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

[Herat]

We stay for many reasons. I can only speak for myself:

1) He had total control over me by the time I realized I was in too deep
2) If I kicked him out, he, and his children, would have been homeless, literally. (They are currently all homeless and sleep wherever)
3) I had loved him so long, it was hard for me to see who he had become, that he wasn't the same person
4) I had no idea until later how much he was drinking. Or abut the coke that has now turned into a full blown meth addiction. I had no idea he was getting drunk while I was at work and he was home with the kids. He didn't even have any money, I was baffled. But every day I would come home and he would be drunk. It has been three years and I still find mini bottles
5) he promised to go for alimony and half my house if I left him -and he was disabled on ssdi, he would have gotten it.
6) The people who knew it was devolving into chaos and abuse did nothing more than whisper behind my back, instead of speaking up - to him, not me, that he had a problem

Now I think I kinda sound like I am yelling at you, I promise I am not. But I have been with someone who placed me and his kids in danger on a regular basis, and the whole time, I knew it was wrong. I knew it had to stop. I lived with constant fear and anxiety at all times that he was going to do something he could not come back from. This PTSD kept me in a messed up mind frame until the situation exploded and I was finally able to wake up and ciut ties.

What sucks is that my exs kids had no choice but to be homeless with him and they are now engaging in dangerous drug activity too. Sometimes we are just....stuck.

No excuses, but I wanted to try and explain a little on why we stay

I thank your sharing this with us.

It is so easy for us unknown posters to say "just get out". Your story shows how very complicated abusive situations get and how much the exhausting responsibility and complex emotions of the stable partner become. The no-good-answer choices also weigh so heavily.

The work and stress of finding and achieving a resolution is never appreciated enough.

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

Judge is female .

Why not mention the removal of a child from the home by the state? His failures to appear and civil arrest orders being issued repeatedly?

I really think Erika's pleas carried the day. She is continuing to actively enable her daughters being put at risk. She knew about the 138 and all the rest. Even DEATH only momentarily woke her out of her thrall to this absolute loser scum man. JMOOO.

Usually because they were raised by alcoholics/addicts and were stuck. Kids can't leave their alcoholic parents, so they learn how to cope. MOO ES grew up in a dysfunctional household where one or both parents had substance use issues, and learned to cope by adapting, fawning, minimizing, and believing she could change them if only she tried hard enough.

I am sure she loves her kids, and she probably also believes she's doing the right thing by having CS home. She is sure she can change him and make things okay if she just tries a little harder...

And no, it doesn't make sense because it's not conscious. It's a trauma response that she's not aware of and hasn't addressed.

All MOO and I'm not a mental health professional.

Very likely he was raised by alcoholics/addicts too or those with untreated or self medicated mental illness.

When he downplayed and normalized driving drunk with Parker at 138 mph, he had likely once been that kid. But now he had one removed and killed one...he is not suicidal with remorse, nor did she ask for him to be removed or held, they both have doubled down and been enabled by a human judge with her own propensity to minimize it seems.

Right now the littlest know that killing Parker was wrong and so was not acting like "grownups should" or telling them to lie, but who knows how this trauma upon trauma and lack of safety will play out later in their own lives? Assuming he is not an annihilator. Will they endanger, enable, or turn the anger and chaos inward? Will they feel responsible for Parker's death? For CS being held accountable (if that even happens)? Will ES blame them? Will they ever get a sense of safety and being valued that they can internalize? Removal can be an improvement or something much worse, unpredictable. JMOOO.

 

[MsMarple]

Judge's reasoning as to why she released him.

ORIGINAL BOND HEARING

JUDGE - Cases like this are very difficult and I want to make a record about what I'm ruling and why I'm ruling. So first of all, the Arizona law requires me to set the least onerous release conditions that will assure that the defendant appears for court and that he is not a danger to the community. It is not appropriate at a initial appearance for me to punish someone or to think about what they deserve or anything like that, that may very well... likely will come into play later in his case, but at the initial appearance, the only things that I am to consider are the least.. I have to impose the least onerous release conditions that will assure that he appears in court and that he is not a risk to the community. Mr. Scholtes scores in the absolute lowest risk category possible on every assessment that was done by pretrial services. Pretrial services did recommend that I hold him on a bond; their current system of making recommendations basically says that if a person is charged with a homicide, that overrides any other risk assessment and any other recommendation, and that results in our hold on bond recommendation. The head of pretrial services gave a presentation today where he explained that that will no longer be true beginning on July 22 so 10 days from today, if this exact same person appeared, they would not make that recommendation. They are getting rid of that if the charge is a certain thing, we automatically recommend the person be held.

Mr. Scholtes has significant ties to the community, no criminal history whatsoever. This is the kind of offense that is extremely unlikely to reoccur. I don't believe that he poses a danger to the community now, although his actions on that day may have. For all of those reasons, I am actually going to release him to pre trial services, supervision. I don't believe that a money bond is appropriate at this time, however, sir, I am ordering that you do not possess or consume any alcohol or illegal drugs. Do not possess any firearms or submit to any [inaudible] or treatment that's directed by pretrial services.

Also, sir and ma'am, I'd like you to hear this as well. I am ordering that you are not to have any unsupervised contact with minors. You are not to be alone with children. They cannot be alone in your care while this case is pending. So your wife mentioned that she works a lot of hours, you're going to have to find a different child care scenario. If she's at work, you cannot be home alone with children. That being said, I'm not, I'm not prohibiting contact, just unsupervised contact. Your next court date on this is a preliminary hearing, it's set on August 1, at 1.30 in the afternoon, sir, that court date may change. You need to stay in touch with pretrial and with your attorney so that you know if your court date changes, if you miss court, you will get a warrant. Mr. Scholtes, do you have any questions about your release conditions? and I don't want you to say anything else, anything you say can be used against you. I just want to make sure that you understand the conditions I've given you.

SHOLTES - No your honor thank you.

JUDGE - And Miss Scholtes, do you have any questions?

WIFE - I don't, and one thing I didn't mention is that I have taken an extended leave from work so that I will be home with the kids. I just wanted to make that known.

Thank you so much for posting this transcription! I had been wondering about the release conditions the judge set.

So besides no unsupervised contact with minors CS was ordered not to consume alcohol or drugs or possess any firearms.

The mother said she’s taking extended leave from her work. The father’s horrific actions not only cost his daughter her life but probably will also affect Erika’s reputation and will put financial stress on the family.

I hope the children receive lots of love, support and therapy to help them through this nightmare. They need to know that they aren’t responsible for the dysfunctional choices their parents made.
All JMO

 

[typical_vacation]

So… is he just chillin at home with no supervision while having first degree murder charges re: a child??! That’s bonkers to me.

 

[Angelcat13]

Judge's reasoning as to why she released him.

ORIGINAL BOND HEARING

JUDGE - Cases like this are very difficult and I want to make a record about what I'm ruling and why I'm ruling. So first of all, the Arizona law requires me to set the least onerous release conditions that will assure that the defendant appears for court and that he is not a danger to the community. It is not appropriate at a initial appearance for me to punish someone or to think about what they deserve or anything like that, that may very well... likely will come into play later in his case, but at the initial appearance, the only things that I am to consider are the least.. I have to impose the least onerous release conditions that will assure that he appears in court and that he is not a risk to the community. Mr. Scholtes scores in the absolute lowest risk category possible on every assessment that was done by pretrial services. Pretrial services did recommend that I hold him on a bond; their current system of making recommendations basically says that if a person is charged with a homicide, that overrides any other risk assessment and any other recommendation, and that results in our hold on bond recommendation. The head of pretrial services gave a presentation today where he explained that that will no longer be true beginning on July 22 so 10 days from today, if this exact same person appeared, they would not make that recommendation. They are getting rid of that if the charge is a certain thing, we automatically recommend the person be held.

Mr. Scholtes has significant ties to the community, no criminal history whatsoever. This is the kind of offense that is extremely unlikely to reoccur. I don't believe that he poses a danger to the community now, although his actions on that day may have. For all of those reasons, I am actually going to release him to pre trial services, supervision. I don't believe that a money bond is appropriate at this time, however, sir, I am ordering that you do not possess or consume any alcohol or illegal drugs. Do not possess any firearms or submit to any [inaudible] or treatment that's directed by pretrial services.

Also, sir and ma'am, I'd like you to hear this as well. I am ordering that you are not to have any unsupervised contact with minors. You are not to be alone with children. They cannot be alone in your care while this case is pending. So your wife mentioned that she works a lot of hours, you're going to have to find a different child care scenario. If she's at work, you cannot be home alone with children. That being said, I'm not, I'm not prohibiting contact, just unsupervised contact. Your next court date on this is a preliminary hearing, it's set on August 1, at 1.30 in the afternoon, sir, that court date may change. You need to stay in touch with pretrial and with your attorney so that you know if your court date changes, if you miss court, you will get a warrant. Mr. Scholtes, do you have any questions about your release conditions? and I don't want you to say anything else, anything you say can be used against you. I just want to make sure that you understand the conditions I've given you.

SHOLTES - No your honor thank you.

JUDGE - And Miss Scholtes, do you have any questions?

WIFE - I don't, and one thing I didn't mention is that I have taken an extended leave from work so that I will be home with the kids. I just wanted to make that known.

I see so many flaws with this judge’s reasoning:

1. "Danger to the community" - anyone that repeatedly drives drunk is a danger to the community. He has repeatedly been told by ES to stop doing this and continued anyway. This makes it obvious that he is unable to police his own actions.

2. "Significant ties to the community" - such as? Other than being a SAHD with a presumably successful wife, what are these significant ties. When I hear “significant ties” I typically think local family (immediate & extended), job history, community involvement, etc.

3. "No criminal history whatsovever" - is this correct? It seems as if there was a history of family court “charges” (not criminal). Previous reports show a DUI 15 years ago, so IMO this DOES indicate a criminal history. More importantly, there have been comments here indicating that family court records show a history of not complying with court orders, so IMO the judge SHOULD have seriously considered this information. If someone can't follow previous court orders, what makes the judge think they will suddenly become compliant with any new court orders?

4. "This is the kind of offense that is extremely unlikely to reoccur." - REALLY?! The mother's own texts show that this is an ONGOING PROBLEM! This was NOT a one-time OOPS I FORGOT incident!

5. "Ordering that you do not possess or consume any alcohol or illegal drugs" - what monitoring system did the judge impose to ensure that CS actually FOLLOWS this ORDER? There is no mention of any alcohol monitoring device being required. Is this judge really that naive (or stupid!) to think that after years of alcohol abuse CS is suddenly going to become sober? This is actually a significant health/safety concern for CS (sorry, not that I really care about his well-being) but sudden detox from alcohol is extremely dangerous with a high incidence of fatalities.

6. "Do not possess any firearms" - what has the Court done to ensure that there are no weapons in the home and/or accessible to CS? My concerns here are for a possible family annihilation scenario.

7. "Not to have any unsupervised contact with minors" - and WHO is the Court entrusting to make sure that this order is adhered to? BOTH parents have shown that they DO NOT put the safety of their children at the forefront. And the fact that the surviving children have told LE that BOTH parents have told them to LIE to LE even AFTER Parker's death (and quite likely AFTER this Court order was made) NEITHER parent should have unsupervised access to the children! The children should be removed from the home and ANY contact with either parent should be supervised by an officer of the Court or CPS.

This judge's order is so ridiculous that it makes me question whether she really should be in this position at all.

 

[MsMarple]

I’m pretty sure much of the new information wasn’t available at the first hearing. Once the case went to the Grand Jury all hell broke loose. Even LE wasn’t aware of the older girl’s experience. A lot came out later.

Unfortunately the judge has to follow certain guidelines in order to protect the suspect’s rights. It’s frustrating at times but for better or worse it probably avoids allegations of unfair treatment.

The one item I felt the judge didn’t address enough was allowing the father supervised access to his children. Chris certainly is a danger to his kids; we can only hope his wife follows that order. Maybe he should have also been banned from driving until he begins treatment for his alcoholism.

Ah well, come Thursday he’ll likely be taken into custody. We’ll see whether or not bond is set and if so whether or not Erika will bail him out.
All MOO

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

So… is he just chillin at home with no supervision while having first degree murder charges re: a child??! That’s bonkers to me.

Well, per LE, he's busy witness tampering re: other young kids. While his "supervisor" wife also witness tampers on behalf of the killer. Grief over Parker seems to be the focus of the kids, at least. JMOOO. And I mean, look what a stellar job she did re: safeguarding so far, one child removed, one child DEAD and other children put at extreme risk and under emotional duress.

AZ raised the charges, and the risk to the child witnesses and has just walked away re: their lives that could be at stake. Mr. "You hate me!" no accountability has little left to lose at this point and the testimony of the kids is what helped elevate the charges. They told and told again.

That he would be out would be concerning, that he is cooped up in a home with the child witnesses against him is unacceptable. Again, I urge others to contact the Govenor's office in AZ. One child removed, one child dead, they need to act quickly to ensure safety of the 2 who are still there. JMOOO.

 

[aimeea]

She knew. She was not missing tiny red flags.

Yeah I don't think for a minute that she was blind to the danger she was putting her kids in with him. But I think a lot of people think "well she had plenty of money to hire a nanny, etc" and the thing is with that, is that stuff takes a lot of time. Time she almost certainly could not afford with a job like hers and with a husband who absolutely was not pulling his weight at home not just with the kids but probably every other household responsibility too. Maybe no close family to help, no close friends to keep her in check, just a never-ending echo chamber of this man dismissing the severity of his behavior. It's really messed up and this woman absolutely needs therapy.

 

[tlcya]

She knew. She was not missing tiny red flags.

She openly admitted on March 11 text that she knew he was drinking while doing solo childcare, while driving, and was reckless in his driving.

The deceit at the gas station to get alcohol was most likely because she would be monitoring the grocery receipts to check for alcohol.

I do wonder if she had modified the older two girl's schedules to decrease his solo responsibilities for their care. That would be easier to with many children's activities open to children that are mobile and toilet trained. Who dropped the older two girls off on that day, I wonder?

focused on the bigger text up there, I absolutely agree, he stole because she was monitoring the money and where it went in hopes of keeping his drinking in check. MOO