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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
momrids6 said:
They would not be able to use "co-habitating" if she was receiving TANF, and/or she denied he lived with her.

The more relevant terms, such as Loser, Scum, Sperm Donor, Air Waster and Leech are not allowed to be used on those forms.
Click to expand...

Dcf would not use terms like that anyway. And when you are receiving tanf and/or food stamps, you are allowed to be living with someone else. They just see what type of relationship you have with that person before giving you cash assistance or food stamps. Dcf 'protective' investigations are separate from the 'welfare' department of dcf. But neither department in dcf would use 'that type' of terminology. Paramour, roommate, boyfriend, cohabitating, non related adults living in the same house; these are terms dcf uses. Besides what might be an air waster to you or I could very well be an important person to someone else. Since becoming involved with DV and child abuse issues, I have run across a lot of air wasters especially here in the last few months. But they are important to somebody, so i just basically chalk it up to some sort of trauma (physical or MENTAL) and hope that they can recover from whatever ails them.
 
neenna66 said:
When i was investigated by dcf due to my ex burning up their phone lines, they used this term about my boyfriend. I personally think it is used when a cw wants to give the appearance of something 'hinky' because in the same investigation, one cw used paramour, and the second used live in partner. The first cw (paramour cw use) wrote negative about me and was the cw with initial contact to my ex, the other one had initial contact with me.

But that is my opinion, I think cw's use the term paramour to create a sense of something illicit if you kwim?
Click to expand...

What you see as your cw's underground code, I see as more of a generational gap. It could just be that perhaps an older worker isn't up-to-speed on their political correctness. How many of our parents' generation know that it's now considered an insult to say "Oriental" or "midget" or "crippled"?
 
MadamReporter said:
What you see as your cw's underground code, I see as more of a generational gap. It could just be that perhaps an older worker isn't up-to-speed on their political correctness. How many of our parents' generation know that it's now considered an insult to say "Oriental" or "midget" or "crippled"?
Click to expand...

Actually I don't see it this way. I have heard cw's as young as their late 20's to 50's use this term. I am also friends with a cw and she told me that they often do it that way. I was confused as to why one cw said paramour and another said cohabitating unmarried. The one who said paramour was younger and the other cw was late 40's or early 50s. This was in the same investigation and was two different counties. Caseworkers know that their words will usually dictate whether a child is removed from a parent or not. So they use those words in their reports. There are times when you can read a report about the same person and wonder how two people see that person so differently. Paramour 'sounds' harsher to a judge than boyfriend or cohabitating unmarried. Paramour brings connotations of illicit sex and illegal activities.
 
Magdalyn said:
What's with this 'paramour' designation for Aharon?

:eek:kay:
Click to expand...

I am a Guardian Ad Litem for the State of Florida. We are instructed to use the term "paramour" and then list the person's name. Paramour is a term that describes people in a sexual relationship. This is necessary because of the same sex relationships. We are not to use the term Boyfriend/Girlfriend because this may confuse the court when reading our report. We certainly can not use "Live in Lover" or "Baby Daddy/Mama!"

My heart breaks for Cherish! So sad that some sorry piece of chit has taken, yet again, another promising and beautiful young life.

I am so relieved that the siblings were removed from RP's care. She sounds like a train wreak. I hope they have been appointed a Guardian Ad Litem who will see that they are given a safe home and some therapy. I am sure that they are totally confused about their missing big sister!

Dear God...Please Bless our Angel Cherish!
 
Paramour sounds as though it is a regional term. I didn’t understand it until I read that living together when unmarried is still illegal in Florida, so presumably they had to pick a 'nicer' legal term for the situation.

At least paramour is a nicer term than defacto, which is what we used to say in Australia before we started saying partner .. as in domestic partner (covers opposite and same sex couples). Partner is now the legal term here, and in a few states in the US.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_partnership
 
When Cherish left .. when the other two girls left ... no, Rayne, they didn't leave
 
SouthAussie said:
New article.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/cheris...eath/-/475880/21361604/-/7hpm8uz/-/index.html


Now, RP says she plans to do everything in her power to prevent what happened to her daughter from happening to another child. She's going to hope stricter laws will be put in place.
Click to expand...

It must be doubly devastating because it seems like it was in her power to prevent what happened to her daughter from happening to Cherish.

Random thoughts: While Mark Klaas may be a Class act they I think they could still try to spell his name right after all this time.

The reporter says RP agreed to talk to her now because she's on the verge of a custody fight and could lose her other children. Why? Are they more likely to give custody back to mothers who have been on the telly?
 
SouthAussie said:
New article.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/cheris...eath/-/475880/21361604/-/7hpm8uz/-/index.html


Now, RP says she plans to do everything in her power to prevent what happened to her daughter from happening to another child. She's going to hope stricter laws will be put in place.
Click to expand...

BBM

I agree with Rayne. Laws should be more strict.

I think child endangerment laws are currently pretty slack in Florida if you can put three small children in a strange man's seatless van, send a little girl to a dressing room with a strange man, TWICE, and send your child with a strange man toward the entrance/exit of a store and out of your sight....
and you DON'T get arrested.

If a daycare provider/private babysitter had done all these things, I'm thinking they would be charged. I don't think a person's biological link with the victim should mean they shouldn't have to pay in the same manner an unrelated caregiver would have to.

And I think if your extreme endangerment (such as willingly handing child off to a strange man, bringing your kid to your illicit drug buy, doing any drugs in the general vicinity of your kids, having kids with you when you're committing theft, or prostitution, etc.) of your child precipitates your child's abduction, rape and murder, I think it should have bring a harsher penalty than general child endangerment. Call it First Degree child endangerment. Much higher penalty than general "you endangered your child but they're alive still" endangerment.

Excellent idea, Rayne! Strict, Strict laws! :facepalm:

I think laws regarding sexual predators could use a major upgrade as well.
 
SouthAussie said:
When Cherish left .. when the other two girls left ... no, Rayne, they didn't leave
Click to expand...

Argh! No kidding! Cherish didn't leave, Rayne, you SENT HER AWAY with a strange man! You did everything short of put a bow on her head! :banghead:

And then to go onto to say Cherish was "The mother, the teacher...."

THIS is why CPS shouldn't return the children to you. The preventable death of one child on your watch, the endangerment of all three girls, an unintended admission here that Cherish was 'the mother'. :doh: Good grief.
 
Magdalyn said:
Argh! No kidding! Cherish didn't leave, Rayne, you SENT HER AWAY with a strange man! You did everything short of put a bow on her head! :banghead:

And then to go onto to say Cherish was "The mother, the teacher...."

THIS is why CPS shouldn't return the children to you. The preventable death of one child on your watch, the endangerment of all three girls, an unintended admission here that Cherish was 'the mother'. :doh: Good grief.
Click to expand...

I haven't posted here, but have been reading along, and while watching this interview, I thought the same things you just said. RP didn't even look like she was really crying. I hope she NEVER gets her children back, and NEVER has any more! I do not like this 'woman'.
 
will the killer be charged with kidnapping since rp sent cherish off with him?
 
"I'm being punished for what happened with Cherish," she said.
Click to expand...

http://www.news4jax.com/news/custod...ters/-/475880/21372558/-/129yd0o/-/index.html

No Rayne, Your two remaining SURVIVING children are being PROTECTED because of what happened to Cherish.


"Drug tests, parental fitness evaluations, making sure the parents have stable employment, stable housing, things likes that," he said. "The department, if they can, will certainly want to try to reunify the children with their parents if the safety of the children can be assured."
Click to expand...

Ummmm....I don't think Rayne or Aharon are in any position, or ever will be in any position, to be able to assure anyone of any of the above, least of all 'safety of the children'. Safety of the children seems to go out the window when imaginary Walmart gift cards are offered. MOO.
 
floridamomma said:
will the killer be charged with kidnapping since rp sent cherish off with him?
Click to expand...

He has been charged with kidnapping (and first degree murder and capital sexual battery.)

I suppose it is kidnapping because she (allegedly) didn't give permission for him to take her outside of Walmart. Just to the dressing room :stormingmad: and McDonald's.
 
Magdalyn said:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=323104
Click to expand...

That article is all about her.

Perrywinkle, who was visibly shaken when talking about her experience, is angry that anyone would blame her for what happened. She said to blame her is to make her a victim twice
Click to expand...

JMO, if she doesn't blame herself she hasn't learned a thing.

"I wouldn't wish this on anyone," she said. "I did not foresee this coming."
Click to expand...
No one wishes that on anyone. The thing is, if you put your children in a strange creepy van with a strange creepy man and then let him pay too much attention to your children and go off into the night with one of them, you SHOULD foresee that there might be trouble and think again.

I don't think these interviews are likely to help people who are angry at her to soften their attitude because it seems she doesn't acknowledge any part of any responsibility for not protecting Cherish and her other children from DS and it's mostly just about how bad she feels, nothing about Cherish.
 
Do you read this quote like I do? :waitasec:

She expressed concern about the funds that were established to help her deceased daughter. Perrywinkle said she has yet to see any of the funds and doesn't know how the money is being spent.

"I cry everyday," said Perrywinkle.
Click to expand...


How is money going to help Cherish now?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 61 more.
Total: 3,175 (members: 62, guests: 3,113)

Online statistics

Members online
62
Guests online
3,113
Total visitors
3,175
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,242
Messages
18,153,806
Members
231,682
Latest member
Sleutherine
Back
Top