Arizona girl, 2, left in car by father on 109-degree day and is found dead

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
At first I thought, how dumb that cars shut off automatically, for emergency situations like this. What if someone were to accidentally lock a child or pet inside, and it takes a while to get help or break a window?

But then when looking up info about these features, I realized they’re probably in place to prevent carbon monoxide poisoning.

I wonder which way would save more lives.
It’s a very interesting question, but I have heard of cars being accidentally left on inside the garage and slowly poisoning people inside the house. If you accidentally locked a baby or pet inside, presumably you’d call for help and try to break the window. 20 minutes would be plenty of time. Unless you’re doing something deliberately stupid and unsafe like this father. The car is only protecting you against accidents, not deliberate acts.
 

I remember reading about this car death case when it happened. Dad accidentally left toddler in car when he went to work. As soon as he found the baby, he ended his life.

Tragic story. Obviously one of the hundreds we read about. I find his reaction more understandable than texting my spouse saying Sorry Babe.”
I agree- this poor gentleman, I truly believe forgot. His reaction is IMO far more along the lines of what one would expect. Even if a parent didn't commit suicide, I would expect them to be a complete basket case. Not "Sorry babe, but you did the same thing too you know!" I know that not everyone responds in the same way to similar situations, but there's a point where that just doesn't cover the situation at hand.
 
It’s a very interesting question, but I have heard of cars being accidentally left on inside the garage and slowly poisoning people inside the house. If you accidentally locked a baby or pet inside, presumably you’d call for help and try to break the window. 20 minutes would be plenty of time. Unless you’re doing something deliberately stupid and unsafe like this father. The car is only protecting you against accidents, not deliberate acts.
There was a case like that in my region some years back. ISTR that a van was parked in an attached garage, and was left running because some people were listening to a CD. (Like I said, it was a while back.) Seven people died; the 23-year-old mother of the two children who died (and a third who was elsewhere) was also a widow, although she and her husband were separated at the time of his death just months earlier.


There was another case from the region, more recent, where a father, also separated, was found in a car with his two young children, all deceased, but the wife said he was a very severe Type 1 diabetic and probably passed out due to low blood sugar. Apparently the autopsy backed this up; the children weren't old enough to let themselves out, go inside, and call 911.
 
I have seen several other situations lately in the news where mothers left their children in the car, actually intentionally, to go shopping, the children were rescued alive, and these women were charged. One was out on bond, the other ROR.



Their children were not even dead! And here we have a father, who did intentionally leave the victim in the car, with evidence that he had done it previously. And the victim died, on a scorching hot day. And he goes home to be with the witnesses, the other siblings. That is just crazy. I wonder if they asked him about their little sister, where she was...
 
Last edited:
I have seen several other situations lately in the news where mothers left their children in the car, actually intentionally, to go shopping, the children were rescued alive, and these women were charged. One was out on bond, the other ROR.



Their children were not even dead! And here we have a father, who did intentionally leave the victim in the car, with evidence that he had done it previously. And the victim died, on a scorching hot day. And he goes home to be with the witnesses, the other siblings. That is just crazy. I wonder if they asked him about their little sister, where she was...
I think they SHOULD be charged, it would likely change their behavior and possibly deter others, but MOST OFTEN parents are NOT charged or if charged initially, charges are dropped.

In the case of this father, the MOTHER pleading with the court for him to be released and returned to the home likely made a huge difference. I am not convinced that was in the best interests of the surviving young girls, but JMOOO. They are not only grieving and traumatized (he had left them in the car repeatedly too) but they are witnesses for AZ and may be retaliated against and coached for having told LE about PS5. MOOO.
 
Nancy Grace covered this story tonight. Think it is ok to post?
Thanks for the link! I found it interesting that the guest psychologist and the woman from Kids and Cars disagreed about whether this is a Forgotten Baby Syndrome case, although the Kids and Cars woman qualified her opinion by saying there isn’t enough information yet to make a final determination. However she did say it was not unlike other cases that have occurred so to me it sounds like she’s leaning towards Forgotten Baby Syndrome. IMO

The guest defense attorney predictably did a weird spin about the father saying things that weren’t true but not actually lying. Um, okay.

Nancy made the point that (I’m paraphrasing here) one can immediately regret the deed but it doesn’t negate the intent or frame of mind at the time of the incident, in reference to the letter of the law. She called it something like a malignant heart or abandonment of regard for human life. Interesting thought.

Anyway y’all can listen for yourselves; this was just my personal take on the report.
 
It is possible he forgot about retrieving her from the car at *some* point I suppose, but- the problem (for both the defense and the prosecution) would be proving at what point EXACTLY did this transition from his purposeful & habitual babysitter on wheels situation to his unintentional "I got distracted and forgot she was still out there!" situation.
Was it shortly after he arrived home, after he put the food/groceries away? Was it an hour later? 2 hours? 10 minutes before mom arrived home? And how does that specific point in time relate to her time of death? Was she already dead once this transitioned from intentional to forgetful? Sometime after?

And by what means do you prove WHEN he actually forgot other than by what he claims/will claim? Would he even honestly be able to be aware now, looking back, of when that important transition occurred?

No point to this post really just brainstorming out loud....
 
I think she is being judged for her own actions and inactions knowing this was a pattern and knowing it had continued after she expressed concern, that is failure to protect. The kids had no one else to protect them. She then pleaded with the court and got him released back to the home immediately, which may or may not be in the kids' interests and may or may not impact the case.

If it was a hired caregiver no one would be defending a dynamic that allowed this pattern to continue IMHOO.
That’s how I view it. And also how actions would be evaluated legally. Parents/guardians have a legal Duty to Protect. Each parent/guardian has an individual duty.

And I’m certainly not holding her responsible & saying she breached that duty. But it’s her own language that raises that legal issue as a possibility .

“HOW many times have I told you…?” That’s what would determine whether she failed to protect. The circumstances around that. We already know the father failed.
 
It is possible he forgot about retrieving her from the car at *some* point I suppose, but- the problem (for both the defense and the prosecution) would be proving at what point EXACTLY did this transition from his purposeful & habitual babysitter on wheels situation to his unintentional "I got distracted and forgot she was still out there!" situation.

Yes…his excuse is very challenging to prove.

Of course, it is SO much easier not to forget your baby in the car if you don’t INTENTIONALLY and HABITUALLY leave her there alone in the first place.

This wasn’t, IMO and based on all we have learned, a dutiful father who was absent-minded, or distracted, or had a change to his routine that threw him off.

This was a man who opted to leave her there as though the car were a crib or playpen. He CHOSE to do this and did it regularly.

I don’t think he intended her to die, but his DELIBERATE actions killed her. Hence negligent homicide or Murder 2, rather than Murder One.

IMO
 
It is possible he forgot about retrieving her from the car at *some* point I suppose, but- the problem (for both the defense and the prosecution) would be proving at what point EXACTLY did this transition from his purposeful & habitual babysitter on wheels situation to his unintentional "I got distracted and forgot she was still out there!" situation.
Was it shortly after he arrived home, after he put the food/groceries away? Was it an hour later? 2 hours? 10 minutes before mom arrived home? And how does that specific point in time relate to her time of death? Was she already dead once this transitioned from intentional to forgetful? Sometime after?

And by what means do you prove WHEN he actually forgot other than by what he claims/will claim? Would he even honestly be able to be aware now, looking back, of when that important transition occurred?

No point to this post really just brainstorming out loud....
Sad to say, but you make some very good points that could be important in how the law is viewed/argued by both the prosecution and the defense.
 
It is possible he forgot about retrieving her from the car at *some* point I suppose, but- the problem (for both the defense and the prosecution) would be proving at what point EXACTLY did this transition from his purposeful & habitual babysitter on wheels situation to his unintentional "I got distracted and forgot she was still out there!" situation.
Was it shortly after he arrived home, after he put the food/groceries away? Was it an hour later? 2 hours? 10 minutes before mom arrived home? And how does that specific point in time relate to her time of death? Was she already dead once this transitioned from intentional to forgetful? Sometime after?

And by what means do you prove WHEN he actually forgot other than by what he claims/will claim? Would he even honestly be able to be aware now, looking back, of when that important transition occurred?

No point to this post really just brainstorming out loud....
And in all of this, the standout point is that he’d made a habit of a dangerous practice: using the air conditioned vehicle as a babysitting station.

Regardless of what point in time he actually forgot about her being left in the car, the essential factor is that her being left there at all opened the possibility that she would be forgotten, or that the AC would shut off, and that this could prove fatal, which it did.

It’s sort of like driving drunk: you won’t necessarily have an accident, but you’ve opened the door to that.
 
I'm not sure whether or not there was relationship overlap matters as much as his failure to pay CS, the possible link of that to SAH (no garnishable wages) even though he seemed to try to avoid key tasks of that role and that he was non-compliant with court orders or even attending hearings, such that multiple civil arrest orders were issued by the court.

It is not behavior that prioritizes needs or wellbeing of a child or shows respect for rules and authority, even when that leads to consequences. I think that non-appearance history may have played into him being kept in custody but for the ardent appeal of ES in the present case.

IME some people don't think rules apply to them and they act that out in multiple situations.

I still cannot get over the "Sorry Babe!" text re: a dead toddler. It's astonishing. As was his attempt to trash his wife to LE and her blind devotion to him with only the briefest display of anger over her dead 2 year old. I really worry about grief stricken young kids and their needs in the midst of this dynamic. JMOO, YMMV.
I also want to point out, with regard to his character and trying to stay within TOS by not sleuthing family members, that Christopher Scholtes is not and has not proven in the past that he is a stand up father in any way, shape or form with regard to his oldest child (as well as his youngest).

His first child is a minor (age available in family court records) whose mother is recently deceased (publicly available obituary). In most cases, the minor child would go to live with the other living parent - dad in this case - but it is clear that his oldest child, still a minor, is NOT living with her father after her mother died.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
130
Guests online
2,400
Total visitors
2,530

Forum statistics

Threads
600,480
Messages
18,109,243
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top