Woman arrested after leaving son alone in Lego store for 90 minutes

[@rtisan]

Sad more than anything else, very sad. 

[TheBrickClique]

Some walmarts are as big as a mall. So, if you leave a kid in the Lego store and go shop at the brookstone across the way, is that much different than shopping in housewares at walmart while the kid is in the toy section?

I have one kid and she is only four. At this age, if I can't see her, she's too far away. But I'm sure I'll be trying to figure out how that changes in a few years when she wants to look at stuff on the other side of TRU while daddy stockpiles Legos. And, no, daddy is not sharing his coupons -- life has its tough lessons

[Neosphinx]

What is the big deal. When I was 7, I could play with lego for hours in my room.

I am sure it was not the intention to be gone for so long, but certain women lose eye of clock when they are shopping.

To arrest that person for such is close to moronic.

 

I would say cudoos for that woman as she raised her son to stay in 1 place and not go run anywhere. 

[fatboycarney]

Wow it seems there are a lot of 20/30 something males responding to this that don't have kids. I think maybe those folks overestimate the age they used to roam free. I have a 7 year old son and have no doubt he would likely stay put for 90 minutes in a LEGO store however my wife nor I would ever leave them out of our sight for more than a minute. The world is not the same when we were that age nor is a 7 year old safe alone in a public place. I would be surprised to hear anyone with a child that age to disagree.

Sent from my Passport using Brickpicker mobile app

[holleman67]

Wow it seems there are a lot of 20/30 something males responding to this that don't have kids. I think maybe those folks overestimate the age they used to roam free. I have a 7 year old son and have no doubt he would likely stay put for 90 minutes in a LEGO store however my wife nor I would ever leave them out of our sight for more than a minute. The world is not the same when we were that age nor is a 7 year old safe alone in a public place. I would be surprised to hear anyone with a child that age to disagree.

Sent from my Passport using Brickpicker mobile app

I fit in the age range you stated and I have a child. Granted she is 4 months I couldn't fathom leaving my child alone in a store with absolutely no one I trust. With that being said, at that age I had no problem being unattended and I'd rather would have been there then shopping with my mom. I disagree with the mother's choices but arresting her is a little extreme

[fatboycarney]

It really does make a difference when you are a parent. Some coworkers at work had this discussion and the guys without kids think no big deal. But when you are responsible for a little person and you hear all the terrible things that can happen to kids these days it's eye opening. I agree arrest is an extreme measure.

Sent from my Passport using Brickpicker mobile app

[No More Monkeys]

And I am not quite clear what were the legal grounds for arrest. If she legally could leave him home, how leaving him for 90 minutes in public place changes legal angle. And I am not touching ethics here, just curious what the grounds for arrest were

[justafrog]

And I am not quite clear what were the legal grounds for arrest. If she legally could leave him home, how leaving him for 90 minutes in public place changes legal angle. And I am not touching ethics here, just curious what the grounds for arrest were

 

Child endangerment - I don't know if it's legal to leave a 7 year old for 90 minutes at home in her state, but even if it is, that doesn't mean it's legal to leave a child that age alone for 90 minutes in a public place.

 

It may or may not actually go anywhere - depends on whether the DA in that jurisdiction thinks he can win the case for a reasonable amount of money and/or if there has been a rash of child endangerment in the area and the public is looking for any blood available.

[No More Monkeys]

Child endangerment - I don't know if it's legal to leave a 7 year old for 90 minutes at home in her state, but even if it is, that doesn't mean it's legal to leave a child that age alone for 90 minutes in a public place.

It may or may not actually go anywhere - depends on whether the DA in that jurisdiction thinks he can win the case for a reasonable amount of money and/or if there has been a rash of child endangerment in the area and the public is looking for any blood available.

Shouldn't there be clear and present danger to be at hand for endangerment clause? People don't get arrested for drinking(but not drunk yet) while tending to the child, even though one could consider it more "endangering" than leaving child in supposedly child-friendly environment (she did not leave him at the bar)

[Brickerbrack]

My parents would have thought this totally acceptable.  Back when I was 7 you could leave your kids for 90 minutes in the toy store.  Especially me, i would take that long to decide what I wanted.

 

As a parent today, I don't even leave my kids unattended in my back yard.  

[justafrog]

Shouldn't there be clear and present danger to be at hand for endangerment clause? People don't get arrested for drinking(but not drunk yet) while tending to the child, even though one could consider it more "endangering" than leaving child in supposedly child-friendly environment (she did not leave him at the bar)

 

This is among California's child endangerment definitions under law (endangerment encompasses neglect and abuse):

• General neglect is the negligent failure of a parent/guardian or caretaker to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision where no physical injury to the child has occurred.

New York (I think it was New York) probably has similar laws and definitions on their books.

[No More Monkeys]

This is among California's child endangerment definitions under law (endangerment encompasses neglect and abuse):

• General neglect is the negligent failure of a parent/guardian or caretaker to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision where no physical injury to the child has occurred.

New York (I think it was New York) probably has similar laws and definitions on their books.

Is that a felony or misdeminior? I.e. something automatically triggering arrest?

[justafrog]

Is that a felony or misdeminior? I.e. something automatically triggering arrest?

 

That was merely a definition. Actual crimes that refer to the definition can be either felonies or misdemeanors.

[No More Monkeys]

That was merely a definition. Actual crimes that refer to the definition can be either felonies or misdemeanors.

But it is not something new that appeared only now, when "times have changed", correct? If there were no grounds for her arrest in the 70ies, why there are grounds for arrest now? Just because kids are being left in hot cars these days, so police must do something (in addition to their already busy work of catching actual criminals)

[justafrog]

But it is not something new that appeared only now, when "times have changed", correct? If there were no grounds for her arrest in the 70ies, why there are grounds for arrest now? Just because kids are being left in hot cars these days, so police must do something (in addition to their already busy work of catching actual criminals)

 

New laws are made all the time - there are a lot of new laws on the books since the 1970s, and some of those are new child welfare laws. Something not being illegal in the 1970s (or last week) doesn't mean it's still legal now.

[knarrff]

The world is not the same when we were that age nor is a 7 year old safe alone in a public place.

 

I would be surprised to hear anyone with a child that age to disagree.

The world might not have changed as much as you think. Perception almost certainly has though. Just lookup "Mean world syndrome".

 

And well - be surprised. While I don't think 90 minutes of "playtime" in even a Lego store is a good choice by the parent, arrest it a totally inappropriate response. If the police or store owners think that a Lego store isn't safe enough for children they should probably think hard about why, and do something about _that_.

[justafrog]

The world might not have changed as much as you think. 

 

On this I agree. The difference is that I think the world is just as unsafe, not that it's just as safe.

 

My own childhood was free as a bird - out the door in the morning, be home by dark - along with my siblings and most of my friends. As a result, some of us were shot at in orange groves, some of us were hit by cars, some of us were molested by neighbors, some of us were bitten severely by dogs - and all of us had varying close calls with most of these things.

 

Children do have to be given freedom in order to grow up to be healthy, capable adults. There is, however, something to be said for presenting that freedom in slow, careful doses and not giving a child more freedom than he or she is probably developmentally able to handle.

 

Seven years old is too young to be unsupervised for over an hour in a busy, public location.

[No More Monkeys]

The world might not have changed as much as you think. Perception almost certainly has though. Just lookup "Mean world syndrome".

And well - be surprised. While I don't think 90 minutes of "playtime" in even a Lego store is a good choice by the parent, arrest it a totally inappropriate response. If the police or store owners think that a Lego store isn't safe enough for children they should probably think hard about why, and do something about _that_.

social workers give a bazillion of chances to mother, before forcing the issue with child protection agencies, even if there possible danger due to history of abuse and neglect, since separation of a child from the mother is not something to be taken lightly

[fatboycarney]

The world might not have changed as much as you think. Perception almost certainly has though. Just lookup "Mean world syndrome".

And well - be surprised. While I don't think 90 minutes of "playtime" in even a Lego store is a good choice by the parent, arrest it a totally inappropriate response. If the police or store owners think that a Lego store isn't safe enough for children they should probably think hard about why, and do something about _that_.

For interest sake how many children do you have? I don't believe it is the responsibility of the police or the store owner to ensure someone doesn't wander up and lure a child off without anyone the wiser. If they aren't aware the child is alone how can they even know?

Sent from my Passport using Brickpicker mobile app

[fuzzy_bricks]

This is among California's child endangerment definitions under law (endangerment encompasses neglect and abuse):

• General neglect is the negligent failure of a parent/guardian or caretaker to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision where no physical injury to the child has occurred.

New York (I think it was New York) probably has similar laws and definitions on their books.

This is too vague for me, which is how they want it.  This sounds like the state can determine what is adequate, which is BS.

[jerryherb]

...You are so totally right.

Well, except for the part where you're wrong, which is everything between the words "cant [sic]" and "NEXT".

Most states have NO minimum age for kids to be left unsupervised at home, and that includes New York, where this incident occurred. There are recommended ages, but no minimums. It's left to the parents' discretion, because there are too many other factors for there to be a hard-and-fast age rule: intellectual and emotional maturity, temperament, physical ability, length of time they'll be alone, and how well they've been prepared in case of an emergency.

 

... until you get tried in court of public opinion and found guilty by a bunch they (the govt) claim to be your peers

[jerryherb]

It really does make a difference when you are a parent. Some coworkers at work had this discussion and the guys without kids think no big deal. But when you are responsible for a little person and you hear all the terrible things that can happen to kids these days it's eye opening. I agree arrest is an extreme measure.

Sent from my Passport using Brickpicker mobile app

 

what happens now was happening then except you didnt hear of it on every one of 1000 channels avilable these days that feed fear to the public

[jerryherb]

Child endangerment - I don't know if it's legal to leave a 7 year old for 90 minutes at home in her state, but even if it is, that doesn't mean it's legal to leave a child that age alone for 90 minutes in a public place.

 

It may or may not actually go anywhere - depends on whether the DA in that jurisdiction thinks he can win the case for a reasonable amount of money and/or if there has been a rash of child endangerment in the area and the public is looking for any blood available.

 

i dont see how there was any endangerment unless she was 100% certain that one of the lego employees was a child molester. She wasnt smart to leave the kid there, but she did nothing criminal

[knarrff]

For interest sake how many children do you have? I don't believe it is the responsibility of the police or the store owner to ensure someone doesn't wander up and lure a child off without anyone the wiser.

I do have a 7 year old, so I know what I talk about. And I agree, it is not their job to ensure that. I already said that it was not a good idea of the parent to leave that child there for 90 minutes. But a proper response is not arrest - where is the proportionality in that? A stern chat should most likely have done it too. I doubt all parents that are found not to restraint their kids in a car are arrested for example - a much worse offense, with a much higher chance of harm to the child.

[jerryherb]

This is among California's child endangerment definitions under law (endangerment encompasses neglect and abuse):

 

• General neglect is the negligent failure of a parent/guardian or caretaker to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or supervision where no physical injury to the child has occurred.

New York (I think it was New York) probably has similar laws and definitions on their books.

 

this "think of the children" legislation of control over private and personal choices between what is good/not good for your own child has gone through the roof.