Mom Arrested, Facing 5 Years in Prison for Leaving 8- and 10-Year-Old Boys at Home
A new Georgia law could protect Alexandra Woodward's parental decision—but it doesn't go into effect until July.

Alexandra Woodward, a mother of 8- and 10-year-old boys in Calhoun, Georgia, has been charged with cruelty to children in the first degree. If found guilty, she faces a minimum of five years in prison. Her crime? Letting her kids stay home alone for a few hours. They were fine.
Here's what happened: On April 15, Woodward and her boys made dinner together, and then played a game of Sorry. The boys did their homework. Woodward put them to bed and told them she had to drive to a storage unit about an hour away. (Woodward was having foot surgery the next week and wanted to take care of things while she could walk.) The kids asked her to bring home a few of their possessions.
Woodward left with her boyfriend, John McHugh. About half an hour later, one of the boys called their dad, or their dad called the boys (accounts differ on this point). Either way, they told him that mom had gone to the storage unit. Their dad then called 9-1-1 to request a welfare check on them.
Two police officers arrived in combat-style vests. They found the kids doing just fine on their own, but called child protective services, anyway. Child services summoned dad to come pick up the kids. Woodward and McHugh arrived at home around midnight, and the cops—now five in number—handcuffed them, and took them to jail.
They were fingerprinted, photographed, and placed in separate cells. After three days in jail, they were released on a $20,000 bond each. McHugh faces the same charges as Woodward.
While many parents might not make the decision to run an errand at night, that does not make it a crime, says attorney David DeLugas. DeLugas is the head of ParentsUSA, a nonprofit that provides pro bono legal help to parents arrested and prosecuted for child neglect in cases where a child was not in actual danger. A donation page has been established to help ParentsUSA cover Woodward's legal expenses, as well as other parents facing similar difficulties.
DeLugas noted that the charge of cruelty to children in the first degree is usually reserved for cases in which kids were beaten, locked in closets, or denied food.
"Not when you went out for a few hours," he says.
Georgia law states that first-degree cruelty to children occurs when a person "willfully deprives the child of necessary sustenance," or "maliciously causes excessive physical or mental pain." Anyone convicted of this crime, "shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years." Since this case involves two children, the prison sentence could be doubled.
Woodward denies that her kids were incapable of fending for themselves.
"The more responsibility they get, the more they excel," she says.
She later showed me family videos of the kids setting up a tent, mowing the lawn, and cooking chicken.
On the night in question, she said: "When I started cooking dinner, they asked me, 'Can I cook?' It was one of those frozen skillet things." They took over the cooking, everyone ate, and Woodward told them, "After this, we're gonna run and do this thing." The kids affirmed that this was okay with them.
"Here's your phone," Woodward says she told them. "Call me if you need anything." She added that they could also call their neighbor.
Exactly why the kids called her ex-husband after she left—or whether he initiated the call—is unclear. When the first two cops arrived, they interviewed the kids, later writing in their report that the younger boy said he was nervous someone might break in, and that the older one was not scared because his mother often left them alone. In the body camera footage I reviewed, both the boys seemed perfectly calm.
The Georgia Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS) publishes guidelines that state an 8-year-old child "should" not be left alone, but children aged nine to 12 can be, for a few hours. Woodward's younger son was a month shy of nine years old. The state guidelines also note that sometimes "a younger child has the maturity to be left alone to care for other children."
Either way, the thing about guidelines is that they are not laws. The DCFS website suggests following them. And now, a change in Georgia law, which will be effective on July 1, makes it crystal clear that charges like the ones leveled against Woodward and McHugh should not be prosecuted in the future.
Gov. Brian Kemp (R) signed S.B. 110, the so-called Reasonable Childhood Independence bill, into law on May 14, making Georgia the ninth state to explicitly give parents the right to decide when their children are ready to be left at home, unless the parents show an "intentional disregard" of a "serious and imminent risk" that puts their child in obvious danger.
According to the police report, the cops entered the home and found "an open alcoholic beverage container"—i.e., a can of Twisted Ice Tea—and "a nicotine vape on the counter." It's pretty doubtful that an open can and a vape would meet the definition of a "serious and imminent risk" under the new law.
Unfortunately, the new law isn't in effect yet, so it technically doesn't apply to charges filed before its enactment.
After getting out of jail, Woodward met with child services representatives, who told her she can talk to her kids by phone, but can only see them on supervised visits for now. She is also required to undergo drug, alcohol, parenting, and domestic violence assessments. Meanwhile, McHugh expects he will likely lose his job because he works at the airport and now has a felony charge.
The assistant district attorney declined a request for comment. Reached by phone, the boys' father, who has sole custody of the kids for the time being, said: "I understand there are reasons why people would make the decisions they could make, but a parent's always required to keep their kids safe."
Of course, the kids were safe. Nothing happened to them. Were they 100 percent safe? No. Because 100 percent safety is impossible; after all, any time a parent drives their kid in a car, they are putting those children at risk of potential danger. Kids who live in homes with stairs could always fall down them and hurt themselves, and sometimes do. Perfect safety is an illusion.
Arresting a parent for allowing their child to do something that is extremely safe, like staying home alone for a few hours, is criminalizing a rational parenting decision, whether that decision is popular or not.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Their dad then called 9-1-1 to request a welfare check on them.
Dick.
Didn't someone you know have CPS called on them for laying hands on their daughter in a "concerning manner", Sarckles?
I think Sarc [who has his moments of lucidity] is mostly a drunk, and posts accordingly. Ever stop by a house and see piles and piles of beer cans lying around? That would be Sarc's house.
messy divorce
custody battle
hijinks ensue
hijinks ensue
Yup. Apparently, the kids don't have free access to the phone so, presumably, Dad wouldn't be able to just assume he could them on it... but we're not sure if the boys called Dad or if Dad called the boys.
Wow! In the 70s, we were at home by ourselves at 8 or more. Mom taught us how to prepare meals and stay in the house until she got home. We cooked, cleaned, and washed clothes so when she got home she didn't have to do anything since dad left us by ourselves. Kids are smart, but if you treat them like and infant, they will become the infantile adults we see in today's society! Heck, I washed cars at 12 to help bring in income unsupervised!
Same here, in the 60s. I was totally unsupervised and my parents never knew where I was. I would ride my bicycle into the next state and just had to be home in time for dinner.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s. We lived in a rural area and we wandered the forests, open fields all over the place. We even walked 1.5 mi. into town to go swimming all afternoon.
There was a pond nearby that me and my brothers all messed around in catching frogs and looking out for snakes.
Somehow we managed to survive all the dangers we encountered.
Chalk one up for the guy wearing the antlers. I think he must have buddies in the police department, if he isn't a cop himself.
He might get custody of the boys, if that's what he wants.
Woodward left with her boyfriend, John McHugh. About half an hour later, one of the boys called their dad, or their dad called the boys (accounts differ on this point). Either way, they told him that mom had gone to the storage unit. Their dad then called 9-1-1 to request a welfare check on them.
OK, yeah, everyone is assholes.
No, the mom and kids are not. The father is a voluntary and eager asshole. The cops and CPS are just bureaucratic assholes saving their jobs.
I suggest the vindictive dad deserves a "cunt" rating.
SGT is right - the mom and kids are fine. The dad absolutely is the vindictive version and the government bureaucrats are the heartless version but nothing in the story above paints the mom, boyfriend or kids in even a slightly bad light.
First, you and SGT both misunderstand the statement. "Everyone is assholes" ~ "Shit happens" ~ "I don't believe a word of it" ~ "Not my monkeys, not my circus."
Two police officers arrived in combat-style vests.
Get the fuck out with this bullshit. Would you feel better if they showed up in tuxes and called CPS?
one of the boys called their dad, or their dad called the boys (accounts differ on this point)
So we aren't at all sure if Dad is goading his ex-wife or if one or both of the boys might be starved for attention from their dad by a mom who "runs to the storage unit" with her boyfriend?
The one thing I do know: "the mom and kids are fine" is self-evidently false. If it were true, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
The Kids Are Alright.
Thank God we didn't have cell phones when I was growing up.
Hmmmm, do you promote real families, one male and one female in a committed relationship, or is this another gay front
I don't think anyone is promoting anything here other than allowing people to raise their children with a little independence.
Beyond non sequitur, that one.
Good people use independence well, and bad people do not. The statement stands.
Wow, this is a particularly egregious one. "Cruelty"? Doesn't sound like this remotely meets the standard in the law.
Trying to figure out how they could contort this into a terrorism charge as well.
Did they have a trump sign on the front lawn?
Clearly nobody with a Trump sign should be allowed to have kids.
You misspelled, "Biden."
People with Biden signs don't have kids, because:
Over-population is killing the planet
Impending climate/fascist/famine/COVID catastrophes will kill them before they turn 6
They are much too busy with their personal life journeys
Abortion is a sacrament
There was a time not too long ago when a President (or in this case, probably governor) would issue a pardon if the Mom was found guilty. It was used to legally exonerate what no reasonable person considered a crime anyway. It madde a point about where the pardoner stood on an issue and righted a legal wrong.
Now it just means "Hey, didn't I see you on TV?" or "Thank you for committing a crime of greed in my name!"
The father was obviously trying to swat his own kids. Probably wanted an accident to happen involving an officer and a gun. Sick of paying child support. Wants them dead.
Or wants his ex to lose the children. Pretty shitty move in any case.
That's his real motive. The proper punishment for him is to lose all custody of his kids as unfit for the job. But that punishes the kids too, in some way.
That father is a real piece of work, but the real culprit is the government which enables all this meddling.
Governments Almighty... Serving YOU ass hitmen and shitmen for revenge-lusting exes EVERYWHERE!!!
(REVENGE for nearly for FREE... Just pay for the taxes, which you already MUST pay anyway, and give them a call! Dirty deeds, done dirt cheap!!!)
As a stably-married father of 3 boys, one of whom is in the approximate age range, if you think 8 and 10 yr. old boys aren't big enough assholes to ask Mom for something, get an answer they don't like, and then call Dad specifically to get a different answer, you're a moron. Doesn't mean they deserve CPS called on them but, again, doesn't mean they aren't assholes. That's why Mom said, "Call me, or the neighbor." and they should've listened.
Even along the lines of the narrative, the boyfriend is the most innocent or tangential but also gets arrested and takes back seat to the Mom who could've more directly avoided the situation entirely. Even then, "You stay with the kids, I'll go get the stuff from the storage unit." would've been gentlemanly and avoided the whole thing and, similarly, didn't deserve arrest.
the real culprit is the government which enables all this meddling
The cops didn't take it upon themselves to visit the house. The husband could've called the neighbor. The neighbor may or may not have approved of hard ice tea and vaping. The mom could've stayed home and hit the vape and the hard ice tea while the boyfriend ran to the storage unit. Mom and Dad could've stayed married and then either one of them could rest assured the kids were safe while the other partner ran to the storage unit...
Again, everyone is assholes. Truly an "Of, for, and by The People"/"The people get the government they deserve." situation. I know *I* neither empowered nor forbid the GA cops from getting involved (which doesn't necessarily make me not an asshole).
My guess is they went somewhere for her to store his unit for a while. I guess that's better than in front of the kids.
Sure all of this could have been avoided if this mom bought into the helicopter bullshit. But her kids are better off that she didn't. I've been married for 45 years and have a grown son and two grandkids. I wouldn't have thought twice about leaving my 10 year old son home with one of his buddies while I was gone for a couple hours because the boy was not stupid. My wife and I left him home alone when he was 14 over a weekend to go to an out of town funeral. He had a long list of phone numbers to call in the unlikely event he needed help but I never doubted he'd be fine because, again, he's not stupid. I wouldn't think twice about leaving my 12 and 14 year old grandkids home alone for a few hours or overnight because, again, they're not stupid. The only assholes I see here are the prosecutors and the ex husband who has apparently won custody even though his kids were never in danger. Should the parents have just stayed married? I know I have. But marriage is complicated. Mine is. Isn't yours? Sorry but this is a bullshit prosecution all the way down.
It is the voters who elected the public officials who rewrote laws and regulations to allow this.
This is not the country I grew up in.
That's if you take the "Nobody's really sure if the boys called Dad or of Dad called the boys" story from his ex-wife (who "took her boyfriend to the storage unit") at face value.
Once again I say, "Everyone is assholes."
That would be the least risky way. The cops get immunity from prosecution no matter which way it goes, right?
Wow, what a jerk. The dad is just trying to score points against the mom. There was no reason for this at all. CPS has to be the most invasive & unfair branch to have to deal with.
Yes.
Fucking in hell. I had a part time job at 11. Worked on construction sites at 13. And I'm not that old. Kids need some guidance and structure, not 24 hour surveillance.
Helicopter parenting has destroyed a generation. 🙁
Yes. And we haven't seen all of the consequences yet.
Bad guys off the street and all the good guise made it home safe.
"Something" "could" have happened...this is after all in Georgia, where there might be a gap toothed banjo player out in the woods somewhere.
LOL good point.
However, the worst sadists in Georgia are at Hartsfield-Jackson ATL INTL, not in the backwoods.
Ain't that the truth; passed through there around midnight a year or so ago and left wondering what the hell happened to my country. If there was any place I would think a child would be at risk, it would be there. As if there is a butt-pluggo around every corner with a bag of candy and a white panel truck nearby.
Those boys need to spend some time at a barbershop.
The one, true, best libertarian take.
So they know where to buy drugs?
"Here's your phone," Woodward says she told them. "Call me if you need anything." She added that they could also call their neighbor.
So Dad wouldn't necessarily have known that they had their phone in order to call them and, again by her telling, we're not sure whether the boys called him (in spite of her instructions to call her or the neighbors) or not?
Once again I say, "Everyone is assholes."
"Unfortunately, the new law isn't in effect yet, so it technically doesn't apply to charges filed before its enactment."
Are we sure that's the case? Don't we normally drop charges / expunge sentences / etc. when laws change like that?
The two are not incongruous or are irrelevant. Charges could be dropped even without the law taking effect later and the case could be considered egregious enough or otherwise outside the subsequent law. Generally, technically, ex post facto.
I believe a pardon would be in order.
Maybe. Seems like if anyone gets one, the boyfriend should be first in line (assuming we have the full picture). Once again, DAs and cops don't really make careers tearing kids away from pillars of the community. The Mom's story, as told to us second (or third) hand is awfully rosy and still has its "Nobody has any idea who called who first (despite the fact that every phone and phone record for over a decade has calls logged at both ends)!" thorns. I guess the phones must've been wiped, like with a cloth, but what difference, at this point, does it make?
Thanks Hilary!
re: Don't we normally ... expunge sentences ... when laws change like that?
No, we explicitly do not. We don't even let people who are still in prison out when their "crime" is turned into a non-crime. We should but that's just not the norm.
re: Don't we normally drop charges ...?
Sometimes but that's an entirely discretionary choice by individual prosecutors. And there are lots and lots of examples of prosecutors not making that choice.
Oh, well I know that in my state, we made it sort of a big deal to remove convictions and expunge records for people who had been convicted for (most) marijuana-related offenses shortly after we legalized / decriminalized it.
Seems like it should be standard procedure.
Seems like it should be standard procedure.
The letter in your manila envelope reads: This will be used to convict people of actions that were made criminal after the fact.
You were around for the President that issued preemptive pardons for crimes that people hadn't yet been charged with or even investigated for, right?
Trying to get prosecutors and judges to reverse charges requires locking them in a dark room and removing teeth with a pair of rusty plyers.
"Mom Arrested, Facing 5 Years in Prison for Leaving 8- and 10-Year-Old Boys at Home."
Another sterling example of the nanny state at work.
[Writing below while you were posting this--obviously agree; the f'ing State just wants to grow and grow]
As per usual, the two boys will be sent to a foster home where they will be physically and sexually abused.
SPBP2 approves this message.
"After getting out of jail, Woodward met with child services representatives, who told her she can talk to her kids by phone, but can only see them on supervised visits for now. She is also required to undergo drug, alcohol, parenting, and domestic violence assessments. Meanwhile, McHugh expects he will likely lose his job because he works at the airport and now has a felony charge."
Having worked in the medical field, thinking of all the cases where children were in fact endangered and or severely neglected, and much much less was done....pretty obvious that this is a much bigger conflict du jour between nanny [we know what is best and you have to get with the program] statists and the leave me the f alone crowd. Chipper time
And the father using the system to vent his rage, get custody of the kids, and otherwise score a "win" that he probably doesn't even want.
Once again, the custody system is overwhelmingly weighted towards women. In alignment with "IME", neither the cops nor DCFS is eager to show up to a woman's house, tear her kids away from her, and give them to her Dad for no other reason that to suffer the slanders of being branded misogynists and homewreckers.
To crib from Katy Faust on a quasi-related topic "Gay fathers report that their children under 10 love having gay dads. I'm like what you're saying is heterosexual parents are more honest about their shortcomings than gay fathers."
Yeah, there's really no shortage of children being no-shit abused and neglected. And the police and CPS have time for this bullshit? I guess it's easier than dealing with an actual difficult and dangerous situation.
I was walking to the park on my own or with my 9 year old sister when I was 8, and this was back in the early 90s when crime rates were at their peak. There were also numerous times when it'd just be us at home most of the day. We survived just fine.
This is complete crap. I was 7 when I was left to babysit my three younger brothers while my parents went out for a couple of hours in the evening. They provided me with a phone number, and I knew how to make a call. I continued to babysit for several more years. I won't blame Dad, but two police officers in combat vests is absurd, and everyone from DCFS involved in this case should never be allowed near to a child again.
two police officers in combat vests is absurd
Once again, this is Lenore's, the Mom's, or the attorney's absurd, appeal to emotion, bullshit. And the fact that people keep repeating it is getting to be really stupid.
Cops don't go anywhere alone and "libertarians" don't want them to. One cop, no camera, is straight up They said/they said every time and They always win. Similarly, the "combat vests" are standard issue and union rules and insurance policies say that they wear them. They don't get to say "This is a routine traffic stop or wellness call." and then take the vests off. It's like getting scared or trying to gin up fear because the handyman you hired to come check out your roof shows up wearing a hard hat.
The cops smash the doors in or two plainclothes officers go into the (peaceful) house unannounced and stuff people into unmarked cars, call me back. Otherwise, the cops were called and two men in uniform showed up, STFU.
We went from "Cops shouldn't be able to get military surplus AMRAPs to conduct operations." police reform to "Cops shouldn't be allowed to show up to house calls wearing bullet proof vests because vests are scary." #DefundThePolice douchebaggery (because of a domestic squabble between a divorced couple).
Cops shouldn't be allowed to show up to house calls wearing bullet proof vests because vests are scary.
Tuxedos? Naked? Patriot-Front polos and khakis? Speedos? Board shorts and deck shoes? Black jeans, New Balance sneakers, no belt, a turtle neck, and Steve Jobs-style rimless glasses? What exactly *are* the cops supposed to wear to house calls/safety checks? Should they have a couple officers dressed for the occasion at all times or provide all officers with all the outfits they could need and make them change on the way or at the nearest phone booth?
Exactly. They should have arrived with a SWAT team, Bearcat, tossed in a couple flashbangs and teargas and gone in screaming and pointing ARs at those boys.
You never know.
Ye Ha!
The inability to distinguish the difference between showing up in a Bearcat pointing AR-15s and showing up in "combat vests" doesn't lend credence to anyone's argument.
Really, since the cops can and do buy their own alternative "combat vests", or "assault vests" as they're more commonly called, and wear those on duty, we should ban these "assault vests" for everyone. Because, really, no legitimate citizen needs a vest with more than 10 pockets or a thing that goes up.
I should have posted a /s at the end of the comment.
the only time someone would need such body armor is if they were visiting Chicago.
the only time someone would need such body armor is if they were visiting Chicago.
And the only time anyone would forbid someone from possessing and/or wearing such armor is if they were every bit as oblivious, unserious, anti-cop, anti-gun, anti-liberty, and pro-state authoritarian as the people I run into in downtown Chicago.
The kind of people who would impugn cops for wearing it and then show up at an Antifa march, where they're the ones carrying weapons with the specific and open intent of agitating or antagonizing people... while wearing vests.
Again, I walk onto construction sites all the time where I'm required to wear a hard hat even though all construction is being done below waist level. The idea that cops showing up is a display of force because they're wearing vests is an emotionally manipulative ploy being used by people who don't actually want the best for these kids or the family or the citizens of Georgia, but just want to signal that they know that they're in the right.
All charges against the parent, boyfriend should be dropped, with compensation, then the D.A., the 2 police, the DCFS agent arrested.
They should all be fired.
If not, the Georgia citizens should protect themselves from state employees by taking extreme actions that put Georgia LEOs in fear for their careers.
Tyranny starts with the terrorized. The tyrants will inflict as much on their victims as the victims let them inflict. Choose how much you will put up with, or the terrorists will choose for you. Voting is begging to be terrorized by strangers. Be your protector or be exploited. It's up to you. There are NO other saviors.
You can bet the CPS down there is going to make a federal case out of this....because they can. Every time they do this is a feather in their hat and a means to ask and get more funding. Remember, the first job of ANY bureaucrat is to increase funding.
What surprises me is that the cops didn't show up with a SWAT team and Bearcat. Of course they like to dress up in "combat gear" it makes them feel like Sylvester Stallone or Ahnold.
The local county boys up here in Northern Michigan dress like they were ready for patrol in Afghanistan. In my town I leave my car unlocked.
The local county boys up here in Northern Michigan dress like they were ready for patrol in Afghanistan.
Ah, I see. You aren't actually here to lend credence to anyone's argument.
These are the people Trump should pardon (or lean hard on Kemp to pardon), not those shark-loving nitwits.
The fact that the government is vaguely involved in this, they are ok and the government power remains is a MASSIVE problem.
Well at least "The System" seems to be favoring the Mom by default less these days.
She had custody of the kids until they were taken away from her. I don't think you know what 'by default' means.
Just remember, the CPS will go to great lengths to prove the mother is a threat and bad influence on her children. Who knows what they've uncovered about her? Or maybe they will simply gin up the reports to make her look worse than some illegal alien who molests little boys.
That woman is NOT going to get a fair and impartial hearing. You can bet on it.
CPS always goes hard for these kind of cases but the kid who lives in a closet and gets beaten every day they can never find.
The German news source DW just had a Lenore sympathizer do a video on playgrounds. It also covered the differences between 'Murrican helicopter parents shadowed by SS troopers and German laissez-vivre kids. It even mentioned "free-range" kids.