NC - Skyler Wilson Died of Hypoxic Brain Injury From “Swaddling” by Adoptive Parents Joseph & Jodi Wilson - Mount Airy

[iamshadow21]

From the article in the OP:



I don't think it's a derailment, because the "therapy" that is alleged to be the cause of death is as much a part of the discussion as a knife or gun would be in other cases.

Oh, I agree, it's relevant to the discussion of attachment therapy in general, I just know other threads often reach a point where there's speculation about either the victim or the perpetrator, and the mods have to come in and do a major clean-up because it tends to all be armchair diagnostics based on social media posts, amateur ideas of profiling or the DSM, or talking head speculation from television, rather than actual facts. Just since I joined in October, I've seen it on the Quinton threads, the Delphi threads, the Moscow threads, the Letby threads... and those are just the big ones I can remember. I'm sure the mods see 'autism' or 'narcissism' or 'personality disorder' in the reports in their inbox and find a convenient surface to knock their heads against because they know it's going to be a long day. I was trying, clumsily, to divert things back to Skyler, because I didn't want to cause them any grief.

It is, disproportionately, a form of abuse acted out on kids like the ones listed in my signature. Disabled kids, autistic kids, kids with some kind of conduct or behaviour disorder, and adopted kids. There are probably many other victims I don't know of that don't fit those boxes; in fact, I'm certain there are. Because this is a practice that promises compliance and perfection, and there's nothing that certain abusive parents want more than that.

 

[UrsulaWrenn]

I'm sure the mods see 'autism' or 'narcissism' or 'personality disorder' in the reports in their inbox and find a convenient surface to knock their heads against because they know it's going to be a long day. I was trying, clumsily, to divert things back to Skyler, because I didn't want to cause them any grief.

(nods) I understand.

It is, disproportionately, a form of abuse acted out on kids like the ones listed in my signature. Disabled kids, autistic kids, kids with some kind of conduct or behaviour disorder, and adopted kids. There are probably many other victims I don't know of that don't fit those boxes; in fact, I'm certain there are. Because this is a practice that promises compliance and perfection, and there's nothing that certain abusive parents want more than that.

I'd never heard of it before.
However, I guess I have heard about some of it peripherally.

That is, I've heard of foster parents strapping kids into chairs to "calm them down". I hear that and think..."would you be calmer if I strapped you down?". Somehow, there's a lack of empathy that I can't really explain.

Of course, I've known many, many, many people who sincerely believe that if a child isn't meeting their expectations in any arena the swift application of extreme pain will solve the problem in a heartbeat.


I'm horrified about what has happened to this little boy, and I think any discussion anywhere that brings light to the issue is a good thing. But that's just my own opinion.

 

[iamshadow21]

(nods) I understand.


I'd never heard of it before.
However, I guess I have heard about some of it peripherally.

That is, I've heard of foster parents strapping kids into chairs to "calm them down". I hear that and think..."would you be calmer if I strapped you down?". Somehow, there's a lack of empathy that I can't really explain.

Of course, I've known many, many, many people who sincerely believe that if a child isn't meeting their expectations in any arena the swift application of extreme pain will solve the problem in a heartbeat.


I'm horrified about what has happened to this little boy, and I think any discussion anywhere that brings light to the issue is a good thing. But that's just my own opinion.

I think some people confuse 'it makes them calmer' with 'it makes me feel calmer/better'. That's what I meant in one of the very early posts about parental catharsis. It feels good to go outside and yell, or break something, when we're frustrated. Our body gives us a nice little bump of chemicals. Where certain people go wrong, and where this practice is so dangerous, is that focus isn't yelling at the sky, or breaking something that was garbage or is cheap and replaceable. The focus of all that rage and frustration is the child. The babble they tout to us that it's meant to produce cathartic rage in the child that will be purged and the bonding will happen. But that's not what happens. Parents essentially nurture their own rage and condition themselves to take out their frustrations on their child with ever more harsh and cruel punishments. And they feel 'better' when they do it, because our basic, primitive level brains are very 'if this, then that'. I hurt a child, I feel better, so when I feel bad, I need to hurt a child. This in no way absolves them of any guilt or responsibility, but it's how rational, intelligent people condition themselves to push past the most fundamental of societal and ethical taboos. They choose, again and again, violence. And when they've done that enough, it makes them feel clean, righteous, and powerful.

This is all very much my opinion only. While a studier of human nature, I am not a doctor, psychologist, neurologist, philosopher or anthropologist, or anyone with any kind of letters after my name. I'm just a person trying, like we all are, to explain and understand the unfathomable.

 

[katsrfun]

I think some people confuse 'it makes them calmer' with 'it makes me feel calmer/better'. That's what I meant in one of the very early posts about parental catharsis. It feels good to go outside and yell, or break something, when we're frustrated. Our body gives us a nice little bump of chemicals. Where certain people go wrong, and where this practice is so dangerous, is that focus isn't yelling at the sky, or breaking something that was garbage or is cheap and replaceable. The focus of all that rage and frustration is the child. The babble they tout to us that it's meant to produce cathartic rage in the child that will be purged and the bonding will happen. But that's not what happens. Parents essentially nurture their own rage and condition themselves to take out their frustrations on their child with ever more harsh and cruel punishments. And they feel 'better' when they do it, because our basic, primitive level brains are very 'if this, then that'. I hurt a child, I feel better, so when I feel bad, I need to hurt a child. This in no way absolves them of any guilt or responsibility, but it's how rational, intelligent people condition themselves to push past the most fundamental of societal and ethical taboos. They choose, again and again, violence. And when they've done that enough, it makes them feel clean, righteous, and powerful.

This is all very much my opinion only. While a studier of human nature, I am not a doctor, psychologist, neurologist, philosopher or anthropologist, or anyone with any kind of letters after my name. I'm just a person trying, like we all are, to explain and understand the unfathomable.

I'm sorry, but I have no children, so I am unsure what exactly swaddling. I gather it must be to wrap a child tightly in a blanket. Is that it? Who advocates this? What ages are the children that they do this to? And, why was he sleeping in a wagon? Thank you to any and all who know the answers. MOO. Katt

 

[iamshadow21]

I'm sorry, but I have no children, so I am unsure what exactly swaddling. I gather it must be to wrap a child tightly in a blanket. Is that it? Who advocates this? What ages are the children that they do this to? And, why was he sleeping in a wagon? Thank you to any and all who know the answers. MOO. Katt

Swaddling, true swaddling, is the practice of wrapping a very young baby in a muslin or sleeping sack to help them feel safe and secure enough to sleep. The wrapping is firm enough to give the child a sense of being held, but not so firm that they can't move, breathe, stretch and settle however they need to to be comfortable and breathe safely.

The "swaddling" this couple did to Skyler was nothing like that. It was severe, brutal restraint so tight it restricted his breathing enough that he couldn't draw air, and the lack of oxygen gave him a brain injury, which killed him four days later. He wasn't an infant, but a four year old they'd adopted. This kind of restraint coupled with starvation, harsh punishment, and emotional, verbal, and physical abuse are marketed to parents of adopted children and other vulnerable children as a 'cure' for perceived attachment and bonding issues, disability, autism, and challenging behaviour. It kills kids. It's been killing kids for at least forty years, and people keep doing it. And the people who promote it keep slithering away without real consequences.

The "wagon" mentioned in the articles was where Skyler slept instead of a bed. They haven't shown pictures, and I fear, when we do see them, it's going to look like nothing so much as a medieval rack. We know ankle and wrist restraints were recovered by law enforcement, and that the father said they were used for "swaddling".

 

[iamshadow21]

I asked and received permission from the mods to post a link to an article from the Elkin Tribune. It's got a lot of detail that creates a bigger picture of sequence of events, what and how the foster parent reported to DSS, and what exactly has been taken as evidence or potential evidence by law enforcement from various locations, among other things.

Prior abuse, ‘exorcism’ alleged in child death | The Elkin Tribune

Many warrants have been served for many different things. There's a lot, here. Including that the electronic stuff they seized wasn't just regular phones and devices, but there was surveillance set up in the home that one parent could watch from work, presumably to enjoy the abuse from a distance. Multiple videos found of prior abuse.

I'm shook. I'm thinking of other fatal abuse cases like Thomas Valva, like Troy Khoeler, where two or more adults bounced off each other to create a deadly dynamic with the child or multiple children as the focus, encouraging each other to escalate. Despicable.

 

[iamshadow21]

I asked and received permission from the mods to post a link to an article from the Elkin Tribune. It's got a lot of detail that creates a bigger picture of sequence of events, what and how the foster parent reported to DSS, and what exactly has been taken as evidence or potential evidence by law enforcement from various locations, among other things.

Prior abuse, ‘exorcism’ alleged in child death | The Elkin Tribune

Many warrants have been served for many different things. There's a lot, here. Including that the electronic stuff they seized wasn't just regular phones and devices, but there was surveillance set up in the home that one parent could watch from work, presumably to enjoy the abuse from a distance. Multiple videos found of prior abuse.

I'm shook. I'm thinking of other fatal abuse cases like Thomas Valva, like Troy Khoeler, where two or more adults bounced off each other to create a deadly dynamic with the child or multiple children as the focus, encouraging each other to escalate. Despicable.

There are two things fractionally different about the Elkin article to others, that I've noticed.

It dates Skyler and his brother's placement with the Wilsons as August, not September 2021. Not a huge difference, and the detail of the article suggests that Elkin Tribune, being local, may have had access to documents that Oxygen did not. Oxygen referred to the Elkin article as a source of information, that's how I found it. So I'm a bit more inclined to Elkin being correct on the date, being closer to the source.

It refers to the arrangement as fostering, not adoption, throughout, despite Skyler having the same surname as Jodi and Joseph. I suspect the confusion has come from this being a fostering to adoption placement. I have still not read anywhere when, precisely, Skyler and his brother were adopted by the Wilsons, but the name change suggests it has been formally and legally done. I don't think the Wilsons could legally change Skyler's surname without being his parents.

It also says Skyler's medical records were seized from both the home and the business, but that could be simply because the home ones were his general medical records, while the ones at the business were records of his treatment at the business, ie. chiropractic adjustment or other services offered by Affordable Wellness.


Besides those things that stood out as facts to potentially query as more information comes out, my overall impression was that this is going to very much be a case where the perpetrators are hoist by their own texting and social media. Video messages and Facebook Messenger are already in play, as are the recordings from the home surveillance. These folks left a digital trail documenting their abuse a mile wide. I never want any child to die or be abused, but if it happens, I want every perp to do this. It's harder for them to cry that it was accidental, or that they were a victim too, if it's all on candid camera for the jury to see in detail.

One of the reasons some of the killers of Candace Newmaker saw jail time was that those "therapists" videotaped the sessions of abuse, leading up to and including the one that killed her. All of it was shown to the jury. I think this documentation on digital devices is going to be crucial in Skyler's killers facing justice, too.

The other thing that lingers is the feeling of dread that his full autopsy is going to be absolutely shattering. I think his tiny body is going to be a maze of damage. Healed and healing fractures. Strained tendons. Bruises on bruises on bruises. He was so tiny, and he suffered so much before they killed him. And I'm fearful of knowing just how much, but I'm also hoping that because he died in hospital, they'll have been able to document every little speck of it, both before and after he died.

 

[UrsulaWrenn]

I'm sorry, but I have no children, so I am unsure what exactly swaddling. I gather it must be to wrap a child tightly in a blanket. Is that it? Who advocates this? What ages are the children that they do this to? And, why was he sleeping in a wagon? Thank you to any and all who know the answers. MOO. Katt

I see iamshadow21 has already answered this, but I'll elaborate a bit.

Newborn infants have a startle reflex that causes them to fling their arms out wide when they feel like they're falling. It's not unusual for them to startle themselves awake with it when they're almost asleep. Then they start to cry, which causes them to get a second wind and stay awake for another hour or so. For a very few infants it becomes a vicious cycle, and they don't sleep until they're completely exhausted -and so are their caregivers.

Swaddling is wrapping a blanket around the infant rather firmly. Usually, the procedure is to lie them face-up on the blanket, pull the bottom of the blanket up over their legs and over one shoulder, tuck one side in under their opposite arm, and give the other side a good no-nonsense tug 'round the upper torso to their side or back.

It makes them feel like they're being firmly held but doesn't -or at least shouldn't- restrict them from moving or stop them from kicking loose if they're uncomfortable. The idea is to help them feel warm and secure, so they sleep well.

Usually, the practice is ended a few weeks after birth, because an infant might roll themselves over while they're swaddled and put themselves at risk of smothering or suffocating. So, it's newborns only and only tight enough to facilitate sleeping.

I remember being warned not put them on their sides or stomach, and not to put them on a waterbed; but it's now 30 years after the birth of my youngest, so it's possible swaddling isn't really done at all anymore.

 

[iamshadow21]

I see iamshadow21 has already answered this, but I'll elaborate a bit.

Newborn infants have a startle reflex that causes them to fling their arms out wide when they feel like they're falling. It's not unusual for them to startle themselves awake with it when they're almost asleep. Then they start to cry, which causes them to get a second wind and stay awake for another hour or so. For a very few infants it becomes a vicious cycle, and they don't sleep until they're completely exhausted -and so are their caregivers.

Swaddling is wrapping a blanket around the infant rather firmly. Usually, the procedure is to lie them face-up on the blanket, pull the bottom of the blanket up over their legs and over one shoulder, tuck one side in under their opposite arm, and give the other side a good no-nonsense tug 'round the upper torso to their side or back.

It makes them feel like they're being firmly held but doesn't -or at least shouldn't- restrict them from moving or stop them from kicking loose if they're uncomfortable. The idea is to help them feel warm and secure, so they sleep well.

Usually, the practice is ended a few weeks after birth, because an infant might roll themselves over while they're swaddled and put themselves at risk of smothering or suffocating. So, it's newborns only and only tight enough to facilitate sleeping.

I remember being warned not put them on their sides or stomach, and not to put them on a waterbed; but it's now 30 years after the birth of my youngest, so it's possible swaddling isn't really done at all anymore.

Thank you, you replied better than me, with better detail. I'll admit, my exposure to swaddling, true swaddling, is mostly theoretical, as I don't have children of my own. I did a Child Care certificate a million years ago with the aim of working in child care centres with kids from 0-5, but that never happened. I can put on a great, leak-free old-school fabric terry cloth nappy, though. We had to learn and were marked on it. I was really good at that.

As for if it's still done, yes. My BFF from high school swaddled her baby boy firmly. I think he's twelve, now. He liked that security. He liked really quite vigorous bouncing/butt-patting to settle, too, if you were pacing with him.

My brother and sister-in-law did it with their four kids, too. I don't know if they used a muslin early on, I only saw her use it as a privacy screen when she breastfed. What I saw them use was a sleeping sack, which is kind of like a cross between a onesie and a sleeping bag that you put their legs and arms into and fastens up the front with poppers or a zipper. They had their kids roughly between 2010 and 2019. (Can't remember, honestly, how old they all are and which years they were born. Bad auntie with an ADHD brain, here.)

All five kids in question benefitted from the security of the practice because they were all on some kind of autism/ADHD spectrum or mix of both (and the parents knew they likely would be, because they or their extended family were known spectrum folks), and it fulfilled a sensory need. None of them were still being swaddled once they were toddlers. Only as babies, sleeping on their backs.

 

[Ty2487]

Hi all,
New here to the site but just heard this news this morning. I wish to remain anonymous but just wanted to provide a bit more info that I thought might be of interest in this forum. I met Joe and Jodi about 14 or 13 years ago when we went to chiro school together (I heard the news about this from another former classmate/peer) and interacted much more with Jodi than Joe during that time, never spoke with Joe after graduation, and once in a very rare occasion communicated briefly with Jodi on some of her Facebook posts over the years. So while I wouldn't say I exactly knew them all that well, it's still always shocking to hear about something like this when it involves someone you are "friends" with on social media and knew at one point in your life, especially with people you would never think could be capable of something like this.

I would say that after graduation, at some point, Jodi became very outspoken on her Facebook account on her views, whether they be political, health-related, etc. I was shocked with how she was so against seemingly every aspect of modern medicine -- not all of her beliefs shocked me, but she was posting comments and sharing some content that I never would have thought she believed or supported. A LOT of it concerned conspiracy theories... when it came to healthcare-related posts of hers, they'd often be non-traditional medical stuff (some journal articles, research papers, inspirational quotes, pseudo-self affirmation stuff, etc.) dressed up as inspiring/inspirational content that I now realize had much darker layers going on underneath it all.

Additional info on what I know or knew about them:
- They seemed to be very religious, were Christian, and it seemed some of their religious beliefs influenced their medical beliefs
- They were closer to the far-right political spectrum than they were to the traditional "Conservative" bubble, but I wouldn't necessarily describe them as 100% Trumpers; their political beliefs were not something I knew at the time we were in school together, but it became clearly apparent within the past 7-8 years from Jodi's social media posts
- I had no idea that Jodi and Joe had adopted children; I don't believe they ever posted any pictures of them or posted any comments about them. In the pictures I had seen them post, it was always just their biological children (3). Safe to say it was news to me today to find out they had actually been in the care of 3 more adopted children before Skyler and his brother. Never saw any pictures posted on social media of them either. Knowing this news now, it's chilling to me that this was not something they seemed to share on Facebook, and more so Jodi, given how much she shared on social media about other topics (e.g., being anti-vax and her kids not being vaccinated, homeschooling her kids)
- As you can see from that last bullet point, Jodi (and it appears Joe as well) homeschooled their biological kids. I specify that their biological kids were homeschooled because, again, they never made mention of the adopted kids, but I suppose they likely homeschooled them as well. Jodi was very outspoken about the homeschool "movement" and at some point appeared to reject traditional education. I may be mistaken on this, but I think I remember seeing her post something about pulling her first kid out of school and making her homeschooled shortly after initially entering the public education systems. According to her Facebook profile, Jodi and Joe created something called "Rosecrest Academy" in 2017 in Mount Airy, NC, and Jodi still has it on her profile that she's a teacher there and that she homeschools her 3 girls.

Lastly, Jodi's last and most recent post on her Facebook account, posted on January 5th at 1:46 PM (Eastern Time), was this, with the caption or comment of simply "X 2." Given the timing of everything, just highly disturbing. Tough to speculate what "X 2" might mean, but seems logical to conclude that perhaps she's referring to her two (2) adoptive children and that she felt she was witnessing this two times, or "times 2." Hope this is helpful/insightful for at least a few of you. Sorry to be long-winded in this comment. I pray for the well-being of her other kids, Skyler's brother, Skyler, and all who are going through this nightmare. This is just so incredibly heartbreaking, gut-wrenching, and tragic =(

Edit: Removed the attached screenshot, didn't know images from social media were not allowed here. I will summarize by saying that it was an image with information on "6 Tricky Symptoms of Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD)," including information about abnormal eating patterns. Just extremely disturbing, given all the context of what was going on in her own home and happened shortly thereafter posting that

 

[ilovewings]

Chiropractic is not a legitimate medical practice. I have a lot to say on that topic and won't bore you - but ugh!

Could not agree more about chiropractors

 

[UrsulaWrenn]

Thank-you, Ty2487 for your insights.

I wonder if your friend felt she had to hide the adoptive children for some reason? Maybe she was afraid the bio parents would recognize them and try to take them back?

 

[katsrfun]

I see iamshadow21 has already answered this, but I'll elaborate a bit.

Newborn infants have a startle reflex that causes them to fling their arms out wide when they feel like they're falling. It's not unusual for them to startle themselves awake with it when they're almost asleep. Then they start to cry, which causes them to get a second wind and stay awake for another hour or so. For a very few infants it becomes a vicious cycle, and they don't sleep until they're completely exhausted -and so are their caregivers.

Swaddling is wrapping a blanket around the infant rather firmly. Usually, the procedure is to lie them face-up on the blanket, pull the bottom of the blanket up over their legs and over one shoulder, tuck one side in under their opposite arm, and give the other side a good no-nonsense tug 'round the upper torso to their side or back.

It makes them feel like they're being firmly held but doesn't -or at least shouldn't- restrict them from moving or stop them from kicking loose if they're uncomfortable. The idea is to help them feel warm and secure, so they sleep well.

Usually, the practice is ended a few weeks after birth, because an infant might roll themselves over while they're swaddled and put themselves at risk of smothering or suffocating. So, it's newborns only and only tight enough to facilitate sleeping.

I remember being warned not put them on their sides or stomach, and not to put them on a waterbed; but it's now 30 years after the birth of my youngest, so it's possible swaddling isn't really done at all anymore.

Thank you very much for the extended answer. I had never heard of this before. Thanks for taking the time. MOO. Katt

 

[katsrfun]

I see iamshadow21 has already answered this, but I'll elaborate a bit.

Newborn infants have a startle reflex that causes them to fling their arms out wide when they feel like they're falling. It's not unusual for them to startle themselves awake with it when they're almost asleep. Then they start to cry, which causes them to get a second wind and stay awake for another hour or so. For a very few infants it becomes a vicious cycle, and they don't sleep until they're completely exhausted -and so are their caregivers.

Swaddling is wrapping a blanket around the infant rather firmly. Usually, the procedure is to lie them face-up on the blanket, pull the bottom of the blanket up over their legs and over one shoulder, tuck one side in under their opposite arm, and give the other side a good no-nonsense tug 'round the upper torso to their side or back.

It makes them feel like they're being firmly held but doesn't -or at least shouldn't- restrict them from moving or stop them from kicking loose if they're uncomfortable. The idea is to help them feel warm and secure, so they sleep well.

Usually, the practice is ended a few weeks after birth, because an infant might roll themselves over while they're swaddled and put themselves at risk of smothering or suffocating. So, it's newborns only and only tight enough to facilitate sleeping.

I remember being warned not put them on their sides or stomach, and not to put them on a waterbed; but it's now 30 years after the birth of my youngest, so it's possible swaddling isn't really done at all anymore.

Thank you, and any others who gave me information. I can't wrap my mind around where this sounds like a good idea. Newborns cry, is it because the parents think they are misbehaving, or is it sadistic pleasure from "overly controlling" "people" I have never heard of this before and would think the baby would cry more being tightly bound, No? Thank you all again, Katt

 

[iamshadow21]

Thank you, and any others who gave me information. I can't wrap my mind around where this sounds like a good idea. Newborns cry, is it because the parents think they are misbehaving, or is it sadistic pleasure from "overly controlling" "people" I have never heard of this before and would think the baby would cry more being tightly bound, No? Thank you all again, Katt

I think I need to clarify - what people do to newborns is gentle and not abusive.

What these people did to Skyler was not the same thing, just torture that they called by the same name as what is done to newborns. Skyler was not a newborn, but a four year old they had adopted.

They did what they did to Skyler because they blamed him for what they perceived as his failure to bond with them after they adopted him. They took this out on him using a practice discredited by science that uses restraint, starvation, and physical, verbal, and emotional abuse to make him a 'better' child. This practice does not work, and has resulted in the deaths of a significant number of children over the last forty-odd years.

The people who push this practice use the word "swaddling" to make the restraint part sound benign and gentle, when it is anything but. This restraint killed Skyler by depriving him of oxygen, resulting in an hypoxic brain injury which killed him four days after.

So, swaddling, the practice done with newborns as a gentle calming practice is not the same as the restraint that killed Skyler, which the promoters of this dangerous practice also call "swaddling".

I know, it's confusing.

But, think of being wrapped in a blanket burrito for comfort. That's real swaddling.

And to take a comparison from an earlier comment by another poster - what happened to Skyler was more akin to a boa constrictor strangling and smothering the life out of its prey, slowly. Nothing comforting about it.

 

[UrsulaWrenn]

Thank you, and any others who gave me information. I can't wrap my mind around where this sounds like a good idea. Newborns cry, is it because the parents think they are misbehaving, or is it sadistic pleasure from "overly controlling" "people" I have never heard of this before and would think the baby would cry more being tightly bound, No? Thank you all again, Katt

My bold.
No; newborns have just spent nine months confined to Mom's uterus, so being wrapped in a blanket feels familiar and comforting. When they are used to being "loose" in the world and learn that moving about doesn't mean they are falling, the startle reflex goes away, and then it's time to stop swaddling.

I think the word was usurped by those who feel their adoptive children aren't bonding properly because it is confusing. They can talk about "swaddling" in public without raising suspicion. It's no different than people calling illegal drugs "candy" or bullets "quiet pills".

 

[Laughing]

Thank you, and any others who gave me information. I can't wrap my mind around where this sounds like a good idea. Newborns cry, is it because the parents think they are misbehaving, or is it sadistic pleasure from "overly controlling" "people" I have never heard of this before and would think the baby would cry more being tightly bound, No? Thank you all again, Katt

Following two excellent explanations, but adding that the fabric used to swaddle newborns is soft, thin, and stretchy. The baby can move their arms & legs in sleep. If you hold many real swaddle wraps up to a light, you'll see right through them. Maybe think washed tee-shirt fabric.

A real swaddle wrap might comfort, but would not confine, a 4 year old.

A swaddle wrap does not have wrist or ankle restraints, either.



I've used a beach towel to wrap up my kids in order to get the eye drops in to treat pink eye. We humans will work pretty hard to protect our eyes imho. Wonder if this starts some people on the path to dangerous confinement of the sort that killed Skyler?

 

[Cool Cats]

Oxygen published a very comprehensive article on this case. I asked the mods, because I wasn't sure if it was an approved source, but I thought the article had great merit in shining light on this case. I received the green light to link.

I will say, I'm not going to excerpt or summarise, I'm just going to link, so that readers can choose whether to read or not. Whatever you thought about what Skyler went through... it's worse. It's so much worse. And if you don't want that in your head, it's understandable, just scroll on and consider lighting a candle, or saying a prayer, or just taking a moment of silence for what this precious child endured. That's all.

Adoptive Parents Charged With Murder After North Carolina Boy Dies During Supposed Exorcism | Oxygen Official Site

I don't get it, CPS knew all about this, so what happened? This is severe child abuse and grounds to immediately remove all the children.

From linked article:

One of Skyler’s former foster parents — who had filed a complaint with children’s protective services on Dec. 7 about his current treatment — told authorities that “Jodi Wilson had told her about the ‘pouching,’ swaddling, food restriction, refusal of [Skyler’s brother] to walk by himself, the gating of Skyler in a room for excessive 'alone’ time, and the exorcisms of both children,” according to the second warrant.

 

[iamshadow21]

I don't get it, CPS knew all about this, so what happened? This is severe child abuse and grounds to immediately remove all the children.

From linked article:

One of Skyler’s former foster parents — who had filed a complaint with children’s protective services on Dec. 7 about his current treatment — told authorities that “Jodi Wilson had told her about the ‘pouching,’ swaddling, food restriction, refusal of [Skyler’s brother] to walk by himself, the gating of Skyler in a room for excessive 'alone’ time, and the exorcisms of both children,” according to the second warrant.

Yeah, it makes me wonder if they didn't believe the foster parent or thought she was exaggerating. Maybe they had frictions with her in the past and decided she was a time waster. Either the report got lost in the shuffle, or they 'round filed' it and never opened an investigation.

Whichever it was, someone dropped the ball, and a little boy died.

 

[UrsulaWrenn]

(snip)

Whichever it was, someone dropped the ball, and a little boy died.

IMO:

Sadly, that's not an uncommon event when dealing with any gov. agency. CPS, as it deals with the most helpless and vulnerable, should, by all rights, be among the most careful and most exacting in its missions, but.... Sadly, cases of children taken from "iffy" homes and then placed into far more dangerous or deadly ones happen.

Child protection services are a business like any other. The states receive federal funds for kids in their care but are loathe to spend those funds to care for those kids. They don't want to pay to train foster parents, or to provide extra help for kids that are difficult to care for. They don't want to pay for medical and psychiatric help for anyone involved, even when it's obvious everyone involved would benefit. Further, they don't want to risk losing licensed foster parents by looking too closely or asking too many hard questions if they do suspect problems are brewing.

So, the kids are removed from situations where they are 'at risk' and put into situations where they are in grave danger.

Just my personal perception, formed many years ago when I had daily dealings with various child welfare entities. Your mileage may vary.