GUILTY NY - Phoenix & Luna Rodriguez, 1, twins, die in hot car, Bronx, 26 July 2019 *No jail*

[Deleted member 39678]

I consider an accident involving a child as being something beyond ones control.

If forgetting that your child is in your car is beyond ones control then that means to me that you may forget other important things involving your child that could be harmful to them.

I posted a link above that said child neglect can include emotional and psychological harm. If a parent forgets a child's birthday or forgets to go to their soccer game is that acceptable if the parent has a busy schedule, and is fatigued?

Does a minor change in daily life like road construction on your normal route that causes detrimental behavior acceptable? JMO

 

[Catmommy]

If you are the cause of someone's death, no matter who they are and no matter your relationship of lack of to them, you are RESPONSIBLE for their demise. It is not legal to kill anybody, take the ONLY thing they actually have, for ANY reason other than to protect oneself from the same Fate. I agree that protecting a loved one should count. The thing is, no matter the why of your actions, there were consequences to your victim and there should be consequences to you. It is NOT okay to be the reason that somebody died. Giving the living all the rights and all the benefits of the doubt could be interpreted as insulting to victims = you are dead, you don't matter so much anymore.

 

[gitana1]

Spoken like a lawyer, oh wait.... I respect the argument, I do, and I do understand where you are coming from. I actually like the Father's defense attorney as well and I believe that this will figure into his defense, rightly so. I, however, feel that NO ONE has more vested interest in keeping a child safe than their parents and they are CHARGED with the duty to do so until the child can care for itself. If the child isn't fed, that's neglect and the parent's fault. If a child isn't kept clean and sheltered, that's neglect and the parent's fault. If the child is in the parent's car, forgotten and left there to die a horrible death that wouldn't have happened had the parent not FORGOTTEN, THAT'S NEGLECT and the parent's fault.

Spoken like a lawyer? I've never defended a criminal in my life except minor appearances like arraignments for my law partner.

You can type in all caps all you want and express how you feel but that doesn't change the law.

Forgetting isn't negligence unless you did something you shouldn't have to cause it. The fact that your child died a horrific death under your care because of a lapse in your cognition doesn't render that lapse criminal negligence just because your child is vulnerable and dependent on you to keep her safe.

There's got to be more. Like giving a baby adult doses of medication because you don't want to take the time to take them to the doctor and feel like it will help.

Or speeding, knowing you're speeding.

"Criminal negligence "requires a defendant to have engaged in some blameworthy conduct creating or contributing to a substantial and unjustifiable risk of a proscribed result; nonperception of a risk, even if the proscribed result occurs, is not enough." People v. Conway, 6 NY3d 869, 849 N.E.2d 954, 816 N.Y.S.2d 731 (2006).

Mere carelessness that results in injury or death is not enough. And here it was a lapse or trick of the mind. Not carelessness. It wasn't like this father didn't take the lives of his kids seriously and decided to take risks because he felt everything would work out.

He literally didn't know what was happening.

 

[gitana1]

I'm sure that's true.

I guess the fact that they are paid to do a responsible job makes "forgetting" an inexcusable act no matter if the circumstances are the same. JMO

You're missing the point. Training makes a person have a higher standard of care. They're expected to know every danger that can occur and safeguard their charges as a result. There's no license necessary to being a parent. There is to providing professional care for children.

That license creates a higher standard of care. They know more and are thus expected to act accordingly.

Here is an example. In this case the director was also the driver and was supposed to keep a log of the kids being transported each day, and failed. They were also supposed to notify DCF if they were engaged in transporting kids as part of the daycare. They didn't, so their transportation standards were not monitored. These were lapses that led to an arrest for child neglect.
Daycare co-owner arrested after 4-month-old left in hot van for hours dies, Florida police say

 

[gitana1]

and is 'forgotten baby syndrome"even a proper medically recognised syndrome, or just something made up to describe events?

It's not a diagnosis and it is not "something made up". It's science.

He has not shown that he had a motive to want his babies dead. No evidence so far of that. So far no evidence that he was under the influence. All accounts are he was a devoted and dedicated father, not a careless one or one who didn't love his children and try to protect them.

So it is logical to assume this phenomena occurred.

Other facts may surface, however, that could change the narrative and point to a lapse due to bad conduct or intent.

We shall see.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

You're missing the point. Training makes a person have a higher standard of care. They're expected to know every danger that can occur and safeguard their charges as a result. There's no license necessary to being a parent. There is to providing professional care for children.

That license creates a higher standard of care. They know more and are thus expected to act accordingly.

Here is an example. In this case the director was also the driver and was supposed to keep a log of the kids being transported each day, and failed. They were also supposed to notify DCF if they were engaged in transporting kids as part of the daycare. They didn't, so their transportation standards were not monitored. These were lapses that led to an arrest for child neglect.
Daycare co-owner arrested after 4-month-old left in hot van for hours dies, Florida police say

So it's not just a matter of forgetting to do the job you're supposed to do, if you have received training then you are held accountable and if you haven't received training you are not held accountable if a child dies when under your care. JMO

 

[gitana1]

I never said anything about bad or good parents, so I'm not sure why you are talking about that...?? People don't have to be terrible to commit negligence. They don't have to be wonderful, not to. This has nothing to do with character.

I don't think his brain failed him. I think his brain was never thinking about his children. His children were clearly not his priority mentally, emotionally, physically that day. To me ( do I need to scream IMO?) that is incredibly negligent. You can be dead tired, unbelievably stressed, ill, crushed by the world...and still make it a point to ensure they safety of your children. Millions and millions of people manage to do so in worse circumstances. You don't have to understand or relate to my opinion. That is not necessary here, or anywhere.

It's not that I don't relate to your opinion. I don't understand your point. Indeed you do seem to be saying he did something wrong and bad and didn't care about his kids. You are apparently saying he cared so little about them that he simply ignored the unmistakable scent of death or diapers. And saw them but ignored their bodies until the moment he decided to acknowledge they were there. Because he's a creep who didn't care about his kids. Even though by all accounts the contrary was true.

None of that makes sense. I understand that it's your opinion. But thus far it's not logical, in MY opinion.

His character and his pattern of parenting are absolutely at issue. Those pretty much always are when it comes to whether someone is likely to be culpable of a crime involving their kids or not.

Yes, seemingly good parents and good people can suddenly commit a crime and murder their kids, for example, and no one saw it coming (Chris Watts).

But that's usually about intent. When it comes to actual negligence or recklessness, to determine whether a parent was reckless or negligent patterns are typically studied. Was there evidence of a lack of care previously. Or did something suddenly change in the parents' life to indicate they went on a downward slide of drugs or alcohol abuse. Etc.

Accidents that cause the death of a child are not negligence unless they were caused by somehing the parent did or didn't do. Not somehing the parent thought or didn't think.

"Forgetting" isn't the something. It would be doing drugs which caused them to forget. Or knowing they have a memory issue and failing to take safeguards as a result. That kind of thing.

I quoted actual NY state law above. Even carelessness that causes harm isn't enough to show criminal negligence. There has to be more.

 

[gitana1]

I remember during the Ross Harris case that many members insisted that he was guilty because he would have noticed a strong smell when he opened the car door at lunch. JMO

No. Many members insisted he was guilty due to a combination of evidence that cumulatively demonstrated his guilt. Safeguard wasn't one of them.

 

[gitana1]

We have no report either of the Father taking an alcohol/drug test and/or passing/failing one. Had he taken one and passed, I think we would have heard about that. I truly don't know and I AM NOT ACCUSING. It's one of those things we'll never know but it may have helped one way of the other if he had, especially in his defense.

And why did he just pull over when he did realize? Why not drive them back to the VA hospital? They WILL provide emergency services in an emergency situation, especially one of children's life or death.

Well if they knew he was loaded wouldn't we would've heard that by now too? I think we just don't have that info and can't tell either way. But it will be hard to tell if he was drunk at 7 in the morning unless he was really drunk because it was hours later when he would've been tested. As to drugs it would be hard to detect levels that suggest when a drug was taken.

As to the hospital, honestly? He just found his kids' corpses in the car. I doubt at that moment he was clearly thinking, "Hmm. Well the hospital is a block or away. Let me get back in the car and drive over there where there might be quicker help."

I assume he was out of his mind at that moment. I think any normal parent would be.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No. Many members insisted he was guilty due to a combination of evidence that cumulatively demonstrated his guilt. Safeguard wasn't one of them.

Yes.

I'm not trying to claim that members only used one factor to come to a conclusion in that case.

I just brought one of them up in my post.

 

[gitana1]

What is criminal negligence?



In my opinion Rodriguez should have been aware of the risk of death to his children if left in the car all day.

I guess the question is why he would not be aware of the risk and does the answer to that question absolve him of criminal conduct. JMO

What is criminal negligence?

I think if there's evidence that he was aware of the risk of forgetting his kid in the car then he's guilty of criminal negligence. Clearly most people here think that would never happen to them though so if he was like many of you, he wasn't aware of a risk and unless he was educated as to how it can happen to him, he should not have been expected to be aware.

Here's an example from your link:

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IN REAL LIFE
Emily has an eight-month-old daughter named Taylor. Hank moves in with Emily, Taylor, and Taylor’s siblings in their California home. One day, Hank offers to care for Taylor while Emily goes to work. When Emily returns, Taylor is screaming and seriously burned on her bottom and side. Hank says that he gave her a bath, but the water got too hot.

A couple months later, Taylor’s arm breaks when Hank tries to pull her from Emily’s arms. A month after that, Taylor receives a black eye while in Hank’s care. At another point, he screams in her face while she is crying. Emily confides in friends that she, Taylor, and her other children are afraid of Hank, and that she is considering leaving him. Her friends tell her that she shouldn’t be entrusting Taylor’s care to Hank.

Taylor eventually dies from severe beating and shaking injuries suffered while in Hank’s care. Medical examination shows that Taylor also had preexisting injuries from other incidents of abuse. Prosecutors charge Hank for Taylor’s death. They also charge Emily with felony child endangerment, a crime in California that can be committed through criminal negligence.

Although Emily never directly injured Taylor, a jury convicts her and an appellate court upholds her conviction. The court explains that a jury could have reasonably determined that Emily satisfied the criminal negligence standard, described as “aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless conduct that is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful person under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life.” The court explains that criminal negligence occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have been aware of the relevant risk, and that a jury could have considered the risk to Taylor obvious. (People v. Valdez, 27 Cal. 4th 778 (2002).)

I don't see the comparison. In the Harris case I would because he had so much recent knowledge and actually employed the "look back" technique. Of course I think he also intended to murder his kid though.

ETA: The BBM really defines it.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think if there's evidence that he was aware of the risk of forgetting his kid in the car then he's guilty of criminal negligence. Clearly most people here think that would never happen to them though so if he was like many of you, he wasn't aware of a risk and unless he was educated as to how it can happen to him, he should not have been expected to be aware.

Here's an example from your link:

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IN REAL LIFE
Emily has an eight-month-old daughter named Taylor. Hank moves in with Emily, Taylor, and Taylor’s siblings in their California home. One day, Hank offers to care for Taylor while Emily goes to work. When Emily returns, Taylor is screaming and seriously burned on her bottom and side. Hank says that he gave her a bath, but the water got too hot.

A couple months later, Taylor’s arm breaks when Hank tries to pull her from Emily’s arms. A month after that, Taylor receives a black eye while in Hank’s care. At another point, he screams in her face while she is crying. Emily confides in friends that she, Taylor, and her other children are afraid of Hank, and that she is considering leaving him. Her friends tell her that she shouldn’t be entrusting Taylor’s care to Hank.

Taylor eventually dies from severe beating and shaking injuries suffered while in Hank’s care. Medical examination shows that Taylor also had preexisting injuries from other incidents of abuse. Prosecutors charge Hank for Taylor’s death. They also charge Emily with felony child endangerment, a crime in California that can be committed through criminal negligence.

Although Emily never directly injured Taylor, a jury convicts her and an appellate court upholds her conviction. The court explains that a jury could have reasonably determined that Emily satisfied the criminal negligence standard, described as “aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless conduct that is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful person under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life.” The court explains that criminal negligence occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have been aware of the relevant risk, and that a jury could have considered the risk to Taylor obvious. (People v. Valdez, 27 Cal. 4th 778 (2002).)

I don't see the comparison. In the Harris case I would because he had so much recent knowledge and actually employed the "look back" technique. Of course I think he also intended to murder his kid though.

So all the State has to do to prove Rodriguez is guilty of child neglect is to convince a jury that he would be aware that leaving his twins in a hot car all day would harm or kill them. JMO

 

[Safeguard]

No. Many members insisted he was guilty due to a combination of evidence that cumulatively demonstrated his guilt. Safeguard wasn't one of them.

I think the point RANCH was making was many people felt there was an oder Ross should have noticed and many did say that. (And added it to their list of reasons they thought he was guilty of premeditated murder) .

I don't believe RANCH was claiming it was the only reason. But I see the point you wanted to make.

You dont see how anyone could come to any other conclusion about Ross Haris being guilty beyond doubt of Murder 1. And that's what people in this thread are doing.

Dead kid=Bad parent.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I think if there's evidence that he was aware of the risk of forgetting his kid in the car then he's guilty of criminal negligence. Clearly most people here think that would never happen to them though so if he was like many of you, he wasn't aware of a risk and unless he was educated as to how it can happen to him, he should not have been expected to be aware.

Here's an example from your link:

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IN REAL LIFE
Emily has an eight-month-old daughter named Taylor. Hank moves in with Emily, Taylor, and Taylor’s siblings in their California home. One day, Hank offers to care for Taylor while Emily goes to work. When Emily returns, Taylor is screaming and seriously burned on her bottom and side. Hank says that he gave her a bath, but the water got too hot.

A couple months later, Taylor’s arm breaks when Hank tries to pull her from Emily’s arms. A month after that, Taylor receives a black eye while in Hank’s care. At another point, he screams in her face while she is crying. Emily confides in friends that she, Taylor, and her other children are afraid of Hank, and that she is considering leaving him. Her friends tell her that she shouldn’t be entrusting Taylor’s care to Hank.

Taylor eventually dies from severe beating and shaking injuries suffered while in Hank’s care. Medical examination shows that Taylor also had preexisting injuries from other incidents of abuse. Prosecutors charge Hank for Taylor’s death. They also charge Emily with felony child endangerment, a crime in California that can be committed through criminal negligence.

Although Emily never directly injured Taylor, a jury convicts her and an appellate court upholds her conviction. The court explains that a jury could have reasonably determined that Emily satisfied the criminal negligence standard, described as “aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless conduct that is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful person under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life.” The court explains that criminal negligence occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have been aware of the relevant risk, and that a jury could have considered the risk to Taylor obvious. (People v. Valdez, 27 Cal. 4th 778 (2002).)

I don't see the comparison. In the Harris case I would because he had so much recent knowledge and actually employed the "look back" technique. Of course I think he also intended to murder his kid though.

ETA: The BBM really defines it.

To reply to the part that you bolded I would say that the conduct of an ordinarily or careful person under the same circumstances as this case would be to not forget their child in the car for an entire day. JMO

 

[gitana1]

So all the State has to do to prove Rodriguez is guilty of child neglect is to convince a jury that he would be aware that leaving his twins in a hot car all day would harm or kill them. JMO

No. I disagree. Of course everyone is aware of that. The state has to show he was aware that it would be easy for him to forget, that he could forget and that he failed to do something to prevent that from happening, IMO.

It's very clear from the example directly from your link. The mother knew her boyfriend was angry and that the baby had been harmed in his care. She then intentionally left the baby in his care.

An analogy would be if Rodriguez knew the car would be a dangerous place for the kids and intentionally left them in the car anyhow hoping everything would work out.

That's the equivalent. Not forgetting altogether.

If the mother in the above case mistakenly thought she dropped her baby off at daycare but suffered a glitch and accidentally left the child with her abusive boyfriend, it is unlikely she would have been charged.

Mens rea is present in the first scenario but not the last. In the first she knew she shouldn't leave her vulnerable child in a dangerous situation, but did so purposefully, anyway.

In the second she knew she shouldn't leave her vulnerable child in a dangerous situation and didn't do so on purpose.

 

[mickey2942]

To reply to the part that you bolded I would say that the conduct of an ordinarily or careful person under the same circumstances as this case would not forget their child in the car for an entire day. JMO

It would be interesting to see the data on hot car deaths, who was charged, their ethnicity, age, sex, what they did when the children were in the car. And how often they were responsible for the children.

I guess that I just don't get "it". As a Mother, I was 100% responsible for taking my children to daycare and off to work. My husband never did it, ever. He had a federal car issued to him, so the kids couldn't be transported in his car. I read somewhere that women are genetically engineered to be "multi-taskers", we can think of about 10 different things at the same time. Men, who were traditionally "hunters", learned to focus on ONE task, with single minded tenacity, not necessarily "multi-task" orientation. That could possibly explain why Rodriguez left his children in the car.

Women 'better multitaskers' than men

 

[Deleted member 39678]

No. I disagree. Of course everyone is aware of that. The state has to show he was aware that it would be easy for him to forget, that he could forget and that he failed to do something to prevent that from happening, IMO.

SBM

So you're saying the State has to prove that the defendant knew that forgetfulness that could lead to his children's death can happen with little difficulty and he also didn't do anything to prevent that memory problem from happening.

If the State can not prove those facts then they don't have a criminal case.

 

[Safeguard]

SBM

So you're saying the State has to prove that the defendant knew that forgetfulness that could lead to his children's death can happen with little difficulty and he also didn't do anything to prevent that memory problem from happening.

If the State can not prove those facts then they don't have a criminal case.

I don't think anyone in this day and age, can claim to be unaware that Hot Car deaths are a "thing" that does happen.

No adult I know of is not "educated" about the danger of forgetting a kid (or a pet) in a hot car.

The real danger is in the belief of those that feel it will never happen to them.

 

[gitana1]

SBM

So you're saying the State has to prove that the defendant knew that forgetfulness that could lead to his children's death can happen with little difficulty and he also didn't do anything to prevent that memory problem from happening.

If the State can not prove those facts then they don't have a criminal case.

I think they either have to prove that he knew this could be an issue for him due to drug use or established memory problems or due to a good education as to hot car deaths, knew what protections to take (not do drugs, not drunk, or use an alarm to remind him), and chose not to take those protections, that would be one way the state could prove it, OR, that he knew the kids were in the car but felt it would probably work out. And he recklessly left them.

So the kind of scenario like he was super late and missed the turn off due to construction. So he decided "I will bring them to work and leave them in the car in the shade for an hour and a half. It's morning. Should be okay. On my break I will sneak out and take them to daycare." And THEN he forgets to go back. Because it's the act of leaving them to begin with that's the issue in that second scenario.

What I'm seeing is for criminally negligent homicide there has to be the "mens rea" that the person was doing something they shouldn't. Like "I know I should not be speeding but I'm late." "I know I shouldn't do heroin while I'm watching my kid but I really need it." "I know I shouldn't leave my kids alone but if I lock the doors and come back in an hour they should be okay." "I know I shouldn't leave my kid with a violent man I'm afraid of who has harmed my baby before but I really don't want to get a sitter."

So they're aware of some wrongdoing on their part but do it anyhow. But don't intend harm to come from it.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

If Rodriguez is prosecuted for some level of crime in this case it would seem to me that this would be a wake up call to all parents of small children that you will be punished in some way by the State if your actions result in the death of your child.

If it becomes the norm that there's no consequences for failing to provide for your children no matter what, then it stands to reason that it may happen more often. JMO

I actually disagree. People don't forget their kids in the car because they think they can get away with it! (intentional acts aside)

In my opinion, everyone knows there is a physical risk but people think forgetting only happens to bad people and they are not bad and therefore it won't happen to them.

Therefore IMO the best way to reduce these instances would be an education campaign showing how it can happen to even the most loving and well-intentioned parent. How our brains can sometimes trigger forgetting even against our wishes/awareness.

Once people realize that it's not something that only happens to bad parents, ie that it CAN happen to them, then I think many/most parents would then be open to the various kinds of reminders/gadgets discussed earlier in the thread. Or even just setting up their own habit of, for example, the kind of post-trip visual sweep of vehicle that might be part of a daycare worker's or school bus driver's protocol.

Do any of us ever make a regular check that we've turned off the stove or locked the door or whatever? Yes, some people do this, because those people have accepted the truth that they are vulnerable to making this mistake. They don't think "only horrible people forget those things" -- they realize that perfectly good people, including themselves, can sometimes be vulnerable to forgetting or overlooking things -- even super-important things with really bad consequences. So they find some reminder tool, or checking habit, or whatever works for them, to reduce that risk.

If people could just stop vilifying others, they could accept that they too are at risk and would benefit from a safeguard.

MOO