DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they ,use have just called one phone from the other and then left the call open. But why didn't they come out when the child was crying?

And why am I so interested in this story?

Juste heard a few stories on this via WTOP. The call on the phones was for 58 minutes according to court documents. I have a Verizon iPhone 5, I can do FaceTime call without wifi, but on my older iPhone I needed wifi. So I think it is possible to do FaceTime without wifi with the newer models. The father on,y approached th car when police showed up. At that point the daughter was already crying hysterically, so if they had the call they weren't monitoring it because they never approached the car the entire time they were in RIs, there were eye witnessed and apparently a security video camera showing the parked car and the video had been reviewed. So the kid is crying, no one comes, but police show up and then the parents show up???

In DC, there is no law on the book re how old a child has to be when unattended. They compared it to the recent Maryland free range parenting case with the two kids walking home alone. In Maryland a kid must be 8, and if younger than 8 must be with someone 13 or older. BUT in Virginia and Maryland, it is up to the discretion of the parents and depends on the situation, with what type of harm were the children or risks. And here is where the parents are in major trouble, because the average prudent parent wouldn't leave two toddlers alone in a locked car, with no hats or gloves, one without shoes or socks, when it is 35 degrees, for an hour, to go wine tasting. To run into the pharmacy to get a prescription, then there may be some wiggle room, but because of the weather, the children's age, the length of time, the lack of clothes, and the activity in which the parents wre partaking, the parents are in serious trouble, according to the legal expert (which should come as no surprise). And it is unclear if the father is a US citizen, if he just has a green card or visa, he risks being deported.

[Anonymous]

These parents are reprehensible.

That said in fairness you can't keep blaming them for the shoes and socks thing. Most kids that age will kick off their shoes and socks when they are in their car seats, no matter how cold it is, my kids used to do that the second I would turn on the car and there was nothing I could do to stop it.

[Anonymous]

so if they had the call they weren't monitoring it because they never approached the car the entire time they were in RIs,

Or they knew their kid was crying, and it didn't concern them enough to go comfort her. I can't get over how they were strapped in - unable to move - restrained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they ,use have just called one phone from the other and then left the call open. But why didn't they come out when the child was crying?

And why am I so interested in this story?

The father did come to the car, and that is where the police were. Maybe he was responding to the crying he heard through the phone?

I had previously read that the parents were arrested inside of Ris, but this new information contradicts that report. So maybe the parents really were paying attention to the sounds through the phone?

[Anonymous]

I think he heard the police over the open phone line and then came to the car.

[Anonymous]

I guess I can never leave my kids outside when I go to a wine tasting, there is no way I could run that fast away from the courthouse.

It looks like the cab was already occupied by a front-seat passenger. Can you imagine if these two jumped in your cab with Steven Tschida in hot pursuit. I bet they smelled awful too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think he heard the police over the open phone line and then came to the car.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they ,use have just called one phone from the other and then left the call open. But why didn't they come out when the child was crying?

And why am I so interested in this story?

Because it is two educated, affluent people acting like meth-heads. They could be your friends, co-workers, neighbors, or you, and they did something so reckless with their children in order to do something so trivial that you just have to know the f@%^ they were thinking. It just leaves you asking "why?" At every single point. There were so many options, and this is the one they ended up on, without either seeing how stupid it was, or even how awful it may appear.

The PP nails it. I just can't wrap my head around what would possess 2 people with the means to care properly for their very young kids and the education to know better doing something so incredibly stupid and irresponsible -- and doing it simply to go to a wine tasting. What kind of reasoning does it take to come to the conclusion that this was a reasonable choice? And what other insane things have they done? And why -- are they meth heads (do meth heads frequent wine tastings?), or just evil selfish yuppie assholes?

If it were on a TV show, I doubt anyone would believe it. But now I'm thinking it would make a great Law & Order plot twist...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he heard the police over the open phone line and then came to the car.

Yes.

PP, you know this as fact?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just watched the fleeing video. Doesn't seem odd that they had to run and catch a cab to get home? I would have assumed that they could have at least called someone they knew (family, friends, etc.) to come and get them. If I was their lawyer, I'd have arranged for a car to avoid the spectacle.

I think this case is so interesting because it is just so hard to comprehend that two educated, high-income adults would think that leaving two kids in a parked car for an hour was okay. I definitely wouldn't want my kids in the DC foster care system for even a day, but these parents are truly guilty of something -- child endangerment, neglect, I don't know what. I have to imagine that they have made other poor decisions along the way. But you don't need a license or any training to become a parent.

They didn't have friends to watch the kids so especially now they don't have anyone who wants to show up at the courthouse to claim them!

[Anonymous]

^"claim them" meaning claim the parents.

[Anonymous]

Re children's memory, I am a neuroscientist and may be able to shed some light.

The part of the brain that coordinates storage of memories, the hippocampus, undergoes major reorganization around age 7. This is thought to be why most people have few or no memories from before this time. I think it also explains why a 5yo may perfectly well remember an event from 3 years earlier--they may not after age 7.

As for the PP who remembers a traumatic abandonment at age 3--traumas like that may be encoded differently, we know that fear and anger (mediated by the amygdala) can reinforce memories in adults, so it's likely that a memory of something fearsome may be more able to stick at any age. My DH also remembers being in a crib left alone to cry, looking at a particular mobile even. But he couldn't, say, tell you the floor plan of the house he lived in at that age.

So this kid may remember the experience or may not. However, CPS/DC is clearly betting that this isn't these parents' first neglectful act, or they wouldn't consider foster care safer for the kids than being home with their parents. So, sadly, it's probably the case that these kids have a lot of neglect to remember.

[Anonymous]

At least meth heads enjoy their drug of choice at home.

[Anonymous]

My ds very clearly remembers a daycare he went to around age one where he was left in a pack and play to cry it out for naps.

[Anonymous]

So now you can let your iphone babysit your kid...

good to know.