Single mom arrested for ‘abandoning’ her kids at food court while interviewing for job 30 feet away

[RandySF]

A single mother was placed under arrest by Houston police and later released after being accused of abandoning her children at a mall food court while she interviewed for a job just 30 feet away, reports KHOU.

Laura Browder said she took her 6-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son with her to a mall for a suddenly scheduled job interview because she didn’t have enough time to line up child care. According to Browder, she bought the children lunch at the McDonald’s in the food court and sat them at a table approximately 30 feet away and well within sight while she interviewed.

Browder was taken into custody by police when she went to claim her kids, after someone at the mall called police saying the children had been left there crying.

Browder said she was arrested after accepting the job offer, but now worries if the arrest may cause her to lose it.



http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/single-mom-arrested-for-abandoning-her-kids-at-food-court-while-interviewing-for-job-30-feet-away/

[HooptieWagon]

1. In these times, she's lucky the kids aren't orphans.

Cops are nothing but militarized thugs, and the DoJ isn't doing jack shit about it.

[RandySF]

5. I've been through this.

I remember trying to decide whether to make a last-minute interview that was scheduled while my partner was at work. Fortunately, she was able to get to go in late.

[lpbk2713]

7. I wouldn't doubt they are working on that.

Some times the paperwork might take a while.

Her life is probably hard enough without having to deal with asshole bureaucrats.

[virgogal]

16. Baloney !

[whereisjustice]

29. Quite true... cops are outt of control, they get green light from DoJ, everyone is afraid of cops

because if you point out that cops are abusive crooks, it won't go over well with conservative voters.

[Turbineguy]

2. No problem

as everybody knows, you can raise easily your kids while in jail. Another tasty morsel for the justice system meat grinder.

[aikoaiko]

3. 30 feet within line of sight is not a problem even for a 6 and 2 year old.

I sat with fellow parents at parks and talked while my played on the equipment. Not much different.

[Igel]

19. "Crying."

Would you have sat and walked if your kids were crying?

That might be a difference in child-rearing practices. My kids cried, I was there. I've seen other parents whose kids were crying, and they continued as though all was well. "Don't worry, he'll stop crying in a few minutes. If he's still crying in 10 minutes, then maybe it's serious."

It's an important part of the story.

[aikoaiko]

21. That is an important detail. It helps explain why a citizen might call the police.

but if the officer could verify that the mother was only 30 feet away and watching them, and the children were not hurt or physically in distress, I don't see that as an arrestable offense.

When I knew my child wasn't hurt or in need of physical care, I'd let them cry it out if I needed to attend to something else.

[brush]

46. Some, too many, cops are just aholes who once they decide to arrest you . . .

nothing will change their minds, not even a desperate mom just 30 feet from her kids trying to get a job.

At least they didn't kill her like they did Sandra Bland.

[Igel]

62. This, too.

Still not convinced that they killed Bland in any more than "if they hadn't arrested her, she wouldn't be dead."

In this, Prairie View A&M could be inculpated in her guilt. If they hadn't hired her, she wouldn't have been in Waller County. Best to figure out what happened first. We know nothing about her except what makes the cops look bad, except for one little blip from, IIRC, March that vanished almost at once.

She made a phone call; no idea what happened there. Perhaps "Sorry, we can't get down there for a week". I wouldn't expect whoever she called to say this to the national press. Perhaps she really needed the job and horrible things would have happened without it, but she knew if she didn't get out immediately--or, if she did, the arrest would screw things up--she wouldn't get it. Maybe she had a concussion. Maybe for 48 hours she lived in terror because of all the tales of what police do to black people in prison and she cracked under the strain of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Perhaps something else. What we don't know we don't know and we can't really draw any conclusions from it.


As for the crying kids, really. I don't know that particular manager, but if I'd been interviewing I'd have seen my kids crying and immediately said, "I'm sorry, Mr. ___________, I couldn't arrange for day care on such short notice. It won't be a problem if you hire me, but today my kids are right over there and they're crying. Can we pause for just a minute while I see what the problem is?" Perhaps some managers would have said, "Screw you, interview's over," but most wouldn't. And if the manager was like that, the first time she has to call in absent because she can't find day care or her kids are sick she'd be fired anyway. Not sure if having that additional 2-3 week period "unemployed" on the ol' resume is worse than a 2-3 week job that ended in her being fired. If she was collecting unemployment, it's also a hairy situation.

This is one of those situations where I'm not going to say one person is innocent because there must be an innocent victim. The police over-reacted to the mother's screw up. Some victims aren't innocent.

[msrizzo]

27. How do we know they were crying....

Was John Crawford really pointing that air gun at customers at Walmart? I didn't read any verification of that other than saying that someone told the police that when they called them.

[Ghost in the Machine]

36. I could tell when my kids were crying just because they didn't get something they wanted, or didn't

get their way and if something was wrong with them. When they were crying just to pitch a fit, I used to mock them and fake cry even louder and more obnoxious than they were. Within a few minutes, their "crying" turned to laughter and all was well...

I did a pretty good job as a single father. I raised them alone since my son was 3 and daughter was 4. They are almost 22 & 23 now.... and still with me! I need a vacation!

Peace,

Ghost

[Yo_Mama]

47. That justifies the call to police, but not the arrest.

I hope someone sues the police department over this one.

Life is hard enough!

[mnhtnbb]

56. I once watched my sister in law stay on the phone

while her less than a year old son was screaming on the floor beside her. I moved to pick
him up--to comfort him--and she told me to let him scream.

I've never forgotten it.

And I've heard other stories from her now adult children about abuse/neglect situations.

[kcr]

66. I'm sorry, but it's not. She was right there. Those children were not abandoned.

Parents should not be arrested for letting their six year old child cry.

[LittleBlue]

4. Six-year-old and two-year-old

If these children had been 12 or 13, they could reasonably hang out by themselves without adult supervision.

6 and 2 are practically babies. She should have got a warning. Arresting her is way too harsh for one mistake under these circumstances, especially since they were within sight.

[tblue37]

17. They HAD adult supervision. Mom was there and able to watch them the whole time! nt

[gollygee]

49. Why are you saying they didn't have adult supervision when she was 30 feet away? n/t

[onenote]

72. how much attention could she pay to them and to her interview simultaneously?

I don't think an arrest was warranted, but leaving a 2 year old and a six year old unattended -- and they were unattended if she was paying attention to her interview -- was stupid.

[Warpy]

6. This is so fucking stupid I want to cry

The people who need to be arrested are the dumb cops who had absolutely no insight nor the intelligence to notice she was well within sight of her kids.

Browder did nothing wrong.

"Stranger danger" is overblown. Food courts are not hotbeds of pedophilia.

[delta17]

52. I agree.

Where I live at least, parents kind of look out for each other. Any nonsense by some creep would be quickly put to a halt.

[Depaysement]

8. I bet

If she was white or rich, no arrest would have been contemplated.

Arrested for interviewing while black.

[yeoman6987]

9. Again it is a bystander who called the police

I think that has been the problem with every one of these situations. The police just do what they are hired to do. A lot of times the police don't have a choice but to arrest when they get a call if children are involved.

[WinkyDink]

10. Really?

[yeoman6987]

12. CPS was there. No way the police are going to let this go

I don't think police would over rule CPS.

[LordGlenconner]

18. I disagree

Good police work involves asking questions. An arrest should be a last resort. I agree that the meddling busy body who called police is part of the problem, but the police should have been able to determine what was going on and use their best judgement which would have been to move along.

Except many of them don't have very good judgement which is one reason why our streets are filled with the blood of people being needlessly shot.

As I've said for a few years now, the profession doesn't attract the same kinds of people it once did.

[A Simple Game]

20. An arrest probably was out of order, but I disagree about the "meddling busy body."

We obviously don't know all the facts but I assume the "busy body" was sitting near the kids while they were crying and after a reasonable time without a parent coming back thought it best to get help for the kids. Sounds reasonable to me.

Myself? I would have taken the kids into the interview and explained to the interviewer why. Extra points for being a responsible parent.

I will give the mother the benefit of the doubt and say a warning probably was a better option.

[GoneFishin]

35. Right on all counts. If their intellectually curiousity and detective skills are so numb that they

can't get to the bottom of the situation by making a few calm inquiries then I wonder what the hell they are doing with loaded guns.

[icarusxat]

32. what police are hired to do...

hurt others?

[Warpy]

34. They can ASK QUESTIONS

to find out if what the busybody called 911 about actually happened.

Busybodies rarely do bother to look at what's really going on.

[WinkyDink]

11. OTOH, why could she not have taken the children inside wherever she was interviewed?

[BrotherIvan]

13. They were inside

Food courts usually have a lot of stands that circle a general eating area. She probably had her children at a table and was talking to the manager 30 ft away.

This same scenario is playing out all over our country because we don't have childcare. If you aren't lucky enough to have a retired relative, you're screwed. It's ridiculous.

[lostnfound]

40. THIS. That's correct. No childcare

I've heard that in some other developed countries, that there are places for childcare on a drop-in basis.

[BrotherIvan]

44. They absolutely do

All run by the state with accredited workers who are certified and checked. It is night and day to the US. When are we going to say its important?

[6chars]

81. if she had a job she could have paid for childcare

oh right, but she was interviewing at the time.

[WinkyDink]

67. I know what a mall food court is! Aside from the larger social issue, 30' ain't 5'. J/S.

[kcr]

70. Then you should know they were inside n/t

[Xipe Totec]

14. Fear of being rejected for the job?

Companies don't like to deal with hassles.

[RandySF]

15. It takes VERY little to get rejected in this job market.

It only takes a grey hair or the wrong shoes to get rejected. Imagining showing up with two kids with you.

[Hekate]

33. That's not possible. I had employers threaten to fire me because my kids passed through the office

One man bellowed at me that he wasn't "running a crèche."

If I had brought them to an interview I never would have been hired in the first place.

Every time I read one of these miserable stories I get flashbacks to 35 years ago and a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach. I feel so badly for these women, who are caught between a rock and a hard place with so little help from society.

[mountain grammy]

22. Because,really, her life doesn't appear to be tough enough.

Give the woman a break.

[Comrade Grumpy]

23. That is just callous, brain-dead policing. No arrest was necessary.

Hell, Officer Friendly would have bought the kids an ice cream cone.

Whatever happened to Officer Friendly?

[cstanleytech]

25. What happened was he never existed.

Not saying all cops are unfriendly but the fact is police are human to and that means your going to have assholes who become police officers, sadly it would appear she had to deal with one of those types.

[stage left]

24. My mother would have been arrested multiple times.

I was raised in the fifties and she was often a lot more than thirty feet away.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. If she was in the area close by and could see them, i dont see a problem.

It seems like it doesnt take a whole hell of a lot, to get arrested in Texas.

[packman]

28. What would have been a story

was if the cop sat with them while the mother was being interviewed. Arresting is a bridge to far, overkill.

[NBachers]

30. "A nation of snitches." How many of these unfortunate police incidents begin with a snitch

dropping a dime and getting the cops involved? Cops have declared war on the non-white population in this country. Hateful meddling bigots call the cops and sic 'em on people who've done nothing wrong. Those poor people then find themselves bludgeoned into the pits of hell.

I hate rats.

[Travis_0004]

37. Getting somebody involved when a two year old is alone is not snitching

If I saw a 2 year old unsupervised I would ask the kid where the parents are, and if they did not know I would get security.

You might say they were supervised, but I dont see it that way if they are crying and alone.

So what would you do? Just leave the kid alone and move on? Maybe the 6 year old knew where the mom was, maybe ahe didnt. Who kbows.

[Omaha Steve]

38. In most states it is the law

Just like leaving the scene of an accident, you can be charged and prosecuted for being silent on even suspected child endangerment.

K&R!

[gollygee]

50. The mom was 30 feet away within sight

that's in the article. She could see the kids (a 6-year-old and a 2-year-old) and was 30 feet away. No one was alone.

[Travis_0004]

54. Did the kids know where she was

I would assume that the mall security was there before the kid was. Why didn't the mom go talk to the kids then before the police arrived. Why was the kid crying and nobody helping the kid out?

[gollygee]

55. 30 feet isn't that far

And it said they were within sight. My thought from reading it was that the mom saw the police or mall security or whoever showed up get there and then she went over to get her kid. And maybe the kid was fussing a bit or something. He/she wasn't necessarily really crying to have someone call with that complaint.

Laura Browder said she took her 6-year-old daughter and 2-year-old son with her to a mall for a suddenly scheduled job interview because she didn’t have enough time to line up child care. According to Browder, she bought the children lunch at the McDonald’s in the food court and sat them at a table approximately 30 feet away and well within sight while she interviewed.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

61. Was the kid wearing a sign saying "My mom is 30 feet away"?

No?

I guess the bystander should have been psychic or at least know everyone's name and relation when they are in the mall.

[kcr]

69. Did the cops have to arrest her when they realized the mom was 30 feet away?

They weren't abandoned. There was no reason to arrest her.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

71. The cops were idiots. That has nothing to do with my comment.

Which is DU loves to shit on bystanders who they think are "nosy" and "snitching" when they see something amiss with kids. These people are never in any thread about Amber alerts of course.

[kcr]

73. Who's shitting on the bystander? The problem is she was arrested. n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

74. Have you even bothered to read this subthread?

Sheesh, this isn't that hard.

[kcr]

75. Yes, I did

And?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

77. So you completely ignored that this subthread....

....was started with "A nation of snitches" and now want to know what I'm talking about?

[kcr]

78. No, I didn't ignore how the subthread was started, but why does it matter?

That wasn't the post you were responding to, for one thing. For another, I guess I didn't read that particular post hte same way you did. I read it as a general statement, one that I agree with at least in part. I do think that people should be careful that they aren't making a knee jerk reaction before they decide to call the police in matters like this. It's hard to know what happened in this case, but if I were to see a six year old by themselves in a mall I wouldn't immediately call the police. I would try to find out if they were lost, first. It's hard to say what happened, but it seems to me if the child were asked it would have been obvious what happened. But, however it went down, no arrest should have been made and that's the larger issue.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

79. You asked "Who's shitting on the bystander?"

I answered your question. You continued to deny it was happening.

Anyway have a nice day.

[kcr]

80. Yes, because no one was shitting on the bystander n/t

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

82. Yeah, you're right

Just calling them a busybody, a racist, hateful and meddling etc. etc.

[Lulu Belle]

42. Nonsense

The bystander did the right thing.
The cop could have waited with the kids until the Mom returned from the interview. There was no reason to escalate the situation to that level.
Bad police work.

[litlbilly]

31. She's lucky she didn't get beaten and shot

Just saying. This is now the craziest country on the planet, or at least getting there.

[lostnfound]

39. Single moms have nowhere to turn for help, and a single dad would have been applauded

For trying to both get a job AND watch his kids.

Our society / culture sucks for raising children.

[mntleo2]

41. This is not just about cops, it is about CPS funding

Been writing about this for awhile. it was unbelievable to me ~ until I heard the truth straight from legislators and policy makers, both state and federal who admitted the truth. I know it sounds like something out of an Alex Jones story but believe me I have been a witness in the US Congress, an attendee at policy meetings both in states and US DSHS meetings, obtained FOIA budget and policy information, and am also a winner of a lawsuit proving that CPS and CASA workers lied through their teeth with false allegations and fraudulent actions, and intentional infliction of pain in order to cause more damage.

Follow the money as they say ... Let me tell you how this budgeting works that translates into why this woman's kids were taken:

Title 1V funding, which comes out of Social Security, is about taking children for cash ~ not making this up. In order to to get this money the mandates for any state's Family Service departments, for-profit contractors, the medical industry mega-nonprofits, family courts, and adoption agencies says in essence: "...The more kids you take, the more money you will make and if you return these children to their families you with lose any and present and future funding for those returned kids..." . Social Security will grant these people between $8000-$10,000 per child per month. I am not making this up ~ I wish I were!

What these mandates mean on the ground is that every department involved including the police, the courts, DFS agencies and their contracted minions, non-profits, adoption agencies, they have a financial interest in taking taking children and putting them in foster care because they get bucco bucks for it.

Children's services and their cohorts have been taking advantage of people's preoccupation with child abuse ~ when they know for a fact that less than 15% of these children they take are truly bused ~ the other 85% are taken for profit based on their "concern". They will give money and resources to anyone and everyone BUT these children's families ~ pretending that if they support them they are "enabling" the family and that in order not to do that, they say taking them is "in the best interest of the child" ~ a broad term liberally used every day successfully in court. They also know that if they returned these children back to their homes and gave services, that returned children have a far better chance of succeeding than if left in foster care or are adopted even when the parents have substance abuse issues.

This woman was a prime target and they know whether it is ridiculous or not, this is fine with them just as long as they get their "more kids you take" funding. I could write so much more and have about the sordid details I have discovered ~ but I am not a "real" journalist with credentials. Still, let me tell you there have been hours and many difficulties I have been through to get this documentation and it is as ardent as any journalist as far as discovering the truth.

PM me if anyone wants to know more ...

My 2 cents,

Cat in Seattle

[me b zola]

48. CPS False Allegations, Altered Files Confirmed - OIG, News32 Investigations P1-3 2006-07

This is a few years old, but it really shows just how deeply corrupt any CPS can be. How far down the rabbit hole are we that a county CPS office retaliated against an appeal and advocating for a mother who had been wronged by taking away all of the children of her extended family and ever her lawyer's child!

This is also common across the US, Europe, Canada, and Australia. The one characteristic that almost every family who loses a child to CPS is their working class status, families without the clout/time/money to fight CPS.

[mntleo2]

63. It is also a "solution" to families in poverty

Last edited Sun Jul 19, 2015, 05:37 AM - Edit history (1)

While they keep cutting the "discretionary" budgets like TANF ~ and pouring more money into taking kids as a way to "protect" them. The going philosophy is that, by ripping kids from their families and placing them in upper class homes will then "cure" these children's poverty. But in fact these kids have a 7-10X more likely chance they will be physically, sexually, and emotionally abused in foster care and Adoption than if left with family with services. Adoption and Foster Care system damages children for life ~ even in "good" homes, if they have been taken from birth they often grieve for the rest of their lives because they have no roots. This removal causes a lifelong syndrome called "Reactive Detachment Disorder" (RAD) where they are unable to trust or create loving bonds with others because they have not been given the care all kids need in order to grow up to form healthy relationships as adults. BTW RAD is incurable...

In addition to the $millions they already get from Social Security, CPS actually goes in and leaches more than 30% out of the budgets for TANF, food stamps, housing, and medical budgets as well. This funding is what the poorest of poor have to turn to when they are desperate ~ as being desperate is the *only* way they can get any support. Then governors go in front of the camera and cry because they signed budgets that keep cutting these resources and giving it away to CPS knowing full well they are literally taking food out of the mouths of babes.

It indisputably costs 1000% less to support families than it does to take these kids ~ and believe me policy makers, legislators and executive people well know it ~ and do not care. But as you may see, with the "more kids you take" mandates, well who cares about destroying thousands of kids a year and devastating their families when DFS and the courts will get far more money if they take kids instead of "enabling" these kids and their families?

If anyone wants change for this travesty, then they can write to the US Congress Ways and Means Committee Human Services subcommittee responsible for allocating this money and changing those mandates. Tell them that you are well aware that less than 85% of the children are truly abused and that it works far better to support families with services than bankrolling $10,000s per month to the agencies and corporations spending all their resources and time in destroying families. Tell them that only in the most dire of cases should children be removed from their families and this casual and very hostile treatment of those 85% only destroys their families and makes things worse for these kids.

Here is the website with contact information as to how to contact them: http://waysandmeans.house.gov/subcommittee/human-resources/

My 2 cents

Cat in Seattle

[mntleo2]

64. Oh and PeeEss:

Here are some wonky links to give proof of what I am saying. My best and most definitive information was taken from The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform. This organization does their homework (Robert Wexler is their Director).

Evidence for keeping Families together: http://nccpr.info/the-evidence-is-in-foster-care-vs-keeping-families-together-the-definitive-studies/
Here is the original study for the above: http://www.mit.edu/~jjdoyle/fostercare_aer.pdf

Child Abuse after being taken: Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare BY Dorothy E Roberts is a in depth study of children who have been removed from their families and the evidence of how badly it fails.
ABC News Report: Foster-Care System Stretched Too Far http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130266
http://www.buzzfeed.com/aramroston/fostering-profits#.hpRAzpz35

I have lots more info I can give but the facts have been documented for decades ~ and are studiously ignored because of the mega-funding that pays far more to gatekeepers who benefit more if they get funding for removing children from their homes rather than giving the family services that could improve their lives, not destroy them.

My 2 cents (again),

Cat in Seattle

[KentuckyWoman]

68. This has been a problem in Kentucky too.

Good post in this thread.

Thank you.

[NickB79]

43. I just left my 5-yr old child out of eyesight twice today alone

At the local library, once when I left her with a few other kids to play blocks while I went to get a gardening magazine on the other side of the room, and again 30 min later when I had to use the rest room in the hallway for a few minutes.

Guess I deserve to be locked up

[NickB79]

45. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess she's not a white woman

Off to Google......



Hey, what a surprise! They arrested a young black woman on bullshit charges! I'm shocked

Surprised they didn't Taser or shoot her

[gollygee]

51. Yeah that pretty well went without saying

white privilege is not being accused of abandonment when you're 30 feet away from your kids.

[U4ikLefty]

59. Uh oh, you used the p-word.

Now white DUers are getting distressed...I hope you're happy!!!

[pnwmom]

53. Thanks. But I think your headline should say "Black mom" instead of "single mom" because

her color probably has more to do with her being targeted.

[Liberal_in_LA]

57. sad

[artislife]

58. It is hard to be poor in this country nt

[romanic]

60. In addition to steroids

there needs to be a test of "common sense" for new police officers. Why didn't the cops just interview the bystander who called and the mother (along with the interviewer) to clarify things? I mean damn it's not like the woman dumped her kids out in the rain while she was inside the mall or anything. :/

[Emelina]

65. And the cops didn't shoot her?

Nowadays it would not surprise me.

[KamaAina]

76. Surprise, surprise!

</gomer-pyle>