DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[Anonymous]

To the PPs that say the kids should go back to the parents but with lots of supervision. Who exactly do you think would do this supervising? States don't have full-time nannies set up to watch to make sure parents aren't being neglectful.

Yes they do. Well, not "full-time nannies," but social workers supervise visits when mandated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It was too cold for them to walk 4 blocks to this wine tasting, but not too cold for them to leave their tiny children locked inside an unheated car for an hour? WITH NO SOCKS OR SHOES ON!? Wtf?

I think they drove around the area to get their kids to fall asleep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you imagine if you were hanging out with friends at a fancy restaurant and the police came to arrest them because...they had left their kids out in the car!?! I can't even imagine.

So did the police actually come into the restaurant? The dad was at the car. Did the police go into Ris to arrest the mom? Why isn't anyone from the wine tasting/restaurant talking about this to the media?

When the story first broke, the news had interviews with other people who were at the event. Sounds like the police went in, took the people out (not in handcuffs, but took them) and everyone else had to leave. Of course, I have no source for this other than what a restaurant customer told the news.

Other people had to leave the restaurant, too? Yikes!

I know! I'd be so pissed if I had arranged and paid for a babysitter for my kids, and ended up having to leave the event because of some other idiot!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To the PPs that say the kids should go back to the parents but with lots of supervision. Who exactly do you think would do this supervising? States don't have full-time nannies set up to watch to make sure parents aren't being neglectful.

Yes they do. Well, not "full-time nannies," but social workers supervise visits when mandated.

visits yes. Usually consisting of a few hours or less. Not 24/7 in the home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, I'm an empathetic person and usually feel bad for people who have made mistakes but I just don't see any excuse here.

Emergency they had to attend to? Nope, wine tasting
Poor and can't afford a sitter? Nope, rich.
Young? Nope, 40s.
First time parents? Nope, 2 kids.
Single parent with no help? Nope, both parents there.
Mild weather that night? Nope, cold.
Dumb? Nope, advanced degrees and good jobs.
Quick trip into store? Nope, hour+

I just don't understand!

+1. this is just shocking. I'm assuming that they planned for the kids to nap while they were at the wine tasting. I heard that they were "watching" the kids through an iphone. But how could they not know that somebody was going to call the cops?

[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.

And left in a Volvo wagon, no less, which is practically considered a signal of (and certainly an investment by) cautious, safety-conscious parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

To the PPs that say the kids should go back to the parents but with lots of supervision. Who exactly do you think would do this supervising? States don't have full-time nannies set up to watch to make sure parents aren't being neglectful.

Yes they do. Well, not "full-time nannies," but social workers supervise visits when mandated.

I'm trying not to be mean to you. But you understand an hour long supervised visit is different than supervising a family round the clock to make sure they are not being neglectful, right? You have to see the difference there, right?

[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 upscale version of meth head is to have a nlee for fantastic Pinot noir.

[Anonymous]

I don't think preventing all contact with the children until the parents' hearing on the 18th is in the best interest of the children. That's more than two weeks away. Look, these people are idiots, and the "system" needs to step in to ensure that these children will be safe. But not allowing those children to see their parents for weeks is just not helpful to the kids and their longterm emotional development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

To the PPs that say the kids should go back to the parents but with lots of supervision. Who exactly do you think would do this supervising? States don't have full-time nannies set up to watch to make sure parents aren't being neglectful.

Yes they do. Well, not "full-time nannies," but social workers supervise visits when mandated.

I'm trying not to be mean to you. But you understand an hour long supervised visit is different than supervising a family round the clock to make sure they are not being neglectful, right? You have to see the difference there, right?

Apologies, because of my brevity, I was unclear. I think "the PPs that say the kid should go back to the parents but with lots of supervision" are way off base. I'm not sure that exists in the world of DC CFS/CPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now you can let your iphone babysit your kid...

good to know.

Only if you're okay with getting arrested...

There's speculation here that they had done it before, and I'm not sure I disagree.

[Anonymous]

What exactly does it mean that the children will be in DC CPS? I mean, are there just "stand by" parents out there to accept 2 toddlers into their homes? Would DC CPS try to get the children into the care of family members?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am fascinated by this case too and I agree with pp who said it's because they are "like me." Same as the maryland free range parents. I have similar education and would assume I had similar values. Yet here they are making choices I would not make. Why?

I am also fascinated by the case because these seem like people I could know, so I want to understand what the H they were thinking.

But PLEASE do not compare this to the parents who let their 6 and 10 year old walk to the park. Maybe that isn't something you would do but it's well within the range of defensible parenting decisions. Leaving screaming toddlers locked in a car in freezing cold temperature is NOT.

ITA, not what I meant, sorry for the misunderstanding. I wasn't trying to say they were equivalent decisions. I have a lot of sympathy for the free range thing, personally. I just meant that they are parents in the news recently for their parenting decisions who are demographically/educationally similar to me.

it's the actions of the police and CPS that further distinguish them actually. In that case no charges are being pressed and the CPS investigative process is playing out normally with the kids at home/school: indicating that CPS does not think those kids are in huge danger.

My sister works for CPS in another state and we've talked about the free range case, she's who pointed out to me that while it feels invasive to the parents, they are not really under much suspicion. The yuppies in question here--very different story. looking forward to asking her about them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was too cold for them to walk 4 blocks to this wine tasting, but not too cold for them to leave their tiny children locked inside an unheated car for an hour? WITH NO SOCKS OR SHOES ON!? Wtf?

I think they drove around the area to get their kids to fall asleep.

Yes, and the idea of the kids being "just outside" made it seem more acceptable than leaving them alone at the apartment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What exactly does it mean that the children will be in DC CPS? I mean, are there just "stand by" parents out there to accept 2 toddlers into their homes? Would DC CPS try to get the children into the care of family members?

Well, yes. That's what foster care is all about.