GUILTY FL - Cherish Perrywinkle, 8, Jacksonville, 21 June 2013 #3

[Magdalyn]

:scared:

Yes, I just used "choice" to mean something that I did voluntarily, not something that happened TO me or I was forced to do. I didn't mean to minimize the issue at all.

:seeya: Oh, I wasn't technically speaking to your post. Fer realz. I quite agreed with your post, actually! :hug:

I was speaking to any and all posts that state the general, "Haven't we all made mistakes/made poor choices in life?" posts.

IMO, I actually thought you emphasized the point that we all have made mistakes and/or the wrong choices from time to time. But what the Sam Hill does that have to do with RP? If that's what you meant, :rockon:

I was actually trying (maybe failing!) to put a finer point on your most excellent subtle point: Endangerment isn't a 'mistake' or a poor 'choice' as a few (not you!) on the board seem to be implying it is. It's a crime.

 

[PlainJaneDoe]

:seeya: Oh, I wasn't technically speaking to your post. Fer realz. I quite agreed with your post, actually! :hug:

I was speaking to any and all posts that state the general, "Haven't we all made mistakes/made poor choices in life?" posts.

IMO, I actually thought you emphasized the point that we all have made mistakes and/or the wrong choices from time to time. But what the Sam Hill does that have to do with RP? If that's what you meant, :rockon:

I was actually trying (maybe failing!) to put a finer point on your most excellent subtle point: Endangerment isn't a 'mistake' or a poor 'choice' as a few (not you!) on the board seem to be implying it is. It's a crime.

Haha I see you quoted me before I had a chance to edit out that spinny emoticon! You didn't fail at all. And yes you got my meaning right on.

 

[Magdalyn]

Haha I see you quoted me before I had a chance to edit out that spinny emoticon! You didn't fail at all. And yes you got my meaning right on.

Aw, why would you take out the confuzzled/discombobulated (how I see him!) emoticon? He's one of my favorites! :scared:

 

[my_tee_mouse]

What? You only realised after Raine did it, what could happen if you hand your child over to an RSO?

Was it really a "mistake" you might have made, had this not happened? I really don't think so.

Funnily enough, I don't think there are many mums who need to learn from Raine.

And as for parents being "lucky" to be able to tuck their children in bed tonight - it isn't anything to do with luck. I tucked my sons up tonight, because I've properly looked after them today, same as I do every day. That goes for the vast majority of parents too. The only reason Raine can't do that tonight, or any other night, is because her desire for a few cheap dresses was more powerful than her maternal instinct.

Living with her mistake might be harder than prison, but its still a hell of a lot easier than Cherish's last minutes were.

I applaud your post. And I'm in the corner with the rest of us who do not need to learn a thing from the likes of RP:

Today I took one of my grandkids for her "Special Day with Grandmomma." Part of that day included a picnic and play at a local park. While we were there other people arrived, including one man who came alone and sat on top of a picnic table watching the children play. When I heard the other group of people say they were about to leave, I told my granddaughter we needed to leave too. When she asked why (because we had not done everything we had discussed doing there yet), I explained that I was not comfortable with it being just her, me, and the lone man.

My son and I discussed it later. We discussed the fact that it is sad that we live in a world where innocent people have to be looked upon as potential dangers...but we agreed it is necessary. My son said I made the right decision, including explaining to DGD the reason we were leaving. The man might have been there for nothing more than to see kids playing because he missed his own grandkids, but I was not about to take a chance.

By the same token, I am always careful what I say to other people's kids, and I never touch them unless a parent is in distress and asks for my help. I want those kids to respect the fact that I am a stranger and do not have the right to touch them without permission*, nor am I a "friend" just because I speak to them nicely. This has been my policy for a long time now.


*Insert anything that comes to mind about RP giving DS permission that you wish here.

 

[MadamReporter]

I'm a little surprised that the reporter who wrote the article apparently made no effort to contact the judge and veirfy the existence and the contents of the letter.

This article was HORRENDOUS, poorly-written, and irresponsible. Among the many highlights, I'd say my favorite is the 3.5 hours he conveniently left out of the article from meeting in Dollar General to being 2 hours into their shopping trip at Walmart...you know, the most crucial time. I also loved when Rayne was rifling through her daughter's panty drawer in front of the reporter. Still class all the way, Rayne. Class and boundaries.

 

[jjenny]

But read closely: The JUDGE granted unsupervised visits. The JUDGE. Again. How many times does DCF/CPS/DHS get the blame when the children are returned to unfit parents, despite the agency's best efforts? Wonder how efficiently DCF/CPS/DHS would run and how many children would be in safer situations if JUDGES were left out of the equation?

I don't see any "best efforts" by the agency. It clearly states in the article that foster care agency decided it was time for reunification.
I presume that's the reason the judge allowed visits.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I don't see any "best efforts" by the agency. It clearly states in the article that foster care agency decided it was time for reunification.
I presume that's the reason the judge allowed visits.

That was a private foster care agency, though. It wasn't DCF.

 

[nikb]

Florida is well-known for their poor run DCS dept. as we have seen in so many cases. These 4 children that were returned to unfit parents, by JUDGES, reminds me of the RSO's that are being turned loose early by JUDGES!

It appears no one is looking out for the children in Florida! Which, IMO, RP needs to have 3 charges of child-endangerment filed against her! She put all 3 children in danger with her actions even though the monster was interested in only Cherish. It baffles me as to why she is not being charged with something.

BBM I wonder if he was interested in only Cherish, or if he was interested in whichever child he could get alone or get to come with him. She might've been the most likely candidate based on her age. Not that it matters really, but I agree with your point that all 3 kids were in serious danger that night.

 

[SouthAussie]

See Recent Posts By Others from 8 July at 20:02

https://www.facebook.com/InMemoryOfCherishPerrywinkle


ETA: Comment has been removed now. No Stone Unturned outlines it below ..

 

[No Stone Unturned]

For those of who you don't have a FB, ^^ comment basically says that they are raising money for the Perrywinkle family because they are set to lose their home on July 30.
One commenter is disgusted because both parents are able to work, the two girls are in state custody (therefore not homeless), and they are using Cherish's name to fund raise.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

For those of who you don't have a FB, ^^ comment basically says that they are raising money for the Perrywinkle family because they are set to lose their home on July 30.
One commenter is disgusted because both parents are able to work, the two girls are in state custody (therefore not homeless), and they are using Cherish's name to fund raise.

Ugh! I have no words.........


smh


:banghead:

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

For those of who you don't have a FB, ^^ comment basically says that they are raising money for the Perrywinkle family because they are set to lose their home on July 30.
One commenter is disgusted because both parents are able to work, the two girls are in state custody (therefore not homeless), and they are using Cherish's name to fund raise.

OFGS.....Why am I not surprised......

 

[jjenny]

That was a private foster care agency, though. It wasn't DCF.

It was foster care agency contracted by DCF.
"CORAL SPRINGS (CBSMiami) – A Broward court judge is blasting the Department of Children and Families and its contracted ‘foster care’ operator ChildNet for not doing enough to protect a four year old child who died Monday."
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/06/14/court-hearing-on-suspicious-death-of-coral-springs-4-year-old/

 

[peedoffinny]

I can't believe that some people want to give the mother a pass. If there was a room full of gasoline and at the doorway, there were lit torches, would it be OK for a mother to send their kid in the room? If the kid went in and the room blew up, would you excuse that mother because of the bad decision???? To me, I don't see any difference between letting your child go in that room or with that monster. NO EXCUSES.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

It was foster care agency contracted by DCF.
"CORAL SPRINGS (CBSMiami) – A Broward court judge is blasting the Department of Children and Families and its contracted ‘foster care’ operator ChildNet for not doing enough to protect a four year old child who died Monday."
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/06/14/court-hearing-on-suspicious-death-of-coral-springs-4-year-old/

I understand that. But again, it was that agency and the judge...not DCF. DCF should definitely reevaluate their use of ChildNet's "services," for sure. But we need to place blame where it should lie. There is nothing that I've seen that said that in that case DCF actively agreed to and encouraged the decisions made.

This thread is about Cherish. I'll respectfully not continue in this particular discussion, because it is taking the focus off her and her situation. Besides, I'm not much into flogging dead equines.

 

[jjenny]

I understand that. But again, it was that agency and the judge...not DCF. DCF should definitely reevaluate their use of ChildNet's "services," for sure. But we need to place blame where it should lie. There is nothing that I've seen that said that in that case DCF actively agreed to and encouraged the decisions made.

This thread is about Cherish. I'll respectfully not continue in this particular discussion, because it is taking the focus off her and her situation. Besides, I'm not much into flogging dead equines.

I agree it's off topic, but the first paragraph of the article I linked specifically mentions DCF and judge blasting it for not doing enough to protect the child.

 

[vasportsmom]

I agree it's off topic, but the first paragraph of the article I linked specifically mentions DCF and judge blasting it for not doing enough to protect the child.

I don't think this discussion is off topic at all (and I'm the queen of O/T). It seems pretty clear that the court system failed Cherish and the delay in DCF removing the other kids astonishes me. FL has a history of this and maybe it is time to take a long, hard look at why that is still happening.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

I don't think this discussion is off topic at all (and I'm the queen of O/T). It seems pretty clear that the court system failed Cherish and the delay in DCF removing the other kids astonishes me. FL has a history of this and maybe it is time to take a long, hard look at why that is still happening.

My reference to the convo being O/T was the fact that the case being discussed was not Cherish's case but the case of another child.

As for Cherish's particular case: I agree 100% that the court system failed Cherish...the evaluator stated that Cherish should not be with her mother and in fact feared for Cherish if she were left with her mother. As for getting the younger siblings out of there ASAP, I was one of those hopping up and down to that end. IIRC, there have been implications that the fact that so many in the public were doing the "poor RP" thing kept DCF from stepping in sooner, and that is an IMO as well. Guess we "get 'em outta there's" should have stomped and screamed louder, although I don't know how we could have!

ETA: As for DCF's history: Obviously we have a number of FL members who firmly believe this, and I will certainly accept your collective good judgment. And for the record, I don't think this problem is isolated to FL. I think the national paradigm should be reevaluated: The "keep the kids in the home" and "get the kids back to their families" policies have roots in the days of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl era. Kids were forced to leave their families since the families simply could not afford to feed them. However, the children were adopted out, so when the families got back on their feet...tough luck. Now days, however, we have different family problems which too often make it unsafe to keep kids in the home or return them quickly; but paradigms shift slowly. So yes, I agree totally that it's time to revamp the paradigm and the procedures that go along with it in all states and on all levels, be it through judicial procedures, state agencies, or private agencies.

 

[mikeysmommom]

I understand that. But again, it was that agency and the judge...not DCF. DCF should definitely reevaluate their use of ChildNet's "services," for sure. But we need to place blame where it should lie. There is nothing that I've seen that said that in that case DCF actively agreed to and encouraged the decisions made.

This thread is about Cherish. I'll respectfully not continue in this particular discussion, because it is taking the focus off her and her situation. Besides, I'm not much into flogging dead equines.

In my own personal situation in NJ,the family court Judge would not even talk to my son after he filed an emergency application to not return his son to the mom after his son 4 at the time and his 7 yr old sister(not my sons child)spoke out about being physically and emotionally abused and had naked pics then by moms new BF.The judge said he would do nothing until DCF finished investigation.So here in NJ the judges listen to what DCF determines .they have all the control.My grandson and his sis still have an open case and listed as high risk of child abuse! I have now seen why all these kids die,noone is over DCF no one! I even called FBI because of naked pics kids said he took but I had no proof in hand and the caseworker went without police to ask the abuser if he took pics of course he denied it! In NJ its cal DYFS! What a F ed up way to save kids more likely a killer of kids because no matter how many family plans mom breaks they ignore doing anything to her or removing 2 kids from an abusive home!

 

[mikeysmommom]

There are cases here that I follow knowing "there but for the grace of <insert deity here> go I". This is NOT one of those cases. Cherish isn't dead because a monster got to her despite her parent's best efforts. Cherish isn't dead because RP did everything right and it wasn't enough. Cherish is dead because her mother didn't even make an effort. I don't know a single person that would have made the choices Rayne made that night. If she had did her job as a parent then BJ would be tucking his baby girl in tonight. Yes, DS may have got to another child and we would be reading about her now or maybe he would have gotten caught trying and would be behind bars for that alone. We will never know because Rayne led her child into the lions' den.

If I knew any one who made choices like RP I would be on the phone in a NY minute screaming for help for her children! Oh wait I did know one .She was living rent free in her deceased moms house just had to pay 100 a month taxes and utility bills but refused to work and had her kids living with out water or electricity or heat.I called authorities after telling the mom I would hire her at a very easy job running a very small dollar store that I manage.She refused even when I said I would drive her to and from work .It was half mile from the house! She had no problems walking up to liquor store for her smokes and brandy! She told me someone called and thank God he came in daylight and never tried to turn on a light or turn the water on.She also had started with 2 cats and wound up with about 30, they used the heat resisters as a litter box.She also bought the green hot dogs marked down to a dollar and fed them to her children!
:banghead:The kids were showering by a neighbors hose in the back yard but neither child told how they were living. I then called her brother after I sluethed him and he took the kids and threw her out!