frankenstein Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 For me, the cold shower was almost harder to watch than the hot sauce what I finally realized yesterday is, what is the ambeint temperature of cold water in Alaska, here in Arizona, I barely need hot water to take a warm shower because the "cold" water is so warm.
blackstrap Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 water in Alaska would probably come into the house at 45-50 degrees F. A smidgen chilly!As for the OP,this is a good example of the law plucking the low hanging fruit.Their case was made for them.
Wants2know Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 I have personally always felt that Dr. Phil is a sensationalist. I usually agree with his points of views, but I hate his tactics and interventions. On the other side of the coin - there are far too few cases of child abuse that have enough substantiation to actually proceed with a prosecution. This Mom made her choices and decided to go public. I believe she was rightly prosecuted, and I hope she continues to get help. I can't really feel that sorry for her. I DO on the other hand, feel empathy for her adopted son. Who was in all liklihood traumatized as a Russian adoptee (I've known people who have adopted from Russia and have not heard positive things about their system of orphanages.). Just my 2 cents. A sad situation, but especially so for the child.
Calm Posted August 27, 2011 Posted August 27, 2011 I believe she was rightly prosecuted, and I hope she continues to get help. I can't really feel that sorry for her. I DO on the other hand, feel empathy for her adopted son. Just to be clear here, I believe it is right to prosecuted all abusers, it is for the sake of the children where it is usually in their best interests (except in more extreme cases) not be taken out of the home and to ensure that their caregivers seek out help as soon as possible. I only care what is right and good for them.
bluebell Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 News reported she got 3 years probation, 180 day suspended jail sentence and a 2500 dollar suspended fine.
altersteve Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Hearing about stuff like this makes me wonder.What is wrong with people? It honestly amazes me.
bluebell Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 bluebell:Sounds reasonable.I thought so as well. I really liked that the judge suspended the fine, claiming that he new the family would need the money to be able to continue in their therapy. The prosecutors wanted jail time, solely as a warning to other parents. I'm glad the judge was smart enough to see the actual family invovled and not just see it as an example to be set.
Calm Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Suspended makes a point, but not a hardship. Seems intelligent.
thesometimesaint Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 bluebell:Prisons aren't nice places. I think the public exposure to her possible jail time, had the effect of sending that warning.
Wants2know Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Am I the only one who thinks that maybe she should have gotten some hot sauce? I mean really folks…. I'm so frustrated with people feeling sorry for the poor parents. What about the poor kids who don't have any rights at all???
bluebell Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Am I the only one who thinks that maybe she should have gotten some hot sauce? I mean really folks…. I'm so frustrated with people feeling sorry for the poor parents. What about the poor kids who don't have any rights at all???I don't feel sorry for the mother and i've spoken on this thread and others concerning my feelings about the boy. I'm really not sure which posters you are referring to.
Calm Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Am I the only one who thinks that maybe she should have gotten some hot sauce? I mean really folks…. I'm so frustrated with people feeling sorry for the poor parents. What about the poor kids who don't have any rights at all???Don't really care about the mother in this situation (I assume she has needs and would address them, but this is about the abuse and what is best for the child). I think it would be a very good idea right at the beginning for her to have experienced the hot sauce. Any corporeal punishment a parent hands out should be performed on him/herself first (with the appropriate increase of force) so they know what they are doing physically speaking. Of course the real harm is more likely emotional and that can't be treated by putting her through the same thing. She needs to be in a place where she can place herself in the kid's shoes, look at it like he might, etc and that from what I've seen of her is going to take extensive therapy.The kids have a right to a safe home where they feel safe, secure and stable and hopefully loving. That is why once the state decided the home was safe and secure that my concern switched to stability for the children and removing their mother to jail for three years or taking several thousands in fees isn't going help stability and might just destroy it. If there was a better home available out there with perfect conditions, then I would be all for removing the children, insisting the parents get extensive training and checkups and then when judged under control and capable of handling stressful situations without resorting to prior bad habits, giving the children a choice on where they want to live. Unfortunately that is an ideal situation, one not able to be had for the vast majority of kids so the community must make do with helping to promoting the best environment possible, in the end though it's many up to the parents, the community will generally be involved after the fact.
Wants2know Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I don't feel sorry for the mother and i've spoken on this thread and others concerning my feelings about the boy. I'm really not sure which posters you are referring to.I'm not really referring to any one poster in particular. I can see your points about behavioral change Cal, and I think they are valid. I've read and interpreted in some posts a sense of (and this is totally my interpretation, perhaps not the actual sentiments meant) the intervention in this case (police, judges, possible jail time) would have been a punishment that outweighed her "crime". And I do believe what she did was in fact criminal, and she should serve some jail time. I think it's a no brainer. The penal system is meant to "penalize", not intervene, not counsel. I find this case so atrocious I would have had no problem letting her spend some time in a not so comfy jail or prison. Maybe that's harsh of me, but I believe in accountability. If she really had her child at heart and had taken accountability, why didn't she just plead guilty in the first place? The point is that as a society, we have to determine when parents overstep their "right's" to discipline - and I think we need to do some serious soul searching about what is acceptable "discipline" in general. And so what if she was getting help. It wasn't working very well apparently. And a child suffered abuse because of it - an he likely already has some kind of attachment disorder which is why she was so ill equipped to manage him in the first place. So he will be paying the price for her actions for many years to come. And so will taxpayers. I don't for one second think her consequence will entice anyone to seek help. And since I'm on this little Rant - Dr. Phil - shame shame shame - you should have called protective services yourself. The bottom line lesson from this idiocy? Don't call Dr. Phil!!! And if you abuse your kids, just promote how awful they are and make sure you say you want help. It seems that lip service and public pity parties are all one needs these days to get away with hurting children. It is just despicable from my point of view. Yes, I'm being judgmental. I can live with that.
Wants2know Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 The kids have a right to a safe home where they feel safe, secure and stable and hopefully loving. That is why once the state decided the home was safe and secure that my concern switched to stability for the children and removing their mother to jail for three years or taking several thousands in fees isn't going help stability and might just destroy it. If there was a better home available out there with perfect conditions, then I would be all for removing the children, insisting the parents get extensive training and checkups and then when judged under control and capable of handling stressful situations without resorting to prior bad habits, giving the children a choice on where they want to live. Unfortunately that is an ideal situation, one not able to be had for the vast majority of kids so the community must make do with helping to promoting the best environment possible, in the end though it's many up to the parents, the community will generally be involved after the fact.We can probably all agree there are no homes with "perfect" conditions. But I agree Cal, if it is at all possible, the kids should stay at home (if it's safe, and if the appropriate authorities can indeed provide the appropriate oversight necessary - which many states can not afford to do any longer). Whenever these cases come up, especially when it involves a foster home or adoptive home (and it happens A LOT), it really feels a lot worse to me because I can safely assume these kiddos have already been through really tough stuff. The economy isn't helping with these issues… it's making things much harder and much worse for our children. And ALL of our children are impacted by such events.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.