Forgive me but speaking as someone who raised many fur-babies prior to human babies, I can unequitably state that the two are in no means the same.
When you become a parent (to human children) there are more moral, legal and ethical laws, not to mention innate instincts, that govern every single decision.
When a fellow 'human parent' fails miserably and fatefully in their role, it is not just offensive, but emotionally devastating.
I had too quit covering crime since I had 'human babies' because it was biologically impossible to separate my own parentage from the victim's.
With all due respect, I cannot fathom any 'parent' taking the position that the neglect in the victim's household, had NOTHING to do with the people the parents chose to care for their children.
I've not stated they were the same, but I did indicate the depth to which my spouse and I care for our canines. To suggest there is no "moral, legal and ethical" aspects and "innate instincts" we employ to caring for our canines (in my and my spouse's world) is inaccurate and somewhat insulting. Yes, there are no equitable laws in the sense you intend but we treat our canines (short of treating them as if they were human, such as we do not dress them up and pretend to send them to school) as they are our children. Our interaction with our canines might be unique, as we (both or at least one of us) are *always* with our canines (except for during the occasional ER / veterinary hospital stays ..which in the extreme cases require driving 3 hours to OSU VC and doing a hotel stint for 3-5 days or longer periods) and engage, feed, play, admonish and love them no differently than we would with human children, minus the obvious speaking and whining and other human-specific-joys one experiences with human children.
I should think parents do what they do for their human children not because of moral, legal and ethical
laws, but they do it because it is what they are supposed to do, and so it is the same with our family and our 'children'.
To assume I could not not experience emotional devastation in the child cases is also somewhat offensive. Shall I syntactically wear my emotions on my sleeve and pound my chest in these threads to satisfy a standard? As I have commented previously, I have the ability to separate extreme emotions from sleuth-think and when I choose, such as now, I will display an appropriate level of emotion when I feel it necessary to emphasize a relevant point or defend my stance.
No harm, no foul. :smile:
Are we sure whether or not JJR had been placed in charge of the children that evening? We have heard TG state JJR had babysat her children on previous occasions but I do not recall court documents indicating JJR had been given that charge (watch the children) for that evening. I suspect he was not given that charge. The issue is, then, that TG and RF left their children alone 'downstairs' and assumed the best because 'GM was in the house'. Complacency and incompetent thinking at best.
