Lenore exaggerates. Equating this to leaving the same two kids reading in their living room or front porch even is hardly the same thing. Far more dangerous to leave them in the car.

Plus, I'm still waiting for a valid reason as to why one of the two supposedly grownup individuals could not have stayed with the kiddos? Did the other need their hand held while shopping yet thought it feasible to leave the kiddos unattended?

What happened to personal responsibilitarian and the first thing a parent should do is not fuck up a child?

Muggle, I'll grant your point for the sake of argument: the children were endangered. Even so, is arrest and prosecution the appropriate response? Does every single circumstance of everyone's lives need to be a subject for criminal law? Couldn't the cop have simply told the parents, "Hey, these children were endangered. Don't leave them out in the parking lot by themselves until they're older", and sent them on their way?

Glenn Reynolds had a point regarding the criminalization-of-everything movement: When everything is illegal, then the matter of who gets prosecuted and who doesn't is up to the prosecutor's discretion. And prosecutor's discretion is not subject to due process.

Far more dangerous to leave them in the car.

No. You're wrong. The risks they'll face are greater outside of the car in all instances.

Let's remember that these kids are 9 and 6, not infants.

Well, you're just being a tad hypocritical here. My point was that there was utterly no reason one adult of the two that were there couldn't have stayed behind with the kids.

Aren't you the one whose always faulting parents who can't be bothered? I agree is all. If you can't be bothered, don't have kids.

And, no, a 9 year old isn't as safe in a car in a busy parking lot as they are in their own living room.

And let's not forget this isn't the first time this particular couple were warned if I'm remembering right from your other post.

My point was that there was utterly no reason one adult of the two that were there couldn't have stayed behind with the kids.

They didn't need to.

And, no, a 9 year old isn't as safe in a car in a busy parking lot as they are in their own living room.

Of course they are. Child accidents in the home per hours of exposure are much higher than they are in a stationary vehicle. They're also much higher in a grocery story, which is where the would have been otherwise - not their living room.

Why do you think that stationary cars are so dangerous?

"I expect that these parents will never leave a kid of theirs alone anywhere, under ANY circumstances, ever again."

Wrong, since this was the 2nd time someone had called on them leaving kids alone (or, okay, first time was letting kids play in street alone, but very similar) so I imagine they're planning to continue.

If the people who design and build the cars say to never ever leave a kid in one, I think they need to be listened to. Even open windows won't keep a car in the sun from getting deathly hot, even if the outside temp is not hot.

Did this prosecutor know of the first offense and the details surrounding it, or was she just given the details of the parking lot arrest?

Sumfin is fishy. If CPC was called out the first time, then the arresting officer most likely had that first CPC information available. You can't really blame an officer for making a judgment to arrest considering this - can you?

If no harm was done, then I am sure charges will be dropped. Besides, the kids behavior (which was never provided) would probably be a good indicator as to why these people had two unrelated calls to CPC about their children. Either it was a complete fluke, or something is up...

With only a partial story - provided only by the mother, I would be really interested in seeing a third party's take on the incidents.

It's really easy to get yourself a CPS file these days, what with everyone trying to save the children -- especially from things they don't need to be saved from.

A former neighbor recently had to deal with the process because her sister was holding a grudge over something and decided to make her life difficult. I can't remember how many times I've heard of kids threatening to make the call themselves whenever mommy won't extend the bedtime another half an hour.

MonicaP, an acquiantance of mine's kid actually called 911 once because she grounded the kid for skipping school. The police showed up; the mom explained the situation. Once the policeman confirmed that the kid wasn't in any danger, he gave the kid what-for.

I too am interested in hearing what was risked by leaving the 9- and 6-year-old alone in the car. Heat stroke? This was in the North, and the windows were cracked. Abduction? The doors were locked and the children had a cell phone. Collision? Unlikely, since the car was parked in a parking lot.

No danger - but a missed parenting opportunity.

The message sent is: I can sit on my but playing Nintendo while my parents schlep around a grocery store.

Kids that age can learn a lot by shopping with their parents - meal planning, budgeting, price comparison, the need to help out, how to select produce and other items. Social interaction. Etc.

We're not talking about 3 year olds who will make shopping a hell with their tantrums over things they want.

Increasingly a nation of cowards where every man is a rapist or a child murderer, and kids can't go out to play. This is mostly the work of the All Men Are Rapists Crew.

I do disagree with one thing Amy said, I think, in the past, that there is no more danger today then years ago. There is more danger, because all this open hatred for men has taught men not to help kids in trouble as they did years ago.

Vivé Mexico.

It is pretty bad when Mexico is a better place to live then the US. Keep up the good work, dolts.

Amy, there is a difference in that you weren't taking care of a small child when you went to the park or rode your bike.

I think things might be different if it was just the 9 yr old left in the car reading, but it's likely that the officer had the first CPS report and therefore viewed these parents as repeatedly neglectful for expecting the 9 yr old to babysit the 6 yr old.

A six yr old might get out of the car, wander across the street, and get lost or hit by another car. Young children are more impulsive and harder to control. A 9 yr old is not considered old enough to be a babysitter. A lot of things could happen that he/she wouldn't be competent to handle. It sounds to me like these parents leave their kids unattended too often. There was just no reason to do this, as Muggle says, one parent could've stayed with them.

It's exactly Lovelysoul's type of thinking that is wrong.

"A six yr old might get out of the car, wander across the street, and get lost or hit by another car. Young children are more impulsive and harder to control."

They MIGHT do this and they MIGHT do that. A lot of things MIGHT happen at any time to any one. When kids are restricted because something MIGHT happen, it teaches them to be LESS responsible and LESS independent.

Too much of our current fear as a society is driven by the "might happens". And it seems to be centered on "the Children". It's all fine and dandy when you are restricting others but nobody uses the same thinking with themselves.

You don't see people going "Oh, guess I'm not going to drive/ride in an automobile because I MIGHT get killed in an accident." "Oh, not going to go to the mall/gym/classroom because there MIGHT be a random shooting."

But so many people like Lovelysoul are so quick to point it out with "the Children". It's stuff like "They shouldn't ride a subway by themselves, they MIGHT get abducted." "They shouldn't play on the jungle gym because they MIGHT fall down and hurt themselves." Or ths "Not blacktop on the playground, someone MIGHT skin a knee."

Esther, there's a decided difference in playing on a jungle gym and leaving kids unattended. And it is not the same as adults taking risks. Parents are supposed to be responsible for the "might happens". Ask anyone who is a parent and they'll tell you that, even despite supervision, a lot of the "might happens" do happen.

At age 7 or 8, my son busted his head open at a beach BBQ chasing some little girl, jumping from lounge chair to lounge chair. He was knocked unconscious, bleeding profusely. Luckily, the little girl came running up and told us or he might have bled to death. His dad and I were A FEW YARDS AWAY, talking to other guests, two of whom happened (luckily)to also be paramedics, so were able to treat him and get him to the hospital.

That's just an example of what kind of thing young kids can do to get themselves into trouble. It happens quickly. They just do things without thinking, and that's the nature of young kids. Parents can't always prevent it, but, to me, it's foolish to just let them run around unattended and tell yourself accidents won't happen. That's a lazy parent, in my view, and if you don't want to be bothered to watch after your children properly, then don't have them.

I think what Lenore did, letting her son take the subway, was well thought-out and designed to encourage independence. She was within cell phone reach, and I trust she only did it once - that she wasn't allowing him to ride the subway every day at that age. It was an educational experience for him.

But I feel a lot of parents embrace these "movements" so they have an excuse not to be bothered with actually supervising their kids when they SHOULD be supervised. Dropping kids off at malls (in charge of much younger siblings) and leaving them alone in parking lots for over 30 mins is not so much encouraging the kids' independence as the parent's.

Yes, accidents do happen sometimes even when the parent is a couple yards away. As you state yourself, there isn't that much you can do to prevent accidents. However, you can teach your kids how make precautions and how to respond to accidents, thus instilling responsiblity.

The things is, these kids were told what to do if something happened, they had the doors locked and they had a cell phone. They were allowed to take responsiblity and have independence.

I don't know why you don't think allowing a child to read in a comfortable spot instead of having to follow Mom and Dad around on a tedious (to a 9 or 6 yrold) shopping trip, isn't about the child's independence. They are independently doing something that is more worthwhile to them! That is also allowing them to demonstate their responsibility.

"in my view, and if you don't want to be bothered to watch after your children properly, then don't have them."

So allowing you child to run around on furniture is watching after them properly? Sitting in a car while your parents shop is A LOT LESS risky than that, hence the "knocked unconscious, bleeding profusely" child. And I understand, accidents happen, but if you had taken a second and told your son that lounge chairs are for sitting on, there wouldn't be any "might have bled to death".

You either don't have kids or are an idiot. You can tell a young boy all day not to climb on things, or jump, or run, but it doesn't always work. And teaching him to "handle accidents responsibly" isn't going to help if he does fall and knock himself out - which can happen to anybody's child.

A 9 yr old isn't old enough to babysit. Period. That's why we have laws about it. 99% of the time, everything will be ok, but, as my story demonstrates, it is a good idea to have parents nearby. There is just no good reason why one parent shouldn't stay in the car with them.

LS, to try to get this back on point: If we grant that the parents' action was improper, what do you think the proper response of the police should have been? I'm not convinced that arrest was the best way to address the problem. And arbitrarily picking one parent to arrest, while letting the other one go, makes no sense whatsoever.

I agree, Cousin Dave. I don't really understand the arrest, except that I assume the cop had the first CPS report, and this may not have been the first time these parents have left the kids in the car alone. But they both should've been arrested. It is up to the officer's discretion, so I'm figuring there may be other key facts not being given.

I mean, where was this store? Is it a place where a lot of druggies/prostitutes hang out? Was it day or evening? How safe did the parking lot really seem?

We're all imagining some lily-white suburban parking lot, but the fact that the mom felt she needed to warn the daughter about a potential bad person coming up to them, says to me that this might not have been the safest environment.

Ester has no kids. That's obvious. I mean, why vaccinate? Dying from measles only "might" happen, after all!

this was laziness on so-called parents. neither one could be bothered to sit with them which would have avoided this whole trauma. both couldn't be bothered to insist they come into the store and dealing with their not wanting to.

why'd they even bring the kids. could of left them home if 9 year old was gonna babysit 6 year old. something's very off here.