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.

It also isn't in the baby's interest to be left alone by its parents, who are both consuming alcohol. Presumeably, they'd still be under the influence when they came back to the room. It's also not in the baby's best interest to have caregivers who are under the influence of alcohol.

So you are saying it should be illegal for parents to drink, ever?

How about at least one person who cares for young children is sober whilst caring for said children?

I didn't read anywhere that they were both drunk. Did you? Or is one drink one too many?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They deserved to be arrested. Even with w monitor, the biggest concern is a fire. There is no possibility for a baby to escape a fire…

But there wasn’t a fire.

It’s not worth it to definitely cause harm to a child (arresting parents, taking custody of the child) in order to prevent an extremely unlikely and improbable event.

Ok - you need to understand risk/consequence....

The likelihood of an event occurring goes on the X-axis. The consequences of that event goes on the Y- axis. If the grid is a 9 box, you want all the risks you take to be in the middle box, to the left and to the bottom. This one would be in the upper red box.

Where would these fit in your model? The US Fire Administration reports about 15 people die annually in fires in hotels (in most years this does not include any children). In 2022, 1,129 children were killed in car accidents. Is taking a child in a car also in the upper red box? What about gun deaths? If a parent owns a gun, would that be in the upper red box too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was the employee certain that this was what happened? And is this much different than putting your child to bed and then sitting out on your deck having cocktails with your spouse?

Ask Madeleine McCann's parents if it's any different. My guess isntheir view has changed quite a bit since they paid the ultimate price. It only takes once.

What if the employee that entered their room was a bad person? I'd never give strangers unsupervised access to my kids in a hotel

Is your best example a child who was taken from a hotel room 22 years ago on another continent when the door was actually unlocked? Can you at least give a more recent example in the US?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They deserved to be arrested. Even with w monitor, the biggest concern is a fire. There is no possibility for a baby to escape a fire…

But there wasn’t a fire.

It’s not worth it to definitely cause harm to a child (arresting parents, taking custody of the child) in order to prevent an extremely unlikely and improbable event.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Something similar happened to a family member on vacation at an AI in Mexico. These idiots put their kids (four of them!!) down for a nap and then went and got wasted, leaving them alone for hours. One of the kids got out into the balcony and was screaming his face off so security came and had to break in. They almost got kicked out of the resort (should have) but they are long time customers.

If you value getting wasted i stead of taking care of your children maybe you shouldn’t have them.

Anonymous wrote:Nope. Negligent and irresponsible of these parents.

I’m an empty nester - raised 4DC and recall with my first I was nervous to go to my basement to do laundry and leave her alone -awake or asleep two levels up -for a good long while. My mom had to talk me down! My postpartum anxiety served a purpose.

Anonymous wrote:Well I think the responses here are very telling. I suspect those defending the parents have left their children alone. When my kids were young I was shocked at parents we knew who left their kids. One mom told me she left her son home in his crib to get her husband from work because they only had one car and she was only gone 10 minutes. I was speechless. A lot can happen in 10 minutes and she could have gotten in an accident or broken down and been gone longer. I knew other moms who defended leaving little ones in the car while they ran into a school for pickup/drop off or even into a store. All made it seem like other parents were overcautious or paranoid. In fact, these parents are violating the law. Even if not, parental instinct should kick in. I know the foster care system is awful but arresting the parents was not overkill. They needed to receive the message loud and clear and be closely monitored when the kids are returned.

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

Incorrect based on my reading of the article. Deputies had to travel to the nearby bar/restaurant. Nothing in the article suggests that the bar was in the same building--because it wasn't. Clear case of child neglect/child abuse.

What if housekeeping knocked on the door for turn-down service, etc. ? At the very least, the child would be awakened,scared, and exposed to a stranger.

Isn’t that literally what the police did?

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

Incorrect based on my reading of the article. Deputies had to travel to the nearby bar/restaurant. Nothing in the article suggests that the bar was in the same building--because it wasn't. Clear case of child neglect/child abuse.

What if housekeeping knocked on the door for turn-down service, etc. ? At the very least, the child would be awakened,scared, and exposed to a stranger.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They deserved to be arrested. Even with w monitor, the biggest concern is a fire. There is no possibility for a baby to escape a fire…

But there wasn’t a fire.

It’s not worth it to definitely cause harm to a child (arresting parents, taking custody of the child) in order to prevent an extremely unlikely and improbable event.