CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #11

[SATA]

I'm very concerned that the public guardian is refusing to allow the hospital staff, to whom they grew very atached, and who showered them with love, to have any contact with the adult kids. Clearly, the CEO who gave his interview in tears, is also very concerned.

Yes, they had to move eventually to a normal home but attachment is very important to children and adults who have been deprived of love. They need to be able to form attachments and bonds and not have those yanked away.

It is very concerning that the sibling's psychologists have stated that to deny them contact with their first caregivers, would be damaging, and yet the public guardian did so anyhow. These young people were getting out of the car and trying to go back to the hospital because they didn't want to leave.

The parents deprived them of love and isolated them from society and took all decision-making powers form them. Seems the public guardian is doing the same thing and I have a problem with that.

Public guardians aren't always the best people. We have had several issues with conservators in CA, who are in it for the money.

I'm worried. I think I will write to the siblings' lawyer.



I disagree 100%. That flies in the face of all principles of healing trauma and a lack of attachment/love.

In the case of the family kept underground in Austria, they were allowed to live in the hospital for about a year I believe. Obviously their issues were more severe but the concept of cocooning and learning trust and gradual introduction to the world is not much different.

Of course we can't replicate that here, with our system of health care, and a nice homelike, family-type environment would be good for them, but denying them contact with those to whom they attached is disgusting. I never understood the attitude that we need to make children get used to emotional independence or to deprive abused and neglected persons of attachments, by moving them around from foster home to foster home so they don't get used to any one person.

The reality is that the opportunity to form attachments and give and receive love to those who a person attaches to is crucial to mental health. And when it has been denied to a person and they have become damaged as a result, the way to heal that and enable them to learn to attach and love is by allowing them to attach to people who show them love.

Those workers had great instincts. They showered them with love and affection and nurturing, just like a parent should. And their instincts were to maintain contact. Now those poor young people are learning a second lesson about attachment and trust. The first was that those who they depended on to care for and love them, did not. The second was that when they finally receive that care and love it;s going to be ripped away.



They would not constitute a separate charge. It's all part of neglect. However, on its own, failure to provide an education to a child does not constitute neglect under the code and would not support a charge without other stuff being there:

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-11165-2.html

Very, very good post.

Please do write to their lawyer, I feel this is so wrong, but I am not in the USA.

It feels like someone is in it for the money, not for the best of the siblings.

Since when is simple human contact a problem?

About their new home. Who provided that for them? I heard it was some private person. Is that true?
It may be just a good soul who happens to own a big house in rural California, but I am suspicious, I think things are odd.

 

[gitana1]

In California, you can get funds for homeschooling. However, you have to homeschool under an umbrella charter, there IS documentation/accountability. The money can only be used for educational purposes. Your materials cannot be religious based. It appears (IMO) the Turpins chose to register as a private school, so that they did not have to correspond with anyone, like several of the other options to homeschool in California require. Remember, they weren't operating a private school. They registered as a private school, so they could homeschool. The only way they could deduct the things you list, is if they operated as a for profit private school. There are NO federal tax breaks for homeschooling. You can deduct specialized tutoring and therapy on federal taxes. California does not offer any tax breaks for homeschooling at the state level.

I cannot think of a way this could have financially benefited them. I suppose they could have received state money for special needs children (SSI, etc.) but that would require A LOT of documentation, interviewing, etc.

Ok!! I see.

If there is a daycare in a home or a home business, all of those could be deducted. On a bankruptcy form I saw Louise was paid $10000 for a job. I wondered what that was. Maybe it was pay as a teacher in their private school.

Would the fact that she was getting paid (if that is what it was for) make it so they could deduct expenses?

I am sure they could make a tremendous food bill for six students. Could they not even deduct a portion of their property taxes for their private school?

I do not understand the private school/homeschool option that means they could not deduct expenses.

I would think most private schools do not file as money making.

Can't they deduct "expenses" as a private charter school?

I think it is terrible that the hospital staff could not get information about the siblings new home. You have to wonder why even giving out their phone numbers was not allowed. This was the first form of loving, caring contact for the adult siblings and to not even have professional caregivers not have access to where these magnificent people were going was cruel. We need to hear the siblings attorney's explanation for this. Why there was not a mutual agreement between legal and medical personnel, mystifies me.

The only rational that I can see is that the attorney believed that hospitals are not the real world, and than there's the question of where do you make the transition from a hospital environment to a rehabilitation home? Perhaps the powers that be do not want any media contact, which could have been leaked if hospital staff was allowed to remain in contact with the Turpin kids.

Satch

According the hospital CEO, it was the public guardian's decision to cut off contact and the kids' attorney was against it. Those are two different people. See my link above for the direct quote.

 

[human]

I guess I;m showing my age! An 18 year old is quite young to me and is still considered a "man" in media reports and per the law.

I guess 18 is a man, but I would not consider 18 a child, but I can’t go with , “Man”, for that age. Sorry to any 18 year olds out there

 

[FelicityLemon]

One possibility for keeping the hospital and caregivers there from continuing contact with the children is to keep them safe at their new home.
That saying that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link: all it would take is for one worker to exchange information for money about their new location (if they knew). While at the hospital at least, they were as protected as possible for being in a public place. In a private residence no matter the location, there may not be the same protection once the address became public.

The kidlets are trusting and naive. If the nice people they developed relationships with asked for their address or location, they might be likely to share the information.

Yeah, I'm cynical, but I sometimes remember human nature. All it takes it one person in a vulnerable position either financially or emotionally, liking the attention or wanting to be interviewed... or even think they're giving an innocent, helpful interview, but inadvertently disclosing information.

We human beings are fallible, sometimes with a mistake, sometimes with selfish intent.

edited to add:
gosh, it could even be a mistake as simple as someone talking to their gf/bf/spouse and then that person spills the beans.
Too many ways for information to get out.

 

[blue22]

Ok!! I see.



Can't they deduct "expenses" as a private charter school?



According the hospital CEO, it was the public guardian's decision to cut off contact and the kids' attorney was against it. Those are two different people. See my link above for the direct quote.

No, they would not/could not be considered a charter. Charter schools in California are public. They do not apply to a homeschool. They could have schooled under a charter school and received funds for each homeschooling child for educational things. However, they didn't do this. (And that requires a lot of accountability, proof, etc. on the parents part.)

 

[gitana1]

Is there a code of ethics that would keep them from a further relationship? Teachers in my district were not supposed to have relationships until two years after a child left the classroom. It has to do with a power structure,

I don't know. But the Hospital CEO would and he's concerned. Also, the lawyer seemed to be in favor of the contact and I think he would know, maybe?

 

[SkipperKey3]

They would not constitute a separate charge. It's all part of neglect. However, on its own, failure to provide an education to a child does not constitute neglect under the code and would not support a charge without other stuff being there:

http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-11165-2.html

But what about the fact that they reported the grades of the students every year, and that was blatantly not the case? Could there be a charge for misrepresentation of educational levels on official documents?

 

[SATA]

I don't know. But the Hospital CEO would and he's concerned. Also, the lawyer seemed to be in favor of the contact and I think he would know, maybe?

So all seven siblings have ONE guardian who calls the shots? Just one person?

Doesn´t seem right.

 

[gitana1]

Very, very good post.

Please do write to their lawyer, I feel this is so wrong, but I am not in the USA.

It feels like someone is in it for the money, not for the best of the siblings.

Since when is simple human contact a problem?

About their new home. Who provided that for them? I heard it was some private person. Is that true?
It may be just a good soul who happens to own a big house in rural California, but I am suspicious, I think things are odd.

I sent him an email.

I guess 18 is a man, but I would not consider 18 a child, but I can’t go with , “Man”, for that age. Sorry to any 18 year olds out there

Yes but it's about how the media reports. They use "man" for any legal adult. So my point is that the person corresponding with her might have been very young and didn't know what to do except tell her to go for help. My brother in laws would not know now and they're all in their 20's already.

One possibility for keeping the hospital and caregivers there from continuing contact with the children is to keep them safe at their new home.
That saying that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link: all it would take is for one worker to exchange information for money about their new location (if they knew). While at the hospital at least, they were as protected as possible for being in a public place. In a private residence no matter the location, there may not be the same protection once the address became public.

The kidlets are trusting and naive. If the nice people they developed relationships with asked for their address or location, they might be likely to share the information.

Yeah, I'm cynical, but I sometimes remember human nature. All it takes it one person in a vulnerable position either financially or emotionally, liking the attention or wanting to be interviewed... or even think they're giving an innocent, helpful interview, but inadvertently disclosing information.

We human beings are fallible, sometimes with a mistake, sometimes with selfish intent.

edited to add:
gosh, it could even be a mistake as simple as someone talking to their gf/bf/spouse and then that person spills the beans.
Too many ways for information to get out.

That could indeed be the motivation but first, they weren't asking for the location of the kids. They were asking to be able to give the kids their phone numbers.Second, there are going to be workers at the home and there are multiple other people involved with the siblings who could also accidentally divulge that info. Third, the half-brother is undergoing a background check and seems to believe he will be able to contact the siblings once that's been done, now that they;re released, which to me, if true, is much more problematic considering he can't keep off t.v. exploiting these people. Fourth, while there is the possibility that in calls their location could be revealed to the hospital staff, and then the hospital staff might tell someone, IMO, whatever that's worth, that possibility is not close to as dangerous as ripping away the first real attachment form a caregiver that they've likely had.

No, they would not/could not be considered a charter. Charter schools in California are public. They do not apply to a homeschool. They could have schooled under a charter school and received funds for each homeschooling child for educational things. However, they didn't do this. (And that requires a lot of accountability, proof, etc. on the parents part.)

Ah. Got it.

 

[gitana1]

So all seven siblings have ONE guardian who calls the shots? Just one person?

Doesn´t seem right.

It seems so. And that guardian would likely have decision making power over their money as well.

 

[gitana1]

But what about the fact that they reported the grades of the students every year, and that was blatantly not the case? Could there be a charge for misrepresentation of educational levels on official documents?

I don;t know of any such charge. Charges connected with falsifying records generally has to do with reporting agencies, like LE, or involving medical records, or financial gain issues.

Look, they're facing a lot of time for a host of vastly worse charges like torture. I don't think we need to worry too much about whether depriving them of an education can somehow be a separate charge. If there was such a charge it certainly would not give them more time in prison than what they're facing.

 

[Cafemalyn]

I was really sad when I read that some of the staff wanted to have a period where they could visit and give the siblings their phone numbers so they could still have a little bit of contact while they adjusted to the new place and that it wasn't allowed. I'm glad they got to have a moving on party to say their thanks and goodbyes, but the staff there are the first people who've been kind to them and looked after them the way their parents should have looked after them. It seems cruel and dangerous, especially when you add it to the line in the article about some of them fearing that things would be given to them and then taken away.

But it does sound like they've moved from one good place to another and that they're going to continue to have plenty of support as they are introduced to new things and new experiences and develop as individuals.

I hope all of them, the minors and the adults, will settle well into their new homes and have the comfort, love, security, everything they have always deserved but previously been deprived of.

It is sad, but I think they also have to be very careful about security. The nurses, technicians and support staff might be trusted not to reveal things when the young people are patients, but they may feel less of an obligation to keep phone numbers and whereabouts secret. Even if they didn't deliberately disclose where the young people could be found, they might be followed by the press.

There is no reason to believe that the young people won't be allowed to skype the hospital and check in with their friends at the hospital, and it is possible that they will return for visits if they get outpatient care at Corona.

Hospital staff, like teachers, are used to having to say good bye to people they become attached to. And the young people need to learn that modern life is about relationships that get interrupted. All of us who went to school, to summer camp, to whatever, have known that every stage (small or large) in our lives brings new relationships and ends old ones. These kids have lived in isolation from this rhythm. If they have good support in their new home, I trust they will grow from the experience.

 

[bears10]

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx

https://www.twincities.com/2017/09/...-from-federal-grants-with-maybe-more-to-come/

I wonder if there's a loophole/shenanigans that would allow the T's to receive federal funding and grants. Example: parents get "vouchers" to be able to send their kids to charter schools. The T's register their home as a school. The T's then get paid per student. They request funding to send their school-age children to a charter school. The school is their own home. The T's collect a hefty amount per child. That would be quite a cycle.

Charters don't charge tuition. Private schools do.

I'm still checking this out - very interesting so far!

I don’t see CA on the list in your first link though.


https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ps/psfaq.asp#a25

Are public funds available for private school tuition?

No. There are no state programs in California that offer public funding for private school tuition, except where a student with a disability is placed in a non-public school by a public school district.


IMO I truly do not think they homeschooled for the money. They homeschooled so they could abuse and torture their children with no oversight.

 

[bears10]

But it can be. That was a choice by their public guardian, who the hospital CEO is concerned with.

Uffer, who spent part of the interview choking back tears, said the siblings came to the hospital bereft of everything.
Uffer says he is concerned with the public guardian, which has cut off all contact between the children and the hospital, despite psychologists and the siblings’ own attorney’s recognition that continuity of care for the siblings is critical to their recovery.
The public guardian said she could not comment.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-...=clicksource_4380645_9_hero_headlines_bsq_hed



I don't know if this would apply:

[FONT=&quot]The state of California offers me, a homeschooling parent, $2600/year in educational funds for each of my kids. I, along with so many other homeschooling families in California, have crafted a customized and well-rounded education that reflects our family’s interests, priorities, learning styles, and values.
[/FONT]
https://thecontemporaryhomeschooler...ornia-pays-me-to-customize-my-kids-education/

This seems like the charter schools are the ones giving them the money to spend on specific educational needs, not just a check from the California state comptroller for the parents to use as they see fit.

Educational Funds–Charter schools for homeschoolers offer educational funds. There are multiple charter schools and each competes to attract and retain students. The charter school I selected spends, on each student’s behalf, $2600/year to use with vendors to provide for a well-rounded education. The parents direct what they want to spend their funds on and the choices are colossal.

 

[blue22]

http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/voucher-law-comparison.aspx

https://www.twincities.com/2017/09/...-from-federal-grants-with-maybe-more-to-come/

I wonder if there's a loophole/shenanigans that would allow the T's to receive federal funding and grants. Example: parents get "vouchers" to be able to send their kids to charter schools. The T's register their home as a school. The T's then get paid per student. They request funding to send their school-age children to a charter school. The school is their own home. The T's collect a hefty amount per child. That would be quite a cycle.

Charters don't charge tuition. Private schools do.

I'm still checking this out - very interesting so far!

No. There is nothing that allows funding for homeschooling. (Again, they weren't a private school. They signed an affidavit to homeschool privately in their home.) They could not get money per child, for how they registered. The only way you get money from a charter, is if you do everything the charter requires. They don't just hand you money.

 

[Cafemalyn]

It is very concerning that the sibling's psychologists have stated that to deny them contact with their first caregivers, would be damaging, and yet the public guardian did so anyhow. These young people were getting out of the car and trying to go back to the hospital because they didn't want to leave.

The parents deprived them of love and isolated them from society and took all decision-making powers form them. Seems the public guardian is doing the same thing and I have a problem with that.

Public guardians aren't always the best people. We have had several issues with conservators in CA, who are in it for the money.
l

I had not heard that the psychologists advised against it. In that case, I take back some of what I said in a previous post. I had assumed the lawyer had acted in consultation with the experts who were caring for the young people. The "medical" team might not have been consulted, but the psychologists should have been.

I am assuming that the Turpin kids could still contact the hospital staff on Skype and maybe even phone the hospital or visit. I had no idea that the break was so absolute that they could not have contact.

I do believe that getting used to separation is good for people, but not before the psychologists say that they are ready. Where is the statement about the psychologists? (I haven't been able to hear/watch all the interviews, I tend to rely on transcripts and/or reports.)

I confess that I didn't take the CEO's tears as seriously as I might have if he had not claimed that the Turpin young people had never even seen a guitar up close before. While this may be true for some of them, it can't be true for T-2, who took guitar lessons at the community college. Just how aware are he and the hospital staff of the individual differences between the young people?

One thing that bothers me is that we seem to have different people getting a lot of satisfaction out of being the "heroes" for the young people. The guardian seems to see himself as the "hero" and the CEO of the hospital seemed to see himself as the "hero" also. This is not good. I hope the lawyer for the young people is, at least, able to protect them from being pulled apart by competing interests.

 

[SkipperKey3]

I don;t know of any such charge. Charges connected with falsifying records generally has to do with reporting agencies, like LE, or involving medical records, or financial gain issues.

Look, they're facing a lot of time for a host of vastly worse charges like torture. I don't think we need to worry too much about whether depriving them of an education can somehow be a separate charge. If there was such a charge it certainly would not give them more time in prison than what they're facing.

True enough. I was just wondering. Thanks.

 

[Cafemalyn]

I guess 18 is a man, but I would not consider 18 a child, but I can’t go with , “Man”, for that age. Sorry to any 18 year olds out there

I teach at a university, and while my freshmen (18-19 year olds) know they are adults, they will often refer to each other as "kids" and are uncomfortable with being called "man" or "woman" without "young" in front of it. Some of them talk about "what they will do when they grow up" even though most have been working since age 16 or so and many live with a "significant other."

The preferred terms for their peers is "guy" or "gal." In addition, I have noticed that the young women will sometimes refer to the "boys" in the class (though I don't think the male students ever refer to each other as "boys"). Both male and female students will use "girl" rather than woman (or "lady," this being the South) to refer to the female students.

Back to the Turpins and the approximate age of the male person of undefined age that she spoke to and urged her to escape/report the abuse, I maintain that she may have used the word "guy" and the reports changed it to "man" because it is more formal OR she may have referred to the male person as a "man" because she thought any male person with autonomy is a "man." But who knows.

My point is that words may mean different things in different situations, and I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that this "man" was an adult who would know how to "rescue" the young people, even if he had the general location and believed the story. He may have thought she was exaggerating and giving her guidance just in case she wasn't.

 

[gitana1]

I had not heard that the psychologists advised against it. In that case, I take back some of what I said in a previous post. I had assumed the lawyer had acted in consultation with the experts who were caring for the young people. The "medical" team might not have been consulted, but the psychologists should have been.

I am assuming that the Turpin kids could still contact the hospital staff on Skype and maybe even phone the hospital or visit. I had no idea that the break was so absolute that they could not have contact.

I do believe that getting used to separation is good for people, but not before the psychologists say that they are ready. Where is the statement about the psychologists? (I haven't been able to hear/watch all the interviews, I tend to rely on transcripts and/or reports.)

I confess that I didn't take the CEO's tears as seriously as I might have if he had not claimed that the Turpin young people had never even seen a guitar up close before. While this may be true for some of them, it can't be true for T-2, who took guitar lessons at the community college. Just how aware are he and the hospital staff of the individual differences between the young people?

One thing that bothers me is that we seem to have different people getting a lot of satisfaction out of being the "heroes" for the young people. The lawyer seems to see himself as the "hero" and the CEO of the hospital seemed to see himself as the "hero" also. This is not good.

I don't think getting used to separation is that important at all. Most
people maintain contact with those they love. And the happiest people maintain close contact with family and their support network.

I think the idea that separation is necessary is part of an attitude that developed during the Victorian era from what I've studied and is very American but is not necessarily natural. It comes from the same place I think as theories of feeding schedules, babies sleeping apart from parents, and "self-soothing" and the overall American drive toward emotional independence.

Interestingly, none of that is linked to secure adulthood.

But more importantly IMO these are traumatized, emotionally abused humans who desperately need the exact opposite of learning to separate from people.

The best book I've read about treating trauma is The Boy Who Was Raised as a Dog. I learned that intensive attachment to caregivers is really key to being able to heal. It's counterintuitive that they should be deprived of contact.

Also the lawyer didn't make that decision. The public guardian did. They're separate people. I read in the ABC report that the lawyer disagreed.

Finally, I'm not worried about people trying to act like the heroes here except their family if they get approved for contact. I have appreciated the cautious updates by the CEO and the lawyer. I haven't heard anything indicating they fancy themselves to be the heroes of the story. They've seemed rather awed and humbled by the siblings, IMO.

True, the CEO may not be that aware of all the differences. He's just stating what he has observed. As he is not their day-to-day caregiver I think it's probably okay. Although I understand your point. He shows he is concerned about their welfare and touched by them and to me they need as much of that as possible.

 

[FelicityLemon]

That could indeed be the motivation but first, they weren't asking for the location of the kids. They were asking to be able to give the kids their phone numbers.Second, there are going to be workers at the home and there are multiple other people involved with the siblings who could also accidentally divulge that info. Third, the half-brother is undergoing a background check and seems to believe he will be able to contact the siblings once that's been done, now that they;re released, which to me, if true, is much more problematic considering he can't keep off t.v. exploiting these people. Fourth, while there is the possibility that in calls their location could be revealed to the hospital staff, and then the hospital staff might tell someone, IMO, whatever that's worth, that possibility is not close to as dangerous as ripping away the first real attachment form a caregiver that they've likely had.

Yes, there will be plenty of people who could spill the beans including the siblings themselves. My point is that the less people who know, the less chance of exposure before they're ready. We also don't know the new living situation - are there other vulnerable people living there who need protection and definitely don't need whatever media circus would descend on the residence. I imagine no one wants the parents or extended family to know.

I'm not disagreeing that it would neat for them to have the continuity of normal human connections and emotional support they've received! But, I have to assume and accept that the siblings were counseled about this and hopefully understand that while it's necessary for now, it won't be forever. Since they are adults - albeit vulnerable at this point - they are legally able to contact whomever they wish? It's possible that at least one caregiver had already given one of the siblings their contact info. Human nature. Someone may have done it early on without anticipating it would be forbidden later "Hey, if you ever want to just talk or have any questions, give me a call." or "If you want to know more about XYZ, give me a call - it'll be fun to cook, bake, paint, ride horses, do laundry (whatever) together!" To me, something like that seems perfectly understandable. Most people enjoy being able to help others. I could easily see myself offering my number "if you ever feel like wanting to make a collage, decoupage, sew, cook or bake something". I dunno. :dunno: It's easy to criticize when we don't know all that's going on and what their therapy entails.

I also don't understand the completeness of a break, but there must be good psych and emotional reasons behind it - decisions made by people who are educated and trained in psychology, psychiatry, victimology, PTSD... Who would believe it could be for any other reason but for the best interest of the siblings?

These are adults, there is nothing legally stopping them from making contact themselves. Jeez, they've been denied contact with the outside world for pretty much their entire lives, so I'm confident that current doctors, therapists and caregivers are treading lightly as far as forbidding them to contact anyone. I assume they could call the hospital themselves and if not speak to someone, leave messages for them? I don't know. I do know, that if the 17 year old could figure out how to make and upload videos to youtube via cell phone(I CAN'T!!) she could figure out how to do pretty much whatever she sets her mind to. That includes either teaching her siblings or doing it for them herself.