To be shocked at this woman's lack of parenting concern?

[jojane]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346481/Tragedy-girl-murdered-Florida-church-just-hour-mother-let-recently-released-sex-offender-McDonalds-befriended-family-Walmart.html

I can't believe that a mother would let her child go off with a man she has JUST met in the supermarket!! I am all for not thinking every person is a peado and will happily let my children talk to people if I am there but no way would I let a complete stranger take one of my children forma burger!?,

Hmm, it's a bit like another child who only disappeared (I won't give the name another internet hit) when the parents were at a restaurant.

It's not fair to write it as though the parents had a hand in their child being murdered, the responsibility for that lays with the murderer.

You might as well say the mum did it because she didn't give a bollocks about her DD. I don't believe that.

We've all done things other people would think of as a bit dodgy with our children, and who knows what the reality of the situation was, but the newspaper's gone out of its way to put a slant on it, it's what they do.

It can't be as it seems, surely.

The mum wouldn't have let her dd go with the man. Surely he followed the dd, after talking to the family...or similar?

As I understand it, the McDonald's was inside the Walmart. At the front of the shop. He was going to get the food and walked out with her instead.

They had gone to the Walmart together, having met earlier in the evening.

Can someone make the link clickable please

You are blaming the mother?
I hate threads like this, they smack of a combination of smugness and terror, the fragile hope that if you do everything right, mistrust every stranger, have all the right talismans and say all the right things, then your children will be safe.
Stories like this always evoke the 'That would never happen to my child, I'd never be that negligent and incompetent'
The child is dead, horribly and unexpectedly at the hands of a paedophile who seemed friendly and trustworthy. They went to get burgers for the family and never came back. Compassion and sadness are suitable emotions, they were deceived and the consequences were devastating.
No, I'm not making the article clickable.

The only person responsible is the evil cunt who killed her.

And these sick people prey on the vulnerable - people who are stressed to the max, drug addicts etc. They can be very charasmatic & persuasive...

But then I have let the waiter at a restaurant take my baby for a walk while I ate (out of sight in retrispect), I trust school families that realistically I have only known for a short time etc. So I use my judgement & take risks, but luckily the proportion of sick people to genuine nice people who aren't out to hurt your child is good.

I remember a case a long while back of a woman's childminder letting her down, so she gave child to bloke at train station who offered - who then invited his paedo mates around & abused her. I thought then wtf...

Saying that a parent acts negligently is not the same as saying that it was their fault x happened. Of course it was the murderers fault but letting your child go off with a stranger is at the best poir judgement /negligence.

"the fragile hope that if you do everything right, mistrust every stranger, have all the right talismans and say all the right things, then your children will be safe."

YYY

Perhaps this particular parent did act negligently. But it is interesting that whenever anything out of the ordinary happens, we feel such a strong need to say so.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2346481/Tragedy-girl-murdered-Florida-church-just-hour-mother-let-recently-released-sex-offender-McDonalds-befriended-family-Walmart.html

(just seeing if I can make it clickable)

We've all done it. Packed a child off on a playdate when we don't know the parents. Let the family next to you at soft play watch your child while you change the other ones nappy, left them in the car when you pay for petrol, lost sight of them at the park while we talk.

Today I saw a woman get on the escalator with her toddler and leave her other child behind who started to panic. I could have definitely took him of to the lift and then driven off with him.

Also today, my dd (9) went to the librarian desk to ask for a book and then disappeared into the depths of the library with him.

If it's true that the mother allowed her dd out to mcdonalds with an unknown man then yes i would say she is negligent. How someone in their right mind would allow their child out with someone they had only just met doesn't bare thinking about.

But the papers frequently stretch the truth, so who knows how much of this is true...

The macdonalds was inside the shop that they were already in.

This poor mum will never get over this. It was naive and foolish of her but I imagine she was stressed, shopping with 3 kids. 8 year old kicking off cause she was hungry, "nice bloke" (who had managed to manipulate her into trusting him) offers to accompany her to mcdonalds which is practically within view of where she's shopping, while she grabs the last few bits and pays...

It can happen. I would like to hope that, being a bit paranoid from all the horrors that happen, I would never make the wrong call. I could never feel anything but sorrow and compassion for the mum who made the wrong call and will never see her child again though.

We've all done it. Packed a child off on a playdate when we don't know the parents. Let the family next to you at soft play watch your child while you change the other ones nappy, left them in the car when you pay for petrol, lost sight of them at the park while we talk.

No "we" haven't all done it. I've never done any of those things. Playdate, I'd go along the first time. Soft play and paying for petrol - keep the children with you. Park - watch them constantly. It's not that hard. Also teach your child not to go off with a stranger or get in a stranger's car.

But none of those small risks are comparable to what this mother did and I would hold her partly to blame.

?They appeared to be down on their luck and he could help them out.?

This is key. He targeted the family because they were vulnerable.

Predatory paedophiles often target children who are poorly parented for one reason or another. This doesn't make it the parents' fault, but some decisions parents make can leave their children more vulnerable to sexual exploitation.

I would take anything in the DM with a large pinch of salt, and it's impossible to make a judgement without knowing the facts, but it is not unusual for the victims of predatory paedophiles to have other issues in their home lives.

Jan - you'd seriously unstrap 3 children and walk them across a busy forecourt to pay for petrol? Really?

Really- go on every first time

Oops, silly phone.
Meant:
Go on every first time play date?
Always keep eye on them at park?
Take them with you to pay for petrol?

Perhaps with a 3 year old... But my oldest is 9. He has so much less freedom than I had as I child, I can't insist he stays in my sight constantly, it's suffocating for them.

Surely one assesses risks, and makes a judgement... And usually it will be fine. We can't keep them at our sides forever - 18 year olds can be assaulted/ abducted.

That's a sad story.

I am not saying it was her fault just shocked that in this day and age where we are very aware of what can happen, that somebody wouldn't think of this possible scenario in thier head before allowing a stranger to take thier child somewhere.
Allowing a waiter to amuse your child while eating is much less of a risk, they are employed by the resturant and havnt targeted you, they are just doing thier job and helping amuse a child that may or may not annoy other customers with noise etc. so you would risk assess that in your head even subconsciously. If another customer came up and said I will ake them across the road I bet you would say no.

I realise that bad things happen all the time and children wander off etc whilst you are distracted, but I just can't get my head round some one consciously making the decision to allow thier child to go off with a stranger

Regarding petrol, I risk assess that in that leaving 3 children in a locked car to go inside and pay where I can see them through a window is less risky than 3 small children waking across a busy forecourt. (I would try and use pay at pump wherever possible and normally fill up after work when no kids with me) I have a banged up car that no one is likely to want to steal, I can't even give it away! If I had a Ferrari or something worthnstealingthan I would assess the risk as higher of it being car jacked etc.
Playdates - so far I have known the parents to some extent. Most of them pretty well and done numerous playdates in playschool where the parents still stay. Wasn't there a story a while back of some bloke having young children over for sleepovers by claiming he was an uncle of a child. Those parents should have checked with the actual parents. It wasn't thier fault but they should have done more.

I do feel strongly that parents have a duty of care and that it is our job to risk assess every situation (most of the time it is subconsciously) to ensure our children are safe, the world is very different to when we were children so no, they aren't going to be able to have the same freedom.

Not everyone is that aware, lots of folk are out of touch.
And the odds are 9 out of 10 times if the family had done this the child would have come back unharmed.

jojane your restaurant waiter assessment of risk being less, relies on the misassumption that all attacks are premeditated and never opportunistic.

Most attacks and abuse happen by people the parents know and trust. As parents we do everything we can and hope that we are never so unfortunate to encounter a monster who will deliberately harm our children.

The world is not very different. That is wrong. Child murder and child abduction rates in the UK have not changed since the 1970s (goes off to find a link before someone asks)

If anything we may be a tiny, tiny bit safer because some of the attacks on teenage girls that would not have been seen as attacks at the time would now.

If you're going to repeat The Daily Mail scaremongering please have the decency to head every post with Uniformed drivel. Thank you.