www.ditl.org

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:I'm rather appalled at the slap on the wrist the bio-mother got. I have friends who went to prison, and never hurt anyone... This amounts to torture, and the lady gets probation...

She's borderline retarded, unless they put her in solitary she'd be eaten alive in prison. There was also a plea deal in there.

The plea deal is what really irked me. People lose custody of kids for far less; she really had no leverage. They could've taken custody as soon as "Guilty" came from the podium.

As to her so-called mental state, there are facilities for people like that as well.

Here's a melon-scratcher; what about the 20-something son who wasn't retarded? Shouldn't he be in trouble for failure to render aid at least?

I'm to believe that this whole family of mentally-bankrupt people lived on their own for years without any state supervision? I've seen stories of people with Down's syndrome graduating from college, so I'd say the "I'm too dumb to feed and care for my daughter, but I'm smart enough to play Bingo with my boyfriend" argument falls dead flat to me. If she can recognize numbers, and basic shapes, let alone read, she should understand that what she was doing was wrong.

Tsukiyumi wrote: The plea deal is what really irked me. People lose custody of kids for far less; she really had no leverage. They could've taken custody as soon as "Guilty" came from the podium.

As I understand, she still has parental rights unless hse waves them. I have to trust that they wouldn't have done this unless there was no other choice (I have to maintain a minimum amount of trust in your justice system).

As to her so-called mental state, there are facilities for people like that as well.

Yes there are, over crowded and under maintained facilities in which they stick only the worst.

Here's a melon-scratcher; what about the 20-something son who wasn't retarded? Shouldn't he be in trouble for failure to render aid at least?

I was under the impression that they were gone.

I'm to believe that this whole family of mentally-bankrupt people lived on their own for years without any state supervision? I've seen stories of people with Down's syndrome graduating from college, so I'd say the "I'm too dumb to feed and care for my daughter, but I'm smart enough to play Bingo with my boyfriend" argument falls dead flat to me. If she can recognize numbers, and basic shapes, let alone read, she should understand that what she was doing was wrong.

Frankly, nothing surprises me anymore. Remember where you live, the land of individual rights and freedom...

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote: The plea deal is what really irked me. People lose custody of kids for far less; she really had no leverage. They could've taken custody as soon as "Guilty" came from the podium.

As I understand, she still has parental rights unless hse waves them. I have to trust that they wouldn't have done this unless there was no other choice (I have to maintain a minimum amount of trust in your justice system)...

The state can take custody at the drop of a hat here in Texas, and do. Then, they're free to decide where the kid or kids go.

Tsukiyumi wrote:
The state can take custody at the drop of a hat here in Texas, and do. Then, they're free to decide where the kid or kids go.

They do here as well but this was where, Michigan, Florida?

Cpl Kendall wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:
The state can take custody at the drop of a hat here in Texas, and do. Then, they're free to decide where the kid or kids go.

They do here as well but this was where, Michigan, Florida?

Florida, apparently.

Of course, tehcnically the appropriate state agency could forcible take custody of the child... but in Florida, it is apparently both regarded as "distasteful" and is bureacratized and wrapped up in suit after suit until it becomes a years-long process.

As I understand it, the legal presumption is that a child should be with the parent if possible. If she had the kids taken off her and got thrown in prison, then a few years down the line when she served her time she could come back and say she'd gotten her life together and wanted her kids back. The state would have to give them back unless they could show some reason not to at that time. As long as she could say "yeah, I got a job, I have a house, and I learned my lesson", she'd have an excellent chance of getting the kid back.

This way she doesn't do time, but the kid is away from her forever.

That's about the size of it - at the very least, she could tie up the fate of the girl in the courts indefinitely. The fact that she was willing to sign off rather than go to prison is of course very telling. I'd rather have limbs removed than give up my daughter.

Mikey wrote:That's about the size of it - at the very least, she could tie up the fate of the girl in the courts indefinitely. The fact that she was willing to sign off rather than go to prison is of course very telling. I'd rather have limbs removed than give up my daughter.

She did what was best for the child, finally. I'll give her credit for that.

Cpl Kendall wrote:She did what was best for the child, finally. I'll give her credit for that.

She only did what was best for the child because it was corollary to doing what was best for herself; i.e., staying out of prison.

Mikey wrote:
She only did what was best for the child because it was corollary to doing what was best for herself; i.e., staying out of prison.

Perhaps. I'm not convinced that she really knows WTF is going on. But if that is the case, it had the intended effect.

You are correct. No matter the awful visceral effect which that woman (the biological mother) inspires, the priority in that situation had to be the removal of the child, not vindictiveness toward the mother. I believe she should have been severely punished in terrible and heinous ways; but I'd give that opportunity up all day if it meant the speedy removal of the daughter to a better environment.

Mikey wrote:

Cpl Kendall wrote:She did what was best for the child, finally. I'll give her credit for that.

She only did what was best for the child because it was corollary to doing what was best for herself; i.e., staying out of prison.

So it's sorta of a win/win. Mom gets to stay out of prison, girl gets a real family, so they both win. Except the mother whining about losing her daughter...as if she had given a shit about her to begin with.

Women like this, they generally aren't evil as such. By which I mean, she wasn't attacking or abusing the child. She was basically ignoring it. Typically with neglect like this, the parents doesn't really have a clue what it is that they are supposed to be doing. It may seem obvious to you and me that when a baby craps in its nappy then it needs to be changed, but believe me there are people in this world that really don't make that mental connection.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that. Are you telling me that this woman didn't know she had to change a diaper, or feed or clean a child? Are you further saying that she was able to raise her two boys, but just forgot?

GrahamKennedy wrote:she wasn't... abusing the child. She was basically ignoring it.

With all due respect, the neglect that this child suffered WAS abuse.