DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm getting the "content currently unavailable" message when I click on your link.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jennie gives a whole new meaning to "Tiger Mom".

Wow, that's such an original comment. No one in 39 pages of posting came up with that before you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I wonder if they were on drugs. I seriously can't fathom any other reason why they would have thought this was a good idea.

Actually, my husband had an interesting theory. He thinks PhDs can be a bit unusual--as in, super smart, but socially challenged--so he thinks their defense could be that they didn't fully comprehend the severity of their actions. Not sure if an high-functioning autism/Asperger's defense would work, but it's as liky to work as anything else, I guess.

Doubt it, IMO!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I wonder if they were on drugs. I seriously can't fathom any other reason why they would have thought this was a good idea.

Actually, my husband had an interesting theory. He thinks PhDs can be a bit unusual--as in, super smart, but socially challenged--so he thinks their defense could be that they didn't fully comprehend the severity of their actions. Not sure if an high-functioning autism/Asperger's defense would work, but it's as liky to work as anything else, I guess.

Doubt it, IMO!

Why not? The Twinkie defense worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So how old were these children? Does anyone know if they were adopted? Surrogates involved?

I ask b/c the reports say they left a 22-month-old boy and a slightly older girl.

I find this story something that I can not stop coming back to. You have a mom who is 46 who had a child at 43 and 44 - and now after whatever efforts went into that, you think it is OK to leave the kids in the car to go taste some wine?

She's Asian. Asian women seem to age more slowly.

They don't when it comes to fertility. They tend to be infertile at younger ages than other races. Ask my Asian SILs, none of whom could conceive after 37 (I really feel for one, who is 39 and has been trying since 34). All of the SILs are unrelated (only boys in DH's family). PCOS is really
common in Asia.

Disagree that Asian women "tend to be infertile at younger ages than other races." How do you know this?

Now wrinkles? Yes, they all look fabulous into their 40s. But not fertility IME.

This hasn't been my experience at all. I conceived easily and naturally at 41 and 43. I'm Korean. My BFF who is Chinese conceived at 41 without issues. Most of my Asian friends had children in their late 30ties and early 40ties without problems. My grandmother had my dad at 42.

Back on topic. These parents are from another planet. What they did was neglect and inexcusable.

[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.

Her FB page is still active and you can see her profile pic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I'm getting the "content currently unavailable" message when I click on your link.

it works when I click on it. Maybe she has a privacy setting that only friends of friends can find her and we have a mutual friend (that I don't know about). I have my profile set up that way on fb. So if you were to look for me on fb and we didn't have any mutual friends you couldn't find me. Just a theory. But her profile picture shows her with two young kids, a boy and a girl, blowing out birthday candles. Says she lives in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I wonder if they were on drugs. I seriously can't fathom any other reason why they would have thought this was a good idea.

Actually, my husband had an interesting theory. He thinks PhDs can be a bit unusual--as in, super smart, but socially challenged--so he thinks their defense could be that they didn't fully comprehend the severity of their actions. Not sure if an high-functioning autism/Asperger's defense would work, but it's as liky to work as anything else, I guess.

Doubt it, IMO!

Why not? The Twinkie defense worked.

As did "affluenza," incredibly.

[Anonymous]

Well chance of getting into Beauvior is probably shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Once they're in foster care, there are rules about who is allowed to provide care, and only those who have gone through certain background checks are allowed. So the nanny is probably not allowed to care for them now.

[Anonymous]

My theory is that since the judge forbade them from seeing the children before the hearing, they are probably in kinship foster care - meaning with a relative or close friend (or maybe the nanny?). If the kids were in actual foster care, wouldn't it be a given that they couldn't see their kids b/c they wouldn't know where they are.

I would imagine that after they did the emergency foster placement, and then needed a longer term solution, they might look for a family near the child's daycare, etc. Although, I believe to foster, you often need to guarantee that one parent will be home all the time or available to care for the kids as needed - aka, be able to take them to doctor appointments, etc, in case of abused kids or kids with medical problems who had medical neglect...

And I think this was not a one-of event. I'm sure they have done similar stuff. Can't believe what losers they are. I'm hoping they are meth addicts and were not in their right minds...

Also can't believe how sucked in I am with this drama- like previous posters, I feel like I could have related to these people before this incident - they're a bit older than me, but could easily be part of my social circle... Will have to recheck her FB page to see if she's still visible to me...

[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?

This, by no means justifies anything they did. But, I'm guessing I know why the kid had no shoes and socks, the same reason why my daughter never has any shoes or socks after being in the car. She took them off herself. When that was done she was bored, so then she started crying. But I let the parents off the hook for her not having shoes and socks, that ones on the kid, I'm guessing the parents did not put her in the car without them.

[Anonymous]

I also can't believe I'm sucked in. Is it because so many of us have mutual friends of theirs? They are just like us...but monsters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I hope not. Her kids went to PS with my DS last year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My theory is that since the judge forbade them from seeing the children before the hearing, they are probably in kinship foster care - meaning with a relative or close friend (or maybe the nanny?). If the kids were in actual foster care, wouldn't it be a given that they couldn't see their kids b/c they wouldn't know where they are.

I would imagine that after they did the emergency foster placement, and then needed a longer term solution, they might look for a family near the child's daycare, etc. Although, I believe to foster, you often need to guarantee that one parent will be home all the time or available to care for the kids as needed - aka, be able to take them to doctor appointments, etc, in case of abused kids or kids with medical problems who had medical neglect...

And I think this was not a one-of event. I'm sure they have done similar stuff. Can't believe what losers they are. I'm hoping they are meth addicts and were not in their right minds...

Also can't believe how sucked in I am with this drama- like previous posters, I feel like I could have related to these people before this incident - they're a bit older than me, but could easily be part of my social circle... Will have to recheck her FB page to see if she's still visible to me...

No, it would not be a given that they wouldn't see the kids. Parents can get supervised visitation.