Posted on 06/19/2003 7:36:03 PM PDT by mhking
Edited on 06/23/2003 2:48:15 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
PORTAGE COUNTY -- A mother traveling from Detroit to Pittsburgh got into trouble in Portage County while trying to drive and breastfeed her baby at the same time.
Twenty-nine-year-old Catherine Donkers had fed the baby before she left Detroit but said her seven-month-old daughter was hungry again.
"I knew I was doing nothing wrong when I was breastfeeding her," Donkers said.
Donkers doesn't consider her actions excessively dangerous.
"I think there are lots of things we do when we put ourselves at risk, just by the very fact that I'm in a car and there's lots of car accidents every single day," she said. "I think it would be reasonable to say even that's a danger."
A truck driver apparently saw it as a danger and called the highway patrol. But Donkers wouldn't pull over for police until she got to a tollbooth.
"I've directed her to, that when she doesn't feel safe, she goes to a public place," said her husband, Brad Barnhill.
At the tollbooth, Donkers didn't give the trooper a driver's license. She instead pulled out an affidavit as identification and got cited for not having a license.
The couple also claims she did nothing wrong, saying Michigan law has an exemption to its child restraint law for nursing mothers.
They claim that since the turnpike is an interstate, drivers can follow the laws of their home state. But the highway patrol says that as long as the stop occurred in Ohio, they have to abide by Ohio laws.
The couple has done extensive research on the law and believes in a strict adherence to them. Donkers is facing child endangering and child seat violations among other charges. Her and her husband say they plan to fight all charges and will file a counter suit.
And why was she in such a hurry that she couldn't pull over for a few minutes? Why bother having kids if their lives mean so little to you, you don't have time to provide them a little safety? Selfish morons.
§ 4511.81 Child restraint system required; child highway safety fund. -- RC § 4511.81 is affected by Am. Sub. S.B. 123 (149 v --), effective 1-1-2004. See the 2002 Legislative Bulletin No. 4 for the version effective 1-1-2004.
(A) When any child who is in either or both of the following categories is being transported in a motor vehicle, other than a taxicab or public safety vehicle as defined in section 4511.01 of the Revised Code, that is registered in this state and is required by the United States department of transportation to be equipped with seat belts at the time of manufacture or assembly, the operator of the motor vehicle shall have the child properly secured in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in a child restraint system that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards:
(1) A child who is less than four years of age;
(2) A child who weighs less than forty pounds.
(B) When any child who is in either or both of the following categories is being transported in a motor vehicle, other than a taxicab, that is registered in this state and is owned, leased, or otherwise under the control of a nursery school, kindergarten, or day-care center, the operator of the motor vehicle shall have the child properly secured in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions in a child restraint system that meets federal motor vehicle safety standards:
(1) A child who is less than four years of age;
(2) A child who weighs less than forty pounds.
(C) The director of public safety shall adopt such rules as are necessary to carry out this section.
(D) The failure of an operator of a motor vehicle to secure a child in a child restraint system as required by this section is not negligence imputable to the child, is not admissible as evidence in any civil action involving the rights of the child against any other person allegedly liable for injuries to the child, is not to be used as a basis for a criminal prosecution of the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section, and is not admissible as evidence in any criminal action involving the operator of the motor vehicle other than a prosecution for a violation of this section.
(E) This section does not apply when an emergency exists that threatens the life of any person operating a motor vehicle and to whom this section otherwise would apply or the life of any child who otherwise would be required to be restrained under this section.
(F) If a person who is not a resident of this state is charged with a violation of division (A) or (B) of this section and does not prove to the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the person's use or nonuse of a child restraint system was in accordance with the law of the state of which the person is a resident, the court shall impose the fine levied by division (H)(2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code.
(G) There is hereby created in the state treasury the "child highway safety fund," consisting of fines imposed pursuant to divisions (H)(1) and (2) of section 4511.99 of the Revised Code for violations of divisions (A) and (B) of this section. The money in the fund shall be used by the department of health only to defray the cost of designating hospitals as pediatric trauma centers under section 3727.081 [3727.08.1] of the Revised Code and to establish and administer a child highway safety program. The purpose of the program shall be to educate the public about child restraint systems generally and the importance of their proper use. The program also shall include a process for providing child restraint systems to persons who meet the eligibility criteria established by the department, and a toll-free telephone number the public may utilize to obtain information about child restraint systems and their proper use.
The director of health, in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code, shall adopt any rules necessary to carry out this section, including rules establishing the criteria a person must meet in order to receive a child restraint system under the department's child restraint system program; provided that rules relating to the verification of pediatric trauma centers shall not be adopted under this section.
HISTORY: 139 v H 605 (Eff 3-7-83); 141 v S 54 (Eff 5-6-86); 141 v H 428 (Eff 12-23-86); 142 v S 53 (Eff 10-20-87); 144 v S 98 (Eff 11-12-92); 145 v H 381 (Eff 6-23-94); 148 v H 138 (Eff 11-3-2000); 149 v H 94. Eff 6-6-2001.
The effective date is set by section 206 of HB 94.
Speaking of vans, I remember some news story about a woman who just bought a caravan with cruise control. Urban Myth Alert?
She engaged it, and went in to the back to take care of the baby.
Her line was "The salesman said it would [practically] drive itself.
A charge under Ohio Code § 4511.202 might stand up.
§ 4511.202 Operating a motor vehicle without reasonable control.No person shall operate a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic without being in reasonable control of the vehicle, trolley, or streetcar
I can't seem to find a parallel to MCL 257.677 in the Ohio code, but I haven't looked that hard.
'Nuff said.
I'll have to dig it up, but there was a case this week where the driver of a car where he and a stripper were engaged in making "the beast with two backs" while he was driving down the road went off the road and hit something, impaling said stripper with the steering wheel, and leaving the driver with the mentality of an 11 year-old.
The driver's been sentenced to 10 years...
Err, yes. Even in an anarchy, if all your neighbors don't like what you're doing, it's effectively illegal.
In other words, something as asinine as drinking coffee or talking on a cell-phone could be handled that way, if you really wanted to closely interpret the law.
In any event, child welfare authorities work loosely with the law in that regard; this would certainly fall within their pervue in that regard.
If a state's attorney wished, he/she could make this stick in some form.
Bottom line is that this woman is a moron; and a danger to ME as a driver on the highways. I don't want to be any damn where near her when she is idiotically being distracted by latching her child onto her breast while trying to drive. If that is the extent of her decision-making skills (or lack of the above, as the case may be), then I would submit that her judgement in taking appropriate care not to hit MY vehicle is piss poor at best.
Your failure to be informed of the facts and law in this situation does not make her a wacko.
The police officer pulling her over does not know this; no one else knows this, Barrister. All they know is that a lady is distracted from driving by attempting to latch a child to her chest as opposed to either pulling over to tend to business or to give the child a bottle of milk which the mother has taken the time to prepare prior to her trip.
All the cop knows is that this woman has endangered OTHER people by her erratic driving.
Finally, my "failure to be informed" certainly does not make her a wacko. But her decision to endanger others (fine, I WON'T include her child since you're hiding behind your interpretation of a poorly worded law) in other vehicles traveling at high speed on the Turnpike.
I don't have any sympathy for her. Based on the evidence, she deserves to be convicted for her poor decision.
As for her child; I'd submit that any trial evidence be presented to the appropriate child welfare authorities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.