GUILTY CA - 13 victims, ages 2 to 29, shackled in home by parents, Perris, 15 Jan 2018 #12

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
O/T

http://people.com/crime/friends-spe...WSLETTER":"TRUE_CRIME","ZIP":"","COUNTRY":""}

In the wake of a mysterious crash that authorities fear killed an entire family of eight, friends of the dead have been paying tribute to their memory as some neighbors voice previous child abuse concerns.

Tragic case. :( Here is the thread. One of the women was convicted of child abuse in MN. There was strange stuff going on with this family.

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/s...p-Sierra-Hart-12-Mendocino-County-26-Mar-2018
 
I just read an article that stated that 7 of the kids went to live at a rural location with a public guardian.

it mentioned the public guardian had cut contact and ties with the hospital staff, whom the children had grown close to. The CEO of the hospital expressed concern and stated that even psychologists and lawyers had agreed the kids needed to remain in contact for their well being.

im hoping this public guardian is kind and not inflicting further damage on the kids. Hopefully someone is monitoring this guardian and their well being.
 
I just read an article that stated that 7 of the kids went to live at a rural location with a public guardian.

it mentioned the public guardian had cut contact and ties with the hospital staff, whom the children had grown close to. The CEO of the hospital expressed concern and stated that even psychologists and lawyers had agreed the kids needed to remain in contact for their well being.

im hoping this public guardian is kind and not inflicting further damage on the kids. Hopefully someone is monitoring this guardian and their well being.

We discussed this a few weeks ago, but it is still an interesting topic. I believe that the “Public Guardian” is not living with them. (She has a life of her own.) She is just supervising their care. I don’t think we know for sure if they have been moved to an established “group home” or whether a house was made available especially for them, but my understanding is that there is some “support staff.”

More recent reports by the young people’s lawyer indicate that the young people are learning to take care of and make choices for themselves and that they are looking into further academic education so as to earn the GED and attend college. The young people seem content and positive about the future in their new location.

While I was very concerned to hear that they were not going to be allowed any contact at all with the Corona hospital staff after discharge, I have since wondered if they have indeed been “forbidden” all contact. We know that the hospital staff was not told where the 7 were going to be and that they were told they couldn’t visit or help the young people. But no where has it said that the young people can’t stay in touch through skype or email.

The CEO of the hospital is the only source we have for the allegation that the 7 had to “cut contact and ties” with the hospital staff. It was also the CEO who claimed that psychologists had counseled against it and the young people’s lawyer had opposed the “separation.” It is worth noting that the lawyer has said no such thing publicly and that we know that the lawyer (at the young people’s request, presumably) supported their discharge from the hospital.

The issue appears to have been that Corona hospital wanted to be involved in the “transition plan” but they were excluded. The CEO, who had become fond of the young people (and who may have hoped for more revenue and good publicity from the case), was disappointed. The staff, which had been going “over and above” their duties to the young people (buying them clothes, doing their laundry) may have hoped that they could continue helping — maybe take the young people shopping of teach them to cook, but, realistically, it is perfectly usual for nursing staff to lose contact with patients after discharge.

We don’t know why the “transition” didn’t include Corona and its staff. One possibility ( which we all fear) is that the Public Guardian is on some power kick and/or totally insensitive to the young people’s need for continuity. Another possibility is that the Public Guardian was advised by experts that the 7 were becoming too emotionally dependent on the hospital staff and judged that a “clean break” was appropriate.

There may also have been concern about the CEO’s habit of giving news conferences. Although he just skirted clear of HIIPA violations, I am not sure that it was appropriate for him to reveal that the young people didn’t know what a toothbrush was for and that they had to be taught how to bathe/wash themselves. (In contrast, we got no such reports from Riverside Hospital, where the 6 minors were.)

A further reason (maybe even the main reason) for not including Corona in the transition/ maintaining ties between the hospital and the young people may have been geographic. If their new home is not near the hospital, it does not make practical sense to have their physical therapy, occupational therapy and psychological therapy to continue out of Corona.

In any case, I agree that the Public Guardian has a lot of power, but I am encouraged to hear that the young people are doing well in their new surroundings. A recent report on People talks about their plans.
http://people.com/crime/house-of-horrors-turpin-siblings-want-get-ged-college/

I am not sure if this was posted before.

(By the way, the lawyer quoted n this article is “Mason,” but earlier the young people’s lawyer [who spoke for them initially, and escorted them from the hospital)] was “Osborne” if I remember correctly. There may be two lawyers [or more] involved, or there has been a switch. Superior WS sleuths may know.)
 
There may also have been concern about the CEO’s habit of giving news conferences. Although he just skirted clear of HIIPA violations, I am not sure that it was appropriate for him to reveal that the young people didn’t know what a toothbrush was for and that they had to be taught how to bathe/wash themselves. (In contrast, we got no such reports from Riverside Hospital, where the 6 minors were.)
rsbm

One of the news articles ages ago did say that the older siblings had consented to little updates about them being put out to the public.

The minors would be unable to legally agree to that.
 
We discussed this a few weeks ago, but it is still an interesting topic. I believe that the “Public Guardian” is not living with them. (She has a life of her own.) She is just supervising their care. I don’t think we know for sure if they have been moved to an established “group home” or whether a house was made available especially for them, but my understanding is that there is some “support staff.”

Snipped by me.

Several articles are reporting that the adult siblings have moved to an assisted living facility. Example: https://www.insideedition.com/turpin-house-horrors-uncle-says-he-wants-care-children-40105
 
rsbm

One of the news articles ages ago did say that the older siblings had consented to little updates about them being put out to the public.

The minors would be unable to legally agree to that.

Yes, that is true. Maybe the hospital where the minors were treated would have revealed similar things if they could have legally done so. But I hope not.

In any case, my point is that the Guardian may have felt the Corona CEO was a bit indiscreet in what he revealed. There was nothing illegal, but maybe a little thoughtless? I don’t know. I
 
That article is from two months ago. They have since been released.

Yeah, it is useful to look at the date of articles. As I recall, there was an announcement that they were going to an assisted living facility around the same time that the minors went into foster care. But as time passed it turned out that the 7 had not left Corona medical.

If I remember correctly they were moved to the skilled nursing area (suabacute care) and given a set of rooms and a little garden area to themselves. All this was reported by the Corona CEO.

The are now in a “house.” I have heard no report of whether this is a sort of group home that the state already had available and which has been repurposed for the 7 or whether it is part of a larger rehab/ therapy facility or whether it is just a big house rented or borrowed for the use of the young people for a period of time. If anyone has more information (Dated March 25 or later) I’d love to hear it.
 
Any updates on the kids? What is the next step or court hearing process for David and Louise? I understand that there is going to be a Termination of Parental Rights hearing, regardless of whether or not this goes to trial.

Satch
 
Did anyone else see the commerical for the special about the Turpins on Oxygen? It didn't give much information, other than to say "coming soon".
 
Any updates on the kids? What is the next step or court hearing process for David and Louise? I understand that there is going to be a Termination of Parental Rights hearing, regardless of whether or not this goes to trial.

Satch

I haven’t been able to find anything new. :-/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Any updates on the kids? What is the next step or court hearing process for David and Louise? I understand that there is going to be a Termination of Parental Rights hearing, regardless of whether or not this goes to trial.

Satch

Termination of Parental Rights doesn't typically happen before 12 - 18 months after the child(ren) have been placed into care, to allow the parents the opportunity to ameliorate the issues that brought the kid(s) into the system. However, there are exceptions to his time line and one of them is if the crimes are so heinous that the children's health, safety, or welfare will be compromised if placed back with the parents and the State feels there is no way to remedy these deficiencies with appropriate services. It will be interesting to see how long the parents will be incarcerated (even just pending trial) and how long CPS will wait to see if there would even be enough time for the parents to receive appropriate services while the 18 months is counting down.
 
We discussed this a few weeks ago, but it is still an interesting topic. I believe that the “Public Guardian” is not living with them. (She has a life of her own.) She is just supervising their care. I don’t think we know for sure if they have been moved to an established “group home” or whether a house was made available especially for them, but my understanding is that there is some “support staff.”

More recent reports by the young people’s lawyer indicate that the young people are learning to take care of and make choices for themselves and that they are looking into further academic education so as to earn the GED and attend college. The young people seem content and positive about the future in their new location.

While I was very concerned to hear that they were not going to be allowed any contact at all with the Corona hospital staff after discharge, I have since wondered if they have indeed been “forbidden” all contact. We know that the hospital staff was not told where the 7 were going to be and that they were told they couldn’t visit or help the young people. But no where has it said that the young people can’t stay in touch through skype or email.

The CEO of the hospital is the only source we have for the allegation that the 7 had to “cut contact and ties” with the hospital staff. It was also the CEO who claimed that psychologists had counseled against it and the young people’s lawyer had opposed the “separation.” It is worth noting that the lawyer has said no such thing publicly and that we know that the lawyer (at the young people’s request, presumably) supported their discharge from the hospital.

The issue appears to have been that Corona hospital wanted to be involved in the “transition plan” but they were excluded. The CEO, who had become fond of the young people (and who may have hoped for more revenue and good publicity from the case), was disappointed. The staff, which had been going “over and above” their duties to the young people (buying them clothes, doing their laundry) may have hoped that they could continue helping — maybe take the young people shopping of teach them to cook, but, realistically, it is perfectly usual for nursing staff to lose contact with patients after discharge.

We don’t know why the “transition” didn’t include Corona and its staff. One possibility ( which we all fear) is that the Public Guardian is on some power kick and/or totally insensitive to the young people’s need for continuity. Another possibility is that the Public Guardian was advised by experts that the 7 were becoming too emotionally dependent on the hospital staff and judged that a “clean break” was appropriate.

There may also have been concern about the CEO’s habit of giving news conferences. Although he just skirted clear of HIIPA violations, I am not sure that it was appropriate for him to reveal that the young people didn’t know what a toothbrush was for and that they had to be taught how to bathe/wash themselves. (In contrast, we got no such reports from Riverside Hospital, where the 6 minors were.)

A further reason (maybe even the main reason) for not including Corona in the transition/ maintaining ties between the hospital and the young people may have been geographic. If their new home is not near the hospital, it does not make practical sense to have their physical therapy, occupational therapy and psychological therapy to continue out of Corona.

In any case, I agree that the Public Guardian has a lot of power, but I am encouraged to hear that the young people are doing well in their new surroundings. A recent report on People talks about their plans.
http://people.com/crime/house-of-horrors-turpin-siblings-want-get-ged-college/

I am not sure if this was posted before.

(By the way, the lawyer quoted n this article is “Mason,” but earlier the young people’s lawyer [who spoke for them initially, and escorted them from the hospital)] was “Osborne” if I remember correctly. There may be two lawyers [or more] involved, or there has been a switch. Superior WS sleuths may know.)

Nice to hear these children have a positive outlook and are enjoying the simple pleasures in life now. It's going to be a long process to heal mentally and physically from the damage their so called "parents" inflicted on them. The tables have turned and my those so called "parents" reap what they sow. MOO.
 
Any updates on the kids? What is the next step or court hearing process for David and Louise? I understand that there is going to be a Termination of Parental Rights hearing, regardless of whether or not this goes to trial.

Satch

I don't know how to quote posts from closed threads but, on the previous thread SkipperKey3 said that the felony settlement status conference would take place on May 4, and the preliminary hearing on May 14. Hope it helps.
 
Two Screenshots of my television right now on the Oxygen Channel. I looked it up and I don't see a date for it yet on the guide. A two hour special coming soon.

20180409_235540_001.jpg

20180409_235459.jpg
 
Two Screenshots of my television right now on the Oxygen Channel. I looked it up and I don't see a date for it yet on the guide. A two hour special coming soon.

attachment.php


attachment.php

I wonder if it's going to provide some new info.
 
We discussed this a few weeks ago, but it is still an interesting topic. I believe that the “Public Guardian” is not living with them. (She has a life of her own.) She is just supervising their care. I don’t think we know for sure if they have been moved to an established “group home” or whether a house was made available especially for them, but my understanding is that there is some “support staff.”

More recent reports by the young people’s lawyer indicate that the young people are learning to take care of and make choices for themselves and that they are looking into further academic education so as to earn the GED and attend college. The young people seem content and positive about the future in their new location.

While I was very concerned to hear that they were not going to be allowed any contact at all with the Corona hospital staff after discharge, I have since wondered if they have indeed been “forbidden” all contact. We know that the hospital staff was not told where the 7 were going to be and that they were told they couldn’t visit or help the young people. But no where has it said that the young people can’t stay in touch through skype or email.

The CEO of the hospital is the only source we have for the allegation that the 7 had to “cut contact and ties” with the hospital staff. It was also the CEO who claimed that psychologists had counseled against it and the young people’s lawyer had opposed the “separation.” It is worth noting that the lawyer has said no such thing publicly and that we know that the lawyer (at the young people’s request, presumably) supported their discharge from the hospital.

The issue appears to have been that Corona hospital wanted to be involved in the “transition plan” but they were excluded. The CEO, who had become fond of the young people (and who may have hoped for more revenue and good publicity from the case), was disappointed. The staff, which had been going “over and above” their duties to the young people (buying them clothes, doing their laundry) may have hoped that they could continue helping — maybe take the young people shopping of teach them to cook, but, realistically, it is perfectly usual for nursing staff to lose contact with patients after discharge.

We don’t know why the “transition” didn’t include Corona and its staff. One possibility ( which we all fear) is that the Public Guardian is on some power kick and/or totally insensitive to the young people’s need for continuity. Another possibility is that the Public Guardian was advised by experts that the 7 were becoming too emotionally dependent on the hospital staff and judged that a “clean break” was appropriate.

There may also have been concern about the CEO’s habit of giving news conferences. Although he just skirted clear of HIIPA violations, I am not sure that it was appropriate for him to reveal that the young people didn’t know what a toothbrush was for and that they had to be taught how to bathe/wash themselves. (In contrast, we got no such reports from Riverside Hospital, where the 6 minors were.)

A further reason (maybe even the main reason) for not including Corona in the transition/ maintaining ties between the hospital and the young people may have been geographic. If their new home is not near the hospital, it does not make practical sense to have their physical therapy, occupational therapy and psychological therapy to continue out of Corona.

In any case, I agree that the Public Guardian has a lot of power, but I am encouraged to hear that the young people are doing well in their new surroundings. A recent report on People talks about their plans.
http://people.com/crime/house-of-horrors-turpin-siblings-want-get-ged-college/

I am not sure if this was posted before.

(By the way, the lawyer quoted n this article is “Mason,” but earlier the young people’s lawyer [who spoke for them initially, and escorted them from the hospital)] was “Osborne” if I remember correctly. There may be two lawyers [or more] involved, or there has been a switch. Superior WS sleuths may know.)

:goodpost:

You make a lot of good points I hadn't considered.

I think my biggest problem is that there hasn't been any explanation for the move. The public guardian is not required to give an explanation but I don't think it would hurt. But what do I know lol

These children have touched the hearts of millions. I think making changes and acting as the guardian can be a good thing but some insight into the reasonings would help everyone understand.

I hope this was the right decision and the kids will flourish. They may have the opportunity to reach back out to the staff after the transitional period, who knows.

Giving these kids a voice and choices should be top priority.
 
:goodpost:

You make a lot of good points I hadn't considered.

I think my biggest problem is that there hasn't been any explanation for the move. The public guardian is not required to give an explanation but I don't think it would hurt. But what do I know lol

These children have touched the hearts of millions. I think making changes and acting as the guardian can be a good thing but some insight into the reasonings would help everyone understand.

I hope this was the right decision and the kids will flourish. They may have the opportunity to reach back out to the staff after the transitional period, who knows.

Giving these kids a voice and choices should be top priority.

I agree, and like you I would like to know more. Unfortunately, precisely because the kids’ needs come first, their need for privacy trumps our “need” to know they are doing ok. We can only hope.

I would like to know more about their physical condition. Are any of them suffering major problems? How bad is the nerve damage that some have? What is the prognosis for the future from the medical stand point?

I would like to hear if the ones in foster care get to see the older ones in person. I’d like to know if child 12 is doing okay in foster placement with the toddler (child 13) or if 12 wants to be with her next youngest (child 11) and the others. I want to know if 8 (the 17 year old) is content or if she is counting the days until she is no longer in foster care.

I’d like to know about their schooling. Have the kids in foster care started public school? Do they get tutoring?

I am wondering if the extended family members have been in touch. And I am wondering if such contact will be good or bad in the long run.

Like you, I want to know that they are happy and healthy, learning and moving forward.

But it is none of my business. So I watch for news and at the same time allow that I probably won’t get answers to my questions. ;)
 
I agree, and like you I would like to know more. Unfortunately, precisely because the kids’ needs come first, their need for privacy trumps our “need” to know they are doing ok. We can only hope.

I would like to know more about their physical condition. Are any of them suffering major problems? How bad is the nerve damage that some have? What is the prognosis for the future from the medical stand point?

I would like to hear if the ones in foster care get to see the older ones in person. I’d like to know if child 12 is doing okay in foster placement with the toddler (child 13) or if 12 wants to be with her next youngest (child 11) and the others. I want to know if 8 (the 17 year old) is content or if she is counting the days until she is no longer in foster care.

I’d like to know about their schooling. Have the kids in foster care started public school? Do they get tutoring?

I am wondering if the extended family members have been in touch. And I am wondering if such contact will be good or bad in the long run.

Like you, I want to know that they are happy and healthy, learning and moving forward.

But it is none of my business. So I watch for news and at the same time allow that I probably won’t get answers to my questions. ;)

I don't think the extended family was allowed to contact them, at least LT's sister was not allowed to visit the adults at the hospital. I'm guessing it's not such a good idea for that sister to visit any of the children since she visited both LT and DT in jail and was at the last Court hearing. The children might have to take the stand so, it's probably not such a good idea to let anyone near them that could pressure them to not go against the parents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
2,468
Total visitors
2,620

Forum statistics

Threads
602,369
Messages
18,139,807
Members
231,370
Latest member
AnnemarieNL
Back
Top