A couple left their 7 week old baby in their car in a parking garage while they gambled in a casino for 2.5 hours. It was 8 pm and 54 degrees outside. The baby was wearing a cotton sleeveless one-piece. There was a blanket over the baby car seat. A security guard noticed the baby’s hand when he saw the car was parked well away from all other cars.
They parents are being charged with child endangerment.
My question is … what’s the risk of harm in this situation?
Really? An infant is left unattended in a casino parking garage for 2.5 hours, and you don’t see a potential for harm?
Kidnapping, exposure…it was 54 degrees, pretty chilly, and the baby was wearing thin clothing with a single blanket. Choking–nobody to help the child if it choked, spit up, vomited or otherwise had health issues. Nobody to respond to any possible problem the child may have experienced.
Also, stupidity. Every casino I’ve ever been to–and that includes quite a few, has signs all over the parking garage saying not to do this (applies to elderly as well as children), and that Police/Social Services will be called.
It is socially unacceptable to leave a child unattended in North America. However, there are a few things that could actually go wrong - the kid could wriggle or slide out or partially out of the seat. The kid could vomit and aspirate. The temperature could change dramatically - you don’t say where this happened. Did they leave the windows cracked? Wild animals, like crows could get in and peck Jimmy’s eyes out. The kid or the car could be stolen, the car could be hit by another car in the garage. We live in a society where very close observation of tiny kids is assumed.
I never said that. I am wondering what kind of things could go wrong in the eyes of the state. Kidnapping was the obvious one. I was looking for others.
This is in the Sacramento, CA area.
Car fire due to some fault in it, perhaps.
There are similar charges possible if a child is left in the home alone. Less chance of kidnapping or environmental problems, but other terrible problems could still result.
All three of them run the risk of crapping out.
I was wondering that, too. However, a read an attorney website and found this tidbit where the court found NO criminal negligence:
(People v. Rodriguez (1961), 186 Cal.App.2d 433.)
So, I was confused about the difference between a 54 degree car and someone’s house.
In both the car and the home, you have a risk of vomit choking, fire, etc.
I don’t know if 54 degrees is dangerously cold for an infant.
ETA: I am not connected to this case in any way … just saw it on the news.
Babies that young have a hard time regulating their body temperatures - that’s why you see infants shiver sometimes even when it’s not cold.
54 degrees doesn’t feel that cold to an adult, but it’s damn cold for a 7 week old infant. A blanket and a cotton one-piece isn’t a very warm outfit.
Suffocating under the blanket would be a possibility, too.
feelings of abandonment
choking
kidnapping
car accident
internal combustion
battery explosion
earthquake
lightning strike
car jacking
car towed to an impound lot
So, leaving an infant alone in a 54 degree house would be criminal, but a 70 degree house, maybe not?
feelings of abandonment (same risk of harm in a house - not criminal)
choking (same risk of harm in a house - not criminal)
kidnapping
car accident
internal combustion (similar risk of harm in a house - not criminal)
battery explosion (similar risk of harm in a house - not criminal)
earthquake (similar risk of harm in a house - not criminal)
lightning strike (no real risk of harm there in a car)
car jacking
car towed to an impound lot
Leaving a child alone in the house is also criminal. I would suspect that this judge felt the woman, having already lost her home and a child, had been punished enough. I don’t agree there.
Children are a 24/7 job. It is exhausting and unrelenting work. Deal with it.
I share a property line with a 7/11 store. The baby monitor is powerful enough that I could still hear her if I went over there while she was napping. Several times I have wanted some little thing which I could easily grab in five minutes and be back without incident. I have never been able to do it. There is just something so unthinkable about leaving her alone in the house, no matter how close I will be; I can’t do it.
Although the risks here were probably slight, I think the larger issue is that anyone who would do that really is not a fit parent. I mean, I’m a parent, and even to think of leaving a child that small all alone is mind boggling. What else might these parents do? I can’t even image wild primates totally abandoning their 7 week old baby!
A 2010 Puliter-Prize winner covered this topic.
Interesting topic, well-written, and wrist-slittingly depressing.
Agreed. I was wondering how this rises to the level of a crime.
PENAL CODE 273a: “Any person who willfully causes or permits any child to suffer, or who inflicts thereon unjustifiable physical pain or mental suffering, and whoever, having the care or custody of any child, causes or permits the life or limb of such child to be endangered, or the health of such child to be injured, and any person who willfully causes or permits such child to be placed in such situation that its life or limb may be endangered, or its health likely to be injured, is guilty of a misdemeanor.”
THE COURT: Must a parent never leave a young child alone in the house on risk of being adjudged guilty of manslaughter if some unforeseeable occurrence causes the death of the child? The only reasonable view of the evidence is that the death of Carlos was the result of misadventure and not the natural and probable result of a criminally negligent act. There was no evidence from which it can be inferred that defendant realized her conduct would in all probability produce death. There was no evidence as to the cause of the fire, as to how or where it started. There was no evidence connecting defendant in any way with the fire. There was no evidence that defendant could reasonably have foreseen there was a probability that fire would ignite in the house and that Carlos would be burned to death. The most that can be said is that defendant may have been negligent; but mere negligence is not sufficient to authorize a conviction of involuntary manslaughter.
If you are a parent, and you want some grown-up time without your kids, there are these people called babysitters. They come to your house and watch your kids while you go out. Someone who is related to you or the kids might even be willing to do this for free. That’s what you do if you need to go somewhere and can’t take the kids with you.
I don’t think I would like to sit in a 55-degree car for 2.5 hours if I were wearing a sleeveless outfit and had a blanket. I think I’d get cold.
[Responding to Bearflag70]
I think part of your confusion may be because the Court you quote is talking about what appears to be a charge of involuntary manslaughter ( a felony), which requires a different kind of proof than that necessary for child endangerment.
Also agreed, but I wouldn’t think the risk of a “chilly” infant would be enough to be criminal.
But if I knew I was getting beyond just chilly and into danger, I could do something about it. An infant couldn’t recognize that danger or do anything about it.
I’m also quite a bit more massive than the baby. A baby would lose heat a lot faster than I would, and so would be in greater danger of hypothermia.
But where Anne Neville would be a bit chilly and able to do something about it, and infant cannot. And as mentioned upthread, babies have no thermal integrity. Most of your body heat comes from your muscle mass, and babies just don’t have a lot of muscle yet. That’s why you nearly always see babies with hats and socks, even when the weather’s nice.