Child Endangerment Charges - Revy Avalanche

[Bill Kerr]

The parents of a seven year old who was caught in the avalanche at Revelstoke may be charged with child endangerment.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/a-mothers-worst-nightmare-come-true/article1506780/

This could have far reaching consequences as far as taking your children (and friends)into the backcountry or engaging in any "risky" outdoor activity.

The guy should never have taken a minor into such a risky situation but do we need to make an example out of him in order to get people to use common sense?

Thoughts/comments?

[Bob Sihler]

I think an important question is whether the father knowingly took a child too young to decide for himself into an unsafe situation. The article says avalanche danger was high, but did the father know and then still go? We may never know the truth to that.

There is risk to anything, yes, but when the risk is elevated and someone entrusted to protect you exposes you to it anyway, I'd say that might deserve prosecution.

Example: If you take a kid hiking in Yellowstone, you enter (most do, anyway) knowing that you are in grizzly country. That's part of the game. But if there are signs posted warning of aggressive bear activity recently in the vicinity and you still take the kid, I'd say you're opening yourself to charges of negligence.

[Fred Spicker]

But having placed my children in harm's way more than once and gotten off Scott free, (what does that MEAN, anyway?)

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/scot%20free.html

[MountainHikerCO]

Kick them when they’re down. This is when cops become pigs. They can’t catch the real criminals so they rub salt in the wound when there’s a tragedy involving regular people. It could be argued there was bad judgment. He along with everybody else who was there including the organizers. But when does bad judgment become a criminal act? We already have too much of the courts involved in people being normal instead of a bunch of monks. Leave them alone and go try to catch some bad guys. Don’t worry Mounties, there’s plenty of real child abuse out there you can press charges on.

[Big Benn]

At first glance I was horrified to read this:-

When Sharlotte Skowronek picked up the phone, she braced for more bad news. Was it the hospital calling to tell her that her husband, Joey, had died from injuries suffered in the avalanche? It wasn’t. It was an investigator from the major crime division of the Kelowna RCMP. He asked Ms. Skowronek how her husband was doing. But he mostly wanted to talk about something else: child endangerment.

“What I picked up from the conversation was they are considering charging parents who took their kids to the event with endangering their child,” Ms. Skowronek said this week.

“He wanted to know how I would feel about child endangerment charges if my husband survives.” And she said they wanted to let her know that the co-ordinators of the snowmobile event may face charges of criminal negligence causing bodily harm.

I find that a quite dreadful thing to do to someone whose partner in life is in such a serious medical condition.

Is there no humanity in Canada?

Yes, of course there are very serious issues here about what led to the disaster. You can see them every winter weekend on Snowdon in Wales, just as one example. I'll cover them in a separate post.

[Outside]

There's a great article on the subject in the April issue of Outside magazine. It reports that 13 year old Jordan Romero will attemp Everest this spring with his dad in an effort to be the youngest to complete the 7 summits. How young is too young?

[dan2see]

I don't think you guys understand the situation.

This winter, the snow in those mountains was laid down mostly in December, then in January and February lighter snow keeps piling on top. The unstable layers are naturally ready to slide, they're simply waiting for a trigger. Skiers can do that, but snow-mobiles are fast and heavy, and are well-suited for the task of triggering a slide on any kind of open slope. Especially if the air is warm in the afternoon.

The mountain authorities -- the Mounties and the Avalanche Association -- have been warning the public for weeks to stay out of the extreme hazard areas.

So the sledders staged a rally, with hundreds of sleds roaring up and down those same extreme-hazard slopes. It was a happy time, with families and food and lots of skill-testing excitement. A lot of those snow-mobiles were souped-up for more power, too!

The accident that was waiting to happen finally did happen. It was a big slide. A lot of people get seriously injured, some got killed. After the first Revelstoke slide, they came back the next day to look for more bodies (there weren't any more) and left dozens of broken sleds still littering the mountain-side. I guess they've hauled them out by now.

Mountain folks like to play in risky situations, so we spend a lot of time and money in building skills, procedures, and gear. We also like to take the responsibility for our actions and our mistakes.

But these avalanche incidents go 'way beyond skills and responsibility. They knowingly did dangerous stunts on dangerous terrain. Using sleds (gasoline-powered, instead of human-powered) prevents the participants from understanding how risky they are. So when an accident happens, they get clobbered big-time.

Plus the rally was a social affair! They could focus on sharing each-others fun, and competing, and good food.

The situation gives us a powerful definition of the word "stupid". Personal stupid, social stupid, sport stupid.

No wonder the authorities are mad! No wonder they think that finally it's time to get tough.

[simonov]

No wonder the authorities are mad! No wonder they think that finally it's time to get tough.

The authorities are most angry because no one violated any laws with which they could be charged. Nothing pisses off the authorities more than that! What's the point of being an authority if you can't lord it over the plebs? The long term solution will probably be new regulation or legislation.

The short-term placebo for hurt bureaucratic feelings is a nebulous child endangerment charge.

[dan2see]

No wonder the authorities are mad! No wonder they think that finally it's time to get tough.

The authorities are most angry because no one violated any laws with which they could be charged. Nothing pisses off the authorities more than that! What's the point of being an authority if you can't lord it over the plebs? The long term solution will probably be new regulation or legislation.

The short-term placebo for hurt bureaucratic feelings is a nebulous child endangerment charge.

Very bad precedence in Canada, should they push through and do this. VERY bad for pretty much any potentially dangerous leisure activity. Best keep those kids locked in a cage until they are 18.

Canadians will become too rich to die, too affluent for risk, too soft for danger.

So Sad.

DMT

No. Not even close.

Good choice of color, though.

[SoCalHiker]

Well, if the parents <b>knowingly</b> exposed their children to such risks, they should face child endangerment charges.

[outofstep80]

Have some kids and learn what compromise is all about! I've left my young kids in the car. I was left in the car as a young kid too, as I would dare guess, most of you were too.

Its only when bad shit happens that people get all judgmental.

DMT

If this is about the post I deleted, I was thinking of starting a different thread about it. (I didn't think it was up long enough for anyone to of read it (2 minutes maybe)

What I wrote was that I saw 2 very young kids left in a car over the weekend. The oldest was 2 at best and the youngest was less than a year for sure. Could tell by the type of car seat. The man who left them went into a sporting good store and left them for about 10 minutes (this is more detail than before)

I do in fact have a 10 month old and I would never leave her in the car unattended in a situation like I've just presented. Now, do I put her in the car and ran back into the house for 10 seconds for something I forgot, of course.

As kids get older it's a different situation, but kids the age of which I'm speaking, for the time length I'm talking about. I think that's a poor choice. Just my opinion.

In the case I presented nothing bad happened. It has nothing to do with the consequences for me.

[ExcitableBoy]

I had my daughter when I was 19. Her mother left us shortly after and I raised her by myself while putting myself through college and graduate school. Since I had no one else to watch her and no money for sitters, she came with me on all of my outings starting with easy hikes and overnight backpacking trips. She started rock climbing with me when she was 5 and was folllowing me up multipitch 5.10+ by the time she was 8.

The ONE scary thing that happened was while doing a very easy scramble up Old Snowy peak in the Goat Rocks wilderness. We were hiking on trail and came across a hard, icy snow patch that traverssed a steep side hill. I THANK G-D pulled out the short bit of rope I always carried with me and tied us together using bowline on a coils. I tip toed across the snow patch and belayed her from the far side. Halfway across she slipped and pendulumed across the snow patch harmlessly to a position below me. IF she had not been roped she would have slid straight down a long, steep, icy slope into talus. The thought of that scared the hell out of me.

At the time I felt I was doing my daughter a great service by exposing her to the outdoors while instilling self confidence. Now at the age of 41 my current (younger) wife and I are talking about having a child. I question whether or not I would expose our future children to the same risks I exposed my first child to.

[RokIzGud]

Minors should be able to enjoy the outdoors at any age. Just look at Jordan Romero. Hes 13 and will be climbing Everest in May!!!

[SoCalHiker]

Why?

DMT

If the parents were warned (or knew) about the higher-than-average risk of avalanches in that area and still take their kids there, that is simply irresponsible. The kids did not make that choice of going there; it's their parents who made that choice for them. That simple fact entails a lot of responsibility. If they neglect the obvious warnings they were given, they should be held responsible.

[SoCalHiker]

Would you apply this logic to a parent who drives out into a Winter Warning or other severe weather with a kid in the car?

There are SO MANY potential ways this logic can trip up even the best of parents.

Its such bad precedence...

DMT

I am aware that there cannot be strict criteria of when it's too risky and when not. It will always be a judgement call. There is a fine line of what seems reasonable and responsible and what is negligent and irresponsible. In my opinion taking kids to this event is certainly negligent if the parents knew or were warned about the very high risk of avalanches.