Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: The Schoo Didn't Fit
From: abel@vax.sonoma.edu
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:52:53 -0800
Organization: Sonoma State University

In article <1993Jan8.195056.1277@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, jackie8@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (Jackie Brady) writes:
> In article <29428@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:
>>nance@cbnewsd.cb.att.com (nancy.l.colucci) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> Since this story got nationwide (and probably worldwide) coverage,
>>|> does anyone have any thoughts about what defense a couple could
>>|> come up with for leaving their 9 and 4 year-old at home without
>>|> supervision while they vacationed out of the country?
>>|> 
>>|> It is getting so much coverage from the media (especially right here
>>|> in the area) that every stone they upturn makes the front page.
>>
>>I was in the Chicago area when the case was first discovered, and
>>there certainly was a lot of media coverage, perhaps even too much.
>>Parading the Schoos through O'Hare in handcuffs certainly wasn't
>>called for.
> 
> Nothing against Beth, but I think that they deserved to be handcuffed.
> They went on vacation for a week and left their children under no one's
> care.  Nothing was to stop them from attempting to run away from the
> police's hold.  Having them in handcuffs made it easier for them to
> not run away. I didn't really consider that uncalled for.  They committed
> a criminally negligent act, and therefore should be treated as such.
> 
>>However, I can't think of any defense for leaving a 9 year old and
>>a 4 year old alone for more than an hour (and that would be pushing
>>it), let alone for over a week while they vacationed out of the
>>country.
> 
> There is no defense for that, except stupidity.
> 
>>We (my brothers and I) were latchkey kids, and I suspect my mother
>>left us alone too much and too long, but never overnight.  
> 
> If she did leave you alone during the day, I suppose it was for
> working rather than a weeklong vacation. A different story. :-)
> 
>>One thing I did want to mention is that there are alternatives
>>other than relatives for staying with children when the parents
>>need to be gone.  It is possible to hire a teacher, grad student,
>>or other person to _stay_ with the child.  My mother hired a
>>theology graduate student to stay with us when she was in the
>>hospital for surgery.  Lots of people seem to think that if the
>>grandparents can't do it, then noone can, but there really are
>>other possibilities.
> 
> True, but let's keep in mind that these people *probably* didn't
> look into having some arrangements made. And these parents didn't
> *need* to be gone.  Acapulco? Please. A vacation.  What gets into
> these parents' heads? Let's face it, if they
> would have spent half the energy they used to leave all the written
> instructions for their kids to take care of themselves, to find
> someone to take care of the kids for them, they would have been a
> lot smarter.
> 
> Of course, as always, IMHO. 
> ---

However, the grandparents *offered* to watch the kids, and the 
parents refused!

Supposedly, there is reason behind this apparent madness, but it 
won't come out until the parent's day in court.  I'm anxious to see!

Why am I anxious?  Why is this national news?  What is it about some 
stories that captures the attention of the public, while other 
stories just die?  The Marin Independent Journal, a paper I seldom 
read now that I no longer live in Marin County (just north of San 
Francisco in California), had an article about child neglect, next to 
their article about the Schoo's.  They said that their are several 
hundred cases of child neglect just in Marin County every year, and 
two sililar cases of child abandonment.  One was a mother playing 
tennis at a neighbor's house, and the other a mother who went to San 
Francisco on New Year's eve to celebrate.  In both cases the mother 
were very irate that the authorities had come and taken their kids!