Anonymous wrote:I’m wondering if they didn’t trust a babysitter or someone they didn’t know well, for whatever reason because otherwise it makes no sense. They obviously could have easily afforded child care but they made the deliberate choice to avoid it. Perhaps a bad experience in the past?

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I agree with you, trash parenting. I only wanted to point out that her deceased husband was also culpable and this is story makes fabulous click-bait because monied, elite-educated woman gets her comeuppance. It’s hard to parse the neglect from all the rest and it feels perilously close to blaming her for her husband’s death by maligning her materialism and bad Mom-ism. She just isn’t a sympathetic figure and I feel we have to watch our internalized misogyny.

An excellent post, PP. I agree especially with the fact it's hard to separate his genuinely sad death, their mutual terrible choice re: the children, and the fact she isn't a sympathetic figure despite being so suddenly widowed. But we do need to separate those things in our minds or we're engaging in some rotten misogyny--and, to be blunt, the father and husband gets off the hook for the choice to leave the children.

The father isn't being left off the hook, but he's deceased. Can't hear us.

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.

I agree with you, trash parenting. I only wanted to point out that her deceased husband was also culpable and this is story makes fabulous click-bait because monied, elite-educated woman gets her comeuppance. It’s hard to parse the neglect from all the rest and it feels perilously close to blaming her for her husband’s death by maligning her materialism and bad Mom-ism. She just isn’t a sympathetic figure and I feel we have to watch our internalized misogyny.

An excellent post, PP. I agree especially with the fact it's hard to separate his genuinely sad death, their mutual terrible choice re: the children, and the fact she isn't a sympathetic figure despite being so suddenly widowed. But we do need to separate those things in our minds or we're engaging in some rotten misogyny--and, to be blunt, the father and husband gets off the hook for the choice to leave the children.

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.

I agree with you, trash parenting. I only wanted to point out that her deceased husband was also culpable and this is story makes fabulous click-bait because monied, elite-educated woman gets her comeuppance. It’s hard to parse the neglect from all the rest and it feels perilously close to blaming her for her husband’s death by maligning her materialism and bad Mom-ism. She just isn’t a sympathetic figure and I feel we have to watch our internalized misogyny.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep thinking about that poor, single mom of twins who didn’t leave them alone but brought them on her door dash job. Yes she left them in the car but in her site. Well people on here piled on her. Now some are coming on here to defend a wealthy couple who left 2 kids (including one the same age as the twins) alone in a hotel room that who knows how many people had access to so they could party a block away?

What she did was perfectly understandable but she should have locked the car doors. I get that, but this I don't get why they didn't get a babysitter.

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.

I agree with you, trash parenting. I only wanted to point out that her deceased husband was also culpable and this is story makes fabulous click-bait because monied, elite-educated woman gets her comeuppance. It’s hard to parse the neglect from all the rest and it feels perilously close to blaming her for her husband’s death by maligning her materialism and bad Mom-ism. She just isn’t a sympathetic figure and I feel we have to watch our internalized misogyny.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I keep thinking about that poor, single mom of twins who didn’t leave them alone but brought them on her door dash job. Yes she left them in the car but in her site. Well people on here piled on her. Now some are coming on here to defend a wealthy couple who left 2 kids (including one the same age as the twins) alone in a hotel room that who knows how many people had access to so they could party a block away?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh grow up you are full of nonsense. I am a former states attorney who handled hundreds of dependency neglect cases and knows the system and the uniform laws that most states follow up down and inside out. It takes YEARS to terminate parental rights and place children out for adoption, with extensive a services and interventions required along the way to establish reunification attempts have been thoroughly exhausted. But most relevant, it is very unlikely a child would be removed for any length of time (a short term removal for investigation might occur) for this reason. Leaving young children unattended is sadly a far too common behavior of parents of all income brackets and education levels. Some parents are stunningly selfish and stupid about the psychological needs of very young children, like how a toddler waking up alone in a hotel room unable to find her parents could suffer an abandonment wound that she struggles for years to recover from. But that kind of commonplace neglect/abuse would clog the system if every parent was held accountable.

Everything you write is true but I’ll just point out “the system” doesn’t have much of an alternative for placing children even if the parents ought to be “held accountable.” Foster care is often worse than neglectful.