GUILTY AZ - Shanesha Taylor leaves kids in car during interview, Scottsdale, 2014

[Snoods]

What the....those monthly expenses are unfreakinbelievable! Do y'all think those are even for real? It seems like she just thought of every single expense known to man and threw it in there to flesh out the budget she gave them, like to try and justify where some of the money went. Jeez, I don't know....

I'm also puzzled by the $250.00 misc. household expenses. What the heck is that? She's renting, so she's not paying for the upkeep of the house. And she listed every other single expense that could possibly be a household expense, so...

And $250.00 in gas? She doesn't have a job, how is she using that much gas?? Did she always have that expensive $350.00 car payment? That's a pretty nice car. I have a 2009 in great shape and only pay $200.00 a month with only $2,000.00 down. But of course I'm not a high roller like ST. How was she paying it before? Rev. Maupin said she didn't even buy a new car.

She has every kind of internet, cable, movie and entertainment you can think of. $160.00 a month is every single movie channel, sports channel etc., that's the deluxe mamma jamma around here. AND Netflix. How much entertaining does the woman need?

Hey, do any of you suckers want to donate money so I can put in a home theater with surround sound speakers? I've always wanted one. I'm going to go leave my kid in my car now, be right back. Although he's 23 so I don't know how that will work out...

 

[kimi_SFC]

Deleted

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snoods]

Shanesha Taylor: Lawyers Leave Homeless Arizona Mom | Essence.com
18 hours ago

Benjamin Taylor told the judge he had an “ethical” conflict with the defendant, Shanesha Taylor. Her other lawyer, John Agra, said that Taylor failed to pay him.


http://www.essence.com/2014/11/18/shanesha-taylor’s-lawyers-drop-her-case/ via @EssenceMag




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll bet that "ethical" conflict means she lied to the court and Benjamin Taylor was aware of it.

 

[kimi_SFC]

I'll bet that "ethical" conflict means she lied to the court and Benjamin Taylor was aware of it.

I read that article, but I can't get the link to work. Trying to repost it again. :blushing:

After all this time, I can't imagine what I took for Mr. (No Relation) Taylor to jump ship. No, wait, I take that back. My imagination takes me to all kinds of scenarios, and each one is plausible. ST has proven, based on her own actions, that she is the center of her narcissistic universe. Anyone who thinks otherwise pays dearly.

I really feel for him! I feel ever more so for her precious kids. They deserve a home and a real mom whose world revolves around them!

:cow:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Snoods]

I read that article, but I can't get the link to work. Trying to repost it again. :blushing:

After all this time, I can't imagine what I took for Mr. (No Relation) Taylor to jump ship. No, wait, I take that back. My imagination takes me to all kinds of scenarios, and each one is plausible. ST has proven, based on her own actions, that she is the center of her narcissistic universe. Anyone who thinks otherwise pays dearly.

I really feel for him! I feel ever more so for her precious kids. They deserve a home and a real mom whose world revolves around them!

:cow:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your link worked for me, kimi! Here it is again just to make darn sure lol.

http://www.essence.com/2014/11/18/shanesha-taylor’s-lawyers-drop-her-case/

 

[kimi_SFC]

Tweet from Essence Magazine (@essencemag)

Essence Magazine (@essencemag) tweeted at 3:34pm - 18 Nov 14:

Shanesha Taylor’s Lawyers Drop Her Case: ow.ly/Ev8Ys (https://twitter.com/essencemag/status/534852140544819201?s=17)

I think it's another tapatalk glitch (and there are a few :giggle:

I found the tweet on the Essence Magazine twitter feed for good measure. It speaks volumes to me that this particular publication did a write up on ST. It's one thing for MSM to "say what they will." EM's demographic is another thing entirely, and for this story to be written is a sign that the tide has truly turned, IMVHO. If she doesn't see the writing on the wall now, she won't until the cuffs are on, she's heading for a cell, and her children are no longer in her custody. You know, all the things that were to have occurred on that hot summer day when the interview was more important to her than anything else in the world - HER WORLD!!!!

:gaah:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hambirg]

None of this surprises me. She set off my "scammer" alert as soon as I found her FB page. I've known too many people just like her. They LIE and just hope no one questions them. Her budget is ridiculous. Don't even get me started! :facepalm:

 

[jjenny]

Person who set up that account for her and people who donated don't have a right to be surprised.
They donated money to her for doing something irresponsible (leaving children in a car).
Why would they expect her to behave responsibly with the money donated?
Obviously they are not going to get that money back either.

 

[MissJ]

Early on I felt SOME empathy but boy did she turn out to be a scammer. Her children would be better off without her influence.

 

[K_Z]

Here is Judge Welty's order:

via
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/taylor-shanesha-order.pdf



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bumping this post with court documents (thank you, kimi_SFC!!)

Shanesha is due in court this week, Thursday, to have a date set for trial.

 

[K_Z]

A judge set a trial date for late February for a job-seeking mother accused of leaving her children in a hot car outside a Scottsdale insurance company, though a spokesman for prosecutors said there is still a chance the case could be resolved short of trial.

The Maricopa County Attorney's office reinstated prosecution against Shanesha Taylor in October after she failed to deposit $60,000 in a trust fund for her children as part of a deferred prosecution agreement.

Taylor said that the trust has since been established and funded, but would not say how much money had been deposited.

Taylor said Wednesday the numbers on her budget are inflated to account for emergencies or worst-case scenarios.

"I set aside those numbers, but that doesn't mean I max them out," Taylor said. "I'm just a mother trying to do the best I can do for my children."

ST's comments at the link below are really arrogant and defensive, IMO. Not a scintilla of humility. She feels justified for any decision she makes, IMO. Whew.

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...a-taylor-trial-to-begin-in-february/19840893/

Taylor's trial on child abuse charges had been expected to start Wednesday but a judge rescheduled it for Feb. 24. She previously pleaded not guilty.

Taylor said accusations were not true that she used the donations to buy expensive clothes and purses and finance her boyfriend's rap album.

"I'm not the type of person to go out and finance someone's rap album," Taylor said.

Any money spent has gone to housing, clothes, car payments as well as fast-food outings and birthday parties, Taylor said.

"Yes, I threw them birthday parties because they haven't had birthday parties in years," she said. "I took care of Thanksgiving dinner because my mother couldn't afford to take care of that."

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-ph...rial-delayed-for-mom-who-left-kids-in-hot-car

 

[Tugela]

Why would the prosecutor be insisting that part of the money be put into an education fund? Surely the kids would have more pressing needs than their future college education, which is many many years away, if at all? It does not seem like a sensible thing to do.

It sounds like the DA is peeved that she got all of this money given to her, and tried to set it up so that it (or most of it) would be locked up until the children were adults, basically so that she would not have access to it. So I do see Taylors point of view, since she needs the money to raise the kids now, not educate them 16 or 17 years later.

 

[tlcya]

education can be defined broadly or strictly. Tuition for summer camp or daycamp or karate classes. Book fees, etc. I do not think it was required to be set aside specifically for college.

 

[jjenny]

Why would the prosecutor be insisting that part of the money be put into an education fund? Surely the kids would have more pressing needs than their future college education, which is many many years away, if at all? It does not seem like a sensible thing to do.

It sounds like the DA is peeved that she got all of this money given to her, and tried to set it up so that it (or most of it) would be locked up until the children were adults, basically so that she would not have access to it. So I do see Taylors point of view, since she needs the money to raise the kids now, not educate them 16 or 17 years later.

She needs the money to raise the kids now? Why didn't she get a job? She supposedly left the children in the car because she was so eager to interview for a job. Yet the reverend who used to support her claims she had been offered interviews for jobs and didn't even show up.

 

[K_Z]

The way Shanesha has, IMO, whined, complained, and argued about the trust funds order would have you believe she is the first parent in the history of the world to be mandated to provide for her children. The way she's fighting and arguing suggest to me that perhaps she doesn't really want to parent the kids. She has repeatedly demonstrated irresponsible behavior, and her kids are extremely vulnerable to her poor decision making-- which is what landed her in trouble in the first place, and got her kids removed from her custody.

I think it's extremely important for the court to "help" ST to make good decisions where her children are concerned. The State has a serious interest in the children's welfare, and the children were only recently returned to her custody. She is essentially an unemployed single mother, with an uninvolved and financially unsupportive bio dad, her sister in prison and relying on her to take care of her affairs, lost custody of her kids for months, and with mountains of legal problems from her own defiance and bad decision making. Several of her attorneys have quit on her due to her own behavior. She has alienated pretty much every single person who has supported her, save one blogger. She literally has a mountain of problems in her life, of her own making. Her kids are extremely vulnerable, IMO. She could easily lose custody of them again.

She was directed to establish a child care trust, and an education trust, for each of her 3 children-- why? Because she claims that lack of child care is what drove her to leave her kids alone in a hot car. Child care has been her excuse for why she can't take any of the jobs she's been offered-- she doesn't like the hours, child care is too far away, yada yada. This scammer has an excuse for everything, and revels in being oppositional and defiant, IMO.

As far as the education trust, ST claiming it could only be used for "college" is pure defiant spin. Any attorney could explain to her in about 30 seconds how broadly the education and child care trusts could be administered. Basically, any proven expenses related to the care and education of the kids. What sticks in ST's craw is that someone ELSE other than her would be administering and overseeing the funds, and she doesn't want to do that. She doesn't want to have to answer to anyone.

What she fails to understand is that before all this happened, she DIDN'T have to answer to so many people about her decision making and spending habits. She LOST that privilege because of her own behavior that put her kids in grave danger. She was literally handed $100,000-- and blew most of it in a few months, instead of setting up a security net for her and her kids. Unbelievably stupid decision making, IMO.

And she is still so defiant and oppositional that she metaphorically spit in the face of her own attorneys and the prosecutor that offered her a sweetheart of a deal to DROP the charges all together. If she cared at all about her kids, she would have quickly complied with the terms of the deal, and gone about her life. But no--not Shanesha Taylor-- she thought the "right" thing to do was fight and argue with her attorney and the prosecutor, and renege on the deal she agreed to. Wow-- that's chutzpah. And still she has ANOTHER chance for the next 2 months to settle this without going to court. This woman is the very embodiment of hubris.This woman belongs in prison, IMO. Her kids would be better off being raised by someone else who truly wants to parent them, and has their best interests in mind. IMO. She's an immature, irresponsible, sorry excuse for a parent, IMO.

 

[kimi_SFC]

The way Shanesha has, IMO, whined, complained, and argued about the trust funds order would have you believe she is the first parent in the history of the world to be mandated to provide for her children. The way she's fighting and arguing suggest to me that perhaps she doesn't really want to parent the kids. She has repeatedly demonstrated irresponsible behavior, and her kids are extremely vulnerable to her poor decision making-- which is what landed her in trouble in the first place, and got her kids removed from her custody.

I think it's extremely important for the court to "help" ST to make good decisions where her children are concerned. The State has a serious interest in the children's welfare, and the children were only recently returned to her custody. She is essentially an unemployed single mother, with an uninvolved and financially unsupportive bio dad, her sister in prison and relying on her to take care of her affairs, lost custody of her kids for months, and with mountains of legal problems from her own defiance and bad decision making. Several of her attorneys have quit on her due to her own behavior. She has alienated pretty much every single person who has supported her, save one blogger. She literally has a mountain of problems in her life, of her own making. Her kids are extremely vulnerable, IMO. She could easily lose custody of them again.

She was directed to establish a child care trust, and an education trust, for each of her 3 children-- why? Because she claims that lack of child care is what drove her to leave her kids alone in a hot car. Child care has been her excuse for why she can't take any of the jobs she's been offered-- she doesn't like the hours, child care is too far away, yada yada. This scammer has an excuse for everything, and revels in being oppositional and defiant, IMO.

As far as the education trust, ST claiming it could only be used for "college" is pure defiant spin. Any attorney could explain to her in about 30 seconds how broadly the education and child care trusts could be administered. Basically, any proven expenses related to the care and education of the kids. What sticks in ST's craw is that someone ELSE other than her would be administering and overseeing the funds, and she doesn't want to do that. She doesn't want to have to answer to anyone.

What she fails to understand is that before all this happened, she DIDN'T have to answer to so many people about her decision making and spending habits. She LOST that privilege because of her own behavior that put her kids in grave danger. She was literally handed $100,000-- and blew most of it in a few months, instead of setting up a security net for her and her kids. Unbelievably stupid decision making, IMO.

And she is still so defiant and oppositional that she metaphorically spit in the face of her own attorneys and the prosecutor that offered her a sweetheart of a deal to DROP the charges all together. If she cared at all about her kids, she would have quickly complied with the terms of the deal, and gone about her life. But no--not Shanesha Taylor-- she thought the "right" thing to do was fight and argue with her attorney and the prosecutor, and renege on the deal she agreed to. Wow-- that's chutzpah. And still she has ANOTHER chance for the next 2 months to settle this without going to court. This woman is the very embodiment of hubris.This woman belongs in prison, IMO. Her kids would be better off being raised by someone else who truly wants to parent them, and has their best interests in mind. IMO. She's an immature, irresponsible, sorry excuse for a parent, IMO.

:goodpost: K_Z! Great post, in fact! Could NOT have said it any better!

:thumb:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lulu14]

Honestly, why is it so hard? Take the kids, place them in foster care, throw her *advertiser censored* in jail for child endangerment, case closed.

 

[MissJ]

Honestly, why is it so hard? Take the kids, place them in foster care, throw her *advertiser censored* in jail for child endangerment, case closed.

Amen.

 

[Tugela]

She needs the money to raise the kids now? Why didn't she get a job? She supposedly left the children in the car because she was so eager to interview for a job. Yet the reverend who used to support her claims she had been offered interviews for jobs and didn't even show up.

I don't have a problem with the money being administered by a trust (which should have happened in the first place), I just don't see why a portion of it needs to be squirreled away specifically for education when one would think that the material needs of the kids would take priority. If the DA set that as a condition, there really is no reason other than to place it permanently outside her access while the children are minors. That would mean that the DA would have been acting to spite her, not to look after the best interests of the children.

 

[sonjay]

I don't have a problem with the money being administered by a trust (which should have happened in the first place), I just don't see why a portion of it needs to be squirreled away specifically for education when one would think that the material needs of the kids would take priority. If the DA set that as a condition, there really is no reason other than to place it permanently outside her access while the children are minors. That would mean that the DA would have been acting to spite her, not to look after the best interests of the children.

It strikes me that this whole issue could have been avoided if the woman who launched the online fundraiser had initially put the money into an irrevocable trust with ST's children as beneficiaries, and named a trustee who is not ST to manage it. A trust can be set up with guidelines on what the money can be used for, and the trustee isn't allowed to disburse money in violation of those guidelines (unless the trust document gives the trustee that authority).

Not that I'm blaming the fundraiser woman, or excusing ST. But IMO that chunk of money should never have been handed over to ST to allow her to blow through it the way she did.

I can only hope that future online fundraisers remember this case and act accordingly.