I didn't claim that the child was safe either...the opposite in fact, but that doesn't mean she was abusive. Plenty of idiots do things or allow children to do things where they can be harmed but it is not considered abusive.
How is she stupid - well you can be non-abusive, not neglectful and still be stupid.
Some examples that are non-abusive, not neglectful but stupid:
Feeding a child lots of candy - stupid
Letting a child run around screaming their bloody head off - stupid
Letting a baby be alone in a room (even for a second) with a dog - stupid
Turning around to grab something while a baby is on itschanging table for just a second - stupid
Running to grab the phone for just a second while a toddler is in the tub - stupid
Dragging a newborn that has a weak neck down a long aisle - stupid.
All of these things are not likely to result in a child or baby being harmed, but there is potential for real harm to occur. And no reason to do so. Stupid is when a reasonable person would not such a thing.
Reasonable people have the sense that they keep their child away from harm and danger when it makes sense to do so. Parents are in charge and should have the God given common sense to put their child's safety over their own selfish wants and needs.
I don't think she meant to be selfish, or hurtful to her child. I think she is ignorant and unfornuately God did not provide her with the good common sense as a parent she should have - maybe she is right though that Jesus was watching out for her child. That poor child is going to need Jesus to help watch out for her as her mom seems to have something lacking.