3-year-old boy dies after falling into river in Saitama

Where was the mother in all of this.

The constant cycle of, 'It won't happen to me or mine' sees the death of the blind to the facts of reality. It CAN and WILL happen if you don't steer your fate. Keep an eye on toddlers, hold their hand, keep them safe and happy in this land! 1 + 1 = 2 EVERY TIME.

Most animals almost after birth know and perceive danger. Heights, water other animals and the like. Humans do not. Its something that is learnt and accquired. It is not an instinct.

Why didn't the dad jump in and save him? Couldn't he swim?

Where was the mother in all of this.

Somewhere else.

Why didn't the dad jump in and save him? Couldn't he swim?

Yes. Or no.

Anyone else have any pointless questions?

How many frikken times must something like this happen for people to learn!? Your child is dead because you thought rolling up your blue tarp, or dumping the ice out of your chest was more important.

The problem is essentially and nothing more than a simple lack of awareness and inability to concentrate on more than one thing at a time.

Where was the mother in all of this.

Do you really need the story to spell that out more clearly? She was not mentioned as being part of the group. So imagine she was out shopping, if that helps.

This is a sad lesson learned the hard way. You cannot take your eyes off toddlers around water. It only takes a split second and they are gone. This is why drowning is called, the silent death! Condolences to the father, but he should have had one eye on his kids.

A split second can ruin lives. Thoughts and prayers with the family.

Steve Crichton: "Where was the mother in all of this."

I like how you flipped this one on its head and it goes above the heads of so many, like Strangerland and clamenza. Whenever a mother is negligent or even outright goes insane and murders her kids the posters on here flee to her aid and ask, "Where was the father in all this", whether relevant or not. Not sure if that was your intention, but good job showing them out.

In any case, this is still negligence, but the kind that is split-second and proves, the hard way, that you cannot take your eyes off children for even the briefest of moments. I thought for sure with the headline we'd be reading about grandparents who lived down the street letting the toddler go off to play, or a river next to the house with a fence that has a big gap between it and the ground (that the parents let the kids play alone around). This is a different kind of sad, and it will rip the family apart to make things worse. RIP little one.

@smithjapan. That was my exact intent. I was being sarcastic. Flipping it as u put it. Anyway its all very sad. Children are children and need to learn the dangers of the surrounding environment, they are not animals as such born with instinct. Parents need to be able to concentrate on more than one thing at a time. Mmm. Parents have to be totally aware and teach and guide their children as they grow up. Its not they are some pre programmed robot.

@smithinjapan, Steve Crichton - Yes, now that I read the silly question a second time, I see the incredible subversiveness, irony and poignancy. Its NOT the question of a knucklehead at all! (even if it does lack a question mark) I have been duped by a brilliant mind right here on JT!

rip the poor little boy. If only I was there to help. I just think of being there to jump in and save the boy. I am a runner but I can swim 2kms no trouble.

I like how you flipped this one on its head and it goes above the heads of so many, like Strangerland and clamenza. Whenever a mother is negligent or even outright goes insane and murders her kids the posters on here flee to her aid and ask, "Where was the father in all this", whether relevant or not.

It's just as pointless a question when it's asked about the fathers as well. I'm most definitely not the one asking where the father is, or the mother is, in any of these. It's a stupid question, because JT isn't going to answer it, and it's not included in the story, so it's a meaningless question.

In any case, this is still negligence

How do you know? Are you privy to information that the rest of us aren't? Because there isn't enough information in the story to determine whether it's negligence or not.

Strangerland: "How do you know? Are you privy to information that the rest of us aren't? Because there isn't enough information in the story to determine whether it's negligence or not."

He took his eyes off the toddler "while he was occupied"... a child playing next to a deep river. What do you call that? It's written in the article. Let me guess, you call that paying attention?

As a father with a nearly 2 year old son and an uncle with 11 adult/nearly adult nieces & nephews, what I know is that parents always have to remind themselves every single day that young children/toddlers don't have the common sense and the awareness that adults do because they haven't learned it yet. That is what they depend on their parents/the adults in their life for. Protection and being taught/learning through experience the things that will protect them as they get older.

And all it takes is 10-15 seconds for a young child/toddler to put themselves in harm's way without knowing it. Anyone that spends their time around young toddlers and watches them knows that. But still may forget it. Those that don't live and breath it every day, like a working parent not responsible for the daily care of their child on most days, may not fully appreciate it.

I won't speculate about this father and how much time he spent with his children. I don't know. What I am certain of is that he likely forgot the vulnerability of his children, particularly his youngest son. Not because he was irresponsible or a bad father. But because he assumed his children would be OK for a few minutes without his attention. And I guarantee you that it will haunt him the rest of his life, particularly as it seems to be a horrible, but entirely preventable accident.

RIP, Shogo-kun. Tears in heaven for you tonight as I cherish my young son.

He took his eyes off the toddler "while he was occupied"... a child playing next to a deep river. What do you call that?

I call that not enough information to be able to determine negligence. For one, it's a comment in an article, and not proof - it could be inaccurate for all you know. Second, how do you know what he was occupied with - maybe a dog was busy biting off his leg. Or maybe any of an infinite number of other reasons. There is a reason we have trials - to determine guilt or innocence. It cannot be determined from an article with an extremely limited amount of information.

And before you go off ranting about my claiming this guy is innocent, I'm not. What I'm doing is pointing out that no one who has only read this article has enough information to determine whether he is innocent or guilty, so proclaiming guilt is irresponsible, potentially insensitive, and shows a lack of ability to think logically.

Next to a river. You don't secure your toddler in a safe environment as you are preoccupied? Child dies.

Gross negligence. The responsible party of this equation that resulted in death was the father. He is solely to blame. The three year old can not be. The river, as an inanimate object, can not be. That leaves... QED.

StrangerlandMAY. 01, 2015 - 10:57PM JST How do you know? Are you privy to information that the rest of us aren't? Because there isn't enough information in the story to determine whether it's negligence or not.

Of course it's negligence. There is no such thing as an "accident." The father is responsible for his child. He left a 3-year old unattended next to a river. His child is now dead. Who do you want to blame this one on, kappa?

Have you ever cared for a toddler? Telling one to stay put is about as reliable as telling your cat to stay put.

Of course it's negligence.

It may be, but that cannot be determined from an article on the internet. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so.

Or do you feel that this guy doesn't need a trial? Or that if he gets one, then the lay judges should just be given this article to read, and make their judgement based on what they read here?

There is no such thing as an "accident."

Sometimes there is. Somethings things are no one's fault. Whether that's the case here is unknown, as there is not enough information in the article to tell, but it's ridiculous to claim there is no such thing as an accident.

Have you ever cared for a toddler?

Two of my own.

Strangerland: "I call that not enough information to be able to determine negligence."

You cherry-picked my comment because your realize that 'not paying attention' is being negligent. Thank you.

"Then tell me what the father was occupied with."

It literally says in the article the man was occupied -- he said it himself. Here, since it's tough to look up that high, let me quote it for you:

"Police quoted the boy’s father as saying that while he was occupied, packing up to go home, Shogo slipped and fell into the river."

So, now, is it because the police quoted him that you have a hard time accepting it? or is it just the part where it literally spells out what he was doing and the fact that you were caught completely missing it, several times, that it's just easier to deny the facts than admit you are wrong? I guess the fact that he was busy "packing up" is not detailed enough for you so you have to ask UK9393 precisely what he was packing him up? Give it a rest!

"It may be, but that cannot be determined from an article on the internet. Repeatedly saying it doesn't make it so"

Wrong. It has been determined. You said he was not negligent. He admitted to police he was not paying attention. You asked what he was doing, he is quoted as having said he was 'busy packing up'. You can't accept that you are wrong. End of story.

"The ironic thing is that you think you are being smart, and yet you have already shown your lack of intelligence by determining negligence without all the information."

Yes, yes... you already said yesterday that the majority of posters on JT -- and you literally said this -- are illogical, so why do you have to explain to UK9393 that he's not intelligent?

"I hope you aren't telling me you are illogical enough..."

You see? there you go again. You know what it means when one person in the room is constantly shouting that everyone else is illogical, don't you?

So Smith - do you feel this article is all that should be provided to the judges to determine his guilt if/when there is a trial? Because you are judging him guilty, and saying this article provides all the necessary information. So in your opinion, nothing more than this article is needed at trial, correct?

I think the father should have assumed the worst possible scenario by keeping an eye on the 3-year-old boy "all the time." I had actually been doing so when my kids were the same age as the boy. And it was very stressful. That's what child-rearing is all about. So if you'd look away for a second, the accident like this one would occur at any moment.

Now get a load of this: I vividly remember going fishing in a dock with my late father and younger brother who was about 4 years old. And, in a matter of time, my brother accidentally fell into the dock. Then, by good fortune, my father found a long wooden stick nearby and picked it up promptly. Yes, he masterly pulled the half-drowned brother out of the dock using the stick in two shakes. And just for the record, my father was a non-swimmer.

I just find it hard to believe the father had no idea his toddler had fallen into the river. Either totally unaware, or totally negligent

Man, I don't think I would take a 3 year old and 5 year old to a river that is two meters deep. Maybe knee deep would be my limit like they have with the Kindergarten pools. RIP little one!