BS: Child neglect and the law

Subject: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Canadienne
Date: 14 May 07 - 02:16 PM

As an ex Child Care Officer I was interested in the discussion about the legal implications of the recent very sad abduction case in Portugal where 3 children under the age of 4 were left unattended for several evenings while their parents sat in a bar with other friends having declined the available personal baby-sitting service charged at £10 per hour.

It appears that mudcat does not always apply the "freedom of speech" it claims in other instances but this topic is currently being discussed on other forums in the UK and anyone interested in following thoughts on this issue, both objective and "emotional" will have to express their views elsewhere such as a popular tabloid forum

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:15 PM

Issues surrounding children are always sensitive.

The main thing is to make sure that relevant information is in everyone's minds to ensure a good outcome for the child.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:16 PM

So you're using the law to condemn loving parents who saved themselves £10 an hour paid to a baby sitting service, which would have provided the same service.
Or do you think the baby sitting services at these holiday hotels and complexes provide someone who will actually sit with the children?
They 'Look in' on children on a regular basis, which is exactly what the parents in this case were doing.
It's one thing being able to quote the law, it's something totally different to put yourself in the shoes of responsible and loving parents.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Scoville
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:23 PM

I reserve judgement on this particular incident since I've only seen short news articles on it and don't know the particulars, but I have to say that I would never, under any circumstances, leave children that young alone anywhere. It probably wouldn't occur to me that they might be kidnapped, but there's way too much stuff kids even that young can get into if you don't watch them that it would never cross my mind to leave them unattended even at a fancy hotel. If you really need a break that badly, get an actual babysitter for yourself and have them watched properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 14 May 07 - 03:24 PM

Giok, if you are right about the services provided at these holiday hotels and complexes (and I'm sure you are) then perhaps, after recent very sad events, they need to review what they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Canadienne
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:46 PM

Hi all,
"I have jsut read these blogs and being an ex member of mark warner staff (a nanny infact) I feel I want to add my point of view to this 'debate'
Mark warner have been voted (on numerous occasions) for having the best childcare in the world, priding themselves on looking after the children with a very high standard,the services the resorts offers are as follows.. daytime childcare(we all know what that is) also 'room listing' services, where the nannys will walk around to the rooms (if parents have signed up foir this free of charge) and listen to check there is no problem in the room, they are not allowed to enter the rooms and all rooms must be closed!!
they also offer babysitting service in the eves uptil (approx) 2am, where the nanny will sit in the room with the little ones until parents return, either frm resteraunt or local town etc,"

- this is from a post written to the UK forum I referred to above. As reported in the press the £10 per hour charge was for a "personal" baby sitter who would remain in the same room as the children.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: skipy
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:48 PM

Please put this on hold for now, at least until we have an outcome!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 May 07 - 04:59 PM

I find it incredible that the original thread was deleted. I'm with Canadienne here....free speech only about some things.....sheesh.

Giok, 'responsible'? Now, I wasn't there, don't know all the facts and am reserving judgement, but 'looking in' on under 4 year olds????

What if there had been booze or pills left in the room and they got into them? What if they'd been playing with matches and died along with perhaps other people in a fire???

I'll wait to pass judgement til it's all over.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 14 May 07 - 05:22 PM

Leaving Children alone - UK 'law'.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 May 07 - 05:56 PM

I find it incredible that a bunch of folks who were not even there think it is so important to judge these parents, or any others for that matter, with only what they can glean from the media.

If you want a discussion on child neglect and the law (of which country?) then why not do so but let this specific, unfolding case go until the whole story is known, if ever.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:03 PM

kat, my dear, I didn't mean it in quite that way. I am not and never will sitting in Judgement for them...I actually meant that I hadn't made up MY mind just exactly what is going on or happened. Sorry I wasn't more explicit.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 14 May 07 - 06:28 PM

If a mother from Dorset had left her kids alone and popped into a neighbours for a drink and this dreadful event had occurred I doubt she would receive the same level of understanding. She probably would have been charged by now.

My original thread sought understanding beyond knee jerk emotions.

Thanks Sorcha, free speech only exists on this site for the selected few.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: wysiwyg
Date: 14 May 07 - 09:20 PM

I'm confused-- what are we bashing in this particular thread?

Mudcat admin actions in a specific instance, about which we know little if anything...

Parenting practices in a specific instance, about which we know little if anything...

Hotel childcare services in a specific instance, about which we know little if anything...


I can't keep it straight!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Scoville
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:19 PM

I don't think we're bashing anything yet but I think I see a descent into Mudcat-monitoring-bashing on the horizon. I hope I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:56 AM

I think that the moderators should consider the serious possibility that these threads are being set up by the actual abductors, or abductors of other children, in an attempt to blame their actions on the parents. Please let delete all threads about this case, at least until we have some facts.

Maddy come home.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:23 AM

Canadienne/Victor, whatever your name is. Your thread was deleted once. I did request it remained to show the depths some people will stoop to. Maybe I shouldn't have called you a shit-stirring gloater, even if that is what you are. Seeing as you are so interested in the 'law' why don't you apply the first principle of English law? That everyone is innocent until proven guilty. You accuse other people of knee jerk but go on to use the kind of tabloid insinuation that could do no end of damage to the poor parents.

If you want to attract some attention to your sad little life why don't you do us all a favour. Go and stick your head in a bucket of cow shit. It would do no one any harm but yourself and would be far more entertaining for the rest of us.

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:35 AM

It is very easy to become emotive about such issues. The UK media seems to adopt one such every summer - blonde, blue-eyed little angel/s, grieving parents, a nation waits...the treatment is almost pornographic and does absolutely nothing to resolve the case. It's almost as if such events are seen as a necessary catharsis.
Interesting points are raised by Peter Wilby in yesterday's Media Guardian. Hand-wringing tabloid readers perhaps shouldn't read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:21 AM

It is about time some media take an interest in what now follows and do a bit of investigative journalism.

Whilst we are all deeply shocked and praying for Maddy's safe return, more and more people both here and in Portugal are now of the opinion that the McCann's behaviour was, at the very least, negligent and irresponsible in leaving three babies unattended (yes, Dave Poldark, unattended because 'checking up on them every half hour? is not good enough.

Besides, 'THEY WERE NOT HAVING DINNER at a nearby restaurant' way past dinner time. Any aspect of this horrendous episode that point as what is a case of gross negligence and irresponsibility seems to be 'diluted' by the press when the bottom line is that they left their babies unattended (not only that night) and were having a good time drinking with friends (and relatives?) at a TAPAS BAR SOME 100/200 yards away while their babies remained UNSUPERVISED.

Even if it is true that they were 'checking up on their babies every one half hour' (counting the minutes between drinks, of course), how many times did they go up and down 'to check', four, six, eight times?

For how many hours did they stay at the 'nearby restaurant' TAPAS BAR having a good time while their children were unattended? Unattended why?

when the Ocean Club at Praia da Luz CATERS FOR FAMILIES, has a crèche and, besides, can offer a babysitter service at the drop of a hat? This is something that as I was told by the police in plain Portuguese, they cannot understand. Furthermore, if Mrs McCann went to 'check' once again around 10 pm, this is a clear indication that they had no intention of getting back to their apartment and their children in a hurry.

I speak fluent Portuguese and have spoken to members of the Polícia de Segurança Pública, the Polícia Judiciária and the Ministerio da Justiça simply because I had a feeling that, for some reason, in order to minimise the unquestionable responsibility of the McCanns' actions, 'the nearby restaurant; was being 'moved' by the press closer and closer to the apartment.

What I got was the reaction of professionals who are being very tactful and diplomatic but, at the same time, are furious at the way their prompt action and their efforts plus those of Firefighters and the Polícia Marítima are being criticised.

They also say that, as there are no signs of anybody breaking in, because the doors were left unlocked, any criminal who had taken an interest in the McCanns behaviour (for this was not the only time they were 'dining at the nearby restaurant'), could have walked in and abducted Maddy.

Another theory is that the girl may have woken up, was missing her mum and dad and had gone outside to look for her parents and…. what may have happened after that is anybody's guess.

This is an extremely distressing situation and we are all sure the McCanns must be going through hell not only because their beautiful little angel is missing but because deep down they know that without their negligent, irresponsible behaviour this might never have happened.

I could not agree more that Mr and Mrs McCann should be held responsible regardless of the outcome.

Yes Dave someone will pat you on the back, but it won't be right minded people such as myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:44 AM

If that is right minded I know where there is a house full of them.

You say I could not agree more that Mr and Mrs McCann should be held responsible regardless of the outcome. but have spent the previous posts and paragraphs in this one doing exactly that. It's funny how a caring parent, fluent in other languages with much child care experience can not only believe but go on to repeat the half truths, insinuations and myths put out by the gutter press. What is more you then go on to post this twaddle to a forum about folk and blues music. Yes, very right minded indeed.

Maybe you are a child care professional. I sincerely hope not for the sake of all the people in that profession who do really care. Then again maybe you are one of those who does give the profession a bad name. Ever been involved in any of the cases where caring parents spend lots of time with their children? To abuse and injure them? Maybe to murder them? Perhaps you are one of the ones who let these 'caring parents' get away with it and that is why you are so twisted?

I am quite happy for this thread to continue as it shows you up for the sad low life you really are but if Joe or any of the clones would care to delete it I would not object too much.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:55 AM

Funny how these people will not speak to the press as Portuguese law forbids it while a case is 'sub judice' but they will apparently tell all to our anonymous guest !
Victor, or whatever name you're posting under today, I think you are an attention seeker, and a trouble maker.
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:59 AM

I think to remember an incident in which a Danish(?) tourist mother was accused of child neglect in the USA for leaving her baby in a pram outside of a restaurant.

She was very surprised about the accusation for that behaviour was quite normal in Denmark. Anyone passing by and hearing the baby crying would enter the restaurant and alarm the mother.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:07 AM

Victor,

your post is a copy&paste from a post in the link provided by Canadienne. Are you the one who has posted in that tabloid under another user name or have you forgotten to mark as a quote which were not your own words?

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:09 AM

Dave, I am not Victor and re-opened this thread to get away from the mass outpourings of heartfelt sympathy at the abduction of a small child and discuss, objectively I hoped, the issues involved and the way in which they are handled by a press whose sole object is to trade on those emotions and sell as many copies as possible.

Yes I did train and work as a Child Care Officer and I did work with both abusing and neglecting parents who could be extremely skilled at disguising the truth of their actions. I hope that whatever else my faults I kept the welfare of the CHILDREN at the forefront; I know from my own experience and the experience of many colleagues that it is often difficult to consider that parents could be responsible for physical and sexual abuse or even such "casual" neglect of their own children.

I don't want to argue with you in such subjective and abusive terms Dave please accept that in this "house of music" there are many viewpoints.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Canadienne
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:10 AM

sorry - that was me

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:04 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6623127.stm
This is a BBC report with quotes from close family who were kept informed by the parents.
They are clear that the couple were eating, that they checked the children at about 9.30, and then at around 9.45 to 10., and that there was clear evidence of a break in through a shuttered window.
The parents are said to be deriving comfort and strength from the support and good will of so many people.
I hope that they do not come across these Guest posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Grab
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:10 AM

Or do you think the baby sitting services at these holiday hotels and complexes provide someone who will actually sit with the children?

Curiously, the guy who did my haircut last Monday said he took his family to exactly that place for the last couple of years. And one of the major reasons was that they *do* have a creche with full-time attendants, and they *do* have a top-class babysitting service where the babysitter will stay with the kids while the adults go off for a meal, at a very reasonable cost.

There is still a question of what's appropriate care, though. You don't sit with a baby 24 hours a day, do you? So I don't think the problem is failure to have someone in the same room as the kid. But it is usually considered essential to have someone within earshot of children, not to protect against kidnappers but for all the other problems that kids can get themselves into, like getting their head stuck through the bars of the cot or stuff like that. So leaving the kid without a babysitter is usually considered negligent. 99 times out of 100 they'd get away with it, so they were incredibly unlucky for it to come to this, but it was still negligent.

Of course, that doesn't make it their fault - the fault is clearly with the evil person (or people) who abducted the kid. But their negligence made it possible, and I'm sure they're living with the guilt of that "if-only".

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Jean(eanjay)
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:22 AM

These parents have already said that they have let their child down and they do face possible prosecution. They are paying a very high price for any shortcomings they may have had.

However, they are doing all the right things to be reunited with their child and the most important thing at the moment is to make sure this is kept in everyone's minds so that nobody forgets and everyone is vigilant.

The priority at the moment is the child's well being.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:37 AM

Suspect arrested this morning, believed to be the son of an English resident, who has a villa about 200 metres from the complex from which the child disappeared.
Too early to heave a sigh of relief though, apart from not knowing if they have the man involved, but the child is still missing.
Giok.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:47 AM

I'm sure the two people in this world who KNOW they were stupid, especially given their professional backgrounds, are the parents of this poor little girl, but beating them up serves no purpose at this moment. Their heartache must be made even worse by their feelings of guilt, so why do some feel a need to heap more guilt and pain on them? It seems to be a kind of 'smug superiority' thing.

Show me a parent who has never done something stupid. It's impossible, we all have in varying degrees.

I reckon the child is who matters. We should all concentrate on her, and leave the other stuff to be dealt with by the appropriate authority (if it be deemed appropriate), at a much later date when, hopefully, there will have been a happy outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:47 AM

I have already let canadienne know by PM that I am not at all happy with her re-creating a thread that has already been deemed unacceptable by Mudcat. She has informed my privately that she is not Victor and did not start this thread out of maliciousness towards the parents but out of frustration that the original thread was deleted and with the idea of providing a vehicle to discuss the shortcomings of the parents in a rational way.

I disagree completely and have already said so by PM. Had I have known that canadienne was not Victor I would not have bundled them together.

I apologised privately for that and now do so publicly. Canadienne you are not Victor. You still should not have recreated a thread deemed unacceptable. I have also said I will post no more on this thread unless 'Victor' decides to come out from behind the curtain to let us know who he is and what qualifies him as judge jury and executioner.

Until he does my last words are, Victor - Crawl back under your stone Try getting your thrills by kicking someone who can fight back. Until then leave normal people alone.

Dave.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Candienne
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:28 AM

Thank you Dave, I'm sure we can agree to disagree on some issues but I appreciate your apology both personal and public.

Like everyone else I am hoping for a joyful outcome from the new developments that Giok referred to earlier but I will NOT be contributing to the, less than transparent, "fighting fund" set up by an uncle which has enabled the parents so far to fly out two lawyers and a priest!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:42 AM

How do you PM a guest Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Mr Happy
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:56 AM

GUEST,Canadienne - PM
Date: 14 May 07 - 02:16 PM

GUEST,Candienne - PM
Date: 15 May 07 - 10:28 AM


Is Guest No2 an imposter or is it a typo - note spellings!

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:15 AM

How DO you pm a guest Dave?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:48 AM

I agree with Grab. It was a neglegent thing to do, leaving small children alone like that, and in such a unrestricted place as a hotel.

I have already let canadienne know by PM that I am not at all happy with her re-creating a thread that has already been deemed unacceptable by Mudcat.

Who says it is unacceptable? We discuss all sorts of things. It sounds like a lot of people are apologists for these parents' poor judgement. Before I read this thread I was trying to learn more about the case, but the information was limited. This is the kind of case that when we hear about them in the US it is in conjunction with an Amber Alert. Those have helped the outcomes somewhat, but it is still a grim situation. Why don't you want to discuss it--might jinx the outcome? I don't think so.

Common sense says you don't leave children that small alone. Period. People are prosecuted for that all of the time here in the U.S. There isn't a lot of sympathy for the parents who put their social life over their children's welfare. In Texas, it is illegal to leave a child home alone if they're under the age of 12, and it may vary from state to state. The parents should have coughed up a few pounds and paid for the babysitter.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:04 PM

Armchair Judges, Trolls, and Dual Personality Guests and, yes, Dave, how do you PM a guest?

Anybody care to concentrate on the little girl and send good thoughts to her coming home safe and sound? Oh, now there's a worthy thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:15 PM

How do you PM a guest Dave?

One cannot PM a GUEST, but one can PM a Mudcatter using the GUEST tag if one knows who she is.

Canadienne herself has asked to PM her for instance in this post in another thread:

As you are well aware of my idenity Giok and why I choose to post as a "guest" I wonder why you simply did not PM me with that question or do I have to guess at your aggenda?

Now you could try to guess which Mudcatter uses the word "agenda" in this way. If one has followed Canadienne's posting history it is not too difficult.

You may PM me for the solution if you really want to know.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:20 PM

Well, I hope you don't consider a statement of facts regarding the law to be "trolling." Honest discourse needs to be able to include information that may upset. Sobeit.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:48 PM

This is fun. I was hoping Dave had mudcat's perhaps first tripartite personality (Dave? Dave's not here. No this is Dave) but I figured Wolfgang's was the answer.

Aggenda. Bobert could spell it that way. So could I. But he couldn't spell the rest of the sentence so well. I could. But it wasn't me.

Aggrandizement/aggrandizer? No, not helpful. That's everybody here.

Wait wait don't tell me.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:01 PM

Oh, I see it. I've said it before don't post above the line. Those people will cut your balls off and serve them to you with garlic.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:02 PM

No, SRS, I do not consider your posts to be trolling.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: GUEST,Victor
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:07 PM

Dave where is my pm ? I presume this means "Private Messaging".

I remain steadfast in my belief this is a terrible crime and the parents must share some of the responsibly.

Thank you for exposing this "Dave" individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:10 PM

Heric's post shows me that I may have misled some by my post (without any intention). The "aggenda" bit was just a typo in a copy and paste. She usually spells the word "agenda" of course.

My point was not the spelling but the sense and context. Guessing other posters hidden "agendas" was a favourite motive in her posts.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:02 PM

There are some really sick smug bastards around, aren't there? People get there kicks in the strangest ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: KB in Iowa
Date: 15 May 07 - 03:12 PM

Major thread drift.

Meanwhile, back on the ranch...

I truly feel for the girl and her parents. They must be going through hell right now. That said, I would never consider going out to eat (or to a bar, it really doesn't matter which) while leaving three children under age four alone, even if it was for only fifteen (or thirty) minutes at a time. I would not do this at home let alone while on vacation.

I do hope she is found soon and is in good health.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: heric
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:20 PM

Oh oh. Sick I may be, smug I am not. MGOH never hits a specific target when he lobs those in. If I have offended anyone who is genuinely upset about this, I apologize. I am horrified for the girl, sickened for the parents, and recognize that they are guilty of something (as we all are). All of that was and is so obvious I didn't even feel the need to mention it.

If, however, the smug sick bastards are others uplist with their strong pronouncements for or against the parents, well, then, I guess I can't help them.

Carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: dianavan
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:06 PM

Wolfgang - Why do you think the poster is a she based on the term agenda? I recall a Big Mick and others also using the term. You sure go to extremes in order to oust the quest, whoever they might be.

I didn't see the first thread but this one is really f#$*&d!

They parents will have to deal with their grief and probably the law as well (who knows what Portugese laws are on this matter). In the meantime, lets just hope the little girl is found safe and sound.

Just for the record, if babysitting was available, why not hire a sitter? Seems to me they were being cheap to the extreme. If they can afford a flight to Portugal and deluxe accomodations, they should be able to afford a babysitter. In addition, why should they need public donations of any kind? Its not as if these people are without means. I can think of alot of other parents I would sympathize with before I sympathize with these two. Something about them is just not right.

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:32 PM

"If the cap,fits wear it..."

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Captain Ginger
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:36 PM

You still should not have recreated a thread deemed unacceptable.
I wasn't aware of that. Who has decreed that the OP was unacceptable? Or should we all dance to the mawkish tabloid tune?

Subject: RE: BS: Child neglect and the law
From: Sorcha
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:48 PM

Look, I know who Canadienne is....female, OK? The 'enne' tells you that anyway. It's apparently not ok to discuss it because a thread was deleted.