Two people at the bow, grandfather at the helm: A witness recounts the moments before the disaster struck!
Two people at the bow, grandfather at the helm: A witness recounts the moments before the disaster struck!
Reports indicate that 9-year-old Mya and 7-year-old Sigmund were positioned at the bow of the boat while Stephen Schneider was steering.
The children were alive when the vessel left the dock, but they were thrown into Barnegat Bay just moments before the fatal accident occurred.
However, a witness’s account of what they saw has completely changed the nature of the case.
****************
On the evening of July 19, 2026, two children sat at the bow of a Tidewater Custom 280 center-console boat as it left the area near MJ’s Restaurant Bar and Grill in Berkeley, New Jersey. Nine-year-old Mya Bella Golabek and her seven-year-old brother, Sigmund “Siggy” Paul Golabek, wore life jackets and faced forward into the open water of Barnegat Bay. At the helm stood their grandfather, Stephen Schneider. The short trip toward the grandparents’ nearby home would end within minutes when the vessel struck Intracoastal Waterway Channel Marker No. 39. The impact threw both children into the dark water. They were recovered unresponsive and later pronounced dead at Community Medical Center in Toms River.
Public accounts of those final moments have been drawn primarily from Schneider’s statements to investigators, the 911 call placed by his wife Laurie Schneider, official affidavits, and statements from first responders and local officials. No independent third-party eyewitness has emerged in publicly available reports whose testimony has fundamentally altered the legal posture of the case. Instead, the reconstruction rests on the positions of the people aboard, the operator’s description of speed and visibility, the condition of the channel marker, and the toxicology findings that followed.
According to the affidavit of probable cause, the family had gathered for dinner that Sunday evening. Mya and Siggy arrived at the waterfront restaurant with their parents on one boat. Schneider and his wife arrived on their own vessel. After the meal, the children asked to continue to their grandparents’ house rather than return with their parents. They boarded the Tidewater, took seats at the front, and the boat got underway shortly after 9 p.m. Schneider later told detectives he was traveling at approximately 20 mph when he saw the marker “at the last second.” The starboard bow struck the single-stanchion illuminated navigational aid. Both children were ejected.
Schneider reported that he immediately began searching for them in the water, locating Sigmund first and then Mya. Both were face-down and unresponsive. CPR was started at once. The 911 recordings capture the urgency of those moments. Laurie Schneider can be heard telling the dispatcher that one child was already back on the boat while her husband was in the water attempting to recover the second. When asked whether the children were unconscious, she answered yes. She also referenced their location near channel marker 39. First responders, including firefighters who entered the water, continued resuscitation efforts. One child was observed with a life jacket nearby during the response.
Local officials, including Berkeley Township Councilman James Byrnes, stated that the marker’s lights were functioning that night. Schneider told investigators that the boat’s radar and an infrared/low-light night navigation camera were activated. He also stated that he had spent his life on boats, lived nearby, and had traveled the route many times. These details form the core of the available account of what occurred in the seconds before impact: two children positioned at the bow, the grandfather at the helm, a reported speed of about 20 mph, a claim of last-second recognition of a lighted marker, and the catastrophic ejection into the bay.
The children’s presence at the forward seating area has drawn particular attention in public discussion and in the investigative focus. On a center-console boat, the bow offers open views and is a natural place for passengers, especially children, to sit. It also places them closest to any frontal collision. Their life jackets were a standard safety measure, yet once in the water and found unresponsive, the outcome was fatal. Investigators continue to examine lines of sight from the helm, the relative height and lighting of the marker, ambient conditions after 9 p.m., and any possible contribution of speed, distraction, or impairment.
Schneider admitted consuming two Guinness beers and one Miller Lite over roughly two hours at the restaurant. A blood sample drawn early the next morning registered a blood alcohol concentration of approximately 0.16 percent—twice New Jersey’s legal limit of 0.08 percent for operating a vessel. Toxicology experts concluded that his alertness, judgment, response time, and coordination were markedly impaired. These findings underpin the charges filed on August 14: two counts of second-degree reckless vessel homicide, operating a vessel under the influence, and reckless operation of a vessel. If convicted, Schneider faces up to 20 years in prison.
At a detention hearing in mid-August, prosecutors emphasized the BAC level and the catastrophic result. Defense attorney William P. Cunningham noted that the children’s parents had written letters supporting Schneider’s release pending trial and argued that further investigation was needed, including into the lighting status of the marker. The judge ordered conditional release, citing the limited prior record and family support, with restrictions that include a temporary ban on operating a boat or motor vehicle. Schneider’s next court appearance was scheduled for mid-September.
The absence of a transformative independent eyewitness in public reporting does not diminish the gravity of the established facts. The children left the dock alive, seated at the bow in life jackets. Within a short time they were in the water, unresponsive. The operator’s own account places him at the helm, traveling at a moderate speed on a familiar route with electronic aids active, yet recognizing the marker only at the final moment. Official statements affirm that the marker was illuminated. Toxicology results document significant impairment. These elements together shape the case as it proceeds through the courts.
Reconstruction of the final moments necessarily involves both the physical layout of the vessel and the sequence of events. From the helm, the operator’s view forward would have included the open bow where the children sat. Any obstruction, glare, or momentary inattention could affect detection of a fixed object ahead. The reported activation of radar and a low-light camera raises questions about how those systems performed or were monitored. The defense has indicated interest in the marker’s lighting condition and in independent review of the toxicology evidence. Prosecutors are expected to argue that impairment itself accounts for the failure to detect and avoid a lighted, charted navigational aid at the reported speed.
Community response has centered on the loss of two young siblings described by their family as best friends who shared an unbreakable bond. Obituaries spoke of laughter, adventures, and a closeness that continued beyond their short lives. Support for the family appeared quickly after the crash. The legal process, by contrast, moves more slowly, testing the available evidence through formal procedures.
No public report has identified a bystander whose observations of the boat’s path, the children’s positions, or the operator’s actions in the final seconds have rewritten the fundamental narrative. The primary sources remain the statements of those aboard, the emergency call, the physical evidence at the scene, and the scientific findings on alcohol impairment. Investigators continue to refine the timeline and the conditions of visibility, speed, and equipment use. The positions of Mya and Siggy at the bow and Schneider at the helm remain fixed points in that reconstruction.
The children were alive when the vessel departed the restaurant area. Moments later they were thrown into Barnegat Bay. The account of those intervening seconds, drawn from the operator’s description and the official record, continues to be examined for what it reveals about attention, impairment, and the physical environment of the waterway that night. As the case advances, the focus remains on establishing responsibility under the law while the community mourns two young lives cut short on a short evening ride that never reached home.
The established facts—the seating positions, the reported speed, the last-second recognition of the marker, the activated electronics, the functioning lights according to officials, and the documented impairment—form the basis for both the charges and the emerging defense inquiries. Whether additional evidence surfaces in the months ahead will be determined through the ongoing investigation and pretrial process. For now, the public record centers on the people who were on the boat that night and the official findings that followed the disaster.
