CA - Infant, 1, member of homeless family, died under an overpass near LA International Airport, 22 Dec 2023

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
* Van Cleave is the mother of 1-year-old Yayra Rutherford, who was found dead at an LAX bus stop on Dec. 22. Van Cleave said she'd been begging for housing help from the city of Los Angeles and other organizations for months before her baby's death.

*The godmother of the 1-year-old girl who was found dead near an LAX bus stop earlier this month says Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has failed her and her family in their search for housing.
 
MOO

Also, even if someone is in active addiction to drugs or alcohol, they still deserve housing and assistance. Especially if they are a parent to young children. It's so much harder if not impossible to go through detox and enter sobriety when you're sleeping in the elements and scraping by for your basic needs each day.
 
I’m stunned, what about shelters? Im confused about something. To my understanding getting permanent housing can take a time and applications but during that time there are shelters to stay in until solution is found. Why were they on streets? Wasn’t there a place for them temporarily until permanent solution is found? Are they too full? Sorry might be stupid questions but I’m in EU and we don’t have big homelessness problem and certainly having a child on streets would promote call to authorities immediately.
 
MOO

Also, even if someone is in active addiction to drugs or alcohol, they still deserve housing and assistance. Especially if they are a parent to young children. It's so much harder if not impossible to go through detox and enter sobriety when you're sleeping in the elements and scraping by for your basic needs each day.

One challenge, though, are you going to house drug addicts and alcoholics in the same shelters as families?

In the state where I live sec offenders who have been released from prison have a hard time getting housing. So the state makes arrangements for them to live in hotels. The problem is that unsuspecting famines stay in the hotels with their children. A local tv station did an investigation report where they filmed sex offenders in these hotels sitting in chairs poolside while young girls were playing near the pool.

Everyone deserves housing, even drug addicts and sex offenders. But IMO not in the same shelters as families.
 
I’m stunned, what about shelters? Im confused about something. To my understanding getting permanent housing can take a time and applications but during that time there are shelters to stay in until solution is found. Why were they on streets? Wasn’t there a place for them temporarily until permanent solution is found? Are they too full? Sorry might be stupid questions but I’m in EU and we don’t have big homelessness problem and certainly having a child on streets would promote call to authorities immediately.
Some people refuse to go to shelters. And you can’t force them to go if they would rather live on the street or in their vehicle.
 
One challenge, though, are you going to house drug addicts and alcoholics in the same shelters as families?

In the state where I live sec offenders who have been released from prison have a hard time getting housing. So the state makes arrangements for them to live in hotels. The problem is that unsuspecting famines stay in the hotels with their children. A local tv station did an investigation report where they filmed sex offenders in these hotels sitting in chairs poolside while young girls were playing near the pool.

Everyone deserves housing, even drug addicts and sex offenders. But IMO not in the same shelters as families.
Yes, that's why the housing first model has been proven to be successful.

People refuse shelters for the reasons I and others have stated in earlier comments. IMO it is dismissive and disingenuous to reduce this to "they refuse to go to shelters" when there are a variety of barriers preventing safe and constant access to shelters.

MOO :)
 
Some people do have both their heart and their wallet in the right place:


Thank you, Patrick Mahomes!

Kaiser-Permanente figured out that chronically ill people with a home improve, establish primary care, stay out of the Emergency Room, and save big health systems $$$$:


Can't find the article, but K-P's first complex was used to house ER 'frequent fliers'
with underlying health conditions who were experiencing homelessness. There is case management on-site to guide people toward health & self-sufficiency. Most qualified for a disability payment -- with some help with the paperwork.

K-P continues this effort, commendable, even though driven by their bottom line. The work facilitates healthier lifestyle choices.

Seems imho that a health system in LA (indeed, every city as a start) needs to go to school on K-P's work.

(I am involved at my local facility providing services for those in need. Too many people around here are convinced that the facility draws people to town, even delivers them by the busload. :rolleyes: Nope. )
 
In Chicago when the temperatures became bitter cold the police would “arrest” homeless living on the streets and force them to go to homeless shelters. But after the weather became less dangerous they couldn’t force them to stay and most would return to the life on the streets they preferred.

I moved away from Chicago area more than ten years ago so I don’t know if the police still do this.
 
I’m stunned, what about shelters? Im confused about something. To my understanding getting permanent housing can take a time and applications but during that time there are shelters to stay in until solution is found. Why were they on streets? Wasn’t there a place for them temporarily until permanent solution is found? Are they too full? Sorry might be stupid questions but I’m in EU and we don’t have big homelessness problem and certainly having a child on streets would promote call to authorities immediately.

Homelessness is a problem in the EU as well. And it is getting worse, not better, in both the US and EU.
 
From what I understand, the homeless population in California is at an all-time high for a whole bunch of reasons. I am assuming the cost of housing is a major one. I have to say I am not terribly surprised that an infant was on the street with her family. Our social services system is broken and many people just wish the homeless people would move somewhere else and be someone else’s problem or think they are lazy and should get a job. (Those are not my opinions.) Attitudes in this country suck.
 
One challenge, though, are you going to house drug addicts and alcoholics in the same shelters as families?

In the state where I live sec offenders who have been released from prison have a hard time getting housing. So the state makes arrangements for them to live in hotels. The problem is that unsuspecting famines stay in the hotels with their children. A local tv station did an investigation report where they filmed sex offenders in these hotels sitting in chairs poolside while young girls were playing near the pool.

Everyone deserves housing, even drug addicts and sex offenders. But IMO not in the same shelters as families.

You cannot compare people struggling with addiction to sexual offenders, IMO.
 
I’m stunned, what about shelters? Im confused about something. To my understanding getting permanent housing can take a time and applications but during that time there are shelters to stay in until solution is found. Why were they on streets? Wasn’t there a place for them temporarily until permanent solution is found? Are they too full? Sorry might be stupid questions but I’m in EU and we don’t have big homelessness problem and certainly having a child on streets would promote call to authorities immediately.

There are a number of reasons. Read the rest of the thread and you'll see it's not an easy answer. Shelters are usually too crowded, families are split up, or there's violence and crime in the shelter that keeps people away.
 
How absolutely disgraceful. Even if it turns out their homeless situation was more complicated than the mother is saying. It should be completely unacceptable for children to be allowed to sleep on the street or in a car. Where was children's services?

I am struggling to see how it is possible that having a baby and young children while street homeless isn't enough to classify them as in significant need of housing. Surely the state would be obligated to put them up in at least temporary accomodation? However I might just be looking at this from a European perspective. I certainly hope that this is a failure of policy not the policy itself.
This is a failure...somewhere...from a US perspective as well. Some oddities...

1) There should have been housing available. You do not typically see children in homeless encampments in LA...I live near many and walk by them regularly. In fact, I never see children. Ever. There are some women, but it's overwhelmingly men. But never children. I'm not knowledgeable on the options for women with children, but this story might get me to look into it further. I donate to an own organization that helps women in LA who don't have children (and they don't have to be victims of abuse), and I have to assume there are government resources and/or other charities available for women with children.
2) [I'm evidently wrong about this point, so I'm deleting it. I thought CPS would intervene if a child was sleeping on the streets, but evidently not according to another poster? But how do you safely supervise a baby when you're sleeping on the street? That said, it's legal to take your kids camping. In any event, I have nothing to offer on the CPS side of this. Might research more.]
3) What I read indicated that they actually slept at LAX, meaning they slept indoors. They were only at the bus stop during the day, when temperatures are in the low 60s. That is not normally a temperature that will kill a child, as the mother reportedly suggests.

While acknowledging the possibility of an undiagnosed heart condition, my pure speculation is that the baby accidentally ingested some drugs.
 
Last edited:
This is Los Angeles's procedure for parents with minor children who are homeless: "If you come across a family with minor children experiencing homelessness, have them call 211 and ask to be connected to the Coordinated Entry System for Families."


She says she did call 211 and got the run around. What that means is obviously unclear. [Remainder of this paragraph dbm.]

That said, this was not a baby sleeping on the street in the cold. Sleeping at LAX (which was smart) would be uncomfortable, but not unsafe...indoors, heated, lots of police, security, and travelers 24/7. Being outdoors in 60 degree weather at 9 am is uncomfortable, but not inherently unsafe. Something unsafe entered the picture (like I speculated above).
 
Last edited:
I didnt mean to say whole EU but rather where I am from/ living that isn’t a big issue. Nothing that one notices on daily basis.

I live in a medium-sized city in the EU and see homeless people regularly, especially downtown or near the main train station.

Sometimes people are requesting money but may have a home/shelter. Others are carrying enough with them that they definitely appear homeless.

I have seen people asleep on the street and attempts at hiding a tent, since it's not legal to just put up a tent.

As even "beginner" rental apartment prices are increasing at a ridiculous rate in my city, and the demand for housing keeps increasing, I believe the problem is getting worse where I am.
 
The article quoted on the first page of this thread states: "The investigation is ongoing but Yayra Rutherford’s family said she may have died because she was cold. They said she may still be alive today if just one of LA's homeless services had helped them with a place to stay." (Bbm)

In her news interview, she also mentioned the baby vomiting before dying. That's not a symptom of hypothermia.

60 degrees will not kill a baby. The recommended minimum indoor temperature is 65 degrees for a baby wearing light layers, but I have to assume there is more than a 5 degree difference between the ideal temperature range for a baby wearing light layers and cold enough to kill a baby from hypothermia in a matter of a few hours. Is the House Warm Enough for My Baby? | ERC.

Overnight, temperatures dropped to the mid-50s. Even if they went outside very early in the morning when it was still dark, a few hours in mid-50s temperatures is not likely to be dangerous to a one year old baby that is dry, has any sort of blanket, warm clothing, and/or body heat from a caregiver.

Homelessness didn't kill this baby, something else did. I have my guess (accidental ingestion of drugs), but we won't know until there is an autopsy, there are obviously other possibilities. Homelessness could have created the environment that led to whatever circumstance it was that caused the baby's death, but this baby didn't die from being outside in the cold.

With no additional information, I'm not casting blame on or criticizing the grieving family for saying she may have died from being out in the cold.

<modsnip>

All MOO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
223
Total visitors
314

Forum statistics

Threads
608,630
Messages
18,242,670
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top