Bad Finish: Parents Arrested In Washington After Leaving Toddlers In Unheated Car . . . To Attend Wine Tasting

120px-Red_Wine_Glas120px-White_Wine_GlasWe have repeatedly dealt with stories of parents who leave their children in cars while they gamble or party (here) or even commit criminal acts(here). This week, another such arrest was made near our school but this one involves clearly affluent parents who left their two toddlers — a 22-month-old boy and a slightly older girl — in a gray Volvo wagon while they went to a wine tasting at the upscale restaurant Ris. I hope the wine bouquet was satisfying because “the finish” was rough. They were both arrested and now face two counts of attempted second-degree cruelty to children, which carries a maximum 10-year prison sentence.


Christopher (“Christophe”) Daniel Lucas told police that he left an iPhone in the car with an open connection to the children’s mother, Jennie Teresa Chang. However, police say that the girl was crying hysterically and that the temperature was 35 degrees in a car that was turned off with no heat.

The car was left around a corner from the restaurant and around 400 feet from the door in a major traffic area. The manager said that the couple had been wine tasting for about an hour when police arrived.

Lucas, 41, and Chang, 46, own a $1 million rowhouse near Dupont Circle. They actually live 10 minutes from the restaurant and insisted that they were going out to check on the kids.

The court released the couple but they are being denied access to their children.

Notably, Washington seems to be on a theme regarding parenting and the criminal code. We just discussed a question of whether parents should be charged for allowing their children to walk home alone.

The question is what should the punishment be in such a case. Incarceration or a permanent loss of the children seem unduly harsh even though their actions were clearly outrageous and dangerous. However, forcing the children into foster homes would not necessarily be in their best interests if there are no other indications of endangerment or any abuse. That would leave probation and forced counseling or classes. That might seem too light for some people or the court.

What do you think?

Source: FOX DC

173 thoughts on “Bad Finish: Parents Arrested In Washington After Leaving Toddlers In Unheated Car . . . To Attend Wine Tasting”

  1. As a father of a special needs child whose life hangs in the balance every day I cannot even imagine the level of narcissism and selfishness these parents with their sense of entitlement displayed leaving children in a car in freezing weather to wine taste. Regardless of the temperature outside you never leave children unattended in any car, anyway, at any time. I believe strongly parenting is a gift not a right and that you must take every action around your children with a look to their future and not your happiness. It boggles my mind that people take parenting so lightly and then wonder why the children turn out so badly. This is life people not reality TV. My view on their punishment is to find stable relatives to take the children for one year and require the parents to fund daycare and full immersion counseling. Then give them the option if they fail again the children are gone for good.

  2. Karen-

    “Inga – Anarchist called her crazy in an apartment full of dog poop, and then that the only person saying she was good or bad was me. He/she mislabeled that a straw man, and called me stupid. And you said, “Bingo.””

    Hitler was a bad person. Rapists or child abusers are bad people. Basically, a bad person is a person that only has concern for themselves. Under that definition, you qualify as a bad person. But I wouldn’t say happypappy is a bad person.

    Owning ratdogs doesn’t make one a bad person, and the inability to housetrain a breed of dogs with a brain the size of a walnut doesn’t make one a bad person. And, after reading happypappies response to be called crazy, I don’t think she is crazy (people with cognitive disorders like schizophrenia never have their feelings hurt if you call them crazy because they are always convinced they are the sanest person in the room).

    Happypappy is odd, there’s no doubting that, but she also has a childlike innocence to her that is an admirable personality trait. Even with all her oddness and unpredictability, I suspect happypappy is a good person.

    On the contrary, I’ve yet to see any admirable personality traits in you, and I doubt I ever will.

  3. Sometimes the best thing you can do is step away from the crazy. It is just not worth it.

  4. Karen, if you are disinterested in fighting with other commenters then why do you keep addressing me? I suggest if you don’t want to fight, the don’t do it.

  5. Inga – Anarchist called her crazy in an apartment full of dog poop, and then that the only person saying she was good or bad was me. He/she mislabeled that a straw man, and called me stupid. And you said, “Bingo.”

    My comment, “I realize you applaud anyone who says anything negative to or about me, but it’s just mud slinging.” makes it clear that I realized that your comment was directed at me and not Happy. And yet, Anarchist was complaining about me defending Happy.

    So you’re in a bit of a pickle.

    I am disinterested in fighting with strangers on the internet. I have stated that I find these comments unkind and unhelpful. They will either stop, or continue to turn this legal blog into vulgarity. In which case people like me will not find much of interest in the comments section.

  6. Again Karen, I did not applaud his comment directed at Happy. I applauded his comment regarding your debating style of building straw men in any given debate.

  7. Inga – in what way did you disagree with my comment to Anarchist that his post regarding Happy being a crazy lady in a house full of dog poop? He called that a straw man, and you seconded it, which is why I said you do not seem to understand the term.

    If you disagreed with his assessment, one would think you would have spoken up against rather than for Anarchist.

    I stand by what I said. It was an uncalled for comment. I realize you applaud anyone who says anything negative to or about me, but it’s just mud slinging. And I’m not interested with fighting with strangers just to fight.

    The comment section on this blog has recently become a race to the bottom.

  8. And Karen, obviously you do understand what a straw man is, because you build one in almost every debate with any liberal commenter. We’ve all noticed what you do.

  9. I made no comment about Happy or her dogs. I agreed with him on his observation of how you debate Karen. Even in this comment of yours you are making an assumption I was agreeing with him regarding Happy. See what you’ve done here?

  10. Anarchist:

    You wrote: “Unless you’re talking about happy pappies, who chose to provide her full name and address in her profile. She also breeds rat dogs. . .in her apartment, which I bet is a big hit with her landlord. A crazy lady with an apartment full of barking sh!tters. I bet her carpet is so shellacked with dogsh!t that crossing her living room would be like skipping from rock to rock to cross a wide stream. Say what you will about her mental state, but there’s something delightfully weird about her.

    I didn’t realize they actually bred rat dogs for competition. How do they decide which rat dog is the best of it’s breed? Do they just award the prize to whichever one doesn’t shake like Michael J Fox during an IRS audit?”

    And when I called you on it, you wrote, “The only person that made any comments about whether she is a good or bad person is you.”

    If you fail to understand why your comments were negative, I cannot explain it to you. Most people would find being called “a crazy lady with an apartment full of barking shitters” to be “bad.”

    And there is Inga championing you like you’re witty. She apparently does not understand what “straw man” means.

    This blog should not be a Jerry Springer melee. Your comments were unkind and uncalled for.

    1. Karen – thanks for backing up happypappies. The fact that part of the FFS team supported Anarchist 2.0 in his attack lets you know the validity of the claim.

  11. “Because people like you deserve it.”

    Listen to yourself. That is a really mean-spirited thing to say. Your comment about happypappies and her dogs was unfair.

  12. Anarchist, again BINGO! about the creation of a strawmen and then being expected to defend the straw man she created. I’m relieved that you also have seen this. It used to frustrate the bejesus out of me, now I don’t bother responding to much of what she has to say. Sometimes I thought she truly DID NOT understand the argument that I made, I still tend to think this might be the case. You certainly were quick in realizing what she does.

  13. Karen-

    ” If anyone breeds and/or shows small dogs they are an inferior person? ”

    Not by any means, even though the ratdogs are definitely an inferior breed.

    “Would she be a good person if she showed large breeds?”

    The only person that made any comments about whether she is a good or bad person is you. Learn how to respond to what people actually write. You have a bad habit of creating a straw-man out of the comment of another, and then arguing against the straw-man you just created rather than the comment. That’s indicative of extreme intellectual laziness and dishonesty and all it does is further erode your credibility and call into question your competence to even debate an issue in the first place.

    Let me give you some advice I once got from a law professor- always state the argument of an opponent in the strongest possible terms. When you reduce it to some stupidity that you just invented, it just makes you look stupid. When you use that strawman tactic, which you do almost uniformly, it not only doesn’t provide a rebuttal to your opponent, it makes you appear as if you didn’t even understand the argument that your opponent made.

    ” Are cats OK?”

    As what? They make great tennis rackets.

    “Why do people behave this way on blogs?”

    Because people like you deserve it.

  14. Anarchist – That is unkind. If anyone breeds and/or shows small dogs they are an inferior person? What is your rationale? Would she be a good person if she showed large breeds?

    Or do you have a problem with dogs in general? Does your form of anarchy forbid all dog ownership? What about cats? Are cats OK?

    Why do people behave this way on blogs? Or do you speak this way to people you meet on the street?

    Bad form.

    Papillons are intelligent, and often do well in agility, and as service dogs.

  15. Inga-

    “OK, now we are once again getting into the “creep” factor. You DO NOT know me, except for what I’ve shared here on this blog. For anyone to indicate that they know things about other commenters’s private lives offline is just strange.”

    Unless you’re talking about happy pappies, who chose to provide her full name and address in her profile. She also breeds rat dogs. . .in her apartment, which I bet is a big hit with her landlord. A crazy lady with an apartment full of barking sh!tters. I bet her carpet is so shellacked with dogsh!t that crossing her living room would be like skipping from rock to rock to cross a wide stream. Say what you will about her mental state, but there’s something delightfully weird about her.

    I didn’t realize they actually bred rat dogs for competition. How do they decide which rat dog is the best of it’s breed? Do they just award the prize to whichever one doesn’t shake like Michael J Fox during an IRS audit?

  16. Paul,
    “Prairie Rose – do not ever read something into my writing that I do not put there.”

    No need to be grumpy. Misunderstandings happen. Since you indicate you were not covertly targeting anyone, then it was a simple misunderstanding. It happens. Unfortunately, indirect, covert criticism has happened on this blog (in a broad sense, not necessarily this one), so people are primed to expect it. 🙁

    It is sad that the posts descend into tit for tat bickering that doesn’t even address the points at hand.

Comments are closed.