instead deliberately leaving the front door unlocked so they could ''run out if there was a fire.''
Here is a case of neglect where the parent was sentenced.
She lost custody of her children.
She regrets what she did.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/glamour-model-left-two-children-5088906
Its worthy of note that the mother was prosecuted for neglect even though there was no wilful or intentional malice towards the children.
If you take the circumstances of Maddie's disappearance and replicate it in suburban England would that also fall within the spectra referred to as neglect? Does losing a child somehow mitigate that neglect as appears to have happened in Portugal?
Key point is that the McCanns left their children tucked up in bed sound asleep, while this mother left her two children wide awake and up while she was driving (drunk) with a third child in the car.
No comparison with the McCanns at all really.
Key point is that the McCanns left their children tucked up in bed sound asleep, while this mother left her two children wide awake and up while she was driving (drunk) with a third child in the car.
No comparison with the McCanns at all really.
Its worthy of note that the mother was prosecuted for neglect even though there was no wilful or intentional malice towards the children.
If you take the circumstances of Maddie's disappearance and replicate it in suburban England would that also fall within the spectra referred to as neglect? Does losing a child somehow mitigate that neglect as appears to have happened in Portugal?
Which bit isn't the same? Is it the bit where the children were all in bed?
Remind me, wasn't that exactly what the McCanns did ie left their children asleep and alone in an unlocked apartment?
The drink driving issue is irrelevant to this discussion by the way since it has no bearing on the neglect charge.
Where was the father when all this was going on?
Which bit isn't the same? Is it the bit where the children were all in bed?
Remind me, wasn't that exactly what the McCanns did ie left their children asleep and alone in an unlocked apartment?
The drink driving issue is irrelevant to this discussion by the way since it has no bearing on the neglect charge.
The difference between the two as far as I can see, is that this mother was further away from her children than the McCann's were. The McCann's were just minutes away from the apartment.
Please keep to topic.
Are there other cases of leaving children where the parents have been charged?
it seems Stephen has highlighted that it is very unusual to be charged with neglect...this is quite an extreme case and bears no resemblance to the McCann case
We have been through all this before.
Just type neglect cases on Google.
You will find many cases, as you are more than well aware.
so post some...that's the title of the thread YOU started
Just try typing on Google.....
'Parents charged with neglecting their children in the UK'
Just try typing on Google.....This thread is not about child neglect in all its differing forms, so that would be a fairly pointless exercise.
'Parents charged with neglecting their children in the UK'
This thread is not about child neglect in all its differing forms, so that would be a fairly pointless exercise.
tried it ...first page of google not one successful prosecution for leaving children
Same old excuse.I've kept reading...you have highlighted how unusual a conviction for neglect/abandonment actually is
Keep reading.
Even a simple search of the internet, will reveal more information about neglect of children by their parents.
Some get away with it, as we have seen in Portugal. Some get cautioned. Some are charged.
So it's about time you get real dave, more than time, and that applies to anyone who excuses the mccanns behaviour.
and for good measure here's one example.
MORE TO COME.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/351987/Hundreds-get-cautions-for-child-neglect
the article is about child neglect in general...where are your cases of prosecution for leaving children...try reading the title of your thread again to remind you what it is about..
the article highlights that parents are cautioned ...not charged...showing you to be wrong again
No dave.
When you are cautioned, you have a record. Some cautions remain on the system.
Like i said, more to come.
Oh dear dave.
Got your back up ?
The facts are neglect their children.
Some parents get away with it.
Some don't.
so you have once again failed to support your claims
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Is that your stock answer to everything ?
http://metro.co.uk/2013/12/07/mother-who-was-passed-out-drunk-while-toddler-drowned-baby-brother-convicted-of-child-neglect-4221493/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2190972/Bingeing-mother-left-baby-week-Jail-20-year-old-child-starving-cot.html
http://www.actionforchildren.org.uk/campaigns/tackling-child-neglect/changing-the-law/making-the-case-for-change
and I presume you remember CPN who was in Social Services, and reminded you and others, not all cases of neglect get to court,or get reported in the newspapers or on TV.
so you have managed to find to find one case where a mother left a 20 month old baby alone FOR A WEEK......who was jailed...no surprises there...apart from that ...nothing
I can find no instances of holidaying parents who have taken advantage of a child listening service or who implemented their own version being charged.
How many have you uncovered?
I could fill this thread with post after post of the most horrendous abuse and neglect possible ... I think you may be confusing one with the other in your mind.
I will now repeat myself ... NOT ONE of these home alone children has 'vanished' not even the ones who have left the house to play in the street outside.
The McCann's made a very bad decision to leave the children, this thread has only been put here for some to repeat the mantra of neglect.
The McCann's will pay for their bad decision for the rest of their lives.
Social Services visited them here in Britain.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481644/Social-services-visit-Kate-McCann-disccuss-welfare-twins.html
Each sentence of your post is correct.
What point are you trying to make?
There are cases where parents who have left children home alone, subsequently the parents are cautioned or worse. This makes it hard for them when trying to apply for jobs or universites or else...
A page on the gov.uk website states: 'The law doesn't say an age when you can leave a child on their own, but it's an offence to leave a child alone if it places them at risk.
'Use your judgement on how mature your child is before you decide to leave them alone.
'The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) says:
· children under 12 are rarely mature enough to be left alone for a long period of time
· children under 16 shouldn't be left alone overnight
· babies, toddlers and very young children should never be left alone
'Parents can be prosecuted if they leave a child unsupervised 'in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or injury to health'.'
An NSPCC spokesman said: 'It is vital we have a common sense approach ... because [parents] are best placed to know what is right for their child.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2827324/Parents-risk-criminal-record-law-unclear-leave-children-home-MP-warns.html#ixzz3QuBitiYx
[ moderated ]
Surely to have any 'comparability' the question should be:-Good question. None that I can ever remember reading about.
How many parents on holiday - who have ever signed up for a Listening service, or mirrored the Listening Service or just used Baby Alarms when they left their children asleep and unsupervised in their beds - and went off to have dinner, including wine - have been charged on the grounds that it is an offence.
There must be hundreds of thousands of parents who have done this over the years. Can you provide evidence of any charges, or arrests, or convictions? For instance how many parents have been charged for doing this at holiday venues in the UK?
Every parent who signs up for a listening service or uses a baby alarm when they go to dinner - leaves their children alone and unsupervised in their rooms.
Why have none of these people ever been charged with an offence - particularly those holidaying in the UK.? According to Stephen they would definitely be charged if they did it in this country. So where is the evidence for that?
Children's Legal Centre (CLC) spokesman Dominic Bascombe said: "Parents need to be aware that the law around leaving children at home alone is not very clear.
"During the school holidays we've seen situations where parents have left children home alone while they go to work, or in some cases to go on holiday."
There have been several high-profile cases of parents prosecuted for abandoning their children.
In March a mother was given a suspended jail term after she left her 14-year-old daughter home alone for six weeks.
In Bedfordshire two children, aged seven and 11, were removed from their family home after police suspected they had been abandoned while their parents went on holiday to the tropical island of Curacao.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2286498/Parents-face-jail-for-leaving-children-home-alone.html
Is this evidence enough or will you carry on ignoring posts that you deem untruthfull as they may go against your opinions? 8)--))
What we are talking about here, is leaving your children unprotected ,defenseless, in unlocked accomodation, whilst out boozing.
Children's Legal Centre (CLC) spokesman Dominic Bascombe said: "Parents need to be aware that the law around leaving children at home alone is not very clear.
"During the school holidays we've seen situations where parents have left children home alone while they go to work, or in some cases to go on holiday."
There have been several high-profile cases of parents prosecuted for abandoning their children.
In March a mother was given a suspended jail term after she left her 14-year-old daughter home alone for six weeks.
In Bedfordshire two children, aged seven and 11, were removed from their family home after police suspected they had been abandoned while their parents went on holiday to the tropical island of Curacao.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2286498/Parents-face-jail-for-leaving-children-home-alone.html
Is this evidence enough or will you carry on ignoring posts that you deem untruthfull as they may go against your opinions? 8)--))
Where is the evidence that parents leaving their children 'home alone' in their hotel room and going for a meal, knowing that their children will be regularly checked have been prosecuted?
Where is the evidence that parents using baby alarms in restaurants whilst their children are 'home alone' elsewhere have been prosecuted for doing so?
Are you saying that those parents have abandoned their children?
I don't see any point in producing evidence of cases which bear no resemblance at all to what they and thousands of other parents have done whilst on holiday.
Stephen has failed to show any similar case to the mccanns...it is obvious from the thread that the mccanns would not have been prosecuted or had the twins removed if their actions had been carried out in the uk
They weren't in a hotel.
The accommodation is irrelevant. I was replying to the OP about children/babies being left 'home alone'. When you're on holiday your accommodation, whatever it may be, is the equivalent of your 'home' whilst you are there.
According to Stephen anyone leaving their children alone in their 'homes' in the UK as the McCanns did in Portugal would be prosecuted - and yet thousands of people have done that when on holiday in the UK - and I have never heard of any of them being prosecuted.
Try reading previous posts.
The mccanns quite deliberately and repeatedly left three children unprotected and without any protection whilst they went out to drink for 5 successive evenings.
and how many of the people you mentioned left their children in unlocked accomodation ?
Statistics please.
Stephen has failed to show any similar case to the mccanns...it is obvious from the thread that the mccanns would not have been prosecuted or had the twins removed if their actions had been carried out in the uk
Neither were they prosecuted in Portugal ... which leads to the supposition that all the hot air raised over the past eight years about leaving the children is nothing more or less than an exercise in McCann bashing since there never was or never will be any question of punitive official action being raised against them on this matter.
Quite extraordinary that people haven't got that message yet.
They weren't in a hotel.Oh, You know better tha Tripadvisor, do you?
Oh, You know better tha Tripadvisor, do you?
http://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/SmartDeals-g776012-Luz_Faro_District_Algarve-Hotel-Deals.html
They list it as an hotel.
An aparthotel would be a better name for Ocean Club.Yes, I would be inclined to agree with you on that but perhaps they have better ameneties than most aparthotels including 24 hour reception?
Yes, I would be inclined to agree with you on that but perhaps they have better ameneties than most aparthotels including 24 hour reception?
http://www.onetime.com/hotels?talid=776012&property=229314&mcid=20132&taparam=EOTMSNUK_K121301453_A1203650647_NS&supmt=b&supai=3543558337
Seems they classify themselves as an hotel. I think that means that they must have been approved as an hotel officially?
There is certainly no reason to pick someone up for calling it an Hotel, cos that is how they classify themselves, it seems
A woman has been arrested after a two-year-old girl was found wandering in a road in Slough during rush hour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-31172579
Is this neglect ?
OH YES.
A woman has been arrested after a two-year-old girl was found wandering in a road in Slough during rush hour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-31172579
Is this neglect ?
OH YES.
has the mother been charged...no...what are the full circumstances..we don't know
Before you are totally overcome by triumph, consider it may not be the mother who is responsible.
The Portuguese considered it though but dismissed it on the basis that there was no intent to neglect.
Basically they were a couple of silly beggars leaving their kids unattended.
I think most would agree with you on that point Angelo. Although back in day it was common practice.
The most often rehearsed argument is that the only reason they wern't prsecuted is because they are doctors - and had they been Wayne and Tracey from a council estate they would have been banged up and the kids in care.
And then there is the parallel critisism of the McCanns for their Liverpool and Glasgow accents and working class background.
I think some of the utter hatred displayed towards them stems from their stepping out of their class and becoming doctors and therefore "middle class".
Many hotels offered baby listening services while the parents dined, and (close your eyes Stephen) had a small galss of wine. Just one one, of course.
I gather even Butlins offered such a service.
Many hotels offered baby listening services while the parents dined, and (close your eyes Stephen) had a small galss of wine. Just one one, of course.
I gather even Butlins offered such a service.
A woman has been arrested after a two-year-old girl was found wandering in a road in Slough during rush hour.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-31172579
Is this neglect ?
OH YES
and just for good measure more cases of neglect......................
' http://www.southwales-eveningpost.co.uk/limit-crash-mum-left-year-old-home/story-20436401-detail/story.html
''A MUM left her five-year-old son who had Asperger's Syndrome home alone at night - but was caught after a road rage row with another driver.
The professional woman was over the limit when she went out for a drive leaving her little boy asleep on the settee.
She crashed into a car at traffic lights - and when police went to her home they found the "vulnerable" little boy all alone.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, admitted child neglect and was facing a jail term.
But her lawyer pleaded for her freedom - because Kate and Gerry McCann were never prosecuted for leaving daughter Madeleine alone in their holiday apartment.
A court heard the mother had been drinking heavily when she drove to a supermarket cashpoint shortly before midnight.''
''
A MOTHER who left her son of 14 to mind his three-year-old brother while she went to the shops was given a police caution for "cruelty" and was suspended from work.''
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/227553/Police-caution-mum-for-leaving-son-14-to-mind-three-year-old-brother
''A baby girl and her toddler brother were rescued from a burning house after their mum left them home alone while she popped to the shops.
Neighbours dialled 999 after spotting the top-floor blaze at the terrace house.
Melanie Selfe, who lives opposite, dashed inside to rescue one-year-old Malia Aslam, who was in a pram on the ground floor. Three fire engines arrived moments later - just as the mum, named by relatives as Zara Javid, returned.''
The mother was later cautioned by the police.
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/hero-neighbour-saves-home-alone-689872 '
only one of the three charged.....quite a severe case...going out when drunk...how far did she go and how long was she away for...
certainly very unusual to be charged
The difference between the McCann's and these other cases, is that the others seem to have left their children and gone off somewhere quite a distance away.
The McCann's were minutes if that away from their children checking on them regularly.
They shouldn't have left them alone, but I can see why they weren't charged, it was because they were close by and checking on them.
You do realize by accepting a caution an offense has been committed and if they hadn't accepted a caution they would have been charged with an offense.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721931/Jet-skier-rescues-girl-4-falls-asleep-body-board-drifts-half-mile-sea.html
A jet skier who saved the life of a little girl when she drifted half-a-mile out to sea on a boogie board says he only did what anyone else would have done.
Tony Barraclough was on the beach at Rozel, Jersey, when he heard Rebecca Chambers, the girl's mother, frantically screaming.
The 52-year-old hopped onto his jet ski and found little Jemima relaxing on her boogie board half-a-mile from the shore.
'I was putting the jet ski back on the trailer when I heard a woman shouting "Where is she?"' he said.
'I just told the woman to trust me, and that we would find her. The mother jumped on the back of the jet ski with me and we headed out of the harbour.
'I just did what anyone would have done.
'I'm no hero."
'When the mother said "I don’t know how to thank you’ I just told her ‘don’t let it happen again."'
The Virgin Atlantic pilot added: 'She was a hell of a long way out.
'She was four years old and couldn’t exactly wave for help.
'She would have been even further out if we hadn’t got to her when we did.
'Thankfully the jet ski is so fast we were able to find her and get her out really quickly. She was oblivious to what was going on.'
Mrs Chambers lost sight of the four-year-old when she went swimming in the sea, leaving her daughter in the shallow water with her siblings and cousins.
When she returned, the child was a speck on the horizon after drifting off on the board.
When Mr Barraclough and Mrs Chambers reached her, Jemima was oblivious to how far she'd gone.
Jemima and her three siblings spent three nights staying with their aunt Rachel Le Marquand and her two children at her home in Jersey last week.
The families had spent most of Wednesday afternoon playing in the sea at Rozel Bay when the women decided to swim around the harbour.
But when they returned to where Jemima had been playing with cousins Emily, ten, Jamie, six, and siblings Mollie, eight, Caspar, six, and Bruno, two, they realised she was missing.
Mrs Chambers, from Ashleworth, Gloucestershire, said: ‘I was only gone a short while and as I came back I realised Jemima wasn’t with the others on the shore line.
‘I asked the children where she was and they all pointed at this speck on the horizon. It honestly just looked like a buoy which was floating out at sea. She had gone well beyond the sea wall and out really far.
‘It was amazing. This man just appeared by my side as I was starting to panic and before I knew what had happened I was on the back of his jet ski, off towards her.
‘My heart rate is still coming down from it all. I still can’t believe how lucky we were.’ She said Jemima had not realised how much danger she was in.
‘She thought she hadn’t gone that far, when we got there I saw her eyes widen when she realised just how far the shore line was.
‘It could have been a lot worse had she realised how far out she was, she could have panicked, lost her board and who knows what might have happened.
‘She was never in any difficulty, I think she was just in a very relaxed state, she had her board, a life jacket and a wetsuit on.
‘I think the combination of high tides and strong sea winds swept her out that far. It apparently happened in a matter of minutes, one minute she was there, the next she wasn’t.’
Mrs Chambers said she now regrets leaving the children alone, albeit for just a few minutes.
‘I think I was lulled into a false sense of security because they were just paddling in the really shallow water,’ she said. ‘In hindsight, because of that I made the poor decision to go for a swim myself and my attention was not as focused as it should have been.
‘I don’t think Jemima’s realised the full impact of what could have happened, she was more excited about the jet ski ride. That was the highlight of her holiday. We are so thankful to that man, it could have been so much worse if it hadn’t been for him.
‘I realised when I got back to the shore and made sure she was OK ... I never thanked him properly. I’d love to be able to do that.’
Mrs Le Marquand, 43, who lives on Jersey, said: ‘We spotted this dot off the headland – we couldn’t even make out it was a body but it was her.
‘She’d floated right around the corner, far too far out to swim.
‘Luckily, there was a man on a jet ski nearby. He didn’t shout at us for being bad parents – he jumped on his jet ski with my sister and zoomed off.
‘I don’t think the kids really realised quite how serious the situation was. They were in fits of giggles and thought it was marvellous that their mummy was on a jet ski.’
No one is sure how far Jemima would have been swept out had she not been rescued so quickly, but her shaken mother said ‘the tide and the current were definitely against her’ .She added that although there had been a lifeguard on duty, ‘he was a little way from where we were’.
Mrs Chambers is a qualified paediatrician who now looks after her children full-time. Her husband, Mungo, a cosmetic surgeon, was at work while his family were at the seaside.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This was far worse than the Tapas 9's actions, IMO, yet the lady was not charged.
Not by him, however. I return to my point. A mother who leaves her children in a situation about which she herself expressed doubts does not inspire me. A woman who then refuses to admit that she was wrong does not inspire me. Leaving children home alone is not acceptable in today's world, and if it had happened in the UK the police may well have acted.
There might not be a specific legal age to leave children alone but it’s safe to say babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone, even if it’s just while you pop down the road. Even if they’re sleeping peacefully when you leave they could well wake up and get very upset when you’re not there to look after them.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/leaving-child-home-alone/
I don't really see the point of this thread. Obviously, there will be cases in which parents have been charged.
If one googles hard enough, there will no doubt be cases of "parents" disappearing for days on end, leaving babies on filthy floors with hypodermic needles and an aggressive pitbull for company.
I think the point of it is to highlight to the "perfect parenting" brigade that the actions of the Tapas 9 were neither unique nor extreme.
What can be more extreme than leaving three toddlers on their own and in an unlocked apartment open to a main road
Main road? Where were all the witnesses passing by in their cars?
What?
Main road = traffic = people.
Was 5a on a main road or were you just exaggerating for effect?
Im not exagerating anything, just stated the facts, your problem if you have a problem with them
The apartment was not open to a main road. It opened onto a small car park at one side & a minor road at the side.
The toddlers were left alone for minutes at a time, not hours or days. Abandoning young children while you visit Australia for 6 weeks - now THAT is extreme.
it was a main road to all intents and purposes
your assertion they were left for MINUTES is preposterous at best
Your australia point is a joke, steady up man
The road is the equivalent of a side road on any UK housing estate.
There were minutes, not hours, between checks.
As for Australia....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11261871/Mother-going-to-Asda-leaves-six-children-home-alone-to-fly-to-Australia.html
*snipped*
The 43-year-old, who cannot be named for legal reasons, left her 14-year-old son in charge when she went to stay with her Chinese boyfriend 9,000 miles away.
She left the children - the youngest of whom was three years old - at home in Birmingham on January 1 this year and did not return until February 20, when she was arrested.
The woman pleaded guilty to six counts of wilful abandonment at Birmingham Crown Court, where she was handed a six-month prison sentence suspended for two years.
Judge Murray Creed said it was "plainly a serious matter", but praised her teenage son for his "presence of mind" to call his grandparents.
The court heard the woman, who is now pregnant with her seventh child, had her flight paid for by a man she met online.
She left the house at 5pm on New Year's Day, telling her 14-year-old son he was in charge of the five other children while she went to the supermarket to buy food.
When she failed to return home four hours later, he called his grandparents, who do not live in Birmingham.
They alerted police and social services, who arrived at the house at 1am the following day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now THAT is extreme.
Why are you embroidering the truth! they were minutes but not one or two or three (as you suggest) but at least 30 and probably more
steady on, oh, and not interested in newspaper articles, you shouldnt feel the need for them to back up any argument you have unless of course it wasnt strong enough ...cough
30 minutes is still not an hour & does not constitute abandonment.
I have been politely told to provide cites to substantiate any outside information introduced on this forum - hence the newspaper article.
There are plenty more to illustrate extreme examples of parenting far worse than that of the McCanns & their friends, should you feel I am joking.
30 minutes is still not an hour & does not constitute abandonment.
I have been politely told to provide cites to substantiate any outside information introduced on this forum - hence the newspaper article.
There are plenty more to illustrate extreme examples of parenting far worse than that of the McCanns & their friends, should you feel I am joking.
How long does it take for a child to have an accident then? Is there a time limit? Quoting worse behaviour doesn't excuse bad behaviour does it? The NSPCC are very clear; NEVER leave young children alone;
There might not be a specific legal age to leave children alone but it’s safe to say babies, toddlers and young children should never be left alone, even if it’s just while you pop down the road. Even if they’re sleeping peacefully when you leave they could well wake up and get very upset when you’re not there to look after them.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/leaving-child-home-alone/
The vast majority of people know what we should and shouldn't be doing as parents - and if no-one ever made a mistake or a wrong judgement there would be no kids in A&E rooms, no children drowning in baths and garden pools and no need for 'lost children' stations at holiday resorts etc. etc.
But we are not perfect human beings - and there is no such thing as a perfect parent. imo.
What I don't understand it that out of all the millions of parents who have made human errors and unwittingly put their children in danger - sometimes fatal human errors - - it is only the McCanns who for some reason must be villified and demonised year in year out for their human error. Why is that?
And why don't all the other parents who still leave their children asleep in their rooms whilst on holiday and go to dinner inspite of knowing what happened to Madeleine - ever come in for a mention, let alone any criticism?
I just don't get it. It's irrational IMO.
I agree, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Accidents happen when you're there. There's a difference between a momentary lapse of judgement and a deliberate act, repeated over 5 nights. If other parents are leaving small children alone in unlocked apartments and going out to dinner they must be very stupid.
A mum who left her six-year-old son home alone for 45 minutes is fighting to get a caution for child neglect removed from her records.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2014/11/10/mum-who-left-six-year-old-home-alone-fights-to-strike-child-neglect-charge/
Portuguese law is specific. UK law is none-existent really, all we have is advice and that is very clear.
30 minutes is still not an hour & does not constitute abandonment.
I have been politely told to provide cites to substantiate any outside information introduced on this forum - hence the newspaper article.
There are plenty more to illustrate extreme examples of parenting far worse than that of the McCanns & their friends, should you feel I am joking.
Portuguese law is specific. UK law is none-existent really, all we have is advice and that is very clear.
Although sympathetic, the legal summary says they did neglect their duty, and if they hadn't, no abduction would have been possible;
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.
Although sympathetic, the legal summary says they did neglect their duty, and if they hadn't, no abduction would have been possible;
This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.
If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.
I agree, there is no such thing as a perfect parent. Accidents happen when you're there. There's a difference between a momentary lapse of judgement and a deliberate act, repeated over 5 nights. If other parents are leaving small children alone in unlocked apartments and going out to dinner they must be very stupid.
A mum who left her six-year-old son home alone for 45 minutes is fighting to get a caution for child neglect removed from her records.
http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2014/11/10/mum-who-left-six-year-old-home-alone-fights-to-strike-child-neglect-charge/
so the legal summary accepts that an abduction could have taken place
so the legal summary accepts that an abduction could have taken place
That remark is off topic! The point I was making is that they were neglectful, although not badly enough to be charged.
However;
All options were left open, but abduction seems to have been doubted somewhat, and homicide highly probable (whether after abduction or not);
Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
The apartment was not open to a main road. It opened onto a small car park at one side & a minor road at the side.
The toddlers were left alone for minutes at a time, not hours or days. Abandoning young children while you visit Australia for 6 weeks - now THAT is extreme.
many actions of parents are neglectful...though not serious enough to be charged
Not in Portugal at any rate. In the UK the same actions could have led to a police caution at least. This would not have looked good on a doctor's record. In the case I quoted a caution was proving difficult for the mother involved.
Although a caution is not a conviction, it forms a part of a person's criminal record and can be used as evidence of bad character if a person goes to court for another crime,[4][7] and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks (previously called Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks) for certain types of employment.[2] A caution might cause some countries not to allow visits to, or residence in, that country.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_caution
this lady was not charged nor found guilty
Possibly the intention but the record shows something somewhat different. Remind me, how long did Maddie cry for on the Tuesday night? Seems to he the later it got and the more wine that flowed the longer the checking intervals became. Clever Paynes having a wireless baby monitor though...good thinking!
It is only your opinion that this would have resulted in a caution.....if the caution was not accepted we don't know whether this would have resulted in charges..it's all opinion
I said 'could', not 'would'. The point is that leaving kids and going out is not good practice. That's not just my opinion by the way, it's the opinion of the NSPCC and the police.
(1) Was that the crying which stopped when the patio door closed but wasn't heard by either parent as they entered the apartment?
(2) Was that the crying Mrs Fenn allegedly heard which wasn't important to the PJ until right after the VRDs barked?
(1) Wasn't heard by the parents (fact) or the parent's said they didn't hear it (hearsay)? Slightly different things.
(2) Do you have a link to support this statement?
I said 'could', not 'would'. The point is that leaving kids and going out is not good practice. That's not just my opinion by the way, it's the opinion of the NSPCC and the police.
Was that the crying which stopped when the patio door closed but wasn't heard by either parent as they entered the apartment?
Was that the crying Mrs Fenn allegedly heard which wasn't important to the PJ until right after the VRDs barked?
Over an hour I believe and so bad Mrs Fenn had to phone a friend for advice. What happened to the wonderful checking every 15 minutes that night? Lies...all lies...anyone who believes that crap for a minute are most deffo deluding themselves. %#&%4%Were they checking every 15 minutes that night then?
Maybe the tour operators, hoteliers, etc should be advised that they are offering a potentially dangerous service?
I'm astonished that any parent would even dream of utilising the listening means of childcare after what happened to Madeleine. But they do.
Were they checking every 15 minutes that night then?
I would think that the listening is done outside locked rooms, rather than unlocked apart.ments. Nevertheless it is a pretty old-fashioned method imo. In the 1950's when Butlins did it there was no thought of predatory people stealing children, and children were less protected also; they played out, and i had a door key at 5 years of age. I'm amazed too that parents do this today, when they wouldn't dream of letting their children walk to school or play out all day.
Obviously not.
I would think that the listening is done outside locked rooms, rather than unlocked apart.ments. Nevertheless it is a pretty old-fashioned method imo. In the 1950's when Butlins did it there was no thought of predatory people stealing children, and children were less protected also; they played out, and i had a door key at 5 years of age. I'm amazed too that parents do this today, when they wouldn't dream of letting their children walk to school or play out all day.
I would think that the listening is done outside locked rooms, rather than unlocked apart.ments. Nevertheless it is a pretty old-fashioned method imo. In the 1950's when Butlins did it there was no thought of predatory people stealing children, and children were less protected also; they played out, and i had a door key at 5 years of age. I'm amazed too that parents do this today, when they wouldn't dream of letting their children walk to school or play out all day.
Weren`t the chalets also of the old-fashioned "sleeping quarters" type, in rows........as used in the Hi-de- Hi T.V. series?
Bedrooms, in effect.........and locked.
The shower / bathroom blocks were external and communal...........as were the restaurant facilities.
Didn`t self-catering apartments and caravans come later , with listening services considered unsuitable for this type of holiday home?
In the same way.........hotel listening services through locked bedroom doors are not to be compared with unlocked apartments opening onto a road or car-park ............and which are not thought suitable for "listening services" by the holiday company in the first place?
But The Mccanns did not use listening services. Matt had done so earlier at 5A bedroom window ....and the Mccanns obviously did not like that, cos Gerry immediately got up and went into 5A to visually check
Then Matt visually checked [missing looking at Madeleine unhappily] half an hour later
Then Kate at 10 pm when she found Madeleine gone.
The Mccanns did not use listening services, so why are you going on about them?
Weren`t the chalets also of the old-fashioned "sleeping quarters" type, in rows........as used in the Hi-de- Hi T.V. series?
Bedrooms, in effect.........and locked.
The shower / bathroom blocks were external and communal...........as were the restaurant facilities.
Didn`t self-catering apartments and caravans come later , with listening services considered unsuitable for this type of holiday home?
In the same way.........hotel listening services through locked bedroom doors are not to be compared with unlocked apartments opening onto a road or car-park ............and which are not thought suitable for "listening services" by the holiday company in the first place?
Your bias is showing..........Otherwise you`d have attached your comments to Benice`s post copied below....which was posted before mine.
*sighs* 8(0(*
Benice
Maybe the tour operators, hoteliers, etc should be advised that they are offering a potentially dangerous service?
I'm astonished that any parent would even dream of utilising the listening means of childcare after what happened to Madeleine. But they do
But The Mccanns did not use listening services. Matt had done so earlier at 5A bedroom window ....and the Mccanns obviously did not like that, cos Gerry immediately got up and went into 5A to visually check
Then Matt visually checked [missing looking at Madeleine unhappily] half an hour later
Then Kate at 10 pm when she found Madeleine gone.
The Mccanns did not use listening services, so why are you going on about them?
That's right, extremely basic. The baby-sitters/listeners rode round on bikes, listening at certain chalets as they went. If a child was crying they knew where the parents were and a notice would be put up; 'child crying in chalet number...' Mark Warner didn't provide a listening service at the Ocean Club because it wasn't suitable. The group thought their checking was better than the listening service offered at other Mark Warner sites because they listened and looked, and did it more often. The fact that the site was unsuitable passed them by, apparently.
By chance, I chose to use yours. So what is wrong with that?
* SIGHS *
That's right, extremely basic. The baby-sitters/listeners rode round on bikes, listening at certain chalets as they went. If a child was crying they knew where the parents were and a notice would be put up; 'child crying in chalet number...' Mark Warner didn't provide a listening service at the Ocean Club because it wasn't suitable. The group thought their checking was better than the listening service offered at other Mark Warner sites because they listened and looked, and did it more often. The fact that the site was unsuitable passed them by, apparently.
@)(++(*Touchy
Touchy
Aren't you @)(++(*
That's right, extremely basic. The baby-sitters/listeners rode round on bikes, listening at certain chalets as they went. If a child was crying they knew where the parents were and a notice would be put up; 'child crying in chalet number...' Mark Warner didn't provide a listening service at the Ocean Club because it wasn't suitable. The group thought their checking was better than the listening service offered at other Mark Warner sites because they listened and looked, and did it more often. The fact that the site was unsuitable passed them by, apparently.
fact of the matter is the mccanns did not really check On their kids, gerry mccann has admitted they neverdid any visual checks so what was the point in checking them at all! IMo they did zero checks over the weekGerry visually checked at about 9.05 on May 3rd .... so pull the other one 8)-)))
Gerry visually checked at about 9.05 on May 3rd .... so pull the other one 8)-)))
Did he see Madeleine directly ?
In one version he claimed to have done so. Can't remember if he changed this later, or not.
Gerry visually checked at about 9.05 on May 3rd .... so pull the other one 8)-)))
Yes he did, but just that once only, by his own admission, not regularly as some claim.
You've also stated in a post that Gerry wasn't satisified with Matt Oldfield's auditory check and that is the reason he went to do his own visual check moments after. Care to explain that?
How disingenious jassi.
I can only find three statements. Extracts from all three below
GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 04 MAY 2007
As usual, every half hour and as the restaurant was near, the witness or his wife, would check whether the children were all right. In this way, at about 21.05 the witness came to the Club, entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked, went to his children's bedroom and checked that the twins were fine, as was Madeleine.GERRY MCCANN'S STATEMENT 10 MAY 20072007.05.10
In this way he entered the children's bedroom and established visual contact with each of them, checking and is certain of this, that the three were sleeping deeply. He left the children's bedroom returning to place the door how he had already previously described, [then] going to the bathroom. Everything else was normal, the blinds, curtains and windows closed, very dark, there only being the light that came from the lounge.GERALD PATRICK MCCANN ' STATEMENT AS AN ARGUIDO
(from DVD)
September 7/2007 16.05 to 20.50 at Portimao
On this occasion the three children were lying in their beds and asleep, he is sure of that. Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, she was completely uncovered, that is, lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and the blanket, both pink, next to her head,
Pity that you didn't bother to check before you made your damaging statement.
Perhaps you didn't want the truth out?[/size]
Yes he did, but just that once only, by his own admission, not regularly as some claim.
You've also stated in a post that Gerry wasn't satisified with Matt Oldfield's auditory check and that is the reason he went to do his own visual check moments after. Care to explain that?
Dont you bother to read responses? All taken straight from legal statements.
Three statements and three times he affirms that he saw the children.
Get your facts right, mercury.
Stop the disinformation. Creating myths.
I didn't deny Gerry Mccann's statement
I've spread no disinformation or created myths.
You haven't answered my question or refuted the fact that Gerry Mccann never made a visual check on his kids ONCE during the whole holiday.
In one of his statements, Matt said that he was a bit "miffed" that after he had done a check at 9pm [listening at the bedroom window], Gerry got straight up and did his own visual check.
My words not his ... but check it yourself if you dont believe and to get the exact words. It is in one of Matts statements.
Bit of a dichotomy there. You can't have it both ways, wonder you can't see your contradiction.
Please help then.Did you mean "this visualcheck on the 3rd was his only in the whole holiday" ?
Did you mean "this visualcheck on the 3rd was his only in the whole holiday" ?That's exactly what I said, or meant to say, and they are not my words, they are Gerry Mccann's words. (Madeleine Was Here documentary, 2009)
Not agreeing or saying any opinion just guessing what you are saying.
so are there any other cases where parents have been charged...that's the title of the thread...it seems the answer is noDoes it matter! Seeing as in your world you thnk it is OK and dandy to leave toddlers on their own. Wonderful stance btw.
Does it matter! Seeing as in your world you thnk it is OK and dandy to leave toddlers on their own. Wonderful stance btw.
More parents should take your advice