Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.

Do you know anything about a 5 month old infant?

I actually think the 2 year old is a bigger deal. The five month old can’t walk itself out of the room. They can listen for crying and go to the five month old. Nothing bad is happening to it in a hotel room unless the parents don’t come when it cries.

PP here. I agree with you but just can't get over the idea that anyone would leave an infant to go out for dinner. Leaving an infant and a 2 year old in a hotel room to go out for dinner is truly beyond my comprehension.

Honestly I agree with you (and I'm the poster saying that logically I don't think the kids were endangered who everyone thinks is a neglectful monster), although I would be a lot more able to comprehend it if they were eating in the hotel itself. To me that is where this crosses the line into needlessly risky/stupid. Why leave the building?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.

Do you know anything about a 5 month old infant?

I actually think the 2 year old is a bigger deal. The five month old can’t walk itself out of the room. They can listen for crying and go to the five month old. Nothing bad is happening to it in a hotel room unless the parents don’t come when it cries.

Lying on its back, it could spit up and choke.

I have had three babies and never had a single incident where my not ill child spontaneously started choking while asleep. You put babies on their backs to ensure they have good airflow. There is a massive safety campaign encouraging people to put babies on their backs specifically because babies do not die if they are on their back. And if I had been asleep when that happened, I wouldn't know anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Re: the bold: Your concern, then is that YOU would get caught and be punished. Your concern is not that the behavior is inherently risky toward your own children.

Got it.

Yea the poster defending this woman is truly awful. And the messed up part is, I bet when a bad thing happens to her she’s like… well that’s life! When in reality, at least some fraction of the time, she’d actually just made a terrible decision that a reasonable person would never have done but she thinks it’s w in the range of acceptable. Fine to do to yourself. Not okay to do to children you brought into this world….

I am that poster you are talking about so casually. Horrible things actually have happened to me, and I do not always think 'that's life'. There are specific decisions made by specific people (sometimes me) that have led to bad things happening. My brother died as a teenager riding a vehicle my parents purchased for him and allowed him to ride. I believe they hold some responsibility for his death. And my house burned to the ground after being struck by lightening, which was no one's fault. But I actually think it is BECAUSE I have experienced fairly extreme tragedies in both extremely random ways and in ways where a single decision led to a chain of events that led to the tragedy that I have this perspective.

And I spent my first year as a mother in a state of extreme stress and anxiety about protecting my child because of these (and some other) events. And at some point I realized that I was hurting her both by being so amped up and by not allowing her to experience things and that I had to figure out how to make better risk analysis to survive motherhood. And so I worked at it, and I challenge myself to experience moments of discomfort when my children are taking risks that I find uncomfortable but that aren't actually dangerous to just sit, because they learn through failure/experience.

Anyway none of that is relevant here as there is nothing to be gained by the kids from being left in a hotel room. I just don't think anything is served when we make situations like this out to be THE WORST THING EVER. A lot of truly terrible things and terrible neglect happens to children. IMO, this isn't that, although I will say the story someone told in the early pages about a toddler wandering around and a poster finding the mother in the lobby partying horrified me. In my imagining of how I could do something like this, I actually feel like I would be watching the monitor far more closely than if I was at home (where frequently the monitor was just plugged in somewhere in the room and I'd look at it if I heard something). To the point where it just wouldn't be fun and relaxing. And the other reports that they were with a group of people made me question my own assessment here because in that situation they are less likely to be watching that monitor like a hawk. And talking about it like it is just isn't helpful and actually hurts people who are in the greyer areas (working mom needing groceries example etc)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.

Do you know anything about a 5 month old infant?

I actually think the 2 year old is a bigger deal. The five month old can’t walk itself out of the room. They can listen for crying and go to the five month old. Nothing bad is happening to it in a hotel room unless the parents don’t come when it cries.

Lying on its back, it could spit up and choke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.

Do you know anything about a 5 month old infant?

I actually think the 2 year old is a bigger deal. The five month old can’t walk itself out of the room. They can listen for crying and go to the five month old. Nothing bad is happening to it in a hotel room unless the parents don’t come when it cries.

PP here. I agree with you but just can't get over the idea that anyone would leave an infant to go out for dinner. Leaving an infant and a 2 year old in a hotel room to go out for dinner is truly beyond my comprehension.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.

Do you know anything about a 5 month old infant?

I actually think the 2 year old is a bigger deal. The five month old can’t walk itself out of the room. They can listen for crying and go to the five month old. Nothing bad is happening to it in a hotel room unless the parents don’t come when it cries.

Who is this Dax person?

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.

The actual risk of crossing a street or riding in a car is far greater.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Re: the bold: Your concern, then is that YOU would get caught and be punished. Your concern is not that the behavior is inherently risky toward your own children.

Got it.

Yea the poster defending this woman is truly awful. And the messed up part is, I bet when a bad thing happens to her she’s like… well that’s life! When in reality, at least some fraction of the time, she’d actually just made a terrible decision that a reasonable person would never have done but she thinks it’s w in the range of acceptable. Fine to do to yourself. Not okay to do to children you brought into this world….

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.

Let’s common sense check this tho, right? Did the parents have the cameras out on the table at the restaurant checking often? No. Could they hear anything from the monitors over the sounds of the restaurant? No. This excuse of having cameras is such BS. They were not attending to the cameras like a good parent would at home. Give me a break

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.

Do you know anything about a 5 month old infant?

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

A medical emergency is not comparable to a night on the town.

These are rich people staying in an expensive hotel and going out for an expensive night. There is no excuse to leave kids alone even to go down the street but zero excuse when they have that much money not to hire a babysitter. She will get off with a good attorney and given a free pass.

Anonymous wrote:1. Madeleine McCann
2. I bet this was not the first time

I was thinking about Madeline McCann as well. People freaked out about that (rightfully so, IMO) and the parents were on the same property and checking in every few minutes.

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.

What's more likely than something happening to the kids is something happening to the parents. Like they fall down and hit their head, they get hit by a car, they get detained for some reason, etc etc etc or how about they have a heart attack? What if it had just been him in charge of the kids, wife was out with her girlfriends somewhere else? Who would have known that he was monitoring the kids on his camera?

Simply not worth the risk and not that hard to make other arrangements. Well, if you really care about your kids that is.

What if he’d done this solo and had the heart attack and died?

This is also why you can never leave a child in a car alone. Not just because something might happen to them—because something might happen TO YOU.

But this is just as much a risk in a home. That’s what I don’t understand. If I was home alone watching my kids and I had a heart attack like this guy and dropped dead they would eventually wake up to find me. Or wake up and turn the stove on or the hot water or anything else. Anytime a single parent is caretaking children for many hours this is a risk. Now I agree that the risk is harder to quantify in a situation like this because people might not know where the kids are. But honestly there are horrific stories of children who are in apartments for days after a tragedy.

I’m not like, trying to weirdly go to bat for these people. They made a decision I would not have made, and likely the mom here learned this lesson in the worst and most traumatic way possible. But I think that parents are routinely vilified because we act like anything short of constant vigilance is adequate. But it’s not really healthy or practical. It’s either dangerous or it’s not. All of us want to say that a poor woman leaving her kids napping to run to the store for dinner after working a double shift should be forgiven. But these people are grossly negligent. I don’t think either party is grossly negligent. I think both correctly evaluated the actual risk and made a choice. In my opinion the risk that comes from being found out is far more potent and why I personally would not do this. Because truly the practical danger of having dinner while watching your kids on a camera 5 minutes away on foot is not significant.

100% agree with you. Great response.