The day I left my son in the car(salon.com)
salon.com
The day I left my son in the car
http://www.salon.com/2014/06/03/the_day_i_left_my_son_in_the_car/
221 comments
I once called animal control when I saw a dog in a car, in a hot parking lot. This dog was barking and running around the car. I waited in my car's A/C for 5 minutes before calling, just to be sure I wasn't overreacting.
When I got through to animal control, I was told that the dog was not in distress. A dog in distress would retreat to a cooler spot of the car (near the passenger side floor) and not jump around barking.
That your dog was barking and moving around, it was not in distress.
When I got through to animal control, I was told that the dog was not in distress. A dog in distress would retreat to a cooler spot of the car (near the passenger side floor) and not jump around barking.
That your dog was barking and moving around, it was not in distress.
Apparently it's hard to tell the difference if you're untrained. Seems like calling for help if you are concerned about the safety of a dog or kid is reasonable, even if it means you could be wrong.
It's also up to the police whether to take it any further.
Once they arrive, and hopefully the owner arrives, explain yourself (you were acting in good faith, etc.) and try and make sure the police don't go overboard.
Once they arrive, and hopefully the owner arrives, explain yourself (you were acting in good faith, etc.) and try and make sure the police don't go overboard.
To be fair, if I'm a passerby and I see a dog with the window cracked open, I have no idea how long he's been there. Calling the cops makes sense, they're the ones paid to made the judgement call and animal control should have the training to diagnose whether the dog is in distress or not. Whoever made the call chose to err on the side of caution out of humanitarian concern, not to get your goat or ruin your day.
Sounds like your police department sucks more so than the worried passerby engaging in "nanny-statism." The police chose not to assess the situation correctly and just went for the easy fine.
Sounds like your police department sucks more so than the worried passerby engaging in "nanny-statism." The police chose not to assess the situation correctly and just went for the easy fine.
>I have no idea how long he's been there. Calling the cops makes sense...
So, everyone is assumed to have no common sense, only you have it and thus become the default enforcer despite, admitting, not knowing the situation?
So, everyone is assumed to have no common sense, only you have it and thus become the default enforcer despite, admitting, not knowing the situation?
There are people who do terrible things to animals. When you see someone taking good care of an animal, there's no reason to suspect he's one of the few people who do terrible things, but when you see an animal in a situation that looks like it could be something terrible, the situation is a lot different.
If you see a lone dog tied to a tree in the forest, it could be that the owner is taking a leak somewhere, but it's also possible the dog was abandoned. Better safe than sorry is not a terrible principle.
Same thing with kids in locked cars. Kids do die in locked cars. Not very often, but it happens. When you see a kid in a locked car, it's good to make sure the kid is okay.
I'd rather see false alarms treated seriously than see serious situations ignored. And reducing the number of false alarms by not leaving kids in cars also helps people identify the serious situations.
If you see a lone dog tied to a tree in the forest, it could be that the owner is taking a leak somewhere, but it's also possible the dog was abandoned. Better safe than sorry is not a terrible principle.
Same thing with kids in locked cars. Kids do die in locked cars. Not very often, but it happens. When you see a kid in a locked car, it's good to make sure the kid is okay.
I'd rather see false alarms treated seriously than see serious situations ignored. And reducing the number of false alarms by not leaving kids in cars also helps people identify the serious situations.
So we're not responsible for making judgments and we should now call someone paid to do it? Really?
There is a public discussion in Poland right now on whether it's legal to break a window if you see a dog in a locked car.
You're assuming that whoever sees the dog has the time to sit and wait and observe. What if they were to assume that you were making a quick stop but you actually weren't, didn't notify anyone, and your dog dies.
Would you regret not being notified?
Would you regret not being notified?
I've read of people in your situation who leave a note that says what time they left, what time they will be back, and where to find them or how to contact them if the dog needs aid before they get back.
While it's tough to criticize the decision to leave a child in the car for a few minutes -- happened to me all the time as a child -- I'm forever scarred by seeing a dead child pulled out of a car in the office complex next to mine [1]. The dad was bashing his head against a tree trying to knock himself unconscious because he was so overcome with grief. Officers were trying to restrain him when his wife showed up and went completely (understandably) histerical, pounded her fist on the ground and screaming at her husband.
I can't fathom how one could begin to process and move on from such an incident.
So while I don't think it should be illegal to leave a child in the car, personally that's a line I'll not cross with my kids.
[1]http://www.khou.com/news/Baby-left-in-hot-truck-dies-in-Aust...
I can't fathom how one could begin to process and move on from such an incident.
So while I don't think it should be illegal to leave a child in the car, personally that's a line I'll not cross with my kids.
[1]http://www.khou.com/news/Baby-left-in-hot-truck-dies-in-Aust...
As with lots of things: The details matter. Leaving a kid in a car shouldn't be an offense. Not returning ~soon~ might be and might be a reason to call the cops/force the car open.
Parents can damage/kill their kids in uncountable ways. Most don't and really try to avoid that. Trying to watch over their shoulder isn't 'Good citizenship', it's crazy and a witch hunt. You start to be labeled as child abuser if your kid is crying like hell (toothing maybe, or really interested in strawberries that you don't like to hand out - but the people around you don't understand that, don't have the slightest bit of clue about the situation. More often than not, OTHER parents are worse than the rest).
Give it a rest. The scenario you describe sounds terrible. But it's not relevant to the situation at hand. The person in the article describes that she checked the temperature, knew how long it'd take (even had a deadline on multiple levels, not only 'Today I do not want to choke my kid in the car' - she even planned to take a flight before the kid could have taken any damage. More seriously, a parent decided something for her kid. Something she does gazillion times a day. People might object to a number of her decisions and this particular one got her in trouble? Someone 'snitched'? Sad. The system failed.
I understand:
- someone was worried, called the cops
- cops reacted (yay!)
But:
- before cops arrived, kid was gone and obviously safe with the parent
- charges were pressed, just because?
One word: Insane.
I'm a father of two, both younger than the kid in the car.
edit: One of the worst typos I made so far.
Parents can damage/kill their kids in uncountable ways. Most don't and really try to avoid that. Trying to watch over their shoulder isn't 'Good citizenship', it's crazy and a witch hunt. You start to be labeled as child abuser if your kid is crying like hell (toothing maybe, or really interested in strawberries that you don't like to hand out - but the people around you don't understand that, don't have the slightest bit of clue about the situation. More often than not, OTHER parents are worse than the rest).
Give it a rest. The scenario you describe sounds terrible. But it's not relevant to the situation at hand. The person in the article describes that she checked the temperature, knew how long it'd take (even had a deadline on multiple levels, not only 'Today I do not want to choke my kid in the car' - she even planned to take a flight before the kid could have taken any damage. More seriously, a parent decided something for her kid. Something she does gazillion times a day. People might object to a number of her decisions and this particular one got her in trouble? Someone 'snitched'? Sad. The system failed.
I understand:
- someone was worried, called the cops
- cops reacted (yay!)
But:
- before cops arrived, kid was gone and obviously safe with the parent
- charges were pressed, just because?
One word: Insane.
I'm a father of two, both younger than the kid in the car.
edit: One of the worst typos I made so far.
It was worse than that. Someone wasn’t worried. Instead of acting, by, say, trying to talk to the kid in the car or perhaps just calling the cops, they “recorded the incident using a phone’s camera, and had then contacted the police”. Baffling.
By the way, this is what I think of every time I hear someone use the phrase ”a good samaritan”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU
By the way, this is what I think of every time I hear someone use the phrase ”a good samaritan”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIVB3DdRgqU
- before cops arrived, kid was gone and obviously safe with the parent
The second half of your premise contains two completely unwarranted assumptions. How exactly were the police supposed to know the now-departed child was a) safe and b) with his parent? Recall that the Mom who wrote the piece was driving a vehicle that wasn't registered to her and so therefore didn't match the description on the registered owners' driving licenses. We know with hindsight that she had borrowed her parents' minivan for the trip, but the police would not have been justified in making that inference.
The second half of your premise contains two completely unwarranted assumptions. How exactly were the police supposed to know the now-departed child was a) safe and b) with his parent? Recall that the Mom who wrote the piece was driving a vehicle that wasn't registered to her and so therefore didn't match the description on the registered owners' driving licenses. We know with hindsight that she had borrowed her parents' minivan for the trip, but the police would not have been justified in making that inference.
- Track down the car owner
- Call about the kid
- (Optional) Visit owner (grandparents) in person and take an official statement
- Drop the case
And what is the danger we're protecting the child against here? People seem to like the 'baked in car' setup. You seem to fancy the 'kidnapped wholesale with car' idea? I mean - your neighbor is taking the kid to the car, and gets back in (probably forgot a thing). 30 sec later you look out of the window and the car is gone. What happend?
a) The car was stolen, kid inside
b) The owner of the car and responsible person for the kid inside moved it outside of the viable area from your position
Really?
- Call about the kid
- (Optional) Visit owner (grandparents) in person and take an official statement
- Drop the case
And what is the danger we're protecting the child against here? People seem to like the 'baked in car' setup. You seem to fancy the 'kidnapped wholesale with car' idea? I mean - your neighbor is taking the kid to the car, and gets back in (probably forgot a thing). 30 sec later you look out of the window and the car is gone. What happend?
a) The car was stolen, kid inside
b) The owner of the car and responsible person for the kid inside moved it outside of the viable area from your position
Really?
Again, the situation with my neighbor (someone I know well enough to trust my kid with) is completely different from that of seeing a stranger leaving a kid in a car in a shopping mall parking lot. The fact that you need to change the facts of the situation to make your point should be a clue to the inherent weakness of your argument.
Most likely the person who called the police was thinking about the risk of heat (even if the weather didn't seem to justify it, but the fact is it's very unusual for a parent to leave a kid in car in the US these days. From the police point of view, the confusion about the identity of the car owner and driver is enough to warrant further investigation. When the police hear from the grandparents that the child is inaccessible because the Mom got onto a plane and flew home, that's probably true but they don't know for sure - after all that's the sort of story people give out when they abduct children in custody battles during ugly divorces. It's the police's job to put the welfare of the child first in ambiguous situations like that.
Me, I wouldn't have prosecuted once the full facts came out, but on the other hand a statewide missing child alert uses up a bunch of police resources and that's not free, so the prosecutor may have that demanding some community service in return was justified. I can't tell what state the writer lives in or exactly when this happened, so it would be worth considering those contexts as well.
Most likely the person who called the police was thinking about the risk of heat (even if the weather didn't seem to justify it, but the fact is it's very unusual for a parent to leave a kid in car in the US these days. From the police point of view, the confusion about the identity of the car owner and driver is enough to warrant further investigation. When the police hear from the grandparents that the child is inaccessible because the Mom got onto a plane and flew home, that's probably true but they don't know for sure - after all that's the sort of story people give out when they abduct children in custody battles during ugly divorces. It's the police's job to put the welfare of the child first in ambiguous situations like that.
Me, I wouldn't have prosecuted once the full facts came out, but on the other hand a statewide missing child alert uses up a bunch of police resources and that's not free, so the prosecutor may have that demanding some community service in return was justified. I can't tell what state the writer lives in or exactly when this happened, so it would be worth considering those contexts as well.
Aha! My argument is weak because your neighbor is more trusted than the general public.
Read that again.
Why? Why would a random parent (taken from a hat that contains all the names of parents in the USA for this experiment) be less trustable than your neighbor? Because you don't know the person?
If that is the argument, you could probably call the police all the time, whenever there's a kid around that cries, is shouted at, throws itself to the ground and needs to be carried, etc. etc..
It's not my argument that is weak (my example might be crap, if you happen to really like your neighbor. But that also means that you missed the point of my post though, inserting real persons wasn't part of the thought experiment and is entirely irrelevant).
Read that again.
Why? Why would a random parent (taken from a hat that contains all the names of parents in the USA for this experiment) be less trustable than your neighbor? Because you don't know the person?
If that is the argument, you could probably call the police all the time, whenever there's a kid around that cries, is shouted at, throws itself to the ground and needs to be carried, etc. etc..
It's not my argument that is weak (my example might be crap, if you happen to really like your neighbor. But that also means that you missed the point of my post though, inserting real persons wasn't part of the thought experiment and is entirely irrelevant).
No, your argument is weak because you changed the facts to fit your narrative.
Why? Why would a random parent
Yet again, the assumption of parental status based on hindsight. The police who answered the 911 call at the shopping center had no way of knowing that the author was the parent of the child in the car, and given that that person did not match the description of the registered vehicle owner, such an assumption would have been entirely unjustified. In California, there are about 1900 cases of family child abduction and 50 cases of child abduction by a stranger every year. the chances that any given suspicious episode like this will be a child abduction are thus about 1 in 5000 - a remote probability, but of a sufficiently severe nature that it has to be followed up.
Downvote away, but every single argument you have posted in this thread is built upon hindsight bias.
Why? Why would a random parent
Yet again, the assumption of parental status based on hindsight. The police who answered the 911 call at the shopping center had no way of knowing that the author was the parent of the child in the car, and given that that person did not match the description of the registered vehicle owner, such an assumption would have been entirely unjustified. In California, there are about 1900 cases of family child abduction and 50 cases of child abduction by a stranger every year. the chances that any given suspicious episode like this will be a child abduction are thus about 1 in 5000 - a remote probability, but of a sufficiently severe nature that it has to be followed up.
Downvote away, but every single argument you have posted in this thread is built upon hindsight bias.
I don't think that darklajid can be the one downvoting -- at least not your post replying to him. I suspect you're being downvoted (and not by me) for suggesting that a statewide missing child alert is warranted in response to a kid being spotted alone in a parking lot for a few minutes, which is the kind of thing that people are mad about in this thread.
> In California, there are about 1900 cases of family child abduction and 50 cases of child abduction by a stranger every year. the chances that any given suspicious episode like this will be a child abduction are thus about 1 in 5000 - a remote probability, but of a sufficiently severe nature that it has to be followed up.
Hmm, what "math" did you just do to come up with 1 in 5000?
> In California, there are about 1900 cases of family child abduction and 50 cases of child abduction by a stranger every year. the chances that any given suspicious episode like this will be a child abduction are thus about 1 in 5000 - a remote probability, but of a sufficiently severe nature that it has to be followed up.
Hmm, what "math" did you just do to come up with 1 in 5000?
I'm not suggesting that, and you're being disingenuous for ignoring the fact of the person driving the car not matching the id of the vehicle owner, which I have repeatedly pointed out as the suspicious circumstance.
Hmm, what "math" did you just do to come up with 1 in 5000?
Population of CA is ~38 million, of which ~24% are minors, or approximately 10 million children. 10m/~2000 abductions a year in the state = 5000.
http://www.childabductions.org/ Annual abduction rates http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html CA census data
Are you happy now?
Hmm, what "math" did you just do to come up with 1 in 5000?
Population of CA is ~38 million, of which ~24% are minors, or approximately 10 million children. 10m/~2000 abductions a year in the state = 5000.
http://www.childabductions.org/ Annual abduction rates http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html CA census data
Are you happy now?
Your math is broken. It doesn't even have the right units to be a probability (children/(abudctions/year)).
The police would have been completely justified in assuming that a parent had taken the child, and that the child was safe. Abductions (especially unreported ones,) by strangers are so uncommon that the officers would have to be suffering from acute paranoia to believe that a stranger had abducted the child.
No they wouldn't. The police are paid to check those things out, not to make facile assumptions. When they are the license plate they would have noticed that the person they saw in the video was not the registered owner of the car. That was absolutely something worth following up, which was why the author's mother found a police car waiting for her when she returned from dropping her daughter off at the airport.
The probability of a crime occurring is not the only factor that has to be taken into account here. There's also the severity of the possible criminal outcome. Kidnapping is actually relatively common in the US by international standards, and it is among the most aggressively prosecuted crimes. Until 1972, kidnapping was a capital crime, ie you could get the death sentence for it.
The probability of a crime occurring is not the only factor that has to be taken into account here. There's also the severity of the possible criminal outcome. Kidnapping is actually relatively common in the US by international standards, and it is among the most aggressively prosecuted crimes. Until 1972, kidnapping was a capital crime, ie you could get the death sentence for it.
The article appears to indicate that the person capturing video saw the lady leave and return. It is not clear if the video was rolling the entire time but certainly as the video-taker was giving the video to the police, they may have mentioned that the same person who left the car also returned. I don't see why the police would be more worried about an abduction in this situation than in any other "person with child" situation.
Because the person in the video doesn't match the description of the registered owner of the car as recorded on their driving license. Think about it.
I've thought long and hard about it... Still makes no difference.
For it to make a difference you would have to leap to the conclusion that a woman stole the car, stole a kid (?), and then left the stolen car and the kid in the parking lot, which is now very conspicuous in the US (apparently). That could only make sense if you assumed average moms are child snatching car thieves.
I'm told only 2 in 10 mom's snatch kids and only 1 in 10 of those steal cars. So there's only a 2% chance of that happening at once!
For it to make a difference you would have to leap to the conclusion that a woman stole the car, stole a kid (?), and then left the stolen car and the kid in the parking lot, which is now very conspicuous in the US (apparently). That could only make sense if you assumed average moms are child snatching car thieves.
I'm told only 2 in 10 mom's snatch kids and only 1 in 10 of those steal cars. So there's only a 2% chance of that happening at once!
> I'm told only 2 in 10 mom's snatch kids
Wow... because I know like at least 30 moms and none of them have snatched any kids. To cover the odds, there must be people out there that know a lot of baby snatchers. Those people should be calling the police. :)
Wow... because I know like at least 30 moms and none of them have snatched any kids. To cover the odds, there must be people out there that know a lot of baby snatchers. Those people should be calling the police. :)
You know what they say, 97% of statistics are made up ;)
I of course picked an absurdly high number because even with two absurdly high numbers it still only nets 2%.
I of course picked an absurdly high number because even with two absurdly high numbers it still only nets 2%.
Considering the possibility isn't the same thing as leaping to the conclusion. It's not like the woman was pursued, arrested, and thrown in jail before she ever got near the airport. Rather, the police did the sensible thing and followed the matter up by checking with the owner of the vehicle that was seen in the parking lot.
Are you saying that if there's only a 2% chance of something odd being a criminal incident, they should just blow it off?
Are you saying that if there's only a 2% chance of something odd being a criminal incident, they should just blow it off?
Absolutely, yes.
I'm sure you'll be equally philosophical if you're ever in the position of needing to report a crime and they tell you not to worry about it.
I think you have it backwards. I would like to be able to call the police to report an ACTUAL crime...but unfortunately, they would be too busy investigating reports by paranoid folks who think they've seen a possible crime.
«Because the person in the video doesn't match the description of the registered owner of the car as recorded on their driving license. Think about it.»
First, you have to arrive to the cops checking for that. Before that, you must imagine the "good" samaritan, who hasn't seen any driving license and knows nothing about the minivan, speculating about who was that woman leaving and then coming back to the minivan.
But it's not the reason he or she has called the police and the police, at the moment they reached the house of the parents of the woman, they knew the latter was none but the daughter of the owner of the minivan.
Case closed... Except for the charge of having contributed to the delinquency of a minor. By the way, the good samaritan can be charged of the same crime since the video proved that, since even if he could have "caught" the criminal mom in the instant he was starting her criminal act and thus he could have "saved" the child, he preferred keep filming... so, if there was an actual crime, it would have been too late.
First, you have to arrive to the cops checking for that. Before that, you must imagine the "good" samaritan, who hasn't seen any driving license and knows nothing about the minivan, speculating about who was that woman leaving and then coming back to the minivan.
But it's not the reason he or she has called the police and the police, at the moment they reached the house of the parents of the woman, they knew the latter was none but the daughter of the owner of the minivan.
Case closed... Except for the charge of having contributed to the delinquency of a minor. By the way, the good samaritan can be charged of the same crime since the video proved that, since even if he could have "caught" the criminal mom in the instant he was starting her criminal act and thus he could have "saved" the child, he preferred keep filming... so, if there was an actual crime, it would have been too late.
The very big difference is that child-bakes-in-the-car heat deaths are not because Dad left the kids in the car while he ran in to the store for a few minutes, but because Dad forgot the kid was in the car at all.
http://www.parenting.com/article/tragedy-in-the-backseat-hot...
http://www.parenting.com/article/tragedy-in-the-backseat-hot...
Even the link you cited claims that 15 minutes can be enough time under surprisingly temperate conditions. I've easily spent that amount of time waiting through lines on something that should have been a quick run to the store.
I was always allowed and encouraged to open doors+windows while waiting in a car as a child.
Parent runs into store for few minutes, trips and knocks head becoming unconcious / has stroke / has heart attack / etc etc - child dies.
Having said that, This story is a really good example of how tough it is for some parents and how hostile society is to parenting.
Having said that, This story is a really good example of how tough it is for some parents and how hostile society is to parenting.
If the father became unconscious, had a stroke or a heart attack, etc. while driving or doing anything with the child away from other people, the child could die.
This can happen when you're home alone with your children too. Should we require night chaperones? What's the acceptable level of present adult redundancy?
Yes, but people would know the child was there. If someone fall down unconscious in the middle of the supermarket nobody knows which car they arrived in, or even for sure that they arrived in a car, and nobody knows about the unattended child. That's a different kind of risk.
On the other hand, for the person in the parking lot to film the child in the car and call police, but not make any contact with the child or wait by the car, borders on malice. Police and prosecutors should investigate but heavily discount such pseudo-testimony because it is deliberately presented without context.
On the other hand, for the person in the parking lot to film the child in the car and call police, but not make any contact with the child or wait by the car, borders on malice. Police and prosecutors should investigate but heavily discount such pseudo-testimony because it is deliberately presented without context.
The argument still sucks. Given a reasonable choice in the beginning ("The weather's cool, the kid strapped in, car is secured, will be right back") the kid would - what? Complain and cry after a while? It's a four year old boy with a tendency (if you read between the lines) to throw fits. Maybe all boys are like that..
If the mother (to stay with the original article) would've fallen unconscious or dead in the supermarket, nevermind that both options would have some consequences for the family, the kid would've been fine.
Calling the cops was fine. Creepy the way it was described, but okay.
Cops arriving was fine. That's their job.
"Huh? The "abandoned" kid is gone already? Let's trace the car and take out our frustration on .. the mother?" wasn't fine. That was just braindead. The correct movie quote variation would've been "Nothing happened, move along".
Theoretical "But here's how the kid could've died" arguments are .. weird. And countless.
If the mother (to stay with the original article) would've fallen unconscious or dead in the supermarket, nevermind that both options would have some consequences for the family, the kid would've been fine.
Calling the cops was fine. Creepy the way it was described, but okay.
Cops arriving was fine. That's their job.
"Huh? The "abandoned" kid is gone already? Let's trace the car and take out our frustration on .. the mother?" wasn't fine. That was just braindead. The correct movie quote variation would've been "Nothing happened, move along".
Theoretical "But here's how the kid could've died" arguments are .. weird. And countless.
I agree that the police reaction is sub-optimal, but there are reasons not to tie a child to a seat and lock them into a car and then leave them unsupervised, even if that is for a few minutes.
Reasons not to .. and reasons to to exactly that.
The decision is not yours, not ours. It's the parent's. Like everything else about the daily life of the kid. That argument contains no value. Of course there are reasons that one might not do that. Loop/Recur to line 1.
The decision is not yours, not ours. It's the parent's. Like everything else about the daily life of the kid. That argument contains no value. Of course there are reasons that one might not do that. Loop/Recur to line 1.
There are parents who neglect or abuse their children. It's fortunately rare, but it does mean that children also deserve protection from their parents, when necessary.
Leaving a child in a locked car is a bad idea, even when it's totally safe, and even with a window cracked. (In fact, leaving a car window open when you're not there is also a bad idea, though a few minutes probably won't hurt.) Honestly, in that situation, it's better to leave the car door open, so the child can get out when necessary. If you don't trust the child to make that decision, don't leave it alone.
Leaving a child in a locked car is a bad idea, even when it's totally safe, and even with a window cracked. (In fact, leaving a car window open when you're not there is also a bad idea, though a few minutes probably won't hurt.) Honestly, in that situation, it's better to leave the car door open, so the child can get out when necessary. If you don't trust the child to make that decision, don't leave it alone.
That's not much help for kids who do have abusive or neglectful parents, is it? They're citizens too and if they're stuck in a dangerous situation they're entitled to the same level of protection as any other member of society.
there's a middle ground between the state as inflexible guardian and complete parental sovereignty.
there's a middle ground between the state as inflexible guardian and complete parental sovereignty.
Fine. Abused kids need help. There, I said it. It's nothing new and not related to the example at hand, but yeah, we found some common ground.
The state has laws and agencies to interfere and check (Disclaimer: I've no clue about the US of A here, but I assume it's not too far off from what I know). But that's not related to the action(s) we discuss. Are we missing a part of the picture? Certainly. Is the partial picture scary? Yes.
The adversaries in the story didn't act to protect the kid. They acted in a completely crazy fashion. There's so many things wrong with this story, I cannot even begin to imagine how someone would defend the side of the cops here..
One (out of far too many) questions: If this mother is utterly incapable, if a lawyer actually can make the point that she might lose her kid if she's not complying: Why does it take 10 month to proceed? I'd say that someone with a little ambition can kill a kid in less time than that...
There's not One. Single. Point. in that article that makes sense, on the side of law enforcement. Zero. The only potential reason to discuss why this might not be so far removed from reality that everyone involved should be ordered to take a drug test is that the article might be lying. If that is not the case ... there is no case.
The state has laws and agencies to interfere and check (Disclaimer: I've no clue about the US of A here, but I assume it's not too far off from what I know). But that's not related to the action(s) we discuss. Are we missing a part of the picture? Certainly. Is the partial picture scary? Yes.
The adversaries in the story didn't act to protect the kid. They acted in a completely crazy fashion. There's so many things wrong with this story, I cannot even begin to imagine how someone would defend the side of the cops here..
One (out of far too many) questions: If this mother is utterly incapable, if a lawyer actually can make the point that she might lose her kid if she's not complying: Why does it take 10 month to proceed? I'd say that someone with a little ambition can kill a kid in less time than that...
There's not One. Single. Point. in that article that makes sense, on the side of law enforcement. Zero. The only potential reason to discuss why this might not be so far removed from reality that everyone involved should be ordered to take a drug test is that the article might be lying. If that is not the case ... there is no case.
The police didn't act in a crazy fashion at all. They responded to a complaint, collected evidence, checked it against vehicle owner records. Then they visited the owner of the vehicle, gathered some more information. When an arrest warrant was issued (by the court, not by the police) months later, the police telephoned the author of the article to advise her about it and make arrangements for her to come to court.
I've said repeatedly that I don't think there was any point in bringing a prosecution. since you don't live in the US maybe you don't appreciate that the police and the public prosecutor are completely separate entities. The police didn't do anything abnormal in this case.
I've said repeatedly that I don't think there was any point in bringing a prosecution. since you don't live in the US maybe you don't appreciate that the police and the public prosecutor are completely separate entities. The police didn't do anything abnormal in this case.
> since you don't live in the US maybe you don't appreciate that the police and the public prosecutor are completely separate entities.
I don't live in the US, but I often get the impression that in the US, they're less separate than in other countries.
I don't live in the US, but I often get the impression that in the US, they're less separate than in other countries.
Is this case even remotely discussable as "middle ground"? There was no malice except on the part of the police and the bystander. Your responses to this thread show a deep lack of understanding of practical parenting or human resiliency.
No, society should protect children. As you say calling the police is okay, but the reaction of police is not okay.
And those reasons are?
Approaching a young child who has been left alone in a car is foolish in today's paranoic society.
Also, the returning parent is unlikely to be grateful to the comments of "I was just making sure your left alone child was not dying".
Also, the returning parent is unlikely to be grateful to the comments of "I was just making sure your left alone child was not dying".
The person was near enough to spot the child and take a photograph, so they could have remained at that distance and call the police if they feel it's necessary, not least to advise the returning parent/guardian that the police were called. In that case the police would probably have arrived and written a ticket or something. Although this would have involved a delay and frustration for the temporarily unattentive parent, it would have been better than the actual outcome involving the issuance of arrest warrants.
One could say 'why not let the matter drop, the Mom came back and so everything was OK' but that's a classic example of hindsight bias. From the police POV, a child was left alone in a vehicle that was later driven off by someone else. When they followed up, it turned out that the person who drove off was not the owner of the vehicle (which belonged to the child's grandparents). They have to at least consider the possibility of malfeasance.
One could say 'why not let the matter drop, the Mom came back and so everything was OK' but that's a classic example of hindsight bias. From the police POV, a child was left alone in a vehicle that was later driven off by someone else. When they followed up, it turned out that the person who drove off was not the owner of the vehicle (which belonged to the child's grandparents). They have to at least consider the possibility of malfeasance.
«From the police POV, a child was left alone in a vehicle that was later driven off by someone else».
No "someone else", but the very same woman: leaving the car, returning back to the car. The same woman, not someone else. Unless the good samaritan has deceptively shown just the last part and told the police he (or she) saw a different person leaving the car with the child inside.
The issue here is not car theft, driving license not matching the car owner, or whatever. It was instead a good samaritan evaluating as criminal/dangerous the fact that a mom left his son alone in the car for few minutes. And decided (when she came back) to call the police to...? Check if the child was fine? Whatever.
It takes few minutes to check if the car was stolen and/or the owner knows that someone else is driving it.
No "someone else", but the very same woman: leaving the car, returning back to the car. The same woman, not someone else. Unless the good samaritan has deceptively shown just the last part and told the police he (or she) saw a different person leaving the car with the child inside.
The issue here is not car theft, driving license not matching the car owner, or whatever. It was instead a good samaritan evaluating as criminal/dangerous the fact that a mom left his son alone in the car for few minutes. And decided (when she came back) to call the police to...? Check if the child was fine? Whatever.
It takes few minutes to check if the car was stolen and/or the owner knows that someone else is driving it.
Your firs para: could you imagine the situation where you tell a parent that you called the police because you were worried about their child? That's not an easy conversation.
I agree that people should report early and report often; and allow experts to make decisions. Sadly, reporting early and often just swamps people who are already far too busy dealing with children who are being abused, or it dumps reports with police who take action when they don't need to do anything more than have a chat.
I agree that people should report early and report often; and allow experts to make decisions. Sadly, reporting early and often just swamps people who are already far too busy dealing with children who are being abused, or it dumps reports with police who take action when they don't need to do anything more than have a chat.
I agree it's not an easy conversation, but if you think it's important enough to take photographs and call the police about it was important enough to communicate to the person who you have made a potential suspect. In this case it would probably have resulted in a much less traumatic outcome for the author of the story, who at worst might have missed her plane.
That is an entirely different world of crazy that doesn't belong here, does it?
Are we going to turn this into a 'You need to be careful about talking to a child' debate? If you cannot address/talk to a child, things are worse OUTSIDE of that car.
Are we going to turn this into a 'You need to be careful about talking to a child' debate? If you cannot address/talk to a child, things are worse OUTSIDE of that car.
Of course it belongs here!
In a sensible world she would have been able to call out to some car-park lurker "hey I'm just going to grab something from the store, can you just wave at my kid through this window"; or she could just run in and grab something and people seeing her run in and then out would not call the police; or etc etc.
Society has decided that men wanting to work with children are creepy (try finding pre-schools with male workers and early years schools with male teachers), and this extends to the damaging concept of "stranger danger" where someone waiting by the car to check the child is safe is not going to be seen as a welcome bit of support for a busy harassed mother but will be seen as a creepy threat.
It's all part of the same weird system of protecting children without regard to what actual risk is.
In a sensible world she would have been able to call out to some car-park lurker "hey I'm just going to grab something from the store, can you just wave at my kid through this window"; or she could just run in and grab something and people seeing her run in and then out would not call the police; or etc etc.
Society has decided that men wanting to work with children are creepy (try finding pre-schools with male workers and early years schools with male teachers), and this extends to the damaging concept of "stranger danger" where someone waiting by the car to check the child is safe is not going to be seen as a welcome bit of support for a busy harassed mother but will be seen as a creepy threat.
It's all part of the same weird system of protecting children without regard to what actual risk is.
Yes, driving to the store is considerably more dangerous for the child (even if it's in correctly fitted car seat (and many children are not)) than being left for a few minutes in the car.
Still, leaving the child alone leaves them open to more risk than taking them out of the car.
This parent was not buying anything important - just headphones for a child - and they took the wasy options by i) taking child to shops and ii) not taking child out of car.
I don't criticise other people's parenting because I am particularly lucky with my son but the idea of leaving my nearly-four-yo son unaccompanied (out of eyesight) fills me with cold fear.
Again, the problem here isn't that they left their son for a few minutes in a car, it is that society is pretty hostile to parents and parenting, simultaneously being quick to judge and slow to offer any real support.
Still, leaving the child alone leaves them open to more risk than taking them out of the car.
This parent was not buying anything important - just headphones for a child - and they took the wasy options by i) taking child to shops and ii) not taking child out of car.
I don't criticise other people's parenting because I am particularly lucky with my son but the idea of leaving my nearly-four-yo son unaccompanied (out of eyesight) fills me with cold fear.
Again, the problem here isn't that they left their son for a few minutes in a car, it is that society is pretty hostile to parents and parenting, simultaneously being quick to judge and slow to offer any real support.
> Still, leaving the child alone leaves them open to more risk than taking them out of the car.
So a child in an immobile tested-safe metal box with ventilation, locked and alarmed, is more at risk than being outside the car? I'd like to understand how you came to that reasoning.
So a child in an immobile tested-safe metal box with ventilation, locked and alarmed, is more at risk than being outside the car? I'd like to understand how you came to that reasoning.
»I don't criticise other people's parenting because I am particularly lucky with my son but the idea of leaving my nearly-four-yo son unaccompanied (out of eyesight) fills me with cold fear.«
The thing is:
1) You do. The post says "She was lazy"¹. That's criticizing.
2) Your pov is noted and fine. You're probably a good parent. But what works for you isn't transferable to other parents and kids. And those parents will make decisions that wouldn't work/make sense for you and your kid. I love that my not-yet-two son disappears and plays in hidden corners. He's probably longer out of my (and my wife's) sight than the boy in that car was, albeit in our apartment. Cold fear sounds nasty. I understand that to a point, but for this particular parent that wouldn't work/would be unhealthy.
We're different. Projecting one's idea about child care is different from laws about child care.
1: Blame reading comprehension skills on my English teacher
The thing is:
1) You do. The post says "She was lazy"¹. That's criticizing.
2) Your pov is noted and fine. You're probably a good parent. But what works for you isn't transferable to other parents and kids. And those parents will make decisions that wouldn't work/make sense for you and your kid. I love that my not-yet-two son disappears and plays in hidden corners. He's probably longer out of my (and my wife's) sight than the boy in that car was, albeit in our apartment. Cold fear sounds nasty. I understand that to a point, but for this particular parent that wouldn't work/would be unhealthy.
We're different. Projecting one's idea about child care is different from laws about child care.
1: Blame reading comprehension skills on my English teacher
I think like this, always able to consider the worst case scenario. So, whilst I've left my kid(s) in the car on occassions I've never left them without leaving the window open a bit ... of course that makes it easier to open the door and kidnap them ...
Well, the worse case scenario is that a parent takes the child out of the car and a truck plows into them both leaving them alive but severely brain damaged, requiring 24 hour care. The truck driver is poor and has no insurance, and the parent was inadaquately insured too.
And the truck was driven by the other parent. Yes, my brain can play that game all day.
How hostile society is to parenting? Did I read that right? Parents have free reign to brainwash their kids into some religious cult. Then theres the whole homeschooling thing - yes, enlightened HN readers will protest that they are able to give their kids a better education than the crappy public school system could, but lets face it, home schooling is as much a cover for the many nutjobs out there that don't want the scientific method taught in school. Lets not start on vaccines.
Basically, until you are 18, you belong to your parents and have zero rights, treated as a child by society. It's funny how we all forget this once we turn into adults.
Basically, until you are 18, you belong to your parents and have zero rights, treated as a child by society. It's funny how we all forget this once we turn into adults.
You make some good points about parental rights.
Look at vaccinations. (Vaccinations are good; I had no hesitation having my child immunised; I'd like schools to require immunisations for pupils; etc). The early days of the vaccination scandal were not presented as a bit of scientific research, it was "you, as a parent, are harming your child by vaccinating them" (and that's still what the nutjobs are saying). Now that we know that Wakefield is a crook we tend not to say "you were duped by a crook who had financial interests in misleading you so let's help you get your child immunised", we say "you're a nutjob and a bad parent".
Look at HN where parents feel guilt about work life balance for one example of how hard it is to be a parent in a rich first world country.
Look at the number of people on HN who (ignoring law) say they would hesitate to employ women because of the risk of maternity leave.
The fact that "having a child" has to be written into legislation as a protected status shows that status of parents was seen as needing protection.
Look at vaccinations. (Vaccinations are good; I had no hesitation having my child immunised; I'd like schools to require immunisations for pupils; etc). The early days of the vaccination scandal were not presented as a bit of scientific research, it was "you, as a parent, are harming your child by vaccinating them" (and that's still what the nutjobs are saying). Now that we know that Wakefield is a crook we tend not to say "you were duped by a crook who had financial interests in misleading you so let's help you get your child immunised", we say "you're a nutjob and a bad parent".
Look at HN where parents feel guilt about work life balance for one example of how hard it is to be a parent in a rich first world country.
Look at the number of people on HN who (ignoring law) say they would hesitate to employ women because of the risk of maternity leave.
The fact that "having a child" has to be written into legislation as a protected status shows that status of parents was seen as needing protection.
While I recognize that homeschooling is done by some because of their religious beliefs, and yes, some of those beliefs are pretty unusual, I would like to remind you that homeschooling is actually not 100% a cover for the nutjobs out there. I was homeschooled, and I'm now graduated highschool at 16. Homeschooling is a great way to avoid the mess and poor education that is public school, and in my experience with other homeschoolers, there aren't as many nutjobs as you seem to think. I apologize if I missed the point of what you were saying, but I wished to present an alternative view of homeschooling.
Parent is driving the car and has a heart attack/stroke/etc. Car crashes and child dies. I guess we better make it illegal for parents to drive cars with kids in them.
The thing is, something could happen to you while you're away. The few minutes in the car won't hurt the child, but if something happens to you, the child is still there. And if you locked the car, the child can't get out.
I'm all for letting kids play with little or no supervision. (Depending on the surroundings, of course; a place near my home where kids can build huts has the explicit rule that kids under 8 need adult supervision at all times, which makes total sense. A mother was upset that someone confiscated the hammer and saw her kids were using while she was away. That mother was wrong.)
But what's important is that if you trust your child to take care of itself, you give it the means to do so. Locking a kid in a car is not that. I'd rather let it play in the parking lot or a field next to it.
So I think the decision to leave the kid in the car is still a bad one. And not even just because of the danger, but because of teaching it about choice and consequences: The kid wanted to come along to the shop? Then it's coming inside. The kid thinks a game is more important than new earphones? Then it's not getting new earphones. Teach the kid consequences.
I'm all for letting kids play with little or no supervision. (Depending on the surroundings, of course; a place near my home where kids can build huts has the explicit rule that kids under 8 need adult supervision at all times, which makes total sense. A mother was upset that someone confiscated the hammer and saw her kids were using while she was away. That mother was wrong.)
But what's important is that if you trust your child to take care of itself, you give it the means to do so. Locking a kid in a car is not that. I'd rather let it play in the parking lot or a field next to it.
So I think the decision to leave the kid in the car is still a bad one. And not even just because of the danger, but because of teaching it about choice and consequences: The kid wanted to come along to the shop? Then it's coming inside. The kid thinks a game is more important than new earphones? Then it's not getting new earphones. Teach the kid consequences.
How much would it add to the cost of a car to put in a little solar panel and a fan or two that would bring in cooler air into the cabin on hot days? It would help avoid situations like these (or at least increase chances of survival) and keep the interior from being a scorching simulation of the surface of the sun. I think some models had this in the 90s, but it never caught on. Supposedly, if memory serves from an old issue of Motor Trend, just a couple small fans could drop the temperature almost 20 degrees on really hot days. So a 100 degree interior would be 80, which could mean the difference between life and death.
Audi started making this an option in 2008 (2007?) on their A8 line and was followed by Fisker and Toyota on the Prius. i don't think any of them have it as an option any more. It's just not effective enough.
he had agreed not to pursue the charge if, over the course of nine months, I completed 100 hours of community service and attended parenting education
Superbly written, but the underlying story and outcome disturbs me. That someone is dissuaded from presenting a fair case because a court is considered to be bad at its job and taking a revenge-not-justice punishment is the best option serves as a serious indictment of 'justice' in whatever loony tunes jurisdiction she lives. Judicial systems are meant to apply laws contextually based on actual facts, not condemn anyone who falls into a gray area.
Superbly written, but the underlying story and outcome disturbs me. That someone is dissuaded from presenting a fair case because a court is considered to be bad at its job and taking a revenge-not-justice punishment is the best option serves as a serious indictment of 'justice' in whatever loony tunes jurisdiction she lives. Judicial systems are meant to apply laws contextually based on actual facts, not condemn anyone who falls into a gray area.
Judicial systems are meant to apply laws contextually based on actual facts, not condemn anyone who falls into a gray area.
But that's hard, and maybe unfair, and it barely scales.
EDIT:
Somewhat more productively, one wonders if this is a side effect of there being simply so many ways to get pulled into court--parking citation, drug possession, etc. I could understand if we took a more bureaucratic approach simply to keep up with the "demand".
But that's hard, and maybe unfair, and it barely scales.
EDIT:
Somewhat more productively, one wonders if this is a side effect of there being simply so many ways to get pulled into court--parking citation, drug possession, etc. I could understand if we took a more bureaucratic approach simply to keep up with the "demand".
It wasn't so long ago that the "bystander" would simply watch the child for a minute out of common courtesy for the mother. If it looked like it was getting out of hand, then perhaps intervention of some sort might cross their mind.
We've become a nation of "I'm Teelllllling..." suitable for nobody but a playground full of 5 year olds.
In my opinion, the actions of this "good samaritan" were not motivated from concern or helpfulness. Just like on the playground this action was malicious. A subtle kind of violence.
We've become a nation of "I'm Teelllllling..." suitable for nobody but a playground full of 5 year olds.
In my opinion, the actions of this "good samaritan" were not motivated from concern or helpfulness. Just like on the playground this action was malicious. A subtle kind of violence.
Right! If the intention were to protect the child, and the child were in actual danger, the bystander would be right there next to the car in case anything went wrong.
If anything, the bystander should be prosecuted for the same crime.
If anything, the bystander should be prosecuted for the same crime.
But, if you did something, you'd then be prosecuted for some other crime.
Soon you're probably being arrested for breathing from the wrong nostril.
Soon you're probably being arrested for breathing from the wrong nostril.
Soon it will just factor out to "you can be arrested at any time". The reason will be unimportant, or rather, will revert to the mean of "didn't like something about you".
I'm willing to bet that having a pool in your yard is much more dangerous for your child than leaving them in a car with windows cracked for 5 minutes.
Media drives government. Clicks drive the media. What we're left with is a hodgepodge of laws that attempt to prevent yesterday's headline.
Media drives government. Clicks drive the media. What we're left with is a hodgepodge of laws that attempt to prevent yesterday's headline.
> ... a hodgepodge of laws that attempt to prevent yesterday's headline.
Oooh, nice, I'm going to steal that line.
Relatedly, I think the person I'd be happiest to vote for in this day and age is someone who will introduce no new legislation, but just spend their time getting old pointless laws off the books.
Think of it as an extension of "The best code you will ever write is… code you never write."
I think more software engineers need to run for office.
Oooh, nice, I'm going to steal that line.
Relatedly, I think the person I'd be happiest to vote for in this day and age is someone who will introduce no new legislation, but just spend their time getting old pointless laws off the books.
Think of it as an extension of "The best code you will ever write is… code you never write."
I think more software engineers need to run for office.
iirc, drowning is the #2 preventable cause of death in kids, after car accidents.
As a 1st time Dad of a 4 month old I figured I should find this list.
This pdf has it broken down into age groups:
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_D...
This site was helpful and included an interesting little side bar:
http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/NAP/overviews/
- Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury death overall, and especially for teens. - For infants, suffocation is the biggest risk of injury death. - Drowning is the leading cause of injury death for children age 1-4.
This pdf has it broken down into age groups:
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/10LCID_Unintentional_D...
This site was helpful and included an interesting little side bar:
http://www.cdc.gov/safechild/NAP/overviews/
- Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of injury death overall, and especially for teens. - For infants, suffocation is the biggest risk of injury death. - Drowning is the leading cause of injury death for children age 1-4.
The U. S. has long been a country of busy-bodies (the Puritans weren't known for keeping their noses out of the business of others), and the example of this story demonstrates that cellphone cameras make it easier to share your nosiness without that uncomfortable confrontation of the past.
Before you go off to pull out those "child cooks in car in Texas in July" anecdotes, consider that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children. So if we're collectively that worried about it, let's get up in arms about needlessly taking the child on a car trip before we worry about applying "justice" to someone who left their child in a car in 50F weather.
If it were truly a case of "good samaritan" I'd blow it off. But I'm going to guess it was more a case of "she's doing something I think is awful. Regardless of whether harm was done or not, I'm going to go tattle!"
Before you go off to pull out those "child cooks in car in Texas in July" anecdotes, consider that motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for children. So if we're collectively that worried about it, let's get up in arms about needlessly taking the child on a car trip before we worry about applying "justice" to someone who left their child in a car in 50F weather.
If it were truly a case of "good samaritan" I'd blow it off. But I'm going to guess it was more a case of "she's doing something I think is awful. Regardless of whether harm was done or not, I'm going to go tattle!"
I'd be interested in hearing non-US perspectives on this.
Is it acceptable elsewhere to leave your small child alone in the car for 5 minutes while you get something from a store? Would you fear for the child's safety, of legal action, or neither? Is the US leading the way criminalizing parents who do such things, or are there other countries that have been doing this for years?
Grew up in France in the 90s, in a small upper middle class town. My mother definitely left me alone in the car while she was running errands many, many times (which I liked because it meant I could just read my book, which is all I cared about as a kid). My parents also let me walk back and forth to the library (half a mile or so away) on my own fairly early on.
When we lived in the US for 2 years (pre 9/11), my parents definitely experienced a few police-state-related cultural shocks.
One time, a kid started hitting me in the school bus. It turned out that the kid lived in the same apartment complex as we did. That evening, my dad saw him playing outside, went up to him, and gave him a few stern words. A few hours later, his mother had called the police, and my dad ended up spending a few hours at the local police station.
We still lived in the US for another year or so after that, but nowadays my parents heavily dislike this country, and tend to avoid visiting me as much they can. FTR I don't see myself staying in the US when I start having kids.
When we lived in the US for 2 years (pre 9/11), my parents definitely experienced a few police-state-related cultural shocks.
One time, a kid started hitting me in the school bus. It turned out that the kid lived in the same apartment complex as we did. That evening, my dad saw him playing outside, went up to him, and gave him a few stern words. A few hours later, his mother had called the police, and my dad ended up spending a few hours at the local police station.
We still lived in the US for another year or so after that, but nowadays my parents heavily dislike this country, and tend to avoid visiting me as much they can. FTR I don't see myself staying in the US when I start having kids.
One of your stated reasons for leaving the US when you have kids is that the US is hostile to adults assaulting children? Because that's the circumstance you described with your father and the kid from school.
`tptacek, I'm not sure you'll ever see this, but I'll reply to your point anyways:
As `shintakezou pointed out, this is very much a cultural matter here. France (where my parents and I are from) tends to subscribe more to the "it takes a village to raise a child" mentality. Correcting the behavior of someone else's child at the park, supermarket, in the bus, etc. if they are out of the parent's sight is perfectly acceptable in French culture, and as a kid it happened to me many times, without traumatizing me (even when it was a scary old man yelling at me).
It is not perceived as assault, and it is certainly not "terrifying them verbally" (I find that phrasing a little bit excessive though, and am surprised that you extracted that from my "a few stern words").
In retrospect, the one thing my father did wrong was not considering that he was living in a different culture, and that something that seemed normal to him might be scandalous in the US. But that only makes my wish to leave the US when I have children even more valid in my eyes: I'd hate to find myself in those sort of cultural misunderstandings that can very easily escalate juridically.
I do find the US's approach to parenting very poor: France's approach to parenting is that kids are human beings in construction, and that they do not inherently know what is right or wrong, good or bad - and it is up to adults (parents or not) to let them know (that doesn't mean that their feelings or interests are invalid because they are "incomplete": it just means that they are lacking the knowledge of social mores, conventions, mental tools, etc. required to be productive citizens). The US's approach to parenting falls more in line with the belief that children are just "little adults" and that one should respect their wishes and desires no matter what, which I find preposterous.
As `shintakezou pointed out, this is very much a cultural matter here. France (where my parents and I are from) tends to subscribe more to the "it takes a village to raise a child" mentality. Correcting the behavior of someone else's child at the park, supermarket, in the bus, etc. if they are out of the parent's sight is perfectly acceptable in French culture, and as a kid it happened to me many times, without traumatizing me (even when it was a scary old man yelling at me).
It is not perceived as assault, and it is certainly not "terrifying them verbally" (I find that phrasing a little bit excessive though, and am surprised that you extracted that from my "a few stern words").
In retrospect, the one thing my father did wrong was not considering that he was living in a different culture, and that something that seemed normal to him might be scandalous in the US. But that only makes my wish to leave the US when I have children even more valid in my eyes: I'd hate to find myself in those sort of cultural misunderstandings that can very easily escalate juridically.
I do find the US's approach to parenting very poor: France's approach to parenting is that kids are human beings in construction, and that they do not inherently know what is right or wrong, good or bad - and it is up to adults (parents or not) to let them know (that doesn't mean that their feelings or interests are invalid because they are "incomplete": it just means that they are lacking the knowledge of social mores, conventions, mental tools, etc. required to be productive citizens). The US's approach to parenting falls more in line with the belief that children are just "little adults" and that one should respect their wishes and desires no matter what, which I find preposterous.
Um, what?
scolding != assaulting, no?
But of course it might have been better if the kids’ parents took up the matter between them.
scolding != assaulting, no?
But of course it might have been better if the kids’ parents took up the matter between them.
I chose my words carefully. When an adult confronts a child and terrifies them verbally, that is assault. That's not my opinion; that's the law. Because it is so easy for an adult to create a credible fear of violence in a child, it is very poor judgement for adults to directly confront children.
And the fact you see assault, and a law teaches you that it is so, instead of just scolding, is a cultural bias (sort of) and a point in favor of not living in US - or similar countries - for anyone born and grown up where these deceptive concepts are absent and hopefully not carved in a law.
Once common sense would have been enough: do you scolded my child? Why? What's happened? ... Ha, ok, my son did something wrong... and so on...
Usually it's not that hard.
Instead, a society rambling towards paranoia and driven by fear (especially this), makes a citizen feel the urge to "look at" a greater power, the Great Protector, to "protect" him/her even from an unexistant menace - or to seek revenge.
In the story we are commenting, the first thing I have noticed and blamed was the following: the mother surrenders to the request of the son who wants to go with her to the store. There, she makes the first mistake: the son had to stay at home with the grandma.
Once common sense would have been enough: do you scolded my child? Why? What's happened? ... Ha, ok, my son did something wrong... and so on...
Usually it's not that hard.
Instead, a society rambling towards paranoia and driven by fear (especially this), makes a citizen feel the urge to "look at" a greater power, the Great Protector, to "protect" him/her even from an unexistant menace - or to seek revenge.
In the story we are commenting, the first thing I have noticed and blamed was the following: the mother surrenders to the request of the son who wants to go with her to the store. There, she makes the first mistake: the son had to stay at home with the grandma.
Relevant German case law assumes that children are NOT under constant, uninterrupted supervision. Children being able to do things at least somewhat independently is considered important for developing self-reliance [1] and can override the parents' legal duty to supervise them; barring unusual circumstances, watching your child constantly is considered undesirable for the child's development. For example, it is considered more important for six year olds to walk to school on their own than for parents to provide supervision during that time (barring exceptional circumstances, such as a disability).
Checking on your four-year old son every 15-30 minutes is generally sufficient (modulo the circumstances and the child's maturity).
[1] Which is not to say that helicopter parenting isn't on the rise in Germany, too. The difference is that the police and teachers ask that parents NOT drive their children to school or pick them up afterwards, and some parents do it anyway.
Checking on your four-year old son every 15-30 minutes is generally sufficient (modulo the circumstances and the child's maturity).
[1] Which is not to say that helicopter parenting isn't on the rise in Germany, too. The difference is that the police and teachers ask that parents NOT drive their children to school or pick them up afterwards, and some parents do it anyway.
I'm from Australia, have lived in the US, Ecuador, Argentina and now Canada. My sister lives in the UK.
I've never seen anywhere else in the world that takes these issues as seriously (and insanely) as the US.
In Australia it's extremely common to see young kids walking to school without an adult, playing in the park after school, etc. etc. Many young kids will walk to the corner shop to buy candy or whatever without supervision. Adults think nothing of this, it's perfectly normal. It's unthinkable someone would call the Police for this.
EDIT: I should add, however, that it's highly illegal to leave a child in a car, due to the extreme heat. I've never seen it, but I expect people would call the Police or just break into a car if they saw this happening. It's taken so seriously, the punishment is actually the same for leaving an animal in the car as it is for leaving a child in the car.
I've never seen anywhere else in the world that takes these issues as seriously (and insanely) as the US.
In Australia it's extremely common to see young kids walking to school without an adult, playing in the park after school, etc. etc. Many young kids will walk to the corner shop to buy candy or whatever without supervision. Adults think nothing of this, it's perfectly normal. It's unthinkable someone would call the Police for this.
EDIT: I should add, however, that it's highly illegal to leave a child in a car, due to the extreme heat. I've never seen it, but I expect people would call the Police or just break into a car if they saw this happening. It's taken so seriously, the punishment is actually the same for leaving an animal in the car as it is for leaving a child in the car.
> I'd be interested in hearing non-US perspectives on this.
Finland here. Some people would leave a child in a car when they conduct a short errand, and some people would not, and the latter might frown upon the former. But the law enforcement would never ever get involved. That Salon article is just absurd. A whole new level of American weirdness.
(Then again, we rarely have weather as hot as the more southern countries.)
Finland here. Some people would leave a child in a car when they conduct a short errand, and some people would not, and the latter might frown upon the former. But the law enforcement would never ever get involved. That Salon article is just absurd. A whole new level of American weirdness.
(Then again, we rarely have weather as hot as the more southern countries.)
I don't exactly mean to question this, but in Finland is it common for the inside of cars to reach 40-50C within an hour during the summer?
During the hottest days of the summer (it very rarely goes above 28C or so - average maximum temperature is around 22C during the hottest summer months in southern Finland), yes, but not that often.
Less than an hour, I'd say. A warm summer day can easily be 25-30C, typically 20-25C. That's enough to go to 50C in an hour, windows closed, even on a half-cloudy day.
What happened in the article was just plain crazy. I'm from Finland and being five minutes somewhere outside the car -- nobody would blink an eye.
But things would also escalate gradually, depending on the situation. People would gather and start looking at the clock, seeing how the baby is doing and how long he's been there.
I'm sure there are laws you eventually do break if you leave your baby in the car for a long period of time (half an hour and up?), or in a hot parking lot and windows too closed.
Somebody would call the authorities and the police/firemen would break the window and save the baby and stay waiting for the parent: this would certainly warrant at least hectic reporting. The social workers would probably be notified and there would be a couple of meetings to figure out what's the deal.
But somebody being away for a few minutes... No way it would ever be a criminal case or brought to the judge or courts. While Finland does love rules and regulations more than sanefully necessary, you still have to mess up pretty bad to actually get charged for anything.
But things would also escalate gradually, depending on the situation. People would gather and start looking at the clock, seeing how the baby is doing and how long he's been there.
I'm sure there are laws you eventually do break if you leave your baby in the car for a long period of time (half an hour and up?), or in a hot parking lot and windows too closed.
Somebody would call the authorities and the police/firemen would break the window and save the baby and stay waiting for the parent: this would certainly warrant at least hectic reporting. The social workers would probably be notified and there would be a couple of meetings to figure out what's the deal.
But somebody being away for a few minutes... No way it would ever be a criminal case or brought to the judge or courts. While Finland does love rules and regulations more than sanefully necessary, you still have to mess up pretty bad to actually get charged for anything.
When I got to the bit about being arrested I was completely baffled... there's a law against this? I'm from the UK and as a child was left in the car for short periods, which is almost certainly commonplace.
I'm simply stunned that parents can be prosecuted for this. Another wtf America moment.
I'm simply stunned that parents can be prosecuted for this. Another wtf America moment.
Actually, as the article explained there is NOT a law against leaving your kids in the car. Such a law was proposed and the legislature refused to pass it.
Instead, the prosecutor decided to charge her with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" which is a broad catch-all category for doing things that might harm a child. She was not found guilty of this crime either. Instead, her lawyer advised her to agree to punishment for the crime because if it went to trial there was a CHANCE that she would lose custody of her children.
The problem here is not in the law nor in the outcome of a court case. The problem lies in the structure of the legal system. Prosecutors wield enormous power by virtue of their ability to decide whom to charge and for what. The penalties for losing are so great that nearly all (around 95%) cases are settled rather than contested before a judge or jury.
Instead, the prosecutor decided to charge her with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" which is a broad catch-all category for doing things that might harm a child. She was not found guilty of this crime either. Instead, her lawyer advised her to agree to punishment for the crime because if it went to trial there was a CHANCE that she would lose custody of her children.
The problem here is not in the law nor in the outcome of a court case. The problem lies in the structure of the legal system. Prosecutors wield enormous power by virtue of their ability to decide whom to charge and for what. The penalties for losing are so great that nearly all (around 95%) cases are settled rather than contested before a judge or jury.
There's no specific law against it in the majority of US states (http://www.kidsandcars.org/state-laws.html) The laws against leaving a child alone in a car are stricter than leaving them home alone (http://www.imom.com/parenting/tikes/parenting/safety/home-al...) because children dying of heat stroke in cars has made headlines in the past 20 years.
Many laws in the US are purposely vague and up to the interpretation of the police. The mother was charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contributing+t...), which can be used against anyone that does something that might possibly result in a child being adversely affected in some way.
The unfortunate part of life in the US is that the average person breaks a few dozen laws every day, and it's really important not to upset the police in some way that they'll take notice of you and start charging you with crimes.
Many laws in the US are purposely vague and up to the interpretation of the police. The mother was charged with "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Contributing+t...), which can be used against anyone that does something that might possibly result in a child being adversely affected in some way.
The unfortunate part of life in the US is that the average person breaks a few dozen laws every day, and it's really important not to upset the police in some way that they'll take notice of you and start charging you with crimes.
I'm from the UK and was born in 1990. I remember my parents leaving me in the car when I was younger, in all sorts of weather. Rain, snow, sun, whatever. I never really cared because they'd leave the radio on and I could play with whatever I'd taken with me. Nothing bad ever happened to me when they left me in the car
I don't see any issue with people leaving their kids in the car, it just requires a little common sense.
Also, comparing events where someone forgot their kid was in the car and leaving them all day to events where the parents consciously leave their kids and are aware of the conditions they've left them in (especially if they actually do something to help ensure the comfort of the child, like cracking the window) it's completely wrong. One is neglect, one is giving your kids a little freedom.
I don't see any issue with people leaving their kids in the car, it just requires a little common sense.
Also, comparing events where someone forgot their kid was in the car and leaving them all day to events where the parents consciously leave their kids and are aware of the conditions they've left them in (especially if they actually do something to help ensure the comfort of the child, like cracking the window) it's completely wrong. One is neglect, one is giving your kids a little freedom.
On a slight tangent: Baby sitting.
Some people in the UK take an extreme view on age of baby sitters. See this BBC article (in my parenting SE answer) about a woman leaving her 14 year old son in charge of a 3 year old boy for 30 minutes and the trouble that caused. (She should not have accepted the caution. I am surprised that's what the solicitor suggested, and I'm not sure she actually got a solicitor.)
http://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/12599/what-is-c...
Some people in the UK take an extreme view on age of baby sitters. See this BBC article (in my parenting SE answer) about a woman leaving her 14 year old son in charge of a 3 year old boy for 30 minutes and the trouble that caused. (She should not have accepted the caution. I am surprised that's what the solicitor suggested, and I'm not sure she actually got a solicitor.)
http://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/12599/what-is-c...
I find this pretty crazy. Going with a really contrived example, using the same logic, we could make it illegal to step next to your children because you could potentially break their skull with your elbow. Way too many ifs.
However, the goal itself, namely protecting children is noble. I guess hitting the sweet spot between being neglective and overly protective is hard. Such is the nature of most social issues.
However, the goal itself, namely protecting children is noble. I guess hitting the sweet spot between being neglective and overly protective is hard. Such is the nature of most social issues.
In the Netherlands I would not expect any legal consequences or police involvement over leaving a kid in a car in the way described in the article (e.g. window open and only for a few minutes).
Second that, I can hardly believe this story is for real. When I grew up my parents left me (and my brother and sister) alone in the car all the time. Never for more than a few minutes obviously, but otherwise it was perfectly normal. They also let us cycle to school, play outside without being monitored all the time, roam around the woods, whatever. It was the same with all my friends. Surprisingly, everyone turned out just fine, and I've never heard of a single (near) fatal incident caused by this kind of negligence around me. I think I vaguely remember a baby died in a car in The Netherlands a few years ago though. You have to wonder what kind of parenting leads to forgetting you left your baby in the car though, and how long it would take for some other serious incident to occur if you're so absent minded.
That said, anyone has a right to disagree whether leaving your kid in the car when you have to stop at the store is acceptable, but prosecuting a parent for it is downright insane.
That said, anyone has a right to disagree whether leaving your kid in the car when you have to stop at the store is acceptable, but prosecuting a parent for it is downright insane.
Bolivia here - I've NEVER in my 14 years living here in two different departments (states) seen a child left alone in a car. It's just unheard of. And we don't even get that much heat or cold either.
The risk is someone can break your window and steal your kid. It's just something that's never done. It would be akin to leaving your child on the street corner while you go up to your apartment to grab the purse you forgot.
The risk is someone can break your window and steal your kid. It's just something that's never done. It would be akin to leaving your child on the street corner while you go up to your apartment to grab the purse you forgot.
I commuted by public transportation for about 5~ miles each day before and after school from the age of 9 (in Ukraine). From 11 on I commuted about 5~ miles each way to school in New York City.
At 8, I would often walk for miles in the wilderness when out camping, or go swimming in a river without serious adult supervision.
At 8, I would often walk for miles in the wilderness when out camping, or go swimming in a river without serious adult supervision.
In the UK things have changed and so parents need to be careful. Various high profile cases have resulted in changes to both social services and police processing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Victoria_Climbi%C3%A9...
http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/nov/11/b...
Does that result in "over reactions" - depends on your point of view.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Victoria_Climbi%C3%A9...
http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/nov/11/b...
Does that result in "over reactions" - depends on your point of view.
As a German and father of a 22 month old child, I can't understand how unbelievable dumb this story is. I couldn't even finish reading it, because all this stuff is so cringeworthy.
While I understand that bad things can happen if you leave a child for a long time alone in a car, I can't understand the bystander was calling the police but couldn't open his mouth to actually say anything to the mom. And how come somebody is criminalized when there was no victim at all?
Also, while I understand children loves their electronics, please try to read a book to your kids once in a while.
While I understand that bad things can happen if you leave a child for a long time alone in a car, I can't understand the bystander was calling the police but couldn't open his mouth to actually say anything to the mom. And how come somebody is criminalized when there was no victim at all?
Also, while I understand children loves their electronics, please try to read a book to your kids once in a while.
Yes, I would love to hear about this too. I once left my son in the car for literally 2 mins while he was sleeping to buy a soda in a gas station. I am in the US.
[deleted]
its natural selection
I don't now if it's an American thing or maybe a Western thing, but for whatever reason, voters and elected officials seem to be able to effortlessly make that huge leap from "It's sensible to do ABC" and "It should be required by law to do ABC, under penalty of fines and/or jail". We over-legislate things like public safety, and then rely on the court bureaucracy to apply sensibility and lenience on a case-by-case basis.
See Also: Three felonies a day
EDIT: Spelling
See Also: Three felonies a day
EDIT: Spelling
How can you say it's a Western thing when places like Singapore have fines for not flushing the toilet?
1) Fines aren't criminal offenses
2) I suspect that there are more valid reasons to leave a child in a car, compared to reasons to not flush.
That said, the consequences are greater in the case of potential child neglect.
2) I suspect that there are more valid reasons to leave a child in a car, compared to reasons to not flush.
That said, the consequences are greater in the case of potential child neglect.
Wonder how they would react if they saw swedish babies napping outside in sub-zero temperatures:
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988
I didn't go over well.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-restaurant-baby...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/15/us-restaurant-baby...
> I got out of the car one day to feed the parking meter next to the driver side window. “Don’t, Mommy. Don’t. The police will come.” I went to let the dog into our front yard while he was watching his morning cartoon. “Mommy, no!!! The police.”
Sigh..... It's such a tragic, fucked up thing that our society could do this to a child and his mother. We all really need to think more about the consequences of our actions. The bystander who called in should have done more than just call the police. The mother should have brought the kid in. The cop(s) shouldn't have let it get to court. The courts shouldn't be able to split apart families for a single, momentary, stupid, virtually riskless act. And the media needs to not villify and capitalize on the fear and hate of people who judge situations like this without context.
Sigh..... It's such a tragic, fucked up thing that our society could do this to a child and his mother. We all really need to think more about the consequences of our actions. The bystander who called in should have done more than just call the police. The mother should have brought the kid in. The cop(s) shouldn't have let it get to court. The courts shouldn't be able to split apart families for a single, momentary, stupid, virtually riskless act. And the media needs to not villify and capitalize on the fear and hate of people who judge situations like this without context.
To be fair, all we know is that prosecutors can threaten to split families apart for a single, momentary stupid, virtually riskless act. The mother agreed to a plea-bargain because she didn't want to find out if they actually could.
This is just so patently absurd. The legal issue seems to revolve around "rendering the child in need of services". A child alone in a car for 5 minutes on a mild day is not in need of services. The case should be thrown out right there.
Well police investigations aren't free to the taxpayer.
She didn't mention it, but nothing is really 'free' about this. With court costs, lawyers, time spent doing community service, and other miscellaneous stuff I wonder how much it cost her total. Not to mention a year or so of stress worrying about it and the obvious lingering effects of the decision.
A large portion of people most likely would not have been able to round up the resources she did nor have the support and get screwed by this type of stuff.
It's good that she's bringing the subject to light but, being a seemingly local law, and one that you might not know about until it's being thrown at you, it seems more likely it will continue to harm parents just getting by.
A large portion of people most likely would not have been able to round up the resources she did nor have the support and get screwed by this type of stuff.
It's good that she's bringing the subject to light but, being a seemingly local law, and one that you might not know about until it's being thrown at you, it seems more likely it will continue to harm parents just getting by.
As a sanity check, here is the law in California (which, I assume, is relatively restrictive, since it's California...):
It is illegal to leave a 6 years old or younger unattended in a motor vehicle when:
There are conditions that present a significant risk to the child's health or safety. Example: Leaving a child in a closed car on a very hot day.
The vehicle's engine is running, the keys are in the ignition, or both. Children can start or move the car causing injuries and/or deaths to themselves or others. An opportunist may (and many have) seize the moment to jump in and drive your car away, child still strapped in.[1]
So ... as long as there's nothing unsafe and the engine isn't running, you're "legal".
[1] http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/safety-laws.php
It is illegal to leave a 6 years old or younger unattended in a motor vehicle when:
There are conditions that present a significant risk to the child's health or safety. Example: Leaving a child in a closed car on a very hot day.
The vehicle's engine is running, the keys are in the ignition, or both. Children can start or move the car causing injuries and/or deaths to themselves or others. An opportunist may (and many have) seize the moment to jump in and drive your car away, child still strapped in.[1]
So ... as long as there's nothing unsafe and the engine isn't running, you're "legal".
[1] http://www.dmv.org/ca-california/safety-laws.php
Well, the article states that it wasn't illegal wherever that took place either. Somehow 'not illegal' is considered 'a grey area' though.. Which makes it even scarier. Excerpt for the people that just see your comment below (I = mother, He = lawyer):
“I don’t get it,” I said to the lawyer. “Contributing to the delinquency of a minor? That makes no sense. It sounds like I was buying him beer.”
He laughed. He told me he understood my confusion about the charge, but that it wasn’t that unusual. A few years before, the state had tried to pass an ordinance that would make it a misdemeanor to leave a child under 6 alone in a vehicle if the conditions within the vehicle or in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle presented a risk to the health or safety of the child. The penalty for a first offense would be a $100 civil penalty, in other words, a ticket. But the legislation didn’t pass, and so instead, the act of leaving a kid in a car would continue to fall into a legal gray area. The lawyer explained that the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor included “rendering a minor in need of services.” So, for example, he said, “If you’d left him there and not come back, someone from social services would have needed to come, bring him in, make sure he was safe and such.”
“I don’t get it,” I said to the lawyer. “Contributing to the delinquency of a minor? That makes no sense. It sounds like I was buying him beer.”
He laughed. He told me he understood my confusion about the charge, but that it wasn’t that unusual. A few years before, the state had tried to pass an ordinance that would make it a misdemeanor to leave a child under 6 alone in a vehicle if the conditions within the vehicle or in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle presented a risk to the health or safety of the child. The penalty for a first offense would be a $100 civil penalty, in other words, a ticket. But the legislation didn’t pass, and so instead, the act of leaving a kid in a car would continue to fall into a legal gray area. The lawyer explained that the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor included “rendering a minor in need of services.” So, for example, he said, “If you’d left him there and not come back, someone from social services would have needed to come, bring him in, make sure he was safe and such.”
> Well, the article states that it wasn't illegal wherever that took place either. Somehow 'not illegal' is considered 'a grey area' though
It's my observation that anything that is "not illegal" in the US now means "We'll find a creative way to stop you doing it".
It's my observation that anything that is "not illegal" in the US now means "We'll find a creative way to stop you doing it".
> It was a temporary lapse in judgment.
Leaving your child in a car for five minutes is definitely a lapse in judgment. Not because it's dangerous so much as because your peers are stupid. I remember a time where I was really tempted to leave my kid in the car. He was asleep. It was a nice cool day. I was going to be gone for much less than five minutes. I was going to be able to see the car the entire time. Nope. Better safe than sensible.
Leaving your child in a car for five minutes is definitely a lapse in judgment. Not because it's dangerous so much as because your peers are stupid. I remember a time where I was really tempted to leave my kid in the car. He was asleep. It was a nice cool day. I was going to be gone for much less than five minutes. I was going to be able to see the car the entire time. Nope. Better safe than sensible.
Except it is not safe to remove your kid from the car - that carries risks of its own. There is no safe option - as the article clearly points out.
In any case - if you wanted to make the safe decision, why did you put your kid in the car in the first place? Don't you realize how dangerous it is to drive on the roads? Ask yourself - which is safer - Your child spending 5 minutes alone in a car with a window cracked open on a cool day - or 5 minutes driving to that place, with oncoming traffic that with the slightest lapse of attention by a driver could have their car crashing into yours in a second.
This is the madness of this whole situation - people have left common sense at the door.
In any case - if you wanted to make the safe decision, why did you put your kid in the car in the first place? Don't you realize how dangerous it is to drive on the roads? Ask yourself - which is safer - Your child spending 5 minutes alone in a car with a window cracked open on a cool day - or 5 minutes driving to that place, with oncoming traffic that with the slightest lapse of attention by a driver could have their car crashing into yours in a second.
This is the madness of this whole situation - people have left common sense at the door.
I think you missed the parent commenter's point that the reason they took their kid with them had nothing to do with the actual risk to their child (which they determined to be low), but everything to do with the likelihood of having to deal with other parents in a highly-litigious society (which they determined to be much higher).
Agreed - I saw a later comment by the poster which shows I misinterpreted the comment. My original point still stands though, just not applicable to the poster.
[deleted](1)
Seriously, this is my number one reason for not having kids.
For the younger crowd who may not understand, I was born in '77:
- I rode in the back hatch (no seats) of my dad's corvette until I was 8, cops would wave to us.
- At 6 I could ride my bike around pretty much anywhere I wanted, but wasn't allowed to cross rt6 (which I didn't, though no one checked).
- Left in the car in parking lots for up to an hour.
- Arrived home from school with no one home starting in 1st grade.
For the younger crowd who may not understand, I was born in '77:
- I rode in the back hatch (no seats) of my dad's corvette until I was 8, cops would wave to us.
- At 6 I could ride my bike around pretty much anywhere I wanted, but wasn't allowed to cross rt6 (which I didn't, though no one checked).
- Left in the car in parking lots for up to an hour.
- Arrived home from school with no one home starting in 1st grade.
For the record, even today with our safety obsessed culture? Car accidents are still the leading preventable cause of death in children (non-preventable things like birth-defects and complications from childbirth itself are the only things that rank higher).
Cars are what kills kids, even now in our hyper-safe society. So it's worth re-examining that stuff.
Which means the thing with the Corvette? Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight.
But yeah, the total lack of independence in today's kids is a different story. There is no epidemic of kiddy diddlers, of kids wandering off and getting lost and somehow dying. So the obsessive "have your kids with you at all times" thing is probably a modern over-reaction.
But the stuff about cars? Yeah, respect and fear traffic.
Cars are what kills kids, even now in our hyper-safe society. So it's worth re-examining that stuff.
Which means the thing with the Corvette? Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight.
But yeah, the total lack of independence in today's kids is a different story. There is no epidemic of kiddy diddlers, of kids wandering off and getting lost and somehow dying. So the obsessive "have your kids with you at all times" thing is probably a modern over-reaction.
But the stuff about cars? Yeah, respect and fear traffic.
>Which means the thing with the Corvette? Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight.
My dad even thinks that now. Still the irony is that a corvette of that age isn't safe in an accident with any type of seat for any type of occupant. However, put a child seat in it any we all can pretend that it's somehow safe.
Just writing that makes me think there will be a law soon that kids can only ride in child-safe certified cars.
My dad even thinks that now. Still the irony is that a corvette of that age isn't safe in an accident with any type of seat for any type of occupant. However, put a child seat in it any we all can pretend that it's somehow safe.
Just writing that makes me think there will be a law soon that kids can only ride in child-safe certified cars.
Putting children in the seatless back hatch of a Corvette was probably not a great parenting call either.
Not everything that used to be S.O.P. for parents was good judgement. Not every safety concern we've developed over the last 20 years is wrong. Some of them are very valid.
Not everything that used to be S.O.P. for parents was good judgement. Not every safety concern we've developed over the last 20 years is wrong. Some of them are very valid.
Risk minimization as an overriding strategy is fundamentally flawed as it is never complete. It also appears that people are really bad at understanding the costs for very small benefits.
Yeah, people also survived when we put lead paint on everything. Evaluate the issue on its actual merits and relevant statistics, not wether or not you personally won the "take an unnecessary risk" dice roll.
Yep, I can relate. I was born in '78 and grew up on a farm.
Please, have kids and raise them reasonably according to your own standards, not the nanny-state's. If we don't defend personal freedom, who will?
Please, have kids and raise them reasonably according to your own standards, not the nanny-state's. If we don't defend personal freedom, who will?
Survivorship bias.
I too rode in the boot of the car, but presumably some other kids did that and died in an accident slamming in to back of their parent's heads and the windscreen when the car had to break suddenly. Or maybe they got crushed when a lorry rode in to the back of them.
I too rode in the boot of the car, but presumably some other kids did that and died in an accident slamming in to back of their parent's heads and the windscreen when the car had to break suddenly. Or maybe they got crushed when a lorry rode in to the back of them.
Yeah, I knew kids that had dogs growing up. We all think it's safe, but alas, family dogs kill children. I guess we all suffer from that survivorship bias. The lesson here is anyone with a family dog should have their children taken away.
I also used to take the ferry to Nantucket and MV as a kid. Thought that was safe too, but apparently those things sink and kill children. What, you let your kids take the ferry? Someone call child services!
Also known to kill children: Bee stings (don't let kids play outside), food allergies (or eat), influenza (be around other people), drowning (go swimming or take a bath).
I suppose to dismiss any of these as unlikely is an example of survivorship bias? I'm pretty sure it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/world/asia/south-korea-ship-si...
The only proper way to let your kids leave the house:
http://smurk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bubble_boy_2-754379...
I also used to take the ferry to Nantucket and MV as a kid. Thought that was safe too, but apparently those things sink and kill children. What, you let your kids take the ferry? Someone call child services!
Also known to kill children: Bee stings (don't let kids play outside), food allergies (or eat), influenza (be around other people), drowning (go swimming or take a bath).
I suppose to dismiss any of these as unlikely is an example of survivorship bias? I'm pretty sure it's not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United...
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/06/world/asia/south-korea-ship-si...
The only proper way to let your kids leave the house:
http://smurk.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/bubble_boy_2-754379...
To dismiss them as unlikely is not survivorship bias, no. That's not how it works - you knew that and knew that we did too.
But, for example, to say "I used to jump in to rivers and swim around, never hurt me" as an argument for allowing kids to jump in to [untested] rivers would be. Sure most children would survive but we nonetheless have the bias in the lack of testimony from those that drowned, or possibly impaled themselves on detritus hidden below the surface , and died.
Just because there is a survivorship bias in testimonies concerning [sufficiently] safe activities for children doesn't of course mean that one is required to stop their children taking part in those activities.
All activities and inactivities have risks. The note of the bias is simply a reminder to take it in to account when weighing those risks.
But, for example, to say "I used to jump in to rivers and swim around, never hurt me" as an argument for allowing kids to jump in to [untested] rivers would be. Sure most children would survive but we nonetheless have the bias in the lack of testimony from those that drowned, or possibly impaled themselves on detritus hidden below the surface , and died.
Just because there is a survivorship bias in testimonies concerning [sufficiently] safe activities for children doesn't of course mean that one is required to stop their children taking part in those activities.
All activities and inactivities have risks. The note of the bias is simply a reminder to take it in to account when weighing those risks.
Car accidents are the #1 cause of death for children. Family dogs are not.
I hope the reason that this story is popular is that we as a society agree it's absurd.
Leaving a child in a locked car in the situation described is perfectly acceptable. The police getting involved is ridiculous, which makes it a great story. Hopefully the correct lesson is learned.
Leaving a child in a locked car in the situation described is perfectly acceptable. The police getting involved is ridiculous, which makes it a great story. Hopefully the correct lesson is learned.
Another example of why you should never talk to the cops. When they come to ask, "Did you or your wife leave your child in the car?" Only acceptable response is: come back with a warrant.
Not really, because that would almost certainly have resulted in the mother being arrested and all the children being taken into protective custody. The police already had evidence of the child being left alone in the car in the form of a photograph. In a situation where someone acts evasively they're going to assume the worst. Think of those cases where children die or are found in situations of truly dreadful neglect and the local captain of police has to grovel in public while trying to answer questions about why they didn't follow up on reports of the situation.
I had to deal with the police earlier this week because my dog accidentally bit someone who interfered with him, resulting in a (thankfully superficial) injury. I answered their questions forthrightly and we emailed some paperwork back and forth, which is why he's now confined to my yard for the next 7 days instead of being locked in a crate at the city pound.
Overzealous policing is a real problem. That doesn't mean that evasion or passive-aggressive confrontation is always an effective response.
I had to deal with the police earlier this week because my dog accidentally bit someone who interfered with him, resulting in a (thankfully superficial) injury. I answered their questions forthrightly and we emailed some paperwork back and forth, which is why he's now confined to my yard for the next 7 days instead of being locked in a crate at the city pound.
Overzealous policing is a real problem. That doesn't mean that evasion or passive-aggressive confrontation is always an effective response.
They already had evidence of the facts at hand, if not evidence of wrongdoing.
> a bystander had noticed me leaving my son in the car, had recorded the incident using a phone’s camera, and had then contacted the police.
> a bystander had noticed me leaving my son in the car, had recorded the incident using a phone’s camera, and had then contacted the police.
Fortunately the car the registered with grandparents -- unfortunately, they talked.
Is this story fiction?
The last line of the article reads: "Kim Brooks' fiction has appeared in Five Chapters, Glimmer Train, One Story, Epoch, and other journals. A graduate of the Iowa Writers' Workshop, she teaches writing and is at work on a novel. You can follow her on Twitter @KA_Brooks."
The last line of the article reads: "Kim Brooks' fiction has appeared in Five Chapters, Glimmer Train, One Story, Epoch, and other journals. A graduate of the Iowa Writers' Workshop, she teaches writing and is at work on a novel. You can follow her on Twitter @KA_Brooks."
I think that's just pointing out her actual occupation, rather than suggesting the story is fictional.
I remember when my mom left me in the car to run into the grocery store one summer. I put the seat back and dozed with my head resting against the partially-slackened seatbelt. It was a hot day with the sun shining right in the windshield. It felt nice and sauna-like, so I closed my eyes for a bit...
My mother got pretty upset when she came back and found me in that state. She told me that's how people manage to die in the car, and when I realized how hot it was I should have popped the door open and come inside.
And, well, she was right! :)
My mother got pretty upset when she came back and found me in that state. She told me that's how people manage to die in the car, and when I realized how hot it was I should have popped the door open and come inside.
And, well, she was right! :)
My dad used to drag us around in the snow behind his truck as we laid on an upside down car hood tethered to the truck with a rope. It was a prefect 3-person toboggan. That was in the 70s. No one cared.
Just this week a woman got media blasted for having her infant pulled down the church aisle on her wedding dress train. Now I find that a bit tacky as far as weddings go but I can't imagine that child was in any more danger than I was while speeding down a dirt road on an overturned hood.
Times have changed.
Just this week a woman got media blasted for having her infant pulled down the church aisle on her wedding dress train. Now I find that a bit tacky as far as weddings go but I can't imagine that child was in any more danger than I was while speeding down a dirt road on an overturned hood.
Times have changed.
Good lord, how can this be a crime? Leaving my puppy alone in the car for a minute or three here or there (under reasonable circumstances of course) has been a productive part of developing his confidence in himself, his ability to be alone, and his ability to be calm. I'm not a parent, but I expect basics like this apply to kids too- how can they grow up to be well-adjusted adults if they must be supervised at all times?
>how can they grow up to be well-adjusted adults if they must be supervised at all times
Sad answer is they can't. What a society we're building for ourselves.
Sad answer is they can't. What a society we're building for ourselves.
All this seems crazy... It seems like we are not able to understand some risks and gave up directly to irrational fears... In particular anything related to kids.
I respect people with irrational fears, and understand that sometimes happen. For example fear or flying.
But we seem to accept that just because someone has that kind of fear is ok to act like that fear was a real danger. As the article said, driving is, comparatively, a huge risk compared with things like kid abductions or terrorist attacks. We seem not to give a dam to drive four hours a day, but be scared to death if we cross someone on a dark street...
We are simply terrible evaluating risks, and be more fearful each day...
I respect people with irrational fears, and understand that sometimes happen. For example fear or flying.
But we seem to accept that just because someone has that kind of fear is ok to act like that fear was a real danger. As the article said, driving is, comparatively, a huge risk compared with things like kid abductions or terrorist attacks. We seem not to give a dam to drive four hours a day, but be scared to death if we cross someone on a dark street...
We are simply terrible evaluating risks, and be more fearful each day...
30-40 a year, mostly from suffocation sounds almost negligible. It seems fine if you crack the window and they know how to get out.
I've flagged down a cop seeing a kid alone in a car, and would do it again.
Should people who leave their toddlers in cars be prosecuted criminally? That's a complicated question. In almost every reasonable case the answer is probably "no".
But this article doesn't really grapple with that question. Instead, it's a stew of rationalization and misdirection. It is literally an argument for leaving kids alone in cars. "I immunize my kids. I know pools are dangerous." Yeah, and you left a four year old alone in a parked car. You brought it up. BAD CALL. "This other parent let their nine-year-old ride the subway by themselves." Well, I think that's a bad call too, but who cares? Nine isn't four, the subway isn't a parked car.
"And then I left him in the car for about five minutes. He didn’t die. He wasn’t kidnapped or assaulted or forgotten or dragged across state lines by a carjacker. When I returned to the car, he was still playing his game, smiling."
Asshole. The risks to a four year old child left alone in a parked car aren't that the boogeyman might steal them.
If you want to read a piece that seriously grapples with this issue, read Gene Weingarten's "Fatal Distraction" from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02...
Should people who leave their toddlers in cars be prosecuted criminally? That's a complicated question. In almost every reasonable case the answer is probably "no".
But this article doesn't really grapple with that question. Instead, it's a stew of rationalization and misdirection. It is literally an argument for leaving kids alone in cars. "I immunize my kids. I know pools are dangerous." Yeah, and you left a four year old alone in a parked car. You brought it up. BAD CALL. "This other parent let their nine-year-old ride the subway by themselves." Well, I think that's a bad call too, but who cares? Nine isn't four, the subway isn't a parked car.
"And then I left him in the car for about five minutes. He didn’t die. He wasn’t kidnapped or assaulted or forgotten or dragged across state lines by a carjacker. When I returned to the car, he was still playing his game, smiling."
Asshole. The risks to a four year old child left alone in a parked car aren't that the boogeyman might steal them.
If you want to read a piece that seriously grapples with this issue, read Gene Weingarten's "Fatal Distraction" from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02...
Perhaps we should flag down the cops for people who take their kids into the store instead:
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Child-run-over-killed-in-parkin...
http://kansasfirstnews.com/2014/06/03/one-year-old-dies-in-p...
http://www.19actionnews.com/story/25111445/ontario-oh-father...
http://www.fox19.com/story/25669631/man-tries-to-run-over-gi...
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/3-year-o...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/28/11443067-toddler-...
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/child-run-ov...
http://www.eptrail.com/ci_23754534/boulder-child-dies-after-...
http://www.azfamily.com/news/Child-run-over-killed-in-parkin...
http://kansasfirstnews.com/2014/06/03/one-year-old-dies-in-p...
http://www.19actionnews.com/story/25111445/ontario-oh-father...
http://www.fox19.com/story/25669631/man-tries-to-run-over-gi...
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/3-year-o...
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/28/11443067-toddler-...
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/child-run-ov...
http://www.eptrail.com/ci_23754534/boulder-child-dies-after-...
These are all articles that are making my point for me. Leaving a four year old alone in a parked car in a parking lot is leaving a four year old alone in a parking lot.
From the very first article:
"Sgt. Steve Martos said the child's mother was loading her purchases into her car when Jose darted between vehicles and into the driving lane. The driver did not see the child and ran him over."
If she had left the child in the car, this wouldn't have happened.
The point isn't that you should always leave your child in the car - the point is that our assessment of risk is terrible, and the risk of leaving a child in a car on a mild weather day has not been proven to be more risky than taking them into the store.
"Sgt. Steve Martos said the child's mother was loading her purchases into her car when Jose darted between vehicles and into the driving lane. The driver did not see the child and ran him over."
If she had left the child in the car, this wouldn't have happened.
The point isn't that you should always leave your child in the car - the point is that our assessment of risk is terrible, and the risk of leaving a child in a car on a mild weather day has not been proven to be more risky than taking them into the store.
You cannot leave a four year old alone in a car and trust that they will not get out. Nobody's four year old is trustworthy; they are not biologically capable of being trustworthy at that age.
Meanwhile, a four year old escorted through a parking lot with their parent is at least somewhat visible. A four year old alone in a parking lot is invisible.
Meanwhile, a four year old escorted through a parking lot with their parent is at least somewhat visible. A four year old alone in a parking lot is invisible.
You can't have your child out of your sight for a single instant without a chance of them getting hurt. When you are asleep they could easily leave the house and get run over in the street. I'm generally a fan of your comments but this time I don't see your point at all.
And I am not advocating for a parenting strategy that demands total attention to your children 60 minutes out of 24 hours a day. I'm simply saying that one time you can't let a child out of your sight is when they're in a parking lot.
Let's make this simpler: would you leave your four year old alone in a parked car for 5 minutes while you ran into a store?
Let's make this simpler: would you leave your four year old alone in a parked car for 5 minutes while you ran into a store?
> would you leave your four year old alone in a parked car for 5 minutes while you ran into a store?
Yes. No, not really, but yes if I lived in a different time and day (a time and day I wish we did live in).
As another commenter pointed out, the biggest reason many of us don't do this these days is purely the fear of running into ridiculous situations as described in this article.
It really seems odd that you're avoiding the biggest data-driven argument that's raised in the article and has already been put directly to you. Namely, why do you assume that it's safer to take the child with you?
Parents make tradeoffs regarding safety, risk, convenience, happiness, cost, temperament, health, development, etc. ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME. It's great that "society" cares about how parents do their jobs. It's not so great that society mandates in great detail how that job should be done.
Every parent, every child, every situation, every tradeoff is different. Until it's proven that they're no good at it, let's leave that work to the people who signed up for it.
Yes. No, not really, but yes if I lived in a different time and day (a time and day I wish we did live in).
As another commenter pointed out, the biggest reason many of us don't do this these days is purely the fear of running into ridiculous situations as described in this article.
It really seems odd that you're avoiding the biggest data-driven argument that's raised in the article and has already been put directly to you. Namely, why do you assume that it's safer to take the child with you?
Parents make tradeoffs regarding safety, risk, convenience, happiness, cost, temperament, health, development, etc. ALL. THE. FREAKING. TIME. It's great that "society" cares about how parents do their jobs. It's not so great that society mandates in great detail how that job should be done.
Every parent, every child, every situation, every tradeoff is different. Until it's proven that they're no good at it, let's leave that work to the people who signed up for it.
I'm a parent of 4 kids, 2 of whom have passed the age of four. I don't recall if it's a law or just a regulation I have to follow as a certified foster parent, but either way I'm not allowed to leave any child under 6 unattended in a car.
If it weren't for that rule, then I absolutely would have left one of my kids in a car unattended for 5 minutes, but not the other.
The one I would not have got antsy fairly easily. Even they could probably have been trusted for less than 10 minutes, I wouldn't be willing to take that risk. The other, I have no doubt would have stayed in the car for a half-hour.
More recently I did leave one of them in the car, in the shade, with the windows cracked on a 65 degree day. She was 7 at the time. Someone did report me to the cops, but I said "She's 7, was in the shade and I was gone for less than 10 minutes" and never heard anything from then again.
If it weren't for that rule, then I absolutely would have left one of my kids in a car unattended for 5 minutes, but not the other.
The one I would not have got antsy fairly easily. Even they could probably have been trusted for less than 10 minutes, I wouldn't be willing to take that risk. The other, I have no doubt would have stayed in the car for a half-hour.
More recently I did leave one of them in the car, in the shade, with the windows cracked on a 65 degree day. She was 7 at the time. Someone did report me to the cops, but I said "She's 7, was in the shade and I was gone for less than 10 minutes" and never heard anything from then again.
7 is borderline. I wouldn't do it, but you know your 7 year old better than I do, and you know where you parked and I don't.
4 is not borderline. There does not exist anywhere in the world a trustworthy 4 year old.
4 is not borderline. There does not exist anywhere in the world a trustworthy 4 year old.
No, because of the risk of someone calling the police. And I don't have children and stories like this weigh against any decision to have children. We're to the point of arresting parents for not parenting the way the media wants them to, logic and rational risk assessment be damned. Do you really think you were never left in the car alone as a child?
The author was right - the most irresponsible thing she did that day was to drive with her child in the car.
The author was right - the most irresponsible thing she did that day was to drive with her child in the car.
> "This other parent let their nine-year-old ride the subway by themselves." Well, I think that's a bad call too, but who cares?
Whether that's a bad call depends on the child and the nature of the subway. When I was 12, I travelled by train through the country for 4 days, planning my own journeys, visiting musea and relatives. Not every 12 year old would be able to do that responsibly, but I was sure I could do that, and after checking that I knew my way around a train schedule, my parents agreed.
9 is younger than 12, obviously, but if it's a fairly safe subway, and it's just a single trip, dropped off at one end, picked up at the other, and the child is familiar with subways and comfortable traveling alone, I see no real problem.
Whether that's a bad call depends on the child and the nature of the subway. When I was 12, I travelled by train through the country for 4 days, planning my own journeys, visiting musea and relatives. Not every 12 year old would be able to do that responsibly, but I was sure I could do that, and after checking that I knew my way around a train schedule, my parents agreed.
9 is younger than 12, obviously, but if it's a fairly safe subway, and it's just a single trip, dropped off at one end, picked up at the other, and the child is familiar with subways and comfortable traveling alone, I see no real problem.
She wasn't "grappling", she was retelling what was probably the most emotionally trying experience of her entire life. Cut her some slack maybe?
She wrote an article that is in large part a defense of leaving toddlers alone in parked cars. That was her choice. It is reasonable to criticize an article on its own terms.
I don't find that it advocates leaving toddlers alone in parked cars at all. She states in multiple places that it was a bad decision. What it does advocate is that this shouldn't require legal action. The response in terms of police manpower and court time is wildly out of proportion to the risk.
Skip forward to the part where she's conversing with her attorney. The attorney sums the situation up as a lapse in judgement. She responds with anger towards the bystander who called her child --- alone in a car --- in to the police. Or reread the section where she interviews Skenazy. The Skenazy section overtly argues that leaving kids alone in parked cars is a negligible risk. No, think you're wrong. I think this is a piece that says, in effect, that people should chill the hell out about leaving four year olds alone in parked cars.
In all the articles you linked above, not one involved a child being left alone in a car and escaping, then getting hit in the parking lot. So, yes, until there's a documented case of that actually happening I would consider the risk to be negligible.
However, if you arrest the parent, saddle them with months of legal fees, potentially take their child away and put them into a foster care system, that's not without risks to the child as well. It's not like having your parents impoverished and potentially put in jail does wonders for a child's future either. That has a far higher probability of happening than your so far completely hypothetical scenario of the child escaping from the car in five minutes and wandering around the parking lot until getting hit.
However, if you arrest the parent, saddle them with months of legal fees, potentially take their child away and put them into a foster care system, that's not without risks to the child as well. It's not like having your parents impoverished and potentially put in jail does wonders for a child's future either. That has a far higher probability of happening than your so far completely hypothetical scenario of the child escaping from the car in five minutes and wandering around the parking lot until getting hit.
That's because parents don't generally leave four year olds alone in cars, not because four year olds left alone in cars generally do just fine.
You called her an asshole. That isn't criticizing an article. You interpret it as a defense of leaving toddlers alone, but really it's just a story. There's a lot of important points to it, like the fucked up judicial and legislative process, and the fact that all parents make mistakes. It's not a whitewash. It's real life.
I called her an asshole for summing up the risks to a toddler left alone in a parked car as: "He wasn’t kidnapped or assaulted or forgotten or dragged across state lines by a carjacker." That's really how she summed the risks up! It's an excerpt of a paragraph, not the whole paragraph, but it's the only part of the paragraph that acknowledges risk. And those aren't the real risks. The real risks are (a) that you've underestimated how likely it is that the heat in the car will injure your child (she touches on this later and it wasn't a factor here) and (b) that your child will escape your parked car and wander around, practically invisible, in a parking lot full of moving vehicles.
The whole article is full of misdirection like this; appeals to "helicopter parenting", or whole grafs about how enraged she was that another person called the police upon finding her child alone in a parked car.
It's simply a terrible article. It's meant to stir up outrage at the nanny-state and busybody bystanders and mythologized risks to children, but it repeatedly, reliably misses every mark it tries to hit. In that regard, it's at least valuable as a rorschach test to how carefully people think about what they read.
The whole article is full of misdirection like this; appeals to "helicopter parenting", or whole grafs about how enraged she was that another person called the police upon finding her child alone in a parked car.
It's simply a terrible article. It's meant to stir up outrage at the nanny-state and busybody bystanders and mythologized risks to children, but it repeatedly, reliably misses every mark it tries to hit. In that regard, it's at least valuable as a rorschach test to how carefully people think about what they read.
Words matter. A four year old, unless developmentally disabled, is not a toddler... A toddler implies someone who "toddles" as if at a very early age, and leads readers to infer that the child was closer to 2 than four. (Unless my daughter was precocious when she was walking at 11 months.)
Except this wasn't the "blistering heat of July" like in the article you linked. This was a cool, 50F day. And the author pointed that out. The child was in no danger and the parent was coming right back.
The point of linking to Weingarten's piece wasn't that the author missed a terrible risk. She covered that risk in her piece too. The point of Weingarten's piece is that it carefully looks at the issues of culpability involved in leaving kids alone in parked cars in situations that resulted in the deaths of children. And it does not come to the conclusion that all such cases should be crimes.
Would you flag down a cop even if you could talk to the parent instead? Why?
What, exactly, are the risks to a child in a locked car on a cool day for five minutes?
My thoughts immediately go to "that they will get hit by a car when they figure out how to get out".
The article states that the car had child locks, which were used, so the doors could only be opened from the outside. Furthermore, the kid specifically wanted to go on the trip in the first place so he could sit in the car and play with the iPad, which he was happily doing.
It's not impossible that in the space of five minutes the kid could get bored of the iPad, unbuckle the car seat, and figure out how to disable the child locks from inside the car. It's just very, very unlikely. If that's what had happened there would be a case for getting the police involved, but it didn't happen. If we're going start prosecuting people for every crime they could hypothetically commit at any given point, every single person would be in jail.
It's not impossible that in the space of five minutes the kid could get bored of the iPad, unbuckle the car seat, and figure out how to disable the child locks from inside the car. It's just very, very unlikely. If that's what had happened there would be a case for getting the police involved, but it didn't happen. If we're going start prosecuting people for every crime they could hypothetically commit at any given point, every single person would be in jail.
I don't agree with tptacek on this (at all), but front doors don't have child locks and it's trivial for a child to crawl up to the front seat.
You totally disagree that it's unsafe to leave a four year old alone in a parked car?
I don't, but that's not what I, the article, or your OP were really talking about. What I disagree with is this statement/attitude:
> I've flagged down a cop seeing a kid alone in a car, and would do it again.
The interesting and proper question isn't whether it's unsafe to leave a four year old alone in a parked car, it's whether leaving a four year old alone in a parked car warrants involvement from the State -- particularly, involvement kicked off by a fellow citizen.
It surprises and deeply concerns me that we live in a country/world of social content and community-driven projects, yet when one of our (real-life) community members might possibly be in trouble, a cellphone video and call to the cops is the default (and lauded) reaction. Look, had that 4-year-old been in real danger, a cellphone video wasn't going to help him. A call to the cops wasn't going to help him either (clearly, as they arrived after mom had left). Ok, maybe a coin flip on the cops at best.
What can the cops do that the nosy neighbor -- or you -- couldn't? Truly, if someone felt a child's life was in danger, everything else could wait while you supervised the situation and sent someone else to go fetch mom out of the store. Or use that cellphone to call the store, or whatever. In other words, you could actually do something. Unless this fictional example kid is literally dying before your eyes and you think medics/the coroner are going to have to be involved, what's the point of calling the cops? Two options: either a) to throw mom under the bus or b) to let yourself think you did all you could so you can get going to that next meeting.
> I've flagged down a cop seeing a kid alone in a car, and would do it again.
The interesting and proper question isn't whether it's unsafe to leave a four year old alone in a parked car, it's whether leaving a four year old alone in a parked car warrants involvement from the State -- particularly, involvement kicked off by a fellow citizen.
It surprises and deeply concerns me that we live in a country/world of social content and community-driven projects, yet when one of our (real-life) community members might possibly be in trouble, a cellphone video and call to the cops is the default (and lauded) reaction. Look, had that 4-year-old been in real danger, a cellphone video wasn't going to help him. A call to the cops wasn't going to help him either (clearly, as they arrived after mom had left). Ok, maybe a coin flip on the cops at best.
What can the cops do that the nosy neighbor -- or you -- couldn't? Truly, if someone felt a child's life was in danger, everything else could wait while you supervised the situation and sent someone else to go fetch mom out of the store. Or use that cellphone to call the store, or whatever. In other words, you could actually do something. Unless this fictional example kid is literally dying before your eyes and you think medics/the coroner are going to have to be involved, what's the point of calling the cops? Two options: either a) to throw mom under the bus or b) to let yourself think you did all you could so you can get going to that next meeting.
Oh, you were making a political point. Now I get it.
I disagree that the child locks make it safer. By locking it up, the child is unable to take care of itself. If anything happens, it's stuck. If I can't trust the child to make its own judgments about how to behave in and around the car (which is indeed unlikely with a 4 year old), then I shouldn't leave it alone in the car at all.
I'm all for letting children roam free and find their own way. I'm not a fan of locking them up without supervision.
I'm all for letting children roam free and find their own way. I'm not a fan of locking them up without supervision.
You're all for letting four year olds roam free in parking lots?
Depending on the parking lot. Of course it's not a suitable place for kids, but as long as he knows to watch out for traffic, and the parking lot is fairly open, it's better than locking him up. If it's a big and crowded parking lot, I'm more worried about him getting lost than getting run over.
How cool is "cool"? According to this[1] 15 minutes at 75 degrees can be enough. It's even possible at 50-60 degrees for an infant with blankets.
[1] http://www.parenting.com/article/tragedy-in-the-backseat-hot...
[1] http://www.parenting.com/article/tragedy-in-the-backseat-hot...
Ask yourself: How many kids are killed annually by being left alone in a car, and how many kids are killed annually in car accidents? I have no doubt that the number killed in car accidents is vastly higher.
So which is the biggest sin? Which should be the crime?
So which is the biggest sin? Which should be the crime?
I have no idea what your point is here. More kids are killed annually in car accidents than are killed by alligator attacks, too.
The point is that you don't flag down cops for parents driving their children down the road, which is the bigger risk to their safety.
That's not true, but the fact that you think it's true is one of the reasons I find this article so off-putting, because the article tries its hardest to set up that bogus comparison. I want to say something here about the base rate fallacy, but I'm too tired and impatient to figure out how to articulate it.
I don't see how would base rate fallacy apply if you compare child death rate per hour of being driven around and per hour of being left unattended in a car.
> ... I'm too tired and impatient to figure out how to articulate it.
I wish you'd have given it a go. It sounds like an argument about evaluating the risks of an action proportional to the frequency of that action being taken.
If that's the case, it seems the best conclusion you could hope to come to is "we don't have enough data". Because there's no way to know how often parents leave their kids in cars without incident, and no way to know how many parents would leave their kids in their cars were it socially acceptable.
I wish you'd have given it a go. It sounds like an argument about evaluating the risks of an action proportional to the frequency of that action being taken.
If that's the case, it seems the best conclusion you could hope to come to is "we don't have enough data". Because there's no way to know how often parents leave their kids in cars without incident, and no way to know how many parents would leave their kids in their cars were it socially acceptable.
It's almost certainly possible to come up with an estimate for how often parents leave their kids in cars. If by "we" you meant those of us currently discussing it on HN right now, then maybe you're right.
Either way, it's obvious that more kids are driven in cars than are left in cars (since nearly all kids left in cars were also driven in them as part of that trip).
Either way, it's obvious that more kids are driven in cars than are left in cars (since nearly all kids left in cars were also driven in them as part of that trip).
[deleted]
I, personally, don't believe that children should ever be left alone in a car, but I'm not sure where the legal line should be drawn.
On one extreme, it would only be criminal if a child dies under your care, which would be criminally negligent homicide or something similar.
On the other, we can't run in to drop a movie off at RedBox without getting 3 kids out of the car.
I wish people in positions of authority were able to apply more common sense and wisdom than always involving the criminal justice system.
My wife knows a lady that does (unlicensed) day care, and she leaves kids in the car all the time. She just tells them to hide so no one sees them. As far as I know, none have been injured, but it's also pretty irresponsible and I wouldn't allow her to watch my child.
On one extreme, it would only be criminal if a child dies under your care, which would be criminally negligent homicide or something similar.
On the other, we can't run in to drop a movie off at RedBox without getting 3 kids out of the car.
I wish people in positions of authority were able to apply more common sense and wisdom than always involving the criminal justice system.
My wife knows a lady that does (unlicensed) day care, and she leaves kids in the car all the time. She just tells them to hide so no one sees them. As far as I know, none have been injured, but it's also pretty irresponsible and I wouldn't allow her to watch my child.
Unfortunately, people in positions of authority have no incentive to apply wisdom and common sense. Imagine if they ignore this report, and something bad happened to the child? They'd be crucified. It's far easier to take the report, do the minimal amount of investigation required by policy, and then let a prosecutor apply their discretion as to whether charges are pressed.
The same perverse incentives apply to the prosecutor as well. It's no skin off his back to charge the mother, and he can always say "it's for the children!" if queried about it. But should a child die, when both the police and prosecutor could have done something, is something our society won't allow.
The same perverse incentives apply to the prosecutor as well. It's no skin off his back to charge the mother, and he can always say "it's for the children!" if queried about it. But should a child die, when both the police and prosecutor could have done something, is something our society won't allow.
Imagine what would have happened if she stood firm, and brought little Simon NoNo into the store. He proceeds to throw a fit, and then [gasp!] she threatens to, or even does, spank him in the butt. She'd have likely been arrested and missed the flight home.
As if Child Protective Service has anything to do with protecting children. Orphans are very profitable. Charging people with crimes is how police, judges, and prison guards get paid.
I'm not even sure where to begin responding to this.
1) CPS wasn't ever involved in this case
2) Everywhere I've ever lived CPS was already understaffed and overworked; they don't have time to go looking for children to take away, they're busy enough already.
1) CPS wasn't ever involved in this case
2) Everywhere I've ever lived CPS was already understaffed and overworked; they don't have time to go looking for children to take away, they're busy enough already.
Wow, what a story for a parent to read. Lenore Skenazy and her discussion of the various risks we take as parents is awesome. Also, read Parenting with Love and Logic. Makes the argument that over-protecting your kids is denying them important learning opportunities. Mind blowing at first, but then when you think about it (and remember your own largely unsupervised childhood) it makes a lot of sense.
I was leaving daycare a few weeks ago and saw someone do the same. She left one kid in the car while she went inside to pick up the other one, in Texas. At least it was in front of a daycare center during pickup time, where people would likely notice. Still, a number of things can delay you inside or in the worst case, if you have a freak accident then it could easily be the end of the kid too.
At this rate HomeAlone(1,2,3) will soon have to be reclassified as R rated horror by the MPAA!
"What Would You Do?" on ABC had a scenario about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSveKV8Tk3s
If you had put the kid in the trunk, nobody would of ever called.
Is it ok if my car can keep the AC running (engine off) while my kid is in the car? I'd probably get arrested for the possibility that the car could get too cold...
"He glanced up at me, his eyes alight with what I’d come to recognize as a sort of pre-tantrum agitation. “No, no, no, no, no! I don’t want to go in,” he repeated, and turned back to his game."
That's where you failed. Clearly, there was a pattern of negligent parenting.
That's where you failed. Clearly, there was a pattern of negligent parenting.
Are you being serious with that comment? I can't see how it's a joke. I strongly suspect you'll end up being downvoted into transparency, but in case not, where is the 'pattern'? Where, in fact, is even another example of negligence (conceding that some people may consider leaving the child in the car negligent, which I don't.)
EDIT: Ah, it happened while I was replying, probably for the best.
EDIT: Ah, it happened while I was replying, probably for the best.
I understand where you're coming from here, but to parents who actually do have spines (and seek to grow such spines in their children), it is actually fairly easy to see that the reason the 4-year-old was left in the car was due the fact that he was running both the conversation and the decision-making that occurred throughout the incident.
Which is to say, I can see the GP making the general point that the mom didn't have a "temporary lapse in judgement" as much as a systemic failure to live up to her role as the adult in the parent->child relationship.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the mother is negligent for either this or leaving the kid in the car. I'm just saying when you can recognize that your child will throw a tantrum and your only recourse is to begin making concessions to them, you're already at a point where they are raising you more than you are raising them.
Which is to say, I can see the GP making the general point that the mom didn't have a "temporary lapse in judgement" as much as a systemic failure to live up to her role as the adult in the parent->child relationship.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing the mother is negligent for either this or leaving the kid in the car. I'm just saying when you can recognize that your child will throw a tantrum and your only recourse is to begin making concessions to them, you're already at a point where they are raising you more than you are raising them.
A good point. In a parenting class I went to recently, they showed the standard classical conditioning diagram, and then said roughly: "Now, while we know that there is more to human behavior than this box represents, it does describe a lot of it, and remember, that's not just your child, but you as well."
I was not in there more than 5 mins. When I got out, started to pull away, and was stopped by a cop who then called animal services.
This level of nanny-state-ism drives me slightly crazy. But the real issue for me was the person who decided s/he needed to call the police (the police for this). If it were me, I would probably sit and wait on a bench nearby, keeping an eye out. It's true that the dog was barking like crazy but he's a dog (a beagle at that), and dogs bark. I'd watch and if he showed signs of distress, I'd act. Or, if it turned into 20, 30 mins, then probably I would also react. But the person who comes across a situation and instantly goes to "call the police" is not something I understand.
I think maybe we all know the type who just likes to report things. Who likes that power trip. I can't help but feel we'd maybe be better off if those types learned to be more circumspect in their actions.
(In the end i paid my $35 fee and told the cop and animal control that I thought what they were doing was a total farce.)