DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They aren't in jail. I don't think anyone is arguing against a family member getting custody. But that doesn't preclude the parents getting supervised visitation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Totally agree. These children will NOT benefit from foster care. I do hope they are placed with other family until this is all figured out. I also hope for the children's sake they are allowed supervised visitation with their parents until everything has been resolved. Clearly the parents have unbelievable judgement issues that needed to be dealt with. But I do hope this family gets back together as soon as possible. Those children will not benefit from the foster system.

[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?

yes, they have emergency foster care parents . I even remember reading about it here once. There are folks who will immediately, any hour of the day or night, open their homes to children who need placment

[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.

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.

I definitely disagree. If you have ever known anyone who has gone through the foster-to-adopt process, you would know it takes a lot for a parent to lose their parental rights. A LOT.

[Anonymous]

I think people are getting confused with how the system works. I am not an expert but have done this legal work in another state and posted before.

If there is an exigent situation (police find kids in an abusive or neglectful situation), they will remove the kids on a temporary, emergency basis and place them in foster care until there is a hearing to determine placement going forward. Two weeks seems like a long time to me (in the state I did this, it was more like a few days).

At that point, the parents (with lawyers) will argue to get the kids back. The kids will also have separate representatives (lawyer-guardian ad lietems) who will argue for their best interests. The state will present its case.

Even in the worst set of facts, there will still be some effort to rehabilitate the parents and reunite the family. The kids would stay in foster care, but have supervised visits with the parents at a social services office. Parents would have to do parenting classes.

Only after a year or more of parental screw ups (not attending the supervised vists, etc) would the state even move to terminate parental rights. That would be the cases, regardless of race, SES status etc.

In this instance, I'm sure the parents will get the kids back in two weeks with supervision from social workers, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think people are getting confused with how the system works. I am not an expert but have done this legal work in another state and posted before.

If there is an exigent situation (police find kids in an abusive or neglectful situation), they will remove the kids on a temporary, emergency basis and place them in foster care until there is a hearing to determine placement going forward. Two weeks seems like a long time to me (in the state I did this, it was more like a few days).

At that point, the parents (with lawyers) will argue to get the kids back. The kids will also have separate representatives (lawyer-guardian ad lietems) who will argue for their best interests. The state will present its case.

Even in the worst set of facts, there will still be some effort to rehabilitate the parents and reunite the family. The kids would stay in foster care, but have supervised visits with the parents at a social services office. Parents would have to do parenting classes.

Only after a year or more of parental screw ups (not attending the supervised vists, etc) would the state even move to terminate parental rights. That would be the cases, regardless of race, SES status etc.

In this instance, I'm sure the parents will get the kids back in two weeks with supervision from social workers, etc.

Thank you for a sane and informed post!!

[Anonymous]

PP here-- I did cases (law school clinic) representing totally deadbeat dads, never saw the kids more than once...and the state STILL tries to get him to step up. And, I've done cases representing the state to terminate parental rights...even if the parent blows off every supervised visit, doesn't even show up to the hearings, the state still has to put on its case and make the case to the judge to terminate parental rights. There is due process (rightly so)-- kids are NOT taken away "in a minute."

[Anonymous]

It may have been decided that for young toddlers who can't understand what's going on, seeing their parents for an hour a day is too confusing and hence more harmful than not seeing them at all for two weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why they drove... Unless the plan was always to leave them in the car...

Here's what I think: it was cold, so they drove. Kids fell asleep in car, they decided, oh, why wake them? We use a monitor at home, let's just rig up our own monitor here via iphone and we can hear them and watch through window. It's fine. When they wake, we'll get them. The kids probably had socks or shoes on but kicked them off (happens all the time). As for hysterically crying, isn't all crying hysterical? I bet they will hire a great lawyer and turn this into a personal choice/monitoring debate. The kids were FINE. Just saying, no way in hell would I do this, but I bet this is how they "justified" it and what will happen when they tell their story. Remember, the dad did say they were monitoring them.

[Anonymous]

So under your theory, they planned on taking the kids with them into the wine tasting, but since the kids fell asleep, they left them in the car?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why they drove... Unless the plan was always to leave them in the car...

Here's what I think: it was cold, so they drove. Kids fell asleep in car, they decided, oh, why wake them? We use a monitor at home, let's just rig up our own monitor here via iphone and we can hear them and watch through window. It's fine. When they wake, we'll get them. The kids probably had socks or shoes on but kicked them off (happens all the time). As for hysterically crying, isn't all crying hysterical? I bet they will hire a great lawyer and turn this into a personal choice/monitoring debate. The kids were FINE. Just saying, no way in hell would I do this, but I bet this is how they "justified" it and what will happen when they tell their story. Remember, the dad did say they were monitoring them.

That's not my theory. My theory is that either
A) They had a sitter, who cancelled at the last minute
or
B) Each parent thought the other had arranged for the sitter, and it wasn't until shortly before they were supposed to leave that they realized no one had.

Either way, they found themselves without a sitter at the last minute. Kids were probably napping, so they put them in the car, expecting they could go in and out of the event quickly, before the kids even woke up. Just in case, they decided to keep the open line on their phones to use like a "baby monitor."

Of course, time flies when you're having fun, and before they knew it almost an hour had passed. Usually the kids are awake by now, but we can't hear anything (probably too noisy in the restaurant.) Maybe one of should just go check really quick...and that's when Dad went back to the car that was already surrounded by cops...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So under your theory, they planned on taking the kids with them into the wine tasting, but since the kids fell asleep, they left them in the car?

they did not have shoes! That was never the plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So under your theory, they planned on taking the kids with them into the wine tasting, but since the kids fell asleep, they left them in the car?

Who cares what some random poster's theory is!? Why does that matter? It still gives us absolutely no true insight to what they were thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't understand why they drove... Unless the plan was always to leave them in the car...

Here's what I think: it was cold, so they drove. Kids fell asleep in car, they decided, oh, why wake them? We use a monitor at home, let's just rig up our own monitor here via iphone and we can hear them and watch through window. It's fine. When they wake, we'll get them. The kids probably had socks or shoes on but kicked them off (happens all the time). As for hysterically crying, isn't all crying hysterical? I bet they will hire a great lawyer and turn this into a personal choice/monitoring debate. The kids were FINE. Just saying, no way in hell would I do this, but I bet this is how they "justified" it and what will happen when they tell their story. Remember, the dad did say they were monitoring them.

That's not my theory. My theory is that either
A) They had a sitter, who cancelled at the last minute
or
B) Each parent thought the other had arranged for the sitter, and it wasn't until shortly before they were supposed to leave that they realized no one had.

Either way, they found themselves without a sitter at the last minute. Kids were probably napping, so they put them in the car, expecting they could go in and out of the event quickly, before the kids even woke up. Just in case, they decided to keep the open line on their phones to use like a "baby monitor."

Of course, time flies when you're having fun, and before they knew it almost an hour had passed. Usually the kids are awake by now, but we can't hear anything (probably too noisy in the restaurant.) Maybe one of should just go check really quick...and that's when Dad went back to the car that was already surrounded by cops...

Okay, Jennie. Keep working on that defense. This one is not supported by the evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So under your theory, they planned on taking the kids with them into the wine tasting, but since the kids fell asleep, they left them in the car?

they did not have shoes! That was never the plan

How do you know? The kids could have kicked the shoes off.