Did your DH take your 2 daughters to the Caps v. Bruins game yesterday?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can pretty much guarantee he asked someone to keep an eye on them. Although clearly he didn't have to, since you apparently spent more time watching them than the game.

Speaking of which, how do you know he was their father, anyway -- and not a predator/kidnapper/white slaver? Do we even approve of a man taking girls this young to a violent sporting event? And what about those braids? They could be a choking hazard!

Honestly, OP, you should be ashamed that you didn't take better care of these girls you don't know.

I sometimes do this with my laptop and carry-on bags at the airport, if I need to go to the bathroom. I typically take a little more care with my kids, though. I'm a dad, and I wouldn't think of kids that age alone at the Verizon center. Are people seriously saying that's OK?

Agree. Surprised that some seem to think it is okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Give me a break.

He left them in their seats, not wandering around outside the Verizon Center.

Yes, because kids never wander. Kids always listen to their parents.
GMAB.

3 and 5 is too young. Daddy was negligent.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think PP is operating under the assumption that the DH was alone with the kids, not with friends or relatives.

Yes. And shame on her for that.

If you're an observant person (or even if you're not), it's pretty easy to ascertain whether an adult is with other adults, or alone. I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that she was indeed able to establish that he was solo with the kids.

So anonymous OP gets the benefit of the doubt but anonymous dad doesn't? Under what possible basis could you come to that conclusion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So anonymous OP gets the benefit of the doubt but anonymous dad doesn't? Under what possible basis could you come to that conclusion?

Your comment makes little sense. You are attempting to draw a parallel where none exists.

[Anonymous]

I think this is outrageous too. And it would be obvious if some other adult was watching them, because presumably they would be interacting with them. Scary indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think PP is operating under the assumption that the DH was alone with the kids, not with friends or relatives.

Yes. And shame on her for that.

If you're an observant person (or even if you're not), it's pretty easy to ascertain whether an adult is with other adults, or alone. I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that she was indeed able to establish that he was solo with the kids.

So anonymous OP gets the benefit of the doubt but anonymous dad doesn't? Under what possible basis could you come to that conclusion?

You must be new to DCUM.

OP gets the benefit of the doubt, because the OP is almost always right (unless you are posting about formula feeding or flipping your car seat to early). Second, the OP gets the benefit of the doubt because most like people assume OP is a "she" and want to believe "daddy done wrong"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think PP is operating under the assumption that the DH was alone with the kids, not with friends or relatives.

Yes. And shame on her for that.

If you're an observant person (or even if you're not), it's pretty easy to ascertain whether an adult is with other adults, or alone. I'm going to give the OP the benefit of the doubt that she was indeed able to establish that he was solo with the kids.

So anonymous OP gets the benefit of the doubt but anonymous dad doesn't? Under what possible basis could you come to that conclusion?

You must be new to DCUM.

OP gets the benefit of the doubt, because the OP is almost always right (unless you are posting about formula feeding or flipping your car seat to early). Second, the OP gets the benefit of the doubt because most like people assume OP is a "she" and want to believe "daddy done wrong"

Yes, because there are no competent fathers anywhere in this city, heck this world.

[Anonymous]

NP here and I know DH is in the camp of bringing the kids with him wherever. Neither of us would ask strangers to watch our children, and anybody we trust to watch them at a sporting event would be interacting with them enough that it would be clear to any observer that they were together. Bad call and everyone has the luxury of jumping all over the OP to this extent because nothing bad happened (thank goodness).

[Anonymous]

So we all agree that DH should be taking his 3 and 5 year old girls into the men's room at the Verizon Center?

[Anonymous]

He could take taken to one of the Family restrooms located near Sections: 113, 212 and 433

[Anonymous]

OP, when the father returned and you mentioned this to him, what did he say?

[Anonymous]

Perhaps they were dwarfs and actually 10 and 12?

[Anonymous]

"OP gets the benefit of the doubt, because the OP is almost always right (unless you are posting about formula feeding or flipping your car seat to early). Second, the OP gets the benefit of the doubt because most like people assume OP is a "she" and want to believe "daddy done wrong"."

The assumption is that DH was alone with the kids, because otherwise OP wouldn't have noticed a problem. That's all. It's simple and straightforward.

[Anonymous]

Here's what we know about OP:

1. He or she says that he or she went to a hockey game yesterday.
2. He or she says that he or she saw a dad leave two girls, age 3 and 5, alone there for 12 minutes.
3. He or she posted about it on DCUM.
4. Assuming that OP is posting in good faith, we also know that s/he thought that maybe the mom would see the post.

A. From 3 and 4, we can deduce that OP is not very smart.

B. Because OP is not very smart, we cannot trust his/her judgment about the ages of the girls, nor the time that the dad was gone.

C. It's possible that the dad got up to get popcorn for his 6 and 8 year olds from a vendor in the stadium, and could still see his kids, but then could not return to his seat for 3 or 4 minutes because they don't let you do that while the game is in progress. Dumb, outraged OP couldn't tell the difference because s/he's dumb and because his/her judgment was clouded by pointless rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps they were dwarfs and actually 10 and 12?

And the man was actually a manny.

As long as we are making assumptions.