GUILTY Arizona girl, 2, left in car by father on 109-degree day and is found dead #2 (guilty plea, father found dead 5 November 2025 before sentencing)

[iamshadow21]

SFFBM — very well said and extremely legitimate concerns.

Have we heard confirmation at all that ES and the girls are alive? I know a search for death records yielded nothing, but still slightly holding my breath…. His mom could have found and called 911 instead of ES. Hope it wasn’t the girls…. Maybe we can try to foia that information.

I’m hoping this gives ES a chance to breathe for the first time in a long time and that she’s not now suicidal herself. I thought I read awhile back that she was no longer speaking with her mother… i hope that changes now. She and her girls need her more than ever I’m sure. MOO

Given I think it was said in the PC that they wished strength and healing for the surviving sibs from Parker from heaven in years to come, I think they're fine. As fine as they can be.

MOO

 

[Knitpicker]

hello, i'm very much curious, perhaps the parents were @lchoholic and @busive so they were quite tipsy, unaware of their actions. perhaps her father was a little... unstable. having only shown regret when arrested, not when he realised HIS OWN KID DIED BECAUSE OF HIM.

The question is—-why was this man in charge of taking care of a child when he was an alcoholic? Did his Dr wife not know this?

 

[lightofmine99]

Sorry not sorry but I have been unable to muster up any semblance of sympathy for ES. I'm not buying any of the excuses people are trying to make for her.

 

[iamshadow21]

The question is—-why was this man in charge of taking care of a child when he was an alcoholic? Did his Dr wife not know this?

Oh, she absolutely knew. Their text messages proved it.

There are plenty of people with addictions who do their best for their kids, despite it. He was not one of them. His parenting style for over a decade was to shove his kids in the car, walk away, drink, play video games, and ignore their existence. It was only chance that Parker was the one to die. It easily could have been any of the four children he abused this way.

MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Pima Court calendar still lists a hearing for TODAY at 10:45 am

Superior Court Public Recordings

 

[Tealgrove]

Well, we all called it. He was either going to run or die. He chose the latter and I’m not surprised. I don’t think anyone here is surprised by this outcome.

Now it’s all about the children. They need strong support, care and love. I’m not sure ES has all of that going for her. After all, she knew what he was doing repeatedly. She knew he was an alcoholic. She knew what occurred with his older daughter. She knew and allowed it to go on and on. I don’t have much faith in her parenting or choices.

Good Riddance. Just a tragedy that he had to put his entire family through all of this.

 

[NuttMegg]

According to that Law and Crime segment above, specifically the
Prosecution had to agree to leaving someone out of jail who pleads guilty to 2nd deg murder. All of them were coddling him, the whole system. Can't just blame the judge.

 

[LenaOdenthal]

CS got "no unsupervised contact" BUT still got to live with those children, only after killing one of them. What chance did ES have of getting sole custody, getting a court to order "no unsupervised contact" for any of the lesser offences prior?

Nobody is quite saying exactly what the "more" is that she should have done. What step that she could have taken would have lead with certainty to keeping him away from his children?

Is there any appetite for legislation to make it easier for the state to deprive shitty, but present, parents of all rights?

It seems likely to me ES knew she had no chance going the divorce or court route.

 

[elliefant]

CS got "no unsupervised contact" BUT still got to live with those children, only after killing one of them. What chance did ES have of getting sole custody, getting a court to order "no unsupervised contact" for any of the lesser offences prior?

Nobody is quite saying exactly what the "more" is that she should have done. What step that she could have taken would have lead with certainty to keeping him away from his children?

Is there any appetite for legislation to make it easier for the state to deprive shitty, but present, parents of all rights?

It seems likely to me ES knew she had no chance going the divorce or court route.

As I understand it it was as a result of ES lauding him in court and imploring them to allow him home that he wasn’t in custody.

 

[LenaOdenthal]

As I understand it it was as a result of ES lauding him in court and imploring them to allow him home that he wasn’t in custody.

I could almost put that down to be deranged by grief, feeling unable to cope alone and believing that it would be worse for the children to lose Parker and their dad all at once, after the worst thing possible has already happened.

I don't know enough about Arizona personally, but I'm still skeptical there were many avenues open to ES before the worst case scenario, that would have reliably, realistically empowered her to keep her children fully safe.

 

[elliefant]

I don't know enough about Arizona personally, but I'm still skeptical there were many avenues open to ES before the worst case scenario, that would have reliably, realistically empowered her to keep her children fully safe.

You may be right. We only know what happened when she consistently stood by him.

My own view is that she had plenty of evidence of his previous actions, as per her texts etc, that would have enabled her to have his custody of the children removed if that is what she wanted. Moo

 

[Simply Caustic]

I hope that the rift between ES and her mother + brother is healed so that they are able to be present for the remaining children. Without CS as a complicating factor I think the chances may be much improved for that jmo moo

 

[iamshadow21]

I haven't followed this case and just found it when I saw on the news he was dead.

Was there an explaination for why he left them in the car vs in a bedroom in the house? Seems like such an odd place to leave your kids so you can be alone. I'd say locking them in a bedroom or even putting them in a playroom and saying don't leave the room would be safer and still allow this grown man child to do whatever he wanted. I realize he isn't really concerned for the safety of the kids, but just in general I think most people, even careless ones don't want to draw attention to what they are doing if they don't have to. Certainly, leaving them in a car is more likely to get attention from an outside party than putting them in a room inside, using a baby gate or locking a door?

His excuse for the day in question was that he didn't want to wake Parker because she would be grumpy.

But we know from his surviving children that leaving them in the car for hours and hours at a time was a pattern of behaviour going back a decade and was not only when a child was sleeping, so it's entirely possible Parker was awake. His eldest described that by the age of seven she could let herself out of her seatbelt to restart the car when it stopped to keep the AC running for her and her sisters. This eldest sibling has Type 1 Diabetes, compounding the risk she was exposed to.

I think he used the car because he could strap the kids in so they couldn't leave, and he couldn't hear them crying from the house, so he could absolutely pretend they didn't exist while he had his 'me time'.

MOO

 

[orchidaceaes]

Looks like it might stand: https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-13/section-13-106/

So, that's good.

He wasn't convicted though, right? I thought had just pled guilty but wasn't actually going to be sentenced until the 21st. Is there a sentencing order formally convicting him? Won't the case just get dismissed now that he's dead?

 

[iamshadow21]

He wasn't convicted though, right? I thought had just pled guilty but wasn't actually going to be sentenced until the 21st. Is there a sentencing order formally convicting him? Won't the case just get dismissed now that he's dead?

He pled guilty, and that plea was accepted by the court. He's convicted. All the articles use the word convicted to refer to him.

An example, but one of many:

Arizona father convicted in hot car death found dead

Christopher Scholtes, 38, who pleaded guilty to murder for his 2-year-old daughter's hot car death, was found dead Wednesday morning in Phoenix.

ktar.com

 

[orchidaceaes]

He pled guilty, and that plea was accepted by the court. He's convicted. All the articles use the word convicted to refer to him.

An example, but one of many:

Arizona father convicted in hot car death found dead

Christopher Scholtes, 38, who pleaded guilty to murder for his 2-year-old daughter's hot car death, was found dead Wednesday morning in Phoenix.

ktar.com

All that says is, and all I can find says, that he accepted the plea deal, not the court. A person can plead guilty but isn't formally convicted until the sentencing. The media uses that language incorrectly all the time.
I found this other article from ABC15, referred to in that article you linked, that says "Even though he had not been formally sentenced, with prison time a certainty, Scholtes was to appear in court to be taken into custody pending the formal sentencing."
Marana man who pleaded guilty in hot car death of 2-year-old girl dies ahead of sentencing
But everything has also been saying that the judge reaffirmed the sentencing date of the 21st. Can he even be sentenced when he's dead?

 

[iamshadow21]

All that says is, and all I can find says, that he accepted the plea deal, not the court. A person can plead guilty but isn't formally convicted until the sentencing. The media uses that language incorrectly all the time.
I found this other article from ABC15, referred to in that article you linked, that says "Even though he had not been formally sentenced, with prison time a certainty, Scholtes was to appear in court to be taken into custody pending the formal sentencing."
Marana man who pleaded guilty in hot car death of 2-year-old girl dies ahead of sentencing
But everything has also been saying that the judge reaffirmed the sentencing date of the 21st. Can he even be sentenced when he's dead?

This isn't true. Someone is convicted when they either plead guilty or are found guilty by a jury or judge at a bench trial. Sentencing comes afterwards.

Conviction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sunspun]

All that says is, and all I can find says, that he accepted the plea deal, not the court. A person can plead guilty but isn't formally convicted until the sentencing. The media uses that language incorrectly all the time.
I found this other article from ABC15, referred to in that article you linked, that says "Even though he had not been formally sentenced, with prison time a certainty, Scholtes was to appear in court to be taken into custody pending the formal sentencing."
Marana man who pleaded guilty in hot car death of 2-year-old girl dies ahead of sentencing
But everything has also been saying that the judge reaffirmed the sentencing date of the 21st. Can he even be sentenced when he's dead?

IANAL, but conviction comes before sentencing (I'm sure you know this) in every case. So during that time in between guilty (whether you plead guilty or are found guilty by a judge or jury) and sentencing, you are already considered a convicted felon (if it's a felony.)

You included this quote: "Even though he had not been formally sentenced, with prison time a certainty, Scholtes was to appear in court to be taken into custody pending the formal sentencing." But that's as it should be, not unusual. It sounds like you're equating sentencing to convicting. True, he had not yet been formally sentenced, but he HAD been formally convicted. Which is why he was headed to sentencing, or should have been.

Did I just confuse things further lol? Sorry if so, I was trying to help but I'm never the best explainer! But hope it helps and if not, hope it's not worse!

 

[tlcya]

IANAL and not familiar with AZ law so this is just my thoughts, hoping one of our verified attorneys might weight in.

I think the judge made sure the sentencing hearing was still on to give both sides a chance to prepare arguments about the "what next" of all of this mess. My google research was less than satisfactory and I don't have time today to try to deep dive AZ law to find specifics of that state.

By him entering the guilty plea and the court accepting it, he was essentially convicted of the crimes he plead guilty to, even though sentencing had yet to take place. Those are two different animals, conviction and sentencing. There are no take backsies from what I understand. but with the defendant now dead, whether or not his conviction is overturned is a mystery to me. Had CS been convicted and died pending appeal, his conviction would be automatically overturned I think (ala Aaron Hernandez). But that isn't the case here. I mean, on the one hand, sentencing would tie things up with a nice neat bow. but you cannot really sentence a dead man to anything.

The answers to "what next" may directly adversely affect his surviving wife and children, particularly in light of the civil suit filed on behalf of his eldest daughter. Her civil case would most surely be bolster by being able to introduce evidence of his criminal conviction for similar abuse/neglect as is being alleged in her suit. If she wins her suit, if could adversely affect her younger siblings financially and their mother's ability to support them.

I am really angry at CS, once again, he escapes accountability, Peter Pan forever, while all of those around him are left holding the proverbial bag of he left behind.

 

[iamshadow21]

IANAL and not familiar with AZ law so this is just my thoughts, hoping one of our verified attorneys might weight in.

I think the judge made sure the sentencing hearing was still on to give both sides a chance to prepare arguments about the "what next" of all of this mess. My google research was less than satisfactory and I don't have time today to try to deep dive AZ law to find specifics of that state.

By him entering the guilty plea and the court accepting it, he was essentially convicted of the crimes he plead guilty to, even though sentencing had yet to take place. Those are two different animals, conviction and sentencing. There are no take backsies from what I understand. but with the defendant now dead, whether or not his conviction is overturned is a mystery to me. Had CS been convicted and died pending appeal, his conviction would be automatically overturned I think (ala Aaron Hernandez). But that isn't the case here. I mean, on the one hand, sentencing would tie things up with a nice neat bow. but you cannot really sentence a dead man to anything.

The answers to "what next" may directly adversely affect his surviving wife and children, particularly in light of the civil suit filed on behalf of his eldest daughter. Her civil case would most surely be bolster by being able to introduce evidence of his criminal conviction for similar abuse/neglect as is being alleged in her suit. If she wins her suit, if could adversely affect her younger siblings financially and their mother's ability to support them.

I am really angry at CS, once again, he escapes accountability, Peter Pan forever, while all of those around him are left holding the proverbial bag of he left behind.

The way it's written, I think the conviction will probably stand. The section labelled B seems pretty unequivocal.

https://law.justia.com/codes/arizona/title-13/section-13-106/