Welcome to Parenting Help Me, If you're new here be sure to click on the orange button in our sidebar to get the latest Parenting tips, you can also click the blue twitter button to follow us on twitter.
According to Judge Daniel T. Balfour of Henrico County, VA, driving intoxicated with a child in the vehicle is not considered child endangerment.
What the hay???
After an altercation with a patron at a local bar at 1:00 a.m., Raleigh Thomas Campbell drove away with his 9 year old son in the car. He was stopped by police and arrested at gunpoint. He was charged with child neglect, driving under the influence and refused to take a sobriety test.
On March 24, 2009, Judge Balfour found Campbell not guilty of child neglect. The judge stated that while he is convinced that Campbell was intoxicated, Campbell’s actions did not meet the definition of child endangerment.
Well, I for one, would like to know just what IS the legal definition of child endangerment?
I guess if Campbell had been involved in an accident that caused the death of his son, then maybe there would be a legal case.
Campbell was sentenced to one year in jail with all but one month suspended for driving under the influence. Campbell then requested that he be allowed to serve his sentence on weekends as to not interfere with his business. The judge granted his request.
This is not Campbell’s first brush with the law. In 2002, Campbell was found not guilty for murdering his girlfriend and mother of his 9 year old son. His girlfriend, Carrie Ann Williams, was found in a garbage bin, shot in the head and wrapped in a plastic bag.
Comments anyone???
Be sure to hit the BIG RETWEET button below and let your friends know about this…
Re-Tweet This Post
Parenting Help Tips
Subscribe to the Parenting Help Me Tips Feed
To see more posts from this Author, Click on the Author’s Name
Follow us on Twitter
13 Comments Received
March 25th, 2009 @5:49 pm
This is exactly the kind of stupidity that endangers our children everyday. WTF (frack) was he doing at a bar at 1AM with a nine year old kid.
Sorry Judge Balfour but you are soooo wrong on this one.
March 25th, 2009 @5:55 pm
Karen–you said. I just have two questions. One, how close of a relative is Judge Balfour? (obviously must be some relation to all this type of insanity) and two, how long are the going to give Campbell before the 9 year old meets the same fate a Carrie Ann (his mom?)
Just wrong.
March 25th, 2009 @6:07 pm
I am flabbergasted by this story! And outraged…and saddened. What is wrong with people? That poor child hasn’t a chance unless someone steps in. And if can’t count on our officials to help correct a situation like this what hope is there?
March 25th, 2009 @6:37 pm
I am by no means making light of this particular situation, it is extreme to putting this thought forward, but here it is.
Now people can be arrested for smoking in a car with a child under 18 in the car because of child endangerment.
It may be a bit much to ask the government to step into every aspect of our lives, we have enough laws.
Soon we will be arrested for child endangerment because.
We took them to McDonalds and fed the fat little kids more dangerous fat food.
We let them drink diet soda that produces formaldehyde, one of the only chemicals that can cross the blood brain barrier, and makes them stupider.
We use harmful cleaning agents around them when cleaning the house, endangering them.
We allow them to go play in the park on the slide with out a helmet on.
This particular situation is a bit extreme and Raleigh got away with the indecent for the most part, Not Cool. It is a good thing no one got hurt.
I just think of my freedom being relinquished with some of the things people want to imprison others for. The government loves the control they have been working on it for years.
And I for one am not one to cast the first stone, not being a saint myself, in the name of my freedom.
Brad West ~ onomoney
March 25th, 2009 @8:30 pm
Brad – I do understand what you’re saying. The government often over steps it’s bounds. However, if you don’t want to throw the first stone, get out of the way and I will:) I’m no saint either but this is an extreme case in my opinion.
March 25th, 2009 @9:54 pm
As I said I think this particular case is extreme, yes it deserves attention.
What I’m saying is anything that people think is wrong, and maybe wrong they want the government to step in and make a law. Things were so much safer, nicer, and dangerous 40 years ago.
He got away with something that was totally out of hand, at least he didn’t get away with murder, thank god no one got hurt.
Brad West ~ onomoney
March 25th, 2009 @11:13 pm
Yes, Thank God no one got hurt… This Time… however, Judge Balfour has set a dangerous precedent in this case.
I whole heartedly support parent’s rights but anytime you have a child forced into a vehicle driven by any drunk it’s obviously endangering the life of the minor. The 9 year old was not mature enough to make the decision not to be in the vehicle.
If there had been a sleeping adult in the back seat, it would still have been endangering the life of that person.
This is not a borderline case and it would not surprise me to see the same individuals involved in a similiar circumstance in the near future… Hopefully, the young boy will not have to pay the consequences of his father’s and Judge Balfour’s actions.
March 25th, 2009 @11:19 pm
Well,
It sounds like he might have gotten away with murdering his girlfriend in 2002.
I would say that they guy has some pull somewhere.
Virginia is one of the states that will threaten to take your kids away if you refuse to give them their Ritalin or anti-depressants.
So…they will arrest you & take your kids for not giving them drugs but, if you are all screwed up & drive with your kids – it’s OK.
I am thinking the judges have had a few to many drugs!
Virginia definitely needs to see who is sitting up there with the gavel. I bet they have DEEP pockets.
Just be warned – if you look under the judges robe you just might find Raleigh Thomas Campbell. I am sure there are also others.
March 25th, 2009 @11:40 pm
OK he did get away with murder, sorry.
Looking at what can be seen in the media This is what I believe happened.
Raleigh Thomas Campbell refused the breathalyzer. This makes him allegedly impaired until they prove otherwise. The refusal of taking the breathalyzer carries the same punishment as being impaired.
Since they couldn’t prove that he was actually impaired they couldn’t charge him with endangerment of a minor child.
So as far as the headline: Drunk Driving Dad Not A Danger To Child.
If it is in the news that way may be grounds for a lawsuit itself.
Very common with a half decent lawyer, they are in the loophole business.
In Las Vegas there are numbers of idiots every year that leave their kids in the car and cook them at 160 degrees. Most of them get away with murder.
Brad West ~ onomoney
March 26th, 2009 @7:29 am
Brad-You are right that they couldn’t prove it because of his refusal to take the breathalyzer. However, I have personally known 2 families that had their children taken away by DSS in VA. DSS also couldn’t prove anything and thus had to return the children but that didn’t stop DSS from taking them into custody for a year.
DSS could have stepped in and they didn’t.
Also, the judge could have found him guilty and let his lawyer appeal. Meanwhile, the guy could have sit in jail, twiddling his thumbs.
I’m not asking the government to make a new law to punish this man or protect this child. But there is obviously a problem with the current law if a person can ALLEGEDLY be intoxicated and operate a vehicle with a child inside.
Last, but not least, according to eye witness accounts (which I believe are still allowed as testimony in court), Campbell was seen drinking at 2 different bars on the night in question and the bartender(s) could testify to the amount they had served and watched him drink.
At the very least, it would have been within the authority of the judge to mandate parenting classes. Then, maybe he wouldn’t have had so much time on his hands to OTHER things.
March 26th, 2009 @3:47 pm
This is serious and Gabriella I agree with you. If the judge didn’t have latitude due to technicality and protecting the dad’s rights which I’m all for at least mandate the classes to show what he did was wrong and hopefully resolve the dangerous behavior.
January 1st, 2010 @9:49 pm
This guy is nothing but trash and is still abusing alchol and drugs and it is only a matter of time before he is in the news again for some tragic event.
January 27th, 2010 @12:50 am
This is only one of the many ridiculous decisions made by Judge Balfour. Judge Balfour has no respect for human life, little knowledge of the law and consistantly shows leniency toward drunk drivers. A convicted drunk driver, driving at 90 miles an hour killed a 21 year old (Derrick Beckner)instantly and the drunk driver only received one year in jail and was allowed work release during that year!!!!!! However, Judge Balfour did feel on a seperate case that a man charged with aggrevated assault with a baseball bat leaving a man injured should be sentence to 27 years in jail??? He will hopefully be thrown off the Henrico County Circuit Court bench soon.
Leave A Reply