Local Couple Sent To Parenting Classes (Pittsburgh: preschool, live, buses)

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Are you being sarcastic or serious? It's hard to tell. I might agree with you depending on which.

My 4 yr old niece's 27 yr old dad died in 2012 when his motorcycle collided with car that made a left turn in front of him.

Which do you think I'm being?

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Hopes

Did you not read the article? They were charged with child endangerment. He did them a favor.

The article isn't clear about custodial rights. The way it reads, the grandmother could have had full custody all along. It says the grandmother "will continue full custody," which implies that she had full custody prior to this happening. Or perhaps CPS gave the grandmother full custody after this occurred and this was just a criminal hearing for the child endangerment charges. I think the latter is most likely the most accurate. As I said, the Post Gazette needs to learn how to report facts better.

If you don't like what happened, blame the police and CPS. The magistrate was simply ruling on a criminal case that appeared before him in court. He gave them a way out. That's lenient, not harsh.

My point is that there shouldn't even have to be an issue of leniency. One incidence of parental stupidity without malicious intent or any harm coming to the child does not deserve court ordered parenting classes or punishment. It does not make these people bad parents.


If it does then we need to acknowledge how supposedly awful the boomer generation and every generation of parents prior them were at caring for their kids because 20 years ago this would've been a non issue.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by EveKendall

Regardless of whether one thinks the judge was fair or harsh, I have to question the effectiveness of parenting classes. I certainly haven't seen any data that indicates they are effective, at least when they are mandatory. I am not sure what the curriculum would look like although I assume it focuses on understanding child development (something everyone should be taught in school, in my opinion).
I understand that it can be difficult to know what to do when parents seem to be exercising poor judgement.

There are classes for everything these days. Basically, people make a ton of money educating people not to abuse their kids, hit their wife, beat up their mother, not drink and drive, etc. In my opinion, the classes exist because it gives the DA a reason to drop charges. Without these classes the DA would have to prosecute people that he doesn't want to or just flat out drop the charges something he really wants to do but he doesn't want to publicize.

As for Dzvonick. He is a nice guy. Gives people chances. Lets them sink or swim. You can get off of something there if you jump through the hoops. No other judge will give you that chance. He also will throw you in jail if you screw up and other judges won't be as severe.

He also has a radio show. Pretty entertaining.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by robrobrob

As for Dzvonick. He is a nice guy. Gives people chances. Lets them sink or swim. You can get off of something there if you jump through the hoops. No other judge will give you that chance. He also will throw you in jail if you screw up and other judges won't be as severe.

I think he's probably one of the most effective magistrates in the area. When he gives people a chance, he tells them he better not see them in his court again. And he means it. He's an imposing presence---physically and physiologically. People would be crazy to not believe him. Only idiots screw up and I think they deserve his severe punishments when they do. They had a chance. He tells them they will go to jail. It's not like it's a big surprise.

Originally Posted by robrobrob

He also has a radio show. Pretty entertaining.

Really? What station?

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

My 4 yr old niece's 27 yr old dad died in 2012 when his motorcycle collided with car that made a left turn in front of him.

Which do you think I'm being?

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

My point is that there shouldn't even have to be an issue of leniency. One incidence of parental stupidity without malicious intent or any harm coming to the child does not deserve court ordered parenting classes or punishment. It does not make these people bad parents.

If it does then we need to acknowledge how supposedly awful the boomer generation and every generation of parents prior them were at caring for their kids because 20 years ago this would've been a non issue.

I'm sorry your nieces father died. I feel these two points are conflicting opinions. If a car makes a left turn in front of a pickup truck and the pickup truck collides into it, children riding in the back will go flying out of the truck bed. They won't likely fair much better than your nieces father.

The difference between previous generations is they raised their kids according to the standards of safety for their time. There weren't car seats in the 50s and 60s, but those parents used car seats as soon as it was a safety standard. These parents who had their child in a cage in the back of a pickup truck were NOT raising their children to the standards of safety for their time. There's no hypocrisy about it.

But I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about it. You feel riding in pickup trucks is safe because you did it as a child. I road in the back of pickup trucks too, but I acknowledge it's not a safe thing to do. We're both speaking from experience. The difference is that I never rode my children around in the back of pickup trucks. Even if it was legal, I wouldn't want to do it. It seems you'd like to do it if it were legal.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Hopes

I'm sorry your nieces father died. I feel these two points are conflicting opinions. If a car makes a left turn in front of a pickup truck and the pickup truck collides into it, children riding in the back will go flying out of the truck bed. They won't likely fair much better than your nieces father.

The difference between previous generations is they raised their kids according to the standards of safety for their time. There weren't car seats in the 50s and 60s, but those parents used car seats as soon as it was a safety standard. These parents who had their child in a cage in the back of a pickup truck were NOT raising their children to the standards of safety for their time. There's no hypocrisy about it.

But I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you about it. You feel riding in pickup trucks is safe because you did it as a child. I road in the back of pickup trucks too, but I acknowledge it's not a safe thing to do. We're both speaking from experience. The difference is that I never rode my children around in the back of pickup trucks. Even if it was legal, I wouldn't want to do it. It seems you'd like to do it if it were legal.

Don't be. He gets to be a better parent in death than he ever was in life. The money my niece collects from social security is more of a contribution than he ever provided, and our efforts to lionize him now that he's gone will provide a better role model than he ever would've been.

I agree with your comparison of motorcycles/riding in the back of a truck, but the fact that one is legal and one isn't seems bizarre to me. If forced to pick between the two I would say motorcycles are far more dangerous, but we'd be splitting hairs at that point.


I don't feel that riding in pickups is safe at all. I don't feel that it was safe when I did it, and I don't feel like a little girl in a cage that is strapped into the bed of the truck is any safer. No chance I'm putting my own child in the back of a truck. I don't take issue with any of that. What I do take issue with is that these people are sent to parenting class as some kind of punitive action which implies that they are bad parents, and I wonder where the line is drawn on something like this. I do not trust a judge to exercise restraint and prefer that he merely follow the letter of the law to fine the two parents.

[robrobrob]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

I do not trust a judge to exercise restraint and prefer that he merely follow the letter of the law to fine the two parents.

Practically speaking, if the Magesterial District Judge followed the letter of the law, he would have held the charges for court. Then, a Common Pleas Judge would have sentenced them, assuming they either plead guilty or were found guilty. A Judge has some leeway, he/she could have given them probation or sentenced them to jail time. Both are within the guidelines for Endangering the Welfare of a Child for someone who does not have a record.

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

I do not trust a judge to exercise restraint and prefer that he merely follow the letter of the law to fine the two parents.

They weren't facing a mere fine. If it went to court, they were facing possible jail time or probation.

[Q-tip motha]

Originally Posted by Hopes

They weren't facing a mere fine. If it went to court, they were facing possible jail time or probation.

Then clearly the law needs to be amended doesn't it?

[Hopes]

Originally Posted by Q-tip motha

Then clearly the law needs to be amended doesn't it?

No. That's the sentencing guidelines for endangering a child. It's up to the court to determine what qualifies as endangering a child. Perhaps the charge was inappropriately applied by the officer, but the court system exists to make that determination.

What happened at Dzvonick's was similar to a plea bargain deal. The parents agreed to go to parenting classes so the charges would be dropped. If they didn't agree, Dzvonick would have held the charges for court. If they don't fulfill the parenting class requirement over the next 6 weeks, Dzvonick will hold the charges for court. If they would rather have their day in court, they can most certainly make that happen, but they risk jail or probation if found guilty. They aren't being forced to do anything. It is their choice.