That being said, there are troubling aspects on both sides of this case. First, the car engine was running. It is a misdemeanor in NJ to leave an unattended car running. Why wasn’t she fined for that? Did the police see a bigger fish to fry in the child abuse charge?

Secondly, part of the “defense” is that the child was “in the car for less than ten minutes.” The reason that the child was there for that period of time was that the police came with lights flashing and the woman saw them from the store. In other words, the event ended not because of the mother ending her shopping at the party store, but because the police showed up. It seems clear that the length of time the child would have been in the car would have been longer if not for the police arrival.

Lastly, attorney David Pimentel writes in the cited article:

The car was locked, with the windows cracked, and with the engine running, presumably to keep the car’s climate-control system engaged.

Presumably? The woman hasn’t said why the car was left running? If you are going to make a statement and defend the woman’s action, defend them and don’t make the reader guess at the reasons the woman acted in a certain manner especially when those acts are being used to say she wasn’t neglecting the child.

I would have been happier with this case if the woman was cited for leaving the car running and a friendly discussion (not lecture – discussion) with the police on the dangers of leaving a car running, and the dangers of leaving a kid in a car that is running.

Your mileage may vary.

An assailant came up, fought with the grandmother, and then stole the car with the children inside. Luckily, the assailant stopped 1/2 mile away and abandoned the car and the children. The children were unharmed; the grandmother’s purse and computer were taken.

Sounds like a standard issue carjacking. But what does anyone want to bet that this family will be investigated by DCF?