A-4
THE NEW MEXICAN Wednesday, August 20, 2014
Blackout: Some parents say decision should be child’s to make in future Continued from Page A-1 ting if they want to limit who can see their baby photos and other posts. It’s possible, for example, to create a group of close friends and relatives to share kid updates with. But that’s not enough for some users. New parents Josh Furman and his wife, Alisha Klapholz, are “very protective” of their newborn. The Silver Spring, Md., couple believe it’s in their daughter’s best interest to limit her Internet presence for as long as possible. As such, they haven’t posted her legal name on Facebook and don’t post photos of her on the site. Instead, they share her Hebrew name and also came up with a nickname to use just on Facebook. They ask friends and family to do the same. “In 2014 we sort of feel like the repercussions of sharing private data are totally unpredictable,” says Furman, a doctoral candidate in history at the University of Maryland. Like his wife, Furman is very active on Facebook. Even so, he says, “Our child isn’t capable of making decisions about what details of her life she’d like to share or not.” So they are waiting until she can. A big reason parents are wary, even if they use social media sites themselves, is that the companies “have not been very transparent about the way they collect data about users,” says Caroline Knorr, parenting editor at the nonprofit Common Sense Media, which studies children’s use of technology. “Facebook’s terms of service and privacy [policies] — no one reads it, it’s too obscure.” Some parents look back to their own childhoods, when they were able to make mistakes without evidence of those blunders living on — forever — online. “I had the choice of what I wanted to reveal publicly,” says Wasim Ahmad, journalism professor at Stonybrook University and father of a newborn son. “I’d like to, as much as I can, retain the possibility of choice for him.” Two days after his son was born, Ahmad bought the website domain with his son’s name. “I’m going to make it a private website with a password so family can log in” to see updates, he says. “When he gets old enough, I’ll probably give him the keys.” The parents hasten to make clear that they have no problems with other people who post their own baby photos. “Many of our close friends put up photos of their kids and we love seeing them,” says Furman. “This is just a decision that we made for our child, and people have been respectful.” People have shared baby photos since the dawn of the camera, and stories about kids’ shenanigans long
before that. Parents who decide to keep photos of their children and other data off social media say they still want to share those things, but they are bothered by the idea of online permanence. “I think my parents told embarrassing stories about me as a child at cocktail parties, no doubt. But those can’t be brought back up now — or if they are, it’s to a small audience and not the whole world,” says Amy Heinz, who regularly shares anecdotes about her three children on her blog, usingourwords.com. To protect the privacy of her children, she refers to them in blogs by nicknames — Big, Little and Pink. At first, she didn’t use photos of their faces, but she’s eased up. “I am always conscious that what I’m posting is affecting more than myself,” she says. Parents who enforce strict blackout rules are still very much in the minority. In a 2011 survey, 66 percent of Generation X parents (people born in the 1960s and ’70s) said they post photos of their children online, while more than half said they have shared news about a child’s accomplishment online. The poll was part of the Longitudinal Study of American Youth at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. Aisha Sultan, a fellow at the institute when the poll was conducted, believes the results might be different if the same questions were posed to respondents today. “Back [then] there wasn’t a lot of conversation about this,” says Sultan, who is a nationally syndicated parenting advice columnist at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “When parents first started joining Facebook in large numbers, it wasn’t the primary concern. We felt like we were in control of information we were sharing with friends and family.” Facebook’s privacy blunders over the years, not to mention frequent updates to its confusing privacy policies, changed all that. Now, Sultan says, parents are much more aware of the little control they have over their personal data online. Lawmakers have begun to pay some attention to the issue, too. A new California law requires online services, websites or apps that collect personally identifiable information to remove content that minors have posted, if requested. The measure goes into effect next year. “It’s a good start, but I don’t think it replaces a lot of parental conversation, regulation and oversight,” Sultan says. She should know. Recently, her sister had a baby. Not thinking about it, Sultan posted a photo of her newborn niece on her Instagram account, which is locked and only includes close friends and family. “I got in big trouble with my brother-in-law,” she says. “He said … ‘Please ask before you do that.’ ”
To post or not to post? Privacy-wary parents are increasingly pausing before they post photos, names and other information about their wee ones on social media. Some are choosing a complete blackout, while others opt for nicknames and a few carefully selected snapshots. Here are some social media tips for parents, relatives and friends. Ask first, post later If you don’t know how a parent feels about having photos of their kids posted on Facebook, Instagram or elsewhere, ask before uploading a photo and before you tag the children in a photo. This goes even for close relatives. Actually, it’s not a bad idea to ask everyone you post a photo of if they’re cool with it, especially if the snaps were taken at a party, swimming pool or any other less buttoned-up situation. It can prevent awkward conversations later. Limit audiences Facebook’s privacy settings are complex, but they also offer granular settings that let you pick who can see your updates. One way to do this: Create a “secret” group and add the members you want. The problem here is that anyone in the group can add new members to the group. Another way to limit the audience of each post you share is to click on the right tab under your update, which may currently say “friends” or “public.” Click on “custom” and choose which of your Facebook friends you want to share with and which ones you’d like to exclude. It’s simpler on Instagram, where you can either lock your account or set it to public. Talk to your kids Opinions on the age at which parents should start talking to
their kids about Internet and social media use vary. Some parents start as soon as their child is old enough to use a smartphone, which can be as early as 2 or 3 years. Amy Heinz, who blogs about her kids, often talks to her 8-year-old about posts she writes about him, but says her younger children, who are 5 and 3, know about the blog but “don’t have a concept” of what it means exactly. Caroline Knorr, parenting editor at the nonprofit Common Sense Media, waited until her son was 15 before posting a photo of him on Facebook — and asked his permission first. Go the old-fashioned route Some parents opt for emailing or texting photos to one person or to a small group rather than sharing them more widely on social media. Online storage services such as Google Drive and Dropbox also let you distribute photos privately, as do photo-sharing sites such as Flickr. Of course, there’s always the old-fashioned snail mail method, if you can still find a place to print snapshots. Don’t embarrass them That photo of your little one with pea soup all over her face or the one that shows her first time on the potty might be funny at the time, but think about what she may think of the photo if it’s still online when she’s a teen. Today’s generation of parents did not grow up with the reality that their private moments growing up will be documented and often posted on the Internet for all eternity. Before posting a photo or anecdote, take a moment to imagine a conversation about it with your child 10 or 15 years from now. The Associated Press
Slaying: Victim’s daughter, son speak Continued from Page A-1 these people to get help and to change their life. I hope it scares them not to become you.” The three defendants in the case gave conflicting testimony during Rhiannon Montoya’s trial earlier this month, but prosecutors maintained Montoya had manipulated the two drug-addicted younger women by promising them money and drugs if they killed her uncle. Montoya’s attorney, public defender Ian Loyd, contended Baldonado and Martinez had invented the murder-for-hire scenario to deflect blame away from themselves. By most accounts, Montoya had driven the pair to her uncle’s house the night of the killing and, after they had beaten and stabbed him to death, told them to go back inside the house and steal a laptop computer, a television and other items to make it seem like he had been killed by burglars. Martinez testified that she also stole Rudy Montoya’s car, hoping to sell it for drugs. Baldonado, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, burglary and tampering with evidence under her deal with prosecutors, said Tuesday that she had been under the influence of drugs when she and Martinez were allowed into Rudy Montoya’s home late at night under the pretense of needing to use his telephone, then proceeded to beat him with a baseball bat and stab him 48 times with a knife. The day after the Oct. 10, 2012, murder — while riding in a different stolen car that contained a bag of bloody clothing — Rhiannon Montoya and Martinez were pulled over by state police. Both were arrested, Montoya on a warrant charging failure to appear and Martinez for becoming aggressive with an officer. When Baldonado learned that the two women had been arrested, she drove Rudy Montoya’s car to Lyden and set it on fire, suffering thirddegree burns in the process. She was taken to a hospital, where she was questioned by police and admitted she had burglarized Rudy Montoya’s home, though she said she “didn’t mean to kill him.” Baldonado, who has a child with Rhiannon Montoya’s brother, also was referred to as Martinez’s girlfriend during Montoya’s trial. During an emotional sentencing hearing Tuesday, the judge heard tes-
“
Angel, you are not a monster. You are a living human being like each and every one of us here today.” Carol Montoya Rudy Montoya’s sister-in-law, addressing Angel Baldonado
timony from Rudy Montoya’s sisterin-law, daughter, son and a neighbor. Each asked the judge to impose the maximum sentence on Baldonado. Carol Montoya, Rudy Montoya’s sister-in-law, took time to tell Baldonado about the 64-year-old man she had helped kill. “Rudy Montoya was a man of God,” Carol Montoya said. She described her brother-in-law’s morning ritual, which involved bathing, dressing and feeding his 94-year-old father, Jose Montoya, who was in the house the night of the killing but had slept through it and has since died. She also spoke of her brother-in-law’s service to his country in the Vietnam War and to his community as an educator. Carol Montoya said she had spent countless nights lying awake and thinking about the case, and that during that time, she had thought about Baldonado as well. “I thought about you and your name, Angel,” she said. “I thought about the love the person who named you must have had to give you such a beautiful name.” Carol Montoya said she thought about the hopes and dreams Baldonado’s family must have had for her, and what Baldonado must have been like as a toddler. She said she found it hard to imagine that a girl named Angel could grow up to be a killer, but said she understood it more when she learned Baldonado’s nickname was “Hulk.” The Hulk is a comic-book monster who loses control when he becomes angry, she said, but “Angel, you are not a monster. You are a living human being like each and every one of us here today.” Tears poured down Baldonado’s
face as she listened to Rudy Montoya’s family. Rudy Montoya’s daughter, Nieves Montoya, 25, recounted fond memories of riding with her father in his red pickup, listening to “oldies” tunes. She said such memories and a few voice mail messages are all she has left of him. “I’m getting married,” Nieves Montoya said. “And I won’t have my father to walk me down the aisle or for the father-daughter dance. I’m only 25. I won’t have his guidance anymore, and I need that.” Rudy Montoya’s son, Toby Montoya, who uses a wheelchair after being wounded while serving in the military in Afghanistan, said his father was the one who had picked him up off the floor when he fell — something his mother had trouble doing — and also supported him in other ways that he will never forget or be able to replace. “I wasn’t crippled in his eyes,” he said. “I wasn’t in a wheelchair in his eyes. I still had potential.” Baldonado’s defense attorney, Robert Tangora, said the case was a “sad example of how drugs can destroy the lives of people. Had she been sober, she never would have done what she did. It’s not an excuse, but it’s the reality.” Baldonado’s sister-in-law, Felicia Trujillo, also spoke — remembering the childhood dreams the pair shared growing up and the young Baldonado who took in stray cats, dogs and children, and had once baked a birthday cake for Jose Montoya. Angel Baldonado was the last person to address the court before she was sentenced. She begged Montoya’s family for forgiveness, saying that without it, she would never be able to forgive herself. “I have deep remorse for my actions and the effect they had on your family,” she said. “If I could take it back, I would. I’m not proud of what I did. I’m ashamed of myself.” After the two families left the courtroom, a couple of members of the Montoya family approached members of Baldonado’s family and embraced them and shook hands. Some of Baldonado’s relatives returned the gestures. Contact Phaedra Haywood at 9863068 or phaywood@sfnewmexican. com.
Overdose: Jail treatment unknown Continued from Page A-1 during and after her intake into the facility. This likely represented recurrent central nervous system depression after the reversal effects of Narcan had worn off.” The report noted that Narcan can reverse opioid overdoses, but it “has a shorter duration of action than most opioid drugs,” and that the toxic effects of the opioid could reoccur and lead to death. A blood test for Gonzales revealed naloxone, the active ingredient in Narcan; lorazepam, a medication commonly used to treat anxiety; and morphine, a substance that can be metabolized from several opioids, according to a toxicology report. A urine test revealed morphine and 6-monoacetylmorphine, also known as 6-MAM, a metabolite that is specific to heroin. Dr. Bruce Trigg, a former state Department of Health doctor who helped craft guidelines on treating overdose cases with Narcan, said the autopsy investigation raises questions about the girl’s care at the juvenile detention center: Did the county administer Narcan to Gonzales while she was in its custody? There was no mention in the autopsy report about whether a second dose of Narcan was administered by detention center staff. Trigg said if Narcan was administered to a patient suffering an over-
dose, it would have made a difference. “It will reverse symptoms immediately,” Trigg said. “You couldn’t do any harm with it.” Kristine Mihelcic, a spokeswoman for Santa Fe County, could not be reached for comment Tuesday. For a previous article, she said the youth detention center does have Narcan available. But she and other county officials have refused to provide details about the medical treatment given to Gonzales at the jail, saying the government cannot comment on cases involving juveniles or those facing pending litigation. “State law prohibits records from a local detention facility pertaining to a child in its custody from being ‘disclosed directly or indirectly to the public,’ ” read a statement issued by Mihelcic in July. “This law imposes criminal penalties on those who improperly release such records. Complying with this legal prohibition should not be interpreted to mean that we do not wish to be transparent or that the Youth Development Program’s very brief custody of the youth that died at Christus St. Vincent’s Hospital is beyond scrutiny.” Attorney Lee Hunt, who represents the Gonzales family, said he has filed a tort notice in relation to the case, but he hasn’t yet filed a lawsuit. According to a police report, Gonzales and a friend had been using heroin May 7 at an apartment complex
in the 1400 block of Zepol Road, and it had been awhile since she had last used the drug. After the friend noticed Gonzales was suffering from overdose symptoms, she called 911, and emergency responders administered a dose of naloxone. Gonzales was taken to the hospital at 7:30 p.m. Even though Gonzales’ mother was at the hospital, the report said, law enforcement officials took her to the county juvenile detention center when they found she had an active warrant for failure to appear in court. Arturo Delgado, a spokesman with Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, said immediately following Gonzales’ death that he couldn’t comment on the case. But he said it’s up to an attending physician to decide if a patient is medically sound and ready for discharge. Delgado said a physician would consider the patient’s disposition, among other factors, and that every patient is different. County officials also have said they do not admit patients from the hospital unless they have been medically cleared. At the time of Gonzales’ death, Santa Fe police had issued an alert about an unusual batch of heroin, one that had sent two other people to the hospital with overdose symptoms. Contact Chris Quintana at 986-3093 or cquintana@sfnewmexican. Follow him on Twitter at @CQuintanaSF.
Election: Move likely to save thousands Continued from Page A-1 “It’s a no-brainer. It will save $20,000 and increase voter turnout,” school board member Glenn Wikle said Tuesday. Martha Romero, vice chairwoman of the college’s Governing Board, said, “It signals a real collaboration between the public schools and the community college. It saves both entities money and thus saves taxpayer dollars.” She said school leaders and board members from both sides have been discussing this idea for some time. More than 80,000 Santa Fe County residents are eligible to vote in both elections. Voter turnout for such elections over the past decade has hovered around the 5 percent mark,
with the exception of the school board election of 2011, when about 10 percent of voters cast ballots in a push for a new board to initiate educational reform. Last February, about 5,630 voters took part in the school board election, in which Susan Duncan and Price were voted into office, while just more than 1,800 voters cast ballots in March for the community college’s Governing Board election, in which Romero and Kathy Keith won their seats. In 2008, the Legislature passed a bill introduced by Sen. Peter Wirth, D-Santa Fe, allowing community colleges and public school districts to hold their elections on the same day. In an email, Wirth said he is glad it is happening in Santa Fe. He said he
didn’t know if any other districts and colleges around the state have worked together to share a board election. School board President Steven Carrillo said the League of Women Voters of Santa Fe County also has been pushing this initiative. The terms of Carrillo, Wikle and school board member Linda Trujillo run out next March. At the community college, Governing Board members Linda Siegle, Pablo Sedillo and Chris Abeyta’s terms run out around the same time. Candidates for any of those seats must file with the Santa Fe County Clerk’s Office by mid-December. Contact Robert Nott at 986-3021 or rnott@sfnewmexican.com.