DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[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?

You are very clueless with how CPS works and the reasons why kids are placed in the care of the government. Why should a parent get custody of their kids when they treated them like animals?

[Anonymous]

Not that it justifies anything, but I am curious if both parents were completely 'on board' with the decision to leave the children in the car. One parent may have been opposed to the idea, but the other parent may have been persuasive and forceful on the decision. I just can't imagine two people completely agreeing to do something so terrible.

[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? 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.

No, PP, I am definitely not envisioning this family as just like mine. No need to throw insults towards people who are truly interested in this case. I have NOT heard it confirmed that the children have been placed with family, and hope that YOU or someone else might confirm this information.

I hope that the children would be placed with family or close family friends/caregivers. So do you know? Do YOU know how healthy their home environment is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. It's amazing how although these parents showed gross negligence and poor judgment some consider it a good idea for the couple to care for the kids UNTIL THEIR COURT DATE FOR CHARGES OF ATTEMPTED SECOND-DEGREE CRUELTY TO CHILDREN.

They are being given benefit of the doubt x 1,000. SMH.

[Anonymous]

And if the kids were returned to the parents and they did something equally as stupid again and the children were harmed or (god forbid!) killed, PPs would be the first ones to shout, "And CPS knew they were neglectful parents! Why didn't they do anything!!!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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? 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.

No, PP, I am definitely not envisioning this family as just like mine. No need to throw insults towards people who are truly interested in this case. I have NOT heard it confirmed that the children have been placed with family, and hope that YOU or someone else might confirm this information.

I hope that the children would be placed with family or close family friends/caregivers. So do you know? Do YOU know how healthy their home environment is?

Insults? what are you talking about? I'm usually aware of when I insult people. Did you think mentioning privilege was an insult of you??

You said you couldn't imagine how a stranger's house could be better than their house. That means you cannot imagine how these kids' million dollar house and affluent parents could be a bad environment, or how a stranger's house could be a good one.

My questions were intended to point out how much we don't know. given how much we don't know, all we do know is that people who are in a better position to judge these parents have made a certain decision. I'm PP with the CPS-working sister so I tend to trust that such people have the child's safety in mind.

[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.

With DC DC&PS' sorry record of foster care and temporary custody, the children are as likely as not to wind up with indifferent and incompetent caregivers, if not worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not that it justifies anything, but I am curious if both parents were completely 'on board' with the decision to leave the children in the car. One parent may have been opposed to the idea, but the other parent may have been persuasive and forceful on the decision. I just can't imagine two people completely agreeing to do something so terrible.

And I can't imagine agreeing to leave my kids in the car like that, no matter how pesuasive and forceful my husband was. I think they both had to be 100 percent on board.

[Anonymous]

Now they have plenty of child free time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that it justifies anything, but I am curious if both parents were completely 'on board' with the decision to leave the children in the car. One parent may have been opposed to the idea, but the other parent may have been persuasive and forceful on the decision. I just can't imagine two people completely agreeing to do something so terrible.

And I can't imagine agreeing to leave my kids in the car like that, no matter how pesuasive and forceful my husband was. I think they both had to be 100 percent on board.

Exactly. As to how two people both were on-board with a uniquely bad idea, often people with crazy or bizarre or even evil world views seem to attract each other (see all the cases where one spouse is a criminal and another an enabler or they both join in like those Canadian husband/wife serial killers).

This said, I am boggled as to why these parents did not get supervised visitation for an hour a day or something. I am 100% on board with the children being removed from their house until the investigation/trial are concluded, but for children this young to have no contact with their parents - all they know - is not good. And I am not saying this because these parents are yuppies (I actually think that their age/education/income make it worse - they could afford to do something else and should have known better). I am saying this because I think all children should be able to have supervised visits with their parents unless (a) the parent is a violent maniac who is likely to come into a foster home with a knife and lunge or something equally nuts or (b) the kids are old enough to have an opinion and don't want to see their parents.

Actually I wonder if the Judge is more severe with them because they really have no excuse - it was not a financial necessity to go to a wine tasting, they could afford a babysitter, and they are certainly old enough/educated enough to know they are violating the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:...Actually I wonder if the Judge is more severe with them because they really have no excuse - it was not a financial necessity to go to a wine tasting, they could afford a babysitter, and they are certainly old enough/educated enough to know they are violating the law.

I hope it's not the case. The children's welfare should come first, they are not a means to deliver punishment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:...Actually I wonder if the Judge is more severe with them because they really have no excuse - it was not a financial necessity to go to a wine tasting, they could afford a babysitter, and they are certainly old enough/educated enough to know they are violating the law.

I hope it's not the case. The children's welfare should come first, they are not a means to deliver punishment.

PP here. I think I did not make myself very clear - I think he could have (rightly) thought they are worse parents than e.g., that lady in the news some time ago who had her kid in a park unsupervised because she was a poor single mother who needed to work to make ends meet and could not afford a babysitter - in that case, you can say the parent is doing her best and is not willfully a bad parent. Or if it's some young 15-year old who simply doesn't know better (that it's a bad idea to leave a small child in the car) - someone like that can be educated on proper behavior with small children because she didn't do it out of callous indifference for her child. Here, you have to be a horrendously bad parent to do what they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not that it justifies anything, but I am curious if both parents were completely 'on board' with the decision to leave the children in the car. One parent may have been opposed to the idea, but the other parent may have been persuasive and forceful on the decision. I just can't imagine two people completely agreeing to do something so terrible.

And I can't imagine agreeing to leave my kids in the car like that, no matter how pesuasive and forceful my husband was. I think they both had to be 100 percent on board.

Exactly. As to how two people both were on-board with a uniquely bad idea, often people with crazy or bizarre or even evil world views seem to attract each other (see all the cases where one spouse is a criminal and another an enabler or they both join in like those Canadian husband/wife serial killers).

This said, I am boggled as to why these parents did not get supervised visitation for an hour a day or something. I am 100% on board with the children being removed from their house until the investigation/trial are concluded, but for children this young to have no contact with their parents - all they know - is not good. And I am not saying this because these parents are yuppies (I actually think that their age/education/income make it worse - they could afford to do something else and should have known better). I am saying this because I think all children should be able to have supervised visits with their parents unless (a) the parent is a violent maniac who is likely to come into a foster home with a knife and lunge or something equally nuts or (b) the kids are old enough to have an opinion and don't want to see their parents.

Actually I wonder if the Judge is more severe with them because they really have no excuse - it was not a financial necessity to go to a wine tasting, they could afford a babysitter, and they are certainly old enough/educated enough to know they are violating the law.

I hope that what ever the daily routine is for the kids - nanny or daycare - that will not change while they aren't in their parents custody (which I agree is a good thing!) some stability is important. But I have no idea what the policy is in DC about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

DC has a very poor record with foster care. It's like a Third World city.

[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.

Oh, I would venture to disagree, unless DC is drastically different from other states where I have practiced. Parenting classes, etc. would be required, there might be a temporary removal while the classes were completed, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that there would be a permanent removal, regardless of SES.