Hi Readers! Let us pause to celebrate a moment of sweet sanity. Remember Anne Bruscino, the young woman was put on New York State’s Child Abuse Registry for up to 25 years for the crime of accidentally leaving a toddler at a fenced-in, security-camera-monitored, daycare center playground for less than six minutes? (Here’s the original story, as reported by the Times Union.) Well now she has been officially taken off that list! She is free to pursue her dream of becoming a teacher!
Read the tale of this fantastic turn-around,Â just granted by a state appellate court. As the Times Union summed it up:
The state appellate panel’s decision [to de-criminalize the woman] underscores what some critics say is an inherently rigid system that can leave a person listed on a child-abuse registry for arguably minor errors involvingÂ children.
It was not just the the idea of minor errors getting a major punishment that appalled me, it was the reasoning behind this harshness. The original judge, Susan Lyn Preston, had argued this:
Clearly, Caitlin [the girl left behind] was at imminent risk of harm in this situation. The fact that the playground was surrounded by a chain-link fence does not eliminate the risk that Caitlin could have been abducted. A person with an evil intent could have easily gotten over the fence or lured Caitlin to theÂ fence.
Easily?! As I wrote at the time:
Let’s see.Â What would itÂ actuallyÂ have taken for the girl to have been spontaneously abducted in the span of five minutes, as the judge so clearly believes was a distinct possibility?
First of all, a child abductor would have had to have been passing by the center at the precise time Caitlin was unchaperoned. Since, according to FBI statistics, there are only about 115 â€œstereotypicalâ€ abductions in the whole country each year (that is, abductions by strangers, intending to transport the child), this already would have been SOME rotten luck.
Then, that abductor would have had to immediately scale the fence, hide from the security cameras, avoid detection on the part of Â anyone glancing out the office window, and pray that the child did not utter a single peep that might call attention to the crime.Â Heâ€™d also have to be out of there within about a minute, climbing back over the fence again.
This time while holding a 3-year-old.
Now, Iâ€™m not saying this could NEVER happen. If all the stars aligned AND the planets AND the worldâ€™s worst luck (and best fence-climber), thereâ€™s an extremely slight chance it could. Just like thereâ€™s a slight chance of getting hit by lightning in any 5 Â minutes you sit on your porch. But to say the child was in â€œimminent risk of harm in this situationâ€ is the equivalent of saying that no matter how many fences, monitors and safeguards we put up, every child is at risk every single second an adult isnâ€™t serving as a physical bodyguard.Â Thatâ€™s a perception that is very common and really off-base.
Thank goodness the appellate court panel brought this case back to reality.Â The only unfortunate coda? Bruscino’s lawyer, Â Kevin A Luibrand, Â says he has seen at least Â four similar cases in the past two years!
And so we fight on, for a world that does not believe our children are in terrible danger every time they are in public without an adult, no matter how briefly, no matter what the circumstances. — Lenore