The childcare arrangements or lack of them reviewed.

[John]

Introduced from another thread.

snip

... I suspected at the time it, when all other information became known, that it was to protect their reputation and to prevent being charged with child abandonment- to save face etc.

There was indeed a great fear among some members of the tapas 9 in the beginning that their parenting methods would come under intense scrutiny and possibly even attract charges of a sort.  In the event we all know what happened with that particular dragon being well and truly put to bed.

28

[Benice]

There was indeed a great fear among some members of the tapas 9 in the beginning that their parenting methods would come under intense scrutiny and possibly even attract charges of a sort.  In the event we all know what happened with that particular dragon being well and truly put to bed.

I don't think that even entered their heads John -  as they all knew that Mark Warner was a company which offered the Listening Service as some had used it before  - and when they realised it wasn't offered at that site - they simply decided to mirror it themselves.     If it's legal for MW to do  - then obviously  it's legal for the parents.    In fact the group's method was superior IMO as they could actually go into the apartments rather than just listen at doors.

Almost the first thing the group did was to write down their child checking times which they handed to  the police.   That doesn't sound to me like people who were worried that they had done something illegal.

[John]

I don't think that even entered their heads John -  as they all knew that Mark Warner was a company which offered the Listening Service as some had used it before  - and when they realised it wasn't offered at that site - they simply decided to mirror it themselves.     If it's legal for MW to do  - then obviously  it's legal for the parents.    In fact the group's method was superior IMO as they could actually go into the apartments rather than just listen at doors.

Almost the first thing the group did was to write down their child checking times which they handed to  the police.   That doesn't sound to me like people who were worried that they had done something illegal.

I don't agree Benice, they were very publicly ridiculed and vilified from the outset over their child-care arrangements.  It is well documented that the Portuguese police considered whether neglect charges should be brought against them but in the end the absence of intent decided it.  According to the PJ report they were negligent in their duty of care towards a minor but since it wasn't intentional they weren't prosecuted.

And you would have us believe that didn't concern them?

[ShiningInLuz]

I don't think that even entered their heads John -  as they all knew that Mark Warner was a company which offered the Listening Service as some had used it before  - and when they realised it wasn't offered at that site - they simply decided to mirror it themselves.     If it's legal for MW to do  - then obviously  it's legal for the parents.    In fact the group's method was superior IMO as they could actually go into the apartments rather than just listen at doors.

Almost the first thing the group did was to write down their child checking times which they handed to  the police.   That doesn't sound to me like people who were worried that they had done something illegal.

I go the opposite way.  If the priority was writing down the child checking times, I'd wonder why.  To me, it sounds like worried people.  Please note, I did say TO ME.

[Benice]

I don't agree Benice, they were very publicly ridiculed and vilified from the outset over their child-care arrangements.  It is well documented that the Portuguese police considered whether neglect charges should be brought against them but in the end the absence of intent decided it.  According to the PJ report they were negligent in their duty of care towards a minor but since it wasn't intentional they weren't prosecuted.

And you would have us believe that didn't concern them?

Why should they be concerned - they hadn't broken any laws - as confirmed by the Portuguese AG. 

 As I said before -  if it was legal for Mark Warner and other companies, hoteliers etc etc to operate the listening service, then how can it be illegal for the actual parents to do the same thing ?     If it was illegal then every other parent who has done the same either by signing up for the service, or providing it themselves must all be guilty.    That's thousands and thousands of people we are talking about - not to mention those parents who still do the same (but only on holiday) and those who use baby alarms (but only on holiday) when they leave their children asleep and go to dinner.

For some reason (which I find unfathomable) these childcare arrangements are obviously legally acceptable in the Holiday/Tourism business. - whereas if parents did the same at home - it would be severely frowned upon.

The practice should be banned IMO.


   

[Benice]

I go the opposite way.  If the priority was writing down the child checking times, I'd wonder why.  To me, it sounds like worried people.  Please note, I did say TO ME.

IIRC one reason was to get the times down before they forgot them and when they did hand it to the police officer who was there with them -  he apparently said .... 'That's what we want' - or words to that effect.  (from memory).

[pathfinder73]

Leaving 3 very young children in an unsecured apartment isn't intentional? Personally there's no excuse for that abnormal behaviour in light of what happened. It's amazing how many of these unsolved cases had unlocked doors - Sabrina Aisenberg, Eloise Worledge.

[Brietta]

Leaving 3 very young children in an unsecured apartment isn't intentional? Personally there's no excuse for that abnormal behaviour in light of what happened. It's amazing how many of these unsolved cases had unlocked doors - Sabrina Aisenberg, Eloise Worledge.

"Personally there's no excuse for that abnormal behaviour in light of what happened."  Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?

Two year old Lyndon Albers was seen by her parents appx 3.00am who reported her missing at 7.00am. That puts them right in the frame as far as opportunity and the last to see Lyndon goes.

Thankfully she was found before she could be subject to more harm, but if that had not happened and a cadaver dog had alerted in her bedroom to whatever??, I think her parents could well have been subjected to traumatic court appearances.  Certainly the police chief was leaving nothing to chance.

The first thing the police chief did was get a search warrant for the house which was treated as a crime scene.  That was at a time when the "crime was unknown" ... but it was known that a child was missing.
What wasn't known was if she left the house of her own volition or if she had been abducted.

I find it interesting that the report states that the abduction was not a random crime and further investigation is continuing ... it will be interesting to see what the evidence turns up.

However despite the trauma to their child and the trauma of her abduction at least Lyndon's parents have been spared the maelstrom Madeleine McCann's parents have been subjected to.  But for Mr and Mrs Crosby the situation could have been so different.

[mercury]

Leaving 3 very young children in an unsecured apartment isn't intentional? Personally there's no excuse for that abnormal behaviour in light of what happened. It's amazing how many of these unsolved cases had unlocked doors - Sabrina Aisenberg, Eloise Worledge.

Good spot.

Re the "intent" , even though they took a risk IMO, there was no intent to harm, so not  culpable in Portuguese law...English law may well have been alot different

Maybe someone knows the answer to the question, why people are happy to do the home alone thing abroad but not at home

Odd

IMHO

I also watched the documentary where Gerry Mccann said his wife was always overprotective and he was more laissez faire with the kids, and after the abduction it changed for him, ....if leaving three toddlers alone out of sight and hearing with unlocked door is overprotective then not sure what not just normally protective could mean!!


 &%+((£

The staging article is very fascinating, thanks LP

[Miss Taken Identity]

I go the opposite way.  If the priority was writing down the child checking times, I'd wonder why.  To me, it sounds like worried people.  Please note, I did say TO ME.

And me and many,many other people. The reasons being; there wasn't any organised times or schedules that they stuck to. In fact it was all very ad hoc .as and when. 'what ever' attitude.  They did manage to rearrange the time line, which was good luck, and they almost had us believing there was an abduction done within minutes of these so called 'checking' episodes. They had it so tight unbelievable was soon discarded to scientifically proved bloody impossible. (man/men jemmying a window- grabs child- gets out without leaving a trace)..and she slept right through all that?

On two points.

Re parents not breaking the law- well how smug are they? all happy to say it wasn't their fault, they committed no crime... blah blah

Re "In fact the group's method was superior IMO as they could actually go into the apartments rather than just listen at doors".  So  Superior their daughter 'disappeared' ,how many 'abductions'  under the far less superior 'listening' services ? do we have data?
Well of course we don't have data the parents said they felt it safe, what do they know as intelligent doctors mmm

Well that quote can go down as one of those quotes which deem to deflect responsibility.  It is  right up there with Maddie came to no harm.

[mercury]

Mistaken, I dont know what the other Tapas group did but the Mccanns checking was NOT superior by going into the apartment  seeing as they they only went in to do an auditory and NOT physical check

[John]

Why should they be concerned - they hadn't broken any laws - as confirmed by the Portuguese AG. 

 As I said before -  if it was legal for Mark Warner and other companies, hoteliers etc etc to operate the listening service, then how can it be illegal for the actual parents to do the same thing ?     If it was illegal then every other parent who has done the same either by signing up for the service, or providing it themselves must all be guilty.    That's thousands and thousands of people we are talking about - not to mention those parents who still do the same (but only on holiday) and those who use baby alarms (but only on holiday) when they leave their children asleep and go to dinner.

For some reason (which I find unfathomable) these childcare arrangements are obviously legally acceptable in the Holiday/Tourism business. - whereas if parents did the same at home - it would be severely frowned upon.

The practice should be banned IMO.

Sorry for not replying sooner Benice.

The question of breaking any laws was not determined until several months after Madeleine disappeared if I recall correctly and as I previously posted, it was only then determined by the Attorney General in his Archive Report.  During that period the uncertainty of what was about to happen must have been extremely concerning for Madeleine's parents since a child neglect related conviction would have destroyed their careers back in the UK.  My personal view is that they were extremely lucky to get away with a social workers review of their circumstances.

[mercury]

no brainer
Nearest barrister near the fund...sorted

[Alice Purjorick]

Why should they be concerned - they hadn't broken any laws - as confirmed by the Portuguese AG. 

 As I said before -  if it was legal for Mark Warner and other companies, hoteliers etc etc to operate the listening service, then how can it be illegal for the actual parents to do the same thing ?     If it was illegal then every other parent who has done the same either by signing up for the service, or providing it themselves must all be guilty.    That's thousands and thousands of people we are talking about - not to mention those parents who still do the same (but only on holiday) and those who use baby alarms (but only on holiday) when they leave their children asleep and go to dinner.

For some reason (which I find unfathomable) these childcare arrangements are obviously legally acceptable in the Holiday/Tourism business. - whereas if parents did the same at home - it would be severely frowned upon.

The practice should be banned IMO.

It is not just a matter of local law and the efficacy of baby listening services. It is a matter of what one finds acceptable regardless of where one is geographically although that will have an effect on ones decision making process. Also potential repercussions under the laws of ones own country should things go wrong will need to be considered.
But, pretty much as I posted elsewhere on this topic, here is the problem.
"Maintain the safety of your child(ren) for a period of three hours in a foreign country where your apartment is not in a secure building or compound and may be accessed from public highways on two sides".
You may also wish to have a meal within the specified time frame.
Sort out a solution with which you will be content. The solution selection process also should include what price you are prepared to pay should your decision go belly up.
I can imagine people being apprehensive under the circumstances of this case particularly as at face value the attitude seems to have been "oh well we will probably get away with it".

[pathfinder73]

An inconsistency from witness Fiona Payne who knows Kate the best out of their group of friends about leaving the apartment unsecured.

"I mean, I was a bit surprised, I mean, Kate, you were asking about what they're like as parents, and they're certainly not, erm, paranoid parents, what I would call paranoid parents, you know, but they're very, very careful parents. Erm, you know, I've got friends who are very laid back and, you know, I wouldn't be surprised, erm, for them to feel happy doing that sort of thing. But it did surprise me a bit with Kate, because I think, you know, she is, between her and Gerry, they are very different, she is very cautious, Gerry, erm, you know, is probably more sort of happy to, tut, relax and go with the flow and that sort of thing, Kate is very, very much more cautious. So, you know, I think, as I said earlier, I think that was something she wasn't quite happy with'".

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm