Crystal S., Haleigh's mother #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Based on the reactions on the faces of LE at the last presser...I am thinking that it may be LE that has advised Crystal to be prepared to go to court for an emergency order for temporary custody. If there are charges against either Misty or Ron forthcoming and no previous arrangements are in place, RJ could end up in foster care for a period of time while waiting for the court to schedule a hearing.
 
Hmmmmmmmm what's worse? Putting a little boy on tv or a public proposal and wedding with a teen girlfriend and a subsequent honeymoon to NYC when your little girl has been missing for 31 days.

I don't blame Crystal one bit for exploring her options with an attorney's guidance.

Too many questions. And they just keep on coming- but answers are nowhere to be found.
There is no question it is putting Rj on television knowing him to be a possible witness to the kidnapping of his sister and tainting the testimony by asking leading questions. There is simply no contest.
 
There is no question it is putting Rj on television knowing him to be a possible witness to the kidnapping of his sister and tainting the testimony by asking leading questions. There is simply no contest.

I completely understand your concerns here, but once again, this is assuming that there was a kidnapping. At this point in time, LE has made it clear that they can not call this an abduction or a kidnapping. It is a MISSING CHILD and "everyone is still a suspect".
 
Where was her concern when she plastered RJ face on prime tv stating he seen the kidnapper?

I get your point but while it may not--based upon info we know--have been a choice I could now personally envision or advise making, I'm not privy to all the factors. If she felt the courts had failed the children and made the wrong decision, had she genuine concerns about children remaining in dad's environment, and felt this was the reason for Haleigh's disappearance, or felt those risks weren't being taken seriously maybe she agreed to the interview as a means of highlighting those dangers or keeping the public's attention focused on her daughter's case. I don't know all the factors she had to weigh, but I hope to never be in a position to have to weigh the risks to one child against the survival of another. :( He sure is a cute little fellow. JMO

:parrot:
 
I think mattress in dad's room, frame in the other, arrangement was likely to appear compliant w CPS should they show up, as mattress could be easily moved to create impression Haleigh slept in own separate room.



What mom seems to be doing is what I (or I would expect and hope any other reasonably prudent parent) would do once one of their children had already gone inexplicably missing from the child's home, in which consistently no adult was present, in a situation where no one's yet cleared and no arrest has been made, and we understood therefore our other child to also still be at risk--and have the child's present caregiving and living environment changed for the protection of the children. I mean dad should want his son safe too right and if mom can now prove--w/ newfound assistance of fair counsel and equal representation finally herself like dad's always had--that she can offer a safer, more secure home, conducive daytime schedule, transportation as well as improved supervision over dad's childbride, then he should want what's safest for Junior. And any parent who has no concerns for their other child under the circumstances is irresponsible. JMO

:parrot:
I doubt that Ronald will work nights anymore and will be home with Rj at night to protect him from now on. If Ronald had been home, I don't believe we would be here discussing Haleigh. We would probably be talking about what a hero he was to shoot the that tried to take his daughter instead.

I would love for someone to ask Mr. Smart why his other children shouldn't be taken away because he was home and his daughter was taken from right under his nose. Or possibly M. Klaas could answer this instead? Maybe the Van Dams would like to throw in their opinion on the matter, too? I guess they were all negligent in the care of their children since they were supposed to be considered safe in their homes.

BTW~ Crystal hasn't been cleared either! At least we do know Ronald has an alibi so far.
 
I get your point but while it may not--based upon info we know--have been a choice I would personally envision or advise making, I'm not privy to all the factors. If she felt the courts had failed the children and made the wrong decision, and she had genuine concerns about children remaining in dad's environment and felt it was the reason for Haleigh's disappearance maybe she agreed to the interview as a means of keeping the public's attention focused on her daughter's case. I don't know all the factors, but I hope to never be in a position to have to weigh the risks to one child against the survival of another. :( JMO

:parrot:
Crystal didn't "weigh" anything! She didn't think twice about what she did to Rj or Haleigh when she did that interview. She put them both at risk and this had nothing to do with the custody issue at all. Her actions went directly against what LE asked her to do (not to ask him questions) in their effort to protect Rj and to protect their investigation into what happened to Haleigh. :furious:
 
<respectfully snipped for space>
BTW~ Crystal hasn't been cleared either! At least we do know Ronald has an alibi so far.

Yes, RC has what would seem to be an EXCELLENT alibi.
Why hasn't he been cleared? :confused:

Maybe RC wasn't where he said he was.

It would be easier to clear RC than anyone else involved, if he was actually at work.

I really feel like mothers are held to much higher standards than fathers. That is where a lot of the hypocrisy is coming from. No one would even bat an eye at the custody arrangement if it were the other way around. People just expect way more from mothers.

I don;t think Crystal had anything to do with this. Why leave Butterbean?
 
ANd in regards to other families, such as the Klasses, getting lumped in with this...ugh!!

Those were COMPLETELY different circumstances. There were Adult Parents present. There were witnesses. There were signs of an abduction.

The Klasses and others were not irresponsible. If my husband and I leave for the night, and leave my 6 year old and 1 year old to fend for themselves, and one of them goes missing, you bet CSD would take the other kid. Just because there was a teen allegedly at home when it happened, doesn't make it much better IMO

If RC would have had better judgment perhaps HC would still be with him.
I don;t blame Crystal ONE BIT for trying to get her other child out of that dangerous situation!! In fact, I have seen lots of trash talk that she didn't fight hard enough for her kids. Now that she is trying to get JR people are getting mad about that. This Mama can't win!!

IMOO
 
I doubt that Ronald will work nights anymore and will be home with Rj at night to protect him from now on. If Ronald had been home, I don't believe we would be here discussing Haleigh. We would probably be talking about what a hero he was to shoot the that tried to take his daughter instead.

I would love for someone to ask Mr. Smart why his other children shouldn't be taken away because he was home and his daughter was taken from right under his nose. Or possibly M. Klaas could answer this instead? Maybe the Van Dams would like to throw in their opinion on the matter, too? I guess they were all negligent in the care of their children since they were supposed to be considered safe in their homes.

BTW~ Crystal hasn't been cleared either! At least we do know Ronald has an alibi so far.

Quite simple: their children didn't disappear when their father left them in the care of a child with whom he had a relationship that LE would consider illegal, who may have had a SO in the home at some point that evening. I'm guessing if the Smarts, Klaas' or Van Dam's had more than even one of those variables in play, there WOULD be some action taken.
 
Quite simple: their children didn't disappear when their father left them in the care of a child with whom he had a relationship that LE would consider illegal, who may have had a SO in the home at some point that evening. I'm guessing if the Smarts, Klaas' or Van Dam's had more than even one of those variables in play, there WOULD be some action taken.


Putting Misty and Ron's sexual relationship aside, Misty is old enough by Florida law to watch the kids. So no more about that, please?

There is thread after thread of Ron and Misty bashing. But if anyone says anything against Crystal, with proof, then it gets deleted or the person gets bashed and called names. I thought Ron was a victim of having his daughter kidnapped. According to the rules on this site we are suppose to by sympathetic to him. Not tear him apart with rumor and innuendo.:(
 
I think mattress in dad's room, frame in the other, arrangement was likely to appear compliant w CPS should they show up, as mattress could be easily moved to create impression Haleigh slept in own separate room.



What mom seems to be doing is what I (or I would expect and hope any other reasonably prudent parent) would do once one of their children had already gone inexplicably missing from the child's home, in which consistently no adult was present, in a situation where no one's yet cleared and no arrest has been made, and we understood therefore our other child to also still be at risk--and have the child's present caregiving and living environment changed for the protection of the children. I mean dad should want his son safe too right and if mom can now prove--w/ newfound assistance of fair counsel and equal representation finally herself like dad's always had--that she can offer a safer, more secure home, conducive daytime schedule, transportation as well as improved supervision over dad's childbride, then he should want what's safest for Junior. And any parent who has no concerns for their other child under the circumstances is irresponsible. JMO

:parrot:

This was very well said.
 
I doubt that Ronald will work nights anymore and will be home with Rj at night to protect him from now on. If Ronald had been home, I don't believe we would be here discussing Haleigh. We would probably be talking about what a hero he was to shoot the that tried to take his daughter instead.

I would love for someone to ask Mr. Smart why his other children shouldn't be taken away because he was home and his daughter was taken from right under his nose. Or possibly M. Klaas could answer this instead? Maybe the Van Dams would like to throw in their opinion on the matter, too? I guess they were all negligent in the care of their children since they were supposed to be considered safe in their homes.

BTW~ Crystal hasn't been cleared either! At least we do know Ronald has an alibi so far.

And you started out so reasonably lol... ;) As I recall, neither Ed Smart (Mark Klaas, nor Brenda VanDaam) had histories of drug use (possession, sale, or drug vehicles), weapons violations, DV, SA, associations, nor any other factors which would have placed other children in harm's way. :rolleyes: And there is no question that it is from dad's custody, and Misty's "supervision," that Haleigh in fact went missing. JMO

:parrot:
 
Putting Misty and Ron's sexual relationship aside, Misty is old enough by Florida law to watch the kids. So no more about that, please?(
snip

I agree...When I was Mistys age(even younger) I made all my spending money babysitting for the neighbors children. Sometimes it was 3-4 am before parents got home from their partying. At that time I made a whole $.50 an hour
 
snip

I agree...When I was Mistys age(even younger) I made all my spending money babysitting for the neighbors children. Sometimes it was 3-4 am before parents got home from their partying. At that time I made a whole $.50 an hour

But it isn't about babysitting. It's about having a child taken (allegedly) right out from under your nose. Isn't it? I'm going to assume that those of us who have babysat in the past have never had that happen. And she wasn't babysitting. She lived there. She was their caregiver. She was their ONLY caregiver in the home at that time.
 
But it isn't about babysitting. It's about having a child taken (allegedly) right out from under your nose. Isn't it? I'm going to assume that those of us who have babysat in the past have never had that happen. And she wasn't babysitting. She lived there. She was their caregiver. She was their ONLY caregiver in the home at that time.

With that kind of logic, you put the blame on every abduction or missing person on the parent and/or caregiver. It could and has happened to other people no matter what age they are.

I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, I just can't see it from your view. I might lose a lot more respect here but I'm gonna let one of my skeletons out of the closet.

I was the mother of 2 by the time I was 16. And yes they are my biological children.
 
With that kind of logic, you put the blame on every abduction or missing person on the parent and/or caregiver. It could and has happened to other people no matter what age they are.

I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, I just can't see it from your view. I might lose a lot more respect here but I'm gonna let one of my skeletons out of the closet.

I was the mother of 2 by the time I was 16. And yes they are my biological children.


No respect lost here in my eyes Chad3, but then again I was a Mother at 17. :)
 
With that kind of logic, you put the blame on every abduction or missing person on the parent and/or caregiver. It could and has happened to other people no matter what age they are.

I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, I just can't see it from your view. I might lose a lot more respect here but I'm gonna let one of my skeletons out of the closet.

I was the mother of 2 by the time I was 16. And yes they are my biological children.

With all of the faults I do have, loosing respect for you because you shared that with us...is not one of them. :)
 
With that kind of logic, you put the blame on every abduction or missing person on the parent and/or caregiver. It could and has happened to other people no matter what age they are.

I'm not trying to be argumentative about it, I just can't see it from your view. I might lose a lot more respect here but I'm gonna let one of my skeletons out of the closet.

I was the mother of 2 by the time I was 16. And yes they are my biological children.

No respect lost here either!
 
Well, I guess if the point is that other people can have lasting relationships when they marry early, or that they can be good parents when they have children at a young age, I will say that is absolutely true and I laud every one of them that has done so. It wasn't that long ago in our human history when being Misty's age was considered nearly spinsterish to not be married. I was not speaking about any one of those people. I was speaking about this particular situation and the people involved in it.

On Misty's watch, she let a known SO into the house where two small children lived (not to mention that she herself was a victim in her past), she is now the wife of a man who she has lived with anywhere from September (some reports) or November (other reports) and who according to her mother has been asking to marry him for over 5 months---fresh at the beginning of the relationship (or at least the admitted beginning), but that relationship was a major source of conversation even here on this board about the fact that according to FL statutes, it could fall into the realm of statutory rape (given proof of a sexual relationship). So there is no leaving it aside for the moment. In this case, it seems quite pertinent. These two people make poor choices with regard to the children in their care. When someone mentioned other families with missing children, in the cases stated, I pointed out (because someone else made a comparison) that not one of them had made any of the MANY poor choices that the characters in this case have.

It is not bashing to state that these two made very very poor choices and a little girl is missing. I am not "choosing sides." I am commenting on THIS side of things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
110
Guests online
2,210
Total visitors
2,320

Forum statistics

Threads
601,353
Messages
18,123,262
Members
231,024
Latest member
australianwebsleuth
Back
Top