DC parents leave kids in car for wine tasting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but I feel like it's just as cruel to take the parents away from these kids (and their home) for 2 weeks than it is to have left them in a car for an hour. So I hope there is some other evidence at the home that indicates that they are dangerous parents, to justify this (not just stupid ones who need some parenting education). Number one consideration should be continuing the routines of the children and their connections with their family. Wouldn't it be better to have someone in the house watching the parents and kids together? It must seem to the kids like their parents have been snatched from them. If they are alcoholics and beating up their kids then yes, they should be kept away. I think I'll be flamed, but I just can't bear the thought of those kids crying for their parents.

I agree with you. Unless there is evididence that there has been other abuse or neglect, I think the babies need to be with their parents. So stressful for the kids to be away from their parents at that age. What they did was massively stupid and dangerous, but I think there is gleeful, nosy gossipping going on here as well as concern and outrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder what Ris management think of all this?
They are getting lots of attention, maybe not such good attention, but their name is now all over the place.

I live in the far out suburbs, and rarely get into DC (and when I do, it's usually to visit the museums with my kids, not for nice dinners), so I had never heard of Ris before this. After hearing this story, I did take the time look at their website and check out their menu.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read each post but are the parents still employed after all of this?

When you were born they must have left the empathy gene on the cutting room floor. So you want the parents to lose their means of support before trial for an offense i'm related to their jobs and face total ruination of their lives? I assume that you, your family members and your friends have never made a big mistake, ever. I am appalled by the parents' action but wont be a cheerleader to wreck their lives forever.

This. Their judgment calls in their work could be more often questioned by some after this, but what positive thing does firing them do to their kids? No need to fire them!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read each post but are the parents still employed after all of this?

When you were born they must have left the empathy gene on the cutting room floor. So you want the parents to lose their means of support before trial for an offense i'm related to their jobs and face total ruination of their lives? I assume that you, your family members and your friends have never made a big mistake, ever. I am appalled by the parents' action but wont be a cheerleader to wreck their lives forever.

This. Their judgment calls in their work could be more often questioned by some after this, but what positive thing does firing them do to their kids? No need to fire them!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but I feel like it's just as cruel to take the parents away from these kids (and their home) for 2 weeks than it is to have left them in a car for an hour. So I hope there is some other evidence at the home that indicates that they are dangerous parents, to justify this (not just stupid ones who need some parenting education). Number one consideration should be continuing the routines of the children and their connections with their family. Wouldn't it be better to have someone in the house watching the parents and kids together? It must seem to the kids like their parents have been snatched from them. If they are alcoholics and beating up their kids then yes, they should be kept away. I think I'll be flamed, but I just can't bear the thought of those kids crying for their parents.

I agree with you Pp. I have a toddler.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but I feel like it's just as cruel to take the parents away from these kids (and their home) for 2 weeks than it is to have left them in a car for an hour. So I hope there is some other evidence at the home that indicates that they are dangerous parents, to justify this (not just stupid ones who need some parenting education). Number one consideration should be continuing the routines of the children and their connections with their family. Wouldn't it be better to have someone in the house watching the parents and kids together? It must seem to the kids like their parents have been snatched from them. If they are alcoholics and beating up their kids then yes, they should be kept away. I think I'll be flamed, but I just can't bear the thought of those kids crying for their parents.

In terms of having someone in the house watching the parents and kids together -- I don't believe the court/foster system can provide that beyond having a social worker visit for an hr or two per day -- at which time everyone will be on good behavior, though the court can allow for the appointment of a family member to provide that service. It's likely that there is no family in the area that can do this; his family is likely in France and hers is likely on the west coast -- maybe they just couldn't get here before the initial hearing (or weren't even called bc their son and daughter thought -- no big deal, the judge will say we're free to go and have the kids back in the next hr).

Any family lawyers out there -- any info re what info the courts need in order to take kids away? I'm thinking it's something more than leaving the kids in the car for an hr. If they wanted to prevent that kind of thing from happening again before the next hearing -- couldn't the judge have ordered that the kids may only be taken to school/daycare and back and can go no where else, and the rest of the time 1 parent must be with them? That prevents the kids from being left anywhere. I think maybe they found some other evidence of abuse. Who knows -- maybe when paramedics checked the kids, they saw signs of physical abuse or suspected it. I don't know if an investigator would have been allowed in the home prior to the hearing, but I'm guessing yes there was a warrant -- so maybe they saw things in the home that were alarming and suggested abuse or neglect happening there.

Immediate PP: I know it's a long thread, but if you read the whole thing, this has been covered in-depth earlier by posters with experience with these issues.

Bolded PP: No, you are certainly not the only one to think this - you should also read the whole thread and there are lots who agree with you. But would you say that if the parents were on welfare and living in public housing? Would you be so concerned about the kids' "routines" and "connections with their family" if those did not occur in a million dollar house in a tony neighborhood? Think about it.

[Anonymous]

Something tells me the PPs who feel badly that the kids are not with the (negligent) parents right now wouldn't feel remotely the same about returning two young toddlers to the care of similarly negligent parents if they were poor and/or non-white and/or obvious substance abusers. But those kids also love and miss their parents, and also have routines that are comforting.

You feel badly for these kids because they look like yours, or like your kids' preschool classmates. Same goes for the parents. They have an upscale home in a nice neighborhood. So you give them the benefit of the doubt: their crime becomes one of stupidity rather than cruelty. Whereas you've probably never thought twice about the fact that the little kids of meth heads and crack whores also cry from their parents when CPS intervenes.

I'm glad to see CPS taking a tough stance. Just because you live in a million dollar condo and drive a Volvo doesn't mean you're not a danger to your children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe I'm alone in thinking this, but I feel like it's just as cruel to take the parents away from these kids (and their home) for 2 weeks than it is to have left them in a car for an hour. So I hope there is some other evidence at the home that indicates that they are dangerous parents, to justify this (not just stupid ones who need some parenting education). Number one consideration should be continuing the routines of the children and their connections with their family. Wouldn't it be better to have someone in the house watching the parents and kids together? It must seem to the kids like their parents have been snatched from them. If they are alcoholics and beating up their kids then yes, they should be kept away. I think I'll be flamed, but I just can't bear the thought of those kids crying for their parents.

I agree with you. Unless there is evididence that there has been other abuse or neglect, I think the babies need to be with their parents. So stressful for the kids to be away from their parents at that age. What they did was massively stupid and dangerous, but I think there is gleeful, nosy gossipping going on here as well as concern and outrage.

What they did WAS abusive and neglectful. Those kids were much too young to be in that situation on a cold day to boot. It is frightening for a child. Maybe you don't understand children. Do you have any children of your own? Honestly, are you bonded to your children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something tells me the PPs who feel badly that the kids are not with the (negligent) parents right now wouldn't feel remotely the same about returning two young toddlers to the care of similarly negligent parents if they were poor and/or non-white and/or obvious substance abusers. But those kids also love and miss their parents, and also have routines that are comforting.

You feel badly for these kids because they look like yours, or like your kids' preschool classmates. Same goes for the parents. They have an upscale home in a nice neighborhood. So you give them the benefit of the doubt: their crime becomes one of stupidity rather than cruelty. Whereas you've probably never thought twice about the fact that the little kids of meth heads and crack whores also cry from their parents when CPS intervenes.

I'm glad to see CPS taking a tough stance. Just because you live in a million dollar condo and drive a Volvo doesn't mean you're not a danger to your children. [/quote

^^ +1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Something tells me the PPs who feel badly that the kids are not with the (negligent) parents right now wouldn't feel remotely the same about returning two young toddlers to the care of similarly negligent parents if they were poor and/or non-white and/or obvious substance abusers. But those kids also love and miss their parents, and also have routines that are comforting.

You feel badly for these kids because they look like yours, or like your kids' preschool classmates. Same goes for the parents. They have an upscale home in a nice neighborhood. So you give them the benefit of the doubt: their crime becomes one of stupidity rather than cruelty. Whereas you've probably never thought twice about the fact that the little kids of meth heads and crack whores also cry from their parents when CPS intervenes.

I'm glad to see CPS taking a tough stance. Just because you live in a million dollar condo and drive a Volvo doesn't mean you're not a danger to your children.

This. Bc these parents have jobs like yours, homes like yours and their kids go to your preschool as a PP said, they couldn't possibly have meant to harm their kids -- and you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. A benefit that I'm sure most on here do not give to lower income families or black families or unemployed people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read each post but are the parents still employed after all of this?

Despite currently being tried in the court of public opinion and the media, they are still innocent until proven guilty. Being accused of a crime is not grounds for dismissal unless you are emploeyd in a highly visible and political position. Being convicted of a felony is often grounds for termination so it really matters how this plays out. But losing their jobs now would be premature .

I think one of them is a fed employee; but in general, most people are at-will employees, so being arrested could certainly be grounds for dismissal. If you are at-will, your boss can fire you because they don't like the tie you wore to work.

If you get convicted of a Felony-grounds for firing in Feds.
Arrest/conviction of certain misdemeanors could certainly affect security clearance. If it's a serious charge an employee will be put in suspension leading up to trial.

My spouse is a Software consultant/engineer that has worked on contracts with the Feds that required one of the highest levels of security. Obtaining this was a big deal and lucrative have. Something like this could certainly negatively affect such a clearance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't read each post but are the parents still employed after all of this?

Despite currently being tried in the court of public opinion and the media, they are still innocent until proven guilty. Being accused of a crime is not grounds for dismissal unless you are emploeyd in a highly visible and political position. Being convicted of a felony is often grounds for termination so it really matters how this plays out. But losing their jobs now would be premature .

I think one of them is a fed employee; but in general, most people are at-will employees, so being arrested could certainly be grounds for dismissal. If you are at-will, your boss can fire you because they don't like the tie you wore to work.

If you get convicted of a Felony-grounds for firing in Feds.
Arrest/conviction of certain misdemeanors could certainly affect security clearance. If it's a serious charge an employee will be put in suspension leading up to trial.

My spouse is a Software consultant/engineer that has worked on contracts with the Feds that required one of the highest levels of security. Obtaining this was a big deal and lucrative have. Something like this could certainly negatively affect such a clearance.

I'm surprised at the idiots that think this was okay and the sheer number that don't realize this can affect employment.

Good God, people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something tells me the PPs who feel badly that the kids are not with the (negligent) parents right now wouldn't feel remotely the same about returning two young toddlers to the care of similarly negligent parents if they were poor and/or non-white and/or obvious substance abusers. But those kids also love and miss their parents, and also have routines that are comforting.

You feel badly for these kids because they look like yours, or like your kids' preschool classmates. Same goes for the parents. They have an upscale home in a nice neighborhood. So you give them the benefit of the doubt: their crime becomes one of stupidity rather than cruelty. Whereas you've probably never thought twice about the fact that the little kids of meth heads and crack whores also cry from their parents when CPS intervenes.

I'm glad to see CPS taking a tough stance. Just because you live in a million dollar condo and drive a Volvo doesn't mean you're not a danger to your children.

This. Bc these parents have jobs like yours, homes like yours and their kids go to your preschool as a PP said, they couldn't possibly have meant to harm their kids -- and you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. A benefit that I'm sure most on here do not give to lower income families or black families or unemployed people.

A crime of stupidity rather than cruelty. PP, you nailed the lens of privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something tells me the PPs who feel badly that the kids are not with the (negligent) parents right now wouldn't feel remotely the same about returning two young toddlers to the care of similarly negligent parents if they were poor and/or non-white and/or obvious substance abusers. But those kids also love and miss their parents, and also have routines that are comforting.

You feel badly for these kids because they look like yours, or like your kids' preschool classmates. Same goes for the parents. They have an upscale home in a nice neighborhood. So you give them the benefit of the doubt: their crime becomes one of stupidity rather than cruelty. Whereas you've probably never thought twice about the fact that the little kids of meth heads and crack whores also cry from their parents when CPS intervenes.

I'm glad to see CPS taking a tough stance. Just because you live in a million dollar condo and drive a Volvo doesn't mean you're not a danger to your children.

This. Bc these parents have jobs like yours, homes like yours and their kids go to your preschool as a PP said, they couldn't possibly have meant to harm their kids -- and you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. A benefit that I'm sure most on here do not give to lower income families or black families or unemployed people.

Yes, everyone here is racist; thanks for making such a totally baseless assumption. You are the one true and righteous DCUMer!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something tells me the PPs who feel badly that the kids are not with the (negligent) parents right now wouldn't feel remotely the same about returning two young toddlers to the care of similarly negligent parents if they were poor and/or non-white and/or obvious substance abusers. But those kids also love and miss their parents, and also have routines that are comforting.

You feel badly for these kids because they look like yours, or like your kids' preschool classmates. Same goes for the parents. They have an upscale home in a nice neighborhood. So you give them the benefit of the doubt: their crime becomes one of stupidity rather than cruelty. Whereas you've probably never thought twice about the fact that the little kids of meth heads and crack whores also cry from their parents when CPS intervenes.

I'm glad to see CPS taking a tough stance. Just because you live in a million dollar condo and drive a Volvo doesn't mean you're not a danger to your children.

This. Bc these parents have jobs like yours, homes like yours and their kids go to your preschool as a PP said, they couldn't possibly have meant to harm their kids -- and you want to give them the benefit of the doubt. A benefit that I'm sure most on here do not give to lower income families or black families or unemployed people.

A crime of stupidity rather than cruelty. PP, you nailed the lens of privilege.

Nope!!! I'm more appalled because their portfolio is just like mine. I can't fathom how damn stupid and entitled that they were--esp. Pulling attitude with the cops like they were above reproach.

I think everyone defending them has done something similarly as stupid with their kids but didn't get caught. Otherwise I can't fathom why they think leaving them in a cold car around the corner where they couldn't see the car on a busy city street for over an hour until the cops came is okay. On no level is this okay. When I lived there we would carry the huge convertible car seat with sleeping toddler into the house because we didn't feel comfortable even outside our window watching them on O street. These people were out if their frickin minds. I would have been panicky as hell and not able to enjoy a sip of wine --worried.