Non-Swimmer Jailed for Not Rescuing Toddler in Rain-Swollen Creek

This is nuts! So this woman was supposed to perhaps die herself! I have to find out more about this case cause it makes no friggin' sense. BTW, I live in Western PA area and when Ivan hit, it was the worse flooding anyone had seen in over 30 years. Creeks were turned in to raging white water rivers.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05293/591657.stm

If a woman who cannot swim leaps into a rain-swollen creek and saves the life of a friend's toddler, she is a hero. If instead she yells for help to the child's father, she's a typical mortal.

What she's not is a criminal. Falling short of heroism is no crime. Making it one, as occurred recently in Blair County, sets a dangerous precedent.

The Blair County district attorney prosecuted a nonswimmer, Susan Newkirk, for endangering the welfare of a child after she summoned a 2-year-old's father to rescue him rather than leaping herself into South Poplar Run after Hurricane Ivan turned it into a torrent in September 2004.

A jury convicted Ms. Newkirk in July and a judge sentenced her to jail this month for a year and a half.

Blair District Attorney Dave Gorman said Ms. Newkirk had a duty to try to save the child and insisted it was irrelevant that she couldn't swim because two other people, including a nonswimmer, attempted a rescue. Apparently it is irrelevant to Mr. Gorman that they failed. The child died.

More on story at this link.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05278/582741.stm

David Herring, a professor of child welfare law at the University of Pittsburgh, said there is no Good Samaritan law in Pennsylvania.

"You can't ask them to have to sacrifice their own lives," Mr. Herring said. "That's quite a stretch to impose that duty on her."

He called the case against Ms. Newkirk an "aggressive prosecution."

"The father's the one the law should be holding responsible," he said.

Mr. Reffner was charged, but he pleaded guilty to a lesser charge -- reckless endangerment. He was offered probation to testify against Ms. Newkirk. The prosecution, however, never called Mr. Reffner to the stand. Mr. Gorman said his testimony wasn't necessary.

The article goes on to say...
"The boy's father, Thomas E. Reffner, was not paying Ms. Newkirk to watch his child and hadn't asked her to supervise him. Still, when the boy first got close to the creek, she took him back to his father. Later, she returned to the creek; the youngster toddled after her and fell in."

Guess some letters are in order.

Hurricane swollen river... father "working on trailer." this is a very weird story.

The second link explains that the father was charged too, pled to reckless endangerment, and testified against the woman. Who he was dating. The more I think about it, this was handled exactly right.

that was a condition of the deal he made, but he was never actually called to testify.

... to save another. Not in LAW.

Police offiers and others like them are obligated by their profession to risk their lives.

This woman...well, I think it's murky at best. Given the fact the father got off with a light slap on the wrist, the justice here was very unfair.

responsibility?

It is well-settled law in America that no person has a duty to risk their life to save another. I'm not talking about people who are paid to do that, and therefore have a contractual duty to respond. I'm talking about citizens.

You have no duty to jump into water, go into fire, or take any risk to save anyone. What law says that? Where is it?

Duties are born of positions and responsibilities held. According to these facts, the woman had no such duty to the child. This case is an outrage, another fascist example of what is going wrong in America today.

That's why I think it's murky. Read the detail accounts.

It wouldn't be the first time a girlfriend or a boyfriend had been held liable for the death of a child not their own.

when she started sleeping with him.

... by your involvement in the accident.

If you are driving down the road and see a wreck, there is no legal duty to be a good Samaritan.


Maybe she was charged with his care in some fashion, which would be sufficient to trigger a duty.

Most juries are comprised of people who believe they have a civic duty and they do their best to fulfill that duty. They take that job very seriously. The idea of being too stupid to get out of jury duty is an old "joke" that needs to be retired.

I don't know what evidence, exactly, was presented in this case, but it sure looks like a horrendous miscarriage of justice. Fault the jurors for being malicious, maybe, but not "too stupid to get out of it."

Just my 2 cents.

edit: by "malicious" I mean self-righteous and overly judgmental; I think they just wanted to see someone pay

I was the court reporter in hundreds of trials, both civil and criminal. I never once saw a jury that wasn't dedicated to getting to the truth of the matter. Only one time was there a single juror who was tainted in a high-profile murder case.

Spend 8 hours listening to what people think a "reasonable doubt" is an perhaps your would develop some insight.

and maybe you'll develop some insight, too.

Reason and legal fact are rare birds in the jury room.

You had some terrible experiences as a juror, but that was specific to your case. I saw, in each case, 12 very dedicated people who sometimes gave up weeks of their personal life in order to apply justice. These people did their best with what was presented to them, they were dedicated, they listened attentively.

I have nothing but respect for someone who is willing to put themselves through the ordeal of sitting in a jury box with 11 strangers and eventually reaching a judgment which will seriously affect other people's lives. AFAIC, no one who sits on a jury is "stupid," because the law is a tricky thing, especially when it comes to defining terms of the law.

I did see 12 Angry Men and found it entertaining. Maybe one day they'll do a movie called 12 Angry Lawyers, and it will take place in chambers, with prosecution and defense lawyers arguing about what will be presented to the jury and what will not be.

and I'm not "too stupid to get out of it." I didn't want to try to get out of it.

I consider it my duty as a citizen.

Your comments are insulting.

It almost sounds like to me the DA played on the emotions of the jurists.

The death of a child is one of the hardest cases for a jury to listen to. They have a natural tendency to want to punish someone just to make things balance out. They think to themselves, "If I had been there, I would have jumped in."

Projection is one of the most difficult emotions for a juror to control.

dead child=someone has to pay, no matter what

too. You should never jump in a rain-swollen creek or river without some kind of safety line or something. She was not a professional rescuer. This was malicious prosecution and a ignorant jury.

Or her lawyer a rotten one. I looked up story from Altoona website. Kind of podunk on details, but it did mention the jury spent a whole 15 minutes deliberating.

I'd have loved to seen local coverage of this case.

Which is probably part of her problem. They do the best they can with the time and resources they have, but now that her case is becoming more known maybe a private lawyer will step up to the plate and defend her.

You should be allowed to sur jurors for malicious conviction, just like you can sue a cop for false arrest, or sue a prosecutor for false prosecution.

All these people who get wrongly convicted for crimes they did not committ should be allowed to sue the jurors who convicted them. Let the jurors be held accountable in court to show that they carefully weighed the evidence they were presented.

That would make jurors be a lot more careful, rather than just eating up everything the prosecutor says like doggie biscuits.

n.t.

Whereas a legal system that is imperfect is mandated by nature, to be forced into a lottery of bankruptcy would be unfair.

I will say that. You shouldn't implement my idea as long as the new Bush bankruptcy law is on the books.

Jurors have a duty to fairly weigh the evidence, to pay attention to all testimony, and to ask critical questions in the deliberation room. If they don't fulfill those responsibilities, and it results in a person being sent to jail for a crime they didn't do, then yes, the jurors should be held accountable for that.

I would serve on a jury because I know that I would do all of those things. I would make it clear in the selection process, however, that under no circumstances would I even be open to convicting a non-violent drug offender or someone on trial for prostitution/soliciting prostitution.

How many times has evidence or testimony been withheld for whatever reason?

People who are wrongly convicted do appeal based on the jury not hearing all the evidence.

How can you blame a jury for that?

Would you then go about punishing the judges and prosecuting attorneys?

How many times has evidence or testimony been withheld for whatever reason?

A lot. If that's the case then the juror will not be legally liable.

People who are wrongly convicted do appeal based on the jury not hearing all the evidence.

How can you blame a jury for that?

If that's how it worked out then there would be no grounds for suing the jurors

Would you then go about punishing the judges and prosecuting attorneys?

Of course. I'm talking about what happens when jurors behave negligently on the job. When the ignore testimony, or when they let their emotions get in the way of assessing the facts and evidence. In those cases, if it can be proven in court by a wrongly convicted former defendant, then yes, those jurors should be sued and penalized.

Jurists are still human and will vote what they believe. They base it on the evidence they are given.

How do you know their emotions got in the way? How do you prove it? How do you know they ignore testimony? Maybe for one reason or another the jury found someone's testimony not credible or evidence to be lacking.

It's impossible to sue and penalize people for what they believe.

When they go on their rampaging prosecutions, if they are found to have manipulated evidence or been less than honorable in their presentations, they should have to serve the sentence they tried to get. That would put a halt to the situations you're talking about. Juries can't be held accountable for getting manipulated evidence.

But in this case, the prosecutor was right anyway. Adults are responsible for the kids in their care, even when they're dating and not married to the parent of the kids.

a prosecutor for malicious prosecution. And suing a cop, as opposed to the city for whom he works, is also quite difficult. Both have immunity from all but the most blatently dishonest conduct. I doubt this jury came close to that standard.

I'm currently serving on jury duty, and had a trial a couple of weeks ago. While it IS inconvenient and a pain, I was not "too stupid to get out of it". I actually, horror upon horrors, take my civil duties seriously.

:rofl:

Too stupid to agree with YOU, right?

ambitions?

Like many pols, Gorman could care LESS whose lives are ruined or lost just as long as the media spell and pronounce his name correctly. "Justice" doesn't really exist on many DAs' mental maps.

I wonder whether he got the idea for this stunt from the last episode of "Seinfeld". Life sure is imitating art, and managing to be even more far-fetched in its absurdity. There needs to be personal financial and criminal liability for wrongful prosecution for people like Gorman. Nothing else would get them to even consider stopping what they're doing.

Dems elected there are usually conservative. Funny thing is he's not running for reelection. Something happened on a murder case where he was accused of witholding evidence from the defense. I think it was declared a mistrial and has to be retried.

On Sept. 18, 2004 -- the day after Hurricane Ivan brought torrential downpours across Western Pennsylvania -- Ms. Newkirk, 41, joined her friend, Thomas E. Reffner, and his 2-year-old son, Hunter Delasko, to do repairs to a trailer in Claysburg, Blair County.

snip:
But Blair County District Attorney Dave Gorman said she was, at that moment, the child's guardian.
"Common sense dictates someone in that close proximity to a child is obligated to do something," Mr. Gorman said. "I think anybody in their right mind would jump in."

Both the defense and prosecution agree that Mr. Reffner never specifically asked Ms. Newkirk to watch his son. But the district attorney doesn't think that matters.

"If she didn't believe she had a legal duty, then why did she pull the kid back the first time?" Mr. Gorman asked.

http://tedmathis.blogspot.com/2005/10/experts-disagree-with-jury-verdict.html

One of the people that went in after the little boy was a non-swimmer, also.

This is a tricky one, I think. The reasoning for the DA's prosecution of this woman is wobbly at best. I can understand the reasoning, but it still seems rather harsh, IMO. The father plea-bargained to a misdemeanor, but did not testify against his girlfriend.

While I think she probably could have jumped in to save the boy and survived, I also think she was panicked and very afraid. I think it was almost paralyzing for her and she did the only thing she could think of which was get help. I don't believe she should be punished to this extent for not going in.

that had completely flooded out roads. One would've had to be a helluva good swimmer, strong or wise to white water to have survived. I don't know the story of the non-swimmers who did survive, maybe they knew what to do, maybe they were lucky. I remember a few years ago a young firefighter died on a road in daylight that had suffered a flash flood. He waded into the waist-deep water to help motorists and was swept to his death.

How would it have helped if she had died as well? Well maybe she would've gotten a Carnegie medal posthumously.

Yeah, it was probably stupid to let the toddler even get that near the creek. But first responsibility was with the father. But I've seen parents let little kids get near nasty water - I bet we all have. I bet over the weekend I could go down to Ohiopyle(popular white water spot) and I'd see little kids at the edge tossing rocks and sticks in the water while their dumbass parents stand and watch, and probably a few not pay attention.

So are they now going to convict parents or live-ins if they don't go back in a burning house or leap into surf or rivers to rescue their kids?

Yeah, putting this woman in jail will sure teach her and I feel so much safer she's in jail. Teach me not to take any responsibility for anyone's kid. :sarcasm:

That's why I think this was harsh.

None of us where there so the best we can do is speculate how the water was, the high emotions running at the time and the actions, or lack of, that people involved took.

Maybe she could have done more such as take the boy back a second time...I don't know. I didn't find anything that specific surrounding the events leading up to his falling in the water. I do think once he fell in, she was panicked and very afraid. I don't believe she should be prosecuted for her fear and that's what happened, IMO.

I also think it sets a bad precedent for anyone who is faced with anything similiar to this.

I think the jury decided she did have a legal responsiblity as a guardian, that is implied when people are dating. She let him stand by the creek and throw in sticks and rocks, after she had told the father it was too dangerous for him to be down there. It seems to me that's where criminal negligence started. Or maybe that's what the jury thought. It does add more to chew on than the OP anyway.

It's wobbly, IMO. To make a person legally responsible over children who are not theirs. While I do believe people should do what they can, I don't know about holding them liable like this. It's an uncomfortable thing for me and I'm a parent of three.

I would want someone to do whatever they could to help my child and should the effort fail, I wouldn't want them punished for it. This just bugs me.

I forget the term. When a person accepts responsiblity for something, like even helping somebody fix their car, then they accept responsiblity for the consequences too. So if you stop to help somebody whose car has broken down, you have to make sure and not do anything stupid that would cause it to catch fire. For instance. I'm thinking that applies in this situation too. Particularly since they were dating, it wasn't like she was a stranger and she could just say she thought it was a difference in parenting styles.

as having having taken responsibility for the child. That may be the basis for her guilt. We don't have enough facts.

And that's exactly what the jury decided. She had removed the child once, so she obviously knew the danger. They were dating. She was as responsible as he was. The father was charged too, and got a plea deal so they were both held responsible in the situation.

HE was the legal guardian, not her -- her rights and responsibilities only go so far. This is not like she gave him a gun to play with. She watched him -- toddlers dart around. His FATHER shouldn't have taken the kid to such a dangerous area, and if he did, HE should have kept the child chained to him. This is his fault. I can't believe he got a lesser charge/sentence than she did.

Also, I can't swim -- it petrifies me. There is no way I would go into water over my waist, let alone a raging river. A fear is a legitimate reason not to have done this.

Bah! Grandstanding DA.

If you take responsibility for someone, you have to fulfill it. If you take responsibility for a child, you have to watch out for the child.

I often interact with neighborhood children. Sometimes I might tell them to stay out of the street, etc. Doesn't mean I have a legal duty to take care of them!

Seems kind of nanny statish to me, kind of like gun laws, anti-smoking laws, gambling laws, drug laws and prostitution laws.

Evidently this brain-dead DA followed some vaguely similar logic. There is nothing in the law that says a parent MUST jump in a river - or run in front of traffic - to save a child or anybody else for that matter.

She was with the father. He was working on a trailer, I don't know whose. As adults, you typically don't have to ask another adult to make sure a 2 year old doesn't go near a flooded creek. If they were dating, which some accounts say they were, then it's implied that she would watch the child, he wouldn't specifically ask. She took him back, but then let him stay by the creek and throw in rocks and sticks. So she knew the creek was dangerous, but didn't take the exact same precaution later that she had early. Who knows why. That was the irresponsible part, and possibly legally negligent part, right there. I don't know about anybody who can't swim jumping in, but maybe it wasn't that deep as the other non-swimmer jumped in too. Maybe the jury decided she had moved to the role of accepting legal responsibiliity for the well-being of the child, and since she didn't have enough brains to take him away from the creek again, she should be held responsible for not jumping in when he fell in. Sad situation in any event.

Very well said.

If a toddler drowns in pool, pond in yard, bucket, etc? Almost never. Yet I could argue they had a duty to keep said toddler away from those hazards.

Or how about the toddler who dies in a house fire set by him or his/her siblings with matches or lighter? Usually dismissed as a tragedy, rarely are parents charged yet I could argue they had a duty to keep matches/lighters away from children.

On a day the creek was calm that same toddler could've wandered to it, fell in and drowned. And I bet no charges filed if father and girlfriend had just not been paying rapt attention and hadn't noticed toddler wandered off to the creek.

There is a difference between attentive parents whose children wander off, and this woman. She was right there. She took the child back to his father. Then, she let the kid throw rocks and sticks into a creek she had already decided was too dangerous for him to be around. That changes the legal responsibility of the situation. Parents are charged in situations like this all the time, when it isn't a matter of having taken all reasonable precautions and the child getting into mischief in spite of it. This woman didn't take those reasonable precautions, she ignored her own best judgment in fact.

to stay away from something that attracts him. And as I stated previously, I bet I could go down to Ohiopyle park that has whitewater all the time and find idiot parents letting their children very near dangerous water tossing rocks and sticks in.

I've seen parents blissfully let their little kids do all kinds of crap I considered a slip away from disaster.

She made an error in judgement - but how is jail time going to help her or us? Better if they had given her community service, then she and we the taxpayers would've benefited.

Wonder if the judge was stuck with a mandatory sentence or could've given a more creative sentence.

Some of those parents would find themselves in a barrel of trouble if something happened to one of those kids, that is when the law actually steps in.

The problem with this woman is that she didn't make an error in judgment when the boy was at the creek, because she had already judged the creek was dangerous. If it had happened the first time he was down there, it would have been a bit more iffy.

I agree on the jail sentence part, I'm not a big fan of jail anyway. To me, a nice place to keep violent people and sexual predators away for the rest of their lives, receive whatever mental health help they need, that's all our incarceration system should consist of. Maybe a different place for people who just won't stop stealing. Treatment for drug and alcohol offenders. That's about it. I'm a bitchy person, not a punative person.

So I guess that kind of spoils your argument there.

Which is bull. He's the guardian, he has the FIRST and PRIME responsibility for the child. If he couldn't find a babysitter, then he should have leashed his child near him. Yes, leashed. They have them for children that age. The DA went on a grandstanding witch hunt here.

And the parent gets a lot of public sympathy, but rarely criminal charges.

This is stupid.
Imagine the precedent set.
If a house is burning and a child is trap inside does it means that all onlooker got to rush in they might get charge for not trying to rescue the child.

We are not all borns heros. This is plain rediculous. Man I be scare to go to the beach to sunbath cause I wont know when someone going to drown and I get charge for not rushing in to try to rescue him/her.

... in part because too many of us can't understand that accidents happen, and that not every bad thing that occurs is the result of a crime.

I'm increasingly sympathetic to business owners and landlords who refuse to allow children on their premises. I'm sick of parents who can't be bothered to mind their kids, and who want to sue or prosecute everyone in sight when they end up stuck with the natural consequences of their inattention.

as easily as keeping a kid away from a raging creek like this it goes to negligence.

They prosecuted the father and his girlfriend....not everyone in sight.

The kid did not mind her, and the father did not make him mind. So death to her for failing, I suppose.

Actually, the woman could have beaten the negligence rap by carefully refusing to notice where the kid went in the first place. Her demonstrated concern for child was what created the duty of care, and the consequent obligation to make a watery sacrifice of her poor self in honor of the Child.

My advice: never do anything that might constitute assuming a duty of care toward any child not your own. It may take a village to raise a child, but with crap like this, who can blame the village for not sticking around?


Mr. and Mrs. Parent are on their own -- deservedly so.

The kid went to the creek the first time...the girlfriend took him back to his father...the kid followed her and went a second time.

She couldn't have repeated the action again?

Girlfriend and boyfriends have been held liable for the deaths of children not their own in the past. What makes this time different?

The girlfriend didn't jump in after the kid...that, I can see reasons. Panick and overwhelming fear, IMO. But when the kid could have been saved by NOT letting him near the creek a SECOND time...yeah, I can see them holding her liable for it.

... and concentrated on fixing the trailer -- or whatever project they were supposed to be working on -- she would not have left herself open to this prosecution for negligence. Her attempt to look out for the child's welfare was what created the liability. Her attempts to get the kid to mind her failed, and she goes to the slammer as a result.

So perhaps she should just have minded her own business and left all the parenting to the parent. If she had done that, she would not be in this bind.

Neither would be in this bind if they had acted responsibly.

Mind you, I think that this prosecution was dead wrong. But it is true that the woman's demonstrated concern for the child was held to have created a duty of care.

Which is why it would have been in her interest to have paid no attention to the child whatsoever. If she had only minded her own business, she'd have had no duty to mind another person's child at all.

The father would have known she wasn't with the child. You're creating a different set of circumstances. Just as it would have been a different circumstance if this was the first date and she did leave the parenting to the parent. You can't change the circumstances to fit the conclusion you want to draw. The facts are what they are.

I've pointed out that if this woman had completely ignored the kid, she would not have left herself open to prosecution (outrageous as this prosecution was).

In response, you point out that she did not ignore the child, and that I "can't change the circumstances to fit the conclusion (I) want to draw". Which leads me to suspect that you are unacquainted with the subjunctive mood.

The other people on the creek bed, who may well have seen the child standing there??? NO. So you don't have a point. The strangers on the creek bed, who did ignore the child standing there in danger, were not prosecuted. Because they were never in a position to be a guardian to that child, or presumed the woman was because of her actions in regards to that child.

How would you feel if you were standing on that creek, worried about that little boy but saw that woman take the little boy away, maybe talk to the little boy later. She's the responsible guardian so you let her be. Then the kid falls in and she does NOTHING. How would you feel? Then has the audacity to say she had no responsiblity? Most other adults standing there would say, well hell, if I'd known she didn't think she had a responsiblity, I'd have picked the kid up myself.

Like I said, you're entitled to whatever relationship with kids you do or don't want to have. But this is the norm for most adults and what most adults expect from other adults.

She went for help. Apparently, the prosecutor and the jury thought that she should have jumped in regardless of her inability to swim. Me, I think that the prosecutor and jury should jump in and stay there.

Was anybody else prosecuted???"
The other people on the creek bed, who may well have seen the child standing there?????? NO. So you don't have a point.

Those other people weren't prosecuted not because they were strangers, but rather because none of them had attempted to protect the child from the creek. This woman did, and the court found that in doing so, she created for herself a duty of care in that situation.

I'm pretty sure that I explained this -- with the prosecutor's own words -- to someone else downthread.

She made the effort to protect the child because she wasn't a stranger, that's the whole damned point. SHE created a duty for herself to care for that child because of her behavior AND she did that because she was dating the father. It goes together.

You keep saying that parents aren't being held accountable for their children, yet that is the exact opposite of what happened in this situation. She was not a stranger who took a child to their father, she was his girlfriend. NO stranger was held accountable. We don't know how many people were at the creek that day. The only people held accountable were the two people who were in charge of that child. The prosecutor is simply explaining the law that applies because it wasn't a mother or step-mother. It wasn't necessary for her to verbally say "I'll watch your child", the duty to the child was implied by her actions.

... did not hinge on the nature of this woman's relationship with the child's father. The woman's decision to lead the child away from the river was likely influenced by her connection to the father. But the simple fact of this relationship was NOT what created the duty of care. It was her actions toward the child that created the claimed duty of care.

Do you understand the distinction now, or do I have to explain it again?

I've said a cazillion times it was both. You've just chosen to hear what you want to hear in order to have a fight.

They prosecuted the people who were responsible for the kid. Exactly what you say you want to have happen. For people to take responsiblity for their kids, that's what this prosecution was all about. Geesh.

for not rescuing us from hell on earth.

You notice how this woman's attempt to keep the child away from the riverbank suddenly turned into a "legal" obligation to put her own life in extreme peril and snatch the kid out of the raging waters -- even though the woman couldn't swim?

This little outbreak of insanity has GOT to be overturned on appeal: there's just no legal basis for this absurd prosecution. The real heart of the matter is this: a woman who cannot swim decided that since she lacked the ability to rescue the child, she should not kill herself in a futile attempt to do so. And the prosecutor and jury got cheesed off at her nerve in refusing to make a useless sacrifice of herself for the sake of the Child.

Basically, she cheated the community of the heart-warming moral that could have made the sad tale of the drowned youngster go down a little easier. After all, if she had drowned too, then at least we'd all be left with the comforting knowledge that women still recognize their own lives as completely worthless, especially when the needs of Offspring -- even other people's Offspring -- enter the picture.

:eyes:

Parents: watch your own damn kids. You'll get no help from me.

It was not a stranger on a creek bed. I dare say if somebody on that creek had acted like an adult and stayed by that child's side, the whole thing wouldn't have happened.

Doesn't this basically say, don't even get involved in the first place, otherwise it's your responsibility while he's anywhere near you.

Basically, if he drowned the first time he was near the creek, she'd be in the clear.

dumb.

They were dating and came there together. It's not the first time in the US a girlfriend and/or boyfriend were held liable in the death of a child not their own.

Don't ever date anybody with kids, you obviously don't get the responsiblity involved.

:eyes:

... if I never, ever date a guy who already has kids!

:sarcasm:

If you're not prepared for the responsiblity, it's a good thing you know it. Not everybody wants kids, no big deal.

... and the rest of us are left needing to protect ourselves from these endless attempts at sticking us with other people's parental responsibilities.

These two people were the ones responsible for that kid. That's why I can't figure out what your problem is. Prosecuting them sends a message to all other parents, and responsible partners, to pay attention to their kids. This is not a case of some random stranger expected to step in and act as parent. They were a couple, enough of a couple that a jury decided the woman had not met the normal responsibilities expected in that situation. They were both charged, nobody was allowed to walk away on this.

"Don't ever date anyone with kids" is damned fine advice. I never did; single parenthood was a dealbreaker when I was single. Sometimes singles who do not want to date parents are called unflattering things; perhaps this story will give pause to those so quick to judge.

"Don't ever have kids" is something I sometimes hear too - as though I had both a tubal ligation and endometrial ablation because I thought I might someday want to give birth!

And all those afternoons of providing free childcare so that Mr. Parent can go do whatever it is he needs to do sans offspring.

I find it's sooo tough to live ones life without someone else's darling bundle of liability to give it meaning.

I would never have expected anybody I was dating to take responsibility for my children when they were small - because it wouldn't have been their reponsibilty (and I wouldn't have trusted them). Now if the two were engaged or living together, well that's different. But dating?

But I know some guys do expect their girlfriends to act like unpaid babysitters.

We don't know how serious it was or if it wasn't at all. We don't know how long they were together or anything else.

Both were prosecuted.

I wouldn't have dated a guy for long that I didn't trust to look out for the well being of my child. What's the point? There's obviously a line that's crossed in the dating process where couples begin to take on those responsibilites, this couple was judged to have crossed it.

The argument of the prosecution was that the woman became responsible for the child in the context of that particular situation after she pulled him away from the creek and returned him to his father. That action -- not her relationship with the father -- was what was supposed to have created the duty of care and the liability.

It was the entire circumstance. When you read both articles, it's quite clear.

... and the prosecution's argument was not that the woman and the child's father were going steady.

Yeah, the argument about where her responsibility begins and ends would be in doubt.

But, that's not the case. They were together and that's why she was prosecuted and the father was, too.

It's not the first time a girlfriend or boyfriend have been prosecuted for being liable in the death of a child.

Plus, I don't honestly believe she would have gotten off the hook by 'ignoring' the child.

... between the woman and the child:



The prosecution didn't claim that the woman had any actual responsibility to stick around and see to it that the child was safe -- a duty that a parent or guardian would have had. The prosecution argued that the woman created a duty of care in that particular situation by attempting to look after the child.

And yes, this line of reasoning could leave a perfect stranger who acted similarly vulnerable to prosecution.

Perhaps it wasn't as clear in these two as in some others. The fact that they were a couple mattered. I disagree with the prosecutor that anybody would have jumped in, sometimes the smart thing is to not jump in so you can go get help. My husband actually just fell in the river and I was stunned that 4 grown men stood around trying to figure out how to get him out instead of one of them calling for help. And not a one jumped in either. So I don't agree with that line of reasoning. But I do believe that she judged there to be a danger, that there was a special relationship of some measure of responsiblity to that child, and that she failed to meet a normal standard of responsibility. I might well think that if it were two friends and one was cleaning the trailer and the other was down at the creek. If my child followed a friend to the creek, I'd expect her to not let him fall in, especially if she knew I was working.

For strangers, neighbors, and casual friends. And, I guarantee if that woman had spanked the kid, she could be arrested for assaulting the boy if the Father called the cops. So, she's been "given" the legal standing/responsibilities of in "loco parentis" without the legal rights. Stupid. Bad law, and this will be overturned on appeal.

Unfortunately, the real lesson from all this is that it is in your interests to mind your own business. If you even try to protect another person's child -- even only to the extent of leading that child away from danger and returning him to his parent (which is what this woman did) -- you will have made yourself liable and culpable for anything bad that happens later. Even if you act reasonably and in good faith, someone will find a way to make you regret it.

So save your protective instincts for yourself and your own family.


It's too bad, really. But apparently, that's how it is.

Not his fiancee, or even a longtime GF... his dates. And their families. I suspect, from the story, that's what this is here. They were causally dating. Sorry, she has no legal responsibility to the child's welfare -- the dad does. I've seen quite a few men who do this with their dates, so it just makes me wonder....

The father was negligent for entrusting the care of his son to someone not a family member, close friend, or longtime partner.

There's a big difference between DATING and MARRIAGE! Just because somebody is DATING somebody does not make their children automatically their responsibility! That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

I saw this story when it came out last week, and saw the prosecutor's statement about how keeping the kid from offing himself the first time meant she had signed up to kill herself if necessary for the kid's sake. I used to do the normal, human thing of pulling unattended children out of traffic and calling the police when someone left the "most precious thing in the world" alone in a car on hot day, but I'd be afraid to do those things now.

Let the kid die because you're afraid of getting in trouble. :eyes:

Frankly, no, I'm not willing to die or go to jail for a stranger. Sorry.

:applause:

:yourock:

... and blushing!

Thanks, Scout!

:)

Certainly you can't blame Tiberius Bush directly for this. But is it just me or has their been a large increase in barbarous miscariages of justice, from Abu Grahib outward, since Herr Busheler seized America and turned us into Amerika?

Just like Bush* arguing that women should die in an attempt to save the possible life of a fetus - women seem to be the ones responsible for other's children - are even required to die for them. Amazing.

This follows the kind of increasingly sexist world the Republicans are trying to make for all of us.

flat-out bullshit decision....should be an immediate appeal

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8485038/





:crazy:

Nothing that happens in Texas should surprise anyone. The state's collectively insane....

to save someone. More times that not, the would-be hero just ends up getting in the way.

Is it possible to appeal such a ruling?

I'm glad somebody finally made this point! I was an EMT and I was always told that if I could not safely attempt rescue: DON'T. By attempting a risky rescue, you put others at risk when they have to rescue you as well as the victim.

To me, it doesn'matter at all whether she had "assumed responsibility" for the child by dating the dad, taking the child back once from the river, etc. None of that matters. She was extremely responsible for doing that, as a matter of fact.

The fact is, when the child finally fell in, despite her attempts to warn the father that his child was attracted to the water, she was not in a position to save him--she couldn't swim! So she screamed for help, which is what a lot of people would do. TONS of people would NOT jump into a swollen creek to save anyone, friend or stranger, if they themselves could not swim.

him from falling in the creek to begin with. As I read more through the articles, the replies in the thread including my own, it wasn't about that she didn't dive in after the kid...she could have prevented it by taking the child away a second time.

I guess because the first thing I did was call 911 instead of thinking I could heal the injured myself I'm a criminal. Oh yeah and I've also called the 911 a few times when I heard men beating their wives or girlfriends but thanks to this case I know know it is my duty to jump into a situation I don't know how to handle rather than get help from people who do.

Absolutely ridiculous. I am not going to jump into any raging rivers to save anyone from drowning either.
I mean, it's absolutely insane.

Where were the parents?

That poor woman has had 18 months of her life stolen from her.