|
Post by ausador on Jul 4, 2009 10:50:12 GMT -5
Here in Florida where cars easily reach 140+ degrees inside for much of the year and a windshield sun screen/reflector is almost mandatory when parking in the sun (unless you like waiting for 10 minutes for your steering wheel to cool enough to grip without burning yourself) this still happens several times a year. Here there is no question of whether to blame the parent or not, it is obviously blatant neglect to leave a child in the car for more than a few minutes.
Usually the story is something along the lines of forgetting the kid while running into work for "just a minute" and then getting caught up with work/co-workers for hours. Dashing into a store for "just a minute", then running into a friend and walking next door for lunch to share gossip...etc, etc. They have upped the charges here and have done public info campaigns on TV about it and it still happens, its freaking sad. Nowadays if you leave a toddler alone for more than five minutes or so and someone notices you'll be coming back to find a crowd of people and cops and the windows of your car busted out where they "rescued" your kid.
I've never heard any excuse here that I didn't consider to be completely lame, just don't do it, ever, unless your just stepping in to pay for gas at a convenience store or something. If the car is out of your sight then your kid better not be in it...
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 4, 2009 11:17:05 GMT -5
The opinions put forth that this is just "bad parenting" and excuses, and obviously neglect by people who do not care is not in line with the evidence. A few children every year die from being forgotten and left in cars. The numbers are fairly consistent. All information that can be found about the parents is totally all over the board. There is no general evidence of past neglect, lack of car, etc. They ALWAYS say they would have never thought it would have been possible that they could have forgotten the child. In the past, people who didn't want their children used to 'accidentally' roll over atop them while sleeping. Now, they leave them in hot cars. Less, now that abortion is legal, but still with much the same motivation, conscious or unconscious.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 4, 2009 18:24:24 GMT -5
Yea, I guess that's what I'm having a hard time getting past -- it seems to me that unless you are just EXCEPTIONALLY exhausted, people who end up doing this kind of thing are careless people who don't really give a shit about their kids.
I have nothing scientific to back that up with, and I'll admit that upfront. I can't prove that except anecdotally, and that's not really worth anything.
Full disclosure: I sometimes leave my eleven year old in the car (at his request) when I run into a store for about ten minutes or less. If I'm going to be longer than ten minutes, I make him come with me anyway, whether he wants to or not. But he's much older and that's much different. The doors stay locked, we've talked about never opening them, etc.
People who lock their infant in a car and then go in for an hour to me seem like selfish bastards. They don't want the "hassle" of dealing with an infant in a store for an hour, so just lock it away where you can't see or hear it and go on about your business like you don't have one. That's what it is to me -- pretending like you don't have the responsibility of taking care of a baby. I think there are definitely exceptions, OK? But it just seems like purposeful carelessness/selfishness to me.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 5, 2009 5:37:13 GMT -5
Here in Florida where cars easily reach 140+ degrees inside for much of the year and a windshield sun screen/reflector is almost mandatory when parking in the sun (unless you like waiting for 10 minutes for your steering wheel to cool enough to grip without burning yourself) this still happens several times a year. Here there is no question of whether to blame the parent or not, it is obviously blatant neglect to leave a child in the car for more than a few minutes. Usually the story is something along the lines of forgetting the kid while running into work for "just a minute" and then getting caught up with work/co-workers for hours. Dashing into a store for "just a minute", then running into a friend and walking next door for lunch to share gossip...etc, etc. They have upped the charges here and have done public info campaigns on TV about it and it still happens, its freaking sad. Nowadays if you leave a toddler alone for more than five minutes or so and someone notices you'll be coming back to find a crowd of people and cops and the windows of your car busted out where they "rescued" your kid. I've never heard any excuse here that I didn't consider to be completely lame, just don't do it, ever, unless your just stepping in to pay for gas at a convenience store or something. If the car is out of your sight then your kid better not be in it... Can you cite your claims about what is "usually the story"? What you have claimed is not in line with any data that I can find.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 5, 2009 12:51:57 GMT -5
You haven't found any data at all, really. Just that it doesn't seem to be linked to socioeconomic indicators. Infant history is notably short on data for highly obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 7, 2009 2:37:48 GMT -5
You haven't found any data at all, really. Just that it doesn't seem to be linked to socioeconomic indicators. Infant history is notably short on data for highly obvious reasons. It's not linked to socioeconomic indicators nor intelligence indicators (the latter of which I suppose could be lumped in with socioeconomic indicators, as they might be more rightfully considered education level indicators). It does not occur more often in more socially conservative states nor more often in more socially liberal states. It occurs more often in more populous states and a tiny bit more often in more southerly states by population. The number increased dramatically when child safety advocates started recommending small children be placed in the back seat with carseats facing backwards. The specific points of data that counter assertions made in this thread: Assertion: You have to be stupid (aka "have the IQ of a turnip" "you're just stupid") to do it. Data: Highly educated parents in intellectually-challenging jobs have been the cause just as often as blue-collar workers. Assertion: A parent who gives a shit doesn't forget about the kid. (aka "That's just neglect.") Data: There is no prior pattern of neglect or abuse. I did see your message asserting that there would not be a prior pattern of abuse because it generally happens to very young children. However, the largest age group of children to die from neglect is those under 1 year, with 78% happening before the age of 3. While not all of these deaths occur for children who had previously been known to be the victims of neglect, a pattern of prior neglect was able to be established after the fatality. Why would this be the case in other infant/toddler neglect fatalities, but not in the case of being left in a car? Additionally, there is no pattern of these deaths occurring to only children vs. families with other children. There is no pattern of neglect or abuse towards the surviving children in cases where the dead child was not the only child. 7% of known cases involved children with evidence for or history of past abuse. Assertion: This is something parents do when they didn't want the kid or don't want it now, and pretend that it was an accident Data: Parents are not the only ones to have forgotten. Grandparents, aunts/uncles, and child care professionals watching other people's children have also done it. It has also happened to children that were adopted. Assertion: 'Usually the story is something along the lines of forgetting the kid while running into work for "just a minute" and then getting caught up with work/co-workers for hours.' Data: Only 17-25% of child hyperthermia deaths are the result of the child being left in the car on purpose and then forgotten. 50-52% are the result of the child being forgotten completely. (I acknowledge that this is a matter of self-reporting and thus could be off by people lying, which is pretty easily-conceivable. However, the vast majority of these cases involve a child being forgotten to be taken to daycare and/or the parent going in to work and leaving them in the car. They are not usually cases where the caregiver would have expected to be out of the car for a short period of time.) I cannot address with data the assertion that people do this less since abortion is now available because there are no good statistics of pre-RvW deaths of this nature. However, I continue to find the one strong correlation - that is, the incredible jump in such deaths after children started usually being put in the back seat and facing backwards - to be highly suggestive of "just forgetting" being the prime cause. Additionally, you told me to look at the stories of individual cases, and that is where I would see a "correlation" (your quotes). Is there a specific correlation that YOU are picking up from these stories, but that I am missing? Because what I am seeing is no correlation that is even suggestive that any of the above assertions are true. What sorts of patterns would you expect if any/all of the above assertions were true? I very much appreciate that you admit that your sources are anecdotal and non-scientific. However, your statement that I haven't found any data at all, really, is patently false. My statements are absolutely based on data. I am open to criticism of the sources of my data, or to equally-suggestive data supporting the opposite conclusions. However, anecdote and what people just "know as a parent" isn't really the equivalent of actual data. ggweather.com/heat/www.kidsandcars.org/incidents/heat/news/heatrelatedstudy.pdfwww.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfmwww.kidsandcars.org/education/graph.pdfwww.kidsandcars.org/news/7_28_07.pdfAdditional links to many many specific news stories or accounts by parents are available off of these links. I started to link individual news stories but realized quickly this would lead to an extremely long list. These are some of the most useful sites that I found, but other sites revealed very similar data. There are additionally many statements by childcare experts about how parents tend to attribute these deaths to abuse, neglect, stupidity, etc. because they don't want to think about how horrible it would be if it happened to them, and thus they achieve the mindset that "it couldn't happen to me." I refrained from any of these links because none contained the data that these persons were basing their claims on. Some did contain the credentials of the persons in question, but I feel that linking those without knowing the data on which they were specifically basing their statements is tantamount to an appeal to authority.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 7, 2009 9:09:58 GMT -5
Because the assumption is when a kid starves to death, it was neglected, but when a parent 'accidentally' forgets the kid in the car, it's a tragedy.
Yes, there are. Roll over deaths and SIDS statistics. And note - these also occurred across the full range of socio-economic indicators.
It's amazing how many fewer infants died from 'accidental' roll overs and 'unknown' causes when abortion became legal. When co-sleeping became unpopular because 'accidental roll-overs' were getting too high, that also happened to correspond with an increase in car culture. The favored method of 'accidental' infant death moved to leaving your kid in the car.
It's also an easier method for the parents. All they have to do is walk away, they don't have to feel their infant struggling beneath them.
Oh, I'm not saying that all instances are conscious murder. I'm not even suggesting the parents that are doing it are in their right minds. They are under stress, tired, hormonally imbalanced, and the subconscious just clicks in their heads and the child gets 'forgotten'. I'm sure a few were truly accidental, one parent thought the other had the kid, and a tragedy happened.
Because it can't happen to me. I have no desire to be rid of my child, so I don't ever leave him in the car or forget him.
But you want to know where my opinion really comes from?
I used to work in an amusement park. Part of my duties was recovering lost children.
There were two kinds of parents.
1 - The child was out of sight for a few seconds and the parent was frantically searching for them. Most of the time, we didn't manage to even get the kid to the lost kid area, as a few second sweep of the area turned up a panic-filled parent. The only times we actually got these kids to the lost and found was when the child wandered left and the parent searched right first.
2 - The kids we actually managed to get all the way to the lost kid area, where the parents would casually stroll up anywhere from fifteen minutes to 8 hours later. Nearly half the time the parents had deliberately left the child in the area, alone, so they could go to something else. This includes two year old kids left in a toy shop while their parents stood in a 2+hour line.
I found infants sleeping in strollers parked at ride exits, their parents on the ride. Oh, sure, if the kid had been kidnapped, there would have been tears and 'grief' and oh haven't we suffered enoughs?
So here is a fundamental truth for you.
Good parents don't leave their kids in a hot car to die.
No, it isn't.
Because the phenomenon has never truly been studied because people don't want to truly study it. They don't want to wrap their minds around the fact that clean-cut non-poverty stricken otherwise normal-seeming people would kill their child.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 7, 2009 9:49:00 GMT -5
Keresm addressed many of your main points, so I will only contribute this. Absence of data links to specific socioeconomic indicators (etc.) does nothing to reduce the charge of neglect. I have a link below for abuse statistics. You'll note they say the exact thing about people who abuse children -- no specific socioeconomic indicators. You also have to take into account the context of what you're talking about. You're dealing largely with infants. I'll say it again, because it seems to be flying over your head, but infants largely have no history at all. So to assert we know it can't be neglect because there is no history of neglect is absolutley ridiculous. When, exactly, would you consider the "start" of neglect? When it's officially reported? If there are not other signs of neglect, it might well be because there simply hasn't been time to develop evidence of a pattern yet, no? These aren't teenagers dying of heat strokes in cars. They are by and large infants who have barely a few months of born life -- where, exactly, would you expect patterns of abuse (or neglect, which isn't quite the same thing) to emerge at this point? Here are some stats on child abuse, so you can see what you're sort of arguing for/against: www.childhelp.org/resources/learning-center/statisticsYou'll note when you go to that site that they also point out that abuse is not contained by socioeconomic or racial, educational, religious or cultural, etc. factors. The most likely demographic of abused kids is 0-3 years of age -- they are most likely to be abused. Here's another link in PDF: www.lamch.org/uploads/programs/ChildAbuseNegledtFinal.pdfThe average reported victim is seven years old. That's the average age when the paperwork begins. But by your argument, that is the moment abuse or neglect started -- the moment Child Welfare receives a call, rather than the more correct assumption that it was going on much earlier than then, starting most likely at 0-3 years. The age a child is most likely to die from neglect/abuse, incidently, is under the age of four years old. But by your argument, we shouldn't call those deaths abuse/neglect because there likely wouldn't have been an established institutional record of it until three years later. You can see there is a big gap between reporting abuse victims and the age at which neglect/abuse actually begins. So you can't keep arguing there is no "history" of neglect in these cases as though it disproves parental neglect. Of course there is no history. It doesn't mean these weren't cases of neglect. For goodnessake when your three month old baby dies because you left it alone in a hot car, what on earth else would you call it? It's neglect, and maybe neglect happens to "good" people, but it's neglect just the same. We just don't want to call it that as a society.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Jul 7, 2009 10:28:16 GMT -5
Can you cite your claims about what is "usually the story"? What you have claimed is not in line with any data that I can find. I used those two as examples because they are the actual stories given by the parent in the two most recent cases in this area that I could recall hearing. One just "popped into work for a minute" got distracted with work and by the time they remembered the child it had died. The other left the child in the car at a shopping center meaning to only be gone "a few minutes" she ran into a friend and accepted a lunch invitation completely forgetting about the child until it too was deceased. Hence my use of "the story is usually something like" because they were examples of real occurences and the stories that were given by the parents to police and reporters. You are incorrect in deduceing that I used the word "story" to mean a manufactured tale or lie. You are assumeing a bias on my part that does not exist, I meant what I actually said, not whatever you have chosen to read into it.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 7, 2009 10:33:02 GMT -5
Dantesvigil - Could you address the point that the majority of deaths by neglect happen to children under the age of four, and yet they can be determined to have been the result of neglect? (The site you linked likewise puts forth that 75% of deaths from neglect in the same age range.) I am well aware that we are talking about infants. I even mentioned that very young children are more likely to be abused. So, if we can know that children under that age are more likely to be abused and more likely to die of neglect, then we can determine when (even if post facto) children were abused and neglected, yes? If the average REPORTED victim is 7 years old, yet the majority of children at the time of abuse/neglect are under 4, we can determine after the fact that abuse and neglect has occurred. Given this, why would we be unable to determine, with the same methods, that abuse and neglect had occurred in the cases of children that died from being left in cars by caretakers?
I never said that abuse/neglect did not occur if it wasn't discovered until later, or until after death. Also the statistics I quoted were nearly identical to those on your link. What do you mean by "so you can see what you're arguing for/against"?
I also never said that abuse was contained into socioeconomic, racial, educational, religious, cultural, etc. factors. I brought up the fact that there were no correlations to some of those factors not because those factors predict abuse, but because other people (in the other assertions I listed explicitly) blamed the left-in-car deaths on such factors. Some people claimed you had to be stupid to leave your kid in the car. I claimed that data shows people who are clearly not stupid (pediatricians, college professors, rocket scientists) have done it. I did not claim that people who are not stupid cannot abuse children. I was refuting a different claim. I did not intend statements about lack of correlation to such things to mean that those things could mean that abuse or neglect was impossible. You and I specifically agree that there's no link to educational indicators, but other people on the thread asserted otherwise.
To answer your specific question, I expect patterns of abuse or neglect to emerge when the investigation over the child's death is being conducted - the same time that abuse and neglect are established in the deaths that ARE determined to be neglect, which happen overall in the same age range.
Additionally, can you please address the one actual clear correlation, which is to the rise of having children in the back seat and facing backwards? If it is not sincere, absolutely involuntary forgetfulness, do you have an alternate hypothesis of what would cause this correlation? Do you think it is pure coincidence? (Or are you just saying that, no matter the cause, leaving a child is by definition "neglect"? If that is the entirety of your statement, I might well agree with you, but I think it causes statements about whether people are overall "bad parents" or "just looking for an excuse" fairly meaningless.)
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 7, 2009 10:43:28 GMT -5
Dantesvigil - Could you address the point that the majority of deaths by neglect happen to children under the age of four, and yet they can be determined to have been the result of neglect? When a child has died of malnutrition or similar, it's fairly obvious. Provided there are detectable signs. There aren't always, and even when there are, the explanation provided is 'well kids fall down, it's normal.' You have to be stupid to leave your kid in the car. You can have a PhD and an IQ of 200+ and still be stupid. I knew a man who was literally a rocket scientist who managed to run himself over with his own car. Sure. It's a convenient excuse and more believable these days than 'I accidentally rolled over on her' or 'he just stopped breathing when I put him down for a nap'. Can you address the correlation that as roll over deaths decreased, 'forgotten in the car' deaths increased? People have caught on to those, now they are investigated. People look twice there. When the 'forgotten' child in the backseat are investigated and condemned as well, instead of the parents being comforted and getting positive outpourings of attention, they'll start to be fewer and fewer.
|
|
|
Post by lonelocust on Jul 7, 2009 10:58:06 GMT -5
Because the assumption is when a kid starves to death, it was neglected, but when a parent 'accidentally' forgets the kid in the car, it's a tragedy. Can you explain what you mean by "the assumption"? Half of the child-dead-in-car deaths are prosecuted as manslaughter, though in most of the cases the caretaker was found not guilty. How is that an assumption? There was no assumption that it was or was not, but it has generally found to not be when investigated in a court of law. I addressed this in my last response to dantesvigil, but to reiterate I was not claiming that socioeconomic or educational indicators correlate to abuse and neglect, only that they DON'T correlate to child-left-in-car incidents. Other people had claimed that stupidity was the only explanation; this claim is clearly false. It is also a separate claim to claims of flat neglect or that it wasn't really an accident. We may have statistics on rollover deaths and SIDS before and after RvW, but we do not have such statistics for left in car deaths. (I would however, still like to see those statistics on rollover and SIDS deaths. Do you have a link or a citation?) I realize that this is your claim. However, you have only asserted it. I also cannot find anything to back up the claim that SIDS dropped around the time that left-in-car deaths raised. I am finding that SIDS deaths dropped dramatically when pediatricians began to suggest children be placed to sleep in the supine position rather than prone. The rate of SIDS continues to be multiple orders of magnitude larger than the car-hyperthermia deaths. I actually can't find anything whatsoever on rollover deaths. That phrase seems to only turn up things about car accidents where the car rolled, even when adding words like "infant". Is there another term for that, or better yet could you link to (or cite if not in internet form) the actual data on which you are basing your claims? Well, it's pretty much impossible to rule out that something was done subconsciously. We can say that it looks like in the cases that the parents really really wanted and really really loved the child, but there's no way to say they didn't subconsciously want to get rid of it. I find that unfalsifiable as a claim. You are classically begging the question with this. Your claim is that someone who has no desire to be rid of their child would never leave him in the car or forget him. You are backing that up by saying that you could never leave your child in the car or forget him because you have no desire to be rid of him. I have no doubt that shitty parents exist. I actually have little doubt that at least one of these deaths has probably been on purpose or semi-on-purpose. In fact, I think it's quite likely that I personally would do it. All data indicates that it's not most of them, and you don't HAVE to want to get rid of your kid or HAVE to be stupid (totally different thing). This is a bare assertion. No, it isn't. Because the phenomenon has never truly been studied because people don't want to truly study it. They don't want to wrap their minds around the fact that clean-cut non-poverty stricken otherwise normal-seeming people would kill their child.[/quote] How can you say that it has never been studied and there is no data in light of all the data that I presented? And again, by asserting that the people "would kill their child" you are again making a claim and backing it up with the same claim. It's just as easy to claim that "People don't want to truly study it. They don't want to wrap their minds around the fact that people who really want their kids could accidentally kill them out of pure happenstance." Nonetheless that argument would be equally ridiculous considering that it HAS been studied. There are studies. There are lots of cases. There is a huge, glaring spike in the instances that happened right when best practices for child safety put children in a place where it was easy to not see them. I would sincerely, really, seriously, love to see actual data - including suggestive data - that contradicts the data that I have presented (of which there has been a lot; I'm completely baffled by the statement that I have presented none) or even is suggestive of another way to look at it. However, if you are convinced due to intuition, what you "know as a parent", what you know you could personally never do, etc., then I guess we can just disagree and be done. That disappoints me, but such is life. Luckily, what either of our opinions are on this matter is unlikely to cause any other children to die in such a horrific fashion. And, if indeed my conclusions based on the available data is right, maybe getting incensed at such a suggestion will make you subconsciously look even closer, check even more times for your kid, and prevent that horrible possibility yet more.
|
|
|
Post by keresm on Jul 7, 2009 11:25:03 GMT -5
There was no assumption that it was or was not, but it has generally found to not be when investigated in a court of law. Do not confuse 'not found guilty' with 'innocent'. All this means is that they cannot prove beyond a 'reasonable doubt' that it wasn't an accident, in part because so many people are convinced that clean-cut normal-looking people are incapable of killing their children. You will notice socio-economic indicators among those actually convicted. We got that. We aren't arguing against that. We are well aware there are irresponsible excuses for parents among all walks of life. Most of my links and citations are through my university library, you would require a password. Using the CDC website requires extrapolation from several studies, and you've demonstrated an unwillingness to do this. However, if you are a parent, you should have gotten the lecture from your doctor in the hospital regarding proper sleeping for your infant, including the warnings against co-sleeping. Then you didn't look. I expected your argument to be 'well, that's because we are more of a car culture now', but this just shows you haven't actually done the research. Because it's still easier to leave a pillow over an infant's face and there is less chance of getting caught. Then you didn't look. Seriously, there is a major push against co-sleeping because of this and the maternity wards of all hospitals have warning pamphlets and posters all over about the dangers of rolling over on your infant, especially when exhausted and/or medicated. The simple fact that you can't find anything on rollover deaths makes your so-called inability to find other statistics extremely suspect just because the roll-over death issue is such as major one in the parenting community. Yep. I'm pointing out the truth. Good parents don't leave their kids to die. Just like good pet owners don't forget to feed their pets. Yes, you do. Because as I already pointed out, your data is suspect and the occurrence has never been honestly studied. There is also a huge, glaring spike in the drop in SIDS deaths when laudanum ceased to be sold over the counter. Then I suggest you actually do some research on the subject. It's a known fact that many child deaths are not properly investigated and instead simply excused as accidental or a result of SIDS. The fact that you didn't uncover this in your 'research' is quite telling. For years SIDS deaths went completely uninvestigated, allowing situations like this - www.crimezzz.net/serialkillers/F/FORNUTO_debbie.php to occur. Some additional reading for you - www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-18171/Parents-getting-away-murder--NSPCC.htmlwww.nytimes.com/books/97/09/14/reviews/970914.14buscht.htmlwww.amazon.com/Death-Innocents-Medicine-High-Stake-Science/dp/product-description/0553379771books.google.com/books?id=k3YJBaPISIEC&pg=PA161&lpg=PA161&dq=SIDS+mother+multiple+deaths+homicide&source=bl&ots=J_iYWD-GLD&sig=AfRnZGHt95EmyCS8gpKg6Msda-c&hl=en&ei=CnZTSsPUKoawNq7g1PMI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6The fact that you somehow managed to miss all this...well...your research certainly couldn't have been all as thorough as you'd like us to believe.
|
|
|
Post by canadian mojo on Jul 7, 2009 11:33:46 GMT -5
Or are you just saying that, no matter the cause, leaving a child is by definition "neglect"? I would tend to agree with this statement since leaving an infant or a pet in a car is no longer an unknown danger in this society. People are even reminded of the danger every year just in case common sense doesn't prevail. It's automatic that you check to see that a gun is unloaded and that the safety is on, even if you know that it is. Being aware of what's in your infant car seat should be just as automatic.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Jul 7, 2009 12:10:28 GMT -5
Lonelocust, I'm sure you'd love to see some "actual data" -- what people are trying to point out to you is that your request is somewhat absurd, given the average age of child deaths from hot cars. You continue to insist on it in spite of the problems with the data.
When people fail to water their plants and the plants overheat and die, we general say that person "neglected" to water them. What is the difference when a parent allows his or her own child to overheat and die?
It is neglect, plain and simple. I wouldn't say a peson has to be "stupid" to leave their kids in cars -- and I don't think I did, but if I did, that wasn't my intention. I would say they would have to be purposely careless to do so. Another synonym of neglectful, perhaps. Neglect can be deliberate or not, I suppose, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is still neglect. Neglectful parents can hold respectable jobs, dress like middle class folks and drive nice cars that overheat infants in the back seat. It's still neglect.
|
|