Another misfit parent making excuses.
 

Camden Father Blames DYFS For Child's Death
Council Wants Answers

POSTED: 6:00 am EDT June 27, 2005
UPDATED: 10:44 pm EDT June 27, 2005

CAMDEN, N.J. -- As authorities began investigating why police failed to search a car trunk where three missing boys were found dead, the father of one of the children said Sunday he could not understand how they died so close to home.


Anibal Cruz, 38, said the family assumed that police looked in the trunk of the car that was parked just steps from where the boys were last seen playing.

"That was the first place to look," Cruz said. "You can look through the windows and check inside. That is simple. Maybe they should have looked in the trunk."

Officials said the boys suffocated after climbing into the trunk on their own. Their bodies were found by David Agosto, whose 6-year-old son Daniel had gone missing along with 5-year-old Jesstin Pagan and 11-year-old Anibal Cruz.

Authorities have said if any law enforcement officials broke department rules in the search they would be disciplined. Police and prosecutors were expected to issue a report within 30 days on the handling of the search.

In addition to the formal review of the search, City Council President Angel Fuentes said the council also will hold a hearing on the matter at its regular meeting Thursday.

"I know my colleagues and I have questions," said Fuentes, whose district includes the area where the boys died.

Cruz, who has lived in Philadelphia for the past year since separating from his wife Alba, also blamed the state Division of Youth and Family Services for his son's death. He said he had called the agency several times in the past year to tell them his son, who was mentally disabled, was wandering away from home into the neighborhood.

However, he said DYFS did nothing to solve the problem.

"If he had been put in a safe place, maybe this would have never happened," Cruz said.

Andy Williams, a spokesman for the state Human Services Department, declined to comment Sunday on whether Cruz made phone calls to the agency, citing confidentiality issue. Williams said the department investigates after every call of potential abuse, neglect or child endangerment.

Dozens of officials had searched for two days for the boys, using helicopters, a bloodhound and divers who searched the nearby Delaware River. On Sunday, Police Lt. Mike Lynch said officials felt many of the same frustrations as Cruz, but said it was premature to speculate.

Article: Camden Stunned After Missing Children Found Dead

"Whatever the circumstances are, I can tell you that the efforts of those searchers and those police officers and everyone involved were 100 percent committed," he said.

One of the boys had played previously in the car, which was owned by Anibal's maternal grandmother. It had been sitting for about three weeks in a shaded, weedy corner of the Cruz family's yard.

The hydraulic plunger that keeps the trunk from closing was not working, so the lid was able to swing close and lock as soon as the boys stopped propping it up, prosecutor Vincent Sarubbi said.

Federal law requires cars made beginning in 2002 to have release latches inside the trunk, but the Toyota in which the boys were found appears to have been an older model.

Sarubbi said some periods of hard rain on Wednesday evening may have muffled any noises from the well-insulated trunk, which was parked far enough from the house to make it difficult to hear any voices coming from it.

A joint funeral service for the boys was tentatively scheduled for Wednesday in Camden. Both Agosto and Pagan will be buried Thursday in Camden, while Cruz will be buried in Puerto Rico at a later date.

Meanwhile, community members continued to deal with their grief. A steady stream of visitors stood under the hot sun outside the Cruz home Sunday, placing stuffed animals, balloons, candles and notes in front of a chain-link fence in the yard where the boys were last seen playing together.

For some, the grief over their loss was turning into frustration.

As he paid his respects area resident Luis Rodriguez, 55, asked why the police never thought to look in the car's trunk.

"Why wouldn't they think to look in a trunk? (Crime victims) get stuck in trunks all the time," he said.

At one point in the early afternoon, the scene at the Cruz home turned chaotic as news crews set up cameras on the sidewalk for an expected news conference that never occurred.

It was later learned that several media outlets had received a release from an unidentified man claiming to represent members of the Cruz and Pagan families, as well as their lawyers. However, family members said they did not know the man or why he made the claims.

Copyright 2005 by NBC10.com The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. :mad:

This tragedy is close to home.

On first read, it's easy to condemn the parents because they have suggested that "the police" should have looked in the trunk of the vehicle.

However, I'd submit that they deserve some slack in this time of grief. They are looking to place the blame somewhere because the pain is too difficult to accept. It's human nature.

In reality, it's just an unfortunate situation that resulted in tragedy.

Let it go.

Show of hands: How many of you keep broken fridges in your yard? Cars with broken trunk lids? Anybody?

Bot

Way to go.

Judge them for leaving a car with a broken trunk lid.

Your kindness overwhelmes me.

The broken lid didn't cause their deaths. Accidents happen.

Because of that realization, careful, thoughtful adults with reasonable parenting skills look for possible problems in the lives of all children, especially their own, and seek to minimize those threats by any means necessary. That's why they call us, "parents" and not "bystanders."

Got an abandoned car with a broken lid in your yard AND small kids? Take a hint, Kojak.

Bot

There are many people out there are not the brightest of the bunch and lack the most basic parenting skills.

I certainly don't need to educate you on the number of idiots out there. You might be aware that it's one of my favorite topics.

"The average citizen is a moron."

But, a little sensitivity goes a long way. You wouldn't make such a case to the parents in person, would you?

So, you feel better saying it behind their backs?

BTW, I'm just as guilty in criticizing stupidity and have far less tolerance than you do. But, when a parent has suffered the deaths of three children, it's not the time to hurl softballs.

I sure wouldn't say that to a grieving parent, no. They're already awash in guilt.

Be that as it may, If you have a car with a broken trunk lid in your yard, I hope you carry tons of liability insurance. because to the human race, you are a liability.

Stupidity is no excuse for smothering children.

Bot

Such people don't typically have any insurance. They live barely on the financial edge and don't have the knowledge or the intelligence to get ahead in this world.

I'm sure you have seen your share of such people. They are sure to suffer more than their share of hardship. Some of it is due to their own making. Some of it is not.

I don't feel it's proper for you and Med to criticize them.

Well, tough.

People who f-up and let other people die through stupidity and neglect are contemptible.

Folks who are so incompetent that they keep crap like that in their yard have my condolences for their loss and my scorn for contributing to it.

B

Keep it up.

I hope it doesn't come back to haunt you, someday.

What, are you superstitious? Is there some divine karmic balance in the universe that i should fear?

BS.

Bot

There is financial poverty,the lack of resources necessary for basic survival,yet there is a more common,isidious form of poverty,the want of competence to ameliorate life's burdens,poverty of the spirit that weighs so heavily it negates all possibility of lessening the opressive burden many face.

These 2 walk hand in hand and the one generally facilitates the onset of the other.

It is easy and facile for us to give self-congratulatory explanations and judgements from our secure vantage point.

Owning rental properties,some of which are section 8 housing {social services}has given me a direct and not too complacent view of those at the bottom of the ladder.

No, probably not. At one time I had thought that what goes around comes around, but, I've also come to believe the same thing.

BS

I've lived in 2nd-hand rental trailers and caught chickens for a living. I have helped folks in far greater poverty than anything you'll find in the USA. Maybe dumb as a stump, but they know where their kids are and who they are playing with. Even dumb ones. Unless they are negligent parents. Negligence is not a function of intelligence, but of self-indulgence.

There is no excuse for negligence. That's why they call it, "negligence."

Yes.........dumb as a stump..........but smart enough to know that the trunk of a car might be a bad place for children to play.

Sorry, dude, it's got nothing to do with negligence. If they knew the trunk was a hazard and did nothing about it, then it's negligence.

You have zero evidence that they were smart enough to realize the danger of the trunk.

Again, judging from on high.

You can do better.

We are discussing the people who have limited intelligence, poor work ethics, lack of any proper parenting skills, limited income, poor social skills, underlying anger at the world, refusal to accept responsibility, poor financial planning, and poor family planning.

Those kinds of people.

Clearly, I'm judging from afar.

If I'm mistaken, and we are dealing with a college graduate who just happens to be poor, then I stand corrected.

I'm now with Bot. The parents were negligent.

Take your pick. I put them in the category as stated. You can put them wherever you wish.

They absolutely inhabit some type of category for the purposes of this discussion.

Either they have the intelligence and parenting skills to make proper decisions and were negligent or they don't.

I was assuming the latter and attempting to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Silly me. :o

I watch my kids when they are playing if I can't my wife does if we can't they come inside with us. We also have a back yard surrounded with minimesh fence to keep the kids int the "safe zone". I have no doubt the activities of the parents at the time of the accident involved one or all of the following a: television b: sleeping c: drugs or alcohol.

The question is are the police liable?

If the parents had an abandoned vehicle on their property, this doesn't bode well for their knowledge and skills as a parent. You don't even need to bring in the outside issues of television, sleeping, or drugs/alcohol.

At some point, they were not sleeping and were not under the influence. The vehicle was staring them in the face.

Of course the police are not liable. That entire line of reasoning is ridiculous.
I'm sure some of those officers are feeling a few pangs of guilt over it, however.

It's so easy to condemn these parents who hadn't considered the dangers of a derelict vehicle as a deathtrap. So now, drugs and alcohol are suggested as a factor in this forum, along with lack of foresight due to their meager lifestyle. That's just great!

Well guess what? There are many parents with far greater income who were distracted enough (sans drugs & alcohol) and lost a toddler who strayed to close to the family pool, or an infant who suffocated face down on crib linens!

I think Brian Carlton took the high road on this one and I commend him for that.

It's easy to sit back and do post mortem assessments on others' misfortunes and lament on how "we would have never have allowed that scenario to occur".

For those of you that think your immediate surroundings are accident-proof, good for you. Kudos for having the foresight and the means to achieve that.

Not everyone is so vigilant. No need to condemn others for failing to correct an issue you find so obvious to point out.

But I suppose they would be eternally grateful if you came right over and gave them your sage advice on such matters...

Thanks G. I just got jolted back into reality.

So guys, your kids have never had near misses? I'm almost embarassed to say what I've let my kid do.

Thats where I was going with it, it was an accident but its wytoopopular to place the blame on someone else and file a lawsuit. The lawyer reprsenting them said it has nothing to do with many if thats the case he should sue for $1.00 to prove his point.

Oh, I can do better, huh?

You could do better than to excuse contemptible behavior. Tolerating taht kind of stuff is how we derive a society of careless punks. Holding people accountable is how you make people careful.

Bot

The high road for the parent would be to accept responsibility for your actions as a parent and not blame the police department for doing a good enough job finding your kid. I have made mistakes as a parent that endangered my children and luckily I was around to prevent a tragic accident, but I still blame myself for allowing my children to be in a dangerous situation in the first place.

I vacuumed the living room after my dogs tracked dirt on the carpet and forgot the place the child protection device back in the receptacle. A minute later my 8 month old playing with the electrical receptacle while I was putting the vacuum away, nothing happened but I hold myself 100% responsible for my actions not the dogs for getting dirt on my carpet.

Now thats logic, so don't give me any mumbo jumbo about not taking the "high road".

You don't know if it's "contemptible behavior". If the parent didn't have the knowledge that an abandoned vehicle might pose a threat to children then its not contemptible.

It's truly unfortunate and the parent bares the responsibility for their actions.

But, it's not negligence on the part of the parents if they did not understand the ramifications of a vehicle with an open trunk.

So, condemn them for stupidity, if you wish, but, to hold them in contempt, without additional data, is certainly prejudicial.

Your only alternative is to hold all people with lower intelligence and capability than you have "in contempt".

Like I said, you can do better than this.

Let me see now. You have a 5 yo, 6 yo and 11 yo playing around. Total years = 22. Therefore, it is safe to let them do whatever they want, right?

How about the parents watching the kids and not letting them run loose and then get surprised when bad things happen?

a great big bingo

You assume something about their intelligence, I assume nothing.

They were negligent. I don't care whether it's Mother Teresa, Albert Einstein or some nameless schmuck from Hoboken.

Nope. They were not "negligent" if they did not have the knowledge. I suppose that you can call them "negligent" by society's definition of negligence, whatever that means.

Albert Einstein would be negligent.

If they were not watching their kids they are negligent, if they were under the supervision of a day care provider you can betch yo (o) that they would be crucified, but instead the grieving parents get a pass and a big fat lawsuit.

If you have an eight year old, and he is playing in the yard, or down the street, you are hardly negligent if you are not watching them. They are not babies anymore.

Kids can get into all kinds of trouble at anytime. Doesn't make the parent negligent if the parent wasn't in their face every second of the day.

Maybe I read too quickly. I didn't see any reference to a lawsuit.

Can't accept the responsibility himself. Needs to place blame after the fact.

Not uncommon.

Good question.

negli·gent·ly adv.

Synonyms: negligent, derelict, lax, neglectful, remiss, slack
1 These adjectives mean guilty of a lack of due care or concern: an accident caused by a negligent driver; was derelict in his civic responsibilities; lax in attending classes; neglectful of her own financial security; remiss of you not to pay your bill; slack in maintaining discipline.

Sure it does. If they are under your care, you have to look out for them or keep them with you. If my dog escapes and bites someone or lets say, digs up my neighbour's flowers, even if I didn't let them out, who is responsible?

Lawsuit To Be Filed In Child Trunk Tragedy


Email This Story
Print This Story
Aug 3, 2005 1:54 pm US/Eastern
(1010 WINS) (MOUNT LAUREL, N.J.) The father of one of the boys who died in the trunk of a Toyota in Camden in June as scores of police officers searched for the three youths is planning file a lawsuit against the City of Camden, the police department and the car's maker.

Joseph M. Marrone Jr., a lawyer for Anibal Cruz Sr., said Wednesday that he is drafting a lawsuit that he intends to file next week in U.S. District Court in Camden. None of the parents of the other boys have said they will sue.

Cruz's son, 11-year-old Anibal Cruz Jr., died along with Daniel Agosto, 6, and Jesstin Pagan, 5, sometime after they climbed into the trunk of 1992 Toyota Camry parked in the yard where Anibal Jr. lived with his mother and four siblings.

Anibal Cruz Sr. lives in Philadelphia and is estranged from his wife, Elba Cruz, who is the boy's mother.

Marrone said Cruz Sr. decided to sue after receiving a report from authorities Tuesday that blamed both the families and Camden police for not finding the boys alive.

``They issued a report that pretty much puts negligence on police,'' Marrone said Wednesday.

Officials with the city and the police did not return messages seeking comment. A spokesman for Toyota USA said the company does not comment on litigation.

The three children disappeared around 5 p.m. on June 22, sparking a massive, multi-day search by police that used dogs, helicopters, boats on the nearby Delaware River and about 150 law enforcement officers.

The bodies of the boys were not found until a relative looking for jumper cables opened the car trunk two days after they had disappeared from the same yard in which the Toyota was parked.

An autopsy found that the boys accidentally suffocated after surviving between 13 and 33 hours in the trunk.

In the report made public Tuesday, authorities said the boys seemed to have pulled a knob atop the car's back seat to lower it and get into the trunk, where they appeared to be planning to build a fort. Once the seat was pulled back up, it could not be unlocked from inside the trunk.

Marrone said that he believed Toyota could also be held liable because the car did not have a way to escape the trunk. Under federal law, cars made after the 2001 model year are required to have emergency trunk releases, but Marrone said the company still could be liable.

The report by a panel of officials from the Camden County prosecutor's office and city police cast blame on authorities for failing to find the boys. But it also found that parents were too slow to call for help and did not provide full information to investigators, such as failing to tell police that Anibal Jr. had previously played in the car. The boy's mother disputes that claim.

Marrone said his client does not plan to sue any of the other parents.

``Everybody has a responsibility'' for their children, Marrone said. ``The police are held to a higher standard.''

Marrone also said that the official report did not answer why an officer did not open the trunk. He said that filing a civil complaint is one of the only ways to try to answer that question. Without taking that legal step, he said, he would not have subpoena power to seek some police documents and interview police or others.

Marrone said Cruz Sr., asked him for legal help last week after Elba Cruz sought a restraining order against her estranged husband.

Elba Cruz's lawyer, Peter M. Villari, said Wednesday that his client has not decided whether to sue. He also said Elba Cruz maintains her son did not play in the car.

David and Iraida Agosto, the parents of Daniel Agosto, have previously said that they do not think a lawsuit would do any good.

You are confusing responsibilty with negligence. If your dog digs up the neighbor's flowers, you are clearly responsible. But, negligence would require more information to determine.

If he was enclosed in a fenced yard and he somehow jumped the fence, you are not negligent.

Where were you when the cop wrote me a ticket for it? Where were you when the judge said I was, I qoute "negligent in my duties as a dog owner"? Window was open less than 3 inches but the dog nuzzled his way out and thru the screen mesh. He was caught digging up the neighbour's plants. All while I was napping. I only knew of his escape when the police knocked at the door and woke me up.

They were precisely negligent. That is the definition of negligence--when you neglect knowing where your kids are and they die.

Bot

You simply wish to find blame after the fact. Go ahead.

You can't show negligence on the part of these parents because you don't have the facts.

That's BS and you know it. You were not negligent. Responsible, yes, but not negligent. There's a difference.

Good luck. I don't know what the chances are of squeezing some money out of Toyota, but their chances of pinning it on the police is nil. The courts consistantly find that the police are under no obligation to 'Protect and Serve'.

Which part of the role of parental responsibility eludes you, here? It is REALLY simple. Keeping-up with the goings-on of one's minor dependents is in fact, one of Daddy's most important roles in life. If I do not know where my dependent children are, I am neglecting my parental responsibility. If they die, due to that failure to provide my children with a safe environment or if they die because I fail to keep tabs on my minor dependents, then I am negligent.

Fathers, listen to me. If you aren't providing a safe enviornment for your kids, you are providing an opportunity for your children to be injured or die. If you do not know where your kids are, especially the pre-teens, you are neglecting your primary male responsibility in human society.

Clear?

B

That lawyer's statement seems precisely wrong to me. The legal system gives police the benefit of the doubt in cases requiring discretion and judgment, which is as it should be.

I wouldn't want to pre-judge a lawsuit when I don't know the facts or the state of the law in New Jersey, but that case sounds weak to me.

Maybe simple for you, but not for everybody who bothers to think about it for about three seconds.

Do YOU know where your daughters are at every minute of every day. When they go down the street to play with their friends, do you have a "kiddie-cam" attached to the top of their head? Do you know exactly what they are doing, or do you just have a general idea where they are?

Get real. No parent can positively know exactly what their kids are doing at any given second in time, unless the kid is in the same room and the parent is paying strict attention to the child. While this may be the case for children up to 2 years of age, it's hardly the situation when the kids are eight years of age.

You continue to confuse parental responsibility with negligence. The parent is responsible for the actions of a child under the age of 18. Period.

However, if that child gets into a situation that causes harm, or destruction of property, the parent is not necessarily negligent.

Try to stay on the topic of negligence. We're not discussing responsibility here. Two different terms. Two different responses.

Botanist, listen to me. If you allow your daughters (over the age of eight) to go over to the next block and see friends of theirs, you are allowing your children an opportunity to be injured or die. If the kid is injured, or dies, you have not neglected your primary male responsibility in human society.

Clear?

Crystal Clear, if you accept total responsibility for your children their safety and health comes almost automatically. I had a near miss with my daughter and am a better father now because of it. I learned that although my wife and I are considered over protective by many that there is no limit to how much you can do to protect your children, if you bounce off the minimum tragedy always strikes.....oops accidents.

I am not at all confused about negligence and responsibility, you are. So there. Nyahh-nyahh!

Now do we want to play as adults?

B