance, given that people view dropping charges in and of itself as a rebuke of the police. They shouldn't - there are many cases where arrest is appropriate AND dropping the charges is appropriate.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The police chief seems to be ignoring reality here.
That was my reaction as well. And I agree that there is no reason for him to not say something supporting his officer without getting mad the case was dropped.
Too bad that's not what he did.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yep.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Isn't part of the problem that the law requires people to spend 5 minutes wrapping and unwrapping their children everytime they go in and out of a car?
If you're going to be out for a minute or two, it's only natural to go through the mental calculation of "Is it worth wrestling with the child seat when it'll take longer to get her out and back in than I'll be away?" and coming to the simple conclusion.
You could hover over your kids 24/7 and they'll never be safe. Parents have to be able to use their own judgement.
This is helicopter parenting at a higher level. This is helicopter government.
I say all this as a person without children, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is helicopter parenting at a higher level. This is helicopter government.
I'm fine with a brightline rule criminalizing leaving infants in cars when the parent (or immediately-responsible babysitter/guardian/etc.) is out of sight of the car. And, of course, it's not alway safe (nor should it always be legal) to leave a child in a car even when the parent is right there. Think 100 degree day in bright sun.
This case - assuming her account is truthful - would not qualify under that law. Assuming her account is true, prosecution would have been helicopter parenting. As it stands now, it's a vigilant police officer, some regrettable confusion, a smart prosecutor, and a police chief in denial.
I've spent more than a little time in cars so that a baby could be left there while the parent went inside. I understand the hassle of car seats, although new ones are much better than some of the older ones I've dealt with.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:We know he saw the mother coming back from Wal-Mart with two kids. We don't know (from the two linked articles, at least) that he saw that she didn't go into the store or that he knew how long she was gone for. This is enough to create reasonable suspicion of child neglect, which justifies the officer conducting an investigatory stop of the woman.
The stories I read from other sources (which I would have to dig up) said that the officer was in sight when she exited the car, at least I'm pretty sure... I am also reasonably sure the officer in question was a woman, btw. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Is there a standard for when a child is of age to care for themselves? My ex-wife and her sister were latchkeys at 5 and 7 respectively (I think... I may be misremembering this). This seems like it wouldn't be tolerated now, but I wonder what *is* tolerable...
I guess laws probably vary by state?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Isn't part of the problem that the law requires people to spend 5 minutes wrapping and unwrapping their children everytime they go in and out of a car?
It has never taken me more than a few seconds to get my child in or out of her properly installed car seat. Even add in putting a coat on and it's not that much hassle, especially compared to the lives that are potentially saved by car seat laws (if they are enforced, which is another pet peeve of mine...)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The stories I read from other sources (which I would have to dig up) said that the officer was in sight when she exited the car, at least I'm pretty sure... I am also reasonably sure the officer in question was a woman, btw.
OK. Did they say she saw the mother not go into the store?
Most of my interest in this isn't in determining whether the officer did anything wrong in this specific case, but in defining parameters of how to determine that in the general case. Essentially, I've used the facts as presented here as sort of hypothetical from which I've made conclusions.
If the facts are different, my conclusions might change about this instance, but my conclusions about what the law should be and how law enforcement should operate would not.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Is there a standard for when a child is of age to care for themselves? My ex-wife and her sister were latchkeys at 5 and 7 respectively (I think... I may be misremembering this). This seems like it wouldn't be tolerated now, but I wonder what *is* tolerable...
I guess laws probably vary by state?
Probably. Last time I checked the law in CA is 14.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:OK. Did they say she saw the mother not go into the store?
That was fuzzy but it was implied, yes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Is there a standard for when a child is of age to care for themselves? My ex-wife and her sister were latchkeys at 5 and 7 respectively (I think... I may be misremembering this). This seems like it wouldn't be tolerated now, but I wonder what *is* tolerable...
I guess laws probably vary by state?
Probably. Last time I checked the law in CA is 14.
Are you sure? I thought it was 14 for overnight; 12 for daytime.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
It may be that 14 is for overnight or being left in charge of other children.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:I'm fine with a brightline rule criminalizing leaving infants in cars when the parent (or immediately-responsible babysitter/guardian/etc.) is out of sight of the car. And, of course, it's not alway safe (nor should it always be legal) to leave a child in a car even when the parent is right there. Think 100 degree day in bright sun.
I don't think that would be a helpful addition to the law. The government should be in the business of protecting kids from seriously unsafe parents, but it should not be in the business of protecting kids from good parents who happen to disagree with the government on what is safe in a borderline situation. Some situations, such as leaving an infant in the car on a 100 degree day, are clearly dangerous - and no additional law is necessary to clarify that danger. Other situations (the sort that would be made illegal by such a brightline rule) are unclear, such as leaving the kid in the car in front of a school while momentarily going inside to pick up another child, and in these situations it would be best if it were the parent deciding how far safety should go, rather than the government. Otherwise we end up encouraging overcautious parenting, which can harm children too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Definitely a Friday. I agree with Xap.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I'm fine with a brightline rule criminalizing leaving infants in cars when the parent (or immediately-responsible babysitter/guardian/etc.) is out of sight of the car.
By not "out of sight" would you mean "could see the car if he/she were turned in the right direction" or specifically "is [turned towards] the car the whole time?" (Just curious for clarification, not a challenge. ) I have an uneasy sense that people may not realize that they do not always have the car in line-of-sight if they are close to it. In this case, the woman was focusing through a camera lens (possibly with her back turned?), so I am hesitant to think of it as the same sort of situation as when someone is facing the car the whole time.
By the way, I'm not interested in laying out a detailed set of rules for parents to do and avoid when leaving kids in the car, in case that is how anyone misreads this. I was just curious as to what people meant by the phrase, and I tried to explain why I might make the distinction myself.
(Whether or not either of the circumstances I nots above factor into negligence is a seperate question, and that isn't one I'm motivated to pursue in depth right now.)
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
The woman rent-a-cop sounds like a nutjob. I've worked with some people like that. Total abuse of athority.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
In Maryland a child can be left by themselves at age 8 (not sure on the time span, but I wouldn't do it for more than an hour). They shouldn't be left in charge of other children until 13 (according to the law.)
I would probably have done what this lady did, but I would have recognized that it would have been risky and I would not have resisted arrest. Of course, I don't think I would resist arrest in any circumstance. Mostly, I probably would have noticed the cop and not done it on that day.
I suspect the lady thought she should get some slack because she was being a do-gooder at the time of the infraction, but I don't see a lot of people bringing that up -- and that's probably because it's not too relevant. Also, she refuses to give her name on the advice of her husband? Is her husband a lawyer or something? I think this was a collision of two nuts.
Her response to the dismissal:
quote:"I feel good and I feel a little bit more empowered now," said Coyne, who faced a maximum sentence of one year in jail and a fine of $2,500 had she been convicted. "And I feel relief."
She feels empowered? That's an odd way of putting it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By not "out of sight" would you mean "could see the car if he/she were turned in the right direction" or specifically "is [turned towards] the car the whole time?" (Just curious for clarification, not a challenge. [Smile] )
The former, for purposes of the law.
***
Also, to clarify, I chose my words carefully about this: "I'm fine with a brightline rule . . ." That's different than "I think the rule should be. . ."
I might not vote for such a rule if I were in a position to do so. Moreover, as a prosecutor, even if I did vote for such a rule, there would certainly be circumstances where I would choose not to prosecute actual violations of this law.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: The former, for purposes of the law.
Okay, thanks.
quote:I might not vote for such a rule if I were in a position to do so. Moreover, as a prosecutor, even if I did vote for such a rule, there would certainly be circumstances where I would choose not to prosecute actual violations of this law.
Sure, I understand.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
In January there was a case here that a woman left her 4 month old in asleep in it's crib, brought along a baby monitor, locked her apartment, and went on a ten minute run. She could see her apartment door the whole time she was gone. About the time she would have ended her run she saw a matinence man walk into her apartment. He was there to check on something. By the time she made it to the door he had heard the baby cry and called the police. Charges were dropped after a week in the newspapers, but it was dumb. For centuries women would have gotten nothing done if they couldn't leave the baby for ten minutes.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
You mean actually leave the house, leaving an infant alone inside the house?
I might run to the mailbox and back, but that's about it.
I'd never be comfortable jogging around on the street with a baby monitor.
Whether it's against the law or not is irrelevant to me.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Yeah, I sometimes run to get the mail or go throw in a load of laundry while my daughter is asleep (with the door locked, of course) but I would not go for a 10 minute ANYTHING. It's 4 minutes to get the mail, and the laundry is the room next to our apartment. AND the rule here is maintainance cannot enter our apartment unless we are home and consent OR leave written permission.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: For centuries women would have gotten nothing done if they couldn't leave the baby for ten minutes.
QFT
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: For centuries women would have gotten nothing done if they couldn't leave the baby for ten minutes.
QFT
*I* wouldn't get anything done if I couldn't leave my kids alone for 10 minutes. I also would probably have been in a straitjacket several months ago.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Her response to the dismissal:
quote:"I feel good and I feel a little bit more empowered now," said Coyne, who faced a maximum sentence of one year in jail and a fine of $2,500 had she been convicted. "And I feel relief."
She feels empowered? That's an odd way of putting it.
Pooka - I read that as "I feel like I have been given back the right to raise my kids without having to look over my shoulder in case a cop is watching."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by breyerchic04: For centuries women would have gotten nothing done if they couldn't leave the baby for ten minutes.
QFT
*I* wouldn't get anything done if I couldn't leave my kids alone for 10 minutes. I also would probably have been in a straitjacket several months ago.
Ditto, to be sure. Only make "months" "years." Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Is there a standard for when a child is of age to care for themselves? My ex-wife and her sister were latchkeys at 5 and 7 respectively (I think... I may be misremembering this). This seems like it wouldn't be tolerated now, but I wonder what *is* tolerable...
I guess laws probably vary by state?
Probably. Last time I checked the law in CA is 14.
Are you sure? I thought it was 14 for overnight; 12 for daytime.
Jeesh. When I was 6, my babysitter was 12.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Glenn, ditto.
(I never said I agreed with the law. I just am sure I know what it is. It's like speed limits. )
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)