Dax Tejera’s widow’s arrest for child endangerment

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

Are you suggesting that it was just fine to leave a 2 yr old and a 5 month old alone while parents went out to dinner?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

Are you suggesting that it was just fine to leave a 2 yr old and a 5 month old alone while parents went out to dinner?

I posted in this comment stream that I would not do it because I would be worried the whole time about getting arrested but that I don't think the facts here point to a situation where the kids are actually in danger. If they were truly watching them on a camera while they ate, one block from the hotel, while the kids were sleeping. If the parents were at home and there was a restaurant across the street I'd say the same thing. If they are monitoring and within a pretty tight circumference of the room, then I don't honestly see how it's that different then being at home on another floor.

Honestly if this was me, because I'd be paranoid AF the whole time I was away, I'd likely be monitoring the kids MORE closely than if I was home where I would just have a monitor set up somewhere nearby and likely be looking at it pretty infrequently, likely only if there was a noise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everything in life involves risk, and I agree that the risk here was very small. But leaving your children alone while you're having dinner 4 blocks away is a completely UNNECESSARY risk. You don't put your pleasure before the welfare of your small children. There were a dozen better solutions to the situation that would not have left the children exposed to a potentially dangerous or frightening situation.

I'm the poster who is, I don't know I wouldn't call it defending them but don't think the kids were in danger. I read it was ONE block away. My opinion would actually change if it was four blocks away. I was thinking like, this is a hotel and the restaurant is on the corner, like .1 miles away. Not multiple city blocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in life involves risk, and I agree that the risk here was very small. But leaving your children alone while you're having dinner 4 blocks away is a completely UNNECESSARY risk. You don't put your pleasure before the welfare of your small children. There were a dozen better solutions to the situation that would not have left the children exposed to a potentially dangerous or frightening situation.

I'm the poster who is, I don't know I wouldn't call it defending them but don't think the kids were in danger. I read it was ONE block away. My opinion would actually change if it was four blocks away. I was thinking like, this is a hotel and the restaurant is on the corner, like .1 miles away. Not multiple city blocks.

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

You also ignore the fact that in a hotel, many people can easily access rooms. Staff and anyone to whom staff gives a key, or who takes advantage of staff just being careless.

But those of you trying to defend being out of the building while an infant and toddler are alone in a room just won't be convinced this is a terrible idea no matter how much the rest of us explain this to you.

Oh, and what is the magical reason for "four blocks" being your tipping point to think this is wrong? Why not two or three blocks? You're just blathering to defend the idea that it's fine to leave young children in a strange place. And please, don't try to say, "The parents could call the hotel and ask someone to check on the kids if the camera showed a problem." Sure they could! And that would out the parents as having left the kids there, because any decent hotel is likely to tell the cops, or at a minimum, staff will talk about this and let it get around. With people of some public profile like this couple, they wouldn't have phoned the hotel -- they'd know it would look terrible and would get out.

You also missed that the mother told her relatives to go to the hotel and get the kids and the hotel would not admit them to the room. The hotel was in the right there, too. No way to know that these strangers turning up were actually who they claimed they were.

But you just go on, defending the decision to leave kids in a building where no one knows they're there except adults who are much more than a one-minute walk away. The whole "you can't live life in a bubble! You can't worry about what might not happen!" crowd can call the rest of us paranoid blah blah. But it only takes one time. Only one, and there's no going back or fixing things beause you just HAD to...go out to a restaurant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

DP. Those of you depending so heavily on "the camera will be pointed at the kid" are so, so naive.

So your children never get out of bed on their own? Do you really not think that in a strange place, where they're outside their usual routines and not in their own beds in their own bedrooms, they will just sleep perfectly like logs and not possibly sleep more lightly and maybe get up and get out of bed to look for mom or dad? Yes, even out of a pack and play or crib if they're able. You look up at your precious camera trained on the kid's bed and they're not there. Not in view. What now, geniuses? You can't know if they're just out of frame or in the other room opening the mini bar or in the bathroom exploring the hot water tap that's set for scalding. Oh, but so sorry -- any mention of specific dangers in life frustrates you because you don't like to hear about them and assume that being aware of them means we..."live in a bubble," I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in life involves risk, and I agree that the risk here was very small. But leaving your children alone while you're having dinner 4 blocks away is a completely UNNECESSARY risk. You don't put your pleasure before the welfare of your small children. There were a dozen better solutions to the situation that would not have left the children exposed to a potentially dangerous or frightening situation.

I'm the poster who is, I don't know I wouldn't call it defending them but don't think the kids were in danger. I read it was ONE block away. My opinion would actually change if it was four blocks away. I was thinking like, this is a hotel and the restaurant is on the corner, like .1 miles away. Not multiple city blocks.

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

You also ignore the fact that in a hotel, many people can easily access rooms. Staff and anyone to whom staff gives a key, or who takes advantage of staff just being careless.

But those of you trying to defend being out of the building while an infant and toddler are alone in a room just won't be convinced this is a terrible idea no matter how much the rest of us explain this to you.

Oh, and what is the magical reason for "four blocks" being your tipping point to think this is wrong? Why not two or three blocks? You're just blathering to defend the idea that it's fine to leave young children in a strange place. And please, don't try to say, "The parents could call the hotel and ask someone to check on the kids if the camera showed a problem." Sure they could! And that would out the parents as having left the kids there, because any decent hotel is likely to tell the cops, or at a minimum, staff will talk about this and let it get around. With people of some public profile like this couple, they wouldn't have phoned the hotel -- they'd know it would look terrible and would get out.

You also missed that the mother told her relatives to go to the hotel and get the kids and the hotel would not admit them to the room. The hotel was in the right there, too. No way to know that these strangers turning up were actually who they claimed they were.

But you just go on, defending the decision to leave kids in a building where no one knows they're there except adults who are much more than a one-minute walk away. The whole "you can't live life in a bubble! You can't worry about what might not happen!" crowd can call the rest of us paranoid blah blah. But it only takes one time. Only one, and there's no going back or fixing things beause you just HAD to...go out to a restaurant.

So well said. I cannot believe anyone is defending this decision that is illegal, irresponsible, and such callous parenting. Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in life involves risk, and I agree that the risk here was very small. But leaving your children alone while you're having dinner 4 blocks away is a completely UNNECESSARY risk. You don't put your pleasure before the welfare of your small children. There were a dozen better solutions to the situation that would not have left the children exposed to a potentially dangerous or frightening situation.

I'm the poster who is, I don't know I wouldn't call it defending them but don't think the kids were in danger. I read it was ONE block away. My opinion would actually change if it was four blocks away. I was thinking like, this is a hotel and the restaurant is on the corner, like .1 miles away. Not multiple city blocks.

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

You also ignore the fact that in a hotel, many people can easily access rooms. Staff and anyone to whom staff gives a key, or who takes advantage of staff just being careless.

But those of you trying to defend being out of the building while an infant and toddler are alone in a room just won't be convinced this is a terrible idea no matter how much the rest of us explain this to you.

Oh, and what is the magical reason for "four blocks" being your tipping point to think this is wrong? Why not two or three blocks? You're just blathering to defend the idea that it's fine to leave young children in a strange place. And please, don't try to say, "The parents could call the hotel and ask someone to check on the kids if the camera showed a problem." Sure they could! And that would out the parents as having left the kids there, because any decent hotel is likely to tell the cops, or at a minimum, staff will talk about this and let it get around. With people of some public profile like this couple, they wouldn't have phoned the hotel -- they'd know it would look terrible and would get out.

You also missed that the mother told her relatives to go to the hotel and get the kids and the hotel would not admit them to the room. The hotel was in the right there, too. No way to know that these strangers turning up were actually who they claimed they were.

But you just go on, defending the decision to leave kids in a building where no one knows they're there except adults who are much more than a one-minute walk away. The whole "you can't live life in a bubble! You can't worry about what might not happen!" crowd can call the rest of us paranoid blah blah. But it only takes one time. Only one, and there's no going back or fixing things beause you just HAD to...go out to a restaurant.

So well said. I cannot believe anyone is defending this decision that is illegal, irresponsible, and such callous parenting. Wow.

+1 I'm truly appalled at the indifference to children's safety...for a meal out. What are these people thinking?!

[Anonymous]

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

Good point. This was midtown during the holidays, so basically the worst case scenario.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It is all just so unfortunate and the optics are bad. This is not a single mother on WIC. I can’t imagine the guilt compounded by the media dog-pile; they were both neglectful parents, but one is dead and he has the benefit of being male. It is important to separate the two events. She didn’t kill her husband and the Universe wasn’t punishing her for being a crappy MOM; however much the masses enjoy a tidy retribution story.

How are the optics bad? Rich couple staying in a fancy hotel in NYC could easily have afforded a babysitter and chosen instead to not only leave the kids in a hotel but one a block away. This is pure neglect and she should be criminally charged and found guilty. If she were poor, or of color or someone else, those kids would never go back to her and be placed for adoption.

Your point is valid. However, no chance that the kids would be taken away and put up for adoption whether poor or not. Takes a lot to lose custody. A lot.

yes, they would be.

I'm a np. I'm sorry. You are wrong. It is nearly impossible for kids to get through the adoption process, even with a neglectful parent. Even if she had intentionally tried to murder both kids, they would be placed in temporary custody, but not put up for adoption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in life involves risk, and I agree that the risk here was very small. But leaving your children alone while you're having dinner 4 blocks away is a completely UNNECESSARY risk. You don't put your pleasure before the welfare of your small children. There were a dozen better solutions to the situation that would not have left the children exposed to a potentially dangerous or frightening situation.

I'm the poster who is, I don't know I wouldn't call it defending them but don't think the kids were in danger. I read it was ONE block away. My opinion would actually change if it was four blocks away. I was thinking like, this is a hotel and the restaurant is on the corner, like .1 miles away. Not multiple city blocks.

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

You also ignore the fact that in a hotel, many people can easily access rooms. Staff and anyone to whom staff gives a key, or who takes advantage of staff just being careless.

But those of you trying to defend being out of the building while an infant and toddler are alone in a room just won't be convinced this is a terrible idea no matter how much the rest of us explain this to you.

Oh, and what is the magical reason for "four blocks" being your tipping point to think this is wrong? Why not two or three blocks? You're just blathering to defend the idea that it's fine to leave young children in a strange place. And please, don't try to say, "The parents could call the hotel and ask someone to check on the kids if the camera showed a problem." Sure they could! And that would out the parents as having left the kids there, because any decent hotel is likely to tell the cops, or at a minimum, staff will talk about this and let it get around. With people of some public profile like this couple, they wouldn't have phoned the hotel -- they'd know it would look terrible and would get out.

You also missed that the mother told her relatives to go to the hotel and get the kids and the hotel would not admit them to the room. The hotel was in the right there, too. No way to know that these strangers turning up were actually who they claimed they were.

But you just go on, defending the decision to leave kids in a building where no one knows they're there except adults who are much more than a one-minute walk away. The whole "you can't live life in a bubble! You can't worry about what might not happen!" crowd can call the rest of us paranoid blah blah. But it only takes one time. Only one, and there's no going back or fixing things beause you just HAD to...go out to a restaurant.

So well said. I cannot believe anyone is defending this decision that is illegal, irresponsible, and such callous parenting. Wow.

+1 I'm truly appalled at the indifference to children's safety...for a meal out. What are these people thinking?!

If this were a black working woman who left her kids to go get groceries after working a 12 hour shift, people would be all over her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is crazy! You don’t leave your young kids/babies in a hotel room by themselves so you can go out for dinner. There are no excuses for this! It was a stupid and careless parenting decision.

I wouldn't do this because I'd be stressed the whole time about something like this happening but honestly I don't think that badly of her. They were a block away from the hotel and had cameras on the kids. They were not in any danger if they were asleep and not in any more danger then they'd be in their own home on another floor.

No sorry being a block away in a whole other building while your kids are presumably several floors up is not at all the same as different part of the house. Not at all.

How quickly could you get to them in a fire? How many hotel staff have keys to that room? What if they get sick and the building elevators aren’t working? It’s just a huge amount of response time required to get back versus walking upstairs in your own house.

The only one of these things that is actually concerning is the fire. And while its concerning, there are plenty of situations where my kids are far enough away from me where if a fire spontaneously broke out I wouldn't be able to get to them. Normal situations. I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes. I understand some people think this is insane but honestly they have a camera on them and I imagine they could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes. And the stairs work even if the elevator doesn't. No kid is harmed from crying for a few minutes. And if they get sick (suddenly?!) in such a dramatic fashion that would alert me if I was in the room, like vomiting I guess? Then that would be evident on camera. But honestly my 3/5/7 year old are DEAD TO THE WORLD when they fall asleep. I could 100% leave the house to go run an errand and have no one be the wiser and no one endangered.

I do think leaving the hotel is a little much but if they were eating in the hotel restaurant would people be saying this? I dunno I just can't get onboard with demonizing this they were close and had a camera.

You need to read the details about Madeleine McCann. Ground floor apartment, parents only 180 feet away, checked on the kids supposedly more than once in person. It still ended horribly.

And before you insist that it's super rare for a stranger to abduct a child like that: Do you really not comprehend that on a camera set up in some random hotel room or apartment, you would NOT necessarily be aware f your child were vomiting, for instance? A young child might cry if he vomited...but of course you insist that "no kid is harmed from crying for few minutes" so you'd be at dinner, waiting to see if your kid would just cry it out and go back to sleep....

And who "could, if running, be back to the room in 3 minutes"? From down the block and maybe multiple stories to climb on those handy stairs you reference? Even if the elevator's working it'll be more than three minutes.

As for "my kids are dead to the world when they fall asleep," well, in a strange environment with unusual noises around, like a hotel, hooray for you if that's true. It won't always be true and you cannot know if the one time you leave a child alone in a hotel room is the one time the child will wake, wonder where the adults are, go looking for them, etc. By the time you look up from your dinner to check the camera and see them gone, well, you'll have no idea how long they've really been out of bed, maybe out of the room.

You're preening yourself on how "I don't live my life taking extreme precautions based on highly unlikely outcomes." Fine. But read the post at 11:16: The odds that nothing would go wrong are extremely high, but the unexpected does happen sometimes. It would never cross your mind that your young, seemingly healthy husband would just drop dead, but it does happen to some people. It could happen to any of us at any time. You don’t leave your kids alone because even though, most likely, they would be just fine, what if they weren’t? What if something would happen? You just don’t roll the die when it comes to your children’s wellbeing.

Enjoy rolling the die all you want. Most of us wouldn't. It is not paranoid or silly to choose to go out and have fun only when there is an actual responsible adult to care for kids.

I mean it IS super rare. What happened to that girl. And it was in a ground floor apartment not up in a hotel room. It is so rare that that case is notoriously famous as the horrifying example of the time the worst actually happened. A camera will be set up pointed at the kid, thats the whole point of the camera. And a vomiting incident could go unnoticed just as easily if the parents were eating dinner in their own kitchen with a monitor on.

I mean I think you're assuming that if home a parent doesn't let the kid cry. I always let my kid fuss a bit before going up, not for a half hour or anything but a few minutes absolutely they frequently went back to sleep!

The problem with the bolded is that to really live that life you need to live in a bubble. We take risks all the time, humans are terrible at risk evaluation. The kids were likely more at risk driving to the hotel then they were in that room.

DP. Those of you depending so heavily on "the camera will be pointed at the kid" are so, so naive.

So your children never get out of bed on their own? Do you really not think that in a strange place, where they're outside their usual routines and not in their own beds in their own bedrooms, they will just sleep perfectly like logs and not possibly sleep more lightly and maybe get up and get out of bed to look for mom or dad? Yes, even out of a pack and play or crib if they're able. You look up at your precious camera trained on the kid's bed and they're not there. Not in view. What now, geniuses? You can't know if they're just out of frame or in the other room opening the mini bar or in the bathroom exploring the hot water tap that's set for scalding. Oh, but so sorry -- any mention of specific dangers in life frustrates you because you don't like to hear about them and assume that being aware of them means we..."live in a bubble," I guess.

No what I think is that if I am a block away that I could be back in my hotel room in less than 5 minutes if I was properly motivate (IE, running) and that even waking up in a strange place, very little can happen in 5 minutes. Situations that require an immediate response (ie, the incident where being 10 seconds away instead of 300 seconds away) are extraordinarily rare.

You're all mad at me, I have said I wouldn't do this, I just don't agree with you that its dangerous. I think generally it does show bad judgement because while I don't think its dangerous, the consequences of being caught are SEVERE and being caught is not nearly as unlikely as something bad happening. I mean any of the things you describe could happen if I was in the room but asleep. There is no perfect safety situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in life involves risk, and I agree that the risk here was very small. But leaving your children alone while you're having dinner 4 blocks away is a completely UNNECESSARY risk. You don't put your pleasure before the welfare of your small children. There were a dozen better solutions to the situation that would not have left the children exposed to a potentially dangerous or frightening situation.

I'm the poster who is, I don't know I wouldn't call it defending them but don't think the kids were in danger. I read it was ONE block away. My opinion would actually change if it was four blocks away. I was thinking like, this is a hotel and the restaurant is on the corner, like .1 miles away. Not multiple city blocks.

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

You also ignore the fact that in a hotel, many people can easily access rooms. Staff and anyone to whom staff gives a key, or who takes advantage of staff just being careless.

But those of you trying to defend being out of the building while an infant and toddler are alone in a room just won't be convinced this is a terrible idea no matter how much the rest of us explain this to you.

Oh, and what is the magical reason for "four blocks" being your tipping point to think this is wrong? Why not two or three blocks? You're just blathering to defend the idea that it's fine to leave young children in a strange place. And please, don't try to say, "The parents could call the hotel and ask someone to check on the kids if the camera showed a problem." Sure they could! And that would out the parents as having left the kids there, because any decent hotel is likely to tell the cops, or at a minimum, staff will talk about this and let it get around. With people of some public profile like this couple, they wouldn't have phoned the hotel -- they'd know it would look terrible and would get out.

You also missed that the mother told her relatives to go to the hotel and get the kids and the hotel would not admit them to the room. The hotel was in the right there, too. No way to know that these strangers turning up were actually who they claimed they were.

But you just go on, defending the decision to leave kids in a building where no one knows they're there except adults who are much more than a one-minute walk away. The whole "you can't live life in a bubble! You can't worry about what might not happen!" crowd can call the rest of us paranoid blah blah. But it only takes one time. Only one, and there's no going back or fixing things beause you just HAD to...go out to a restaurant.

So well said. I cannot believe anyone is defending this decision that is illegal, irresponsible, and such callous parenting. Wow.

+1 I'm truly appalled at the indifference to children's safety...for a meal out. What are these people thinking?!

If this were a black working woman who left her kids to go get groceries after working a 12 hour shift, people would be all over her.

I'm the pp people are mad at for again, not defending them but not thinking this is awful and I absolutely would not be all over her. I think we hold parents to absurd standards in the name of removing every possible risk that makes life impossible for people. And that we should be generally kinder and more understanding of people who are really trying their best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything in life involves risk, and I agree that the risk here was very small. But leaving your children alone while you're having dinner 4 blocks away is a completely UNNECESSARY risk. You don't put your pleasure before the welfare of your small children. There were a dozen better solutions to the situation that would not have left the children exposed to a potentially dangerous or frightening situation.

I'm the poster who is, I don't know I wouldn't call it defending them but don't think the kids were in danger. I read it was ONE block away. My opinion would actually change if it was four blocks away. I was thinking like, this is a hotel and the restaurant is on the corner, like .1 miles away. Not multiple city blocks.

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

You also ignore the fact that in a hotel, many people can easily access rooms. Staff and anyone to whom staff gives a key, or who takes advantage of staff just being careless.

But those of you trying to defend being out of the building while an infant and toddler are alone in a room just won't be convinced this is a terrible idea no matter how much the rest of us explain this to you.

Oh, and what is the magical reason for "four blocks" being your tipping point to think this is wrong? Why not two or three blocks? You're just blathering to defend the idea that it's fine to leave young children in a strange place. And please, don't try to say, "The parents could call the hotel and ask someone to check on the kids if the camera showed a problem." Sure they could! And that would out the parents as having left the kids there, because any decent hotel is likely to tell the cops, or at a minimum, staff will talk about this and let it get around. With people of some public profile like this couple, they wouldn't have phoned the hotel -- they'd know it would look terrible and would get out.

You also missed that the mother told her relatives to go to the hotel and get the kids and the hotel would not admit them to the room. The hotel was in the right there, too. No way to know that these strangers turning up were actually who they claimed they were.

But you just go on, defending the decision to leave kids in a building where no one knows they're there except adults who are much more than a one-minute walk away. The whole "you can't live life in a bubble! You can't worry about what might not happen!" crowd can call the rest of us paranoid blah blah. But it only takes one time. Only one, and there's no going back or fixing things beause you just HAD to...go out to a restaurant.

So well said. I cannot believe anyone is defending this decision that is illegal, irresponsible, and such callous parenting. Wow.

+1 I'm truly appalled at the indifference to children's safety...for a meal out. What are these people thinking?!

If this were a black working woman who left her kids to go get groceries after working a 12 hour shift, people would be all over her.

I'm the pp people are mad at for again, not defending them but not thinking this is awful and I absolutely would not be all over her. I think we hold parents to absurd standards in the name of removing every possible risk that makes life impossible for people. And that we should be generally kinder and more understanding of people who are really trying their best.

No one is “trying their best” by leaving their children alone in a hotel while they are a block away eating dinner. That is simply not giving a f*ck. Plain and simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

One block. Plus a large hotel lobby, a ride (or walk up stairs) who knows how many floors. Down corridors. This isn't a one-minute stroll away or even a five-minute stroll. And do you have any idea how long walking along "one block" of sidewalk in Manhattan can take, depending on where you are?

Good point. This was midtown during the holidays, so basically the worst case scenario.

I'm the pp you're mad at, I don't know how to calculate what seems reasonable in NYC. To me I would want to be able to be back in the hotel room within 3 minutes if at full speed. The steakhouse is .1 miles away and a 3 minute walk according to google maps but IMO it is actually I think too risky because no matter how you go you have to cross two streets and they did not have line of site to the hotel.

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure this woman had the same attitude as many of you are describing, minimal risk, no big deal.

She probably thought, What's the likelihood something will happen? And if it does, we'll be back there in minutes!

Well, she found out. I hope none of you find out the hard way. While the kids are ok in this situation, how lovely to be under arrest while dealing with the tragic death of your husband right in front of you.