Foster Parents Leave 2 & 4 Yr Olds in CBR Room Alone For Hours While They Go Swimming

[happygirl]

What idiots how in the world did they ever get to be foster parents.

 

[mumom95]

2 and 4 are about two of the worse ages to leave unattended. They are old enough to get into things but not old enough to really understand dangerous situations.

What if the building was on fire. What if the two year old had choked on something.

I just cannot fathom leaving two children that age alone for more than 10 minutes or so, and especially going that far away from the building.

Unbelievable.

 

[fiveforall]

Grr! If the "parents" wanted to swim (or take a break) so badly, why didn't one stay with the kids while the other went to the pool? Thank heaven for the housekeeper!

 

[dismom2]

They went swimming for "a few hours"?? That's a long time to be at the pool, let alone while you leave your kids in the room! And the foster mom said she's left them alone on other occassions?? If they are too inconvenienced by the kids' routine to properly parent, they should not be foster parents IMO. Most of us who have kids work around our children's schedules. Period.

Some people become foster parent's solely for the money (I know it's been preveiously mentioned, and someone took offense, but I happen to know someone who did it---so no offense to the many who don't do it for the wrong reasons). I wonder if this is the case with these people? Not saying it is, but doesn't sound like they really want to take 'full' responsibility of raising kids properly.

And there are kids who can open a door at age four. I know my child could. No matter how you look at it, there was no reason to leave the children for a FEW hours to go swimming. I'm glad the maid found them.

 

[DisneyBrideToni]

What scum! Seriously. There are so many things that could happen to kids left alone. They can put something into an electrical socket, furniture could fall on them, they could fall off of furniture.....sick.

 

[islandmum]

They were at the pool...what good reason could they have had? Emergency sun deprivation? Simultaneous delerium? A Michael Jackson sighting? Maybe the paper isn't reporting the whole story, but I can't imagine a good reason to leave your young children alone while you swim.

ITA!

CPS did the right thing - I would NEVER leave my kids alone - EVER.

 

[teacups]

I can't imagine a good reason to leave your young children alone while you swim.

No good reason at all ever to do this no matter what, when, who or why IMO.

 

[teacups]

And this is the opposite (but not) of the other post where the parents left a sleeping three year old girl alone at the pool while they left! Sheesh.... insane.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I agree the parents were totally out of line. I DO think it is okay to leave kids this age for a brief minute or two while you run to fill an ice bucket, etc (on the same level--leaving awake toddlers who KNOW what is going on and would rahter stay watching a show than come with you, etc.). That is not much different than going into another room in your own home. I can also understand (as is more common in places other than the US) leaving a sleeping child in a room which is fairly close to the restrurant with a baby monitor. Again, more or less the same thing as being downstairs at home while child sleeps upstairs (NOTE--I did go fill ice buskets numerous times when we lived in a hotel for 3 months when my kids were 18 months and 3/ 1/2, but did not leave them with a baby monitor to go eat in the lobby, but I can see where that is a responisible choice for some parents and some kids).
What I do not understand about this thread is WHY it matters that the parents are foster parents. Why is that in the title? Why is it so much a part of the discussion. This is a bad parenting decision. Period. It matter not wether the parents are foster parents, biological parents, step parents, adoptive parents, single parents, old parents, young parents, black parents, white parents, Asian parents, etc. etc. It MIGHT matter what culture they are from (as brought up previously--in this case seems they are American AND this was not a few minutes, or parents near by or with a baby monitor nor other things done commonly in places I have vistied/lived which are still responsible though not the norm in the U.S.--so it does not seem to matter in this case) but not how they happened to have become parents. The only reason I can see to bring the foster parenting part of it up at all is if that makes it easier for CPS to take the children (I don't know, does it?) and we are discussing that aspect of the case. Otherwise all the talk about fostering seems to take away from the many good foster parents out there (as if one is assuming foster parents are more likle to be bad parents than biological ones--I ahev seen good and bad in both) AND to take away from the issue which is that leaving toddlers unattended (even at home) with no food and water for hours is NOT okay.

 

[teacups]

I agree the parents were totally out of line. I DO think it is okay to leave kids this age for a brief minute or two while you run to fill an ice bucket, etc (on the same level--leaving awake toddlers who KNOW what is going on and would rahter stay watching a show than come with you, etc.). That is not much different than going into another room in your own home. I can also understand (as is more common in places other than the US) leaving a sleeping child in a room which is fairly close to the restrurant with a baby monitor. Again, more or less the same thing as being downstairs at home while child sleeps upstairs (NOTE--I did go fill ice buskets numerous times when we lived in a hotel for 3 months when my kids were 18 months and 3/ 1/2, but did not leave them with a baby monitor to go eat in the lobby, but I can see where that is a responisible choice for some parents and some kids).
What I do not understand about this thread is WHY it matters that the parents are foster parents. Why is that in the title? Why is it so much a part of the discussion. This is a bad parenting decision. Period. It matter not wether the parents are foster parents, biological parents, step parents, adoptive parents, single parents, old parents, young parents, black parents, white parents, Asian parents, etc. etc. It MIGHT matter what culture they are from (as brought up previously--in this case seems they are American AND this was not a few minutes, or parents near by or with a baby monitor nor other things done commonly in places I have vistied/lived which are still responsible though not the norm in the U.S.--so it does not seem to matter in this case) but not how they happened to have become parents. The only reason I can see to bring the foster parenting part of it up at all is if that makes it easier for CPS to take the children (I don't know, does it?) and we are discussing that aspect of the case. Otherwise all the talk about fostering seems to take away from the many good foster parents out there (as if one is assuming foster parents are more likle to be bad parents than biological ones--I ahev seen good and bad in both) AND to take away from the issue which is that leaving toddlers unattended (even at home) with no food and water for hours is NOT okay.

 

[NHdisneylover]

Teacups--I can totally see where you would not be comfortable leaving a child even in the situations I referenced. Personally I was not either (except to get ice when we were LIVING at the hotel and the kids had been there a while and KNEW the place and the staff and were comfortable with it and had a feel for how long I would be gone, etc.). None the less, I can see how others would be comfortable and could still be considered responisible parents. Really, all the "what ifs" that could happen in a one/two minute juant to the ice mahcine or vending machine could happen if you take a shower or use the restroom in a hotel room and the kids are not in the restroom with you. Or if you take a shower, or use teh restroom or do anything in anotehr room at home. Likewise, while mine did not stay in a hotel room while we ate dinner in the lobby unitl they were 8 and 6 (and again living at a hotel--and then they had walkie talkies and checked in frequently), I have known people who have left a sleeping infant in a room near the restraurant and left a baby monitor with the baby and then taken the other part of the monitor and gone to dinner (and usually checked in in person a few times as well during the meal). Honestly, many palces I have stayed you could be in the room faster from dining than I could make it from say the basement (folding laundry) to DDs room on the third floor. To me, that seems out of MY comfort zone but still reasonable as far as protecting and taking care of the child.

 

[Chicago526]

I agree the parents were totally out of line. I DO think it is okay to leave kids this age for a brief minute or two while you run to fill an ice bucket, etc (on the same level--leaving awake toddlers who KNOW what is going on and would rahter stay watching a show than come with you, etc.). That is not much different than going into another room in your own home. I can also understand (as is more common in places other than the US) leaving a sleeping child in a room which is fairly close to the restrurant with a baby monitor. Again, more or less the same thing as being downstairs at home while child sleeps upstairs (NOTE--I did go fill ice buskets numerous times when we lived in a hotel for 3 months when my kids were 18 months and 3/ 1/2, but did not leave them with a baby monitor to go eat in the lobby, but I can see where that is a responisible choice for some parents and some kids).
What I do not understand about this thread is WHY it matters that the parents are foster parents. Why is that in the title? Why is it so much a part of the discussion. This is a bad parenting decision. Period. It matter not wether the parents are foster parents, biological parents, step parents, adoptive parents, single parents, old parents, young parents, black parents, white parents, Asian parents, etc. etc. It MIGHT matter what culture they are from (as brought up previously--in this case seems they are American AND this was not a few minutes, or parents near by or with a baby monitor nor other things done commonly in places I have vistied/lived which are still responsible though not the norm in the U.S.--so it does not seem to matter in this case) but not how they happened to have become parents. The only reason I can see to bring the foster parenting part of it up at all is if that makes it easier for CPS to take the children (I don't know, does it?) and we are discussing that aspect of the case. Otherwise all the talk about fostering seems to take away from the many good foster parents out there (as if one is assuming foster parents are more likle to be bad parents than biological ones--I ahev seen good and bad in both) AND to take away from the issue which is that leaving toddlers unattended (even at home) with no food and water for hours is NOT okay.

I think it matters in the context that foster parents are supposed to be held to a higher standard, they have to apply, have background checks and take courses before being allowed to care for foster children. It's a bad choice for any parent to make, but is an especially bad choice for a foster parent to make.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I think it matters in the context that foster parents are supposed to be held to a higher standard, they have to apply, have background checks and take courses before being allowed to care for foster children. It's a bad choice for any parent to make, but is an especially bad choice for a foster parent to make.

I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks. That makes some sense

 

[ChrizJen]

I do not feel leaving these 2 children alone in the hotel is a good thing by any means. I would not do this with my own child or my foster child. Yes, I am a foster parent and I take really offense to anyone that thinks the money a foster parent receives could pay for a disney trip. I would agree there are good foster parents and then there are bad ones. If people are so quick to judge that we do this for the money then why are there so many foster children still needing homes to be put in. I am sorry to get on my soap box but it is so easy to sit there and judge others when you have no idea what goes on with foster children and the problems they bring into the families they join. I do hope the children are lucky enough to get with a good family that will take care of their needs and love them as any child sould be.

This was my first response to that post as well. But I was able to step back and realize that the poster may be correct. Sure, you and I are responsible, caring foster parents. And every penny (and MUCH more) of the subsidy that we get goes to making sure that our foster children are well taken care of. But the sad reality is that there are foster parents who don't provide their foster children with the things they need, and they pocket most or all of the subsidy. And those are the ones this poster was referring to. I would hate to jump to the conclusion that the foster parents in question are ones who would do this, but at the very least they used very poor judgement and shouldn't be caring for special needs children.

 

[Kim&Chris]

Oh dear Lord, what is WRONG with people? A million things could have happened to those kids while these two idiots were out swimming.

And based on statements given by these two Einsteins, it's apparently not a big deal; they admit to having done it in the past.

Thankfully the housekeeper caught this

 

[TeresaBelle]

This may not be the practice here, but elsewhere in the world this is totally acceptable. Not making an excuse, but it happens.

Look at the Maddie McCann story. Her parents left the children in the room to eat dinner. I've in in Asia and Europe and often see strollers, with the babies still in them, unattended in front of stores and restaurants.[/QUOTE]

OMG!! These are children we're talking about, not dogs! Though, I wouldn't even do this with my dog!