or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Leaving sleeping children in the car for under 3 minutes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Leaving sleeping children in the car for under 3 minutes - Page 12

post #221 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin_d_a View Post
i haven't read all the posts so sorry if I'm repeating something.

If I saw a child unattended in a car I would call the police. I don't care that a parent was just inside a store buying juice. I would call the police. furthermore I would jot down the license plate number and if I hate a camera take photos of the car and call Child Protective Services. I don't care if you are running into a store for thirty seconds, it is neglect and I think it is wrong under ALL circumstances. I have a friend who was abducted from her car when she was a kid while her mother ran into her house. Mom wasn't gone more than three minutes and the girl was gone for months, raped and tortured.

I have no doubt that the women who would do this love their children beyond measure, but I think this is a very poor parenting judgment call. There is a big difference between loving your children and making good parenting decisions, this does not seem like a good parenting decision to me.
My husband was a cop for a couple of years and when parents would do that where we were the children would be removed from the home for investigation of neglect and the parents would have to attend parenting classes for this.
Soooo...you would like to see CPS remove children from homes BC someone left them in a car for 30 seconds?

Have you ever heard of children being hurt in foster homes? Do you think that the kids will be traumatized by being removed?

Why in the world would you even THINK this is appropriate??!!

How is it neglect to leave a child in a car that you can see for 30 seconds?


IMO CPS here would if you tried to report something like that. There are actually a lot of kids in bad, neglectful homes here.

I am sure that kids who really are neglected wish that the worst thing happening to them was being left in the car for a minute while someone gets them juice!
post #222 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
Where were all of you do-gooders when I grew up?

My mom left five children in a car and would go into a department store for hours. I was ten and her directions were to leave me in charge and hit the brake if the car rolled. She told me that I better watch the others or I would never forgive myself if something happened.

Yes, hours.

Thanks.

That is neglect.
post #223 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin_d_a View Post
i haven't read all the posts so sorry if I'm repeating something.

If I saw a child unattended in a car I would call the police. I don't care that a parent was just inside a store buying juice. I would call the police. furthermore I would jot down the license plate number and if I hate a camera take photos of the car and call Child Protective Services. I don't care if you are running into a store for thirty seconds, it is neglect and I think it is wrong under ALL circumstances. I have a friend who was abducted from her car when she was a kid while her mother ran into her house. Mom wasn't gone more than three minutes and the girl was gone for months, raped and tortured. .
And I know people who were kidnapped from their house/lawn, and there are cases of babies being snatched from their mother's arms and even wombs. These are the EXCEPTIONS, as is any child absuction,which is why they make the news. But, maybe we should all live in hermetically sealed bubbles.

Well, then, I guess I should just start calling CPS on everyone who doesn't go to their WBV on time, or giving their baby supplements, right? Because, according to the govt, THAT is also neglect...

"Medical neglect encompasses a parent or guardian's denial of or delay in seeking needed health care for a child as described below:

Delay in health care - Examples of a delay in health care include not getting appropriate preventive medical or dental care for a child...or not following medical recommendations"

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/use...chaptertwo.cfm

However, I think most rational people on here would agree that there is, in most cases, no IMMINENT risk of serious harm from 1) not going to a WBV or 2) leaving a sleeping baby in a car for 2 minutes while you're 30 feet away.

A child is much more likely to be abused by a family member or friend than a stranger...should we take all children away from their families because of this? A child is more likely to be injured while RIDING in a car than sitting in a parked vehicle...should we make driving with a child illegal?

Honestly, if you don't want to leave your child in the car while you run inside to drop off a video, pick up a pizza, whatever, then DON'T. No one's forcing you to leave your child anywhere you don't feel comfortable. But to say you'd call the police b/c, OMG, there's a baby sleeping peacefully and her mother is THIRTY FEET AWAY, and so, that's NEGLECT, is ridiculous. If you're that concerned, wait a couple of minutes and see that mom does indeed come out (b/c, yeah, there are some crazies out there) and then move along.

I am just so SICK of people getting all busy-body and nosy and playing "false hero" when there are much more serious issues to address.
post #224 of 407
I also call the police anytime I see a child sleeping in a bedroom by themselves, without a parent present.

Because I knew of a child who was abducted out of her bedroom while her parents were sleeping in the next room.
post #225 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcng View Post
Can someone please enlighten me and tell me what are the dangerous thingss that could happen again, besides the armed robbers needing a get away car, the only examples given here are from puttin the car in reverse, eveyr car I've driven lately you have to have the ignition key on and your foot on the break to be able to move the shifting stick so those scenarios are out.

I said this in another post, but my son did do this. He was 2, so his foot could not possibly reach the brake, and the car came out of park and rolled. We have since tested it out and reasearched it, and it is a flaw on several minivans.

Not that I think leaving your kid in the car is neglect, but it DOES happen that safety equipment fails. I NEVER would have thought anything of it before he did it...now I only leave them if hte older kids are there to make sure he doesn't get ouf of his seat. (He can't yet, but you never know when he can...)
post #226 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAMama View Post
Thank you for saying that. I am highly offended by Meg's continued usage of that word. 13 years ago, I was an au pair and an accepted member of the family (I was practically begged to call the children's grandparents "Oma" and "Opa" as the children did). Although I did work for the family -- taking care of the most precious parts of their lives -- I was in NO WAY a servant.
Hey, I got an idea . . . how about nanny or au pair? Both of those worked for me. And I never felt inequal when I lived there. Perhaps that is how you imagine YOU would treat someone in your employ, but it certainly was NOT the case with my loving, lovely Dutch family.
Sorry, but I refuse to perpetuate the use of a euphemism whose primary purpose is to disguise from both master and servant the nature of the job being performed, the enormity of the economic disparity that goes with it, and the attendant powerlessness and frequent exploitation of this job. OBVIOUSLY not everyone is exploited -- and the same is true of other professions in which there is frequent exploitation, such as prostitution -- but exploitation, as other posters have pointed out, is fairly rampant.

I refuse to subscribe to a term that lends some air of artificial glamour to this profession. "Au pair" sounds adorably French, as if one went around in a starched black-and-white uniform carrying little hatboxes from Fauchon. "Nanny" has the lovely English glamour of Mary Poppins and makes one sound Earl Grey efficient. The reality for most servants is quite different.
post #227 of 407
Again, what about employee?

IME, teen aged employees of fast food chains are often horribly exploited, but I haven't heard anyone call them servants.
post #228 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by aran View Post
I'm going to have to disagree with the PPs and say that I think the au pair was just plain wrong to leave the kids alone. I would not have been comfortable if my nanny did that. I wouldn't worry about heat in the scenario you described, but about not being able to get to them quickly in case of an emergency, or mistakenly locking keys in the car, or one of the kids waking up and being scared and confused.

In my state it is illegal for licensed family daycare providers to leave a child unattended in a car... at all. I know that's not the same as an au pair, but the concept is the same.

If it were me, I'd wait until my boys woke up and go in all together (since we're going to the park anyhow... they need to wake up for that) or go through the Dunkin Doughnuts drive thru for water/milk, or I would have foregone the drinks.
ITA. I would never leave my children unattended in the car. Period.
post #229 of 407
Some of the posts on this thread are making me feel literally sick to my stomach and I am in tears. It makes me feel like dropping MDC from my favorites and never returning. This never happened when I first joined over six years ago. Yes, the forum was much, much smaller, but still...I think I will either take a long break, or stick with Yarn Crafts and Television for a long time, because this is ridiculous and a waste of energy.

I cannot fathom that someone would have a child taken away from a breastfeeding, co-sleeping, whole-food eating, non-vaxing, gentle-disciplining, homebirthing, babywearing home because of a two minute trip into a store with the locked car in full sight, and place children in a potentially abusive foster home on formula, junk food, lots of tv, and separation from parents for possibly a long time, not to mention being forced to stop cosleeping or extended bf when they were able to return. THAT is virtually guaranteed to do long-term damage. The odds of anything happening while leaving a child in the car in site, while I don't deny that there are SLIM risks involved, are almost zero.
post #230 of 407
Almost all kidnapping and sexual abuse are done by people the family knows. There are very few people out there who would abduct a random child, and the chance of one of them being at the convenience store you stop at to pick up a juice for 2 minutes is incredibly slim. Then, even if that were to happen, the chance of them having the tools on them to open a locked door easily and quickly is extraordinarily slim. And then, if you have the car in your view, the chance of an attempted abduction being successful is basically nonexistent.

Statistically, a child is in more danger of being abducted with the mother than not because most abductors target women, not children, and certainly not babies. Your child is more likely to be "along for the ride" when you are abducted than to be taken from you when you aren't looking.

I only have one child so I don't leave her in the car when I run in a shop for a second. It just isn't an inconvenience to bring one kid into the store with me. But there is no way this it is a big deal. Particularly if it is a sleeping child who wouldn't mess with anything, and particularly if it is a baby who isn't able to undo his/her carseat. So long as it's only for two or three minutes, and so long as it isn't hot outside, and so long as the car is within view.

Your child is in more danger riding in the car to get to the convenience store than sitting in the car for a couple of minutes within your view when the car is locked and the weather is mild. Your child is in more danger pulling out of the convenience store.

I really think this kind of thing gives us an illusion of control over outside circumstances that we don't have. Being a mom is scary, and every minute feels delicate.

I want to again recommend the book Protecting the Gift by Gavin de Becker. He says in it that we lose our very valuable intuition of real danger when we worry about things that aren't dangerous.
post #231 of 407
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
Sorry, but I refuse to perpetuate the use of a euphemism whose primary purpose is to disguise from both master and servant the nature of the job being performed, the enormity of the economic disparity that goes with it, and the attendant powerlessness and frequent exploitation of this job. OBVIOUSLY not everyone is exploited -- and the same is true of other professions in which there is frequent exploitation, such as prostitution -- but exploitation, as other posters have pointed out, is fairly rampant.

I refuse to subscribe to a term that lends some air of artificial glamour to this profession. "Au pair" sounds adorably French, as if one went around in a starched black-and-white uniform carrying little hatboxes from Fauchon. "Nanny" has the lovely English glamour of Mary Poppins and makes one sound Earl Grey efficient. The reality for most servants is quite different.
wow. um. wow.

Au pars are not nearly as powerless as a group as you seem to think. They are not in any way equivalent to the illegal nanny who lives in terror of being deported or the household servant whose passport and earnings are "held" by their employer to "keep safe".

One thing to remember is that most au pairs come from middle to upper middle class households in their own countries. They almost all have university educations and have strong family ties in their home country. None of the au pairs I met think of themselves nor define themselves as servants. In fact, most have had servants in their households in their home countries.

The au pair program is also a State Department program - meaning the au pairs have more protections in place than pretty much any other employed group in the US. The program staff must speak with the au pair once a month and if there is any hint of a problem, the counselor intervenes. The rules are explicit for host families related to number of hours worked, appropriate and inappropriate tasks, time off, etc.

but most importantly, the au pairs CAN LEAVE - they can leave at any time, find a new au pair host family, or get a plane ticket back home with little or no notice. And trust me, they do, all the time. In fact, our au pair is leaving early (unrelated to this incident) and there is nothing we can do to stop her, even though we are out several thousand dollars of program fee. We understand her reasons and respect them, but honestly, the idea that she is somehow exploited or not free is insane.

Sure there are power differentials, but, frankly, that is a fact of life - power is unequally distributed, especially related to employment and money. I do not have as much power as my clients I work for - does that mean I am a servant? Perhaps it does in your lexicon?

This situation is not even remotely similar to household servants who are at the mercy of their employers. I have done work in anti-trafficking, for God's sake. The difference is enormous and you do the literally millions of women and children who are exploited every day a huge disservice to conflate an employer/employee situation into one of automatic exploitation.
post #232 of 407
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
Servant is more precise in this context:

Servant 1. A personal or domestic attendant; one whose duty is to wait upon his master or mistress, or do certain work in his or her household. (The usual sense when no other is indicated by the context; sometimes with defining word, as domestic servant.)

Employee a. [B]A person employed for wages; = EMPLOYÉ, which it has now virtually superseded. b. (nonce-use.) Something that is employed.

Au pair Applied to an arrangement between two parties by which mutual domestic services are rendered formerly without consideration of money payment; esp. of a young girl learning the language of a foreign country while rendering certain services in return for hospitality. Also attrib. Hence as n., a person who is ‘au pair’.

All of the following are from the Oxford English Dictionary, BTW. By definition, an au pair does not work for wages; ergo, she is not an employee, but a domestic servant.
um, okay, so when my neighbor painted my front hall in exchange for me doing a website for him, he became my servant?

Au pairs do get paid a stipend (minimum $160 a week) plus $500 of educational benefit, plus room and board, in return for 45 hours of childcare a week. She isn't considered an employee for tax/visa purposes. However, from a power differential definition, there is no significant difference.
post #233 of 407
Wow, I have a servant.

She'll be surprised to find out. She has a degree in child development and she calls herself dd's home teacher. She makes about the equivalent of an elementary public school teacher, including all benefits, to help manage our household and care for our daughter.

She left a managerial position at a local retail operation because she feels like this kind of work is her calling.

I don't know that she's appreciate her career choice being denigrated in that way.
post #234 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by siobhang View Post
wow. um. wow.

Au pars are not nearly as powerless as a group as you seem to think. They are not in any way equivalent to the illegal nanny who lives in terror of being deported or the household servant whose passport and earnings are "held" by their employer to "keep safe".

One thing to remember is that most au pairs come from middle to upper middle class households in their own countries. They almost all have university educations and have strong family ties in their home country. None of the au pairs I met think of themselves nor define themselves as servants. In fact, most have had servants in their households in their home countries.
But as I am sure you and most people here know, this situation you describe is little different from the condition of most upper-class servants throughout history. Consider the governess (the term du jour in the 19th century for a paid parental proxy). Often, a governess came from an upper middle-class family and was quite well-educated, but as with au pairs, they existed in a netherworld where their class and education placed them in a different category than, say, a scullery maid, but given their position as servants, they were clearly not members of the family nor on a par with actual family members.

I would also add, of course no servant wants to define herself as a servant, because this would more clearly make evident exactly what the job was and make it far less palatable. Calling it a glamourous-sounding name is one factor in allowing the economic disparity to continue.

Quote:
The au pair program is also a State Department program - meaning the au pairs have more protections in place than pretty much any other employed group in the US. The program staff must speak with the au pair once a month and if there is any hint of a problem, the counselor intervenes. The rules are explicit for host families related to number of hours worked, appropriate and inappropriate tasks, time off, etc.
but most importantly, the au pairs CAN LEAVE - they can leave at any time, find a new au pair host family, or get a plane ticket back home with little or no notice. And trust me, they do, all the time. In fact, our au pair is leaving early (unrelated to this incident) and there is nothing we can do to stop her, even though we are out several thousand dollars of program fee. We understand her reasons and respect them, but honestly, the idea that she is somehow exploited or not free is insane.
The fact that she can leave is the difference between being a servant and being a slave.
post #235 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by lalaland42 View Post
Actually it was a liquor store.
Ah, I think you're right. I know the parking lot where it happened. The liquor store is right next to the pizza place.
post #236 of 407
I guess I was a servant as well. I worked as a nanny for a few years AFTER teaching.

I made more hourly as a nanny, and had more free time, than I ever did as a teacher. (Which probably goes to show the sad state of salaries for teachers, but, I digress).

At one position I made EXACTLY as much as the mom I worked for. She was in a management program which was the step to becoming a regional manager, where she'd be making a lot more. In the meantime, she paid me the same as she got paid hourly (granted, she tried to get hours while her children were in school so she got SOME take-home pay, but, still).
post #237 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by katheek77 View Post
I guess I was a servant as well. I worked as a nanny for a few years AFTER teaching.

I made more hourly as a nanny, and had more free time, than I ever did as a teacher. (Which probably goes to show the sad state of salaries for teachers, but, I digress).
And I bet you didn't have to grade any papers, either.
post #238 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
But as I am sure you and most people here know, this situation you describe is little different from the condition of most upper-class servants throughout history. Consider the governess (the term du jour in the 19th century for a paid parental proxy). Often, a governess came from an upper middle-class family and was quite well-educated, but as with au pairs, they existed in a netherworld where their class and education placed them in a different category than, say, a scullery maid, but given their position as servants, they were clearly not members of the family nor on a par with actual family members.

I would also add, of course no servant wants to define herself as a servant, because this would more clearly make evident exactly what the job was and make it far less palatable. Calling it a glamourous-sounding name is one factor in allowing the economic disparity to continue.

The fact that she can leave is the difference between being a servant and being a slave.

This is just silly. According to your definition any day care provider and any teacher is a servant, then, as well. And SAHMs (except for the family part). Maybe more so...SAHMs are often waaaay more UNable to leave than someone who is hired to work for the family.
post #239 of 407
...
post #240 of 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammal_mama View Post
Well, at least no one in the "there is no real danger" group has threatened to break in windows or call the cops on those they disagree with.

It doesn't horrify me that each mother has a different comfort-level: what horrifies me is the desire of some (those in the "I would never do it" group) to coerce others into doing it their way.

Some on this thread have even mentioned they'll avoid things they personally feel okay about, simply for fear of some meddling person getting the urge to call CPS.

The sad thing is, some of you probably see this fear as a wonderful tool for getting other parents to toe the line; you think it makes a better world for children, scrubbed clean of all the unpredictability and diversity that comes with living in a free society.:
Granted, I missed a few posts because this thread has gotten a bit too long, but I only recall one person saying they would break into a car and *maybe* a few that said they might call the police or CPS. I certainly would do neither if a caretaker came to the car with in a few minutes. I would actually do the same thing if it were a pet in someone's car.

I know all about "toeing the line" and not daring to make a wrong move. I feel like I'm under the microscope 24/7 some weeks. One parenting decision that my ex doesn't agree with and I get "caught" could easily cause me to lose my children.

Trust me, I understand the constant pressure to be a perfect parent because there is someone hovering over me, lurking, waiting for a wrong move. And it's not CPS, unfortunately.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Leaving sleeping children in the car for under 3 minutes