What was commentary writer thinking?

I have read Paul James Baldwin’s comments several times in an effort

to ascertain whether he was joking or not (“The buck doesn’t stop

here,” Tuesday). Surely, he cannot have meant it when he stated that

his 3-year-old child was not his and his wife’s responsibility, but

that of the city of Newport Beach.

He claims that it is not fair to expect him to observe his

toddler’s activities when there are so many distractions on the

public beach and that the city should have provided an attendant or

lifeguard to assume his parental duties.

While it is regrettable that his little girl suffered burns,

Baldwin has no one to blame but himself for those injuries. One’s

children are first and foremost one’s own responsibility, and

especially so when one is present. If I were the judge, I would

seriously consider removing any children from Baldwin’s custody until

he and his wife agree to parenting counseling.

In my opinion, the city is neither remiss nor responsible for the

child’s injuries. As for the rest of Baldwin’s rambling comments, I

can only hope that he was joking, otherwise I would question his grip

on reality.

WALLACE WOOD

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul James Baldwin’s commentary on Tuesday was

meant as a piece of satire. That the city should not be responsible

for a child’s injuries -- as Newport Beach may be, depending on the

outcome of a similar, real-life case now in the courts -- was a point

of his comments. A Pilot story on that case ran April 30 (“Trial set

for fire pit case”).