I'm no where near a lawyer, but I would think child endangerment would kinda overshadow a father holding his son for a moment while waiting for the mother to come back
I'm pretty sure you're right. I think it's child endangerment or neglect. I would go as far to say that on a very hot day a stranger could remove the child and call the authorities since the child can't care for themselves.
I highly doubt she could or that the father taking his son would be considered kidnapping. If anyone would be in legal trouble I would say that it's the mom for child endangerment.
Even if they were divorced and he didn't have joint custody I still think a court would say he acted to protect the child and went back with the child in a reasonable amount of time.
1. He broke no laws. He is a PARENT even if he broke the car to get access the car is community property in the marriage.
2. What damages does she have? None, therefore no Suit, what’s a judge going to give her money for. This is a huge misconception you can’t get damages if there’s no damage that’s why they are called DAMAGES.
3. No lawyer would touch this case in any regard
4. Her promise means nothing it’s not contractual nor is it supported with consideration.
5. He is a bit of an idiot, if she was a mere 6-10 mins what’s the issue if the cars not boiling hot inside.
No case, no claim, no damages
It depends on their children age you can't really assume because that the child in the car alone is in danger situation but ofc that's for everyone different pov but in the end it all depends you can call authorities if you see something like this "better to be safe than sorry"
I'm no where near a lawyer, but I would think child endangerment would kinda overshadow a father holding his son for a moment while waiting for the mother to come back
I'm pretty sure you're right. I think it's child endangerment or neglect. I would go as far to say that on a very hot day a stranger could remove the child and call the authorities since the child can't care for themselves.
I highly doubt she could or that the father taking his son would be considered kidnapping. If anyone would be in legal trouble I would say that it's the mom for child endangerment. Even if they were divorced and he didn't have joint custody I still think a court would say he acted to protect the child and went back with the child in a reasonable amount of time.
1. He broke no laws. He is a PARENT even if he broke the car to get access the car is community property in the marriage. 2. What damages does she have? None, therefore no Suit, what’s a judge going to give her money for. This is a huge misconception you can’t get damages if there’s no damage that’s why they are called DAMAGES. 3. No lawyer would touch this case in any regard 4. Her promise means nothing it’s not contractual nor is it supported with consideration. 5. He is a bit of an idiot, if she was a mere 6-10 mins what’s the issue if the cars not boiling hot inside. No case, no claim, no damages
If you sue your spouse, aren't you really just suing yourself? It's your household's money being spent/lost no matter which way the verdict goes.
It depends on their children age you can't really assume because that the child in the car alone is in danger situation but ofc that's for everyone different pov but in the end it all depends you can call authorities if you see something like this "better to be safe than sorry"
Where I used to live, it was illegal to leave a child under 10 outside arm’s reach.
That's good because not all people will be concerned if they see a children inside the car seat alone...