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

[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

 

[AmandaSkis]

For people who are writing that they hope that he is arrested at his arrangement on Thursday, I do not understand why law-enforcement needs to wait until Thursday, that is a lot of time. I think he should be pulled in now! I am actually really scared and worried for this family.

 

[Herat]

He could have had his Playstation time in the evening when the mother was usually home.

However, he is negligent in childcare for the other two girls, too, not just Parker. Wa2s he really able to supervise them inside the house with his headset and attention to whatever he was doing?

We know he was inattentive to Parker for at least 3 hours. Presumably the other two were not napping for those hours.

He doesn't appear to be interacting with them at all. No enriching their lives.

Just checked out and drunk.

 

[IDK]

CS' Piercing?

@IDK
Growth or __? Yes, catches viewer's attn. In some pix, seems to be a piercing in his lower right lip w a ring inserted.

In July 12 article w pic of Father holding baby in hosp, the jewelery (ring? barbell?) on/thru lip shows more clearly.

Dad charged with MURDER after leaving his daughter in a hot car

Parker Scholtes, 2, died after she was rushed to hospital in Tucson, Arizona, after her father Chris Scholtes, 37, found her unresponsive in his car outside their home.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Thanks very much for your reply! I couldn’t tell for sure and appreciate the info that it’s a piercing.

If that picture in the hospital was him holding baby Parker, he looks very different and gained quite a bit of weight in two years. IMO.

 

[ChatteringBirds]

As far as I can tell from this link, first degree murder in Arizona either requires 1. "intending or knowing" your conduct "will cause death" OR 2. if a death occurs during other specific offenses, such as "child abuse." (Summarizing all in my own words.)

So if they do charge him with first-degree, will they be able to prove either intent or something like child abuse?

IMO not intent, unless there's something that hasn't been released. But maybe it's the alleged video evidence from the gas station that elevates the charge. If he consumed alcohol there in the bathroom and also left holding one and drove his child home, leaving her in the car to die ...I think they might be able to prove something like child abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. But they are going to need to explain the law very clearly, of course.

All IMO/JMO. I have no legal knowledge.

13-1105 - First degree murder; classification

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

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.

He also has other criminal charges in courts in the area, at least one sealed that is not too old. MOOO, he is no "pillar of the community." Doubt other parents want him coaching anything, the facts about both parents are shocking, not only death but also removal of a child for similar behavior several years ago. People avoid this kind of dysfunction. Many patients may want to avoid her services too. The judge wanted to think this was a forgotten one off kind of thing but it was really ES who got him back in the home. After the grand jury indictment, he or the kids should have been removed immediately. JMOOO.

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

Shouldn't the judge have checked if another child had been removed from the home?

 

[tlcya]

As far as I can tell from this link, first degree murder in Arizona either requires 1. "intending or knowing" your conduct "will cause death" OR 2. if a death occurs during other specific offenses, such as "child abuse." (Summarizing all in my own words.)

So if they do charge him with first-degree, will they be able to prove either intent or something like child abuse?

IMO not intent, unless there's something that hasn't been released. But maybe it's the alleged video evidence from the gas station that elevates the charge. If he consumed alcohol there in the bathroom and also left holding one and drove his child home, leaving her in the car to die ...I think they might be able to prove something like child abuse beyond a reasonable doubt. But they are going to need to explain the law very clearly, of course.

All IMO/JMO. I have no legal knowledge.

13-1105 - First degree murder; classification

I think the texting between the parents could be used to show he knew his conduct could cause death (repeated reminders from spouse to stop driving drunk with our kids in the car, I've told you and told you to stop leaving the kids in the car etc.)

Also, the act of leaving small children in hot car unsupervised is itself a neglectful act of child abuse that a parent knows or should know could lead to death.

Honestly, I think they could prove it with either prong of the law. JMO

 

[Charlot123]

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

Yes, I understand. I am very sorry and I wish that his kids find the way to get clean. I hope time will help, but it is a huge trauma. For everyone.

"I had loved him so long" did strike a chord with me, though.

I wonder if we can't leave because it is hard to walk away from our shattered
dreams.

When I was around 20, I met that person - not an alcoholic, gainfully employed, very far from a loser. Lying with abandon but senselessly (for example, about his birthday) was his hobby. A broken relationship was a small price I had to pay given what he did to others. So in six months time, on finding out that his birthday fell on a totally different month and year, I merely shrugged my shoulders. To the me of today, such people look like inflatable toys - there is a dark rag lying around, but with the attempts of the "community" and the parents and the people around, he is inflated into a beautiful dragon.

But, I still hung around for a couple of months after he proposed, bought a ring and ultimately, did nothing. He didn't even break the engagement. As I later found out, it was his typical modus operandi. (He proposed to another girl, before me, and when she went on a vacation, he married someone else). Why did I stick around? Well, i was 20, much younger than him and such people are uncommon. But mostly, i stayed because the image of our greatest future together was hard to walk away from. To admit to something worse than, "I have bet on a wrong card", to say "that card was fake", takes strength.

So I think, ES met CS in her 20es, and I bet he was a liar but tried his best to pretend for a long time, and in fact, they did have real things binding them. Maybe, just maybe, she is going through the terrible revelation, that her partner of twelve years is a sham figure? It must be hard to realize it so late in life, and at such a cost. So I am not blaming her, just waiting.

I still can't find a name for this pathological lying. No known medical syndrome explains it. In my BF, it was serious - crying, he'd tell me about someone dying in a car accident, and later, I'd accidentally meet that person, very much alive. I think I understand what prompted him to start yet another story (insecurity), but why stick with it knowing that sooner or later you'd have to admit to one more lie? All I know is that he would fly under the radar for any known diagnosis.

 

[Quim The Extraordinaire]

I am willing to bet she only knew the half of it.. Everyone willing to burn her at the stake here. I don't know how she got connected to this douche bag. I assume he's a chameleon.

IMO JMO

Unfortunate analogy, given her toddler’s cause of death.

As horrible as poor Parker’s death was, I think we all would like to avoid even more tragedy from occurring to the children in this family.

IMO JMO ETC

 

[MsMarple]

Shouldn't the judge have checked if another child had been removed from the home?

RSBM
It was up to LE investigators to provide information to the judge and it appears they missed the previous case for some reason.

I have a feeling everyone glossed over some important factors due to the wife being a doctor. Although he was charged with second degree murder pretty quickly I’m not convinced the judge recognized the severity of the father’s actions, especially after the mother’s passionate plea to allow the family to grieve together.

It’ll be interesting to see how the court responds to the upgraded charge. I hope the new evidence will convince a judge to keep those girls safe!
All MOO

 

[Angleterre]

P

I have that same bad feeling, and I can't help but feel like anyone in Arizona should know better about the dangers of heat. Especially with young children.

I'd think they should know better, they must, there's no way someone would think running the A/C was sufficient. But then I just read about a family who took their 4-month old out on Lake Havasu in the middle of a day that topped out at 121. Heat is so, so dangerous, and summers are only getting hotter.

I read about one where exactly this happened but they said that the air con was on and the engine running and when Mum checked, she said that the engine had cut off and so had the air con. Transpired that the child had been left for 4 hours as mum argued with her BF and then kissed and made up and went to the bedroom to become intimate and when she got back to her car in the driveway, she had locked her car keys inside too, so rather than smashing the glass she got a ride to her sisters to pick up her spare key. By the time they got the poor child out, she had been inside for 4 hours. Absolutely tragic and in these circumstances that I write, that’s not one that there can be any excuse for!

 

[ChatteringBirds]

Maybe, just maybe, she is going through the terrible revelation, that her partner of twelve years is a sham figure? It must be hard to realize it so late in life, and at such a cost.

I bet many here have had a similar relationship, and you are right. It takes so much strength to outright end it, and yet you have so little strength left, after having given endlessly, for the length of the relationship, while receiving nothing "real" in return. And she would have still been in shock when she spoke to the judge.

It is nice to see compassionate words like yours, though I also see the other side. Because they all need real safety now, above anything else.

 

[Arkay]

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.

Was just about to post ALL of this after reading the transcript provided by @Allabouttrial.

IMO every single point you made is so valid and I would write the exact same.

Therefore I won’t rehash it all but it really sticks in my gut—-leaving his children out of it just for a second, does the judge genuinely believe a man driving drunk at excessive speed is not a danger to the community at large?

Please.

Therefore it must be what @MsMarple mentioned—-likely the judge was, at the time, unaware of all his collateral dangerous practices.

Yet I wonder…they were able to upgrade his charge from Murder Two to Murder One, so why couldn’t the judge have him hauled into custody once that happened? By now she certainly knows his other perilous exploits, since we are merely observers and yet we know.

Befuddled and furious here.

JMO

 

[MsMarple]

Was just about to post ALL of this after reading the transcript provided by @Allabouttrial.

IMO every single point you made is so valid and I would write the exact same.

Therefore I won’t rehash it all but it really sticks in my gut—-leaving his children out of it just for a second, does the judge genuinely believe a man driving drunk at excessive speed is not a danger to the community at large?

Please.

Therefore it must be what @MsMarple mentioned—-likely the judge was, at the time, unaware of all his collateral dangerous practices.

Yet I wonder…they were able to upgrade his charge from Murder Two to Murder One, so why couldn’t the judge have him hauled into custody once that happened? By now she certainly knows his other perilous exploits, since we are merely observers and yet we know.

Befuddled and furious here.

JMO

I agree! As far as I understand the judge could have issued an arrest warrant which would have resulted in the father getting hauled in. I’m not a lawyer of course but I think the DA would have to write the warrant and the judge would sign.

Maybe it was just easier to keep the date since once arrested CS would have to be arraigned within 24 hours which might have complicated court scheduling?

But IMO everyone thinks the father will be controlled by his doctor wife and therefore don’t see any potential danger in allowing him around the family.
JMO