Should I leave my kids in the car, unattended?

[Corrvin]

@Dr. PoopiePants

For instance, one could try to justify leaving a child in the car while they hop into Wal-Mart for just a minute or two. In this case, even with good intentions, the possibility exists that one could forget about the kids in the car and remain far too long in the store.

One possibility I haven’t seen mentioned here-- what if something should happen to YOU while you’re in the store; would someone realize that your children were in your vehicle in a reasonable amount of time?

Anyone here in emergency response that could give us an answer on this-- if you’re called to a store or similar public location where someone has passed out or is having a seizure or is otherwise unable to speak, how likely would you be to go find the person’s vehicle and check to see if they’d left any children in it?

I’m sure the flip side of this is “what if you take your kids into the bank and someone’s robbing it,” of course.

[Sailboat]

@Dr. PoopiePants

Sometimes, we are fooled into exposing ourselves to more risk in an effort to reduce risk – good intentions gone awry.

Although I am not a safety engineer, I work at a government safety agency, and I read a lot of accident reports – and I totally agree with your thinking here.

@Dr. PoopiePants

Thus far, we have only considered the risks incurred by leaving children in cars. We must give consideration to the risks incurred by taking children into the gas station, as well.

<snip>

All things considered, if statistics were to bear out that my children are less at risk for serious injury or death by remaining in an unattended car for a couple of minutes, then I should consider that option. I don’t know the statistics in this situation, hence my OP question.

I think that there’s an unquantifiable risk either way: but in one case, you are present to exert some control – in the other, you are not. I realize control is sometimes an illusion, but not always.

@Dr. PoopiePants

The risk of heat stroke does not exist in the gas station scenario of 3 or 4-minute absences. As far as mayhem that children may cause in an unattended vehicle, I suppose you should take it on a child-by-child case basis. In the case of my 3-year old, she can’t even unbuckle from the seat by herself and my 5-year old is quite responsible.

Here I would differ with you. The 3 or 4 minute absence is a projection – YOU could slip and fall in the parking lot, and be unconscious for days, theoretically. Not that your children would be any safeer standing over your body, I guess. But still, unless there’s a timer opening the windows and doors after 4 minutes, you don’t KNOW you’ll be back, you just INTEND it.

But that risk scenario is pretty abstract. I’m much more concerned by your confidence that the 3- and 5- year olds are incapable of mechanical mayhem and/or “responsible”.

Accident reports are typically full of assumptions like that. “The scenario wasn’t believed to be possible.” “Person X was fully trained, so it was not expected that he would…” Scientists, engineers, and safety personnel do not “needlessly” remind each other of something they all know, and poof, an accident. These guys and gals are working with some of the most dangerous stuff in the world – in 2005 the agency saw reports on plutonium contamination, chemical exposure, a “laser eye accident”, and a crushing by heavy construction machinery – and you’d think they’d know better than to take things for granted or take their eyes off the hazard. Well, they DO know better.

At 3 and 5, I wouldn’t expect your kids to fully grasp potential accident scenarios. And all too many of the serious childhood accidents contain phrases like “we never thought he could do x yet”. One day that 3-year-old is going to pop that buckle right open – maybe not while 3, but some day. One day that 5-year-old is going to do something irresponsible. Those claims aren’t speculative – you know that they’ll happen. It’s just the when you don’t know.

I know you have their best interests at heart. But safety is elusive and must be constantly evaluated.

I’d act to anticipate and prevent, to the best of my ability, and not trust to statistics to shield me and mine.

Sailboat

[Tibby]

Sailboat: Your post is well thought out and appreciated. I agree that safety is elusive and must be constantly evaluated. I’m also sure that all of us here do indeed have our children’s best interest at heart. But, just to add some more food for thought on a couple of points, assuming the role of an advocate of the devil:

@Sailboat

<snip>
Here I would differ with you. The 3 or 4 minute absence is a projection – YOU could slip and fall in the parking lot, and be unconscious for days, theoretically. Not that your children would be any safeer standing over your body, I guess. But still, unless there’s a timer opening the windows and doors after 4 minutes, you don’t KNOW you’ll be back, you just INTEND it.

In this scenario, my gut reaction is that my kids may be safer in the car than by my side (taking into account that this is a gas station parking lot, specifically).
1)Kids in car: Remember, my vehicle is parked in a high visibility area in front of a gasoline pump. If I fell and became unconscious, I anticipate very few minutes to elapse before someone checked in my car (someone correctly reasoning that a child could be in the unconscious fellow’s car; someone wondering why the car in front of the pump they want to use is not moving; someone seeing agitated girls hands waving in the window…etc.). I agree that my becoming unconscious increases the risk to the girls remaining in the car, but perhaps not as much as if they accompanied me when I fell:
2)Kids with me when I become unconscious: The moment I lose consciousness, I lose control of my girls. At this point they may run into the path of parking lot traffic or run into highway traffic.
My assessment is that #2 is riskier than #1.

@Sailboat

<snip>
But that risk scenario is pretty abstract. I’m much more concerned by your confidence that the 3- and 5- year olds are incapable of mechanical mayhem and/or “responsible”.

Again, I agree that it is dangerous to become complacent and overconfident about past trends, but I believe that elapsed time should be factored in (as well as comparative risk):
I would not be surprised to learn that the potential for danger/mayhem for children in cars rose exponentially with respect to elapsed time. (Example: I am confident that my girls would be safe in the car for 3 minutes; I am less confident that they would be safe in the car for 15 minutes; I am fairly certain they would be unsafe in the car for 1 hour…etc…)
Let’s imagine that statistics revealed the following:
Potential for serious injury or death to a child in the following circumstances:
Child left in car for 3-4 minutes at gas station: 0.001
Child accompanying parent into gas station: 0.005
Child left in car for 15 minutes: 0.01

If I knew that the above statistics were correct, I would leave my girls in the car at the gas station, but I would take them with me everywhere else (particularly in situations likely to be longer than 3 or 4 minutes).

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse and I certainly don’t advocate trying to live a totally risk-free life for anyone (children or adults), because that would be a life not worth living. You would have to live your life in a padded room to even approach a 100% risk-free environment. At that point, you may not die from an accident, but you would surely “die” from boredom. I am sure that simply driving on the highway entails the assumption of more risk for your children than *either *scenario of gas-station stops (kids in car, or accompanying parent), but most of us would not consider keeping our kids out of cars. We all try to find a balance between enjoying life and minimizing risk, and I believe that most of us have an innate ability to find the best balance for most circumstances. However, there are times that our perceived comparative risk assessment in certain circumstances may be fooled or off-kilter. I feel that the gas station scenario may be one of those circumstances…or maybe not.

I notice that some of the laws pertaining to this situation include a time limit (i.e. 15 minutes). This makes me think that data may exist that substantiates the premise that special-case, short term periods of leaving children in cars may indeed be less risky than the alternative.

[Duckster]

A gas station is an inherently dangerous place. There is a mix of vehicles coming and going. There are unknown factors of the drivers using said vehicles. There are unknown factors concerning the safety awareness of everyone present. And let’s not forget the very fact that gasoline, oil and diesel fuel are not only present but transferred from storage to vehicles all the time.

Leaving a child alone in a vehicle in a gas station may not trigger the dangers associated with potential kidnappings, heat stroke, etc. However, three of four minutes is more than enough time for an accident to occur, a fire to erupt and panic to start. I see it everyday where drivers leave their engines running while refueling, even to the point of leaving the unattended vehicle with the engine running while they enter the store to pay of the gas and/or buy sundry items. I see near misses between vehicles literally ever time I enter a gas station because everyone is only concerned with themselves and not the immediate environment they are in at the time. And although it is rare, I see people smoking not only in the immediate area, but even while refueling their vehicle!

Unless there is another responsible person in the vehicle with me, the kids should not accompany an unattended person to the gas station. Does that create a hardship for some people? Quite possibly. One must weigh their own risks as they see them.

[Sailboat]

@Dr. PoopiePants

Remember, my vehicle is parked in a high visibility area in front of a gasoline pump.

Funny how we forget tnings. It wasn’t until I read this line that I recalled an incident from about ten years ago. I was parked at a gas pump and filling my tank when a vehicle backed out of the service bay with a roar and smashed right into the side of my car. I had to physically jump out of the way. It was a hassle getting the station owner’s insurance to cover damages.

But that’s purely a hijack – I don’t take any special precautions when pumping, despite that accident having happened to me personall;, and I can’t claim it as a particularly likely event to happen to anyone else.

@Duckster

Unless there is another responsible person in the vehicle with me, the kids should not accompany an unattended person to the gas station. Does that create a hardship for some people? Quite possibly.

Yeah, the ideal solution would be to plan ahead to avoid either case (kids in car/kids in parking lot). Different folks will most likely have differing opinions on the feasibility of such advance planning.

Sailboat

[The_Hamster_King]

I have to agree with Dr. PoopiePants. It seems to me that in the high-traffic area around the pumps at a self-service gas station children are far safer strapped in their car seats inside a locked car than they are making their way to and from the pay kiosk with a parent. I don’t care what the law says – I’m going to do what I think is safer for the kids. And in this case, my kids stay put.

[doreen]

I don’t mean to beat a dead horse and I certainly don’t advocate trying to live a totally risk-free life for anyone (children or adults), because that would be a life not worth living. You would have to live your life in a padded room to even approach a 100% risk-free environment. At that point, you may not die from an accident, but you would surely “die” from boredom. I am sure that simply driving on the highway entails the assumption of more risk for your children than *either *scenario of gas-station stops (kids in car, or accompanying parent), but most of us would not consider keeping our kids out of cars. We all try to find a balance between enjoying life and minimizing risk, and I believe that most of us have an innate ability to find the best balance for most circumstances. However, there are times that our perceived comparative risk assessment in certain circumstances may be fooled or off-kilter. I feel that the gas station scenario may be one of those circumstances…or maybe not.

Sure ,driving on the highway might entail more risk. But there’s also a much greater benefit. That also has to be measured- not only which risk is worse, but are the benefits worth taking either?. I never left my kids alone in the car even for two or three minutes when they were 3-5 years old. Simply wasn’t any reason to .I never wait till my tank is empty, there are full service stations, every station around here that doesn’t have full service does have pay at the pump and if none of that would work, then my choice would be take them in with me or get gas either when I’m alone or when there is another, more adult person in the car.

BTW, my main fear was not have been that either another car would crash or that my car would be stolen. (although they can happen).It was that my son would get out of his carseat and one or both would run across into the convenience store, exposing them to the traffic, only without me there. My son taught me that I could never just assume that he wasn’t capable of doing something - until I walked in on him, I never would have imagined that at 18 months old he could pull his dresser drawers out and climb them like stairs. I didn’t discover that he could unbuckle his car seat until the first time it happened (somewhere between 2-4 years old) Fortunately, I was in the car, because he certainly could have opened the front doors of the car, although the back doors had child safety locks and couldn’t be opened from the inside.They probably would have stayed in the car- but at that age, I wasn’t confident that their desire to obey when I wasn’t right there was stronger than their desire for a snack.

[samudra]

@Dr. PoopiePants

I notice that some of the laws pertaining to this situation include a time limit (i.e. 15 minutes). This makes me think that data may exist that substantiates the premise that special-case, short term periods of leaving children in cars may indeed be less risky than the alternative.

The time limit is related to the length of time it takes a car to get to unsafe temperatures.

Page Not Found (404)

If it’s 75 degrees outside, the car can be at 100 degrees in 10 minutes. Many posters have commented on the risk of theft/hijacking, which can occur, but is a verrrry small risk compared to the very real danger of a hot car. If a parent gets stuck in a slow-moving checkout line, or waylaid by a friend who wants to chat, 2-3 minutes can turn into 20 minutes before they even realize how long it’s actually taking.

[Aspidistra]

Speaking as a parent of a two-yr-old and a three month old, I would never in a pink fit take my older girl in to pay for petrol, for exactly the reasons outlined by Dr P P - the danger of her suddenly deciding to try to rip her hand out of mine and go running around the parking lot, or of my slipping on a patch of oil thus leaving her free to run around the parking lot are FAR greater IMO than the danger of anything untoward happening to her while strapped in her car seat, in plain view of me, less than 50 metres away, under cover.

I note that all three of CookingWithGas’s cites end with the child being ok. However, a 19 month old child did die here, last year, while walking round a 7-11 car park with her grandfather. (Run over by a truck. Can’t find an online cite, but I remember it since the child in question wasn’t far off my own older girl’s age)

My opinion might change when the girls get to 3 and 5 though. In the recent case of a (completely idiotic) father leaving his two and five year-old kids alone in the house while he popped out for some lottery tickets, it was the five year old who got the matches out and burnt down the house … the two year old alone probably would have been fine! Older isn’t necessarily safer.

[GusNSpot]

Does not make any difference what you do or don’t do. If something happens to your child, it is all up to the DA. If there is harm, then you are negligent. Period dot.

*Oh, they ( DA’s ) are all reasonable people silly man. Don’t you watch TV? *

You will be arrested and charged with child endangerment. That will never go away no matter the out come or what a judged expunges. the arrest record is permanent.

No child can die without it being a parents fault. They had to have made a bad decision and they must be punished for it.

You are totally responsible for your child’s welfare.

You may not use corporal punishment.

You can’t lock your car for child safety.

You can’t expect common sense from society or the officials of society.

DA’s are all reasonable people silly man. They only care about truth and justice and their win loss record does not enter into anything and they are not elected or politicians or anything, just good people.

Yeah broad brush.

There is no 100% safe way to do it all.

But we want there to be.

So, If you are a single parent for any mount of time and actually have to sleep and your 10 year old sneaks out of the house 15 seconds after you go to sleep and is killed by a hit and run driver, you will go down for manslaughter.

Now, if you go by a police station and say that you have been up for so long and have no one to watch your kid, ( and you neighbors keep turning you in for locking you kid in his room cause he yells his head off ) they will refuse to watch your kid. If you sleep, you are at risk for a manslaughter charge at minimum if the child dies for any reason.

*Oh, they ( DA’s ) are all reasonable people silly man. *

We as a people will not ever be happy until every time a child dies, a parent is sent to prison for life. If you have you child at your side and he is struck in a parking lot by a car, it is your fault for not seeing the danger and taking reasonable precautions. You should get Life without parole. You are a negligent parent.

Just you wait, no matter how stupid it is and no matter the costs to you, not me, we will have enough laws to punish someone for everything. And no one will have to be responsible for anything because we all will be guilty no matter what happens. No child can die without it being a parents fault. They had to have made a bad decision and they must be punished for it.

Think of the children.

DA’s are all reasonable people silly man. They only care about truth and justice and their win loss record does not enter into anything and they are not elected or politicians or anything, just good people.

Yeah broad brush.

[Tibby]

@GusNSpot

DA’s are all reasonable people silly man. They only care about truth and justice and their win loss record does not enter into anything and they are not elected or politicians or anything, just good people.

I have no experience with our state judicial system and district attorneys; OTOH, I have more experience with the federal judicial system than I care to recall.

I was a silly man who once believed that the U.S. judicial system was, first and foremost, concerned with the acquisition of truth and the administration of justice. I was once rabidly pro-American and took pride in our judicial system’s due process of law – the best in the world, said I. My motto: work hard, play hard, pay your taxes and keep your nose clean. That motto served me well (though not terribly exciting)…at least for the first 42 years of my life. Things have been a little topsy-turvy since then: Late-life first marriage, late-life kids, a dog…oh, and a little misunderstanding with my beloved American Judicial system.

Excitement? Try experiencing the pit bull death grip of an overzealous, but misguided federal prosecuting attorney (AUSA) and his band of merry FBI agents for 5 years. Experienced it I did, but it’s a show that I do not recommend – the cost of admission is greater than you can imagine.

Nutshell: I was accused of a federal white-collar crime that I did not commit. Not a case of non-guilt due to a technicality or fuzzy logic, but utterly and unambiguously guilt-free. Though the jargon, billing, coding and profiling practices of my profession may be somewhat illusive to the lay public, any truth-seeking prosecuting attorney worth his salt, with the help of competent expert witnesses, should have determined quickly that the charges against me were without merit. They dropped the ball. I offered to pick up the ball and give them the truth; they declined the offer. In actuality, and paradoxically, close inspection of the specifics of my case reveled that I was more than 100% innocent of the crime with which I was charged.

Being thrust into the gaping maw of our judicial system was an experience totally alien to me. Surely truth and justice would prevail, I thought. I thought wrong. I quickly learned that the system is rife with dirty tricks: threatening friends and colleagues until they “flip” on you (gratefully, most showed intestinal fortitude and did not succumb); trumping up charges until you beg for a plea bargained deal (I did not succumb); outright deceit…the list, unfortunately, goes on and on.

When FBI agents came calling for tea, biscuits and a little chat, I went against the advice of my attorneys and invited them to sit down in my office so that I could explained the errors of their ways. We would all have a big laugh, they would apologize for having inconvenienced me and we would all have another cup of tea. It didn’t quite work out that way. They cut me off at the pass every time I tried to explain errors in their reasoning. They were quite adept at adjusting their jackets so that their shoulder-holstered pistols gleamed in my eyes (funny thing: even if you realize that you are the recipient of psychological intimidation, it’s still effective). When I finally asked them to refrain from further questions until I secured council, they did not drop a beat before saying, “so, you’re hiding something, you’re obviously guilty”. To top it off, they even left cookie crumbs on my desk.

Alrighty, maybe the FBI is a little too hard-core. Perhaps I would have more luck speaking directly to the AUSA? Taking a proffer (meeting) with the prosecutor and “showing my hand” was completely against the advice of my charming, though exceedingly expensive team of attorneys. Smelling a “winnable case” they tried in earnest to convince me to keep my defense close to my chest, defend my honor, knock the feds down a couple of pegs…and take my case to the federal courthouse. No, I’d really rather take a proffer and explain things to the AUSA – he’s probably a regular Joe and he will understand the misunderstanding. I have video tapes, expert testimony from respectable consultants, a fib-free polygraph report from a nationally ranked polygraph expert, a neatly typed defense outline and a snazzy new tie to wear – I’m good to go. (wait). Too bad, although he offered proffers to nearly everyone else, he doesn’t want to talk to you. He said (I kid you not), “I don’t like him and the only time I want to see your client is in court. If he doesn’t accept my plea agreement, I’m going to nail him to the wall”. Dr. Phil would probably say that ol’ Dr. PoopiePants had a few self-esteem issues on the day he heard that. (BTW: his generous plea agreement included a felony charge, restitution in an amount that would gag Bill Gates and being bound to the house by an electronic dog collar for a long time. I wanted to ask if my daughters would be allowed to take me out for walks so long as I was properly leashed and a pooper-scooper was brought along. Of course, if I went to court and lost, Mr.AUSA assured me that he would ask for a somewhat worse punishment, something in between electrocution and lethal injection.

After doing a little research on my AUSA, I could see that I was dealing with a real character (by that I mean an aggressive, dirty-dealing, kill-your-mom-for-a-buck, glory hound – IOW, a lawyer ). His name appeared often and glowingly in numerous high-profile case articles. He did, however, manage to attract a little bad press for slinging the racial slur, “when are you going to stop wasting the court’s time with your schuckin’ and jivin’” to a black defendant. My future may be in this guys hands next – wee!

My case was as close to a slam-dunk as they get, said my attorneys. They told me that the government invested too much money in my case and the AUSA would never drop it without a pound of my flesh. Forget proffers and forget the plea bargain, you’re not guilty and it’s your duty to take this to court. Besides, we really want to give this smug piss-ant his comeuppance. Relax and enjoy the show we plan to put on. Are you guys chomping at the bit so much that you’re willing to put on your show pro bono, I ask? Well, no, we’ll need another 300k to put on a really good show (sorry, but we’ve already spent your first installment). Superb! Best-case scenario: I win my case and get to live in the poor house with my family. Of course there’s that nagging little possibility that I could get a hostile jury and actually lose my case. In that event, I wouldn’t have to worry about leaving my girls in the car while I paid for my gasoline because they would be about 40 and 42 years old by the time I got out of prison.

Long story short (I could drone on for hours): I managed to get my “self-authored, 32 page, single-space type written defense dissertation” into the prosecutors hot little hands…and I waited. I waited 2 more years. I waited a total of 5 years from the time my case was heard by the grand jury (yes, they really would indict a ham sandwich), until the statute of limitations was reached. (I smoked a Cohiba cigar and shared a bottle of Merlot with the wife on that day 2 years ago). Five years could have been saved if only I were allowed to explain things on day one. Did I receive so much as a “sorry, ol’ bloke, we made a mistake” from the feds? No, they just remained silent. To save face, they just let my case fizzle away with no indictment. They didn’t even put me on their Christmas card list.

Final Tally:
The Feds: Even-Steven: They prevented a “loss” in their “win-loss” register.
Defense Attorneys: Gained: My life savings.
Me: Lost: Life savings, my career, 10 years of post secondary school preparation, my naivety and nearly my sanity. Gained: a nice calendar from my attorneys.
My Family: Lost: Too much to mention.
American Tax Payer: Lost: Gobs of money thrown into investigating an easily disprovable case of wrong-doing; Lost: someone whose career involved helping people and saving tax-payer money by accepting compensation below fair market value.

Isolated experience? I learned that the same federal witch-hunt that ensnared me also netted a friend of mine from college (a bright and ethical fellow with a ready smile and a young family) who now lived in a distant state. I wanted to call him to commiserate and ask what was going through his mind during this ordeal. I was told that his ordeal was over – he discovered an alternate way out. Apparently, the last thing to go through his mind was 00-buckshot when he walked into the woods, sat down by a tree and sucked on the pay-end of his shotgun. Nice guy; sad choice.

Still pro-America? Ironically, yes, I am. I realize that the system probably works most of the time, but when it doesn’t, it really sucks eggs. I do love my country, but lady liberty doesn’t appear quite as tall to me anymore. Call me a silly man.

…but, I digress. Where were we? Ah yes, children. Keep them safe…and teach them well!

[xbuckeye]

I think the only reasonable choice is to not take your kids to the gas station. Obviously they attract baby rapers driving their leaking trucks of explosive fuels irresponsibly on a tractionless surface. Any parent who takes their child to a gas station should be shot.

Yet somehow I survived decades of being left in the car while Mom or Dad went in to pay for gas. The worst thing that every happened was my brother pulling my hair.