Madeleine case used in Court as reason not to jail absent mother.

[icabodcrane]

I think that's right, Red. The comment was part of his argument. We don't have details about the main body of his argument from these articles.

The point is that the press picked up on this aspect of his argument and left out the rest.

Well,  there's no reason for us to ignore the aspect the press chose to pick up on,  is there  ?

What is your opinion Sherlock   ...  do you think that by leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint,  and returing in less than half an hour she  was deserving of a charge of negligence  ?   (  the fact that she was driving over the limit and left the scene of an accident are seperate charges  )

Or do you think that by leaving her sleeping child alone and unsupervised for a short period of time   (  less than half an hour  )  her actions were  within the bounds of reasonable parenting  ? 

I would like to know the opinion of the forum in general  on that point,  but yours,  in particular,  since you have been quite active in this thread

[Sherlock Holmes]

But  is there any legal precedent anywhere for parents leaving their kids alone and one gets stolen and they are charged?

There are plenty precedents surely for children coming to harm alone in the home and the parents being charged. Believe me I am very critical of the McCanns for leaving the children because of what could have happened in the apartment itself, never mind the question of abduction. Just read the NSPCC website and it says that parents can be prosecuted for leaving children at home in circumstances which can cause them unnecessary distress or expose them to danger. Leaving a child to cry for and hour and a quarter is already causing undue distress to a person in my opinion.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well,  there's no reason for us to ignore the aspect the press chose to pick up on,  is there  ?

What is your opinion Sherlock   ...  do you think that by leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint,  and returing in less than half an hour she  was deserving of a charge of negligence  ?   (  the fact that she was driving over the limit and left the scene of an accident are seperate charges  )

Or do you think that by leaving her sleeping child alone and unsupervised for a short period of time   (  less than half an hour  )  her actions were  within the bounds of reasonable parenting  ? 

I would like to know the opinion of the forum in general  on that point,  but yours,  in particular,  since you have been quite active in this thread

I think her actions were completely wrong. My previous post sums up my attitude to parents who leave their children.

[icabodcrane]

I think her actions were completely wrong. My previous post sums up my attitude to parents who leave their children.

Do you think she was properly charged with negligence for leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint,  returning in less than half an hour  ?

[John]

I think her actions were completely wrong. My previous post sums up my attitude to parents who leave their children.

You can educate and train people to be good teachers and doctors but I'm afraid parenting skills are God-given. 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well,  there's no reason for us to ignore the aspect the press chose to pick up on,  is there  ?

No, there's no reason to ignore it, bearing in mind the context in which the comments were made - the poor defense of a rather desperate defense lawyer in quite an unenviable position with regard to the client he was representing.

I don't think there's a concern that the McCanns' neglectful behaviour will result in a spate of cases of parents being let off the hook for dangerous 'parenting' like that of the woman above, because, once again, there is absolutely no legal basis for it.

Were the McCanns ever to be charged with anything - a theoretical possibility for the future - that could change things.

As matters stand, the Madeleine case has given most people a jolt with regard to their childcare arrangements, especially on holiday, and children are probably safer as a result rather than the opposite.

[jassi]

In theory, there is no legal base for anything until a precedent is set. At some point an argument has to be accepted to make that precedent.

[John]

The lawyer involved appears to have gone to ground.

Even if there had been prosecutions for neglect in Portugal that precedent would have no legal status in a British Court.  So I am really surprised at this lawyers 'outrageous' suggestion.

[Redblossom]

There are plenty precedents surely for children coming to harm alone in the home and the parents being charged. Believe me I am very critical of the McCanns for leaving the children because of what could have happened in the apartment itself, never mind the question of abduction. Just read the NSPCC website and it says that parents can be prosecuted for leaving children at home in circumstances which can cause them unnecessary distress or expose them to danger. Leaving a child to cry for and hour and a quarter is already causing undue distress to a person in my opinion.

Well this little boy didnt come to harm and the mother was out for less than half an hour and she was charged with child neglect.....bit draconian....and one reason perhaps the lawyer and or his client made the comparison......I was asking about absent parents and subsequent abduction and neglect charges arising from that.....I suppose they are rare or non existent as Ive never heard of a case where a young child was abducted when the parents were out


 >@@(*&)

Eta have the authorities/this judge set an extra precedent then on what is neglect?

[Sherlock Holmes]

It's also clear that the defense lawyer raised the McCann case because it's a famous one.

There must be plenty of other cases he could have brought to the attention of the court and the judges which were more relevant to his client's situation and would have therefore have been of far greater  power in assisting his client.

[CPN]

You can educate and train people to be good teachers and doctors but I'm afraid parenting skills are God-given.

Instinctive parenting skills, yes.  But you can train inadequate parents to parent better.

When I did my training there used to be homes for inadequate mothers (as, genuinely, they were called!) where mothers and their children were sent for maybe a month, maybe three months, with fathers visiting at weekends. etc.  They were used as an alternative to prosecution as it was felt that the mothers' parenting skills could be bettered with supervision and guidance.  And I know quite a lot about this, as my dissertation was written on "Care and treatment for the Inadequate mother" - don't ask me more, I've no idea where the dissertation now is! - if, indeed it has not long been chucked away!

[Sherlock Holmes]

In theory, there is no legal base for anything until a precedent is set. At some point an argument has to be accepted to make that precedent.

Yes. But the argument itself still has to be based on something in order for it to become a precedent for future cases. The McCanns were never tried and sentenced so there is no judgement to cite as a precedent for how someone else should be sentenced.

If a person robs a bank and gets off scot free, you're not going to argue that the next man should be let off.

[Redblossom]

If a person robs a bank and gets off scot free, you're not going to argue that the next man should be let off.

LOL!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you think she was properly charged with negligence for leaving her five year old asleep while she went to the cashpoint,  returning in less than half an hour  ?

Well I'm not a judge but the question of sentencing in this case is more complicated because she committed a number of offences all in one, including injuring someone.

It seems to me that she got off pretty lightly, but that's really from the peanut gallery.

[south of the river]

If she popped out for and went to the cash machine sober and came back I doubt it would have even made court or she would have been charged of anything

I think she committed three different crimes whilst out might have had something to do with being charged -

drink driving
dangerous driving
leaving the scene

all pretty serious -  and must have been contributory to being also charged for neglect. If the McCann's had broken numerous laws whilst dining at the restauitrant such as this then I am sure there would have been charges   

at the end of the day we have a legal system we have to put our faith in - there will always be mistakes and you will never satisfy everyone - just look at Duggan case

but this case had very little to do with McCann's