The Neglect question

[C.Edwards]

I thought laterally meant to the side not the back.

Indeed it does!  But as there's no side door then I think it's safe to assume there's only one sliding patio door on the property.

[Eleanor]

In one of the videos I posted earlier this morning Kate's mother airs her disquiet at the fact that they had left the children alone at all.  I must say, I find it strange too considering there was a FREE babysitting service.

I will add that there was nothing illegal in what the parents did by leaving them unattended for short periods at a time but certainly raises some questions as to being responsible parents.

Another point you may want to discuss is, why, if there had been a history of break-ins at the Club weren't the parents warned?  I personally believe Mark Warner Holidays are culpable in what occurred by failing to provide proper security at the resort given what they already knew.

I ask the question again, has the Company received any sanctions or penalties because of what happened?

For Kate and Gerry to carry three sleeping children back from the night time creche would have been nigh on impossible.

[C.Edwards]

In one of the videos I posted earlier this morning Kate's mother airs her disquiet at the fact that they had left the children alone at all.  I must say, I find it strange too considering there was a FREE babysitting service.

I will add that there was nothing illegal in what the parents did by leaving them unattended for short periods at a time but certainly raises some questions as to being responsible parents.

Another point you may want to discuss is, why, if there had been a history of break-ins at the Club weren't the parents warned?  I personally believe Mark Warner Holidays are culpable in what occurred by failing to provide proper security at the resort given what they already knew.

I ask the question again, has the Company received any sanctions or penalties because of what happened?

Interesting point John.  Do we know for a fact that the parents weren't warned?

[stephen25000]

Remember Debunker´s challenge:

No-one ever prosecuted successfully in the UK for what the McCanns did.

In domestic circumstances, regular checks, nor previous

Well you wanted a case in the UK.

Here's one where the parents slept and their door was unlocked.

Mmm.


http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-four-found-wandering-on-busy-273332

I think  he meant a comparable case, not one as is reported in your link:

Officers found the property littered with aerosol cans, used by the solvent sniffing dad. And also, bizarrely, a bag of raw meat was discovered in one of the children's beds.

 
I don't recall the McCanns being accused of solvent sniffing, these parents were more than likely out cold, not just asleep.

For further reference.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-four-found-wandering-on-busy-273332

The front door was unlocked.

Now that sounds a wee bit familiar.


Now pray tell Puffin, was the apartment locked or unlocked ? >@@(*&)

This business over front and back door is a straight confusion over prepositions: in an apartment what can be considered front or back?

An irrelevance best dismissed ...

In your mind yes, but in reality not at all.

In fact, very relevant honestbroker.

Meanwhile debunker asked for any cases of neglect leading to prosecution.

For those reading but not comprehending.

UNLOCKED means UNLOCKED

[icabodcrane]

Predictably,  the thread has become the usual to and fro of whether what the McCanns did was legally or morally correct

My original question as op was more specific though

Would the McCanns have been deemed negligent if Madeleine had suffered a serious  ( or fatal  )  injury as a consequence of their childcare decisions ?

I feel that the McCanns being viewed as  'not'  negligent is relative to what they claim subsequently happened,  rather than because their childcare arrangements were perfectly adequate  (  they clearly were not  ...  the fact that a child is missing is testimony to that ) 

Their daughter was abducted they say  ...  and how could they be deemed negligent for not assessing  a risk as remote and unforseeable as that ? 

If the situation were different though,  and it was a serious  ( or fatal )  injury that occurred,  rather than abduction,  could the McCanns claim they could not reasonably be expected to have assessed that risk when making the childcare choices they made  ?   (  given that there is nothing remote or unforseeable about the risk of injury to a small child who wakes and wonders )

Consider this scenario :

Either Kate or Gerry check on the children,  all is well,  and they leave the apartment through the patio door.

The sound of the patio door closing rouses Madeleine,  who calls out to Mummy or Daddy.  When there is no response she gets out of bed and goes to her parents room, expecting to find them there.  They are not. She looks around the apartment calling for them,   frightened now.   She tries to look out of the window,  but needs to climb to do it  (  onto the back of the sofa, perhaps )  She falls heavily onto the tiled floor and is injured  (  a head injury possibly )  and bleeding

...  and there she remains,  injured and bleeding,  and in need of immediate attention,  for next half an hour ,  when the next check is due

During that crucial half an hour,  the child's small body goes into shock due to blood loss,  and by the time an adult arrives,  it is too late

In that  scenario,  would the McCann's assessment of the  risk  of accident or injury have been deemed adequate  ?  or would they have faced a charge of negligence  ? 

[debunker]

It is probably a good idea to read the whole of the Portuguese Law on Neglect before commenting on it.

I did some time ago and was surprised how lacking in power it was.

[John]

Front door versus back door in normal British terms.

A Front Door usually relates to one which is available to the public to approach and which in the case of Ocean Club apartment 5a was on the north side adjacent to the car park.

[John]

A Back Door usually relates to a private rear entrance which is not easily accessible to the public.  In the case of apartment 5a this was the patio door located up a set of steps and behind a gate.

[debunker]

As I am away from home without access to my notes, I have sourced a partial quote of the Portuguese Law from a [ censored word ] site on the internet. Perhaps someone can do better.

"If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has the CUSTODY, CHARGE OR CARE, of any child or young person under that age WILFULLY assaults, ill-treats, NELGECTS, ABANDONS, OR EXPOSES HIM, OR CAUSES or procures him to be ASSAULTED, ILL-TREATED, NELGLECTED, ABANDONED, or exposed, IN A MANNER LIKELY TO CAUSE HIM UNNECESSARY SUFFERING OR INJURY TO HEALTH (including injury to or loss of sight hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and shall be liable"

Note that all the verbs are preceded by the qualifier ´wilfully´which implies considerably more than carelessly or without considering the consequences. This is similar to the difference in law between Murder and Manslaughter- a guilty intent (Mens Rea) as well as the act itself.

This wa all explained five years ago on the MF by a Portuguese Lawyer with the handle Stinky Sardine. He was neutral and just concerned that people understood the Portuguese Law- as I am so concerned here!

[Lace]

Well if the McCanns have been judged not to have been negligent leaving the children when one of them was abducted,   then I doubt if they would be found negligent if one of them had an accident.

They were judged not to have 'intent' to harm,  correct me if that is wrong.    In my opinion that means they thought the children  were safe as they were   checking on them at regular intervals.   

[stephen25000]

Here is another case for good measure.


http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10331310.Woman_leaves_children_home_alone_to_go_clubbing/

[Lace]

Here is another case for good measure.


http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10331310.Woman_leaves_children_home_alone_to_go_clubbing/

...

No comparison Stephen.     

[stephen25000]

Here is another case for good measure.


http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/10331310.Woman_leaves_children_home_alone_to_go_clubbing/

...

No comparison Stephen.   

That is a matter of opinion Lace.

Neglect is neglect.

As a consequence of what the Mccanns failed to do, she 'disappeared', and no matter how much haranguing some people may do, there is no overcoming that salient point.

[Lace]

Mark Warner usually did a nanny listening service, where by a nanny would listen outside of the apartment to see if a child was crying.    If Madeleine had disappeared if they had gone for this service if it had been available,  would that had been neglect Stephen?    The McCanns have said they were doing their own 'listening service'.

[Puffin]

Well if the McCanns have been judged not to have been negligent leaving the children when one of them was abducted,   then I doubt if they would be found negligent if one of them had an accident.

They were judged not to have 'intent' to harm,  correct me if that is wrong.    In my opinion that means they thought the children  were safe as they were   checking on them at regular intervals.   

Some of you may remember the latchkey children - school-age kids who were at home without adult supervision for part of the day (especially after school until a parent returns home from work) which was very prevalent in the UK after the war.  I knew one who would leave school and arrive home at about 4.15, and be totally alone until his parents, who both worked, arrived home, usually about 6-7pm.    The parents who did this were not considered negligent, and some of the kids could be as young as 6.  Probably this will be declared irrelevant, but that would be for readers to decide.  Negligence has many faces, we all see it in different ways.