Anonymous wrote:I think people need to understand the difference between leaving out of sight vs leaving while watching on a video monitor.

There’s no mention of any monitor in this article. IIRC the ABC News producer who had a heart attack while out with his wife while his kids were alone in the hotel - they had a monitor and she still got arrested.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1103434.page

I think people need to understand the difference between leaving out of sight vs leaving while watching on a video monitor.

Anonymous wrote:All you vigilant folks check your state and county and municipality rules on letting your kids walk to a park, another kids house, school, play on the sidewalk etc.

Sure. There are rules about at which age a child can be left home alone, walk to the park by themselves, etc.. It's certainly not a toddler. We aren't talking about a 10 yr old here. It was a BABY.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, the people who are excusing these parents have done or would do the exact same thing - go out to a bar to drink while their toddler/baby is alone asleep in the hotel room, as if children don't wake up while sleeping.

No. But part of living in a free society is saying that people have rights even if you don’t agree with their actions.

I would never cheat on my husband, but I don’t think that women who do should be arrested or lose custody of their children.

Those parents didn't have the right to do what they did. That's why cps took the kids. That was child endangerment, just like driving without your baby being in a carseat. There's a reason why such laws exist. It's like saying what's the big deal that the baby wasn't strapped in a carseat? I didn't get into a car accident.

CPS did not take the kids. The link doesn't even mention CPS. The police allowed the kids to go home with the relative that the parents chose to contact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, the people who are excusing these parents have done or would do the exact same thing - go out to a bar to drink while their toddler/baby is alone asleep in the hotel room, as if children don't wake up while sleeping.

No. But part of living in a free society is saying that people have rights even if you don’t agree with their actions.

I would never cheat on my husband, but I don’t think that women who do should be arrested or lose custody of their children.

Those parents didn't have the right to do what they did. That's why cps took the kids. That was child endangerment, just like driving without your baby being in a carseat. There's a reason why such laws exist. It's like saying what's the big deal that the baby wasn't strapped in a carseat? I didn't get into a car accident.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone remember the one similar situation from the car years ago in DC? The kids were left on FaceTime. It was when my eldest was 1-ish so 14 or so years ago.

YES that is an epic thread.
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/444835.page

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can go 500 ft and stay on my property. Would that be ok?

Is your child's room baby proofed? Would there be strangers in the house at that time? Did those strangers know there was a child alone, like the strangers in this case obviously did? Is your child able to open the exterior doors of your house?

I personally wouldn't leave my 1 year old and go 500 feet on my own property, if I owned such a property, but in a baby proofed room, in a house with no strangers, with doors the kid couldn't open, I would feel very differently.

Having said that, Maryland law says that kids under 8 shouldn't be left alone in a building, dwelling, enclosure or vehicle. I don't know what the rules are as far as being on the same property.

That's the chilling thing. If the person who knew the child was alone in there was a pedofile instead of a well meaning person and had access to the room this would be a very different story.

Exactly, the hotel staff member who knew the child was alone, and called for help, is someone who almost certainly had access to the room.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can go 500 ft and stay on my property. Would that be ok?

Is your child's room baby proofed? Would there be strangers in the house at that time? Did those strangers know there was a child alone, like the strangers in this case obviously did? Is your child able to open the exterior doors of your house?

I personally wouldn't leave my 1 year old and go 500 feet on my own property, if I owned such a property, but in a baby proofed room, in a house with no strangers, with doors the kid couldn't open, I would feel very differently.

Having said that, Maryland law says that kids under 8 shouldn't be left alone in a building, dwelling, enclosure or vehicle. I don't know what the rules are as far as being on the same property.

That's the chilling thing. If the person who knew the child was alone in there was a pedofile instead of a well meaning person and had access to the room this would be a very different story.

Anonymous wrote:Obviously, the people who are excusing these parents have done or would do the exact same thing - go out to a bar to drink while their toddler/baby is alone asleep in the hotel room, as if children don't wake up while sleeping.

+1 You know who used to do this sh!t with their kid? The parents of the Oxford, Michigan school shooter. I drink and I am the opposite of a hyper anxious parent and you people defending this or saying it’s fine because nothing bad happened or equating it to something like walking into your front yard with your dog are ridiculous. This is trashy behavior in addition to rightly being illegal. Telling these parents that this is negligent and abusive will hopefully have the effect of them not doing it again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the long list of bad parenting decisions, this is pretty near the bottom. When the last time you heard of a baby suffering an injury or death after being left unsupervised in an empty hotel room? I haven’t heard of any such event. When is the last time you heard of a baby suffering injury or death after being unsupervised in a bath tub, or after being exposed to drugs or alcohol? Those are way more dangerous scenarios

Here's one from this month. It's not clear from the article whether the child was alone in the hotel room, or that an adult just didn't notice them leaving.

https://people.com/toddler-found-dead-in-river-after-wandering-away-from-hotel-11751385

Here's another one from last year.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article289493104.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. I really doubt anyone seriously believes that it is in this child’s best interest to have his/her parents arrested and go into foster care.

Agree. This is absurd. The baby was in a safe space (crib), secured in the bedroom and the parents were nearby. They weren’t even a car ride away. They were in the same building. The chances the hotel catching on fire are slim to none. Your house could also catch on fire while your kid is sleeping and you aren’t in the same room as them

They weren't in the same building. If you look on google map the Jetty restaurant is not in the same hotel.

Also, this wasn't a baby, it was a toddler at an age when many children start climbing out of cribs. Most hotel rooms have accessible door handles that toddlers can open, and don't have a way to lock from the outside that prevents opening the door with the handle.

This is why I don’t shower or sleep when I stay in a hotel room with my children. If DH is with me, we sleep in shifts.

If you're in a hotel room with a child young enough to sleep in a crib, and old enough to climb out of a crib, like this one, it makes sense to put the latch on the door before you take a shower, or go to sleep. You can't do that if you are outside the room. So, your logic doesn't apply.

You should not leave toddlers in hotel rooms that they can leave at will and go to restaurants that are not connected to the hotel. I can't believe we are even debating this. If you desperately want to go to a restaurant without your kids, you should ask Grandma or Uncle or whoever to watch your kids. If you don't, then apparently the police will. That's not horrifying.

So if you take a nap with your children, but you don’t put the latch on the door, should you lose your parental rights?

There are a lot of things that you shouldn’t do. You shouldn’t have an affair. You shouldn’t drive over the speed limit. You shouldn’t own an animal that has a history of biting or that your child is allergic to. Just because you shouldn’t do something doesn’t mean that you ought to lose custody of your children, even temporarily, for doing them.

They didn't TPR anyone. The parents did not lose parental rights. They called a family member to take the child during the time when the parents were doing something (being booked and released) that they couldn't do with the child.

I don’t know what TPR means.

I’m an ER doc, and it’s very different to say that “the child is staying with grandma” and “CPS has been contacted and grandma has custody of the child.”
I also know that I can take a child out of parental custody and have another family member or CPS make decisions on the child’s behalf in the case of a medical or psychiatric emergency. I would assume that the police can do something similar when they arrest someone.

TPR is when someone loses parental rights. That did not happen here.

The article makes no mention of CPS. Maybe they were called, maybe they weren't. Transferring custody simply means that you handed over care for whatever period of time, to someone else, and that person then assumes the responsibility for making sure the child is safe and tended to. For example, if you bring your kids to Grandma, and then go to the store, you aren't going to be arrested, because you transferred them to her. If she then leaves them alone and goes to a bar in a different building 500 feet away, and the police find out, Grandma will be the one who faces consequences, because she neglected a child in her care. But while the kids were with Grandma, she didn't have parental rights. She couldn't arrange surgery for them, or legally change their names, or leave the state and not give them back, or get their ears pierced. The only decisions she gets to make are immediate ones, like whether they have goldfish crackers or apple slices for snack, or what time they take their nap.

The only thing we know is that there was a period of time when the parents were busy, and a relative, presumably chosen by the parents, cared for the child during that time. That is all the article says.

Anonymous wrote:All you vigilant folks check your state and county and municipality rules on letting your kids walk to a park, another kids house, school, play on the sidewalk etc.

This child was 1 year old. They should not be walking to the park, or playing on the sidewalk alone.

Does anyone remember the one similar situation from the car years ago in DC? The kids were left on FaceTime. It was when my eldest was 1-ish so 14 or so years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the long list of bad parenting decisions, this is pretty near the bottom. When the last time you heard of a baby suffering an injury or death after being left unsupervised in an empty hotel room? I haven’t heard of any such event. When is the last time you heard of a baby suffering injury or death after being unsupervised in a bath tub, or after being exposed to drugs or alcohol? Those are way more dangerous scenarios

Here's one from this month. It's not clear from the article whether the child was alone in the hotel room, or that an adult just didn't notice them leaving.

https://people.com/toddler-found-dead-in-river-after-wandering-away-from-hotel-11751385

Sad. Breaks my heart.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is stupid. I really doubt anyone seriously believes that it is in this child’s best interest to have his/her parents arrested and go into foster care.

Agree. This is absurd. The baby was in a safe space (crib), secured in the bedroom and the parents were nearby. They weren’t even a car ride away. They were in the same building. The chances the hotel catching on fire are slim to none. Your house could also catch on fire while your kid is sleeping and you aren’t in the same room as them

They weren't in the same building. If you look on google map the Jetty restaurant is not in the same hotel.

Also, this wasn't a baby, it was a toddler at an age when many children start climbing out of cribs. Most hotel rooms have accessible door handles that toddlers can open, and don't have a way to lock from the outside that prevents opening the door with the handle.

This is why I don’t shower or sleep when I stay in a hotel room with my children. If DH is with me, we sleep in shifts.

If you're in a hotel room with a child young enough to sleep in a crib, and old enough to climb out of a crib, like this one, it makes sense to put the latch on the door before you take a shower, or go to sleep. You can't do that if you are outside the room. So, your logic doesn't apply.

You should not leave toddlers in hotel rooms that they can leave at will and go to restaurants that are not connected to the hotel. I can't believe we are even debating this. If you desperately want to go to a restaurant without your kids, you should ask Grandma or Uncle or whoever to watch your kids. If you don't, then apparently the police will. That's not horrifying.

So if you take a nap with your children, but you don’t put the latch on the door, should you lose your parental rights?

There are a lot of things that you shouldn’t do. You shouldn’t have an affair. You shouldn’t drive over the speed limit. You shouldn’t own an animal that has a history of biting or that your child is allergic to. Just because you shouldn’t do something doesn’t mean that you ought to lose custody of your children, even temporarily, for doing them.

They didn't TPR anyone. The parents did not lose parental rights. They called a family member to take the child during the time when the parents were doing something (being booked and released) that they couldn't do with the child.

I don’t know what TPR means.

I’m an ER doc, and it’s very different to say that “the child is staying with grandma” and “CPS has been contacted and grandma has custody of the child.”
I also know that I can take a child out of parental custody and have another family member or CPS make decisions on the child’s behalf in the case of a medical or psychiatric emergency. I would assume that the police can do something similar when they arrest someone.