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

[gitana1]

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.

Well sort of. I do think there's a reason Ray Ray's parents are campaigning for hospitals to educate parents about the danger, while in the hospital, as they do other issues.

People hear about these cases and think, "These are terrible parents. I would never and could never do that." Without being educated that it can happen to the best of parents and being educated on implementing safeguards like alarms or daycare call policies, that attitude can be catastrophic. They don't feel they need to implement such measures because only bad parents who don't care about their kids allow this to happen.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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 criminal 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.

Thanks for your reply, it makes a lot of sense.

What about a child neglect charge? Do you think that would be appropriate in this case?

 

[Safeguard]

I was thinking...
I kinda like the idea of calling someone every morning, as you are dropping the kids off. "Hey I'm at the daycare, (or wherever), dropping off now!" and if your designated Call Partner doesn't hear from you, they can alert people.

Might not be practical for everyone and a bit of a pain I suppose. But I do think it's a good idea anyway...

 

[Deleted member 39678]

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

If people can easily forget or get habituated to the point that they can forget their precious children in a car then I feel that they will get habituated to alarms going off to remind them that their kid is in the back seat.

Eventually the sounds will become background noise and the brain will tell the parent to ignore it. JMO

 

[gitana1]

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

But people are convicted for hot car deaths and it hasn't changed anything. Do you believe this happens to parents because they think, "well no one faces consequences so I'm not going to take precautions"?

We live in an age where two things are different compared to before we saw a steep rise in these deaths:

1. Rear facing car seats.
2. More homes where parents share child care responsibilities and switch off.

The latter can lead to confusion. The former can lead to simply not seeing the child.

A couple friends of mine who just had a little one five months ago put a mirror facing their baby's face which they see every time they looo in the rear view mirror.

That's the kind of simple thing that when implemented can prevent this.

They didn't do it so that they wouldn't forget him. They did it because they want to see if he's sleeping, choking, listening, whatever.

But I realized how it can help prevent such a death.

I'll tell you what: I know what I will be getting people for their baby showers now - those alarms and mirrors.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

If people can easily forget or get habituated to the point that they can forget their precious children in a car then I feel that they will get habituated to alarms going off to remind them that their kid is in the back seat.

Eventually the sounds will become background noise and the brain will tell the parent to ignore it. JMO

Of course possible, but it can't hurt. And if a person isn't doing it grudgingly but using it as a tool then I feel it's less likely to be ignored.

Personally I agree to the extent that I wouldn't want an alarm that goes off every time (a la those "look in the back seat" lights that were mentioned earlier.) For myself, I'd arrange one that only goes off if I have indeed forgotten. (I like the idea I mentioned upthread of a two-part gizmo, one part on the keyring and one part on the carseat, and it alarms if the two parts get 100 feet apart while the carseat straps are closed.)

ETA: new idea -- how about a baby monitor speaker on the keyring, with the receiver at the carseat, so that cries from the car can be heard at the keys?

 

[gitana1]

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

The training creates a higher level of care. But I think so would being specifically educated about it and understanding it can happen to you. Which is why if Ross Harris didn't intend to kill his kid he would still be guilty of negligent homicide because he had just watched a video on how long it takes for a dog to die in a hot car and he watched a speech by a dad whose kid died as part of an educational "look back" campaign and he said he always looked back because "this was my worst fear".

I think if hospitals routinely educated new parents and have them a packet of info including exactly what to do to prevent it but a bunch of sanctimommies smugly refused to take those measures because "only a negligent parent could possibly forget their child", the deaths of the kids of those sanctimommies or daddies would be fair game for prosecution. They were educated this should have known and refused to take what would then be common measures.

In the old days people didn't use rear facing car seats. Were they negligent? They didn't use seat belts for the kids. Negligent? They put their kids to sleep on their stomachs. Negligent? They didn't make them swim with water wings or life preservers. Negligent?

No. Until we learned how to do things differently and were taught, no parent was jailed for accidents that led to death as a result of their failure to do those things or for the things they did, because no one knew those failures or those things were wrong or necessary or whatever.

So if it became common knowledge through hospital education and other campaigns that even the best parents can somehow forget (which is admittedly hard for me to understand), and that we must take safeguards to prevent it, and smug parents refused because like so many here they felt they could never forget their kid is with them, then I would agree that it's negligence.

Ironically, it would be the most judgmental who would be more prone to have this happen to them.

 

[mickey2942]

Should people be prosecuted for "forgetfulness"? No.

Should people who left their children in a hot car to die be completely and throughly investigated? Yes. And if the investigation shows any sort of evidence or intent, that needs further review.

For example, Harris comes to mind, he was investigated by LEO, and it was found that he sexted young women. That is not illegal, as long as they are over age 18. Nor does the fact that he was involved with other women make him a killer. But, the correlation that he also investigated "baby car deaths" does provide evidence that this was not a random occurrence.

I don't like the fact that Rodriguez pled "Not Guilty" for the death of his children. He is "Guilty". But it is obvious that he doesn't want to own that fact, legally. It seems to be a moral issue to me.

 

[gitana1]

Thanks for your reply, it makes a lot of sense.

What about a child neglect charge? Do you think that would be appropriate in this case?

I need to know more. If it was just a matter of forgetting due to a glitch I don't think it fits child endangerment which is one of the charges.

I think we will have to see what comes out.

Child neglect that results in homicide is criminally negligent homicide. So it maybe wouldn't be reduced to child neglect because that's a lease included.

I want to hear more about the circumstances and what he knew. What he did or didn't do. Why. His patterns. I'm thinking the state is looking into all of that including his toxicology. If there is a hint of drugs or alcohol in his blood stream that would be super bad for him.

 

[gitana1]

I was thinking...
I kinda like the idea of calling someone every morning, as you are dropping the kids off. "Hey I'm at the daycare, (or wherever), dropping off now!" and if your designated Call Partner doesn't hear from you, they can alert people.

Might not be practical for everyone and a bit of a pain I suppose. But I do think it's a good idea anyway...

Maybe good. People are talking about how many daycares now have a policy of calling if the kid doesn't show and there was no notice that the kid wasn't coming. I like that too.

I will say that stay at home parents don't seem to have this issue. Their kid is with them. That's it.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

But people are convicted for hot car deaths and it hasn't changed anything. Do you believe this happens to parents because they think, "well no one faces consequences so I'm not going to take precautions"?

We live in an age where two things are different compared to before we saw a steep rise in these deaths:

1. Rear facing car seats.
2. More homes where parents share child care responsibilities and switch off.

The latter can lead to confusion. The former can lead to simply not seeing the child.

A couple friends of mine who just had a little one five months ago put a mirror facing their baby's face which they see every time they looo in the rear view mirror.

That's the kind of simple thing that when implemented can prevent this.

They didn't do it so that they wouldn't forget him. They did it because they want to see if he's sleeping, choking, listening, whatever.

But I realized how it can help prevent such a death.

I'll tell you what: I know what I will be getting people for their baby showers now - those alarms and mirrors.

I'm talking about greater awareness.

Public knowledge about the consequences of parents actions may have a greater impact than the knowledge that their is no consequence for allowing your child to die. JMO

 

[Safeguard]

Maybe good. People are talking about how many daycares now have a policy of calling if the kid doesn't show and there was no notice that the kid wasn't coming. I like that too.

I will say that stay at home parents don't seem to have this issue. Their kid is with them. That's it.

I was thinking the difference is in the parent having to actively make that call... as I have sometime missed the robo call from my kids school, that they make every time a child is absent.

Many times I have somehow accidentally turned off the volume on my cell, just handling my phone (side buttons uhg!).

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Of course possible, but it can't hurt. And if a person isn't doing it grudgingly but using it as a tool then I feel it's less likely to be ignored.

Personally I agree to the extent that I wouldn't want an alarm that goes off every time (a la those "look in the back seat" lights that were mentioned earlier.) For myself, I'd arrange one that only goes off if I have indeed forgotten. (I like the idea I mentioned upthread of a two-part gizmo, one part on the keyring and one part on the carseat, and it alarms if the two parts get 100 feet apart while the carseat straps are closed.)

ETA: new idea -- how about a baby monitor speaker on the keyring, with the receiver at the carseat, so that cries from the car can be heard at the keys?

In my opinion the more complicated you make the alarm the more likely it will not work.

 

[Auntie Cipation]

In my opinion the more complicated you make the alarm the more likely it will not work.

I agree. And while I'm pondering various ideas that may or may not be complex in design, nothing I'm suggesting would be complicated to use.

But as mentioned, I think anything that reminds you *even when you don't need reminding* is going to become normalized after we've heard it a thousand times when it was ok to disregard. I think it has to be something where either we force ourselves to eyeball the carseat every single time as habit (visual sweep or keeping wallet in back etc) or we have some alarm that kicks in only when needed, so that it signifies "I actually did forget!" Then the sound triggers a sensation of alarm, as intended, and never a "oh, that annoying thing again, it's ok to turn it off because it doesn't apply this trip"

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I was thinking the difference is in the parent having to actively make that call... as I have sometime missed the robo call from my kids school, that they make every time a child is absent.

Many times I have somehow accidentally turned off the volume on my cell, just handling my phone (side buttons uhg!).

Yes I agree .

I wonder what will happen when a child care facility is sued for a major amount of money when they fail to call a parent as promised who forgets to drop their child off and that child dies in the parents car?

Will that cause the liability insurance rates to go sky high for these business's?

If so the business will have to pass that cost on to the children's parents.That could cause lower income families to be priced out of that service.

Maybe the child care companies will have to require parents to sign waivers so that they wont be held legally responsible for the deaths of children that are not in their direct care. JMO

 

[MyBelle]

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.

BBM. The Iowa judge in the Clare Enholm death agreed with you. The circumstances to that case and this one are very similar. Small town hospital CEO mom, Kari was facing a busy day of important meetings. Kari was running late and she dropped off 3-yo son at daycare and then her brain turned on its "auto pilot" and she drove directly to the hospital, parked and started her day. Keep in mind this was a small, Iowa town and there was not a great distance involved but Kari usually dropped off Clare first. She changed her routine that day and her routine was to drop off her son and go directly to the hospital.

When the work day ended, Kari drove directly to the daycare to pick up her son. She noticed Clare as she was placing her son in the van and she became hysterical. She was charged and chose to have a bench trial. The judge decided Kari did not consciously decide to forget Clare so she didn't recklessly disregard her safety.

The prosecutor was incensed at the verdict and public opinion went wild but at least Mom was charged. The court process worked in her favor. Another judge--or a jury--may have reached an entirely different verdict.

The question I have in this case is the same one I had in the Harris case--was the family so strapped for cash they decided to intentionally leave the children in the car to save on daycare?

JMO

 

[Safeguard]

was the family so strapped for cash they decided to intentionally leave the children in the car to save on daycare?

rsbm
By all acounts, No. They had in fact, just thrown a rather elaborate 1st. birthday party for the twins. So far, I see zero motive for murder.

 

[MyBelle]

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

My husband and I had careers which sometimes required us to travel on business so we would have to adjust our routine. Parents have to multitask.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Yes I agree .

I wonder what will happen when a child care facility is sued for a major amount of money when they fail to call a parent as promised who forgets to drop their child off and that child dies in the parents car?

Will that cause the liability insurance rates to go sky high for these business's?

If so the business will have to pass that cost on to the children's parents.That could cause lower income families to be priced out of that service.

Maybe the child care companies will have to require parents to sign waivers so that they wont be held legally responsible for the deaths of children that are not in their direct care. JMO

Most child care centers do have signed agreements with parents. But I think from a liability standpoint, it is the parent who is responsible for the child outside of the facility's premises.

JMO

 

[Safeguard]

I think this was a loving dedicated dad from a very close knit family, working hard, no doubt tired, and I hope he catches the same break Cruise Ship Grandpa got. (That case is the real head scratcher! imo)