Felony Neglect..by the Mother or the Lifeguard?

Alpha Echo said:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2012/0...d-neglect-after-girl-nearly-drowns-77438.html


Personally, I don't see anything wrong with what the mother did. I'd call it felony if she dropped them off at the pool and went shopping. This was probably par for the course. I'm willing to bet it wasn't the first time she'd left the other children for a few minutes under the care of the 8-year old.

What I do NOT understand is why a lifeguard didn't see the young child get into the pool, obviously without supervision or floaties? Why did it take a 9-year old to pull the child out of the bottom of pool? How did a lifeguard NOT see the child at some point between the time she slid into the water and the time she lost consciousness?

Click to expand...

I was always taught that a child can drown silently in as little as thirty seconds.

Re the lifeguard - I'm not sure how the job description goes in the US, but it probably has to be less about watching each child individually and more about responding to the dangers he sees, and trying to minimise problems generally.

Alpha Echo said:

You're right. It is. But...I don't know. I'm not necessarily saying the lifeguard should be charged with anything. But I don't think the mother should be either.

She comes back to find her baby girl unconscious, and then she's slammed with 3 charges of felony neglect and taken to jail.

Doesn't seem right.

Click to expand...

I agree - it's a brutal response. (Though not as bad as I'd thought - I misread the article, thought the child had died.)

Myself, I wouldn't leave little children in the care of an eight-year-old, water or not; but it was certainly the norm when I was a kid - even at the beach.

I don't know what a felony charge involves, but I agree there are better responses than jailing the mother. Does it say she was jailed?

Whenever a tragedy occurs, it seems, there must be Someone At Fault. Preferably Someone At Felonious Fault.

Weird how these two lifeguard threads showed up at the same time.

I'm not blaming anyone. It was a potential tragedy, and it was averted.

I live in Florida around a lot of water, and I have always been paranoid about my little ones falling into it. It should be treated as life-threatening. I'll bet the mom learned a valuable lesson real quick (and probably got the scare of her life).

And that should be the end of it, IMO.

Indeed, thank goodness. I wonder if the the outcome had been tragic, if people would feel differently. (Like losing your baby wouldn't be enough punishment.)

As to whether the lifeguard was negligent, a lot probably hinges upon how crowded the pool was.

Wait. Wait.

1 woman. 2 arms. 5 children. At least 2 of which cannot swim. Maybe 3, 4, or 5.

Even if the 8 yr old--left in charge of 4 other children--had been able to prevent the kiddo from getting in the pool, how would this not have resulted in disaster? I have three kids, and I would not in a million years go to a pool with fewer than one adult per non-swimming kid.

Should she be charged with a felony? I have no idea--I don't know what that entails--how much her children would suffer as a result, what the punishment would be, etc. But she absolutely was neglectful.

In my opinion it should be a hero story about how the 8 year old saved her younger sister, not how the family is going to lose their mother for years.

On the other hand, our local pool has the rule that every child under 5 must have an adult in the pool with them within arms reach at all times. If she were at my local pool she would have been required to have an adult present for each and every one of her children under the age of five within reach at all times.

I can understand the neglect charges, but I think they're harsh, considering. These sorts of situations should be learning sessions not punishment sessions. We're all human. We all make mistakes. She didn't leave the pool or intend to leave the children alone, she left for a few minutes.

Granted a lot can happen in a few minutes, this just seems heavy handed for the situation.

I think she should probably just be put on a Social Services plan that includes child safety training. I'd make it a mandatory plan in her case, so it wouldn't be like the situation with the mom wasn't being addressed after this incident. She probably did learn a terrifying lesson, but society can make sure of that, you know?

The criminal route seems wrong for many reasons. Part of it can be cultural; I agree. If you are from a culture where folks look out for other folks' kids all the time and that's not what happens in US pools, those cultures can clash dangerously.

I once sat by an infant that was sleeping alone in a nice stroller at the front of a Walmart-type store for 20 minutes! Aaack. The dad was the sweetest guy, but I told him how dangerous that was in the US. He had no idea. It was customary to leave sleeping infants to the side of the store where he was from.

little_e said:

Wait. Wait.

1 woman. 2 arms. 5 children. At least 2 of which cannot swim. Maybe 3, 4, or 5.

Even if the 8 yr old--left in charge of 4 other children--had been able to prevent the kiddo from getting in the pool, how would this not have resulted in disaster? I have three kids, and I would not in a million years go to a pool with fewer than one adult per non-swimming kid.

Should she be charged with a felony? I have no idea--I don't know what that entails--how much her children would suffer as a result, what the punishment would be, etc. But she absolutely was neglectful.

Click to expand...

Yes, and it's asking way too much of the eight-year-old in any case - because should tragedy happen, the eight-year-old will be blaming herself forever. The thing is, when I was a child (this is a long way back) it was perfectly acceptable for a mother with four or five kids to ask the woman or women sitting nearby to keep an eye on them, if she had to disappear to the loo with a tot or something like that. (Not all mothers would feel happy with this, of course - there were more cautious types even then ) But that all stopped around the time of "Stranger Danger". So now we tend to hope there'll be a skilled and watchful lifeguard. Or, you know, a nine-year-old.

Roger J Carlson said:

Whenever a tragedy occurs, it seems, there must be Someone At Fault. Preferably Someone At Felonious Fault.

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with this, but I don't think it's really about a desire to blame or a flaw in our society.

Humans need to feel we have control over events. If random events (or actions that people do every day) can lead to tragedy, then none of us are safe. We can reassure ourselves by saying, I would never do that. I wouldn't make that mistake. I wouldn't make the mistake that person did. Therefore, this type of tragedy will not touch me.

I saw this a lot when I was a police officer. Whenever there was an officer shot, the first reaction was to analyze what he had done wrong. Part of it was to learn for the next time, but most of it was driven by that same impulse, imo.

If you can establish that the officer did something wrong, then you can believe that getting hurt or killed will never happen to you. I would never have turned my back, even for a second. I would have waited for backup. I would never have let him reach into the glove compartment. This won't happen to me, because bad things only happen to those who make mistakes.

If the officer did nothing wrong, it means the same thing not only could happen to you, but you're powerless to prevent it.

Sometimes, things just go wrong. But to admit that is to give up the illusion of control over everything in life.

It even spreads out into other areas. Cancer, heart attack? Oh yeah, he/she was a stressed out person. Ate too much junk food. Didn't exercise enough. Won't happen to me -- I take care of myself.

We even have a special phrase for those rare circumstances where try as one might, no one can find a way to assign blame --an Act of God.

Out of one's control, certainly, but still not random. Purposeful, even if incomprehensible to us. The idea of random, pointless tragedy seems to be unacceptable to most people -- and so they look for someone or something to blame.

I don't have an answer, but this is why I limited myself to two kids.

No, wait. I do have an answer. You don't leave little kids unattended at a pool. Ever. Having an 8-year-old watch them is not "attended" in my book.

I'm not sure I can get on board with the "she's been punished enough" angle every time a child is injured and the negligent parent is charged with negligence. Pay attention to your kids and observe basic safety precautions. Don't have more than you can handle, or if you do, don't take them to potentially dangerous places like pools all by your lonesome.

I see people risking their kids safety all the time. Babies bouncing on laps in the front seat of moving cars, toddlers riding on lawn mowers with gramps, pre-schoolers standing up in grocery carts, kids using mom's car like a playhouse on a hot day. These parents do/allow this crap again and again and again, and if you say a word to them you will get a dirty look and maybe and earful. Don't tell them how to raise their kid! Their kids are just fine! They rode on the lawnmower themselves and look how fab they turned out!

And when the kid finally takes a header out of the cart, or loses a leg falling off the lawnmower, or smashes his face in on the dashboard, or suffocates in the trunk, everybody says "Oh, the poor parents! Haven't they been punished enough seeing their child injured/killed?"

Perhaps not. Perhaps we do need to make an example of neglectful, ignorant parents so the others start taking basic child safety a little more seriously.

Shoot, I didn't just have an answer in there, I had a rant.


ETA: Yes, accidents do happen even when parents are on top of safety. However, "I walked away from my toddlers at the pool, after instructing my 8 year old to watch them" is not on top of safety.

The thing is, I can't fathom that "oh, if I leave my kids alone for 5 minutes by the pool, I could be charged with neglect!" as more of a motivation than "if I leave my kids alone for 5 minutes by the pool, my child could drown!"

Education, education, education.

But maybe I think too highly of the average parent. I dunno.

Chrissy said:

The thing is, I can't fathom that "oh, if I leave my kids alone for 5 minutes by the pool, I could be charged with neglect!" as more of a motivation than "if I leave my kids alone for 5 minutes by the pool, my child could drown!"

Education, education, education.

But maybe I think too highly of the average parent. I dunno.

Click to expand...

I don't think we're talking about the average parent, though. We're talking about those willfully ignorant parents that don't think through (or don't much care) what can happen when they put their kid in a potentially fatal situation.

The thing is, this probably wasn't the first time she left her kids unattended at a pool. Just as the tot who loses a leg when he falls off grampa's riding mower (the #1 cause of foot amputation in children in the US, it happens thousands of times every year) probably wasn't on it for the first time. Those parents letting their toddler stand up in the front seat will probably do it dozens of times before a sudden stop takes the kid out.

I can't count the number of times I've seen parents let kids ride standing up in a grocery cart. Does it never occur to them the massive head injury they're courting in exchange for not making the kid sit down?

I don't really believe that "if only they were educated, they'd never allow that." I don't think it's about lack of education. It's about willful ignorance. Failure to think through consequences. Or failure to enforce safe conduct (you WILL stay in your car seat).

If it happens enough, eventually there will be a tragedy. And it won't be the kid's fault.

My kids learned how to swim before they were two and until then they were NEVER allowed to get near a pool--and two grandparents had pools. Right now, my grandkids are NOT allowed in my pool without me there and without flotation devices.

Just sayin'. There's no excuse for taking a child who cannot swim to a swimming pool.

DL, I agree, except for the willful ignorance part. (Although I guess that's open to interpretation.) Does willful ignorance mean you know something bad could happen but you choose to ignore it? Or does it mean, even though many people have told you otherwise, you maintain your ignorant but believed position? Or does it mean something else?

At any rate, I guess my question is, will the threat of a felony charge inhibit these behaviors? Or, will an actual felony charge "teach these parents a lesson"? Or, is it just punishment, when a child has been injured or killed? Is it MORE of an example to other parents if a negligent parent goes to jail after her child drowns, than just the fact that her child drowned by her negligence?

I guess you could argue that charging the parent with a felony might save a life, because it might stop the behavior before it eventually, possibly resulted in tragedy. But I still don't see the mother in the OP brushing this event off as no big deal and repeating her error. Just speculation, of course. I'm not her.

rugcat said:

I absolutely agree with this, but I don't think it's really about a desire to blame or a flaw in our society.

Humans need to feel we have control over events. If random events (or actions that people do every day) can lead to tragedy, then none of us are safe. We can reassure ourselves by saying, I would never do that. I wouldn't make that mistake. I wouldn't make the mistake that person did. Therefore, this type of tragedy will not touch me.

I saw this a lot when I was a police officer. Whenever there was an officer shot, the first reaction was to analyze what he had done wrong. Part of it was to learn for the next time, but most of it was driven by that same impulse, imo.

If you can establish that the officer did something wrong, then you can believe that getting hurt or killed will never happen to you. I would never have turned my back, even for a second. I would have waited for backup. I would never have let him reach into the glove compartment. This won't happen to me, because bad things only happen to those who make mistakes.

If the officer did nothing wrong, it means the same thing not only could happen to you, but you're powerless to prevent it.

Sometimes, things just go wrong. But to admit that is to give up the illusion of control over everything in life.

It even spreads out into other areas. Cancer, heart attack? Oh yeah, he/she was a stressed out person. Ate too much junk food. Didn't exercise enough. Won't happen to me -- I take care of myself.

We even have a special phrase for those rare circumstances where try as one might, no one can find a way to assign blame --an Act of God.

Out of one's control, certainly, but still not random. Purposeful, even if incomprehensible to us. The idea of random, pointless tragedy seems to be unacceptable to most people -- and so they look for someone or something to blame.

Click to expand...

very well said.

On one hand, parents shouldn't have to worry that turning their backs on their kids even for a moment is going to warrant a call to social services.

On the other, this mom did seem to be in a rather precarious situation even before she went to sign the kids in. A one-year-old at a pool requires constant care...but she also had a four-year-old who apparently couldn't swim, wasn't wearing floaties, and wasn't smart about staying within their depth. And a five-year-old who may or may not have been able to swim well. And two more young children. That's a tough thing to manage even under the best of circumstances.

Arm floaties at Wal*Mart are 99 cents. But she apparently didn't require her kids to wear them. And she easily could have instructed the kids to walk with her as she went to sign everyone in, rather than leaving an eight-year-old in charge of three other young kids and a toddler - poolside.

It seems to me that she was a bit negligent. It would have been inexpensive and very little trouble to have floaties on the kids or at least to keep them at hand. Very young kids are often over-eager about getting into swimming pools on hot days, and they don't always listen well - not to their parents, much less older siblings. This was a recipe for disaster, and she turned her back.

Was almost losing her child sufficient "punishment?"

In my opinion, "punishment" shouldn't be in the picture. The very fact that this mom tried taking five very young children to the pool alone suggests that she doesn't have a lot of help with them. She has the weight of massive responsibility on her shoulders...put her in jail, and who is helped? Is making her life harder going to help the kids? And taking her children away because of a momentary lapse in judgement that we don't know was common or repeated and wasn't meant to harm the children seems overboard, IMO.

Should CPS talk to her about child safety? Maybe so. But I bet she's gotten the message by now, if not from the actual incident, then from the trial, the media attention, and the inevitable backlash from the community.

As much a near-tragedy as this was, I can't decide whether I'm surprised or not. The state pool I used to guard at, we'd have regular crews of sibling groups get dropped off at 9AM every day, and their mothers would come pick them up when they got out of work. Often times the oldest would be 7 or 8. Basically, the pool being free, it was the only daycare they could afford. At least this mother was there I suppose. But yeah, personally, the idea of letting my kids out of my sight at a pool doesn't fly.

eta re: Arm floaties - there's a reason most pools don't allow them. Kid raises arms over head --> floaties slip right off. Once they're wet, they're as good as greased.

mscelina said:

Just sayin'. There's no excuse for taking a child who cannot swim to a swimming pool.

Click to expand...

I read this as if there's a better place to learn how to swim than a large (in relation to a bath tube) body of water?