Children dying in hot cars - mistake or crime?

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:04:56 PM
Author: decodelighted
Job job job ... LOL. Vesper, you seem pretty sure its just JOBS that lead to neglect. I''d bet most cellphone driving accidents aren''t job related ... just regular run-of-the-mill GOSSIP or LIFESTUFF. And the most chilling cases of child neglect I''ve read about involved people playing VIDEOGAMES or answering the door or shopping on line. All potential SAHM activities. As well as working parent activities. If you think it couldn''t happen to you, you''re one step closer to it happening. JMHO.

That psycho shooting santa was playing video games I think, when his girlfriend came home and found their son dead in the pool.

My friend (SAHM) got a bit of chastisement from me for ALWAYS talking on the cell phone when she was in the car in between errands (with the kids in the car). That was one of the few times she could talk fairly uninterrupted. She was also always looking back at her kids for more that a second or two WHILE she was driving. She told me, "you''ll see when you have kids someday, you have to turn around to check on them." I told her that while she turns around to check on their welfare, she could get everyone killed (she''s had some scary close calls WHILE I was in the car with her). I also said that was one thing I would not do. I have not done it to this day. I do the quick glance in the rearview, but I never turn around while driving.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/9/2009 10:33:27 AM
Author: vespergirl

Hi everyone, I''m the OP, so I thought I would check back in. First of all, yes, I did read the entire article, start to finish. Also, as a parent of a small child who has NEVER forgotten his whereabouts for an instant, and who has never ''forgotten'' him in the car, I feel that I''m also qualified to weigh in on this. Maybe it''s because I''m a SAHM, but my son is my full time job. Taking care of him is my full-time job, so all of my mental energy is dedicated to his welfare. Maybe it''s easier for parents to forget about their kids if they''re used to handing them off to other caretakers, like the other parent, a grandparent, and day-care center, etc., and then they can ''forget'' about the kid for the rest of the day when it''s someone else''s responsibility, but it was interesting to me that none of the cases stated in the article happened to SAHMs - it happened to people who were preoccupied with jobs other than the caretaking of their children. I''m not trying to turn this into a big work/stay-at-home debate, but I do disagree with the fact that it could happen to ''anybody'' - because the people featured in the article seemed to value work priorities over their children''s welfare, even if subconsciously. I bet none of them forgot their Blackberries in the car.

Vespergirl, I know you referred to the article. But you also said that you don''t believe it could happen to anybody - would it be safe to assume that since SAHM''s don''t value work priorities over children''s welfare, they are one of those you don''t believe it could happen to?

And really, your comment on the brakes, is THAT your defense? Give me a break. We are not talking illegal, legal here. We''re talking PREOCCUPATION here. Your "defense" of the woman who forgot to put on the brakes is just lame. It is the SAME thing as the person who left the kid in the car - your focus was somewhere else and you MISTAKENLY killed your kid.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM
Author: vespergirl
As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn't have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 1:58:12 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 3/10/2009 1:49:45 PM
Author: dragonfly411
Tgal- I def don''t think you have to be preoccupied with a job, sorry if it seemed that way. But I do think that if you are in a stage in life where you cannot make that child''s life a top priority that you can remember their every move then maybe you should wait to have children until your life is more calm. To me, the mother neglecting her child while talking on the phone is equivalent to the parent who leaves a child in a car. It is neglect to me, either way. I understand that things happen and you can forget things, but to forget your child''s presence after you placed them in a car that morning is not excusable to me. One story I saw was the mother forgetting to go to her child''s school. If you load your child in and are taking them to school, how do you forget them?I Understand driving right by, but forgetting the child in the car the entire day whilst you are at work? That''s neglectful and complete absentmindedness to me. I def understand that tragedies and mistakes happen, and I am of the position that children who drown are terrible tragedies, because those take a fraction of a second, but to me forgetting the whereabouts of your child, and being absent enough to leave them in a car is just thoughtlessness and neglect to me. That would be like forgetting your baby is on the couch asleep and walking down to a neighbor''s for a few hours, or forgetting that your dog is locked in your car in 90 degree weather and hyperventilating. If people can be charged with neglect on that last one, then they certainly can with children too (and yes, it is charged as animal neglect in my state

but it''s also Florida where it stays molten hot)

Dragonfly, I wasn''t referring to you with my point that it working mothers aren''t the only ones this could happen to. Vespergirl has repeatedly made the point that this wouldn''t happen to a SAHM.

Drowning in a pool may seem like a split second, but I reckon it takes a fair amount of forgetting and I think in some cases people don''t find the babies until some time after they are dead in the pool. We''re just talking degrees here. If the parent can be charged for the pool incident, then yes, they should be charged with the car incident. Why one and not the other?

I am, to some degree, playing devil''s advocate here. I personally cannot fathom myself doing this kind of stuff, but I do honestly believe it could happen to anyone. Realizing that is perhaps what will prevent it from happening to me.

I guess I''m too much of a realist in some ways. I believe my husband can cheat on me. I believe I can cheat on him. We both do everything we can to prevent it. And that''s the best we can do, whether it''s relationships or child rearing.

I never said that it wouldn''t, I said that according to the article, it has not. The author listed just about every other job under the sun, so if it had happened to a stay-at-home parent, I figure that he would have mentioned it.

As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

That is a baseless assumption (incorrect or not - none of us knows). Here is the passage from the article you keep referring to:

"The wealthy do, it turns out. And the poor, and the middle class. Parents of all ages and ethnicities do it. Mothers are just as likely to do it as fathers. It happens to the chronically absent-minded and to the fanatically organized, to the college-educated and to the marginally literate. In the last 10 years, it has happened to a dentist. A postal clerk. A social worker. A police officer. An accountant. A soldier. A paralegal. An electrician. A Protestant clergyman. A rabbinical student. A nurse. A construction worker. An assistant principal. It happened to a mental health counselor, a college professor and a pizza chef. It happened to a pediatrician. It happened to a rocket scientist."

The author of the article listed 18 different example occupations from the past 10 years. The article states that this tragedy occurs between 15 and 25 times every year in the US. He did not list every single occupation of a parent that has made this tragic mistake. He listed some examples.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:17:25 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 3/9/2009 10:33:27 AM
Author: vespergirl

Hi everyone, I''m the OP, so I thought I would check back in. First of all, yes, I did read the entire article, start to finish. Also, as a parent of a small child who has NEVER forgotten his whereabouts for an instant, and who has never ''forgotten'' him in the car, I feel that I''m also qualified to weigh in on this. Maybe it''s because I''m a SAHM, but my son is my full time job. Taking care of him is my full-time job, so all of my mental energy is dedicated to his welfare. Maybe it''s easier for parents to forget about their kids if they''re used to handing them off to other caretakers, like the other parent, a grandparent, and day-care center, etc., and then they can ''forget'' about the kid for the rest of the day when it''s someone else''s responsibility, but it was interesting to me that none of the cases stated in the article happened to SAHMs - it happened to people who were preoccupied with jobs other than the caretaking of their children. I''m not trying to turn this into a big work/stay-at-home debate, but I do disagree with the fact that it could happen to ''anybody'' - because the people featured in the article seemed to value work priorities over their children''s welfare, even if subconsciously. I bet none of them forgot their Blackberries in the car.

Vespergirl, I know you referred to the article. But you also said that you don''t believe it could happen to anybody - would it be safe to assume that since SAHM''s don''t value work priorities over children''s welfare, they are one of those you don''t believe it could happen to?

And really, your comment on the brakes, is THAT your defense? Give me a break. We are not talking illegal, legal here. We''re talking PREOCCUPATION here. Your ''defense'' of the woman who forgot to put on the brakes is just lame. It is the SAME thing as the person who left the kid in the car - your focus was somewhere else and you MISTAKENLY killed your kid.

Yes we are. The title of my post was "mistake or crime." The whole point of my post was to determine whether these are mistakes, or crimes that need to be prosecuted. I do think that the mother who left the brakes off the carriage was irresponsible, but that particular act is not illegal, so it''s up to the police to determine whether or not she was responsible for the death (I''m not familiar with that case at all, so I refrain from giving my opinion on it). My whole point is that even though the parents in the article did not intentionally leave their kids in the car, leaving children locked in a hot car is still a crime, and the result is a dead child due to the illegal action of a parent, even if there was no criminal intent. You cannot plead ignorance when breaking the law.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM
Author: vespergirl
As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.

Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

 

[TravelingGal]

OK, I''ve just read the entire article - I couldn''t read it before because these things do upset me, but for the sake of continuing this discussion, I felt I should read it.

Honestly, now that I have, I am absolutely stunned that as a parent, vespergirl, that you cannot feel any sort of compassion for these parents.

I am not negating how these children died or the pain they experienced. I understand your outrage on their behalf.

Your read on Lynn Balfour is completey different from mine. I cannot believe that any parent would say that someone who went through such a tragedy should be denied any further children - especially since they have to muster up amazing courage to do so.

I cannot believe you think these parents are "self absorbed." That astounds me. What happened was a lapse in memory. Memory does not work the way YOU WANT IT TO. It is faulty and can be deceiving. MSNBC ran an interesting article of a woman who convicted the wrong man TWICE in trial of rape.

I see your point that potential psycho parents can bake their kids in cars on purpose with the hopes they will get off scot free. But if I were to make a call on that one, I would rather spare the parents of an honest mistake any more agony and take my chances on potential psycho baking mom.

How awful, that you can''t find it in you to find compassion for someone who loses their child, even by their own thoughtless (but not intentional) hand.

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:42:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM

Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM

Author: vespergirl

As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn't have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.


Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

Ok, I have to ask. Not that I agree, but if we do decide to make this a criminal act, what exactly do you think we should do? After they're convicted, what type of punishment should happen?

I guess I don't see what the point of making it criminal is. It was an accident. How does punishment help? Aren't they punished enough as it is?

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:42:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM
Author: vespergirl
As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.

Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

Except INTENT is exactly why both the judge found the parent not guilty and why the DA didn''t prosecute the other parent the first place. The parent prosecuted were found innocent of a CRIME. So going by history now on verdicts given, the act of forgetting that your kid was in the car is not a crime.

The crime is LEAVING the kid in the car - which implies you did it INTENTIONALLY. These people FORGOT about the kid, period!

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:42:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM
Author: vespergirl
As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.

Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

Sorry, but that''s not correct. I know you are not/ were not a lawyer but here''s a wikipedia article that could help explain why that''s incorrect without getting into legalese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal)

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:39:18 PM
Author: vespergirl
You cannot plead ignorance when breaking the law.

These people are not pleading ignorance of the law ... they knew it was illegal to leave a child in a hot car. Their claim is that they didn''t realize they''d done any such thing - until it was too late. I''m awestruck by your seeming lack of compassion & stubborn belief that such a thing could never happen to a "caring" parent.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:04:55 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:39:18 PM
Author: vespergirl
You cannot plead ignorance when breaking the law.

These people are not pleading ignorance of the law ... they knew it was illegal to leave a child in a hot car. Their claim is that they didn''t realize they''d done any such thing - until it was too late. I''m awestruck by your seeming lack of compassion & stubborn belief that such a thing could never happen to a ''caring'' parent.

Seriously me too. Seriously gobsmacked.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:58:25 PM
Author: lucyandroger

Date: 3/10/2009 2:42:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM
Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM
Author: vespergirl
As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.

Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

Sorry, but that''s not correct. I know you are not/ were not a lawyer but here''s a wikipedia article that could help explain why that''s incorrect without getting into legalese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal)

Here is a study entitled "Hyperthermia Deaths of Children in Vehcles" published by by Jan Null, CCM, Adjunct Professor of Meteorology, San Francisco State University. I will post here some bits from the "Legal" section of the article, which states that both parents and caretakers have been charged and convicted under these laws, even though the majority of the parents forgot the children, as opposed to leaving them intentionally. So it looks like the justice system did find them culpable, regardless of intent. Here is the web page, followed by some stats: http://ggweather.com/heat/

LEGAL
Only 14 states have laws prohibiting leaving a child unattended in a vehicle.
The remaining 36 states do not have laws specifically against leaving a child unattended in a vehicle
Currently 9 states have proposed legislation that would make it a crime to leave a child unattended in a vehicle
Another 7 states have had previously proposed unattended child laws
An Associated Press (AP) study "Wide disparity exists in sentences for leaving kids to die in hot cars" http://ggweather.com/heat/ap_sentencing.htm
examined both the frequency of prosecutions and length of sentences in hyperthermia deaths
- Charges were files in 49% of all the deaths. 81% resulted in convictions.
- In cases with paid caregivers (i.e., childcare workers, babysitters) 84% were charged and 96% convicted
- Only 7% of the cases involved drugs or alcohol

Circumstances
An examination of media reports about the 361 child vehicular hyperthermia deaths for a ten year period (1998 through 2007) shows the following circumstances:
51% - child "forgotten" by caregiver
30% - child playing in unattended vehicle
18% - child intentionally left in vehicle by adult
1% - circumstances unknown

Here are some stats from the AP article: http://ggweather.com/heat/ap_sentencing.htm

Since 1998, charges were filed in 49 percent of cases. In those that have been decided, 81 percent resulted in convictions or guilty pleas, and half of those brought jail sentences - the median sentence being two years. Parents were only slightly less likely to be charged and convicted than others, but the median sentence was much higher - 54 months.

In cases involving paid caregivers, 84 percent were charged, with 96 percent of those convicted. But while they are jailed at about the same rate as parents, the median sentence in those cases was just 12 months.

Women were jailed more often and for longer periods than men. But when the AP compared mothers and fathers, the sentencing gap was even wider.

Mothers were jailed 59 percent of the time, compared to 47 percent for fathers. And the median sentence was three years for dads, but five for moms.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:46:29 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 3/10/2009 2:42:22 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM

Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM

Author: vespergirl

As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.


Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

Ok, I have to ask. Not that I agree, but if we do decide to make this a criminal act, what exactly do you think we should do? After they''re convicted, what type of punishment should happen?

I guess I don''t see what the point of making it criminal is. It was an accident. How does punishment help? Aren''t they punished enough as it is?

I replied in an earlier post that I feel that jail time is not appropriate, but I do believe in a conviction and a suspended sentence, with mandatory community service. I have been doing some research, and found this quote from a Memphis DA that I agree with:

http://ggweather.com/heat/ap_sentencing.htm

But in Memphis, Tenn., District Attorney General William L. Gibbons scoffs at the notion that he wouldn''t charge someone - especially a parent - who claims to have simply forgotten a child. "We''re not talking in most cases about sending anyone to prison," he says. "We are talking about placing someone on probation, maybe requiring them to go to some parenting classes or something like that, and giving them a felony record as a result of what happened. And I think that''s reasonable."

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:45:48 PM
Author: TravelingGal
OK, I''ve just read the entire article - I couldn''t read it before because these things do upset me, but for the sake of continuing this discussion, I felt I should read it.

Honestly, now that I have, I am absolutely stunned that as a parent, vespergirl, that you cannot feel any sort of compassion for these parents.

I am not negating how these children died or the pain they experienced. I understand your outrage on their behalf.

Your read on Lynn Balfour is completey different from mine. I cannot believe that any parent would say that someone who went through such a tragedy should be denied any further children - especially since they have to muster up amazing courage to do so.

I cannot believe you think these parents are ''self absorbed.'' That astounds me. What happened was a lapse in memory. Memory does not work the way YOU WANT IT TO. It is faulty and can be deceiving. MSNBC ran an interesting article of a woman who convicted the wrong man TWICE in trial of rape.

I see your point that potential psycho parents can bake their kids in cars on purpose with the hopes they will get off scot free. But if I were to make a call on that one, I would rather spare the parents of an honest mistake any more agony and take my chances on potential psycho baking mom.

How awful, that you can''t find it in you to find compassion for someone who loses their child, even by their own thoughtless (but not intentional) hand.

I do feel compassion for those parents. I cried throughout the entire reading of the article. However, I feel sorrier for their children than I do for them. I showed my husband the article as well and asked him to read it. He mentioned that the only parent in the article that he could truly relate to was the one father who tried to wrestle away a police officer''s gun when he discovered what he had done so that he could shoot himself. I can''t imagine going through what those parents are going through, and hope that I never have to live through anything like that. But honestly, parents that are suffering through the loss of a child, I can''t imagine that an investigation or prosecution would make them feel any worse than they already do (especially, if, like Lyn Balfour, you don''t think that you did anything wrong) - what could be worse than the death of the child?

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:12:33 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:46:29 PM

Author: elledizzy5

Date: 3/10/2009 2:42:22 PM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM


Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM


Author: vespergirl


As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.



Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

Ok, I have to ask. Not that I agree, but if we do decide to make this a criminal act, what exactly do you think we should do? After they''re convicted, what type of punishment should happen?



I guess I don''t see what the point of making it criminal is. It was an accident. How does punishment help? Aren''t they punished enough as it is?

I replied in an earlier post that I feel that jail time is not appropriate, but I do believe in a conviction and a suspended sentence, with mandatory community service. I have been doing some research, and found this quote from a Memphis DA that I agree with:


http://ggweather.com/heat/ap_sentencing.htm


But in Memphis, Tenn., District Attorney General William L. Gibbons scoffs at the notion that he wouldn''t charge someone - especially a parent - who claims to have simply forgotten a child. ''We''re not talking in most cases about sending anyone to prison,'' he says. ''We are talking about placing someone on probation, maybe requiring them to go to some parenting classes or something like that, and giving them a felony record as a result of what happened. And I think that''s reasonable.''

Thanks, I must have missed your response.

I can deal with community service and/or parenting classes. That is reasonable.

I cannot get behind calling these people felons. They''re simply not felons. I believe a felony is defined by being punishable by at least a year in prison. If they''re not getting jail time, they''re not felons. It''s almost like we just want to label them "felon" to distinguish them from ourselves, so we can''t possible see ourselves doing such a thing, because we''re not "felons"

IMO, it''s analogous to a scarlet letter. They don''t need to be branded for the rest of their lives for an accident.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:18:29 PM
Author: vespergirl

I do feel compassion for those parents. I cried throughout the entire reading of the article. However, I feel sorrier for their children than I do for them. I showed my husband the article as well and asked him to read it. He mentioned that the only parent in the article that he could truly relate to was the one father who tried to wrestle away a police officer''s gun when he discovered what he had done so that he could shoot himself. I can''t imagine going through what those parents are going through, and hope that I never have to live through anything like that. But honestly, parents that are suffering through the loss of a child, I can''t imagine that an investigation or prosecution would make them feel any worse than they already do (especially, if, like Lyn Balfour, you don''t think that you did anything wrong) - what could be worse than the death of the child?

First off, I can potentially agree with your post above this one. It''s a slippery slope, and the law has to figure it out somehow.

Secondly, how many of those "caregivers" were SAHMs vs working moms?

I''m glad you feel compassion for them. In your initial post, you said you did not feel sorry for them at all. I would say that the opinions you have received (mine at least) are partly because how you''ve positioned yourself on this issue. To say these people are undeserving of any future children is terrible, IMHO.

As to your question of "what could be worse than the death of the child?" My answer would be people like you who accuse them of being terrible people and reminding them of it every day.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:21:38 PM
Author: elledizzy5

Date: 3/10/2009 3:12:33 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:46:29 PM

Author: elledizzy5

Date: 3/10/2009 2:42:22 PM

Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM


Author: decodelighted

Date: 3/10/2009 2:07:17 PM


Author: vespergirl


As far as the woman you keep referring to who did not put the brake on the stroller, it is not illegal to leave the brake off a stroller. It is illegal to leave a child locked in a hot car.

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

If lesgislation were passed making any of those actions criminal, then police and DAs would be compelled to prosecute.



Legislation HAS been passed making it illegal to lock children and animals in cars without ventilation, which is what makes it a criminal action subject to prosecution, whether the children were locked in intentionally or not. The action of leaving a child locked in a sealed car is criminal, regardless of intent.

Ok, I have to ask. Not that I agree, but if we do decide to make this a criminal act, what exactly do you think we should do? After they''re convicted, what type of punishment should happen?



I guess I don''t see what the point of making it criminal is. It was an accident. How does punishment help? Aren''t they punished enough as it is?

I replied in an earlier post that I feel that jail time is not appropriate, but I do believe in a conviction and a suspended sentence, with mandatory community service. I have been doing some research, and found this quote from a Memphis DA that I agree with:


http://ggweather.com/heat/ap_sentencing.htm


But in Memphis, Tenn., District Attorney General William L. Gibbons scoffs at the notion that he wouldn''t charge someone - especially a parent - who claims to have simply forgotten a child. ''We''re not talking in most cases about sending anyone to prison,'' he says. ''We are talking about placing someone on probation, maybe requiring them to go to some parenting classes or something like that, and giving them a felony record as a result of what happened. And I think that''s reasonable.''

Thanks, I must have missed your response.

I can deal with community service and/or parenting classes. That is reasonable.

I cannot get behind calling these people felons. They''re simply not felons. I believe a felony is defined by being punishable by at least a year in prison. If they''re not getting jail time, they''re not felons. It''s almost like we just want to label them ''felon'' to distinguish them from ourselves, so we can''t possible see ourselves doing such a thing, because we''re not ''felons''

IMO, it''s analogous to a scarlet letter. They don''t need to be branded for the rest of their lives for an accident.

I don''t know if this is true, but I''m wondering if perhaps felons wouldn''t be able to, say, foster a child or run a day care center. Maybe they are trying to prevent them from being in situations where they may put other people''s children at risk? Otherwise, I don''t know what the point would be of charging it as a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:23:52 PM
Author: TravelingGal

Date: 3/10/2009 3:18:29 PM
Author: vespergirl

I do feel compassion for those parents. I cried throughout the entire reading of the article. However, I feel sorrier for their children than I do for them. I showed my husband the article as well and asked him to read it. He mentioned that the only parent in the article that he could truly relate to was the one father who tried to wrestle away a police officer''s gun when he discovered what he had done so that he could shoot himself. I can''t imagine going through what those parents are going through, and hope that I never have to live through anything like that. But honestly, parents that are suffering through the loss of a child, I can''t imagine that an investigation or prosecution would make them feel any worse than they already do (especially, if, like Lyn Balfour, you don''t think that you did anything wrong) - what could be worse than the death of the child?

First off, I can potentially agree with your post above this one. It''s a slippery slope, and the law has to figure it out somehow.

Secondly, how many of those ''caregivers'' were SAHMs vs working moms?

I''m glad you feel compassion for them. In your initial post, you said you did not feel sorry for them at all. I would say that the opinions you have received (mine at least) are partly because how you''ve positioned yourself on this issue. To say these people are undeserving of any future children is terrible, IMHO.

As to your question of ''what could be worse than the death of the child?'' My answer would be people like you who accuse them of being terrible people and reminding them of it every day.

Honestly, as bad as I feel for their personal loss, I wouldn''t trust any of them to babysit for me.

And even though several of these people are in my area (the baby who died in Herndon was literally down the road from my house) it''s not like I''ve called them up to accuse them and tell them what I think of what they did. They agreed to participate in an article in the Washington Post that millions of people were going to read, and the public has a right to an opinion on their actions and responses, which they chose to publicize.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:18:29 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:45:48 PM
Author: TravelingGal
OK, I''ve just read the entire article - I couldn''t read it before because these things do upset me, but for the sake of continuing this discussion, I felt I should read it.

Honestly, now that I have, I am absolutely stunned that as a parent, vespergirl, that you cannot feel any sort of compassion for these parents.

I am not negating how these children died or the pain they experienced. I understand your outrage on their behalf.

Your read on Lynn Balfour is completey different from mine. I cannot believe that any parent would say that someone who went through such a tragedy should be denied any further children - especially since they have to muster up amazing courage to do so.

I cannot believe you think these parents are ''self absorbed.'' That astounds me. What happened was a lapse in memory. Memory does not work the way YOU WANT IT TO. It is faulty and can be deceiving. MSNBC ran an interesting article of a woman who convicted the wrong man TWICE in trial of rape.

I see your point that potential psycho parents can bake their kids in cars on purpose with the hopes they will get off scot free. But if I were to make a call on that one, I would rather spare the parents of an honest mistake any more agony and take my chances on potential psycho baking mom.

How awful, that you can''t find it in you to find compassion for someone who loses their child, even by their own thoughtless (but not intentional) hand.

I do feel compassion for those parents. I cried throughout the entire reading of the article. However, I feel sorrier for their children than I do for them. I showed my husband the article as well and asked him to read it. He mentioned that the only parent in the article that he could truly relate to was the one father who tried to wrestle away a police officer''s gun when he discovered what he had done so that he could shoot himself. I can''t imagine going through what those parents are going through, and hope that I never have to live through anything like that. But honestly, parents that are suffering through the loss of a child, I can''t imagine that an investigation or prosecution would make them feel any worse than they already do (especially, if, like Lyn Balfour, you don''t think that you did anything wrong) - what could be worse than the death of the child?

I''m not sure why you continue to characterize her in this way. Again, I have to go right to the source:

*****

"People say I''m a strong woman," Balfour says, "but I''m not. It''s just that when I grieve, I grieve alone . . ."

The pacifier pops out of Braiden''s mouth. Balfour rinses it, pops it back in.

" . . . because deep down I feel I don''t have the right to grieve in front of others."

Balfour says she has carefully crafted the face she shows the world.

"I would like to disappear, to move someplace where no one knows who I am and what I did. I would do that in a heartbeat, but I can''t. I have to say my name. I''m the lady who killed her child, and I have to be that lady because I promised Bryce."

The promise, she says, came as she held her son''s body in the hospital. "I kissed him for the last time, and I told him how sorry I was, and I said I would do everything in my power to make sure this will never happen to another child."

*******

 

[poshpepper]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:12:33 PM
Author: vespergirl

I replied in an earlier post that I feel that jail time is not appropriate, but I do believe in a conviction and a suspended sentence, with mandatory community service. I have been doing some research, and found this quote from a Memphis DA that I agree with:

http://ggweather.com/heat/ap_sentencing.htm

But in Memphis, Tenn., District Attorney General William L. Gibbons scoffs at the notion that he wouldn't charge someone - especially a parent - who claims to have simply forgotten a child. 'We're not talking in most cases about sending anyone to prison,' he says. 'We are talking about placing someone on probation, maybe requiring them to go to some parenting classes or something like that, and giving them a felony record as a result of what happened. And I think that's reasonable.'

I agree that these parents should be charged with a crime and prosecuted... and that jail time is also not the answer.
Being charged with a misdemeanor would be a good solution since it keeps a record of what happens. This can be likened to a car accident that causes a death or serious injury... the accident was not intentional but by some circumstances someone lost their life or quality of life and the driver that caused that accident many times is charged with manslaughter.


I was thinking about this earlier...
A sleep deprived mother who has a bagillion things to do forgets her baby in the car and he ends up dying from the heat.
A sleep deprived mother who has a bagillion things to do drops off her baby at the daycare center and then has an accident on the way to her job because she fell asleep at the wheel or is distracted for a second and cannot react and kills a fellow motorist.
The second scenario would result in at least a DMV record of bad driving with an accident that resulted in a death and may also result in separate criminal case from the deceased family members.

For this reason I think that if a child is left in a car by pure accident and he/she dies it should go on the "record" of the parent responsible. Bottom line is that you are still responsible for that action.

As for situations where a baby drowns in a pool or is left in a room alone and strangles themselves or chokes, etc... (and other common accidents involving child death), usually the parents are investigated and sometimes charged with negligence...

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:32:34 PM
Author: lucyandroger

Date: 3/10/2009 3:18:29 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:45:48 PM
Author: TravelingGal
OK, I''ve just read the entire article - I couldn''t read it before because these things do upset me, but for the sake of continuing this discussion, I felt I should read it.

Honestly, now that I have, I am absolutely stunned that as a parent, vespergirl, that you cannot feel any sort of compassion for these parents.

I am not negating how these children died or the pain they experienced. I understand your outrage on their behalf.

Your read on Lynn Balfour is completey different from mine. I cannot believe that any parent would say that someone who went through such a tragedy should be denied any further children - especially since they have to muster up amazing courage to do so.

I cannot believe you think these parents are ''self absorbed.'' That astounds me. What happened was a lapse in memory. Memory does not work the way YOU WANT IT TO. It is faulty and can be deceiving. MSNBC ran an interesting article of a woman who convicted the wrong man TWICE in trial of rape.

I see your point that potential psycho parents can bake their kids in cars on purpose with the hopes they will get off scot free. But if I were to make a call on that one, I would rather spare the parents of an honest mistake any more agony and take my chances on potential psycho baking mom.

How awful, that you can''t find it in you to find compassion for someone who loses their child, even by their own thoughtless (but not intentional) hand.

I do feel compassion for those parents. I cried throughout the entire reading of the article. However, I feel sorrier for their children than I do for them. I showed my husband the article as well and asked him to read it. He mentioned that the only parent in the article that he could truly relate to was the one father who tried to wrestle away a police officer''s gun when he discovered what he had done so that he could shoot himself. I can''t imagine going through what those parents are going through, and hope that I never have to live through anything like that. But honestly, parents that are suffering through the loss of a child, I can''t imagine that an investigation or prosecution would make them feel any worse than they already do (especially, if, like Lyn Balfour, you don''t think that you did anything wrong) - what could be worse than the death of the child?

I''m not sure why you continue to characterize her in this way. Again, I have to go right to the source:

*****

''People say I''m a strong woman,'' Balfour says, ''but I''m not. It''s just that when I grieve, I grieve alone . . .''

The pacifier pops out of Braiden''s mouth. Balfour rinses it, pops it back in.

'' . . . because deep down I feel I don''t have the right to grieve in front of others.''

Balfour says she has carefully crafted the face she shows the world.

''I would like to disappear, to move someplace where no one knows who I am and what I did. I would do that in a heartbeat, but I can''t. I have to say my name. I''m the lady who killed her child, and I have to be that lady because I promised Bryce.''

The promise, she says, came as she held her son''s body in the hospital. ''I kissed him for the last time, and I told him how sorry I was, and I said I would do everything in my power to make sure this will never happen to another child.''

*******

It''s interesting that you chose those quotes, because this is the one from Lyn Balfour that really stuck with me:
"I don''t feel I need to forgive myself," she says plainly, "because what I did was not intentional."

Speaking for myself, as a parent, I would never forgive myself, intentional or not. I could not live with myself. That''s why she strikes me as cold.

 

[vespergirl]

I just went back to the Washington Post comments board on the article, and this poster, WiseOldWoman, perfectly and eloquently states the way that I feel about this article. Please read her post in it''s entirety:

WiseOldWoman wrote:
I hope the point taken away from this article is not so much that it could happen to anyone, but that it could happen *unless precautions are taken,* and thus parents and caregivers should be vigilant about taking those precautions. Use a teddy, a back-seat mirror, putting your briefcase in the back seat, whatever it takes.

Because in the end there really is no excuse for forgetting a child. There can be empathy and overwhelming compassion, but it was not an unpreventable, totally accidental, occurrence. "Forgetting" is not the same as "not knowing." If a young child climbs into a car by himself, one can accurately say no one knew. But if an adult puts a child in the car, buckles up the safety straps, and drives away, that person KNEW the child was there. If the person should later forget, that doesn''t change the fact of having been fully aware of putting that child in the car.

The parents who were responsible for the deaths of their children have my lasting sympathy and compassion, because surely they will live with their regrets forever. But to say it could happen to anyone sounds too glib and facile to me, too close to saying it wasn''t their fault or their responsibility. And that''s just not so; once a young child is in someone''s care, it is absolutely the responsibility of that adult to take whatever precautions are necessary to keep that child safe.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:37:50 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 3:32:34 PM
Author: lucyandroger

Date: 3/10/2009 3:18:29 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:45:48 PM
Author: TravelingGal
OK, I''ve just read the entire article - I couldn''t read it before because these things do upset me, but for the sake of continuing this discussion, I felt I should read it.

Honestly, now that I have, I am absolutely stunned that as a parent, vespergirl, that you cannot feel any sort of compassion for these parents.

I am not negating how these children died or the pain they experienced. I understand your outrage on their behalf.

Your read on Lynn Balfour is completey different from mine. I cannot believe that any parent would say that someone who went through such a tragedy should be denied any further children - especially since they have to muster up amazing courage to do so.

I cannot believe you think these parents are ''self absorbed.'' That astounds me. What happened was a lapse in memory. Memory does not work the way YOU WANT IT TO. It is faulty and can be deceiving. MSNBC ran an interesting article of a woman who convicted the wrong man TWICE in trial of rape.

I see your point that potential psycho parents can bake their kids in cars on purpose with the hopes they will get off scot free. But if I were to make a call on that one, I would rather spare the parents of an honest mistake any more agony and take my chances on potential psycho baking mom.

How awful, that you can''t find it in you to find compassion for someone who loses their child, even by their own thoughtless (but not intentional) hand.

I do feel compassion for those parents. I cried throughout the entire reading of the article. However, I feel sorrier for their children than I do for them. I showed my husband the article as well and asked him to read it. He mentioned that the only parent in the article that he could truly relate to was the one father who tried to wrestle away a police officer''s gun when he discovered what he had done so that he could shoot himself. I can''t imagine going through what those parents are going through, and hope that I never have to live through anything like that. But honestly, parents that are suffering through the loss of a child, I can''t imagine that an investigation or prosecution would make them feel any worse than they already do (especially, if, like Lyn Balfour, you don''t think that you did anything wrong) - what could be worse than the death of the child?

I''m not sure why you continue to characterize her in this way. Again, I have to go right to the source:

*****

''People say I''m a strong woman,'' Balfour says, ''but I''m not. It''s just that when I grieve, I grieve alone . . .''

The pacifier pops out of Braiden''s mouth. Balfour rinses it, pops it back in.

'' . . . because deep down I feel I don''t have the right to grieve in front of others.''

Balfour says she has carefully crafted the face she shows the world.

''I would like to disappear, to move someplace where no one knows who I am and what I did. I would do that in a heartbeat, but I can''t. I have to say my name. I''m the lady who killed her child, and I have to be that lady because I promised Bryce.''

The promise, she says, came as she held her son''s body in the hospital. ''I kissed him for the last time, and I told him how sorry I was, and I said I would do everything in my power to make sure this will never happen to another child.''

*******

It''s interesting that you chose those quotes, because this is the one from Lyn Balfour that really stuck with me:
''I don''t feel I need to forgive myself,'' she says plainly, ''because what I did was not intentional.''

Speaking for myself, as a parent, I would never forgive myself, intentional or not. I could not live with myself. That''s why she strikes me as cold.

Well, unless you take your own life and end it, you would have to find a way to live with yourself. This woman has chosen to publicly air her story in the hopes of helping others cope with the same loss, or prevent it altogether. She did this at the risk of putting herself out to people who say she should bake herself in a car.

It sounds to me that this is the way she has of coping with it. And it doesn''t sound like she''s really forgiven herself at all.

Which is why I did mean it that the only thing worse than killing your child in this way is finally trying to piece back your life and LIVE again, only to be constantly stoned by others.

 

[lindsaylove]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:37:50 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 3:32:34 PM
Author: lucyandroger

Date: 3/10/2009 3:18:29 PM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 3/10/2009 2:45:48 PM
Author: TravelingGal
OK, I''ve just read the entire article - I couldn''t read it before because these things do upset me, but for the sake of continuing this discussion, I felt I should read it.

Honestly, now that I have, I am absolutely stunned that as a parent, vespergirl, that you cannot feel any sort of compassion for these parents.

I am not negating how these children died or the pain they experienced. I understand your outrage on their behalf.

Your read on Lynn Balfour is completey different from mine. I cannot believe that any parent would say that someone who went through such a tragedy should be denied any further children - especially since they have to muster up amazing courage to do so.

I cannot believe you think these parents are ''self absorbed.'' That astounds me. What happened was a lapse in memory. Memory does not work the way YOU WANT IT TO. It is faulty and can be deceiving. MSNBC ran an interesting article of a woman who convicted the wrong man TWICE in trial of rape.

I see your point that potential psycho parents can bake their kids in cars on purpose with the hopes they will get off scot free. But if I were to make a call on that one, I would rather spare the parents of an honest mistake any more agony and take my chances on potential psycho baking mom.

How awful, that you can''t find it in you to find compassion for someone who loses their child, even by their own thoughtless (but not intentional) hand.

I do feel compassion for those parents. I cried throughout the entire reading of the article. However, I feel sorrier for their children than I do for them. I showed my husband the article as well and asked him to read it. He mentioned that the only parent in the article that he could truly relate to was the one father who tried to wrestle away a police officer''s gun when he discovered what he had done so that he could shoot himself. I can''t imagine going through what those parents are going through, and hope that I never have to live through anything like that. But honestly, parents that are suffering through the loss of a child, I can''t imagine that an investigation or prosecution would make them feel any worse than they already do (especially, if, like Lyn Balfour, you don''t think that you did anything wrong) - what could be worse than the death of the child?

I''m not sure why you continue to characterize her in this way. Again, I have to go right to the source:

*****

''People say I''m a strong woman,'' Balfour says, ''but I''m not. It''s just that when I grieve, I grieve alone . . .''

The pacifier pops out of Braiden''s mouth. Balfour rinses it, pops it back in.

'' . . . because deep down I feel I don''t have the right to grieve in front of others.''

Balfour says she has carefully crafted the face she shows the world.

''I would like to disappear, to move someplace where no one knows who I am and what I did. I would do that in a heartbeat, but I can''t. I have to say my name. I''m the lady who killed her child, and I have to be that lady because I promised Bryce.''

The promise, she says, came as she held her son''s body in the hospital. ''I kissed him for the last time, and I told him how sorry I was, and I said I would do everything in my power to make sure this will never happen to another child.''

*******

It''s interesting that you chose those quotes, because this is the one from Lyn Balfour that really stuck with me:
''I don''t feel I need to forgive myself,'' she says plainly, ''because what I did was not intentional.''

Speaking for myself, as a parent, I would never forgive myself, intentional or not. I could not live with myself. That''s why she strikes me as cold.

In my opinion, you''re totally misinterpreting her quote. She said she doesn''t "feel the need" to forgive herself. To me, this means she doesn''t feel the need to *try* because it would be impossible to do so (as you said it would be for you), since what she did was "not intentional" and blaming herself will not solve anything nor bring him back. I don''t see anything wrong with that and I don''t believe that makes her any more able to "live with herself" than any other loving parent would be.

 

[TravelingGal]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:48:17 PM
Author: vespergirl

I just went back to the Washington Post comments board on the article, and this poster, WiseOldWoman, perfectly and eloquently states the way that I feel about this article. Please read her post in it''s entirety:

WiseOldWoman wrote:
I hope the point taken away from this article is not so much that it could happen to anyone, but that it could happen *unless precautions are taken,* and thus parents and caregivers should be vigilant about taking those precautions. Use a teddy, a back-seat mirror, putting your briefcase in the back seat, whatever it takes.

Because in the end there really is no excuse for forgetting a child. There can be empathy and overwhelming compassion, but it was not an unpreventable, totally accidental, occurrence. ''Forgetting'' is not the same as ''not knowing.'' If a young child climbs into a car by himself, one can accurately say no one knew. But if an adult puts a child in the car, buckles up the safety straps, and drives away, that person KNEW the child was there. If the person should later forget, that doesn''t change the fact of having been fully aware of putting that child in the car.

The parents who were responsible for the deaths of their children have my lasting sympathy and compassion, because surely they will live with their regrets forever. But to say it could happen to anyone sounds too glib and facile to me, too close to saying it wasn''t their fault or their responsibility. And that''s just not so; once a young child is in someone''s care, it is absolutely the responsibility of that adult to take whatever precautions are necessary to keep that child safe.

But would you even DO this if you didn''t believe it could happen to you? Why would ANYONE take precautions if they knew it would not happen to them? If I knew I couldn''t get pregnant, I would tossing my pills out the window. If I knew I''d never get in an accident, I wouldn''t put on my seatbelt.

You take precautions because you know the danger is there. Because it COULD HAPPEN TO YOU. TO ANYONE.

 

[decodelighted]

Does anyone else remember the case of the man who got into his car one morning, started it ... remembered he had his things in the other car, got out & drove the other car to work leaving the first car idling.

When he got home that night his wife and their kids & pets were all dead. Carbon monoxide poisoning. The garage was attached to their split level house. Tragic ending.

Sleepy. Absent-minded. Life as you know it: over. It happens. Don''t be complacent.

 

[lucyandroger]

Date: 3/10/2009 3:48:17 PM
Author: vespergirl



I just went back to the Washington Post comments board on the article, and this poster, WiseOldWoman, perfectly and eloquently states the way that I feel about this article. Please read her post in it's entirety:

WiseOldWoman wrote:
I hope the point taken away from this article is not so much that it could happen to anyone, but that it could happen *unless precautions are taken,* and thus parents and caregivers should be vigilant about taking those precautions. Use a teddy, a back-seat mirror, putting your briefcase in the back seat, whatever it takes.

Because in the end there really is no excuse for forgetting a child. There can be empathy and overwhelming compassion, but it was not an unpreventable, totally accidental, occurrence. 'Forgetting' is not the same as 'not knowing.' If a young child climbs into a car by himself, one can accurately say no one knew. But if an adult puts a child in the car, buckles up the safety straps, and drives away, that person KNEW the child was there. If the person should later forget, that doesn't change the fact of having been fully aware of putting that child in the car.

The parents who were responsible for the deaths of their children have my lasting sympathy and compassion, because surely they will live with their regrets forever. But to say it could happen to anyone sounds too glib and facile to me, too close to saying it wasn't their fault or their responsibility. And that's just not so; once a young child is in someone's care, it is absolutely the responsibility of that adult to take whatever precautions are necessary to keep that child safe.

I doubt you would find many people that would disagree with this post. It's intersting though, I would have bolded the exact opposite parts (and so I have highlighted them) and that's where I think we differ. I find this article to be a tremendous learning opportunity for parents and child-care givers as well as a tremendous opportunity for sympathy and compassion.

ETA - I think that's a great suggestion of making it a habit to replace the child after dropping them off with your briefcase, tool belt, morning newspaper, etc. so that you automatically without thinking check the back seat before leaving the car.

 

[dragonfly411]

the worst part about that article is reading about the little girl who tore her hair out.... and that is why I have to think of it as negligence and criminal.... imagine what went through the children''s minds as they were dying....

It could happen to anyone yes, but again, to me it is a matter of absentmindedness and prioritizing other things, worthless things, things that will not matter in the long run of life too much. Phone calls, other people''s problems, work. We are too focused on work in this world, and not focused enough on our lives.... And this is another thing that shows it. It''s sad

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 3/10/2009 2:22:54 PM
Author: decodelighted

Is it illegal to walk away to answer the door while your child is in the bathtub? Is it illegal to leave a window open that doesn''t have child protective bars? Is it illegal to leave your baby rocking in an electric swing near a dog who decides to attack it? Because those kids are JUST AS DEAD as the ones in cars.

AMEN. Perfectly said, Deco.

Somehow, I''m left wondering why it isn''t equally expected for that omnipotent, all-consuming, super-emotional mohter/child connection/bond to kick in when the danger is a stroller with no brakes applied? I''d presume that bond would be just as powerful for non-illegal mistakes as for legal ones, wouldn''t you?

To me, there is an enormous difference between intentionally leaving a child in the car for five minutes while you run into the store/fifteen minutes while you run into a neighbor''s and unintentionally leaving a child in the car (because you thought you already dropped them off).

I can get behind making it a criminal offense to consciously CHOOSE to leave a child unattended in a car; I can''t get behind making it a criminal offense when someone doesn''t consciously choose to leave a child behind (but instead simply doesn''t realize the child is there.) When one decides to leave a child unattended for even a moment, it''s a choice made with an understanding that there IS some level of risk, no matter how small that perceived risk is.

I can honestly see, though, why some people are so adamant that there is no reasonable way for a parent to make this kind of mistake. As long as they believe that, they can continue to reassure themselves it could never happen to them. Once they would acknowledge that it could happen to anyone, they''d also have to accept it could actually happen to them too, and that they aren''t exempt from human error. Some people just can''t accept that.