Oh wow, I just had flashbacks! Me too. I was the youngest and my parents did the same thing. I practically lived in the car with my siblings. No car seats either! I don't want to get too OT, as I know times have most definitely changed. But I wonder if leaving sky in the car at Target was a cultural thing. You know, like the Swedish woman who left her baby outside a restaurant because it's common to leave children unattended in Sweden.
http://www.circleofmoms.com/article...y-outside-restaurant-claims-s-ok-europe-01176
I know it's a stretch, but there are cultures out there that think and act differently than most of us. When I was in the UK years back I was shocked at how many parents took their kids to bars and smoked ciggies with them on their lap.
Just a thought - thanks.
Mel
It is not common to leave children unattended or in other parts of Europe. The way it is reported is not reality. It makes it seem that Europeans just let their toddlers and babies loose or leave them alone at home or something. That is not true.
It used to be common in Northern Europe to leave sleeping infants tightly wrapped in their prams, outside small shops or cafes, while mom and/or dad went inside. That was because they lack sun in those countries and believe the baby needs vitamin D. Also, it was relatively safe. People did not snatch children there in the past very often.
Further, it wasn't like parents left their kids outside in a giant Walmart while they shopped for hours. Usually, it was right oustide near a window where the parents and everyone else could check on the kids.
There would be rows of prams lined up and everyone looked out for each other's children.
This practice is, I believe, fading, as Northern European countries become less homogenetic, with the influx of people from other cultures, the increase in crime as a result of poorer immigrants who can't find enough work, etc.
It has also lessened as those countries have begun to become more aware of how things are in other countries.
In 2010, I visited my family in Spain. There, kids can still play outside without an adult. Kind of like how it used to be in the 50's, 60's and 70's here. But babies and toddlers are well watched, usually by a stream of doting aunts and grandparents. There are so many relatives around a kid at all times, the parents barely get any time with the kids.
Child abduction is also still extremely rare there and the few cases they have, the perp is usually a British visitor or other foreigner. The cases they do have, like of little Mari-Luz, the little girl in my avatar who is a Gypsy like my family, become national tragedies of epic proportions. It just does not happen enough for the utter shock to wear off.
But me, being from the U.S., well, I have a different mindset. Out walking in broad daylight one day among holiday crowds, I kept looking back at a friend's two kids, ages about 5 and 7, who who were running along behind and running around. I explained that I;m not used to having kids behind me in public, I always want them where I can see them.
They asked why and I replied because I fear they will be kidnapped. They asked, "Does that happen a lot there?" When I said yes, they asked me, "Why? What do they take the kids for? What do they do with them" I said, "Sometimes for sexual purposes, and they kill them."
The look of horror was almost comical. But the way the mother whipped around and shrieked at their kids to get over there near her after that was very sad, cause' I just ruined their sense of peace and innocence.
I'm inclined to believe that Julia had a LOT of control over SM and that he pretty much did what she said -- including her rationalizing that a sleeping infant left for a "short period of time" (that turned into an hour) would be fine. I think she controlled him -- I mean, look, she controlled when and where he could eat, go to the bathroom, sleep -- this was serious control. She pretty much got him to do anything. Once LE got on their case and sent them parenting classes (which JB dragged her feet in attending), SM NEVER left a child unattended again. JB did. He learned his lesson and he also, eventually, broke away from her incessant control. At least, that's how I see it. Abusers can get you to do stuff you never would do in your right mind or by your own free will. It might not make sense to outsiders, but it is part of the DV dynamic.
That was my sense. I remember watching a program about people with such severe cases of OCD that they couldn't leave the home. One young man stayed in the bathroom for fear of germs (ironic) and his mother had to smash food between plastic and squeeze it under the door for him because he would not open the door (also quite ironic. How is that clean?)
Anyhow, the mother and father seemed to really go out of their way to placate the son. He really annoyed me as he kept yelling commands at them from behind the door in this sing-songy, whiny almost threatening manner: "Mooooommmmmm? Are you sure you cleaned your shoes before and after coming in the hoooooouuuuuuuusssssseeee? I need to know? Moooommmmmm? You have to go wash you shoes! Do it! Tell me you'll do it!"
I thought, hello no! No way would I allow my sick kid to make me follow his OCD patterns. I thought there was no way I would accommodate him with food under the door or anything else. But I guess after years of trying to prevent him from breaking down, they sort of did fall into his illness in a way.
Is this common with the family of people suffering severe OCD or other illnesses, Rougelatete?
Not being snarky, just trying to see all sides and get an idea how others are thinking. For those that think SM may be involved, why do you think that someone who hasn't seen their children in 10 months and had finally gotten visitation would do something like this now and not before when all the fighting was going on? This is assuming that Sky is unharmed and just being hidden from Julia. I would think, also, that this way he gets to see him even less than he would have been able to see him before. I just don't get any of it. I also don't understand why her family is saying that SM is hiding Sky, but M would be okay to go with him.
Let me add another. Why would Julia allow M to go with her father when she claimed he molested her?
Exactly. And if SM were involved why hasn't Julia spoken to the police ever, once, at all, for one minute since the initial interview. She would use every means necessary to pin this on SM if there were any possible way that she could. If SM had done anything, or if Julia even suspected that SM had done anything, she'd be (secretly recording him, posting staged pictures of him) telling LE and the media any and everything she could think of to bring SM down.
Instead, she says nothing. If Julia were not guilty she would be talking. imo
Bingo. With all due respect to those who think otherwise, I see no logical reason to think that Solomon could have had anything to do with this. Julia's behavior refutes her accusations that he did something. Besides the fact that even without such behavior, it would be a miracle if he could have taken Sky at just that time, under just those circumstances and show no trace of it up to this point, in any way - no witnesses, no reports of people traveling to other countries with small children - nothing.
And you know the FBI has checked all the airlines, buses and security footage at border crossings, etc.
But I think the fact that some suspect him or continue to entertain the possibility that he is involved, despite slim odds, makes the case for LE all the more harder. Can you imagine what they talk about?: "Well, we don't have a body. And you just know the minute we haul her in here for murder, her defense attorneys are going to be planting the scary, dark-skinned Muslim wife abuser defense in the minds of potential jurors, and then we might have another casey anthony on our hands. Let's keep looking."
