DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have to agree here.

I am a parent and disgusted by what happened.

Unless they can prove this is an ongoing thing with these parents, the kids should see their parents until the trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does, but supervision is not provided by a CPS worker. It is provided by a willing relative whom CPS approves of. That person agrees to stay with the children and parents and supervise them, with the understanding that the children will be removed if there is an incident or it is found that the supervisor left the parents/children unsupervised. It happens all the time.

[Anonymous]

it's so bizarre to me to imagine a wine tasting being worth all this. So frivolous and odd. There has to be more to the story...like they were invited by one of their bosses or something and to bail would have been career suicide or something. Although, I'm guessing what actually happened was a means to that same end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have to agree here.

I am a parent and disgusted by what happened.

Unless they can prove this is an ongoing thing with these parents, the kids should see their parents until the trial.

Yes, I find it odd that the parents weren't allowed supervised visits. I feel so sad for those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have to agree here.

I am a parent and disgusted by what happened.

Unless they can prove this is an ongoing thing with these parents, the kids should see their parents until the trial.

Yes, I find it odd that the parents weren't allowed supervised visits. I feel so sad for those kids.

Well if you are in jail, you shouldn't get supervised visits. A family member should be getting those kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I have to agree here.

I am a parent and disgusted by what happened.

Unless they can prove this is an ongoing thing with these parents, the kids should see their parents until the trial.

Yes, I find it odd that the parents weren't allowed supervised visits. I feel so sad for those kids.

I seriously wonder of more has been discovered about the family dynamics or the parents specifically.

Must. know. more!

[Anonymous]

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.

I know one couple that comes to mind.

They do all kinds of crazy sh@t to dump their kids for a night out. Questionable babysitting arrangements and such. Dropping kid off at a sleepover with a single dad they do not know at all,etc. they came to mind when I read this story. Also- have champagne taste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

You don't really know that for sure, though, do you? If the parents are so overwhelmed by having 2 under 3 that they'd leave them alone in the cold for over an hour instead of simply tag-teaming or hiring a sitter, then what might happen behind closed doors? Maybe the kids would benefit from a few weeks with a licensed foster parent who is literally certified to be able to handle the needs of toddlers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess I cannot see how it is better for these young children to be placed in a strange home with complete strangers than with their own parents in familiarity of their own home.

I know that others have written that the judge suspects that the parents have done this before, but I just don't know how a foster family placement would be preferred here, particularly now that parents know they are being supervised closely.

I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?

[Anonymous]

I'm surprised they didn't get supervised visitation with the kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess I cannot see how it is better for these young children to be placed in a strange home with complete strangers than with their own parents in familiarity of their own home.

I know that others have written that the judge suspects that the parents have done this before, but I just don't know how a foster family placement would be preferred here, particularly now that parents know they are being supervised closely.

I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?

Do you know that they are with strangers and not, say, family? Do you know how healthy their home environment is?

This thread is such a fascinating exercise in privilege. You can almost literally see how PP's are envisioning this family as just like theirs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I guess I cannot see how it is better for these young children to be placed in a strange home with complete strangers than with their own parents in familiarity of their own home.

I know that others have written that the judge suspects that the parents have done this before, but I just don't know how a foster family placement would be preferred here, particularly now that parents know they are being supervised closely.

I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?


Do you know that they are with strangers and not, say, family?

I am assuming through previous posts that the children will be placed in DC CPS care with foster parents. Would it not be reported that the children will be in the care of relatives until the trial? I hope that happens, but I have not heard anything to prove that point.

[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.

That must be it -- excellent call. Bet the kids were napping when they went into the restaurant and woke up alone. Poor kids.

[Anonymous]

I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?

What makes you so sure that they won't?

Or, what immediate PP said about privilege.

[Anonymous]

It sounds to me like these kids would BENEFIT from being in foster care. Seriously, people. Take out the fact that they are highly educated and own a million dollar home. If this happened to a low SES couple these kids would be gone. These two have no business being parents.