Smithfield Mom Could Face Charges For The Way Her Baby Was Dressed

From 1270 WMPM

Mom Could Face Charges For The Way Her Baby Was Dressed - Smithfield Police haven’t decided if a 21-year-old mother will face child neglect charges for bringing her 1-year-old baby shopping without proper clothing. Responding to a complaint, officers found the woman at Wal-Mart around 12:15am Thursday. The child was wearing only thin pajamas, and had no jacket, shoes, socks or toboggan. Police said the woman claimed she had gotten into an argument with her boyfriend and left and didn’t have time to properly dress her child. Officers noted that while talking with the woman outside, the temperature was 29 degrees, and she had to be told to place her baby inside her car and to turn on the engine to heat the vehicle. The Department of Social Services is also conducting their own separate investigation. Police said it will be up to the district attorney’s office if the young mother will face child neglect charges.



:evil: Unbeleivable! But you see it all the time! Shame on me for not realizing you could turn them in for it. Wonder if the woman herself had a coat on?

 

Hmmmm, wonder what she meant by argument. If chairs were flying, the baby might have been safer taking chances with the weather.

 

Unless the house was on fire, you don't take a kid out at 12:00 in the morning in the dead of winter without some outerwear on.

 

Flying chairs can kill a baby just as quick as fire. I have known of situations where kids got hurt during fights between mom and dad.

 

I'm sure there is more to the story, but there really isn't much excuse in my book. I always kepts spare blankets & clothes in the car, you never know when a kid is going to throw up or something, maybe she didn't have any, I don't know, but it just sounds like irresponsibility.

 

doesn't really matter how much more to the story there is. if there was an argument where she felt threatened enough to take the child out of the house so quickly that she couldn't dress him/her properly then she should have gone to the police station, hospital, family or friends house but not Wal Mart. I mean come on......its just another example of a sorry parent not giving a crap about the child.

 

Amen, you just explained it better than i did.........................

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, tangy

I would walk around just about naked before my child would go out in the cold half dressed!

 

She could have purchased some clothes at Walmart, i am sure they would have a coat for the kid.

Some people are unreal.

 

Perhaps she went to Wal-Mart to figure out what she should do. But I guess some don't have the benefit of knowing exactly what should be done as the rest of you seem to have.

 

That's the first place I head when there is an emergency.............are you kidding me??

Can you give me one GOOD reason why anyone would have their kid at WALMART at 12:00 in the morning, 29 degrees outside, with no shoes, no socks, no hat, no coat, nothing?? Just like Tangy said, the police department would have been the responsible thing to do if she was truly in danger, not Wally World. If she's got a LOGICAL explanation then I will retract my statements, but for the life of me I can't think of one. But I guess stranger things have happened.:roll:

 

It is one of the places that will be open at that time, so there will be warmth and light. If you do not want to get the police involved you surely would not want to go to the police station, and many domestic issues do not wlecome such exposure. thus one can stay warm and allow for a cooling of tempers if that is needed.

 

Play the devil's advocate if you like, but I am not convinced, nor will I be unless there is a better explanation than she and her boyfriend got into an argument. I doubt the police would be considering charges if she had a more plausible explanation or, if when she explained herself, they felt she was in danger of bodily harm and that's why she left. 8)

 

Perhaps they are understanding, like the fine folks on here are :roll: .

I am sure, the safest thing for the cops to do is exactly what they did.

 

You asked if there was a logical explanation and I gave it. I cannot say if it is accurate or not, just that it would fit the situation.

Many cases of domestic violence can be diffused if one party removes themself, which would again fit this situation as we know it.

 

Tawii,

I understand that my child's safety and well being come before anything else including a midnight trip to Walmart. :roll:

If that makes me judgemental about what has been reported as an irresponsible parent, then so be it, I can surely live with that.

 

Point taken, but I still ain't buyin' what your sellin' 8) From what has been reported, which as I stated may not be the whole story, it doesn't sound to me as though the police quite believed it either.

 

I wasn't defending what she did, guys. If you have to leave hastily to save your baby, no, you don't go to Wally world. And why didn't some one buy her some clothes?

 

you have got to be kidding. surely you don't believe that.

 

I will give her the benefit of the doubt because she is only 21, young and probably inexperience. She lives with her boyfriend, they had an arguement (like all couples do) why involve the police (once again we don't know what went down). She may not have any places to turn and since Walmart is open 24 hours, she might have figured she will go there and maybe cool down for a bit.....but in the mean time, If I were her and if she was even thinking straight, I would go to the children's section and get sock, pants and sweather, they will probably all be under $10.

I was at Walmart in Smithfield last night and they still have a clearance section of winter clothes left.

Why couldn't she leave the child with the boyfriend and let her go out for a lil bit if she needed to cool down?

There is a lot to this story that we don't know.