Found Safe TN - SLP, 14, Madisonville, Monroe County, 13 Jan 2019 #3 *ARRESTS*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
gitana1 said:
I'm an attorney. I understand the law. As I said, what I propose is what a parent actually knew or reasonably should gave known. Those were my exact words.

Here's a scenario: Adoptive father keeps coming out of daughter's room in the middle of the night. Mother sees this. Asks him what he's doing. He's says "teaching her rules." Daughter tells mom one day that she doesn't want to be left alone with daddy. Daughter becomes withdrawn. Daughter starts asking mom about sex and sexual assault. Says she's scared of her father.

Dad suddenly states he wants to move the whole family out of state to a remote farm and have child homeschooled. They go. Dad begins spending even more time with daughter, taking her on "trips" around the farm. Child continues to act withdrawn and cries a lot.

Mother knew "daddy" had an extensive criminal history and allowed him to adopt her kids anyhow.

Eventually, dad is arrested for rape.

Did mom know child was being assaulted. Or should she have reasonably known? My suggestions is that if that is determined to be yes, she should be charged with child neglect, for not getting her child away from the man.

I would love a law like that.

Any law can be unequally applied, sadly. That doesn't mean we don't enact them.

It is not hard to quantify what someone should reasonably have known. That's determined in courtrooms on a regular basis.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comments on the matter throughout this thread. I recognize your expertise on existing law. We have an equal footing, as does every citizen, when it comes to opinions on future laws. I do not claim to know the law intimately. But my opinion is that the law is adequate on the subject when it is proved a partner or guardian knew and failed to protect. The application of that law is the problem, IMHO. It's too infrequently applied and so far from equally applied when it is, in my very novice opinion only. I don't believe the answer is more laws, when it comes to what a parent reasonsonably should have known. That is one treacherously slippery slope.

If we say someone should have known but did not know, IMOO that's not enough. There must be required some degree of intent, some degree of disregard for the welfare of another. Merely not knowing, IMOO, is too general to warrant a criminal charge. Why did the person not know? Whose responsibility was it to inform him or her? A percentage of the population still has no internet access. How do you know the mother 15 years ago even had access to the criminal information so readily available to us today?

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned that for roughly $100 anyone can get a criminal history on someone. Do you have any idea what a barrier $100 can be for some people? It's very easy to say, as some have suggested, then don't get involved with someone if you can't properly vet someone. It's another thing altogether to suggest holding someone criminally liable for your definition of what someone should have reasonably known. What is reasonable for you to know may not be reasonable for me to know and vice versa. In unpacking the particulars of what is reasonable for someone to know, you apply your definitions, your standards, your ethics, your lived experience, your circumstances. With all due respect, and IMOO, that's just as ill conceived as mandating an intelligence threshold that one must meet to have children.

With that, thank you for your time and thought provoking input. I speak as a sexual assault survivor; although, I recognize that the journey and challenges are unique to each individual. I add that to convey to you that I am no stranger to the general challenges that are common to all survivors. I feel passionately that harsh penalties should be applied to anyone who chooses, by action or lack thereof, to harm a child. It is my opinion only, however, that a lack of regard should be required before anyone is held criminally responsible.
 
Hey Everyone,

Remember when I asked you to please not turn this thread into a bashing of the bio mom? The thread is starting to turn into the bashing of the bio mom.

I really do not want to forbid the topic of mom but I ask you please do not make this thread all about the mom OK?

Thank you,
Tricia
 
GoBuckeyes said:
Thank you for your comments on the matter throughout this thread. I recognize your expertise on existing law. We have an equal footing, as does every citizen, when it comes to opinions on future laws. I do not claim to know the law intimately. But my opinion is that the law is adequate on the subject when it is proved a partner or guardian knew and failed to protect. The application of that law is the problem, IMHO. It's too infrequently applied and so far from equally applied when it is, in my very novice opinion only. I don't believe the answer is more laws, when it comes to what a parent reasonsonably should have known. That is one treacherously slippery slope.

If we say someone should have known but did not know, IMOO that's not enough. There must be required some degree of intent, some degree of disregard for the welfare of another. Merely not knowing, IMOO, is too general to warrant a criminal charge. Why did the person not know? Whose responsibility was it to inform him or her? A percentage of the population still has no internet access. How do you know the mother 15 years ago even had access to the criminal information so readily available to us today?

Earlier in the thread, you mentioned that for roughly $100 anyone can get a criminal history on someone. Do you have any idea what a barrier $100 can be for some people? It's very easy to say, as some have suggested, then don't get involved with someone if you can't properly vet someone. It's another thing altogether to suggest holding someone criminally liable for your definition of what someone should have reasonably known. What is reasonable for you to know may not be reasonable for me to know and vice versa. In unpacking the particulars of what is reasonable for someone to know, you apply your definitions, your standards, your ethics, your lived experience, your circumstances. With all due respect, and IMOO, that's just as ill conceived as mandating an intelligence threshold that one must meet to have children.

With that, thank you for your time and thought provoking input. I speak as a sexual assault survivor; although, I recognize that the journey and challenges are unique to each individual. I add that to convey to you that I am no stranger to the general challenges that are common to all survivors. I feel passionately that harsh penalties should be applied to anyone who chooses, by action or lack thereof, to harm a child. It is my opinion only, however, that a lack of regard should be required before anyone is held criminally responsible.
Click to expand...

Yes. We are all on equal footing when it comes to opinions as to future laws. But you attempted to lecture an attorney regarding the complexity of the laws on negligence without fully understanding it yourself.

You're smart. You have a point about laws not being applied that could already be applied.

But you're mistaken about a few things.

One: The "slippery slope" you claim would be created if a law could be based on what a person reasonably should've known is already the standard for negligence depending on the circumstances.

Of course negligence and child neglect at are two different things. And you're free to determine you wouldn't want child neglect based on what a reasonable parent knew or should have known.

But that would only be part of it. The second part would be failing to act in response to what they knew or should have known. Parents certainly have a duty of care to their kids. So they have a duty to act to protect them.

Two: You may feel that determining what a reasonable person should know is ill conceived and impossible because it's based on a variety of factors. It's already the law though when it comes to negligence. It's the job of juries to determine that.

So it is indeed possible to determine what a reasonable person should've known under the circumstances. Just as juries listen to witnesses and determine credibility and listen to testimony and determine intent, etc.

Three: I never said that people should pay $100 for a background check or face charges if something happens to their kid at the hands of their new mate. That's a separate issue. I think people should put their kids first instead of their love lives. And I never said they shouldn't get involved with someone if they can't afford a background check. But yeah. If they can't afford a background check why not keep their dating life separate from their very vulnerable children they are tasked with protecting? Go ahead and have a relationship. Just don't risk you're precious kids and involve them.

But I don't think failing to get a background check should be prosecutable.

I gave a scenario. I think that under a circumstance like that a parent should have known and should be charged with child neglect for failing to act.

I think failing to act on what a person knew or reasonably should've known under the circumstances, which would not be hard IMO to determine, is indeed, a lack of regard. It's worse.
 
Tricia said:
Hey Everyone,

Remember when I asked you to please not turn this thread into a bashing of the bio mom? The thread is starting to turn into the bashing of the bio mom.

I really do not want to forbid the topic of mom but I ask you please do not make this thread all about the mom OK?

Thank you,
Tricia
Click to expand...

Forgive me for saying this Tricia but as a lurker who rarely comments and someone who has spent the last 24 hours reading each thread on this case and experiencing the entire case through here, the last ten pages or so of this thread, has descended into bickering, passive aggressive personal jabs and thread cluttering about delicate issues that should be diacusssd better or maybe not discussed at all.

The mother being negligent or not is a big issue, as is the wording involving the sexual assault of SP and from an outsider, the arguing around this has made this thread so much more unpleasant and difficult to read. I was thoroughly impressed by the positivity, intelligent points and efficient and victim kind sleuthing that went on in the other two threads, this one is kind of disappointing. Maybe that’s what happens when a case is somewhat resolved I guess.
 
gitana1 said:
Yes. We are all on equal footing when it comes to opinions as to future laws. But you attempted to lecture an attorney regarding the complexity of the laws on negligence without fully understanding it yourself.

You're smart. You have a point about laws not being applied that could already be applied.

But you're mistaken about a few things.

One: The "slippery slope" you claim would be created if a law could be based on what a person reasonably should've known is already the standard for negligence depending on the circumstances.

Of course negligence and child neglect at are two different things. And you're free to determine you wouldn't want child neglect based on what a reasonable parent knew or should have known.

But that would only be part of it. The second part would be failing to act in response to what they knew or should have known. Parents certainly have a duty of care to their kids. So they have a duty to act to protect them.

Two: You may feel that determining what a reasonable person should know is ill conceived and impossible because it's based on a variety of factors. It's already the law though when it comes to negligence. It's the job of juries to determine that.

So it is indeed possible to determine what a reasonable person should've known under the circumstances. Just as juries listen to witnesses and determine credibility and listen to testimony and determine intent, etc.

Three: I never said that people should pay $100 for a background check or face charges if something happens to their kid at the hands of their new mate. That's a separate issue. I think people should put their kids first instead of their love lives. And I never said they shouldn't get involved with someone if they can't afford a background check. But yeah. If they can't afford a background check why not keep their dating life separate from their very vulnerable children they are tasked with protecting? Go ahead and have a relationship. Just don't risk you're precious kids and involve them.

But I don't think failing to get a background check should be prosecutable.

I gave a scenario. I think that under a circumstance like that a parent should have known and should be charged with child neglect for failing to act.

I think failing to act on what a person knew or reasonably should've known under the circumstances, which would not be hard IMO to determine, is indeed, a lack of regard. It's worse.
Click to expand...
 
dixiegirl1035 said:
A member here, Gray Hughes, has a YouTube channel and he is currently saying that he is going to do a live feed re: interview with her biological father in 20 minutes on his YouTube channel. (8 PM Eastern)

Don't know if it will happen, but FYI

ETA...Bio-Father is now on live at 8:10.
I don't think I am allowed to post what is discussed..only tell y'all to go listen iirc the TOS.

VERY interesting only 5 minutes in..

ETA #2. 38 minutes after the hour, biodad still talking ..
Click to expand...

Gardener1850 said:
Gray Hughes is interviewing SLP's bio father live:

Hope this is okay to post and discuss.

I will flag my post for mods to make sure.

ETA: Live stream has ended. Gray said the video would be uploaded in about 30 minutes or so.
Click to expand...

(Marking to invite @grayhuze to join us in case he has time to stop in)
 
Last edited:
Has it ever been established which of her relatives actually LIVE in WI? Would it not be possible for them to intervene on her behalf? Raise her if they so chose and she so chose?
 
gitana1 said:
Yes. We are all on equal footing when it comes to opinions as to future laws. But you attempted to lecture an attorney regarding the complexity of the laws on negligence without fully understanding it yourself.

You're smart. You have a point about laws not being applied that could already be applied.

But you're mistaken about a few things.

One: The "slippery slope" you claim would be created if a law could be based on what a person reasonably should've known is already the standard for negligence depending on the circumstances.

Of course negligence and child neglect at are two different things. And you're free to determine you wouldn't want child neglect based on what a reasonable parent knew or should have known.

But that would only be part of it. The second part would be failing to act in response to what they knew or should have known. Parents certainly have a duty of care to their kids. So they have a duty to act to protect them.

Two: You may feel that determining what a reasonable person should know is ill conceived and impossible because it's based on a variety of factors. It's already the law though when it comes to negligence. It's the job of juries to determine that.

So it is indeed possible to determine what a reasonable person should've known under the circumstances. Just as juries listen to witnesses and determine credibility and listen to testimony and determine intent, etc.

Three: I never said that people should pay $100 for a background check or face charges if something happens to their kid at the hands of their new mate. That's a separate issue. I think people should put their kids first instead of their love lives. And I never said they shouldn't get involved with someone if they can't afford a background check. But yeah. If they can't afford a background check why not keep their dating life separate from their very vulnerable children they are tasked with protecting? Go ahead and have a relationship. Just don't risk you're precious kids and involve them.

But I don't think failing to get a background check should be prosecutable.

I gave a scenario. I think that under a circumstance like that a parent should have known and should be charged with child neglect for failing to act.

I think failing to act on what a person knew or reasonably should've known under the circumstances, which would not be hard IMO to determine, is indeed, a lack of regard. It's worse.
Click to expand...
I think it's also important to note that one can be a victim of spousal abuse while also being guilty of child neglect. Imo
 
swanniee11 said:
Yes, and most also require proof of change of address and a PHYSICAL. IMO
Click to expand...

This made me think about MSM/LE confirmation. Did we confirm that all of the children are enrolled in school? That SLP is signed up for being Home Schooled? Does anyone recall that confirmation taking place? If not, I'll head back to the beginning and check.

IMO this move, this keeping SLP home, just screams out at me!

ETA: MSBetsy's quote did not inject for me :(

ETA2: Manual Mode! "MsBetsy:
And also complete records from the previous school.
I wonder if there is anything in her file they did not want to be revealed."
 
Jim_M said:
This made me think about MSM/LE confirmation. Did we confirm that all of the children are enrolled in school? That SLP is signed up for being Home Schooled? Does anyone recall that confirmation taking place? If not, I'll head back to the beginning and check.

IMO this move, this keeping SLP home, just screams out at me!

ETA: MSBetsy's quote did not inject for me :(

ETA2: Manual Mode! "MsBetsy:
And also complete records from the previous school.
I wonder if there is anything in her file they did not want to be revealed."
Click to expand...
I'm wondering if teachers or other staff noticed a change in behavior, like SP being detached, or frequent absences, or something that they were concerned about and there were meetings with the parents expressing their concern.
Or something along those lines.
Any indication that there may have been problems at home, and it had not been resolved, or addressed by the parents. Imo
 
I believe we all were spoiled by the return of JC. Her entire loving family were constantly in the news. Just doing all they could to keep JC in everyone's thoughts. Their community, their friends, people from around the world; all joined together to celebrate that miraculous save.

I realize that this is a shocking, dramatic, and overwhelming case. SLP appears to have saved herself, and possibly others, with all the actions she bravely took.

And I'm left to wonder. How do we make similar things happen for SLP? Is there anyone that can lead a 'movement', for this young child? For that young family? They really will need the same types of help as JC received. I know, I know, JC lost her parents. However, both of these children lost all of their innocence, through no fault of their own. Very sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 213 more.
Total: 1,895 (members: 214, guests: 1,681)

Online statistics

Members online
214
Guests online
1,681
Total visitors
1,895
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,996
Messages
18,102,448
Members
230,962
Latest member
EmmaJean
Back
Top