On Nov. 18, Maria Hasankolli of Wallingford, CT, came home in the early hours of the morning after visiting a relative at the hospital. She overslept while her 8-year-old stepson got himself ready for school — and missed his bus. The boy, Lucan, decided to walk to school on his own, two miles away, and was about halfway there when a business owner spotted him and called the cops. The cops drove Lucan to school, then went to his home, woke zzkdyihiib
Hasankolli and clapped her into handcuffs.
She was driven to the police precinct, had her mug shot taken, and wasÂ given a $2500 bond. Her court date is this Wednesday. The charge?
Risk of injury to a minor. AsÂ WFSB reports:
A Wallingford woman has been arrested after police found her 8-year-old stepson walking to school by himself.
The elementary school student missed his school bus and decided to walk about two miles to school.
A business owner on North Plains Industrial Road saw the child walking by himself and called police.
When they went to the childâ€™s house, they found his step mother, 38-year-old Maria Hasankolli, sleeping.
“She had to be awakened and the officer asked her where the child was. She said he’s downstairs and they went downstairs and she couldn’t find him and said he’s not there,â€ said Wallingford Police Lt. Cheryl Bradley.
Asleep in the morning! How dare she?
“I wasn’t arrested for letting my son walk to school. I got arrested for not being awake,” Â the stay-at-home mom told me in a phone interview. As one of the cops was taking her in, she recalls, “He said, ‘It’s despicable that you’re sleeping while your child needs you to get ready for school.'”
Um…is it a crime not to cater to a child capable of getting himself dressed and fed?
Does this officer know that just a couple of generations ago a child of eight might not only have been expected to get himself up, but might have gone out, pre-dawn, without a parent, to deliver newspapers? Hasankolli herself did daily that when her brother was eight and she was seven. “We delivered 320 papers!”
Now she is a mom of six: three children of her own and three step children. The story gets a little grimier when the TV reporter dredges up past calls to Child Protective Services — calls that are all too common in custody cases (Hasankolli’s husband has sole custody of his kids). A horrific abuse charge mentioned in the WFSB news report — of the parents duct taping their child — was found unsubstantiated. But heck, why not bring it up? It sure sounds bad, as does the fact Hasankolli was found guilty of a felony a decade ago (for failure to appear in court after a fight with her sister).
“I never claimed to be perfect, nor have I stated that I’ve never made mistakes,” Hasankolli told me. But her Â past should be of no matter in this case. She was arrested for oversleeping.
When the cops picked up her son, they asked him why he was walking — as if that activity is so outlandish — and he replied, “Because my mom’s asleep and I missed the bus.” That’s the reason they came to her home with handcuffs.
“I asked him [one of the arresting officers] to show me something that said it was illegal for Lucan to be unsupervised in the morning and he just kept saying to me that, ‘He has to be 12 years old,'” says Hasankolli.
But the Connecticut law is this:
Any parent, guardian or person having custody or control, or providing supervision, of any child under the age of twelve years whoÂ knowingly leavesÂ such child unsupervised in a place of public accommodation or a motor vehicle for a period of time that presentsÂ a substantial riskÂ to the childâ€™s health or safety, shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.“
To me, that sounds as if a child has to have been deliberately left someplace bad, as opposed to simply experiencing a parental blip. And if “substantial risk” can encompass any time a child walks to school and a passerby thinks, “Oh! That’s dangerous!” then all bets are off. The “What if???” chorus wins. Parents can be arrested for trusting their kids, for letting them go outside before age 12, and for oversleeping.
Talk about a nightmare. – L
America: Raising dependent children for life!
This is truly outrageous. I remember doing something very similar when I was only a few years older. My mom looked really tired and I figured “Why wake her?” She was working second shift at the time so she didn’t have anywhere to be for quite a number of hours.
We should be applauding this child for his initiative and will to get to school regardless of his circumstances, not arresting his stepmother.
Another example of tyranny. It’s very disturbing.
The specifics are of course, frustrating and heartbreaking, but it’s a symptom of the big picture- tyranny by authorities.
Lenore does an outstanding job of exposing these incidents, but there needs to be solid responses to eliminate them.
I am a single mom of 3, I work the over night shift. My teenager gets up, gets ready and leaves before I’m even home. My middle school child also gets up and ready by himself. Both these kids do this regardless if I’m at work or not, it’s called responsibilities! I wake my 8 year old up when I get home from work and I go to bed, he gets himself ready and walks to school every single day, and has done this since 1st grade…all while I’m asleep!!
“A business owner on North Plains Industrial Road saw the child walking by himself and called police.”
A business owner? Then mind your own business! Literally. Sheesh!
It wouldn’t surprise me if parents now start teaching their kids to lie to police or other adults whenever they’re outside alone.
I have a HUGE problem with the CT law itself. To me it says that no one can every let their 12 year old me alone unsupervised. I know it says “for a period of time that presents a substantial risk to the childâ€™s health or safety” but what is the standard here? To completely cover ones butt a parent better never leave their 12 year old unsupervised.
What was the reason for arrest in the first place? They can not initiate legal process without arresting a person over there? It just seems pointless.
When my sister was in grade school, she was the last one to leave the house. I left for junior high school, then mom left for work, and finally my sister left to walk to school.
One day, she was watching cartoons and forgot to pay attention to what time it was, and didn’t leave for school on time. She didn’t want to get in trouble for being late, so she just stayed home all day, and didn’t tell anyone. Next morning, she went to school. “Where is your note?”, the asked. You have to bring in a note from a parent excusing the absence. So, not having a note, she stayed home again the next day. I don’t remember how many repetitions there were of going in, being asked for a note, not having one, and staying home the next day as a result, before they actually called and talked to my mom.
Nobody went to jail..
â€œ’A business owner on North Plains Industrial Road saw the child walking by himself and called police.’
A business owner? Then mind your own business! Literally. Sheesh!”
I’d guess that he is. I’d bet that “North Plains Industrial Road” is not pedestrian-friendly and does not have 8-year-olds walking on it with good reason. A pedestrian accident leads to traffic snarls, which are bad for local businesses.
THIS IS INSANE! It isn’t April Fool’s day is it? Wait… I didn’t click on the Onion did I?
GULP my own 10yr old step-son did this one day last month!!! He got up early, was BORED (grounded from all electronics actually makes for a much more active child we have found), decided not to wake me and I will stop there or I might be found, arrested, cuffed, and thrown in the slammer! Wait let’s not forget humiliated on public TV and in newspapers. Wow. I am truly stunned. What is this world coming to folks?
“What was the reason for arrest in the first place? They can not initiate legal process without arresting a person over there?”
“â€œI wasnâ€™t arrested for letting my son walk to school. I got arrested for not being awake,â€ the stay-at-home mom told me in a phone interview. ”
I think this implies that she was arrested for either A) not getting him up in time to catch his bus, or B) not driving him to school, or C) not walking with him. I think the unspoken (unwritten?) part of the story is that the area the boy was observed in is not very safe for pedestrians.
The police are not our friends.
For everyone BUT James,
Lenore even highlighted the key word in the law. “Knowingly”, the arrest implies she knew that her kid was doing this. I don’t know about everyone else, but I have never been given some superpower that allows me to know everything going on while I am asleep.
A quick look on google shows that the road he was on is nothing more that a bunch of commercial and small industry plazas. No sidewalks, but plenty of room for anyone to walk and navigate. I did so at that age. We never walked the road, we cut through all the parking lots, and on the grass boulevards. The kid was in no danger, and obviously had no problem finding his own way. I hope she fights this instead of accepting some stupid plea.
â€˜Itâ€™s despicable that youâ€™re sleeping while your child needs you to get ready for school.’â€
On any given morning, my oldest (14) is up earliest and usually working out at 5 am. The middle one is hardest to get up but has a loud alarm clock to make her bus before 7. She often runs for the bus but has never missed it. Youngest (9) has gotten herself up and dressed independently since age 3 or 4. She’s biked to school since age 5 with her siblings and now her friends (though they choose to walk today because it’s raining). All have mastered breakfast (mostly cereal and smoothies) and pack their own lunches and gather the items they need for their school day. I listen to them getting ready FROM MY BED.
Sorry, but their independence is music to this mom’s ears!
Irony… if he had gone home, mom wouldn’t have been arrested. Instead, he did what he has been brainwashed to do – go to school!
Beth, we’re CT residents and the law does allow for children to be left home alone (it says in a motor vehicle or place of public accommodation). Connecticut’s DCF website says, “Deciding when your child is ready to stay home alone is a difficult decision for parents. There is no set age, either prescribed by law or by child development experts….Experts believe a child should be at least 12 before he is left alone, and at least 15 before he can care for a younger brother or sister. These are the minimum ages. Not every child is ready then.” This just seems absurd to me. It’s insane that a developmentally-normal 10 or 11 year old is considered unable to be at home alone during daytime hours for a relatively brief period (a few hours).
I grew up in Connecticut and was a latchkey kid after school starting in 3rd grade – so at 8-9 years old I was responsible enough to walk home from the bus stop, let myself in, take the dog out, lock the door, call to have my dad paged so he knew I was home, and entertain myself for an hour until one of my parents got home. By the time I was 12 I not only got myself out the door to walk to school in the morning, when I got home in the afternoon I was responsible for cooking dinner for the family! At 12 I’d taken the Red Cross babysitting, CPR, and first aid classes and had two weekly babysitting gigs for children in the neighborhood (including an infant and a toddler). My younger brother was allowed to be home alone at similar ages.
Our daughter goes to after school care, but the school district requires that an adult be present at the bus stop for a kindergartener or the child will not be allowed off the bus at their stop. Even if the stop is in front of the child’s home or a few doors away, a kindergartener is apparently not to be trusted without Mommy there at the bus stop when they get off!
When I pick her up at the after school program, I have to unbuckle our 2 year old from her car seat and haul her into the school cafeteria with me – even though it takes all of 2 minutes to sign out our older daughter and my car is within my view the entire time. In the winter it’d be so much easier and faster to leave the toddler in her car seat in the locked and warm car rather than getting her out in the cold and snow. But because it would technically be illegal, I feel that I can’t risk it. After all, this is the area where a mother was arrested for leaving a very non-distressed 11 year old in her car when she went into a drugstore – I won’t even take the chance.
You can use Google Maps to virtually travel North Plains Industrial Road all the way to the boy’s school, which is named in the article. Google Maps shows that there aren’t any sidewalks on North Plains, which is two-lane. But for most of the route, there are broad grassy shoulders that someone could walk on. The one big intersection the boy would have to traverse has a stoplight accompanied by crosswalks and walk signals — clearly, the intent is for people to walk there — and the school itself has crosswalks outside, presumably staffed in the morning.
I saw a few short stretches, under an overpass and over a bridge, and another section with guard rails, that would make me nervous due to the lack of a shoulder. But it’s nothing a cautious 8-year-old couldn’t handle, especially if he walked against traffic.
Does that cop not understand how stupid he sounds for saying the child needs the mom to help get ready for school when, if he did need that, the whole incident wouldn’t have happened?
Why in the world didn’t that business owner offer to help the child instead of turning him in? Where is our sense of community? sigh…
It also doesn’t make sense that the law that a child under 12 must be “supervised” was invoked. If that law is violated because a parent is asleep, how are parents supposed to get any sleep? Or are kids never allowed to be outside unsupervised?
What kind of message does this send to the child?
He woke late, missed the bus, and PROBLEM SOLVED a way to get to school by walking the reasonable distance (my kids do 1.5 miles each way daily).
At age 8, in most cultures this would be completely normal behavior. But in Wallingford Connecticut this is Risking Injury to a Minor. When did walking become so dangerous and what happens at the age of 12 in CT that makes children magically capable of responsibility with no practice allowed?
Ok, whom do we email or call to support the mom and the kid? From prior seems like quick public reaction is the best way to get the charges dropped…
What in the hell is going on in this country?
You see a kid walking down the street during school hours and you think the appropriate response is to call the cops? There’s something terribly wrong in the fabric of our society and the worst for me is it does not seem like it’s getting any better. We won’t let kids do anything remotely responsible, then bitch because young adults are living home and incapable of moving out.
What do they expect with all these mixed signals?
Please note that “.Experts believe a child should be at least 12 before he is left alone, and at least 15 before he can care for a younger brother or sister.” comes from a recommendation by ONE particular expert organization – “National Safe Kids Campaign”. Here is the writeup on it: “was launched in 1988 to address what was then a little recognized problem: More children under age 14 were being killed by what people call “accidents”(motor vehicle crashes, fires and other injuries) than by any other cause. The Campaign’s founders believe there is no such thing as an accident and that unintentional injuries can be prevented. They enlisted the support of corporations, government agencies and the health and safety community to reduce the incidence of childhood injury. …The Campaign’s aim is to stimulate changes in attitudes, behavior, and the environment. From its inception, the Campaign has relied on developing injury prevention strategies that work in the real world, onducting public outreach and awareness campaigns, stimulating hands-on grassroots activity and working to make injury prevention a public policy priority.”
Their recommendations are now cited by all the CPS services across the country.
When will Lenore or another normal person finally interview one of these guys and ask them if they are aware of the unintended consequences of their activity?
@James Pollock My point was that there was no reason to arrest her even if they plan to charge her with something. The arrest was waste of resources and money.
Thank goodness my second grader managed to catch the bus on the morning when her dad left early and I overslept. She made herself toast, packed her lunch and her backpack, and went out to the bus stop. Fortunately, she makes her lunch and basically gets herself ready every morning, although we usually make her breakfast. My middle schoolers have to catch a much earlier bus and often are gone before my husband and I wake up. They say their friends’ moms pick out their clothes, help fix their hair, pack their lunches, make their breakfasts, and usually drive them to school. I find that much more frightening than an eight-year-old getting himself to school.
“When will Lenore or another normal person finally interview one of these guys and ask them if they are aware of the unintended consequences of their activity?”
Do these *experts* even have children? It is not rocket science parenting to allow a child to make frozen waffles for breakfast and get themselves ready. At my youngest (9) daughter’s school conference and at back to school night, her teacher stressed the need for parents to hold our own kids responsible for school work and organization. She spoke of the trend among the children to *blame* their parents when they missed assignments or forgot library books because “My mom didn’t pack it for me” and how it is unacceptable in her classroom.
This boy was NOT a victim. I admire his responsibility and dedication to his education. We are creating this Generation Veal of children who are kept in close quarters under watchful eyes. It’s just as cruel for children as it is for animals. He walked to school and now his family is being torn apart. If anyone can provide contact information for this case, I will respectfully let them know that I will be adding Wallingford Connecticut to my list of Family Unfriendly Towns I am compiling based on this case and ask to interview someone from their tourism bureau about the crime rates in this town that make it so dangerous for older children to walk to school.
“Why in the world didnâ€™t that business owner offer to help the child instead of turning him in? Where is our sense of community? sighâ€¦”
Because then there would be a charge of having an inappropriate relationship. Unless you turn a blind eye its a no-win situation.
Jesus. I’m pretty sure in my district children are allowed to walk to school alone by 3rd grade.
@lollipoplover: “Do these *experts* even have children?” well, to be fair, they were “founded in 1988 by Martin R. Eichelberger, M.D., a pediatric trauma surgeon”, so he had an understandable professional deformation… which, sadly, nobody kept in check 🙁
So in other words, mom was arrested for raising a kid who is responsible enough to get himself to school unassisted and without requiring any prompting from mom.
My eight year old walks to school by herself. She also rides her bike. It is her choice. The other day she was being slow getting ready for school and I told her if she missed the bus she would have to walk. Her response? “If it’s okay, I’d rather take my bike today.” And she did. It is a mile to the school and she crosses roads. I have watched her, driven behind her and have discovered that she is perfectly capable of doing this on her own.
everybody needs to give their kids one of those laminated Free Range Kids cards, in a coat pocket or bag. ridiculous to even need to have these conversations.
This is so depressing when I read cases like this on here. No wonder college kids nowadays demand “safe zones” anytime they hear something that offends them and no wonder we’re now seeing parents accompany their college aged kids to registration when that was unthinkable 40 years ago. American kids nowadays are not allowed to do anything on their own and EVERYTHING in America nowadays is considered child abuse. I really feel for the future of this countries, especially when I see little kids in Asia and India walk miles to school without incident even while crossing roads and busy streets. The sad part is, the helicopter crowd falls back on the mantra that we’re a civil nation that believes in protecting the most vulnerable among us but their oblivious to the fact that we’re actually doing kids more harm than good by all this “protection”.
No kidding Krista, and Crystal you may be right about parents teaching their kids to lie to authorities.
Part of my sons training includes addressing a police office if confronted. Fortunately the laws in Georgia are not as Draconian as CT. The severity of the stories on here seems to be increasing, what happened to the “discussion”? Handcuffed in bed? Good god what an invasion!
This really has got to stop.
“You can use Google Maps to virtually travel North Plains Industrial Road all the way to the boyâ€™s school”
I’ll take your word for it, although that doesn’t necessarily give you an accurate feel for what it’s like during traffic.
“My point was that there was no reason to arrest her even if they plan to charge her with something.”
Huh? She would have come down to the police station to be booked on her own?
“Jesus. Iâ€™m pretty sure in my district children are allowed to walk to school alone by 3rd grade.”
Depends on whether or not they have a safe place to walk.
The officer’s use of the word “despicable” is something of a giveaway–this is less about a legal fault than social judgment and shaming. An officer of the law should know the difference, and if he doesn’t, he should be taught the difference and not allowed to engage in public policing again until he’s learned.
Wow. So typical of police, especially small town police. Anything to get conviction rates up.
For one thing, 2 years ago on an issue that was never substantiated and she was never charged has nothing to do with THIS issue. It’s all conjecture.
Second, she was asleep. I’m absolutely certain, we’ve all done this at one point, and perhaps more than once. So tired, you’re thinking just 10 min power nap. And as soon as you close your eyes, you find yourself waking up a few hours later. Or much later than you expected. Is that a crime? If it is, then every single parent who falls asleep is committing this crime. Because as soon as you fall asleep, your ARE NOT LOOKING AFTER YOUR CHILD. Your child can wake up in the middle of the night, as children do. So according to these dummy police, parents are liable for anything that happens to them during this time? Stupid is as stupid does. No common sense.
And that road, sure, it kinda looks busy. But in place of a sidewalk, there’s a huge grass area (bigger than any sidewalk I normally see), that the kid more than likely was walking on. I’m quite certain, he wasn’t walking on the street itself. Children aren’t dumb. I’m also pretty sure, the owner was worse case thinking first. Not about the child being in danger of getting “hit by a car”, like a car will drive on to the grassy area and hit him (which could also happen on a sidewalk as well). But rather because he just saw a little boy by himself. That I’m certain is the first thing that popped into his head. Then every other scenario he can think of that is a possibility. Except the possibility of a plane falling on him. Or meteor rock smashing down where he stood. Maybe a bolt of lightning striking him down. These are very possible things that can happen…to anyone, at any given time. That’s the thing about worse case thinking, ANYTHING is absolutely possible. And people succumb to paranoia of ANYTHING is absolutely possible. Unless it’s an inconvenience for them, then they make excuses as to why they allow certain “dangerous” things. Again, the perfect example, sticking kids in cars. When everyone knows, it’s one of the major things in injuries or deaths of children. Yet, no one ever thinks twice.
Here’s another one, what if those cops were like other cops who got busted for child porn, and being pedophiles. Hey, anything is possible. And there are plenty of former law enforcement in prison for crimes against children. Why did that cop take a boy, who was perfectly fine, and in no distress, and with no permission from his parents. Law is law. Just because you wear a badge, you can’t enforce your own interpretation of it. But sadly, cops are people too. And some people are just dumb, illogical, and lack common sense. Not to mention fearful. So they WILL make the same mistakes we all do. Doesn’t make them right. But unfortunately, they will always use that “badge” as their license to be dummies. I’m not even going to get started on the irresponsibility of media these days.
The law is anything the cops want it to be, until you can buy a lawyer to beat them in court.
“Depends on whether or not they have a safe place to walk.”
Looking at google maps, satellite view, looks like there was plenty of place to walk safely away from traffic. Sure, you’ll end up walking on large grassy areas, driveways, and parking lots (which btw, have pavements he could have stepped onto so he wasn’t walking in the actual parking area).
I’ve walked through “worse” places at a younger age than this boy. In a major city. Many kids did back then. How is that any different now? I’ll tell you, because more and more people these days just lack common sense, and quick to pull the trigger because of the sanctimonious mentality.
Sure, there was a possibility of that child being in danger. But no more possibility than even if the mother was walking him. You think runaway car will just target the boy and leave the mother holding his hand? Nope, both will be run over. A kid could choke on the food he’s eating and die. He could die in his sleep. He can trip walking to the bathroom, hit his head on table and die. Is a parent suppose to liable for all of this? Do parents have to be literally up and alert 24/7? Because that’s the insinuation that some people are saying. And any person with an iota of intelligence and reason, knows this is impossible. Impossible. So basically, dumb society, expects everyone else to do the impossible to “protect” their children. When the absolute, best, and most practical way of protecting our children, is to teach them to do it themselves. Teach them to make the right decisions in the things they do on a daily. They aren’t stupid. They learn. They are observant, and they are smart. Smarter than a number of grown adults I know. When it comes to common sense, I’ve even seen some kids put adults in their place. But that is another (funny) story. Let’s just say these adults, felt like they were back in high school, and some other kids embarrassed them in front of everyone. lol
Unfortunately helicopter parents can be anywhere, own businesses, and wear police uniforms. My 10 year old son was stopped by two police cars just for riding his bike in the neighborhood, after being reported by a public works officer even after my son told him he was fine and not lost. Instead of seeing that my son was not lost and let him go on his way they had to come and drag me over there to pick him up after a lecture about how things can happen to kids on bikes. Yeah, I remember bike riding to be particularly treacherous when I was a kid…..REALLY!?! These people will not change, they are busybodies who now have the ability to make everyone else’s lives a nightmare. Just wait until all these dependant kids grow up and have to run things but instead never leave home and cannot go to the grocery store by themselves, I would imagine that having your 36 year old child still at home will become tiresome adter a while, maybe then people will rethink their “safety at all costs” philosphy. Common sense needs to take the place of paranoia and unwarranted fear.
@Erics I guess we are pretty lucky in our small town. The cops are terrific guys and gals. Yes, they do talk to the kids around town. The cops make a point of making sure that the kids know them personally, so that if the kids are out and about on their own and have a problem, they will feel comfortable waving the cops down. They make sure to cruse through the park during peak play times and remind the teens to make good choices around the littler kids and roust them out when they are getting out of hand.
And the business owners don’t mind their own business here, but not in the way this guy did. The business owners get to know the kids too, welcome them into their stores (and the kids know the behavior expected). The kids all know that they can walk into the ice cream shop or the emporium and ask for help at any time.
We had severe flooding this summer, bringing 6-8 inches of water into most of our downtown businesses. The next morning, the cops were out helping the businesses clean up AND there were kids as young as 10 all over downtown helping however they could.
Small town can be good.
MichaelF has a point. I wouldn’t have interfered either with a kid walking by. If I volunteered to take him to school (leaving the business), the school would have wondered who I was, probably called the cops on me and the mother, and that would have resulted in something bad happening to both of us. Worst-first thinking on my part, but I don’t believe in good luck.
Inaction was the best course, unless the kid is in obvious distress. To someone who is lazy, btw, 2 miles seems like forever, especially walking. I walked much further as a kid, but now I would be reaching for my car keys.
“Iâ€™d bet that ‘North Plains Industrial Road’ is not pedestrian-friendly and does not have 8-year-olds walking on it with good reason.”
Right. So. on what planet is having an 8-year-old who makes a poor judgment about whether a road is pedestrian-friendly, grounds for arrest? The logical police response would be to take the child to school (which they did) and then just inform the parents of the unsafe thing their child did so that they can make sure he understands why the road isn’t safe for walking.
By the way, this article makes it sound like the police entered the house and woke the mother up. Is this even legal?
“American kids nowadays are not allowed to do anything on their own and EVERYTHING in America nowadays is considered child abuse.”
What cases like these do is trivialize real child abuse.
Most cases of child abuse won’t be reported. Real kids who need help and social services but who don’t receive it because of high workloads. There are families that need help out there who are not getting it because resources are diverted.
The (now) orphaned children of my friend who was murdered had 5 cases of abuse reported against her children that were investigated and dropped. Even her own child pressed charges but they were found unsubstantiated. The school reported it. He was still given custody of his children (which is astounding) and exposed to violence and abuse, all sanctioned by the county court system.
But WALKING gets a parent arrested.
Our system is failing our nation’s children miserably.
I forgot to attribute the above quote about the road to James Pollock.
I feel like I’m always contrary, but it doesn’t seem like we’ve got enough in (yes, handcuffs seem completely unnecessary).
From one of the linked articles:
“Hasankolli has an â€œextensive history with DCF,â€ records said, and â€œDudley is a convicted felon and has numerous arrests for assault and violation of probation.”
Read more: http://www.wfsb.com/story/30598603/woman-arrested-after-stepson-found-walking-to-school-alone#ixzz3t64mdB00
I have no idea if the “extensive history” or felony charges played into how they treated her.
I don’t understand how the police were the ones that woke her up. How does that unfold? Was someone else there that let them in? Did they force their way in?
I don’t understand her comment about being arrested for not being awake. Surely she’s not suggesting that if she’d been sitting at her kitchen table when they arrived and said “I made him walk to school” that they wouldn’t have filed some sort of charge?
Yes, it all sounds extreme. But way too much unknown.
@That_Susan- Why stop at 8 year-olds walking on *dangerous* roads? I see many ADULTS dressed in black, walking on the sides of busy roads at night. They should all be arrested as this is very dangerous and could lead to an accident, right?
Don’t Connecticut cops know about the Silver Springs kids?
Parts of Connecticut still have farms, no? And kids that feed cows and chicks before getting themselves off to school.
What’s the big deal with the cuffs these days? Did she resist arrest? Must they do that? Over policing, up and down the line.
No wonder people are losing respect for the police.
Why didn’t they simply ask her what happened? Say they were sorry her friend was ill, and suggest she set an alarm clock next time?
Is meanness trained into police these days or is it a selection factor at the point of hire?
When will we the public–who are the employers of these officers–say ENOUGH!
@lollipoplover — I care more about my kids than I do about strange adults, so if someone saw one of my children walking along a highway, I’d hope that they’d get them out of danger and also inform me of the situation so that I could educate my child. But there’s no need to inform me about all the adults out there that do that; I’ve got enough on my plate.
Kind of like I let my neighbor know when I saw her child, who used to always wear a bicycle helmet, riding to school without one. I’d want to know if it were my child.
My point was that if you’re worried about a choice you saw somebody else’s kid making, just tell them about it and let them handle it.
P.S. I never said that it the logical response was to arrest the mother — I only meant that it was logical to get the kid off of the highway and inform the parents.
Irving Berlin left home at age eight, sold newspapers on the streets of NYC, and sent money home after his father died.
Was the film WHITE CHRISTMAS about Connecticut?
Or was that HOLIDAY INN? Which featured WHITE CHRISTMAS.
So grateful for all these comments — it’s wonderful to hear the stories of the responsibilities many of you are giving your children (like Allison, the mother who works late night shift and children get themselves ready for school). My twin 5-year old boys don’t walk on their own anywhere yet, but I’m reading this blog eagerly for all the tips I can get because soon they are going to *own* our quiet residential neighborhood in Newton MA and they will charm the pants off those naysayers and busybodies who question their right to bike or walk safely anywhere their good judgement dictates.
I was so comforted by all this positive feedback. Truth be told, I was really starting to feel horrible. I should express to you all that my eldest son Mack(21), was awake with Lucan. At some point, Lucan realized he missed his bus and decided he wanted to walk. He waited until his brother left the room for something and then he left. Mack just assumed he got on the bus. When the cop got here, Mack let him in. He could clearly see that there was an adult awake.
“Looking at google maps, satellite view, looks like there was plenty of place to walk safely away from traffic. Sure, youâ€™ll end up walking on large grassy areas, driveways, and parking lots”
Driveways and parking lots have traffic, too.
“Iâ€™ve walked through â€œworseâ€ places at a younger age than this boy. In a major city. Many kids did back then. How is that any different now?”
I’ll tell you how it’s different. In the olden days, kids walked a lot, and when there were a lot of them, drivers expected to encounter them and were well prepared to do so. Nowadays, kids don’t walk a lot, and so drivers don’t expect to encounter them, and are less prepared to do so.
This is a kid walking, alone, in an industrial area rather than a residential one, I’m guessing after school started. Even assuming he’s not stupid or inattentive, the people controlling the two- to ten-ton child crushing machines may be another story.
“Sure, there was a possibility of that child being in danger. But no more possibility than even if the mother was walking him.”
If the mother is walking him, A) you have twice as many eyes examining the environment, and thus, they are more likely to notice a danger that one pair of eyes missed. This is why the Navy puts two seats in its fighter jets. B) you have twice as many people walking around, and one of them is bigger, making it less likely that an inattentive driver fails to notice pedestrians. C) a child who is late for school probably has a lot of thoughts about being late, and punishments that follow. Mom is less likely to be concerned by this.
“‘Iâ€™d bet that â€˜North Plains Industrial Roadâ€™ is not pedestrian-friendly and does not have 8-year-olds walking on it with good reason.’
Right. So. on what planet is having an 8-year-old who makes a poor judgment about whether a road is pedestrian-friendly, grounds for arrest?”
On this one. Parents are expected to overrule their children’s poor judgment and substitute their own.
When children demonstrate an ability to make good decisions, that is good and they should be empowered to do so. When children demonstrate poor decision-making, they should be corrected. In extreme cases (I don’t claim that this is an extreme case… not knowing enough facts… I just point out that the facts I DO know don’t rule it out) the parent ALSO needs correcting, for allowing the child to make a poor decision.
I see people saying “what’s the big deal? He’s just walking to school. Lots of kids do that.” Which is true… but lots of kids don’t walk to school on pedestrian-unfriendly industrial-area streets, for good reason. They walk on well-lit, neighborhood streets with crosswalks and no truck traffic.
“The logical police response would be to take the child to school (which they did) and then just inform the parents of the unsafe thing their child did so that they can make sure he understands why the road isnâ€™t safe for walking.”
I agree with this.
There are a number of reasons why this might not have been the best response to the situation at hand, and even more reasons why it wasn’t what they chose to do. (An overly judgmental cop is one of them, but not the only one.)
Children blame themselves for their parents problems. This is mostly associated with divorce. However it applies to a great many problems as well. This is taught is PHYC 101. Any phycologist that doesn’t know this is like being a car mechanic that doesn’t know how to change the oil. This self blaming can lead to severe depression.
So naturally the best thing to do when a child walks to school is to handcuff the mother. Then we can pat ourselves on the back for our amazing job of child protection.
Newspapers love to write headlines, â€œTHE AUTHORITIES WERE INFORMED BUT FAILED TO ACTâ€. When police are called, they have to respond. They do this because they don’t want the government officials to look foolish. They don’t do a very good job at this task.
“If the mother is walking him, A) you have twice as many eyes examining the environment, and thus, they are more likely to notice a danger that one pair of eyes missed. This is why the Navy puts two seats in its fighter jets. B) you have twice as many people walking around, and one of them is bigger, making it less likely that an inattentive driver fails to notice pedestrians. C) a child who is late for school probably has a lot of thoughts about being late, and punishments that follow. Mom is less likely to be concerned by this.”
Could you make your argument more obviously ad hoc if you tried? By this reasoning, 18-year-olds should be accompanied everywhere. As should 30 or 40-year-olds. Especially if they’re late for anything. You’re really stretching here.
Uh oh, I overslept this morning after we all flew home on the red-eye. My kids missed the school bus. I wonder if I will have access to the FRK site from jail ….
But seriously, how can oversleeping be a crime? Unless she does it every day and never makes sure he has food or clean clothes ….
So now if my kids get up to pee or visit each other in the night, and I sleep through it, is that a crime too?
“This is why the Navy puts two seats in its fighter jets. ”
Really? It has nothing to do with the division of duties and tasks? They do this so both of them can be doing the same thing? Stick to what you think you know, and stop watching Top Gun.
And James, your whole parking lot traffic crap is just that crap. In these industrial areas, the traffic in the parking lots are no where near busy. As a matter of fact they experience very little traffic in these lots, because of the nature of their business. Employees come to work, and the rush is over. Traffic wise, they are very quiet areas. They may look busy, but parked vehicles are not going to jump out by themselves and hit a kid. Again stick to things you think you know, but stop addressing things you are completely ignorant of, just to start a fight.
“Could you make your argument more obviously ad hoc if you tried? By this reasoning, 18-year-olds should be accompanied everywhere. As should 30 or 40-year-olds. Especially if theyâ€™re late for anything.”
Try again. By this logic, 18-year-olds (or 30 or 40-year-olds) should be accompanied if they’re going somewhere dangerous. Having more eyes to spot danger doesn’t really help you in places where there’s no danger to spot.
Just like the rule of “always swim with a buddy”, it’s good advice for both adults and children. My example was Navy fighter pilots. And the Navy really takes this advice seriously… not only are there two seats in the airplane, but the planes fly in pairs, too, when they expect trouble. When I was on active duty (in the USAF), people weren’t allowed to walk across base alone if they were on duty. A common problem at altitudes is that some people get nosebleeds. So, if you have such a person at, say, Lowry AFB, which was in Denver at a famous altitude of 5280 feet, and they get a nosebleed while sitting in their technical-school class, they have to walk across the base to get cotton stuffed in their nose until it stops. And… somebody else ALSO has to miss class, walk across the base, and sit in the on-base clinic, then walk back to class.
All the people affected by this policy are over 18 years of age. And note, there’s not anything particularly dangerous about Lowry AFB, unless it’s that one day every six weeks when the aircraft armament systems trainees are learning how to drive a bomb-lift vehicle. (A bomb-lift vehicle is functionally similar to a forklift, although the physical resemblance is weak. The trainees learn how to drive them by driving around with a 500-pound bomb strapped on it, so there’s enough weight on the front to get traction in the snow. Some operators are better at control than others.)
Many parents require their children to be accompanied on their walk to school.
I know I’m going to sound dramatic (maybe even a little inappropriate), but has anyone else followed accounts of women I’m Syria trained to be on Sharia Enforcement Squads? Our neighbors and business owners around the corner are not moral police officers – that’s why our police officers need to understand the ACTUAL law well enough to determine a nuisance call and a call regarding unlawful actions.
Asking the police to enforce our opinions or allowing them to arrest based on their own is dangerous. New despotism all the way.
Maria, it’s good to hear from you! I just want to give you a big hug! Please keep us updated — and also, please don’t let them badger or intimidate you into pleading guilty or accepting any kind of a plea bargain! You’ve broken absolutely no laws, and if there’s any kind of a jury trial, the jury can’t even be informed of any of the stuff from the past that the media have dredged up. So they’ll just be listening to the facts of the case, and they’ll think the police are just as crazy as we do.
When juries are selected, they reject anyone who’s already heard or read about the case, so no one will be influenced by anything other than the relevant facts at hand. That’s one reason the courts might try to scare you into pleading guilty to a lesser charge — they’ll know they can’t get a conviction if you plead “not guilty” and it’s on them to prove your guilt, so they might just try to persuade you that you’ll be saving yourself a lot of trouble by pleading guilty (because they don’t want to look completely stupid as they know they will when you’re completely exonerated). Please don’t fall for it!
And then we wonder why kids are irresponsible? For crying out loud. Even if you think the kid shouldn’t have walked down that road. The kid made this decision HIMSELF! The step-mom didn’t tell him to do this. Even if you do blame an adult, given the extra info, under what logic do you arrest the sleeping step-mother, rather than the 21 year old who was present and AWAKE, when the boy gave them the slip? More to the point, the boy gave them the slip, and didn’t come back when he missed the bus. THE BOY made a choice. THE BOY prevented the adults from knowing the situation when they had reason enough to expect he got on the bus. If any mistake was made at all, it was made by the boy, and I bet he knows that. I’m not saying that to blame anywhere commensurate with this situation on the boy. He was trying to do the right thing and get to school. That is commendable. He may have made a bad judgement call. If so that calls for a quit conversation, not arrest, not a newsworthy incident.
At 8 years old, he is well beyond old enough to have a cop tell him, “this isn’t a safe place to walk.” But, no, instead of telling the kid he made an unsafe choice, and informing parents to reinforce the lesson, they arrest the step mom to prove to the kid that everything he does will get blamed on an adult (especially if you can find one called mom). B.S! Seems most people think kids can’t possibly learn, and a “good” mom will prevent them from ever making an error, right up until the kid is a teen. Then everyone wonders why nothing will get the teenager to behave. Well of course they won’t, why behave when all the really bad stuff is either your mom’s fault or your teacher’s fault.
I’m already fighting this battle with my 4 year old. Her teachers have to fill out paperwork for each accident saying what they will do to prevent the accidents from happening again, it’s a line on the paperwork for the state regulators. The teachers are treated like they should be omnipotent. The kids hear teachers telling the parents what the teacher needs to do because of the kid’s accident, apologizing for a lone pebble on the floor (yes the kids are over 3). The kids pick up on these things. Now my daughter will do things that hide problems from her teacher and then cry because he didn’t solve the problem. Well hell kid, I was proud of you for stopping that nose bleed on your own until you blamed your (male) teacher for not sensing something was wrong and not checking on you *in the bathroom.* I told her: “Your teacher had no way to know. If you need help, you need to go get your teacher’s attention, and ask for help.” She responded petulantly that it is his job to take care of her. I responded with a well yes, but you still need to ask. I wish I had been fast thinking enough to say, “NO, it is your job to take care of yourself. It is his job to give you the help you need. That means you when you need help, you need to *tell* him you need it.”
And no an 8 year old doesn’t need a parent to help them get ready for school. Starting when I was 9 my dad just made sure I was awake and then usually left for work. Often my mom was asleep or barley string. I got ready, met up with my friend on the sidewalk a half block away, and walked a half mile to the bus. We never missed the bus, and her mom never saw her off. We were well past capable, and would have done the same at 8 had we not been in a private school on the other side of the interstate then. When the kids in public school found out we we had never walked to school or the bus stop before, we got laughed at. They said our parents “babied” us.
” under what logic do you arrest the sleeping step-mother, rather than the 21 year old who was present and AWAKE, when the boy gave them the slip?”
The mother has legal duties to the child, and the older sibling does not. They’re both not guilty, but the brother was not guilty as a matter of law.
Two generations ago, kids that age went outside to feed chickens, slop hogs, plow fields, work in the fields, and walk to town to pick up tobacco for their dad if he needed to let the kid take a break from plowing. They would hunt and fish for the supper table and many of them dressed their own kills. Most kids rode their bikes to schools because it was a heckuva walk from the farm, unless they were homeschooled. But, that was two generations ago. Might not have had electricity, but at least they had a brain. I’m starting to wonder if lightbulbs power themselves by sucking energy out of people’s heads that would otherwise be reserved for sound judgment. A lightbulb certainly went off over the heads of a certain business owners and squad car up in Connecticut recently…
What is the deal with handcuffs in the US? Seriously. Couldn’t the officers just asked her to accompany them down to the station?
Why not Taser her for the heck of it too.
…. and 8 is too old not to be able to do all the things that that boy did. How about applauding him for doing all the right things, arresting his parent is not a great message.
Our country is getting ridiculous. My brother, sister and I walked down hill 1 mile to our grade school, then back up hill after school from the time I was 5 until about 3rd grade. Starting in 3rd grade until 8th grade we were allowed to go home at lunch. Again it was a mile back and forth. We lived in a small town in Montana were there wasn’t much crime, but our weather is more extreme than in most places. All year the wind blows and average of 20 mph or so it seemed. When I went to college everyone wanted to know why I was bent over all the time, I told them it was the wind. We had 30 below weather and a few blizzards. Our schools shut down twice in my 13 years of school. One was for a blizzard were we ended up with 6 feet of snow. Cars couldn’t move through the streets. It didn’t stop us kids, we just went out and sledded for the day. One teacher and one kid hadn’t heard that the schools were closed and walked to school. The teacher only lived a block and a half away, but the student lived 2 miles away. He ended up having to stay at school until the roads were cleared. The second was when Mount St. Helens blew. We ended up with a foot of ash on the ground. Kids growing up today are not going to be equipped to solve the problems of tomorrow, because we haven’t given them the chance to explore and find out what they can do for themselves.
The argument that the mother should be corrected for allowing her child to walk on a dangerous roadway would make sense if the mother had, in fact, allowed her child to walk on a dangerous roadway. Having never been on North Plains Industrial Road in Wallingford Ct, I don’t know if the road is dangerous or not (my guess is no based on what I see on google earth), but I do know that the mother didn’t allow the child to walk on the roadway. The child walked on the roadway unbeknownst to his mother. Since he usually rides a bus to school and there is no evidence whatsoever that he has ever walked to school with his mother’s permission, it safe to assume that walking is actually not how his mother wants him to get to school. If the person claiming to be Maria Hasankolli is really Maria Hasankolli (and I have no reason to believe that she is not), the boy not only walked against his mother’s wishes, he sneaked out of the house while his older brother’s back was turned to do it.
What exactly is the mother to be corrected for? Not remaining awake to watch her child 24/7 so that she can stop him from doing something that he has no permission to do and that she has no reason to anticipate him ever doing?
You know what should really be a crime. Driving your kid to school in a giant wasteful dangerous gas guzzler (aka an SUV) when they could easily walk to school or take the bus. And then there are the crazies who actually drive there kids 2 blocks to a bus stop.
“and if thereâ€™s any kind of a jury trial, the jury canâ€™t even be informed of any of the stuff from the past that the media have dredged up.”
Maria, please hire a local lawyer before you take legal advice from some unknown person on the internet. Depending on state law, your prior history may be admissible at trial.
“theyâ€™ll think the police are just as crazy as we do.”
Or they could all be helicopter parents who think like the police.
“When juries are selected, they reject anyone whoâ€™s already heard or read about the case, so no one will be influenced by anything other than the relevant facts at hand.”
No even remotely true. Simply reading or hearing doesn’t get you removed from a jury. A person can only be removed for cause if they have already formed an opinion as to guilt or innocence based on what they have read or heard. Beyond that a defendant can kick some people off the jury for any reason at all, but he only gets a small number of those.
This will probably be the last time the kid tries to go to school. Here on out, he’d probably sit his rear on the couch and wait. Way to kill the industriousness out of the kid.
About the idea of “parents substituting children’s bad judgement with their own,” I’m not so sure that the boy in this situation exhibited “bad judgement.” Suppose he hadn’t left for school, and the school called his mother at home, and heard her groggy voice on the phone, and assumed the worst? Same effect–school gets worried, police get called, tempest in a teacup over a parent sleeping through the alarm. Or, suppose he woke her up to drive him, and she refused, and told him to walk? Or, suppose she did drive him, and his teacher asked him why he was late, and he told the truth, and again, the teacher assumed the worst, and started a whole investigation over nothing? The only thing that could have prevented this would have been if the boy had caught his bus on time, but guess what? People accidentally sleep in, people miss buses, people make mistakes, and that applies to both children and adults. The bigger problem happens when we turn every mistake into an Amber Alert.
Each and every single time you make these comments it only motivates me to go out and go for a drive in my 67 Pontiac. Gets about 6 mpg, at the speed limit. Even less when I let it run.
But seeing as it is put away for the winter, I will just have to go and start up my pickup, let the diesel warm up for a half hour or so, then drive into town just to sit in the drive thru and get a coffee. For no other reason than to bother you.
Donna’s definitely right about hiring a local lawyer rather than taking my advice as legal advice. I didn’t realize that some states allowed irrelevant information to be released in a trial. I still stand by my previous opinion that you’ve committed no crime and it would be a big mistake to plead guilty for anything — but by all means, get advice from a professional. I just wanted to put that advice in there quickly because I’ve heard of people being intimidated by court-appointed lawyers into signing and agreeing to stuff that got them into big trouble later.
“Iâ€™m not so sure that the boy in this situation exhibited â€œbad judgement.â€ Suppose he hadnâ€™t left for school, and the school called his mother at home, and heard her groggy voice on the phone, and assumed the worst? Same effectâ€“school gets worried, police get called, tempest in a teacup over a parent sleeping through the alarm”
First, I’d assume the non-groggy person would answer the phone. But… before you get to that point, you’d have the 21-year-old realizing that the kid is not in school.
Even if groggy-mom answers the phone, and police are dispatched, they get there, wake her up… and find that either A) the older brother took him to school, or B) she decided to let him stay home. A child left unsupervised at home (assuming the older brother has wandered off) is not a violation of the statute.
When the cops wake mom up, and mom finishes explaining why she’s sleepy, the cops are too busy apologizing to be fishing for handcuffs.
“Or, suppose he woke her up to drive him, and she refused, and told him to walk?”
Then that would be poor judgment on her part.
” The only thing that could have prevented this would have been if the boy had caught his bus on time”
No, as detailed above, there’s a few other good outcomes. The problems are that A) the boy missed the bus, combined with B) the boy decided to walk to school, combined with C) but he didn’t tell anybody that was his plan, and D) the path he chose to walk to school wasn’t a good (enough) path.
“Donnaâ€™s definitely right about hiring a local lawyer rather than taking my advice as legal advice.”
“I didnâ€™t realize that some states allowed irrelevant information to be released in a trial.”
Most states have evidence codes that are based more-or-less on the Federal Rules of Evidence. There are complicated rules about admitting past behavior as evidence (surprise!) Donna’s right that you weren’t even close.
“Experts believe a child should be at least 12 before he is left alone, and at least 15 before he can care for a younger brother or sister.”
And if the siblings are 14 and 12??
“so that they can make sure he understands why the road isnâ€™t safe for walking”
Because in the USA only people with driver’s licenses are important enough to get a safe(ish) transport option?
@Papilio: â€œ’so that they can make sure he understands why the road isnâ€™t safe for walking’
Because in the USA only people with driverâ€™s licenses are important enough to get a safe(ish) transport option?”
I’m pretty sure it was me you were quoting up there.
Just for context, here’s the whole paragraph that I believe you lifted the quote out of:
“Right. So. on what planet is having an 8-year-old who makes a poor judgment about whether a road is pedestrian-friendly, grounds for arrest? The logical police response would be to take the child to school (which they did) and then just inform the parents of the unsafe thing their child did so that they can make sure he understands why the road isnâ€™t safe for walking.”
Now that we have the context of what I was saying, I’ll try to respond to what you said here:
“Because in the USA only people with driverâ€™s licenses are important enough to get a safe(ish) transport option?”
I’m not sure if this was directed to me, or just to Americans in general, but I am definitely in favor of walkable cities. I’d gladly embrace a car-free lifestyle if this were feasible in my own city.
Since at least one other poster here misconstrued my post as saying that anyone who walks alongside a busy road should be arrested, I’ve taken time to reread it, and I still don’t see what was offensive. I’m not really sure what kind of road the child was walking on, if it was a highway or not — all I was saying was that if the police felt it was unsafe, they should have just informed the mom of what the child was doing, not arrested her.
After being informed, I guess the mom could have determined whether or not she agreed with the police about the unsafety of the road, and whether she would take their advice. Presumably, if the road is truly unsafe for pedestrians, there should even be a sign saying something along the lines of “no pedestrians allowed” — but this may not be true all over the country; it’s just what I’ve observed in my own neck of the woods.
Deliver newspapers? Kids used to go out before breakfast and milk the cows in the morning before school!
Things get blown way out of proportion. My bureaucracy pages show how things happen automatically without thought. (such as a police booking)
This page shows how emotion can run astry and mob mentality can take over. (such as helicopter moms that want to give you a public stoning)
The second half of this page talks about media hype and why they intentionally failed to mention that your eldest son was awake. (the worse the person that you sound like, the more interesting the story)
All of these can be a poor benchmark to measure yourself against in order to determine if you are morally wrong.
The clearer that you understand this, the less guilt that you’ll feel.
LOL. It’s a good idea to moderate the comments that post a link. However I don’t think it’s working properly.
I have no problem with a,child packing a lunch and their backpack the night before a school day. However I think Mom, Dad needs to get their butt out of bed to wake the child up in the morning and spend time with them while they eat and get ready for school. In my opinion it is lazy and selfish for an adult to stay in bed while their child prepares for school.. It sets a bad example for the child and is uncaring. Go back to bed after the child is on the bus if you want but be present when your child is present.
This is such a crock. And, the article brings out that a couple of generations ago children walked to school. Hell yeh we did, and it was a couple of miles. My own grandmother walked to school and it was 3 miles and that was in Colorado where it snowed…..a lot! Sometimes she rode her horse to town, put it in a stable and walked a mile from there, to school. Good god people, get a grip.
Julie, the mom overslept one morning after being up late the night before at the hospital with a sick relative.
I guess the only missing details are that she routinely intimidates these children. They fear her retaliation. This was not about independence. This was not about learning. I am all for children learning independence. The issue is are they being treated fairly? In this particular case, no. Do your research. She is a child abuser. She has a record. If you could speak to these children candidly you would learn they are controlled through fear and intimidation. Independence? I think not. More like a narcissistic woman in charge of stepchildren. I have never in my life met someone as self serving as Maria Dudley Hasankolli. You my dear have been duped.
Interesting article. I’m curious as to why no military parent has ever been arrested for the same thing. Military dependents walk to on base schools (and off base Schools) every day at similar distances. This is considered normal behavior. The children are often of similar or even younger age. A parent must be home when they return from school but no one is required to accompany the child to or from school.
It appears to me that there is no crime, even if the police department’s version of the facts is undisputed.
The statute Lenore cited, which is specifically Title 53, Chapter 939, Section 53-21a of Connecticut General Statutes, requires the child be left in a “public accommodation.” Public Accommodation typically means a business, such as a restaurant, hotel, store, market, theater, hall, stadium, etc. It does not mean the side of a roadway where someone may walk to school.
Not even going to try and counter each point, just going to tell you to shut your sanctimonious yap.
Proof or shut up.
“The statute Lenore cited, which is specifically Title 53, Chapter 939, Section 53-21a of Connecticut General Statutes, requires the child be left in a â€œpublic accommodation.â€ Public Accommodation typically means a business, such as a restaurant, hotel, store, market, theater, hall, stadium, etc. It does not mean the side of a roadway where someone may walk to school.”
On the other hand, it’s been claimed that the only place to walk is through the driveways and parking lots of various businesses along the road. If they’re open to the public, those are “public accommodations”.
I salute that Mom for raising a diligent 8 year old that is responsible enough to get up and go to school by himself. That’s impressive parenting!
Helicopter parenting can be obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) Just like a hand washer can be obsessed with germs, they can be obsessed with fear and ‘see’ dangers that don’t exist. There is another problem with overprotection. Think about ‘Nos’ as money. You need to budget. You don’t have an unlimited supply of money and you don’t have an unlimited supply of ‘no’ that your child will listen to. If you ‘spend’ your ‘no’ too often, you resemble a duck. Instead of making a quack sound, you make a ‘No’ sound. Your child stopes paying attention to them.
Consider the scenario. Your 16 year old daughter wants to camp at a music festival with her teenage friends. You say no but she won’t listen to you. THIS IS A TIME WHEN SHE REALLY NEEDS TO LISTEN! Too bad that you have said â€œnoâ€ for every little thing and she’ll no longer listen to you.
Saying no for every little thing is a big reason why kids revolt. However, helicopter parents often stay on their high horse, say no to everything until the kids revolt, pat themselves on the back for being great parents, then be judgmental about everyone else’s parting style.
Julie, Nancy. Please take note of this.
Julie – “In my opinion it is lazy and selfish for an adult to stay in bed while their child prepares for school.. It sets a bad example for the child and is uncaring. Go back to bed after the child is on the bus if you want but be present when your child is present.”
My mom worked 3rd shift so that she could be home for me when I got out of school. So neither lazy nor selfish. When I was this boy’s age, I was getting myself ready for school and walking there by myself. I wasn’t deprived of my mom’s company while getting ready in the morning, because she was there when I walked in the door after school and if I really needed something from her in the morning, I could always wake her up. I actually enjoyed having a quiet house all to myself, eating cereal and watching cartoons before heading out of the house. Kids do enjoy having some time to themselves, the same as adults do. To “be present when your child is present” is actually depriving them of having any time to themselves.
parenting style not partying. the fun with autocomplete
“I salute that Mom for raising a diligent 8 year old that is responsible enough to get up and go to school by himself. Thatâ€™s impressive parenting!”
Though not QUITE as impressive as raising a child that is responsible enough to get up and get to the bus stop before the bus comes…
“Though not QUITE as impressive as raising a child that is responsible enough to get up and get to the bus stop before the bus comesâ€¦”
Wrong again James. It is even more impressive that he is willing and able to adapt to the situation that just keeps getting more and more out of the norm. Nice try, but you failed again.
“Saying no for every little thing is a big reason why kids revolt. However, helicopter parents often stay on their high horse, say no to everything until the kids revolt”
The problem isn’t saying “no”. Sometimes the answer is, and should be, “no”. The problem usually is a lack of explanation to the child for why the answer is, and must be, “no”, combined with a lack of openness to why the answer possibly should be “yes”.
>>Helicopter parenting can be obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) Just like a hand washer can be obsessed with germs, they can be obsessed with fear and â€˜seeâ€™ dangers that donâ€™t exist. There is another problem with overprotection. Think about â€˜Nosâ€™ as money. You need to budget. You donâ€™t have an unlimited supply of money and you donâ€™t have an unlimited supply of â€˜noâ€™ that your child will listen to. If you â€˜spendâ€™ your â€˜noâ€™ too often, you resemble a duck. Instead of making a quack sound, you make a â€˜Noâ€™ sound. Your child stopes paying attention to them.
Consider the scenario. Your 16 year old daughter wants to camp at a music festival with her teenage friends. You say no but she wonâ€™t listen to you. THIS IS A TIME WHEN SHE REALLY NEEDS TO LISTEN! Too bad that you have said â€œnoâ€ for every little thing and sheâ€™ll no longer listen to you.
Saying no for every little thing is a big reason why kids revolt. However, helicopter parents often stay on their high horse, say no to everything until the kids revolt, pat themselves on the back for being great parents, then be judgmental about everyone elseâ€™s parting style.
Julie, Nancy. Please take note of this.<<
Donald, you make a really good point, but some kids/teenagers of overprotective parents who say "no" to everything, just stop asking. Take the sixteen-year-old girl in your example–let's call her Rapunzel, for simplicity's sake. Rapunzel's friends, Cinderella, Snow White, and Prince Charming, have asked her to accompany them to an outdoor music festival, and camp outside. Rapunzel really wants to go, but she knows her parents will never allow it. Maybe she lies and asks to sleep over at Cinderella's house instead–maybe she gets away with this, and returns from the music festival unscathed. Maybe her parents call Cinderella's parents to check on Rapunzel, and they drag her home from the festival in a fury. Or, maybe Rapunzel doesn't even ask to sleep over at Cinderella's house, because her parents don't allow sleepovers either. So, she simply sneaks out of the house, because really, grounding is meaningless when you're under constant lockdown anyway. Rapunzel's parents wake up in the morning, find their daughter's bed empty, and have no idea where she is, because she didn't mention the music festival, because she knew there'd be no way she'd be allowed to go, she didn't mention any of her friends, because they're all "bad influences" for wanting her to join them for normal teenage outings (and I'm not talking overnight music festivals, I mean things like movies, school dances, skiing and beach excursions as the seasons allow). My point is, too much "no" can have an even worse effect than you said, because, in extreme cases, it can shut down communication altogether until there is none. I mean, in your situation, the young woman asks her parents for permission to go to the music festival, they say no, and she goes anyway. From the parents' point of view, that's pretty easy to decipher–if Rapunzel is missing, she must be at the music festival they forbade her from attending. If she doesn't even ask, because she knows the answer will be no, and she just takes off with her friends, then her parents have no idea where she could be, and that's a real cause for concern.
Deivered papers at 3:30 in the morning. Walked to and from school since kindergarten. It’s all just P.C. police. Everyone wants to make a law telling others what to do, and then get mad when someone else comes along with a law telling them what to do. I would say we have painted ourselves in a corner very nicely. The police and government make more money and get bigger. That sums it up.
When you played a game and had to flip a coin to choose who goes first, did you argue the coin toss if you lost?
When I was 7 and my sister was 6, we got an alarm clock as a Christmas present so we could start getting ourselves up. (It took until I was an adult, but I eventually realized that had been more of a present for my mom than for us!) By the time I was in middle school, I was apparently leaving for school in the morning before my mom was awake. (Dad left for work at like 4 am, before anyone was awake.) I’m only even aware that Mom wasn’t up with me in the mornings because of one morning that I remember clearly: It was winter, I got up, got ready for school, walked to the bus stop. It was icy, but hadn’t snowed, so I didn’t consider the possibility of a snow day. I was the only one at the bus stop that morning, and I waited there for a few minutes until another parent noticed me there, waved from her bedroom window to get my attention, and pantomimed a 2-hour-delay. I waved in thanks, and slipped and slid back up the block to my house. It’s barely an interesting story, much less a crime that I left for school while my mother was still asleep!
@Maria – big hugs. Completely ridiculous ….So an adult male is home and awake with the child, and it’s STILL inadequate supervision? Or some such nonsense?
Completely unbelievable on all levels. I have fallen asleep/slept in several times for various reasons when the kids were young, and they’ve gotten themselves wherever they have to go. Hardly ever seen a cop in our neighborhood, let alone about something this ridiculous. We just don’t have enough police to waste on such nonsense.
Are there simply too many cops over there?
…I overslept this morning…
…I am the sole paramedic in town…
…The ambulance was at my house (we respond from home)…
My punishment? A text on the ambulance phone 15minutes after I was meant to commence shift going “Hey, you haven’t logged on for the day yet”.
Now obviously I am kicking myself for somehow sleeping through my alarm, but it wasn’t the end of the world!!!
In Sally Mann’s autobiography “Hold Still,” the controversial photographer reports that when her great-grandfather was nine years old he drove cattle 700 miles across Texas (a multi-day trip) – unaccompanied by any adult.
The point here is that this woman was clearly not arrested for being asleep and having her step child walk to school without her knowledge. She was arrested for her behavior towards the police officer. Perhaps the media would like to get the story straight and stop capitalizing on headlines for readership or viewership. This woman has a history of violence. She is angry and manipulative. She is self serving in every way possible. I believe she is a sociopath. This incident has certainly opened a discussion that is worth having. Helicopter parenting is just as bad as neglect. I am simply relieved the incident might actually shed some light on this woman’s actual lack of parenting skills albeit through a situation where things were blown out of proportion.I have no issue with children learning to be responsible and mature at any age. She punishes this child constantly. He never knows what is expected of him. He was punished for this incident, not applauded for his sense of responsibility. He is damned is he does damned if he doesn’t. She is teaching nothing but fear. Truly independent children learn to think for themselves because they are taught to do things through trial and error without fear of retaliation from a parent for trying something new. Physically and mentally abusing a child is wrong. Period. It is not teaching. I am only sorry she is being lauded as some sort of role model to parents that wish to see children grow freely and think for themselves. She controls those children with an iron fist. They are prisoners. BTW-the photo is from years ago. It depicts a rare occurrence. Those children only fear her. There is no love there I promise you. @Warren. I have proof. No worries there.
@Julie The laziest thing in the world is to complain that parent X was “selfish” or “lazy” or “uncaring” when the parent action was not deliberate (oversleeping is not done intentionally).
Moreover, if the parent spends enough time with children overall, there is no specific need to organize that time into morning or any other specific time. Yes, parents need to be caring towards their children, no the caring thing does not necessary implies the same day to day organization as you have in your family. Yes, parents should put kids needs very high in hierarchy, no it does not mean that parent must organize things in a way that is less practical and uncomfortable way when the actual need is not endangered.
Organizing day in more tiring way without gaining anything in exchange is not being good example. It is doing ineffective things and having less work done in exchange of social signal example. Which is being bad example to your child.
Not case here but: If your kid is able to make breakfast and catch the bus by itself and parents work schedule is such that parent does not have enough uninterupted sleep less she/he sleeps in the morning, it is fine to let kid go alone. I might judge it wrong if the morning would be the only time during the day when parent is with child, but it is not case here nor in that hypothetical example.
Missed the school bus, did he ?
The perfect remedy to missing the school bus? A day off school!
What’s wrong with this kid? He’s acting like a grown up! Horrors.
Who taught him his problem solving skills?
Find her! Arrest her! Clap her in irons and take her away! Take the kid away!
It is unlawful in the State of Connecticut for kids who miss the school bus to find an alternate solution to the problem of getting to school.
Common knowledge. Ignorance of the law won’t keep her out of jail.
Everyone seems to be forgetting – SHE DIDN”T KNOW WHERE THE CHILD WAS! When asked, she said he was downstairs. That is not allowing a child to be independent. That is dangerous.
She didn’t send him off to school, she had no idea what he was up to. That is a big difference, to me. If she made the choice to say he was old enough, I would support that. But that’s not what she did.
@J Nobody is missing that. She overslept and was sleeping as the kid walked home. Sleeping people are unable to track movement of other people and pretty much everyone in this discussion knows that.
The unrelated-related hypothetical discussion about whether it is fine to let kids handle themselves in the morning happened because of a,) cops comments b.) some people in discussion had about how bad it would be to allow kids get ready to school alone.
Safe and unsafe routes to school ?
It’s a joke! Many middle class suburban communities are like mine.
“No new taxes!’
No sidewalks. No street lights. No traffic signals at busy intersection. There are crossing guards a mile away, by the schools, not the homes. Not anywhere near the apartments where the poorer kids live.
I live in an upstate New York County that has not raised taxes in a gazillion years to protect the jobs of the political machinery.
I live one mile from the local middle school HS and former elementary. When my son walked or rode his bike to school, he had to step out into a busy thoroughfare that was then a state highway.
Not ideal. But the kids around here are brighter than the public officials in Connecticut. Or so it seems.
We’ve never lost a kid in the 40 years I’ve lived here.
so nancy..more innuendo and claims but still no proof. are you a neighbor? or perhaps the ex-wife who lost custody and is suffering from bitter grapes. perhaps because of being inadequate parent yourself? as for your claim she’s a violent person with a record..i have one myself due to my objecting to my teenage daughter having sex with her boyfriend. when I said no more, the boyfriend’s mother[a teacher’s aid and mandated reporter] called the police and said I was beating and abusing my kids. complete lie by a controlling manipulative person, but because of her mandated report status treated as gold. so unless you have proof[which you claim] shut up.
@common sense I obviously have no way to post proof on a blog like this. That does not negate the fact that it exists. I am sorry for your troubles. it is unfortunate that people use the system to satisfy their own selfish needs and if that is what happened in your case you have my sympathies. I assure you she is violent. Look her up.She is a sociopath. No, I am not the bitter ex wife, who is not bitter at all from my understanding. She also did not lose her custody. She relinquished it due to some unfortunate circumstances. My only point here is that she IS an abusive person. Sleeping is not a crime, and I agree, she should not be prosecuted for that. I guess my concern is the lack of focus on what really is going on in that home. This is one of those situations you could potentially see on the evening news in several months ending in tragedy with people shaking their heads asking how it could have happened.
and nancy you still don’t id yourself or state how it is that you know these things. if you googled her and found all this why not say so. have you seen her being violet with the children? if yes why didn’t you call the police? and how is it that you KNOW that she was arrested for her reaction to the police, not sleeping in? surely you can answer THOSE question here.
@common sense Common Sense would apply after reading the articles and watching the broadcast that nothing is ever stated about the cause of the arrest.They only indicate she was arrested after being called to investigate the boy walking to school. Don’t fall prey to the press misleading you into believing she was arrested due to that, although the TV news report came closer to the truth. That is an assumption on your part. Call the Wallingford Police Department for the details.They can share quite accurately what the arrest was for. Go to court and witness the proceeding if you’d like. i did not google anyone. That is quite amateur don’t you think? I will say I am close to the situation, have observed many things and reported them through the years. Again, no assumptions please. You seem like an angry person, and perhaps rightfully so if you have endured a false accusation. I prefer to remain anonymous for two reasons, one, I care about the safety of the children involved and I take my own involvement in the situation more seriously than to feel I need to prove or justify something to a group of anonymous strangers, that does nothing to help these children, nor am I under any obligation to do so on this site, and two because quite frankly, I fear physical retaliation towards the children if Maria Dudley Hasankolli confirms who I am.
“I obviously have no way to post proof on a blog like this”
Hm. There are links to news articles, links to public court access records, just to name two. And if she’s as bad as you say, I’m sure all her arrests are listed somewhere accessible.
no nancy I am not an angry person, I just have no tolerance for people such as yourself who make claims with no proof. so you reported what you saw and nothing was done? maybe because they investigated and didn’t find anything. you are close to the situation yet won’t say how because you fear retaliation against the children. mother in law[ or ex mother in law perhaps] and the police just happened to fill you in on all the facts in a phone call? my lawyer couldn’t do that. as for the arrest being for her attitude..do you really believe that the police should or do have the power to arrest just anyone for their attitude? nice police state. as for anonymous strangers you are one to me with no way to know who you are or how you’re involved. since you don’t feel the need to defend yourself why are you posting here? to spread what ever about this mom that will turn us against her without knowing the facts? rumor and gossip is all it is without proof.
I’m the Katie above who lives in CT. I’m somewhat familiar with the area in question and while I probably wouldn’t allow my child to walk that route unaccompanied, I respect that other parents may decide differently.
School districts here will typically have elementary school aged children walk if the walk is 1.5 miles or less and there are appropriate sidewalks and crossings. If there is no sidewalk, most districts will bus a child who is within the 1.5 mile walking radius. It is not uncommon for even suburban neighborhoods to lack sidewalks; there are none on our street and we live 1/4 mile from our town’s main thoroughfare. In rural neighborhoods there are almost never sidewalks.
I do want to clarify that according to the Connecticut court docket lookup, Ms. Hasankolli has been charged with violation of CT general statute 53-21(a)(1), which is different from the section quoted by Lenore (53-21a). Sec. 53-21a is the law that can charge a parent with a misdemeanor for leaving a child under 12 in a car or place of public accommodation.
Sec. 53-21(a)(1) is felony risk of injury to a minor: “(a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child.”
I just wanted to clarify that the Connecticut statute being cited in this post and that several of us have kicked around (the one about leaving a child under 12 in a vehicle or place of public accommodation) is NOT what this woman was charged with. The language is much more broad for 53-21(a)(1) than for 53-21a.
â€œIn my opinion it is lazy and selfish for an adult to stay in bed while their child prepares for school.. It sets a bad example for the child and is uncaring. Go back to bed after the child is on the bus if you want but be present when your child is present.â€
Quite the opposite in our house. “Lazy and selfish” is not accepting personal responsibility for your own share of *work*. My husband and I both work(I do late nights, depending on projects) and each of my children is in school- their *job* to go to school. We have a busy household with many animals, lots of sports and hobbies, tons of laundry, friends, meals, parties, and lots of mess. We get things done and for the most part, everyone chips in to make our lives run smoothly, including our mornings! There is no yelling (not with dad at work and mom sleeping). They are quiet and lovely and each child does a great job of getting their own things together (make breakfast, pack lunch, organize school work/retrieve books, pack sports gear for afterschool practice).
Uncaring? Why, because I have to be present to supervise every spoonful of mini wheats and be cranky and tired? They know it is mom who shops for the food they pack for their lunches and lovingly washes their clothes they put away. You can demonstrate caring towards your children in other ways. My kids would rather I get a good night’s sleep to be a happy mom.They make me proud by being so good at having their act together. I thought this was the goal of parenting- to work yourself out of a job?
There have been a number of comments here about parents not trusting police, or teaching their children how to deal with police. That, to me, is a strange, unintended consequence of trying to raise free range kids. Involved parents are now teaching their children to be wary of police. (and, yeah, I have had to teach my kids how to respond to police asking questions, and I feel guilty about it.)
After reading a recent article on how some states allow police to get minors as young as 10 to officially waive their rights, I would definitely be teaching my kids how to respond to the police.
Sue & Warren,
I’ve said it before here, and I’ll say it again. I teach my kids that if they need help, they should find a police officer and tell them everything they can and go with them to get help. But if they don’t need help and they are approached, questioned and/or told to go with an officer, then the only thing they are to say is, “I want my attorney”.
Damn shame it has come to this, but I was given the same advice when I was 12 by a friend of the family who was a states attorney and had seen too many kids chewed up by the system.
So I just left court. I was informed that “risk of injury to a minor” (my charge) carries with it a ten year sentence, five thousand dollar fine, and five years probation. My case was continued to January 6th, 2016.
Thank you all for your support and words of encouragement. I’ll keep you informed as I go. Perhaps someone reading is struggling my struggle and will find comfort knowing they’re not alone.
I just read the comments from “Nancy”. To clarify, I sent all information to Lenore regarding past accusations and problems. I sent her a copy of the arrest, and a copy of the letter I wrote to the commissioner of DCF in 2012 asking for help regarding threats being made against me by “family” members. “Hell hath no fury” is a very true statement. I also divulged to Lenore, past mistakes and struggles I’ve made and endured. Lenore is very thorough in her investigations prior to publishing someone’s plight. I have no secrets from her and I won’t defend ignorant comments made by or on behalf of a scorned woman.
>>I thought this was the goal of parenting- to work yourself out of a job?<<
Yes, Lollipoplover, that's exactly the goal of parenting. The problem is, though, the government, child protection agencies, and random busybody neighbours, think that they can unilaterally set the pace for this, and decide what it should look like, without even knowing the kids in question. The "blanket rule" that they seem to have come up with, is "Micromanage and helicopter your children until a random magical age that we decide upon, and then abandon them completely." The "random magical age" has risen steadily over the years, and by now, it's around eighteen, or university drop-off age. Then those same people complain about how immature young adults are……and usually, the answer to that is more protection, more rules, more "safe spaces," and more attempts to suppress the symptoms, while really just perpetuating the problem.
to maria..be strong you are not alone. most important get a GOOD lawyer[if you don’t have one yet] and fight. the da is not interested in justice but in convictions and being hard on crime. they and their office will not admit if they are mistaken and do not have fairness and your children’s best interest at heart. light a fire under your lawyer and make them fight for you.
Taking this time to leave my two cents. I am the older step brother of the 8 year old and the son of Maria. She has always been a wonderful mother to me, my brother, her step kids and everyone else. My friends all see her as one of the most genuine and caring people. When I was 8, I was dressing myself, getting breakfast for myself, doing chores, wandering the neighborhood, and going to my bus stop a few streets over. Never a hitch. Perfect attendance for most of school really. I was raised to respect those who deserve it, to be kind and caring. I am 21 and I STILL don’t swear around my mom. I graduated high school, joined the Navy, and now in home again. Never been arrested, no record (aside from a ticket for cutting through a park at dark) and no kids. Id say I was raised just right. My brothers are also both well rounded kids. These things happen, nobody is perfect. But people will always have something to say whether you’re doing good or bad, misery loves company. And all this sucks because she has worked so hard over the years, raising my brother, my cousins, step siblings and myself, and now people are acting like she’s a horrible person, its bullshit. And @nancy is just spiteful because she’s not even a fraction of the parent my mother is, and should probably look in the mirror and hop off her high horse before she decides to open her stupid mouth. And @JamesPollock you were the kind of kid who ALWAYS had to be right, huh? You must be the epitome of a perfect parent, right? Lmao just stop
@That_Susan, there was certainly nothing offensive about your comment and I’m sorry I made you feel that way. I didn’t include your name with the quote because I indeed intended to make a more general point. We can talk all day long about which roads are or aren’t safe to walk… eh… next to, but I wanted to take a step back and question why there is no facility for pedestrians in the first place (no, grass doesn’t count. Come on). Surely people with driver’s licenses (and money for a car, etc etc) are not the only people who need to get around, but that’s not the message these roads send.
So, nothing personal!
Hi Americans, you are frontrunners in many fields, but NOT with respect to raising kids. It is horrible to learn what your system does to mothers and farthers, who let their kids be earlier grown ups. So keep up your good work “free range kids”. – it is a long tuf fight to go and change other peoples minds.
Mine was about same age, 8, when she went on her bike to school. She knew the simple way straight forward.
And now she is among wold best freedivers in Pool.
a caring farther, Danish
@Donald: “James When you played a game and had to flip a coin to choose who goes first, did you argue the coin toss if you lost?”
He probably argued about flipping a coin instead of rock-paper-scissors or eenie meenie miney mo…
“@JamesPollock you were the kind of kid who ALWAYS had to be right, huh? You must be the epitome of a perfect parent, right?”
Well, I managed to do it without getting arrested, so there’s that.
@Papilio — Thanks for clarifying, and I agree with you completely.
@James Pollock “Well, I managed to do it without getting arrested, so thereâ€™s that.”
Sure, there’s no law that says you have to treat someone going through hell with compassion. You won’t go to jail for rubbing salt into wounds. If your whole goal in life is to stay out of jail, you can most certainly do that without ever having to learn kindness or empathy for others. I’ll grant you that.
Maria and M.D. — Hugs to both of you! And I’m so glad that you seem to have figured out who “Nancy” is. I’m guessing (no proof, of course) that since she’s not the biological mom who forfeited custody, she’s probably the mother or a close friend or relative of said bio-mom. Thus the complete black-and-white picture: your past problems make you a complete and utter villain, whereas the bio-mom’s past problems just make her an innocent victim of circumstance.
As common sense has suggested, I strongly urge you to get a good lawyer. While not claiming to be any kind of legal expert, I’ve heard enough about court-appointed attorneys to believe that they’re often in the pocket of the prosecutor. They’re paid by the courts just as the prosecutor is, and they don’t get any reward for a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
With a good lawyer, I don’t see how any court could prove that you willfully put your stepson in danger. It’s a complete and utter lie. If you don’t have the funds to hire a lawyer yourself, please communicate about that with Lenore so she can set up some kind of a crowdfunding campaign.
Oops! That last sentence in my second paragraph should read: “Theyâ€™re paid by the courts just as the prosecutor is, and they donâ€™t get any reward for a judgment in favor of the defendant.”
Pap and Donald,
Why would you even bring up the coin toss thing with James? That implies that people actually wanted to include him in their recreation. You have seen his personality, do you honestly believe anyone would willingly socialize with him?
I am really getting sick and tired with the constant rant about lack of sidewalks. Go back to where you grew up, and you will find that there isn’t nearly as many as you remember. And no, towns didn’t go around ripping them out either.
What has changed is parents are paranoid about their snowflakes walking the curb, like we did.
And when they start taxing running shoes, and jogging outfits to the same extent they tax vehicles, fuel and tires, then they can use that tax revenue to build sidewalks.
Warren, many people are nicer in real life than they are online. Hopefully James is one of those people.
This child should be applauded; instead he is now being emotionally harmed by seeing his mom being punished for his level of responsibility. Absolutely ridiculous. My own daughter was riding her bike to school (albeit one mile away) at the age of 7. Sometimes with a friend, more times; alone. The first few times I followed in my car w/out her knowing. At least this child wanted to go to school! I hope she has a good lawyer. They will use her past criminal record against her, as well as the CPS involvement.
All parents who have had heir lives needlessly ruined by busybodies calling police when they see a kid outside by themselves, should unite and form a lobby group to create busybody laws. Such laws would make it a criminal offense to call any perceived authority to report anything other than an actual violent crime or accident in progress. This law should encourage people to simply look out for the child, keep an eye open for actual problems and leave the situation alone. really what this amounts to is legislating common sense, something that is increasingly rare these days and has been replaced with overly emotional states in people, really a product of mass brainwashing and conditioning.
Substantial risk means a strong possibility, as contrasted with a remote or even a significant possibility, that a certain result may occur or that a certain circumstance may exist. It is risk of such a nature and degree that to disregard it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in such a situation.
The following are examples of case law defining substantial risk:
A substantial risk of serious harm means that the risk was so great that it was almost certain to materialize if nothing was done. [Miller v. Fisher, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 12932 (7th Cir. Ill. June 23, 2010)]
A few observations. Even if this person has some instances of “bad things” in her past, this charge is a huge overreaction. There is nothing I have read that would lead me to believe that she intentionally placed her child at risk, nor is there anything to indicate gross negligence.
I hope she does get a good lawyer. That being said, not all court appointed attorneys are bad and the notion that they are somehow teamed up with the prosecutors is just silly. Many are horribly underpaid (in my state, they are paid the same amount as they were in the early 1980s), so there isn’t a lot of financial incentive to spend a huge amount of time on an individual case. However, there isn’t any incentive to go along with what the prosecutor wants.
I agree with Warren. What is the deal sidewalks. My childhood neighborhood didn’t have side walks or curbs. Kids can safely walk on roads without sidewalks.
â€œYou my dear have been duped.â€ That is a possibility. I may have been duped. I’ll give you that. However if you want to talk about being duped, let’s talk about the sex offender laws. If a person does something stupid like pee in a parking lot or hires a prostitute, then that person is a sex offender and must register for 20 years. They are too dangerous to live anywhere near children and are restricted where they can live. If they want to see their 1st grader perform in a play, they can’t because they are unable to control their sexual urges.
CPS have overstepped so many times that it doesn’t mean much anymore. They criminalize parents that allow their child to stay at home alone if that child is only 10 years old. It’s true that Maria has a past that involves CPS. However it’s well known that CPS bureaucracy has become inhuman. The News media also have a similar problem. They intentionally leave out the part that Maria’s eldest son was awake. They do this because they get paid by the same people and in the same way as the producers of, Keeping Up with the Kardashians. (do whatever it takes to improve ratings)
The police dupe people. (Sex offender laws)
CPD dupe people. (It’s criminal to allow a 10 old to be home unsupervised)
News dupes people (Nancy Grace)
However what is really annoying is that you come across as a person that thinks she’s unable from being duped. You act like, â€œCPS and the news say that Maria is immoral and therefore it must be so. Everyone that doesn’t believe this ‘fact’ is being dupedâ€. Do you believe everything on Jerry Springer is true as well?
I have found that the vast majority of people that go out of their way, to find items such as this post, and then try to influence how others see someone. Try to convince others that the person in question does not deserve the attention or defense, do so because of other motives, usually personal. Be it jealousy, hatred or revenge.
So which is it, jealousy, hatred or revenge?
“Sure, thereâ€™s no law that says you have to treat someone going through hell with compassion.”
My empathy for people who feel that they should insult me at their first opportunity to do so is rather sharply limited, going through hell or no. Jesus turned the other cheek to those who attacked Him. I am not Jesus.
“I agree with Warren. What is the deal sidewalks. My childhood neighborhood didnâ€™t have side walks or curbs. Kids can safely walk on roads without sidewalks.”
Roads “without sidewalks” is only one of the factors. “With lots of traffic” and “drivers who aren’t expecting kids” are the other two that make a road dangerous for kids to walk on the road. I bet your childhood neighborhood didn’t have the other two factors.
Thanks to child labor laws, industrial areas don’t have a lot of kids in them, but they do have lots of traffic. If there’s any meaningful industry, you have deliveries of raw materials coming in, and deliveries of finished goods going out. This is why the traffic laws are different in residential areas and industrial ones, and why the two are rarely mixed.
Sidewalks aren’t a magic shield against car accidents… one of the people my daughter went to middle school with was killed walking home from school, while walking on one… but where you find the trifecta of no sidewalks, plus lots of traffic, plus drivers who aren’t expecting pedestrians… it’s much more dangerous to walk than in areas where the opposite is true.
I live in CT. Yes, some rules are strict I do agree but, I do know this road. Its a very busy road and no sideways. I would not let me kids walk it at 12 and 17. So, she did put he kids life at risk.
How did she put his life at risk? She didn’t drive him to that road and kick him out to walk. He took off on his own, while she was crashed on the couch, and his older brother turned his back.
Get off your high horse.
” but where you find the trifecta of no sidewalks, plus lots of traffic, plus drivers who arenâ€™t expecting pedestriansâ€¦ itâ€™s much more dangerous to walk than in areas where the opposite is true.”
In industrial areas, there is usually the morning rush and end of day rush. Other than that traffic is usually low, and drivers are watching for trucks, equipment and workers. So yes they are more attentive. James you need to stop talking about areas you know nothing about. I have spent the majority of my working life in these areas, and sidewalks aside, they are for the most part safer than most areas for walkers.
I feel like she’s being punished for raising a self sufficient child? My daughter would have been sitting at home playing video games.
That is a great tip especially to those new to the blogosphere. Simple but very accurate infoâ€¦ Many thanks for sharing this one. A must read post!|
My family fell on hard times this year when my husband & I both lost our jobs and then our home. We have 3 kids, 17, 15 and 6 years old. We had no choice but to stay in a hotel temporarily until we found a more affordable home to rent. We lived in a rural area so the hotel was a 30 min drive to the high school. My 17 & 15 year old stayed with friends most nights during the week so that they could get to school without having to get up at 5am and our 6 year old stayed with us at the hotel & we drove him 25 miles each way, to and from school everyday. Someone in the family(that I speak to once a year)did not like the fact that we were in the hotel and called CPS & told my brother that he should try to take guardianship of our kids! He filed and won temporary guardianship of my 2 youngest kids based solely on the fact that we were staying in a hotel! My 6 year old had never spent a night away from us his whole life until they took him away. He was traumatized. We weren’t allowed to see him, except once, the entire 60 days! The court did not care about the well being of the child. He didn’t like that we didn’t have a stove to cook on and a separate bedroom for him! We have since rented a place and got them back but it was a nightmare! Anyone can file for guardianship of your kids, strangers, relatives, etc. Since its filed through probate court and not family court parents have absolutely zero rights to their children! The courts are given too much power to destroy lives based on little or no proof, if you can’t afford a lawyer and the other party can, then you are screwed!
@Emily @Donald I think that the festival camping thing is very made up. If your 16 years old run away to multi day festival without your permission, which is something that you are guaranteed to find out first day, then it is not just result of being too strict and too much no. Such complete breakdown of parental authority and provocation is not something that happens just because you are strict, it happens because entire relationship between parent and kid goes wrong.
The other note is that if all her 16 years old friends are going to the same camping festival, then it is either that festival is all that much dangerous as you think or that you are in the “bad outside influence” situation which may happen with parent saying yes too much too. Overly permissive parenting do not produce miracles either and chances are that the majority of “bad influence” group that made the daughter run away had those permissive parents instead of strict ones.
Most kids of overly strict parents grow up to be strict adults, might have some authoritarians tendencies or be intolerant. Only minority rebel in freewheeling destructive way and it tend to be not just because of strictness, but also because whole relationship went wrong in a lot of ways.
If we don’t stop this from happening NOW, we will have no rights left to rear our children. This is government interference on a bizarre and disturbing level. We can’t give in to this administration’s tyranny any longer. If you don’t stand up and fight for your fellow Americans when tyrannical government agents attempt to steal their children and imprison them for nothing, NO one will be left to stand up for you when they come after your children.
@Andy–Okay, the multiple-day music festival might have been a bad example, but it’d be entirely possible for an overprotected teenager whose parents said “no” too much, to sneak out to go to a house party for a few hours, or out on a date with someone, or something like that, and for the parents to freak out over having NO idea where their child is. The young person’s destination isn’t important–what is important is, I agree with Donald that too much “no” can kill a parent-child relationship, and lead to sneaking around, which obviously just exacerbates things even more.
I won’t further comment on the case because I just don’t have enough information. It sounds like over-reaching for sure. I suppose I’d be curious to know what the school had to say when they dropped him off (if anything). If this was truly a first time thing, it seems very punitive.
As far as roadways and sidewalks, I agree that sidewalks are not required to walk along a road. However, with the amount of distracted driving and speeding, I can completely understand deeming a roadway route to be unsafe for foot. There would be very little reason to believe or be concerned with pedestrians. If I, as an adult, would choose not to walk it, I’d probably want my child to arrive at the same decision and opt to either tell Mom that you missed the bus, or tell his older brother who could drive.
None of the above alone means this Mom should be dealing with charges, but I think it’s foolish to presume the decision to walk was should be commended.
Lynniemama81, I’m so sorry about your ordeal, and I’m very glad you have your kids back now! How traumatic that must have been for your littlest!
@Papilo, minus the stereotype that all areas in the US are the same or even similar and that people who decide not to drive to do because they don’t have licenses, I have to otherwise agree with you. If people feel the road is unsafe for a young pedestrian the question should not be ‘how do we keep the 8 year old off the road, but how do we make the roads safe for 8 year olds? Many countries in Europe are miles ahead of the US (and Canada) on this.
“As far as roadways and sidewalks, I agree that sidewalks are not required to walk along a road. However, with the amount of distracted driving and speeding, I can completely understand deeming a roadway route to be unsafe for foot.”
We dealt with a roadway deemed “unsafe” for walking to school. Years ago, our bus service was part of budget cuts and our kids were told to be walkers (or bikers) by virtue of where the Sharpie marker circled the school. There’s a bus that hits the street behind us (my neighbor sees it every morning) but our kids are within the state maximum distance of 1.5 miles and have no transportation. Of course, they expected parents just to drive the kids and our school has a very organized and maddening drop off and pick up windows of 15 minutes to deliver your McKid to school in the drive thru.
Prior to the bus cut, we were told our kids could NOT bike or walk to school because the road that leads to the school had no sidewalks. The road was very old and narrow and not safe for school children to walk on, we were told in the student handbook (which we read when my son asked where the bike racks were at school and was told… there is no biking to school). But with the bus cut, they suddenly said it was safe to walk or bike to school…even though they never made improvements to the “unsafe” road.
A group of parents tried to fight the bus cut and brought up the danger of this road for children to walk to school (and bike, especially those far away). A state transportation study was done and they said that unless the road included a sidewalk and drainage and a separate biking path, it was indeed “unsafe” for children to commute to school. So the school district was required to install drainage along the road, clear trees (big, beautiful shade trees) all at a cost to taxpayers well over the savings of one bus to meet the transportation department’s required improvements. We call it the Taj Mahal sidewalk. Honestly, they could have just put up cones and shut the road down for the ten minutes each day as these kids go to and from school. But I have to say, we are enjoy having dedicated bike paths and wide sidewalks away from cars.
The main danger my kids face daily walking and biking to school is parents who insist on driving but don’t want to be inconvenienced by the drop off/pick up procedures (and limited time windows). My daughter and her friends walk around cars who are pulled up and blocking these big, beautiful sidewalks because of illegally parked minivans, especially on rainy days. Because kids can’t get wet or use umbrellas and raincoats, for some reason. I don’t understand it. The school sent out many reminders of the policy of not parking or picking up on this road, but many moms park in driveways (they get permission from the homeowner) and clog up the road every day, presenting more of a danger (backing up and engine fumes) for school children than any child could do to themselves just by walking to and from school.
@lollipoplover — I laughed at your “Taj Mahal” comment, but it sounds lovely.
And yes — I can’t stand the “they can’t make me” parents who take short cuts to the system the schools have to come up with because so many parents drive kids to school. It’s come up here at FRK a few times with people falling on both sides of the fence. At our HS, we had a period of time where we brought our kid to school and there was a very organized, courteous manner that the school used to get cars turned into the parking lot (drop off and student drivers) from both directions and only allowed exiting toward one direction. The parents that insisted on dropping their kids off at the curb would pass the intersection, then pull over and come to a complete and sudden stop. Numerous times I had to slam on my brakes as I exited so I didn’t rear end them. Or people who’d stop on the other side of the road and drop off kids to cross a busy street on foot with no crosswalk.
I always thought that if you didn’t want to deal with the parking lot/carpool, then you should let them out much further from school as to not disrupt “the system” and not put them or their kid in danger.
It’s these kind of things (and others I observed while volunteering) that have me being very sympathetic with schools/teachers. The kind of entitlement they have to deal with.
Transportation to school was never a problem for my daughter, we’re about 2 blocks from the elementary school and the high school is across the street from it. Our district has a very complicated bus system, because they operate many magnet programs and have to get the kids from their neighborhoods, to the school where their magnet program operates, and back again. In our case, however, the magnet school is actually closer than the “neighborhood” school is (although on the other side of a major highway.) So, instead of a 20-minute bus ride to the “neighborhood” middle school, she had a 5-minute ride to the magnet school. In her junior year, she switched from the high school to the local community college… which was just up the street.
I derive a lot of insight on these matters from “Bugs Bunny” cartoons.
Stick with me, I know this sounds funny.
On an old Bugs Bunny episode, Bugs is trying to hide from Yosemite Sam, and this busybody parrot keeps ratting him out by pointing “he’s in there, he’s in there.” Bugs keeps moving spot-to-spot, and he keeps ratting him out each time.
Finally, Bugs has enough, hands a stick of dynamite to the parrot, and the parrot is blown to bits.
Am I the only one who views that cartoon and thinks about these busy-body types in such cases, and thinks that parrot and his ilk got exactly what he deserved?
Regarding the no sidewalks issue, my seven-year-old heard me talking about this case and mentioning that the business owner might have been concerned because of the lack of sidewalks. She said, “Why didn’t the kid just walk on the grass?”
I admit, she is not yet allowed to walk to school, although she gets herself to the bus stop. She needs a couple more years before she’s able to safely cross a 55 mph business highway with no traffic lights during morning rush hour. Since there are two huge neighborhoods full of kids who live two miles from the elementary school (and nice parks and a small commercial district) on the other side of that road, I’d love a light or even a pedestrian overpass, but there’s just not enough demand because we’re a car culture.
“Regarding the no sidewalks issue, my seven-year-old heard me talking about this case and mentioning that the business owner might have been concerned because of the lack of sidewalks. She said, ‘Why didnâ€™t the kid just walk on the grass?’â€
This is only a solution to the extent that there is an uninterrupted grass pathway from one end to the other. More likely, the roadway has driveways, with trucks and cars entering and leaving the roadway, and drivers who aren’t expecting children walking on the grass. To the extent it’s dangerous, that’s why it’s dangerous.
While I am sure that this is not an area that sees a lot of foot traffic, the population of Walingford CT per the last census is only a little over 45,000. Not exactly a major metropolis with crazy-busy streets and madly hopping businesses such that walking around anywhere is a risk of life or limb (at least due to traffic).
In the previous post, Lenore posted:
“But the Connecticut law is this:
“Any parent, guardian or person having custody or control, or providing supervision, of any child under the age of twelve years who knowingly leaves such child unsupervised in a place of public accommodation or a motor vehicle for a period of time that presents a substantial risk to the childâ€™s health or safety, shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.â€œ
We need more lawyers on here, to teach us how to read a statute. The State of Connecticut obviously cannot do this, nor can the cops. If I were her, I would tell them all to piss up a rope and there would be a lawsuit for false arrest.
Why? Because from the plain language of the report, the cops have failed to allege a violation of the law. The plain elements of the crime in the statute quoted are:
(1) The actor must be a “person having custody OR control, OR providing supervision, of any child;
(2) The child must be 11 or under;
(3) The actor KNOWINGLY left such child unsupervised:
a) in a place of public accommodation OR
b) a motor vehicle AND
c) long enough to present substantial risk to the child’s heath and safety.
The police report plainly alleges that she fell asleep, leaving her children in her home and retiring to her bedroom. Therefore, she left the child “unsupervised” neither in a place of public accommodation nor a motor vehicle as specified by 3(a) or 3(b) above. The child, according to the police report, on its own initiative set out into the public place, without the mother’s knowledge. No jury could find all of the elements of this crime, based on the police allegations. Simply put, this is what people often call “false arrest.”
So our fascist government writes laws, and the cops and prosecutors make up the parts the legislature didn’t put in, and arrest people anyway? it’s a simple question of law. The cops have not alleged a set of facts that is a violation of the law she is charged with violating.
We should all be absolutely outraged that our fathers, mothers, and forebears fought the Germans and the Japanese protect our liberties and rights.
She doesn’t need to explain herself. She needs to file a civil rights lawsuit against Connecticut’s fascist pigs. It really is way past time for citizens of states like Connecticut to tell its government to go eff itself.
“Iâ€™ve heard enough about court-appointed attorneys to believe that theyâ€™re often in the pocket of the prosecutor.”
That is utterly ridiculous. Court-appointed attorneys and public defenders (and they are two different things) generally have very congenial relationships with prosecutors because they deal with them extensively and it makes work much more pleasant if everyone gets along. Like any other profession, they have varying levels of skill and dedication. Many are young and inexperienced. All are extremely overworked and underpaid. But none are in the pocket of prosecutor (they are not paid $500 per guilty plea either). I am not sure how that would even work.
Sometimes you have to consider the source of information. Almost every one of my clients will insist to the day that they die, not only that they were innocent, but also that there was no evidence against them. The DA could have DNA, fingerprints, a confession and video of the crime itself and my clients will still insist to anyone who will listen that they were railroaded into pleading guilty and that there was no evidence against them. And god help me in the cases where there is only witness testimony – which is most of them – because I have yet to meet the criminal defendant who will accept that somebody coming into court, taking an oath and telling what they know from their own personal experience is actually evidence.
See most criminal defendants have absolutely no sense of responsibility for their actions. Nothing is ever their fault and their defense attorneys are the easiest people to blame for their situation. They aren’t in prison because they did something, but because their attorney was working with the DA and railroaded them into pleading guilty when there was no evidence.
“Why? Because from the plain language of the report, the cops have failed to allege a violation of the law. The plain elements of the crime in the statute quoted are:”
irrelevant, because the statute quoted by Ms. Skenazy is not the statute she was charged under.
Here’s the right one:
Sec. 53-21. Injury or risk of injury to, or impairing morals of, children. Sale of children.
(a) Any person who (1) wilfully or unlawfully causes or permits any child under the age of sixteen years to be placed in such a situation that the life or limb of such child is endangered, the health of such child is likely to be injured or the morals of such child are likely to be impaired, or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child, or (2) has contact with the intimate parts, as defined in section 53a-65, of a child under the age of sixteen years or subjects a child under sixteen years of age to contact with the intimate parts of such person, in a sexual and indecent manner likely to impair the health or morals of such child, or (3) permanently transfers the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years to another person for money or other valuable consideration or acquires or receives the legal or physical custody of a child under the age of sixteen years from another person upon payment of money or other valuable consideration to such other person or a third person, except in connection with an adoption proceeding that complies with the provisions of chapter 803, shall be guilty of a class C felony for a violation of subdivision (1) or (3) of this subsection and a class B felony for a violation of subdivision (2) of this subsection, except that, if the violation is of subdivision (2) of this subsection and the victim of the offense is under thirteen years of age, such person shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of which five years of the sentence imposed may not be suspended or reduced by the court.
(b) The act of a parent or agent leaving an infant thirty days or younger with a designated employee pursuant to section 17a-58 shall not constitute a violation of this section.
“the population of Walingford CT per the last census is only a little over 45,000. Not exactly a major metropolis with crazy-busy streets and madly hopping businesses such that walking around anywhere is a risk of life or limb (at least due to traffic).”
How big does a city have to be to have crazy-busy streets such that walking around on them is a risk of life or limb (due to traffic)?
The population of the NW industrial district of Portland, OR, is approximately 0, overnight. It’s bounded on two sides by Forest Park, which (officially) has no residents, on a third side by the Willamette river (also sparsely populated) and the fourth side by the rest of the city of Portland… but separated by an Interstate freeway.
The main roadway through the NW industrial district has had students killed on it, although A) just north of the industrial district, proper, and B) attempting to cross the highway between crosswalks. The response was to lower the speed limit from 45 or 55 to 25, rather than installing another crosswalk.
â€œDriveways and parking lots have traffic.”
So how is this incident any different than walking in a mall parking lot? Don’t say more eyes. As we all know MOST people these days can have 4, and they still wouldn’t be paying attention to what they should be.
â€œIâ€™ll tell you how itâ€™s different. In the olden days, kids walked a lot, and when there were a lot of them, drivers expected to encounter them and were well prepared to do so. Nowadays, kids donâ€™t walk a lot, and so drivers donâ€™t expect to encounter them, and are less prepared to do so.”
Lol!! No James, the difference is people mentality and attitude. They’ve all gotten lazy and complacent. They EXPECT everyone else to be paying attention to what THEY are doing. That goes for pedestrians and drivers. People still have to obey the rules of the road, use commons sense, and be smart. THOSE have not changed. People have. And THAT is a choice they make. So why conform to accommodate this ignorant people. People who ignore stupid behavior contribute to it.
“This is a kid walking, alone, in an industrial area rather than a residential one, Iâ€™m guessing after school started. Even assuming heâ€™s not stupid or inattentive, the people controlling the two- to ten-ton child crushing machines may be another story.”
Again, because of that, that child is no more safe riding in bus, or walking. If someone “controlling the two- to ten-ton child crushing machines” isn’t paying attention, people are going to get hurt or die. Kids have been injured or killed in school buses if you didn’t know that. 😉
â€œIf the mother is walking him, A) you have twice as many eyes examining the environment, and thus, they are more likely to notice a danger that one pair of eyes missed. This is why the Navy puts two seats in its fighter jets. B) you have twice as many people walking around, and one of them is bigger, making it less likely that an inattentive driver fails to notice pedestrians. C) a child who is late for school probably has a lot of thoughts about being late, and punishments that follow. Mom is less likely to be concerned by this.”
A) Like I said, you can have multiple eyes, if they aren’t paying attention they are useless. It’s not eyes, it’s a mindset. Navy pilots PAY ATTENTION like they should be. 😉
B) Again, mindset. There have been stories of people plowing throw GROUPS of people. GROUPS, which is more than one or two. Yet, the drivers never saw them? lol
C) I guess you’ve forgotten what it was like to be 8. You don’t think that much about adults getting mad at you (unless you did something really bad, being late for school wasn’t one of them). When I was that age, I walked to school either with my little brother or by myself (when I was late). I don’t ever recall “worrying” about punishment. I actually casually walked to school, taking my short cuts through parking lots, alley, (jaywalking) across a busy street because I was in the middle of where the either lights were at, and they were further away (yes, I learned how to cross at a non-designated crossing), and (at the time) wooded area. I was paying attention from the time I walked out my door, to when I got to school. And even the times I did “run” to school, I still paid attention. Mindset. Children aren’t stupid.
The whole point of this, that you seem to always veer from and make new issues, is that this mother DIDN’T commit a crime, and there is nothing wrong with an 8 year old walking to school. The laws they are using is vague and open to interpretation. That if you didn’t use common sense, both sides would make sense. Using common sense, authorities are making something out of nothing. He obviously knew how, and was perfectly fine. That’s not a fluke, or a one time thing. What would be a fluke or a possibility (but not likely, most of the time), is this kid getting hurt or killed walking to school.
“So how is this incident any different than walking in a mall parking lot?”
You conveniently provided my answer in advance. Here it is again:
â€œIâ€™ll tell you how itâ€™s different. In the olden days, kids walked a lot, and when there were a lot of them, drivers expected to encounter them and were well prepared to do so.”
If you’d like, you can substitute “people” for Kids”.
In a commercial area (say, a big regional mall, or a city center), there’s lots and lots of people walking. In an industrial area, there are few to none… there’s trucks, cars, maybe even trains and boats (depending on the area and nature of the industry) But not a lot of people out for a stroll. People come to the industrial area to work.
“Again, because of that, that child is no more safe riding in bus” your logic to arrive at this conclusion is not, well, very logical.
People have been injured wearing football gear. This does not imply that the danger of injury is the same with or without it. If I’m going to be in a motor vehicle accident, I’d MUCH prefer to be inside a steel cage than outside. YMMV.
“A) Like I said, you can have multiple eyes, if they arenâ€™t paying attention they are useless.”
The child who is rushing because they are in fear of being punished for being late is more likely to be distracted than the parent who has no fear of school administrators.
“Navy pilots PAY ATTENTION like they should be. ”
That’s an amusing theory. Nonetheless, they have a backseater whose primary job is to be a second set of eyes when flying into danger. The pilot has many things to occupy his (or her) attention. The backseater has only one.
“Again, mindset. There have been stories of people plowing throw GROUPS of people. GROUPS, which is more than one or two. Yet, the drivers never saw them?”
Today’s lesson is on the difference between “makes it less likely” and “makes it impossible”. I used one of these terms, and you seem to think I used the other.
“C) I guess youâ€™ve forgotten what it was like to be 8. You donâ€™t think that much about adults getting mad at you (unless you did something really bad, being late for school wasnâ€™t one of them). When I was that age, I walked to school either with my little brother or by myself (when I was late). I donâ€™t ever recall â€œworryingâ€ about punishment.
Not everybody is you. For example:
“The whole point of this, that you seem to always veer from and make new issues, is that this mother DIDNâ€™T commit a crime”
The point is, you can’t tell from the information available whether or not the mother committed a crime. I lean towards not, but can’t rule it out. You apparently have facts that I do not.
“there is nothing wrong with an 8 year old walking to school.”
Speaking of introducing new issues, who said there is something wrong with 8-year-olds walking to school?
Donna, I agree that I was going too far in using the phrase “in the pocket.” Suffice it to say that they are very overworked and have absolutely no (external) incentive to win their case. Of course, it’s also true that they won’t get a special reward for losing, either. Some undoubtedly do still care enough to do the best job they can with the limited amount of time that they have. But am I correct in thinking that prosecutors tend to be under more pressure to get a guilty conviction, than public defenders are to get a not guilty conviction?
At any rate, whatever your experience has been with most criminal defendants, this mother is being pushed into the role of “criminal defendant” when she committed absolutely no crime. It’s kind of like the mother of the five-year-old who Lenore wrote about earlier, who was offered a “plea deal” of “just” 30 days in jail. It seems that parents are getting arrested — or charged — when they committed absolutely no crime, and when the authorities realize they don’t really have a legal leg to stand on, they try to scare the parents with the threat of a super long jail sentence if they won’t plead guilty to *something* and just bypass the court system. It all seems like a roundabout way of turning non-criminals into criminals with records.
“How big does a city have to be to have crazy-busy streets such that walking around on them is a risk of life or limb (due to traffic)?”
You are the one who is insisting that this roadway is very busy with cars coming in and out of parking lots such that it is dangerous for a boy to walk down. In a small town of 45,000 that seems highly unlikely.
“The main roadway through the NW industrial district has had students killed on it, although A) just north of the industrial district, proper, and B) attempting to cross the highway between crosswalks.”
So this “highway” in a large city of approximately 620,000 people that you have determined is comparable to the road we are speaking of has had fatalities, but only when people were improperly crossing said highway. Sounds like it is an incredibly safe road to walk down, although you may want to cross at the crosswalk. That would also indicate that, absent knowing some specific information that Wallingford CT drivers are much less attentive than Portland OR drivers, North Plains Industrial Road is also an incredibly safe road to walk down. In fact, it would be even less dangerous than the one you are talking about as it has far less potential traffic being in a small town rather than a large city. Thanks for your example James. We can put this subject to rest now as you have now shown us how safe this road is.
“have absolutely no (external) incentive to win their case”
What external incentive do you think ANY defense attorney has to win a case? It is completely unethical to charge a client based on outcome of the case. In fact, a defense attorney would likely be disbarred for doing so.
It may be helpful to define what we are talking about. There are two methods for which indigent defense is handled. One is court-appointed attorneys. These are private attorneys who are appointed by the court to represent indigent clients. They generally have their own legal practice of clients who pay them outside of the appointed cases. The other is a public defender office. These are government employees who do nothing other than indigent defense, comparable to a prosecutors office.
A private attorney would have the external incentive to win cases in that winning cases is why clients hire you. This would apply to both paid attorneys and court-appointed attorneys equally. A public defender would not have this external incentive. A public defender would have the external incentive of keeping their job and being desirable in the legal marketplace. This external incentive would be about the same as the prosecutor. A prosecutor is probably at a higher risk of being fired for losing cases, but neither are going to get hired outside their current employment if they lose all their cases. And ALL attorneys have an internal motivation to win because that is the predominant personality that applies to law school.
Private attorneys, hired or court appointed, also have a HUGE external incentive to get you to plea. If they are stuck in trial with you, they aren’t servicing their other clients. Those clients then get upset because you aren’t returning their phone calls. Upset clients are less likely to recommend you to others. Public defenders don’t have that problem. They ARE going to try some cases on any trial calendar and couldn’t generally care less which ones. To be perfectly honest, I know many private attorneys and very few of them want to take cases to trial for this very reason.
“So this â€œhighwayâ€ in a large city of approximately 620,000 people”
Actual population of Linnton… approximately 1000 persons.
“has had fatalities, but only when people were improperly crossing said highway.”
” In fact, it would be even less dangerous than the one you are talking about as it has far less potential traffic being in a small town rather than a large city.”
So… Wallingford is about 45 times larger than Linnton, so the danger of being in Wallingford’s industrial district is 45 times higher?
(We’ll just skip over your apparently intentional missing of the point that just because only 45,000 people actually live in the town, there can’t possibly be more people who, say, come there from somewhere else because that’s where their job is.)
We’ve heard from three people who live there. One is the defendant, one is the son of the defendant, who say nothing at all about the road (hmmm), and one other person:
If she gets convicted, is it because the system railroaded her, and everyone in the legal system is incompetent and malicious, or because there were facts that could be proven at trial that showed she was guillty? Before there is a verdict (or a plea), isn’t it a bit early to be making conclusions about the system, and/or the incompetence and/or maliciousness of the authorities? Especially without even knowing what evidence is to be presented?
So Donna, are you saying that Maria might be better served by just allowing the court to provide her with an attorney than she would be paying out-of-pocket for her own attorney? I think the Meitiv’s got pretty good representation with their private attorney, so maybe the key is just to make cases like this as public as we can so that the defender, whether private or public, knows the world is watching what happens.
What I had seen as the external motive for private defenders was not that they’d get paid more based on outcome, but that (as you said) they’d be more likely to get hired if they had a reputation for winning.
But you make a great point that even attorneys being paid by the court are probably hoping to move on to a better job and would therefore want to have a reputation for doing a good job in their current position.
But I note that you said prosecutors are “probably” more likely to be fired for continually losing cases. This seems to be an indication that the governmental authorities that employ both prosecutors and public defenders “may” have a preference for more criminal convictions as opposed to more people walking free and not having to pay any fine or serve any time (and people serving time boosts the economy by creating jobs).
I see your point now that some of the push for getting people to accept plea deals may just be to free up the defender’s time. And the government likes saving the money, too, I’m sure. It just seems ridiculous to me for anyone to sign a plea deal if they haven’t committed a crime.
“But I note that you said prosecutors are â€œprobablyâ€ more likely to be fired for continually losing cases. This seems to be an indication that the governmental authorities that employ both prosecutors and public defenders â€œmayâ€ have a preference for more criminal convictions as opposed to more people walking free ”
The prosecutor is only supposed to bring the case to trial if he (or she) has a good-faith belief that they can win. Conversely, this means that the defender is taking a case that they’re expected to lose.
Thus the dilemma… a very high conviction rate by a prosecutor EITHER means that they’re railroading a lot of innocent people OR it means that the system is working as it’s supposed to, and the prosecutor is only bringing solid cases against guilty people.
The presence of a defense attorney is supposed to substantially lower the odds of the first and increase the second, and mostly works, even though public defenders are overworked and underpaid.
The sad thing is that this has been traumatic for the child and his stepmum, and could have ended so differently.
The article doesn’t say how sick the relative in hospital is, but if the mother was there until the early morning, I think we can conclude she’s pretty worried and stressed, and an eight-year-old child would have picked up on that. So he decides to get himself ready for school instead of waking her, even dealing with the mishap of missing the school bus.
His stepmum would have woken up, been a little worried to not see the boy and then called his school and found out he was there, and then been proud of him for his initiative, maturity and consideration of her needs. I’m not going to make negative assumptions about step families, but knowing that it can sometimes be difficult, if that were the case it could have been a bonding opportunity for the woman and child as they mutually appreciated each others’ feelings and capacity to cope with a difficult situation (family member being sick and associated stress and schedule disruptions).
Instead, the poor kid is stopped on the way to school by police and now made to feel that he’s done something wrong that has gotten his step-mother in trouble.
Seriously, who wins in this situation?
“A business owner on North Plains Industrial Road saw the child walking by himself and called police.”
I can’t understand _why_ he called the cops. Just seeing a kid walking down the street is an occasion to call the cops? I can’t imagine what kind of mentality would think that’s reason to call the cops. In first and second grades I often walked to school and so did others; when not walking to school or in school I often played outside, and so did everyone else my age. Which universe are we in where that is a crime or is not normal behavior?
“I canâ€™t understand _why_ he called the cops. Just seeing a kid walking down the street is an occasion to call the cops?”
It’s not hard to understand. This road is apparently a dangerous one to walk down.
I have always wanted one of these! Thanks for writing about it! Thanks for the article! It was a lot of good info.
You sir have just embarrassed the USAF by making incorrect assertions on nosebleeds at altitude and about the US Navy.
1) Go back to Lowry AFB (now closed) and walk the nosebleed section and then go to Peterson AFB in CO Springs, CO which is at a higher altitude or even the USAF Academy which is higher yet! Using the wingman principle, makes sure you don’t walk alone because you don’t want a nosebleed! Good Grief! Active duty walk alone all the time on base at altitude.
2) The Navy does not have two seat planes for every aircraft. Check your facts before speaking: F/A-18E is a single seat variant while the F/A-18F is a two seat variant both in use by the USN for various and not the same missions. At the same time, the F-35C is a single seat aircraft coming online for the USN in the future and there is even a remotely piloted plane in development now! Mercy, what will the US Navy do with not two pairs of eyes or even one pair of eyes but no pairs of eyes in the plane! (The answer is sensor packages, but that does not work in this case you have put your foot in….)
3) You sound like the Risk Manager who throws road blocks in the way just because it is part of their job duty, not because they are really required.
“1) Go back to Lowry AFB (now closed) and walk the nosebleed section and then go to Peterson AFB in CO Springs, CO which is at a higher altitude or even the USAF Academy which is higher yet! Using the wingman principle, makes sure you donâ€™t walk alone because you donâ€™t want a nosebleed! Good Grief! Active duty walk alone all the time on base at altitude.”
I’m not at all sure what your complaint is here. However, this part is just wrong.. “makes sure you donâ€™t walk alone because you donâ€™t want a nosebleed!”
Whenever someone in the tech school got a nosebleed, they had to be accompanied to the clinic. That was the rules; maybe they’ve changed since then (hell, I don’t even know where the 462×0 tech school is these days. But it wasn’t walking in pairs to avoid nosebleeds, it was walking in pair if one already had one. I thought it was dumb, too (in case you didn’t pick up on that). I spent at least 40 of my training hours walking to, waiting at, and returning from the clinic because one of the other students in my training class was prone to nosebleed.
And as for
“The Navy does not have two seat planes for every aircraft. ”
All I can say is “duh? Who said they did?”
“You sound like the Risk Manager who throws road blocks in the way just because it is part of their job duty, not because they are really required.”
And you sound like somebody looking for an argument, but not willing to actually READ what someone else said before deciding you want to argue with them.
You said the Navy puts two seats in its fighter aircraft on Dec 1, 2:42p
“If the mother is walking him, A) you have twice as many eyes examining the environment, and thus, they are more likely to notice a danger that one pair of eyes missed. This is why the Navy puts two seats in its fighter jets.”
Again, check the facts F/A-18 E/F models are one seat and two seat variant fighter/attack aircraft…….F-35C is one seat…..
“You said the Navy puts two seats in its fighter aircraft on Dec 1, 2:42p
‘This is why the Navy puts two seats in its fighter jets.’â€
Please point to the word “all” in that sentence.
What you are quoting is an explanation of why there is a second seat in ANY of the planes, not a claim that there are second seats in all of them.
My sons told me a similar story once they were in high school; they waited over 10 years to even tell me the story about walking to school instead of taking the bus.
An 8 year old is capable of making decisions on their own. Molly coddling children doesn’t accomplish anything. Punishing parents for raising independent thinking children is ridiculous.
Seeing as how you are neither a fighter pilot nor a designer of fighter aircraft, why don’t you just keep your non-expert opinions to yourself.
Besides, even if we were to accept your statements as fact, all that does is say that US Navy pilots need help. As compared to the countless other fighter pilots that never had or relied on a Radar Intercept Officer.
My son was burnt on the butt with a heated spoon by the live in nanny. The child was taken away by DCPP and we were made to go through the entire DCPP process to get our child back. The nanny lost her job and went free to ruin other families. No arrest, no investigation or interrogation. She then stayed with her daughter taking care of her grandchild. One and half year later, I reached out to the daughter and told her what her mother had done to my son and she asked her mother to leave. The strain the DCPP process put on our marriage lead to divorce. Police washed of their hands saying 3 adults taking care of the child are not able to provide any information as to how it happened and there is no evidence. The nanny called the burn a rash was lying through her teeth and the police was looking for evidence, an eye witness. And here they arrest an exhausted parent for child endangerment.
The police should of went to her house with the child and explained the law 6 kids are alot to raise and not b tired also people make mostakes it doesnt sound like mom slept in deliberately but the bad side ks theres so many sick people human trafficking and molesting kids i would b scared if my 8 uear old walked to school alone