DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. The parents were selfish and idiots but I have a 25 month old and know that toddlers that age still experience separation anxiety. For the kid's sake, they need to let the parents contact. Even a parent with bad judgement is better than strangers. Poor kids I feel so upset imagining they don't get contact with the parents (who incidentally deserve to be publicly humiliated).

You have a child and know...what? everything there is to know about child development, and the problems that neglectful and abusive parents may create? Clearly not or you would know that not all kids are securely attached to their parents, and some may be better off with other, better, caregivers than with the ones who are genetically related to them. Ones they can trust, who won't leave them alone in the cold to nap and then not come when they cry.

It's Tuesday, the kids are back in their usual daycare, those are probably the caregivers they're most bonded to anyway, if their parents are as neglectful as this makes it seem.

How would you know this?

I don't. It is an educated guess.

1. Parents both work--> some sort of childcare
2. CPS would aim to dIs riot them as little as possible--> they'd prioritize continuity of care

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per USA today only 8 months age difference. 22 months and 2 1/2

2 1/2 could be really 2 3/4, 2 4/5...

or they could have used two separate surrogates to carry and birth the children..but none of that really matters, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know where the car was in relation to the restaurant? Right outside? A few steps away?

Not looking to excuse it AT ALL. Just wondering if there is some more information out yet.

You can't really park right outside--there's a valet area and loading zone for the ritz. It might have been right across the street, but then even if they had the crazy f-ed up logic that they could keep an eye on them from Ris, they weren't because they didn't see the cops, etc.

A lot doesn't add up. This is my neighborhood and I can't imagine driving from my apt (a block from their house) to Ris.

Those poor kids. I hope they were released to extended family so they aren't in foster care with strangers. (God bless foster care, I'm just saying that someone they know is better.)

\



They drove as their car was their "babysitter"-I guess they did not want the kids home alone as thyey might get into their parents wine collection. There parent's deserve to have their kids removed. I also thinnk they adopted the kids and realized that kids cramped their lifestyle. True selfish idiots!

[Anonymous]

Honestly it would have been easier for them to get away with it if they just left the kids home alone. I realize that at ages 2-3, the chance of physical injury is huge, but these kids would have been better off locked in a windowless room with toys and a DVD player/ipad. Likely they would have zoned out on electronics for 60-90 min and not even cared that mom and dad weren't around as they'd equate it with nap time or time out or just playing in their own room. Leaving kids out on a public street alone -- you're just asking for trouble -- either someone finding/reporting you as happened here or your car being stolen/kids being taken for ransom.

[Anonymous]

We have no way of knowing motive -- and maybe a friend or acquaintance will speak out about how they are/act -- but I just keep thinking that this is a 40+ yr old well to do couple who had DECADES of being on their own, sleeping in, traveling, and doing whatever they want on weekends. The window for kids was closing, so they had them quick and maybe they even liked the cute baby stage where kids sleep through a lot. Now that they're at the pain in the ass toddler stage, I bet they're at each others' throats on the weekends about who has to be "stuck with" the kids and complaining about whatever events they're missing. I bet they've tried "small" things like leaving the kids home alone etc. and those went fine, so this weekend they got more brazen and decided to go do this.

Though what I don't get -- this is a couple with financial means. If they want kids without being too involved, they seriously can afford a weekend nanny. I live in NYC and it's pretty common -- you see nannies taking kids places on weekends, and these are kids who are either with a different nanny 5 days/wk or daycare or whatever. The point is, you can throw money at this problem. If it's a matter of judgment -- well their friends and coworkers are judging much more harshly now than they ever would have for a weekend nanny.

[Anonymous]

I can't find a picture of them anywhere. Does anyone have a link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't find a picture of them anywhere. Does anyone have a link?

I can't either. Looks like they promptly took down all of their FB/LinkedIn/Twitter pages. I'm sure their expensive lawyers know what to do when shit hits the fan.

[Anonymous]

Jennie gives a whole new meaning to "Tiger Mom".

[Anonymous]

Let's cut to the chase, what preschool do you think is a good fit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Smart people do dumb/careless things -- I had a cousin who was "overwhelmed" with one baby bc she was "far" from her family -- in Rhode Island for her DH's residency while her family was in Oklahoma. She'd regularly leave the baby in the crib for hours -- esp when she was mobile and had to be chased around -- and turn on Skype so her Okla. family could "watch" the baby. Not that stupid bc the baby was contained in the crib and mom was home though in another room, watching TV etc. -- she'd rely on her fam to text her to say -- the baby looks fussy, is crying, go check on her etc.

OMG, that's just nuts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Smart people do dumb/careless things -- I had a cousin who was "overwhelmed" with one baby bc she was "far" from her family -- in Rhode Island for her DH's residency while her family was in Oklahoma. She'd regularly leave the baby in the crib for hours -- esp when she was mobile and had to be chased around -- and turn on Skype so her Okla. family could "watch" the baby. Not that stupid bc the baby was contained in the crib and mom was home though in another room, watching TV etc. -- she'd rely on her fam to text her to say -- the baby looks fussy, is crying, go check on her etc.

OMG, that's just nuts.

Totally nuts and the family is a bunch of enablers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if something came out in the first hearing -- even just a lack of remorse or concern re the kids' whereabouts all weekend -- that made the judge decide that if he lets this couple have the kids for the next 2 weeks, they would do the same thing again or something worse and thus decided to put them in foster care since there doesn't appear to be local family available to "supervise" the parents.

So for all you family law types out there -- is the next 2 weeks going to be business as usual for the parents? I know they'll be spending time with their lawyers building their case, but otherwise are they free to come and go as they please? They should enjoy their child free weeks to the fullest -- restaurants, wine tastings, whatever they want to do that they can't with kids in tow. They'll have plenty of time together, as I bet their friends and coworkers are all distancing themselves.

I wonder if they're going to work during this time or if they can take some kind of emergency leave or ask to work from home?

Somehow I'm thinking this is a household which has a decent care system during the week -- be it daycare or nanny -- and I'm betting the kids were glad to be back to that person on Monday/Tuesday as it probably feels "normal" to them. No -- I don't know that they necessarily got to go back, but I'd imagine judges try to make things as "easy" as possible on foster families and want to maintain "normalcy" for the kids -- while they didn't allow them to see the parents, I have to imagine they are at least allowing the kids to get back to their normal weekly routine.

You're making a huge assumption here. If the children are in foster care, they could be anywhere in DC. You think a foster parent in SE is going to drive these kids in rush hour up to Dupont to take them to day care, and then drive back in the evening to go get them? Even if they have a nanny, a foster parent is not going to let an unknown stranger into their house to take care of the kids. Think about it.

[Anonymous]

My heart is breaking for those children. They must be terrified without their parents. Not to excuse their stupid choice in any way but I have kids that age and I can't imagine how traumatized they would be to be torn from their home and parents for 2 1/2 weeks. This is very wrong. They couldn't be placed with family friends or relatives in their own home, at the very least? Or a faster hearing!?

[Anonymous]

Should have gone for the tinted windows package on that Volvo....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't find a picture of them anywhere. Does anyone have a link?

I can't either. Looks like they promptly took down all of their FB/LinkedIn/Twitter pages. I'm sure their expensive lawyers know what to do when shit hits the fan.

Is this her?

https://www.facebook.com/jennie.chang1?fref=ts