Was this child abandonment?

[nmmom95]

Two 12 years olds at the mall, fine. The 8 year old, not so sure, but the 3 year old?!? Really?!? It's sad that you need a license to fish, but any idiot can be a parent. Like shortbun said, (paraphrasing) if you're busy and something has to go, it's never the kids. You (general) can argue that 12 year olds are responsible, but the fact remains that they left the younger ones alone.

 

[NHdisneylover]

I find child endangerment to be a stretch in this case, but agree that it was a bad idea from the get-go and not something I would have done. I've never been a fan of parents who just drop their younger kids at public places as a way to get a break or for free "babysitting." We see it a lot here at the library and local pool. Some of these kids are way too young to be just "dropped off." And some (like the mall and pool) are not the safest option even with a preteen sitter.

I used to work at a library next door to a school. We had kindergarten kids whose parents instructed them to walk to the library after school and wait there for pick up
It was always a little bit of an odd situation. On the one hand, none of us minded well behaved kids around and we were always keeping an eye out regardless of of parents were there or not. On the other hand, our primary job did not include babysitting and we had to tend to our actual jobs first. Once in a while a parent would not be able to find a child and be upset at us for not knowing where they were and we had to explain that we do not sign kids in or out or in any other way act as a daycare (nearly every time the child had been picked up already by the other parent or grandparent or something).

That said, when my own kids were new to staying "alone" I would sometimes drop them at the library for an hour or so while I ran errands. They absolutely loved the library and could never get enough time there--and I figured it was nicer for them than really being on their own at home; and certainly more fun than errand running.

 

[FredinFL]

With all the Red Cross Babysitting courses flying around, you would think that, if 12 year olds weren't old enough to babysit, they would raise the age of the course, wouldn't you?

Mistake on her part, but when I was 12 I was walking around with my nephew in a stroller all the time at the mall, I was also babysitting until midnight or later.

Would I leave my 12 year old and her friend with other kids like that at the mall, no, but it's a parental decision, not some butthead cops. Unless there is a law written or guidelines posted at the mall. Which, at my mall, there is not. Not that I've seen anyway.

 

[MrsJackSparrow4Life]

I wouldn't call it abandonment but I would think something like child endangerment could be argued easily.

I would have no issue with the 12 year olds being dropped off at the mall by themselves (I was riding the bus by myself to the mall at that age) but there is no way I would leave them with three other younger children, especially a three year old.

 

[mhsjax]

I have a feeling the mother shot herself in the foot. The whole article is excuses and justification (she's exhausted because she has a fish?) and I think that attitude might have come through when she was talking to the police (I know she says they were immediately antagonistic, but we're only hearing her side of the story). I realize I'm not a "normal" parent because I would never even consider letting my 12 yr old babysit, or letting a 12 yr old babysit my child. But it's kind of funny that she goes on about how responsible the older kids are, and how they've taken babysitting classes, and yet they didn't follow the very simple direction to not leave the little kids. So it's pointless to try to convince us that these 12 yr olds were appropriate babysitters, since they obviously were NOT.

ETA - to me, it's not abandonment, but poor judgment. Abandonment would have been leaving the little kids at the mall with no one at all. She simply made a misguided decision to leave them with older kids who were not as mature and responsible as she wanted/needed to believe they were.

I think the mom is a little bit too impressed with all she does. I have 3, I have a dog, my DH works nights and weekends. For this reason, I don't take on anyone else's kids, unless they can take care of themselves and even then I limit it.

Now, do I think it was abandonment , probably not, but I do question her intelligence if she thinks that this is ok.

I wouldn't drop my DD off at our mall, but that is our mall and most people wouldn't either,(not a great place). However, even if it were a place that I felt was safe for my DD and her friend, I would never let a teenage girl babysit kids that age at the mall. I think she temporarily lost her mind, but that is all.

 

[SandrA9810]

The Gamestop I worked at was next to a bar and grill. Parents and friends would sit around drinking, eating, or watching a game... then leave the babysitting up to us at GameStop and there was a pet store on the other side. It was so annoying to have kids come in, block the shelves just to play some free video games. My manger often times would hit the power switch to the game systems to get the kids to leave.

It didn't really matter what age kids were if they actually came in to look at the games or make a purchase... it was the free babysitting entitlement parents felt they could get from us on a Friday night.

This ordeal doesn't bother me in the slightest. Even leaving the younger ones by the cosmetic counter. The younger ones were right there where they needed to be, behaving themselves, just waiting for the girls to come out. A lapse in judgement by the 12 yr olds for going into the fitting room, but that's why we make mistakes.
If I was an employee, I would've just chatted it up with the 3 kids till the girls came back, and then reminded them that they shouldn't have left them alone.

Heck my sister just turned 18, and I was 13 when we went to Disney by ourselves for the day. Neither one of us had cell phones.
I see parent's at Disney all the time let the kids get a couple hour breaks by letting them do their own thing. As long as the kids are familiar with the area and know what they're doing, let them have some independence. Seems like the 12 yr olds were eager for some responsibility as well.

 

[JLTraveling]

There doesn't have to be a minimum babysitting age for her to be breaking the law. The law she broke was child endangerment. If she'd left her three-year-old alone at the mall, one could use your argument and say there was no age requirement at the mall and therefore she was in the clear.

And if there is no minimum age law for a child to be left alone, which there is not in Montana, then the mother would not be breaking the law. Would I leave a three-year-old alone at the mall? Of course not. But you have to separate stupidity from illegality.

Child endangerment law covers a VERY specific set of actions and behaviors, all of which are already against the law. There's not a catch-all "and anything else dumb" clause. But that's really a moot point anyway, because she didn't leave the three-year-old alone.

The three-year-old was with two twelve-year-olds, an eight-year-old and a seven-year-old. To put it in perspective, EVERY child in the group was old enough, by Disney's guidelines, to supervise that three-year-old through an entire day at any of the theme parks (but not the water parks, the minimum age there is ten).

The twelve-year-olds are the minimum age that the Red Cross, the Latchkey Kid Organization and numerous other groups consider old enough to babysit a child of any age, including infants. Nowhere in those guidelines is it specified that said babysitter is to remain home at all times and never take the kids to a park, an ice cream shop or even the mall.

Regardless, the twelve-year-olds made a less than ideal choice and left the three year old with the other kids for a few minutes (again, by the cosmetics counter in a store full of employees). That left a three-year-old, a seven-year-old and an eight-year-old together. In all but a handful of states, of which Montana is not one, the eight-year-old is old enough to be in charge of the three-year-old. In quite a few states, the three-year-old may LEGALLY be left entirely alone.

The mother broke exactly zero laws in her state. The twelve-year-olds had a momentary lapse in judgment and no one was hurt. That's a learning opportunity for the girls, not a case of child endangerment.

I just love the nanny state mentality. Let's don't let kids breathe without us until they're 18 (or 21, since they might accidentally taste a sip of beer) and then expect them to magically go off and be fully functioning adults.

 

[tlbwriter]

And if there is no minimum age law for a child to be left alone, which there is not in Montana, then the mother would not be breaking the law. Would I leave a three-year-old alone at the mall? Of course not. But you have to separate stupidity from illegality.

Child endangerment law covers a VERY specific set of actions and behaviors, all of which are already against the law. There's not a catch-all "and anything else dumb" clause. But that's really a moot point anyway, because she didn't leave the three-year-old alone.

The three-year-old was with two twelve-year-olds, an eight-year-old and a seven-year-old. To put it in perspective, EVERY child in the group was old enough, by Disney's guidelines, to supervise that three-year-old through an entire day at any of the theme parks (but not the water parks, the minimum age there is ten).

The twelve-year-olds are the minimum age that the Red Cross, the Latchkey Kid Organization and numerous other groups consider old enough to babysit a child of any age, including infants. Nowhere in those guidelines is it specified that said babysitter is to remain home at all times and never take the kids to a park, an ice cream shop or even the mall.

Regardless, the twelve-year-olds made a less than ideal choice and left the three year old with the other kids for a few minutes (again, by the cosmetics counter in a store full of employees). That left a three-year-old, a seven-year-old and an eight-year-old together. In all but a handful of states, of which Montana is not one, the eight-year-old is old enough to be in charge of the three-year-old. In quite a few states, the three-year-old may LEGALLY be left entirely alone.

The mother broke exactly zero laws in her state. The twelve-year-olds had a momentary lapse in judgment and no one was hurt. That's a learning opportunity for the girls, not a case of child endangerment.

I just love the nanny state mentality. Let's don't let kids breathe without us until they're 18 (or 21, since they might accidentally taste a sip of beer) and then expect them to magically go off and be fully functioning adults.

Okay, you quoted me but you don't seem to be disagreeing with me, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I didn't say she did nothing illegal. I just said the lack of a minimum age at the mall wouldn't preclude her from being arrested for leaving a child there. She could, if she'd left the 3-yr-old at the mall alone. I think that would be considered child endangerment. I certainly hope so. While reasonable people may disagree about leaving a 3 yr old alone at home or in a car, I certainly hope we all agree it's inappropriate to dump them at the mall all alone. And yes, it's a moot point, because that's not what she did. But it was still part of the discussion.

Also, regarding the bolded statement: according to this thread, none of the older children were old enough to supervise the 3 yr old at Disney. The minimum age to supervise a younger child on a ride, according to more than one source in this thread, is 14.

 

[mhsjax]

And if there is no minimum age law for a child to be left alone, which there is not in Montana, then the mother would not be breaking the law. Would I leave a three-year-old alone at the mall? Of course not. But you have to separate stupidity from illegality.

Child endangerment law covers a VERY specific set of actions and behaviors, all of which are already against the law. There's not a catch-all "and anything else dumb" clause. But that's really a moot point anyway, because she didn't leave the three-year-old alone.

The three-year-old was with two twelve-year-olds, an eight-year-old and a seven-year-old. To put it in perspective, EVERY child in the group was old enough, by Disney's guidelines, to supervise that three-year-old through an entire day at any of the theme parks (but not the water parks, the minimum age there is ten).

The twelve-year-olds are the minimum age that the Red Cross, the Latchkey Kid Organization and numerous other groups consider old enough to babysit a child of any age, including infants. Nowhere in those guidelines is it specified that said babysitter is to remain home at all times and never take the kids to a park, an ice cream shop or even the mall.

Regardless, the twelve-year-olds made a less than ideal choice and left the three year old with the other kids for a few minutes (again, by the cosmetics counter in a store full of employees). That left a three-year-old, a seven-year-old and an eight-year-old together. In all but a handful of states, of which Montana is not one, the eight-year-old is old enough to be in charge of the three-year-old. In quite a few states, the three-year-old may LEGALLY be left entirely alone.

The mother broke exactly zero laws in her state. The twelve-year-olds had a momentary lapse in judgment and no one was hurt. That's a learning opportunity for the girls, not a case of child endangerment.

I just love the nanny state mentality. Let's don't let kids breathe without us until they're 18 (or 21, since they might accidentally taste a sip of beer) and then expect them to magically go off and be fully functioning adults.

And then we have the Dis boards state: just let them all go, things happen oh well, take your chances and let the kids go, we wouldn't want to have any snowflakes or helicopter parents now would we. Problem is, with that learning opportunity, well if you fail that test, some poor 3 year old could be having God knows what done to her, just so kid can learn to grow up. YOu can't always undo stupidity. Common sense people. I would never leave a 3 year old with a 12 year old at the mall. At home sure, but not the mall.

 

[SandrA9810]

And if there is no minimum age law for a child to be left alone, which there is not in Montana, then the mother would not be breaking the law. Would I leave a three-year-old alone at the mall? Of course not. But you have to separate stupidity from illegality.

Child endangerment law covers a VERY specific set of actions and behaviors, all of which are already against the law. There's not a catch-all "and anything else dumb" clause. But that's really a moot point anyway, because she didn't leave the three-year-old alone.

The three-year-old was with two twelve-year-olds, an eight-year-old and a seven-year-old. To put it in perspective, EVERY child in the group was old enough, by Disney's guidelines, to supervise that three-year-old through an entire day at any of the theme parks (but not the water parks, the minimum age there is ten).

The twelve-year-olds are the minimum age that the Red Cross, the Latchkey Kid Organization and numerous other groups consider old enough to babysit a child of any age, including infants. Nowhere in those guidelines is it specified that said babysitter is to remain home at all times and never take the kids to a park, an ice cream shop or even the mall.

Regardless, the twelve-year-olds made a less than ideal choice and left the three year old with the other kids for a few minutes (again, by the cosmetics counter in a store full of employees). That left a three-year-old, a seven-year-old and an eight-year-old together. In all but a handful of states, of which Montana is not one, the eight-year-old is old enough to be in charge of the three-year-old. In quite a few states, the three-year-old may LEGALLY be left entirely alone.

The mother broke exactly zero laws in her state. The twelve-year-olds had a momentary lapse in judgment and no one was hurt. That's a learning opportunity for the girls, not a case of child endangerment.

I just love the nanny state mentality. Let's don't let kids breathe without us until they're 18 (or 21, since they might accidentally taste a sip of beer) and then expect them to magically go off and be fully functioning adults.

That's true too about Disney. I totally forgot about it. Any child 7 years or older may do their own thing, such as ride an attraction. Any child under 7 must be accompanied by some one 54" or taller. I want to say it's a young age that they can even enter the park by themself. Although a ticketing or main entrance person would better answer that. So by Disney's standards they could be explore the Magic Kingdom entirely by themselves and the parents sitting in a restaurant all day if they wanted.

 

[southernbohemian]

We recently had a case near here where a mother left her two toddler daughters (1 and 2 years old) in the care of her older 14-year-old daughter. The 14 year old, who has a mental illness she wasn't taking medication for, took the kids, her mom's truck, and disappeared for a couple of days before the police found them (thankfully unharmed). They charged the 14 year old with kidnapping. I haven't heard them charge the mother with anything.

I wonder at what age the 12 year olds would have been the ones to get the blame. Honestly, although I think the mother showed poor judgement, I feel like she didn't break the law. She entrusted her children to babysitters - they were the ones who left the children by themselves. If the police wanted to slap someone on the wrist, it should have been the babysitters. Of course, maybe because they weren't being paid (my assumption), that changes everything?

 

[JLTraveling]

Okay, you quoted me but you don't seem to be disagreeing with me, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against. I didn't say she did nothing illegal. I just said the lack of a minimum age at the mall wouldn't preclude her from being arrested for leaving a child there. She could, if she'd left the 3-yr-old at the mall alone. I think that would be considered child endangerment. I certainly hope so. While reasonable people may disagree about leaving a 3 yr old alone at home or in a car, I certainly hope we all agree it's inappropriate to dump them at the mall all alone. And yes, it's a moot point, because that's not what she did. But it was still part of the discussion.

I'm disagreeing with the part where you stated that it would be considered child endangerment if the three-yr-old was left alone at the mall. Perhaps it *should* be, but it legally *can't* be if there are no specific laws on the subject. I agree that it's inappropriate and highly stupid, but that doesn't make it illegal in that state.

Also, regarding the bolded statement: according to this thread, none of the older children were old enough to supervise the 3 yr old at Disney. The minimum age to supervise a younger child on a ride, according to more than one source in this thread, is 14.

That's not accurate unless it has changed in the past few weeks and hasn't been communicated to cast members. I worked at WDW off and on for years, and many friends still do, and we were trained that the magic age is 7, for entering the parks alone (except the water parks), riding Disney transportation, and supervising younger children. So as far as I'm aware, the mother could sit by the pool at the Poly all day long while the entire group of kids took the monorail to Epcot and walked to DHS. I would hope that if it has changed, they will communicate that change to the front-line attractions CMs, leads and ride supervisors who are responsible for enforcing it! No one I know in those positions has heard anything about it.

Some think the mother was irresponsible/stupid/showed poor judgment. Others feel that she made a reasonable decision. It's certainly a topic for debate, and each parent must do what he/she thinks is right. But the fact remains that the mother broke exactly zero laws in her state.

 

[tlbwriter]

I'm disagreeing with the part where you stated that it would be considered child endangerment if the three-yr-old was left alone at the mall. Perhaps it *should* be, but it legally *can't* be if there are no specific laws on the subject. I agree that it's inappropriate and highly stupid, but that doesn't make it illegal in that state.

So you're saying laws against "child endangerment" do not include leaving a 3 yr old alone at a place of business?

That's not accurate unless it has changed in the past few weeks and hasn't been communicated to cast members.

At least one person on the thread had been given this information by a CM. It would be good to have the official word (since obviously one CM's statement is often not the "official word.")

 

[Rafiki31]

In my opinion, it shows some poor judgement on the part of the mother. Some 12 years olds are more mature than others. I babysat when I was 12, but it started with an hour here or there at the childrens home which was next door to my parents. Then a little longer each time. You don't just drop em off at that mall where a million variables kick in. Obviously this 12 year old was not responsible enough. The 3 year old is what concerns me. This mom should have trialed babysitting by the older child at home first for a very short period of time. And not with a friend present. Bad judgement. Illegal? Eh that might be pushing it to far. But if I were the mall I would ban them, just for liability reasons and to set a precedent of trying to protect the smaller chidren. There are predators at the mall, and these kids could have been in danger.

 

[southernbohemian]

I'm disagreeing with the part where you stated that it would be considered child endangerment if the three-yr-old was left alone at the mall. Perhaps it *should* be, but it legally *can't* be if there are no specific laws on the subject. I agree that it's inappropriate and highly stupid, but that doesn't make it illegal in that state.

I think it would fall under "neglect" and therefore would be considered child endangerment.

 

[paintnolish]

I'm the oldest of 4...looks like my Mom endangered us all the time! By 7th grade, I routinely babysat both my sisters and other people's kids all the time. I was raking in the dough! In fact, we were on vacation in Gatlinberg, TN without my dad when my Mom got the stomach flu. I took my sisters, ages 1, 6, and 10, out for the day. We went to breakfast, the Gunness Book of World records Museum, etc. So, I don't think what the mom did was a huge deal. I just think it wasn't the best decision in this day and age. You can take "this day and age" to mean what you like: it's more dangerous OR people overreact. I wouldn't do it because I think it wouldn't sit well in "this day and age."

 

[luvmy3]

And then we have the Dis boards state: just let them all go, things happen oh well, take your chances and let the kids go, we wouldn't want to have any snowflakes or helicopter parents now would we. Problem is, with that learning opportunity, well if you fail that test, some poor 3 year old could be having God knows what done to her, just so kid can learn to grow up. YOu can't always undo stupidity. Common sense people. I would never leave a 3 year old with a 12 year old at the mall. At home sure, but not the mall.

But something could happen just as easily at home as it could happen at the mall. If these girls were give specific rules that they didn't follow, what would be the difference if they didn't follow them at home? What if they left the 3 year old outside all alone because they wanted to go in the house and try on some outfits? If you are going to live your life with the "what ifs" then common sense should tell you that what ifs happen all the time and everywhere
What this mom did was no different than leaving her 12 year old in charge,and the only "crime" was poor judgement since her 12 year old is not yet trustworthy and responsible enough. That wouldn't be any different if she was at home alone.

 

[tlbwriter]

According to LegalMatch.com:

What are Examples of Child Endangerment?

The states differ as to what constitutes child endangerment, but some common examples include:

* Leaving a child unattended in a motor vehicle
* Driving while intoxicated with a child in the motor vehicle
* Hiring a person with a known history of sexual offenses as a childcare provider
* Serving alcohol to an underage driver
* Leaving a young child unsupervised or in the care of another young child
* Unreasonable corporal punishment resulting in bodily injury
* Drug manufacturing in the presence of a child
* Leaving a young child unsupervised in an unsafe area
* Failure to report suspected child abuse

Certainly looks like leaving a 3-yr-old unsupervised at the mall would be considered child endangerment, at least in some states. And even leaving that child "supervised" by an 8-yr-old could fall under child endangerment, depending on what is considered "another young child."

Oh, and look. Leaving a child alone in the car can be considered child endangerment too. Should I post this to that other thread?

 

[Wishing on a star]

Very simply, a three year old was found without supervision in a public place... due to the parents actions.

Child Endangerment? Yes.. No Question.

Do I question this mothers intelligence????
By reading what she wrote, she sounds to have a normal if not very high level of intelligence.

Do I question her sanity and her ability to parent.
Very much so.
Her little letter almost sounds like the ramblings of the insane.