Couple arrested for leaving baby in hotel room while they went to bar next door

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well I think the responses here are very telling. I suspect those defending the parents have left their children alone. When my kids were young I was shocked at parents we knew who left their kids. One mom told me she left her son home in his crib to get her husband from work because they only had one car and she was only gone 10 minutes. I was speechless. A lot can happen in 10 minutes and she could have gotten in an accident or broken down and been gone longer. I knew other moms who defended leaving little ones in the car while they ran into a school for pickup/drop off or even into a store. All made it seem like other parents were overcautious or paranoid. In fact, these parents are violating the law. Even if not, parental instinct should kick in. I know the foster care system is awful but arresting the parents was not overkill. They needed to receive the message loud and clear and be closely monitored when the kids are returned.

I disagree with your assessment of danger.

I once had several moms tell me I was wrong for walking my dog along the culdesac (NOT a 1/4+ walk, I live in the same culdesac and was gone <5 min) while my baby was asleep. I still think they're psycho. My dh would be gone M-F during the week and the dog needed to go outside, considering my kids slept 7:30-7:30. Dog couldn't poo without some sort of brisk movement outside.

I also had an elderly lady go off on me for buckling my kids in the car, locking the door, and returning my cart to the Aldi cart return. I physically couldn't carry my baby that far at the time, while wrangling my 2 year old. She said I should just abandon the Aldi cart, which I personally think is a rude thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. I really doubt anyone seriously believes that it is in this child’s best interest to have his/her parents arrested and go into foster care.

Agree. This is absurd. The baby was in a safe space (crib), secured in the bedroom and the parents were nearby. They weren’t even a car ride away. They were in the same building. The chances the hotel catching on fire are slim to none. Your house could also catch on fire while your kid is sleeping and you aren’t in the same room as them

They weren't in the same building. If you look on google map the Jetty restaurant is not in the same hotel.

Also, this wasn't a baby, it was a toddler at an age when many children start climbing out of cribs. Most hotel rooms have accessible door handles that toddlers can open, and don't have a way to lock from the outside that prevents opening the door with the handle.

That is awful! I think it’s best they let child go with a relative for a bit, while parents receive education and training about parenting. CPS can offer resources for help. Not everyone is a naturally good parent.

I’m not defending the parents in any way but for the sake of the thread correcting the pp - while the article says the police “traveled” if you look on google maps the jetty restaurant appears to be either directly next door/likely attached to the Hilton. Again I would never do this and don’t agree with it but it is likely the parents felt they were in the same building and had a monitor they could see the baby. They weren’t drive or make “travel” away

Not attached, unless they're attached underground. Look on satelite view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How was the employee certain that this was what happened? And is this much different than putting your child to bed and then sitting out on your deck having cocktails with your spouse?

Ask Madeleine McCann's parents if it's any different. My guess isntheir view has changed quite a bit since they paid the ultimate price. It only takes once.

What if the employee that entered their room was a bad person? I'd never give strangers unsupervised access to my kids in a hotel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I guess they shoulda done took the baby to da bar and let it suckle noisily.

At least it's better than a museum

[Anonymous]

I'm okay with this provided they arrest every parent who has ever texted or held their phone while driving. That is also against the law and statistically much more likely to result in a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was the employee certain that this was what happened? And is this much different than putting your child to bed and then sitting out on your deck having cocktails with your spouse?

Ask Madeleine McCann's parents if it's any different. My guess isntheir view has changed quite a bit since they paid the ultimate price. It only takes once.

What if the employee that entered their room was a bad person? I'd never give strangers unsupervised access to my kids in a hotel

Is your best example a child who was taken from a hotel room 22 years ago on another continent when the door was actually unlocked? Can you at least give a more recent example in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They deserved to be arrested. Even with w monitor, the biggest concern is a fire. There is no possibility for a baby to escape a fire…

But there wasn’t a fire.

It’s not worth it to definitely cause harm to a child (arresting parents, taking custody of the child) in order to prevent an extremely unlikely and improbable event.

Ok - you need to understand risk/consequence....

The likelihood of an event occurring goes on the X-axis. The consequences of that event goes on the Y- axis. If the grid is a 9 box, you want all the risks you take to be in the middle box, to the left and to the bottom. This one would be in the upper red box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. I really doubt anyone seriously believes that it is in this child’s best interest to have his/her parents arrested and go into foster care.

It also isn't in the baby's interest to be left alone by its parents, who are both consuming alcohol. Presumeably, they'd still be under the influence when they came back to the room. It's also not in the baby's best interest to have caregivers who are under the influence of alcohol.

So you are saying it should be illegal for parents to drink, ever?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. I really doubt anyone seriously believes that it is in this child’s best interest to have his/her parents arrested and go into foster care.

It also isn't in the baby's interest to be left alone by its parents, who are both consuming alcohol. Presumeably, they'd still be under the influence when they came back to the room. It's also not in the baby's best interest to have caregivers who are under the influence of alcohol.

So you are saying it should be illegal for parents to drink, ever?

I have heard this before. Some very anxious parents flip out about everything.

[Anonymous]

It is neglect and this child absolutely should be removed from their care, at least temporarily. Completley irresponsible and selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They deserved to be arrested. Even with w monitor, the biggest concern is a fire. There is no possibility for a baby to escape a fire…

But there wasn’t a fire.

It’s not worth it to definitely cause harm to a child (arresting parents, taking custody of the child) in order to prevent an extremely unlikely and improbable event.

Ok - you need to understand risk/consequence....

The likelihood of an event occurring goes on the X-axis. The consequences of that event goes on the Y- axis. If the grid is a 9 box, you want all the risks you take to be in the middle box, to the left and to the bottom. This one would be in the upper red box.

Where would these fit in your model? The US Fire Administration reports about 15 people die annually in fires in hotels (in most years this does not include any children). In 2022, 1,129 children were killed in car accidents. Is taking a child in a car also in the upper red box? What about gun deaths? If a parent owns a gun, would that be in the upper red box too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. I really doubt anyone seriously believes that it is in this child’s best interest to have his/her parents arrested and go into foster care.

Agree. This is absurd. The baby was in a safe space (crib), secured in the bedroom and the parents were nearby. They weren’t even a car ride away. They were in the same building. The chances the hotel catching on fire are slim to none. Your house could also catch on fire while your kid is sleeping and you aren’t in the same room as them

I agree with this. I think people are being a bit too crazy. A sleeping baby in a crib is in a safe space.

I haven't done it but there's quite a few hotels I frequent where the lounge chairs/bar area are in view of my hotel room. It would be really nice to leave sleeping kids to relax with DH. My kids cannot sleep when dh and I are in the same room as them.

I have friends who would do this. They would put one cell phone in the hotel room and take the other, leaving them connected to each other. Baby monitor, but cell phones (there's probably a way to do it with an actual monitor and phone these days). How different is that than in your own house? Not much.

That said, I don't know anyone who would go to a different building. Restaurant or lobby in the same hotel is a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well I think the responses here are very telling. I suspect those defending the parents have left their children alone. When my kids were young I was shocked at parents we knew who left their kids. One mom told me she left her son home in his crib to get her husband from work because they only had one car and she was only gone 10 minutes. I was speechless. A lot can happen in 10 minutes and she could have gotten in an accident or broken down and been gone longer. I knew other moms who defended leaving little ones in the car while they ran into a school for pickup/drop off or even into a store. All made it seem like other parents were overcautious or paranoid. In fact, these parents are violating the law. Even if not, parental instinct should kick in. I know the foster care system is awful but arresting the parents was not overkill. They needed to receive the message loud and clear and be closely monitored when the kids are returned.

If your neighbor got into a car accident while picking up her husband from work, wouldn’t it be BETTER not to have the baby in the car and potentially injured or killed?

It’s like, even in your hypothetical, you would rather be perceived as a good mother than actually keep your child safe.

[Anonymous]

Nope. Negligent and irresponsible of these parents.

I’m an empty nester - raised 4DC and recall with my first I was nervous to go to my basement to do laundry and leave her alone -awake or asleep two levels up -for a good long while. My mom had to talk me down! My postpartum anxiety served a purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. I really doubt anyone seriously believes that it is in this child’s best interest to have his/her parents arrested and go into foster care.

Agree. This is absurd. The baby was in a safe space (crib), secured in the bedroom and the parents were nearby. They weren’t even a car ride away. They were in the same building. The chances the hotel catching on fire are slim to none. Your house could also catch on fire while your kid is sleeping and you aren’t in the same room as them

They weren't in the same building. If you look on google map the Jetty restaurant is not in the same hotel.

Also, this wasn't a baby, it was a toddler at an age when many children start climbing out of cribs. Most hotel rooms have accessible door handles that toddlers can open, and don't have a way to lock from the outside that prevents opening the door with the handle.

This is why I don’t shower or sleep when I stay in a hotel room with my children. If DH is with me, we sleep in shifts.