| Stupid Parents | Toronto Star Wheels - 04/22/06 | |
Police were called after patrolling security guards found the youngster asleep in the car and the father was charged with abandoning the child.
On the heels of that case came a disturbingly similar one in which an Oshawa woman was charged with child abandonment after leaving her 5-month-old daughter in a locked car, with the windows only slightly ajar, while she went inside the Ajax Downs Casino. Again security staff spotted the child, police were called, and the car owner was arrested after being paged to return to her vehicle. Durham Children’s Aid Services took custody of the child at the scene pending a hearing.
Meanwhile in St. Albert, Edmonton recently, a woman stopped at a convenience store and left her sleeping 10-month-old son in the back seat of the unlocked and still-running car while she went in the store.
Imagine her surprise when upon her return she saw the vehicle being driven away. An Amber Alert was issued and over four hours later the abandoned vehicle was found with the engine running and the child safe inside.
That mother was not charged, which begs the question, why not? Is there really any difference between these incidents? Are there degrees of child abandonment? Did the mother’s more innocuous excuse – dashing into a store for some sundry items, versus the others’ seamy desire to gamble, somehow mitigate the circumstances?
Should time be a consideration, – abandonment for five minutes is acceptable, twenty minutes is not?
On the other hand, the Edmonton mom not only left her baby alone in the car, but then, unbelievably, left the car unlocked with the engine running. Consider too that after the car and child were stolen an Amber Alert was issued, thereby utilizing police and other emergency resources, as well as involving members of the public, one of whom eventually spotted the car.
The fact is that mother’s abandonment endangered the child’s life, exposing him to possible injury, -the very definition of the criminal code charge, yet she wasn’t charged.
Forget the agony she must have gone through during those hours her child was missing, Forget that she only left him for a few moments, doing what many other parents routinely do, and remember that her deliberate actions endangered the life of her child, an innocent child who had no choice but to rely on her faulty judgment.
Children are after all completely dependent on their parents, at the mercy of their supposedly “grown-up” caretakers, especially so as passengers in a car. One can only hope they’re buckled up properly, the car is road-worthy, and their drivers capable and sober.
Sobriety is another whole area of responsibility where caregivers make stupid decisions, risking the safety and well-being of their innocent young passengers by driving impaired.
Every child deserves a designated driver, - so declares the title of a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) report that calls driving while intoxicated with kids in the car a form of child abuse and demands the establishment and strict enforcement of uniform child endangerment driving under the influence (DUI) laws.
To that end in 1994 the United States Congress passed the Drunk Driving Child Protection Act enhancing the penalties in federal jurisdiction areas on an impaired driving conviction if a child is present in the vehicle.
Many US states have also introduced laws that either make child endangerment a separate offence or enhance existing penalties for driving while impaired with children in the car. These state laws do vary widely however, from Texas where the felony of DWI with a child passenger (defined as under 15 years old) is a separate offence, to Louisiana where legislation simply stipulates that sentences cannot be suspended for drivers charged with DWI where there is a child (12 years old and under) passenger.
In Canada Manitoba’s Transportation and Government Services Minister Ron Lemieux announced changes last July to that province’s Highway Traffic Act.
“We are acting on the advice of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who say every child deserves a designated driver," said Lemieux at the time. "As well, we are sending a message that endangering the lives of others through reckless choices will not be tolerated in Manitoba."
Under the new legislation individuals convicted of impaired driving with a child under the age of 16 in the vehicle face longer suspensions: five years for a first conviction, 10 years for a second, and life for three or more convictions within 10 years. Crown prosecutors are also to seek higher sentences for impaired drivers with child passengers and have police report incidents to child and family services agencies.
Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act has neither a separate charge nor enhanced penalties for impaired drivers who endanger the lives of their child passengers.
But would knowing that there’s a separate statute actually stop an impaired driver from driving off with kids in the car? Impaired driving is already a criminal offence yet people continue to drive drunk.
No doubt enhanced penalties, - mandatory jail time or longer licence suspensions, would impact a convicted driver, but would new legislation that threatens additional punishment be an effective deterrent, actually preventing the behaviour, or would public education have more impact on people’s actions? Rather than fine-tune the law would it be better to concentrate on prevention and enforcing existing laws?
Enforcement is a key issue with child abandonment cases. Here too a law already exists, but charges aren’t always laid. Why not? Charge them all. Charge every adult who endangers a child’s life by leaving them alone in a vehicle. Let it be known that if they break the law they will unequivocally be held criminally responsible for their stupid decision.
Charge them all; protect the children.