GUILTY VA - Noah Thomas, 5, Pulaski County, 22 March 2015 #6

[ANonyMs]

Now that we've seen Ashley's dad's obit, we know where Noah's middle name comes from. It is another piece that doesn't fit...she named her son after her deceased dad, which feels very maternal and loving to me, and then became an abusive, neglectful, drug-addicted mom. Sad.

I thought about that a lot yesterday, too. It's one of the things that leads me to think that she did not set out to be the kind of parent she ended up being.

 

[ANonyMs]

Did anyone find it odd that they labeled some of his kin, even a daughter (not AW), as "special". I know some people are closer than others but that's just strange to me for an obituary, or even be pointed out.
JMO

I agree. I talked with a friend about that yesterday. We both found it odd. I know that family members can ask to have additional people mentioned in the obituary and they may be labeled that way - but I have always seen it as aunts, uncles, neices, nephews, cousins or friends. But it does appear he was well loved, so I have to hope that AW came from a loving family and at least tried to carry that over to her own little family at some point.

 

[Strawberry Fields]

I think term "special" daughter in an obituary is used a lot when a person feels very close, like a family member but they are not really related. I am still friends with my BFF from high school and we refer to each other as "sistahs" and her mom calls me her special daughter. We are now in our early 60's so they actually feel like family, but not really related. I see that term in the Roanoke Times obituaries often. Maybe it is done more often in the south. DH is from MI and when his parents passed away, I was quite shocked to hear there was no obituary in a newspaper.

 

[ANonyMs]

I think term "special" daughter in an obituary is used a lot when a person feels very close, like a family member but they are not really related. I am still friends with my BFF from high school and we refer to each other as "sistahs" and her mom calls me her special daughter. We are now in our early 60's so they actually feel like family, but not really related. I see that term in the Roanoke Times obituaries often. Maybe it is done more often in the south. DH is from MI and when his parents passed away, I was quite shocked to hear there was no obituary in a newspaper.

I went back and read it again. I think you may be right. There are a few that look like perhaps his mother, (AW's grandmother) passed away and his father, (AW's grandfather) re-married. That makes sense. And your explanation above could work for the one name that didn't quite make sense to me as a "special daughter". Very sweet idea, in any case.

 

[Schmaley]

This drug test conversation on pregnant women is really fascinating. I never had any tests and only one ultrasound throughout my pregnancy but MN law is downright bizarre with testing "some" or "all"? I am so confused. It is sad that there has to be laws on this. If a woman is addicted to hard drugs, why does it surprise me that she would seek prenatal care to begin with?

 

[ANonyMs]

This drug test conversation on pregnant women is really fascinating. I never had any tests and only one ultrasound throughout my pregnancy but MN law is downright bizarre with testing "some" or "all"? I am so confused. It is sad that there has to be laws on this. If a woman is addicted to hard drugs, why does it surprise me that she would seek prenatal care to begin with?

I find it interesting, too. Another article to ponder...http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/16/prosecuting-pregnant-women-for-drug-use

 

[tamora1]

I read the archives yesterday of the Radford paper and had not gotten to the Roanoke Times yet. Thanks for saving us the time!!! I actually do think it is relevant to understanding what could have brought AW to this point. And had it been something like a family involved murder or drugs, I think it would have been even more relevant.

Edited to add: Maybe I find it relevant b/c I have a background in behavioral and social science and I often look at where people come from and their past experiences to help me understand where they are at now. Just the way my brain works (When it works...)

You're totally right. I'd just seen some online implications (not here!) that there was a more direct connection, and that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I'd be willing to bet that, once trials begin in earnest, the story of Terry White's murder will be revisited too.

I wish I could have provided more direct links, too, but that site is just about as clear as mud. I hope this will do in the meantime. Glad it helped!

 

[ANonyMs]

Here is a brief on AW's father's murder. I can imagine this was especially hard on her and her family as this man was reportedly a former friend of her father. And this man was successfully prosecuted by Mike Fleenor.

http://capulaski.eac2quickweb.com/commonwealth-v-lamonte-franklin-defriece/

 

[mpnola]

You may sign papers consenting to being drug tested, however, they cannot just take a sample from you without telling you AT THAT TIME, that they are drug testing you. It's called informed consent and a person has the right to withdraw consent at anytime. That is why, if you've ever, ever been drug tested, you'd know it. They cannot collect a sample from you without informing you that what you had consented to by signing that paper in the beginning is being carried out.

Also, due to the cheap cost of urine testing vs. blood testing for drugs, almost universally a urine sample will be taken for an initial drug screen. If it's positive, a blood sample will usually be drawn to confirm and have a more accurate reading. Urine can be concentrated or watered down due to natural processes.

Every maternity appointment I had, I was told to pee in a little cup with no lid, no label and no one watching. They could have tested it for drugs and it would never have held up in court if I were positive. No one saw me pee in the cup, there is no label to distinguish it from the other 10 samples on the counter and it was not collected using semi sterile protocol.

So, one could sign all they want without reading, but you would still know if a sample was being obtained for a drug screen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, Im sure they said it or it was in there. I guess thats what I mean. I have no reason to remember it, since it wasnt an issue for me, but I feel pretty certain that it was done. I also feel fairly certain that they were aware that this girl was doing drugs and probably followed and were involved more closely. Also, probably why the police "knew them well". If I had to just create a scenario that feels right, they probably knew this girl was doing drugs (we knew by looking, so it isnt far fetched that they would know by looking), but she prob waited til the end of her pregnancy to get care. Maybe she stopped for the little time she needed before giving birth and was clean enough for them to give her the all clear to take the child. Maybe they followed along for a bit, but according to a quick google search, heroin only stays in your blood/ urine for 2-5 days. Chances are she knew when they were visiting and was able to stop for a few days before her scheduled visit. Doesnt mean she wasnt using, just means she took a small break in order to keep social services off her back. Thats my guess- that they knew but that she was good at playing the system game. Many of the addicts I knew found this to be part of the excitement- do as many drugs as they could and still be able to test negative. It was considered more of an accomplishment than I ever could comprehend. Maybe my overwhelming sense of accomplishment from completing all steps- washing, folding AND putting away- clothing is the same over-inflated sense of accomplishment!

 

[menmo]

You may sign papers consenting to being drug tested, however, they cannot just take a sample from you without telling you AT THAT TIME, that they are drug testing you. It's called informed consent and a person has the right to withdraw consent at anytime. That is why, if you've ever, ever been drug tested, you'd know it. They cannot collect a sample from you without informing you that what you had consented to by signing that paper in the beginning is being carried out.

Also, due to the cheap cost of urine testing vs. blood testing for drugs, almost universally a urine sample will be taken for an initial drug screen. If it's positive, a blood sample will usually be drawn to confirm and have a more accurate reading. Urine can be concentrated or watered down due to natural processes.

Every maternity appointment I had, I was told to pee in a little cup with no lid, no label and no one watching. They could have tested it for drugs and it would never have held up in court if I were positive. No one saw me pee in the cup, there is no label to distinguish it from the other 10 samples on the counter and it was not collected using semi sterile protocol.

So, one could sign all they want without reading, but you would still know if a sample was being obtained for a drug screen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wondering if the difference is in VA vs. MO?
I also should have been clear instead of saying we "always" tested for drugs in mother's system, I should have said it seemed we always tested mother's for drugs. That was 15 years ago when I stopped working there so not even sure on the way it's done currently.
I've just recently heard of kin of someone I know testing positive when she was hospitalized for pneumonia. She just had her baby and brought him home. Part of me is screaming out loud although I know we can't save them all and I don't know the whole story. Wishing that the law would protect a child more or even as much as it seems to the parent.

JMO

 

[ANonyMs]

Info on Virginia's prenatal drug testing...and I am still confused. Women are screened and then may be referred but it does not specify TESTING. Also addresses screening of newborns.

http://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/libra...-laws-regarding- substance-use-pregnancy.pptx

 

[MzOpinion8d]

Opiates are technically safe to take during pregnancy if there is a legitimate need. It's possible AW could have had a prescription for something so when she tested positive for it, it was expected. One would assume the doctor delivering the baby would make sure the infant was ok, but if she was believable they may not have realized the extent of her use.

Just a possibility.

 

[ANonyMs]

Opiates are technically safe to take during pregnancy if there is a legitimate need. It's possible AW could have had a prescription for something so when she tested positive for it, it was expected. One would assume the doctor delivering the baby would make sure the infant was ok, but if she was believable they may not have realized the extent of her use.

Just a possibility.

I have thought that, as well. And we know that they found Rx meds in the home. And it would have been easy for that to spiral out of control quickly. If Baby A was only 6 months, though - she should have been in for a few well baby visits. Would there have been immediate outward symptoms or signs? I looked around a bit but everything comes back with info on babies in withdrawl, not babies who still have opiates in their systems.

 

[matou]

Sorry I haven't posted in a long time. Has the toxicology come back yet? Still the same charges for Noah's parents? TIA

 

[ANonyMs]

Sorry I haven't posted in a long time. Has the toxicology come back yet? Still the same charges for Noah's parents? TIA

No word on toxicology. Same charges still pending. Both parents were denied bond and denied again upon appeal. Evidence came out in bond hearings that both children were left home alone during the time when AW drove PT to work on the morning Noah disappeared and that Baby A was born with Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome.

 

[matou]

WTH??? So the heroine/drug rumors were true? omg...... Thanks for the update xo

 

[ANonyMs]

WTH??? So the heroine/drug rumors were true? omg...... Thanks for the update xo

We don't know yet if it was heroin or other opiate. Could have also been an Rx opiate. But yeah, sadly, there is some truth to the rumors.

And you're welcome

 

[courtneyb]

WTH??? So the heroine/drug rumors were true? omg...... Thanks for the update xo

And Baby A is still suffering with it which likely indicates she has continued to exposed to some type of opiates/heroin (NAS is a syndrome specific to those drugs) in the months after her birth.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MzOpinion8d]

I have thought that, as well. And we know that they found Rx meds in the home. And it would have been easy for that to spiral out of control quickly. If Baby A was only 6 months, though - she should have been in for a few well baby visits. Would there have been immediate outward symptoms or signs? I looked around a bit but everything comes back with info on babies in withdrawl, not babies who still have opiates in their systems.

I'm not familiar enough with pediatric addiction issues to know how it presents with ongoing exposure in infants. I am going to try to find some resource info to learn more. (I am an addictions nurse but work with adults, but it would be good for me to expand my knowledge in this area!)

One possibility is that Baby Girl hadn't been taken in for many checkups. No one monitors that in general. If they received benefits such as WIC, they usually check the baby's weight/length periodically but I'm not sure how often, and I think they also monitor immunizations as well. But if they didn't receive it, then no check ups there. And I think state health insurance reminds people to go in for check ups but there's no enforcement except maybe not qualifying when they apply next.

It's also possible that Baby Girl was taken in but seemed generally ok but on the small side, or there was some otherwise reasonable explanation for any irregularities that didn't raise suspicion. We all want to believe that everything weird will be caught but look how much abuse slips through the cracks - even the unbelievably obvious stuff sometimes. Baby Girl was in a 2 parent family, with both parents working, she was fed and clothes, and had a seemingly healthy and well taken care of older brother...it's possible there weren't any huge red flags, especially if health care providers didn't see her often.

 

[LayzeeDayzee]

Can you please provide a reputable source/link that states that opiate use during pregnancy is safe (for legitimate reasons/pain relief), as that's certainly not anything I've ever been taught or read.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/birthdefects/features/birthdefects-Opioid-Analgesics-keyfindings.html

Opiates are technically safe to take during pregnancy if there is a legitimate need. It's possible AW could have had a prescription for something so when she tested positive for it, it was expected. One would assume the doctor delivering the baby would make sure the infant was ok, but if she was believable they may not have realized the extent of her use.

Just a possibility.