Dax Tejera’s widow’s arrest for child endangerment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will she lose custody of her children? That would be hard to lose both your husband and your children, but what she did was inexcusable.

Addressed earlier in the thread -- there's a lawyer posting earlier. Likely she would not lose custody over this but might end up with some form of court supervision for a certain period of time. (Not sure about her actually doing jail time or not, but whether or not she does jail time, it seems quite possible a sentence would include some involvement of Child Protective Services or similar, for a designated period.) Full disclosure though, I am not the lawyer!!

Having worked for CPS she can and absolutely can lose custody of the kids for this. However, she's rich and powerful and will probably find an attorney to get her off. Kids should be place with relatives or in foster care, not with her. This was horrible neglect.

Her husband was also at fault. Now she has to face the consequences herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will she lose custody of her children? That would be hard to lose both your husband and your children, but what she did was inexcusable.

Addressed earlier in the thread -- there's a lawyer posting earlier. Likely she would not lose custody over this but might end up with some form of court supervision for a certain period of time. (Not sure about her actually doing jail time or not, but whether or not she does jail time, it seems quite possible a sentence would include some involvement of Child Protective Services or similar, for a designated period.) Full disclosure though, I am not the lawyer!!

Having worked for CPS she can and absolutely can lose custody of the kids for this. However, she's rich and powerful and will probably find an attorney to get her off. Kids should be place with relatives or in foster care, not with her. This was horrible neglect.

Her husband was also at fault. Now she has to face the consequences herself.

She could have a fatal heart attack tonight. And then what?

[Anonymous]

WTH does she need to set up a go fund me for the kids’ 529? Would love to know their net worth and how much life insurance he had. Ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They clearly were partying left to get more favors which then caused a heart attack for the husband. Nothing about their decisions with respect to their kids speaks to rational and sober thinking.

That’s a bit of a libelous statement. They were having dinner with a group at a steakhouse and the server noticed he was unwell and asked him if he was okay. “Party favors” and steak not a natural combination. You sound like the kids who make misspelled, scurrilous comments on TikTok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

DP. Those of you depending so heavily on "the camera will be pointed at the kid" are so, so naive.

So your children never get out of bed on their own? Do you really not think that in a strange place, where they're outside their usual routines and not in their own beds in their own bedrooms, they will just sleep perfectly like logs and not possibly sleep more lightly and maybe get up and get out of bed to look for mom or dad? Yes, even out of a pack and play or crib if they're able. You look up at your precious camera trained on the kid's bed and they're not there. Not in view. What now, geniuses? You can't know if they're just out of frame or in the other room opening the mini bar or in the bathroom exploring the hot water tap that's set for scalding. Oh, but so sorry -- any mention of specific dangers in life frustrates you because you don't like to hear about them and assume that being aware of them means we..."live in a bubble," I guess.

No what I think is that if I am a block away that I could be back in my hotel room in less than 5 minutes if I was properly motivate (IE, running) and that even waking up in a strange place, very little can happen in 5 minutes. Situations that require an immediate response (ie, the incident where being 10 seconds away instead of 300 seconds away) are extraordinarily rare.

You're all mad at me, I have said I wouldn't do this, I just don't agree with you that its dangerous. I think generally it does show bad judgement because while I don't think its dangerous, the consequences of being caught are SEVERE and being caught is not nearly as unlikely as something bad happening. I mean any of the things you describe could happen if I was in the room but asleep. There is no perfect safety situation.

Re: the bold: Your concern, then is that YOU would get caught and be punished. Your concern is not that the behavior is inherently risky toward your own children.

Got it.

Yes that’s exactly what I said. Although I’d clarify to say that I believe the consequences of my getting arrested/whatever are also very bad for my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

DP. Those of you depending so heavily on "the camera will be pointed at the kid" are so, so naive.

So your children never get out of bed on their own? Do you really not think that in a strange place, where they're outside their usual routines and not in their own beds in their own bedrooms, they will just sleep perfectly like logs and not possibly sleep more lightly and maybe get up and get out of bed to look for mom or dad? Yes, even out of a pack and play or crib if they're able. You look up at your precious camera trained on the kid's bed and they're not there. Not in view. What now, geniuses? You can't know if they're just out of frame or in the other room opening the mini bar or in the bathroom exploring the hot water tap that's set for scalding. Oh, but so sorry -- any mention of specific dangers in life frustrates you because you don't like to hear about them and assume that being aware of them means we..."live in a bubble," I guess.

No what I think is that if I am a block away that I could be back in my hotel room in less than 5 minutes if I was properly motivate (IE, running) and that even waking up in a strange place, very little can happen in 5 minutes. Situations that require an immediate response (ie, the incident where being 10 seconds away instead of 300 seconds away) are extraordinarily rare.

You're all mad at me, I have said I wouldn't do this, I just don't agree with you that its dangerous. I think generally it does show bad judgement because while I don't think its dangerous, the consequences of being caught are SEVERE and being caught is not nearly as unlikely as something bad happening. I mean any of the things you describe could happen if I was in the room but asleep. There is no perfect safety situation.

Re: the bold: Your concern, then is that YOU would get caught and be punished. Your concern is not that the behavior is inherently risky toward your own children.

Got it.

Yes that’s exactly what I said. Although I’d clarify to say that I believe the consequences of my getting arrested/whatever are also very bad for my children.

Please reconsider your priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will she lose custody of her children? That would be hard to lose both your husband and your children, but what she did was inexcusable.

Addressed earlier in the thread -- there's a lawyer posting earlier. Likely she would not lose custody over this but might end up with some form of court supervision for a certain period of time. (Not sure about her actually doing jail time or not, but whether or not she does jail time, it seems quite possible a sentence would include some involvement of Child Protective Services or similar, for a designated period.) Full disclosure though, I am not the lawyer!!

Having worked for CPS she can and absolutely can lose custody of the kids for this. However, she's rich and powerful and will probably find an attorney to get her off. Kids should be place with relatives or in foster care, not with her. This was horrible neglect.

Her husband was also at fault. Now she has to face the consequences herself.

She could have a fatal heart attack tonight. And then what?

Grandparents, other relatives, or foster care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

DP. Those of you depending so heavily on "the camera will be pointed at the kid" are so, so naive.

So your children never get out of bed on their own? Do you really not think that in a strange place, where they're outside their usual routines and not in their own beds in their own bedrooms, they will just sleep perfectly like logs and not possibly sleep more lightly and maybe get up and get out of bed to look for mom or dad? Yes, even out of a pack and play or crib if they're able. You look up at your precious camera trained on the kid's bed and they're not there. Not in view. What now, geniuses? You can't know if they're just out of frame or in the other room opening the mini bar or in the bathroom exploring the hot water tap that's set for scalding. Oh, but so sorry -- any mention of specific dangers in life frustrates you because you don't like to hear about them and assume that being aware of them means we..."live in a bubble," I guess.

No what I think is that if I am a block away that I could be back in my hotel room in less than 5 minutes if I was properly motivate (IE, running) and that even waking up in a strange place, very little can happen in 5 minutes. Situations that require an immediate response (ie, the incident where being 10 seconds away instead of 300 seconds away) are extraordinarily rare.

You're all mad at me, I have said I wouldn't do this, I just don't agree with you that its dangerous. I think generally it does show bad judgement because while I don't think its dangerous, the consequences of being caught are SEVERE and being caught is not nearly as unlikely as something bad happening. I mean any of the things you describe could happen if I was in the room but asleep. There is no perfect safety situation.

Re: the bold: Your concern, then is that YOU would get caught and be punished. Your concern is not that the behavior is inherently risky toward your own children.

Got it.

Yes that’s exactly what I said. Although I’d clarify to say that I believe the consequences of my getting arrested/whatever are also very bad for my children.

This poster is oddly hell-bent on defending a ridiculous point about presence or absence of inherent dangerousness. Bizarre. I would consider the prospect of me being separated from my children even temporarily by the state as a coequally good reason not to do this asinine thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

DP. Those of you depending so heavily on "the camera will be pointed at the kid" are so, so naive.

So your children never get out of bed on their own? Do you really not think that in a strange place, where they're outside their usual routines and not in their own beds in their own bedrooms, they will just sleep perfectly like logs and not possibly sleep more lightly and maybe get up and get out of bed to look for mom or dad? Yes, even out of a pack and play or crib if they're able. You look up at your precious camera trained on the kid's bed and they're not there. Not in view. What now, geniuses? You can't know if they're just out of frame or in the other room opening the mini bar or in the bathroom exploring the hot water tap that's set for scalding. Oh, but so sorry -- any mention of specific dangers in life frustrates you because you don't like to hear about them and assume that being aware of them means we..."live in a bubble," I guess.

No what I think is that if I am a block away that I could be back in my hotel room in less than 5 minutes if I was properly motivate (IE, running) and that even waking up in a strange place, very little can happen in 5 minutes. Situations that require an immediate response (ie, the incident where being 10 seconds away instead of 300 seconds away) are extraordinarily rare.

You're all mad at me, I have said I wouldn't do this, I just don't agree with you that its dangerous. I think generally it does show bad judgement because while I don't think its dangerous, the consequences of being caught are SEVERE and being caught is not nearly as unlikely as something bad happening. I mean any of the things you describe could happen if I was in the room but asleep. There is no perfect safety situation.

Re: the bold: Your concern, then is that YOU would get caught and be punished. Your concern is not that the behavior is inherently risky toward your own children.

Got it.

Yes that’s exactly what I said. Although I’d clarify to say that I believe the consequences of my getting arrested/whatever are also very bad for my children.

This poster is oddly hell-bent on defending a ridiculous point about presence or absence of inherent dangerousness. Bizarre. I would consider the prospect of me being separated from my children even temporarily by the state as a coequally good reason not to do this asinine thing.

That’s exactly what I said? Perhaps you misunderstood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

Nope. We are saying don't leave kids (a 5 MONTH OLD and a 2 YEAR OLD!) unattended in a hotel room and leave the premises for dinner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

I'm sorry to say it, but your reasoning skills are truly "off."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

Nope. We are saying don't leave kids (a 5 MONTH OLD and a 2 YEAR OLD!) unattended in a hotel room and leave the premises for dinner.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They clearly were partying left to get more favors which then caused a heart attack for the husband. Nothing about their decisions with respect to their kids speaks to rational and sober thinking.

You don’t know this, but that said, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if drugs were involved in both the death of the husband and the decision to go out and leave the kids alone. That is not a decision that a rational adult makes.