It sounds to me like these kids would BENEFIT from being in foster care. Seriously, people. Take out the fact that they are highly educated and own a million dollar home. If this happened to a low SES couple these kids would be gone. These two have no business being parents.
Anonymous wrote:It sounds to me like these kids would BENEFIT from being in foster care. Seriously, people. Take out the fact that they are highly educated and own a million dollar home. If this happened to a low SES couple these kids would be gone. These two have no business being parents.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not that it justifies anything, but I am curious if both parents were completely 'on board' with the decision to leave the children in the car. One parent may have been opposed to the idea, but the other parent may have been persuasive and forceful on the decision. I just can't imagine two people completely agreeing to do something so terrible.
And I can't imagine agreeing to leave my kids in the car like that, no matter how pesuasive and forceful my husband was. I think they both had to be 100 percent on board.
Exactly. As to how two people both were on-board with a uniquely bad idea, often people with crazy or bizarre or even evil world views seem to attract each other (see all the cases where one spouse is a criminal and another an enabler or they both join in like those Canadian husband/wife serial killers).
This said, I am boggled as to why these parents did not get supervised visitation for an hour a day or something. I am 100% on board with the children being removed from their house until the investigation/trial are concluded, but for children this young to have no contact with their parents - all they know - is not good. And I am not saying this because these parents are yuppies (I actually think that their age/education/income make it worse - they could afford to do something else and should have known better). I am saying this because I think all children should be able to have supervised visits with their parents unless (a) the parent is a violent maniac who is likely to come into a foster home with a knife and lunge or something equally nuts or (b) the kids are old enough to have an opinion and don't want to see their parents.
Actually I wonder if the Judge is more severe with them because they really have no excuse - it was not a financial necessity to go to a wine tasting, they could afford a babysitter, and they are certainly old enough/educated enough to know they are violating the law.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:...Actually I wonder if the Judge is more severe with them because they really have no excuse - it was not a financial necessity to go to a wine tasting, they could afford a babysitter, and they are certainly old enough/educated enough to know they are violating the law.
I hope it's not the case. The children's welfare should come first, they are not a means to deliver punishment.
Anonymous wrote:...Actually I wonder if the Judge is more severe with them because they really have no excuse - it was not a financial necessity to go to a wine tasting, they could afford a babysitter, and they are certainly old enough/educated enough to know they are violating the law.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Not that it justifies anything, but I am curious if both parents were completely 'on board' with the decision to leave the children in the car. One parent may have been opposed to the idea, but the other parent may have been persuasive and forceful on the decision. I just can't imagine two people completely agreeing to do something so terrible.
And I can't imagine agreeing to leave my kids in the car like that, no matter how pesuasive and forceful my husband was. I think they both had to be 100 percent on board.
Anonymous wrote:Not that it justifies anything, but I am curious if both parents were completely 'on board' with the decision to leave the children in the car. One parent may have been opposed to the idea, but the other parent may have been persuasive and forceful on the decision. I just can't imagine two people completely agreeing to do something so terrible.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What exactly does it mean that the children will be in DC CPS? I mean, are there just "stand by" parents out there to accept 2 toddlers into their homes? Would DC CPS try to get the children into the care of family members?
Well, yes. That's what foster care is all about.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What exactly does it mean that the children will be in DC CPS? I mean, are there just "stand by" parents out there to accept 2 toddlers into their homes? Would DC CPS try to get the children into the care of family members?
Well, yes. That's what foster care is all about.
I guess I cannot see how it is better for these young children to be placed in a strange home with complete strangers than with their own parents in familiarity of their own home.
I know that others have written that the judge suspects that the parents have done this before, but I just don't know how a foster family placement would be preferred here, particularly now that parents know they are being supervised closely.
I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?
Do you know that they are with strangers and not, say, family? Do you know how healthy their home environment is?
This thread is such a fascinating exercise in privilege. You can almost literally see how PP's are envisioning this family as just like theirs.
No, PP, I am definitely not envisioning this family as just like mine. No need to throw insults towards people who are truly interested in this case. I have NOT heard it confirmed that the children have been placed with family, and hope that YOU or someone else might confirm this information.
I hope that the children would be placed with family or close family friends/caregivers. So do you know? Do YOU know how healthy their home environment is?
Anonymous wrote:I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?
What makes you so sure that they won't?
Or, what immediate PP said about privilege.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What exactly does it mean that the children will be in DC CPS? I mean, are there just "stand by" parents out there to accept 2 toddlers into their homes? Would DC CPS try to get the children into the care of family members?
Well, yes. That's what foster care is all about.
I guess I cannot see how it is better for these young children to be placed in a strange home with complete strangers than with their own parents in familiarity of their own home.
I know that others have written that the judge suspects that the parents have done this before, but I just don't know how a foster family placement would be preferred here, particularly now that parents know they are being supervised closely.
I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?
Do you know that they are with strangers and not, say, family? Do you know how healthy their home environment is?
This thread is such a fascinating exercise in privilege. You can almost literally see how PP's are envisioning this family as just like theirs.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What exactly does it mean that the children will be in DC CPS? I mean, are there just "stand by" parents out there to accept 2 toddlers into their homes? Would DC CPS try to get the children into the care of family members?
Well, yes. That's what foster care is all about.
I guess I cannot see how it is better for these young children to be placed in a strange home with complete strangers than with their own parents in familiarity of their own home.
I know that others have written that the judge suspects that the parents have done this before, but I just don't know how a foster family placement would be preferred here, particularly now that parents know they are being supervised closely.
I mean, does the judge really think the parents would do ANYTHING like this again?