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

[human]

Parents can claim their children up to age 19, or age 24 if they are a student. So quite a few of the kids were likely no longer deductions.

I wouldn’t be surprised if LT is a hoarder, which is where a lot of money could have gone. Plus their 3 cars and DTs paycheck deductions for his 401k and multiple life insurance policies. I have a feeling the parents treated themselves quite a bit. I mean, the upkeep on DTs stylish coif couldn’t have been cheap.

I think you can claim anyone as long as you are providing for them. David was providing everything, such as it was.

 

[Doghairrules]

Me too.

Children, the last ones to get rights. Even dogs and cats have more rights. We don’t allow puppy mills.

I agree with you, but some states, including mine, still allow puppy mills.

 

[human]

Parents can claim their children up to age 19, or age 24 if they are a student. So quite a few of the kids were likely no longer deductions.

I wouldn’t be surprised if LT is a hoarder, which is where a lot of money could have gone. Plus their 3 cars and DTs paycheck deductions for his 401k and multiple life insurance policies. I have a feeling the parents treated themselves quite a bit. I mean, the upkeep on DTs stylish coif couldn’t have been cheap.

I think you can claim anyone as long as you are providing for them. David was providing everything, such as it was.

Who can you claim as a dependent.

https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/ta...2/family/who-can-i-claim-as-a-dependent-7658/

 

[Amonet]

re: severe abuse vs dominant female
agreed she is an abuser but the "chain of command" isn't lateral. All this talk about how "quiet" and vaguely "effeminant" DT is rubs me the wrong way and I think people are not sensitive to this because they aren't even aware of the language they are using to describe the situation and the reasons why they might be using that language.

"david with along with" that's a type of speculation that seems to favor one side. The ":LT is the mastermind and controls DT" side.


this plus "he looks effeminate" etc., it's like come on, men can certainly make their own decisions despite how "quiet" or vaguely "effeminate" they are. you can't say "we're blaming them both equally" and then go on to use language that clearly says different with stuff like "DT went along with"

I'm in the same boat as SATA (and am just going to stop following this thread because people don't understand what I'm talking about)

I don't know what the "chain of command" has been, surely we're all conjecturing on that? Yes, there's been more conjecture about LT, but I agree that is more to do with more info coming out about her than about DT.

You're right that the 'effeminate' and 'gay' comments were offensive. They're about stereotyping people and pigeon-holing them for what's on the outside rather than trying to get an understanding of what's happening inside...and this forum is about doing the latter, not the former.

I think "going along with" can be interpreted in different ways. If one person decides to set off a bomb and they tell a friend who "goes along with it", the friend is absolutely as culpable. I remember now I did use those words..this is how I meant them.

I agree that DT has made his own decisions to commit whatever abuses he has.

Seeing the article about the cult leader personality and whether DT might be the cult leader of the family....it was food for thought. But there are other families that commit abuses against their children, and I don't know which model DT and LT best fit. If we took away the 13 children, would we still think that they most resemble the Quiverful families?

I think it's important to have people in these threads offering different ideas so we don't get stuck on one track, and people having the guts to say "you all seem to be talking a lot about ABC being the causality here, but here's an interesting article to read...do you think maybe it could actually be that XYZ is the causality?" Things like these are what makes for a good and thoughtful discussion and debate, with people who learn from each other and respectfully agree to disagree, rather than a peanut gallery.

 

[bears10]

I think you can claim anyone as long as you are providing for them. David was providing everything, such as it was.

Who can you claim as a dependent.

https://blog.turbotax.intuit.com/ta...2/family/who-can-i-claim-as-a-dependent-7658/

Except he wasn’t really providing much. But I guess they don’t care about getting in trouble with the IRS/law considering they filed bankruptcy more than once and are sitting in the slammer for torturing their kids. So you’re right, on paper he could appear to be providing for them. It’s not like the victims had their own CPA preparing their tax returns.

 

[human]

Info on patient nurse relationship. I am sure there are things like this for doctors as well.

https://nurseneedscoffeestat.org/20...atient-relationship-have-to-end-at-discharge/

 

[human]

Except he wasn’t really providing much. But I guess they don’t care about getting in trouble with the IRS/law considering they filed bankruptcy more than once and are sitting in the slammer for torturing their kids. So you’re right, on paper he could appear to be providing for them. It’s not like the victims had their own CPA preparing their tax returns.

He provided everythng, They provided nothing for their own selves. The requirement is something like more than half. So he meets the requirement.

 

[bears10]

He provided everythng, They provided nothing for their own selves. The requirement is something like more than half. So he meets the requirement.

I thought it was clear that I was being facetious by saying he wasn’t providing much. Meaning actual food, healthcare, etc. never mind human.

 

[Cafemalyn]

The cold system at work.
That is why family is so important.
But since this bunch HAVE no family, why couldn´t there be a little understanding and let there be some contact to the people they initially bonded with and trusted.
Now they will have an even harder time bonding and trusting, it is stupid!!!

I think it is cruel there can´t be.

They do have a family. They have each other. They don’t have parents or an extended family they can turn to, but they have each other.

There are a lot of things that have been wrong in the Turpin kids’ lives, but one thing that has been right is that they are not alone. Even if there are rivalries and resentments, even if they at times had to betray each other... they have shared experiences and clearly some fondness for or allegiance to each other. That’s a lot more family than many other survivors of abuse have.

To be sure, they need guidance and they need a sense of permanence and they need to be able to trust people. But the relationship among them is going to be the key to their survival, I think.

If they are capable of loving, it is because they have been able to love each other. They certainly did not get love from LT and DT. For all but the very youngest, the crucial period for acquiring the ability to love is past. If they have it, it is because they have each other. That’s family.

 

[FelicityLemon]

Hasn't the subject of homeschooling being discussed in depth on earlier threads? This is just one aspect concerning how the parents got away with the abuse and going over and over it is tedious.

Sent from my Moto G (5) using Tapatalk

By all means, do feel free to pop in and share something new!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3wzDSI_-j8

 

[FelicityLemon]

We homeschooled until last year. We were considering moving to California where my parents retired and is not in an area where I like the schools. I extensively researched homeschooling in California. We live in Texas (with great schools now which we attend) and nothing is required of homeschoolers. Any kind of requirements was a whole new world to me. I inquired with the district, charter schools, superintendent, etc.

1. Signing an affidavit for a private school does not make you a private school. They cannot receive benefits or funds, could not school other children, were not a business, etc. Registering as a private school, just deems your family ONLY a "private school." AKA: a homeschool family doing their own thing in their own home. You CAN maintain a private school in your home, but this is not what they did. There is a whole litany of things you have to do to maintain a private school in the home. If you school a certain number of your own children, the affidavit is a requirement anyway

2. In California, you can receive funds for educational purposes if you school under the umbrella of a charter. This money is not just handed off to you. There are documentation requirements, contracts are signed, credentialed teachers oversee these programs, you have to prove you are doing what you say, you cannot use religious materials, etc. Generally, in the contract there is an agreement to do standardized testing. The parent can opt out, but will not usually be welcome to return to the charter.

3. You can homeschool under a certidfied and credentialed teacher or tutor. (A parent can do this if they are a credentialed teacher.)

4. You can homeschool under a private satellite program. You are held to compulsory attendance standards and educational standards.

5. You receive no federal or state tax deductions for homeschooling. You receive no money from the state for homeschooling. You are not recognized as a functioning private school business, you receive no tax breaks for homeschooling with a private school affidavit. The affidavit gets you no benefits from the state. The ONLY way to receive money for educational purposes, is through am existing public charter school.

Hope that helps.

ETA: I cannot think of a way homeschooling could have benefited them financially.

I am totally for regulations over homeschooling families. Though we don't homeschool anymore, I would have happily submitted to all kinds of regulation. Most families are doing the right things when homeschooling their children, but the laws as they are leaves lot of room for vulnerability. IMO

EXCELLENT post - thank you! :loveyou:

 

[FelicityLemon]

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

bolded and underlined by me

jeezopeez gitana1 - I'm so sorry I missed this paragraph on my previous post!!! Wtheck is wrong with my eyes these days.

I didn't realize (because I couldn't read evidently) that it was the new guardian's choice that all contact is cut off. Call me Emily Letilla as I say "never mind." please disregard my blathering on about psychs knowing what they're doing. They DO, they DID, they are RIGHT and now I'm really, really curious as to why a public guardian can override what's been professionally recommended as in the best interest of the siblings. I still think it may be because of fear of location disclosure, but if it is that, I don't understand why it's not made into a public statement so everyone else understands.

Is a public guardian the same as legal guardian and do they have the legal power to prevent all parties from communicating with each other by
ANY means? It'll be too similar to life before freedom in that respect .

*sighing and scratching my head* I am such a confused dufus sometimes.

 

[SATA]

They do have a family. They have each other. They don’t have parents or an extended family they can turn to, but they have each other.

There are a lot of things that have been wrong in the Turpin kids’ lives, but one thing that has been right is that they are not alone. Even if there are rivalries and resentments, even if they at times had to betray each other... they have shared experiences and clearly some fondness for or allegiance to each other. That’s a lot more family than many other survivors of abuse have.

To be sure, they need guidance and they need a sense of permanence and they need to be able to trust people. But the relationship among them is going to be the key to their survival, I think.

If they are capable of loving, it is because they have been able to love each other. They certainly did not get love from LT and DT. For all but the very youngest, the crucial period for acquiring the ability to love is past. If they have it, it is because they have each other. That’s family.

What I mean is, they are not capable of making decisions for themselves yet, and normally you would have family help you growing up. They are doing their growing up belated and without guidance from loving family.

That said, I am also glad they have each other, obviously.

 

[gitana1]

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.

More than being neat for them i think it could be crucial to their well-being.

They are dependent adults - classified as disabled and under what's essentially a conservatorship. They do not get to make serious decisions for themselves about where they live, etc. The guardian makes those decisions. While who they may be able to talk to is something that a guardian generally doesn't deal with except in extreme situations, they can be granted that decision-making power.

There are zero good psych and emotional reasons behind such a total break, unless the staff were all doing something nefarious. It's wrong. And, again, it was their public guardian, not someone trained in mental health care, who apparently made the decision. I;m not sure where we are getting that people who are educated and trained in psychology, psychiatry, victimology, PTSD made that decision?:

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-s...dlines_bsq_hed

And I don;t care that there could be some way for the kids to figure it out or that perhaps the staff somehow slipped a number to them anyhow. These people have been terribly isolated and controlled. They should not be isolated and controlled now by their public guardian. No one should have to sneak.

Finally, who would believe it could be for any other reason but for the best interest of the siblings? Anyone who has ever watched as abused persons become re-victimized by the system, either by well-meaning but ignorant or incompetent professionals or by people with nefarious motives. It happens too much!!

 

[Cafemalyn]

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.

I highlighted some things in this post that I want to address though they are not entirely connected.

First, about the lawyer versus the legal guardian, the report I read sounded like they were the same person (“lawyer and guardian”) When I read your clarification of that point, I fixed it in one place but not the other. I seem to have missed the bit about the lawyer objecting on their behalf. I also have been assuming that not allowing visits did not mean break contact completely.

Second, the idea that people must learn about loss and separation is not at all new in human culture. Mortality was a major reason people in earlier times had to learn to separate. I know what you are alluding to in relation to the value that Americans place on “independence,” and certain shifts in childrearing practice at the end of the 19th century. (I would not call them Victorian, but that’s another topic.) However, the whole “independence” thing is not what I was talking about when I said that learning about separation is good. I was thinking about adjusting to reality. It is not that they need to learn to separate. It is that separation happens and it is not a crisis, if there is support and guidance in place.

Agreed that these kids have had very little security and very little chance to trust and feel safe. However, as I said in another message, I don’t see these kids as in the same situation as most other abused/tortured children who have been deprived of all loving human contact. They have had each other. They definitely need all the nurture and support that can be provided them, but they should be able to handle moving to a new place and beginning new lives with different support people so long as they are together. (I am more worried actually about J-12 being separated from the kids closer to her age than about the older kids having to say good bye to the Corona staff.)

That doesn’t mean, however, that the 7 older ones should be forced to end all contact with the Corona staff that they bonded with. I am concerned to hear that the psychologists’ recommended they should be allowed more of a transition and their own lawyer’s request for more continuity of contact were disregarded. I hope the lawyer can look after their needs/rights in other ways.

 

[gitana1]

Not for private school, but aren't there charter school vouchers in CA? aha! Just answered my own question: https://edsource.org/2017/most-california-voters...back...school-vouchers.../588390
Oct 5, 2017 - Twice before, in 1993 and 2000, 70 percent of Californians voted against tax- funded school vouchers after extensive opposition campaigns led by the California Teachers Association. ... "

I only got interested in this after watching DeVos smile vacuously while trying to answer Stahl's questions...

I wholeheartedly agree that homeschooling for them, was to hide the children. But, that still leaves the question of why did DT want to register it? Do all homeschooling parents register their homes as a business?

Great question. I'm at a loss.

It wouldn’t be encouraged where I practice. Not forbidden most likely, but certainly not encouraged. We may sent cards or small gifts as a group, but not visits.

Well this hospital did not discourage it and it is a unique situation I think.

Oh please keep us posted on the lawyer’s response. You make very good points on why the privacy and secrecy is not the reason for this move.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don;t think he will respond!! He can;t very well explain anything because it's all confidential. But if he does, I will let everyone know.

The public guardian is way out of line here and obviously knows nothing about healing from trauma. She should be replaced ASAP.

I agree. Public guardians have to take a course on fiduciary duties but the chance he or she has any psych training or knows much about trauma I would say is scant.

re: severe abuse vs dominant female
agreed she is an abuser but the "chain of command" isn't lateral. All this talk about how "quiet" and vaguely "effeminant" DT is rubs me the wrong way and I think people are not sensitive to this because they aren't even aware of the language they are using to describe the situation and the reasons why they might be using that language.

"david with along with" that's a type of speculation that seems to favor one side. The ":LT is the mastermind and controls DT" side.


this plus "he looks effeminate" etc., it's like come on, men can certainly make their own decisions despite how "quiet" or vaguely "effeminate" they are. you can't say "we're blaming them both equally" and then go on to use language that clearly says different with stuff like "DT went along with"

I'm in the same boat as SATA (and am just going to stop following this thread because people don't understand what I'm talking about)

Don't leave!! A lot of people on here get where you're coming from!

Yes, but...for most people when they move on to a different school or leave school there will be continuity of other relationships. These young people have gone from a home with all their siblings together every day and night, to being split into two groups in different hospitals, they've developed special relationships with the staff that would not normally develop due to these young people needing a totally different type of care, compounded by them not having visits from a loving family. Then they're split into three groups. These splits are going to be a lot to cope with. All these changes in a short period of time are going to be mindblowing. They're also facing the prospect of telling details of what happened to the attorneys as well as to therapists and possibly having to stand up in court and tell people and face cross-examination. On the one hand they should have therapists helping them with validation, and then they might have cross-examination which is about invalidation.

Apparently some of the hospital staff were willing to work with the siblings for a while in a transition period, surely they would be willing to sign non-disclosure agreements? And wherever the siblings go, surely someone can show them how to hide the originating phone number? Or they could use a burner phone rather than a landline.

Having a trustworthy outsider could be very important for them in a lot of ways. Aside from that I'm sure the hospital staff will want to send cards for birthdays and Christmas for years to come.

Like Gitana's saying, we need these young people to be able to learn to forge healthy relationships in the future; they haven't had a good example in this from their parents. We've heard of possible fear of loss issues already existing. It's only going to compound any problems by doing the same thing with loving people that their parents may have done with toys. I couldn't read the article Gitana linked to (problem my end) but Gitana said something about them trying to get out of the cars and run back to the staff? They're supposed to be easing issues like anxiety, loss, ptsd, trust issues when they've apparently grown up with a lot of mental cruelty directed at them. They need to learn hard and clear that those things are wrong. Repeating mental cruelty in this way is giving them a mixed message, that it was wrong for their parents to do something like that, but it's okay when it comes to the new guardian?

I had thought maybe the psychologists had thought this was a good idea. I hadn't thought it through then, I had only my own issues as a lens through which to interpret it. I thought maybe the attorney wanted control of those who the siblings open up to in order to gather information for court? That would be a cold reason in itself, but I don't really think that would be hampered by having someone call them and say "I hope you're okay, I'm still here, I still think about you, I still care about you even at a distance, and I would love to chat for ten minutes and hear some of your news." These people are medical professionals, they're outside the wider family structure, they have no biases other than wanting what's best for the siblings.

We've all been trying to reassure each other through these threads that the siblings won't be let down again. And now it feels like they have been.

There's nothing I can do about it but to note my discomfort with the decision.

You can contact their attorney and give your polite opinion!!! He's found on the state bar website.

bolded and underlined by me

jeezopeez gitana1 - I'm so sorry I missed this paragraph on my previous post!!! Wtheck is wrong with my eyes these days.

I didn't realize (because I couldn't read evidently) that it was the new guardian's choice that all contact is cut off. Call me Emily Letilla as I say "never mind." please disregard my blathering on about psychs knowing what they're doing. They DO, they DID, they are RIGHT and now I'm really, really curious as to why a public guardian can override what's been professionally recommended as in the best interest of the siblings. I still think it may be because of fear of location disclosure, but if it is that, I don't understand why it's not made into a public statement so everyone else understands.

Is a public guardian the same as legal guardian and do they have the legal power to prevent all parties from communicating with each other by
ANY means? It'll be too similar to life before freedom in that respect .

*sighing and scratching my head* I am such a confused dufus sometimes.

Oops! Sorry! I responded to your old post before seeing this one!!!!! Thanks for your post!!!!

I highlighted some things in this post that I want to address though they are not entirely connected.

First, about the lawyer versus the legal guardian, the report I read sounded like they were the same person (“lawyer and guardian&#8221 When I read your clarification of that point, I fixed it in one place but not the other. I seem to have missed the bit about the lawyer objecting on their behalf. I also have been assuming that not allowing visits did not mean break contact completely.

Second, the idea that people must learn about loss and separation is not at all new in human culture. Mortality was a major reason people in earlier times had to learn to separate. I know what you are alluding to in relation to the value that Americans place on “independence,” and certain shifts in childrearing practice at the end of the 19th century. (I would not call them Victorian, but that’s another topic.) However, the whole “independence” thing is not what I was talking about when I said that learning about separation is good. I was thinking about adjusting to reality. It is not that they need to learn to separate. It is that separation happens and it is not a crisis, if there is support and guidance in place.

Agreed that these kids have had very little security and very little chance to trust and feel safe. However, as I said in another message, I don’t see these kids as in the same situation as most other abused/tortured children who have been deprived of all loving human contact. They have had each other. They definitely need all the nurture and support that can be provided them, but they should be able to handle moving to a new place and beginning new lives with different support people so long as they are together. (I am more worried actually about J-12 being separated from the kids closer to her age than about the older kids having to say good bye to the Corona staff.)

That doesn’t mean, however, that the 7 older ones should be forced to end all contact with the Corona staff that they bonded with. I am concerned to hear that the psychologists’ recommended they should be allowed more of a transition and their own lawyer’s request for more continuity of contact were disregarded. I hope the lawyer can look after their needs/rights in other ways.

Yeah, he really said cut off all contact and would not allow staff to give them their phone numbers:

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-s...dlines_bsq_hed

True, all cultures deal with separation and loss. As in death. There is no reason to cut off contact with people you love except due to death or because they become dangerous.

Reality is not that people have to cut off all contact with those they care about. That's control.

Total separation from those we love is indeed a crisis. It's horrible.

This is not the same as an I'm leaving preschool and advancing to kindergarten and I;m going to miss my teacher scenario. This is depriving very traumatized people of those who are likely the first mature caregivers who gave them unconditional love and who they could trust. This is horrible. Further, even in the moving from one school to the next or one region or job to the next, people typically aren't forbidden any and all forms of contact. It's ridiculous. And cruel.

I do agree that their situation is different in that they had each other. That may be their saving grace. I absolutely disagree that they should be able to handle moving to a new place with new supports and being cut off from those they just formed a bond with after being rescued. These are very traumatized people. And to expect traumatized, abused people to be able to adequately care for the emotional needs of one another either during in captivity or after is unrealistic IMO.

There should be zero reason why these siblings can't contact the staff by phone or skype or exchange letters or have visits on special occasions. The attitude that people need to learn to separate from one another is something I don't agree with. I think it's caused a lot of trauma. Especially in foster care situations.

From the beginning of this case a few of us mentioned the Genie case and worried these siblings could experience what she did. After being rescued form her captors, she was initially placed with a very loving, sweet lady at the beach and she progressed. But the scientists wanted to study her intensively and the caretaker wanted to protect her. So they ripped her from the caretaker.

Genie was never ever the same. At the end, the book about her describes the author visiting her at her adult care home in CA and seeing how this once lovely child with an incredible spark and expressive eyes "gazed with cow-like incomprehension".

It is possible to destroy people beyond repair. These are precious, vulnerable adults who desperately need close, loving, human attachments. To impede that in any way is terrible.

 

[bears10]

I can understand the guardian and/or judge being concerned for the victims privacy.... like someone else previously stated, all it takes is one hospital employee to casually tell their SO where the victims have relocated, and then SO can tell a coworker or friend, and so on so forth. It’s only been a day so I’ll give the courts the benefit of the doubt that they very carefully chose a guardian for the victims. I could be wrong (I’m pretty tired tonight) but I think we are only hearing from the hospital CEO/staff. They may still be feeling the initial blow of taking such care of these kids, only to feel they were ripped from them with little notice. Hopefully the victims will be able to talk to the wonderful hospital staff sooner rather than later.

 

[Satch]

I'm very concerned that the public guardian is refusing to allow the hospital staff, to whom they grew very attached, 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 share the above concerns and support the boldface type above, which shows the emotional bond between the siblings and hospital staff.

So it was the public guardian and not the attorney who removed them from the hospital? Or was it a mutual agreement between both? I think that we should work to get the public defender to change his/her mind through a contact with the siblings attorney. To have their first connecting, bonding trust of love and kindness taken away by not allowing the siblings any kind of communication after leaving the hospital is FLAT OUT WRONG!

Does anyone here believe that by denying the siblings contact with the hospital staff was the right thing to do? If so, why? We know they can't stay there forever, but the staff should certainly know where they are going and have the right to contact them! I think we heard from one member of our community who supports the guardian's decision. But I am having a hard time with that decision and need help understanding why no hospital staff contacts were allowed for the Magnificent Thirteen in their new home.

Satch

 

[Cafemalyn]

@gitana — Yes, I agree there is no good reason to forbid all contact. And as I said, I am worried about this little tug-of-war over the well being of the 7. Initially I assumed that there would be contact through skype and e-mail just not phone calls or visits because of concern with publicity leaks. (I even hypothesized that the plan might be to let a couple of people visit after the press had lost interest in watching the Corona staff.)

I will say that this is not the same as Genie’s case, for a variety of reasons, including that these kids have had some socialization and ability to communicate, learn and love. But I have been worried from the first about how different entities would work out what happened to the kids.

One worries what else is going on in the name of “protecting” these young people.

 

[Pamela_Brewer]

"In the first hours of what would become a two-month long stay at the hospital, staff scurried to buy the Turpins clothes, out of their own pockets. The ones in which they’d been rescued smelled so foul they had to be destroyed."

http://www.kake.com/story/37770520/...utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KAKE-TV

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk