GUILTY WI - Chad & Melinda Chritton, Joshua Drabek for abuse of 15yo girl, Madison, 2012

[jjenny]

As I understood it, the complaint was filed years ago when he was healthy.

There were numerous complaints to CPS, not just one complaint years ago.

 

[MarthaM]

I think CPS had no clue as to what they are doing. This child was reportedly living in the basement and alarm would sound if she left the basement. The basement had no bathroom so the child would reportedly defecate and urinate in the basement. It had to stink to high heavens in that basement, but none of that raised red flags to CPS, despite a number of complaints about the child?

One of the articles stated that when CPS visited the home, the stepmother showed them the boys' bedroom and said it was the girl's. I don't know if it's part of CPS's routine in Madison (or any other city, for that matter), to search a basement. I'm not sure if there would be an odor that would carry upstairs, especially if scubbing the basement was part of the cleaning that the girl was required to do.

There aren't a lot of details about what CPS saw when they were in the home, but perhaps that info will come out soon. I think there are a lot of blank spaces still to be filled in.

I do think that it seem CPS should have seen more, but right now I'm not sure what they did or didn't see during each of those visits. One thing I do know is that neighbors knew there were problems in that house, based on the various interviews I've seen on the news.

 

[MarthaM]

You got me! Didn't think that was odd? No doctor visits, no school?
Maybe the mom paid them off or knew them.
I think CPS doesn't know what they are doing.

I will have to know more before I trash CPS, but right now I'd just say that I doubt that the stepmother paid them off or knew them. I think it's far more likely that she and the other adults heaped lie upon lie, plus had the girl (and the other children) so frightened that she wouldn't say anything. The articles about the CPS visits state that they'd be called because of a situation reported by someone, and then the girl wouldn't corroborate it even if she'd already told someone about it. That's how it works in abusive families; the victims back up the lies by keeping quiet, out of fear.

Why did her dad marry an unattractive and abusive woman with a rapist as a son? I am shocked he didn't beat the heck out of her son and toss them to curb or call the cops. Am I missing something?

I don't think a person's looks matter when it comes to marrying. That's important to some people, not to others. People marry for all kinds of reasons, regardless of how they look.

As far as the rest of it... if I remember correctly, they were married before he got custody of his daughter and before the sexual abuse started, or were at least together before that. The stepson would have been pretty young when these two people got together.

Any decent parent would not have allowed this whole situation to continue in his home. But this one did. :maddening: I will never understand people like that.

I don't know if anyone saw the difference in demeanors in the courtroom yesterday? The father seemed tearful and distraught, the mother... not so much.

 

[jjenny]

I don't doubt neighbors knew of the problems, and several of them say they reported those problems.

 

[not_my_kids]

As far as visiting the basement, I think I know why they didn't. In MI, not sure about other states, when CPS recieves a report of anything except drugs, they can search common areas and the children's bedrooms only. This means they can look at the kitchen, living room/den, dining room, bathroom that the children use, and the children's bedrooms. Unless the referral was of drugs being manufactured or distributed, they cannot search adult only bedrooms, or non-common areas, such as basements, spare bedrooms, laundry rooms, or any other area where the child has no reason to be, like a shed or spare bathroom.

That's why a lot of these cases slip through the cracks, IMO.

 

[jjenny]

As far as visiting the basement, I think I know why they didn't. In MI, not sure about other states, when CPS recieves a report of anything except drugs, they can search common areas and the children's bedrooms only. This means they can look at the kitchen, living room/den, dining room, bathroom that the children use, and the children's bedrooms. Unless the referral was of drugs being manufactured or distributed, they cannot search adult only bedrooms, or non-common areas, such as basements, spare bedrooms, laundry rooms, or any other area where the child has no reason to be, like a shed or spare bathroom.

That's why a lot of these cases slip through the cracks, IMO.

But the child was living in the basement, so that was her bedroom.

 

[MarthaM]

But the child was living in the basement, so that was her bedroom.

But the stepmother didn't tell CPS that. She showed them an upstairs bedroom and said it was the girl's. And a girl who has been terrorized and has lived in fear is not about to pipe up with 'Oh, no, I sleep in the basement...' during a CPS visit. You can bet she was coached as to exactly what she could and couldn't say; being terrified, she would comply.

I'm just glad she had the courage to spill the beans once she was out of the home.

And along those lines... the man who stopped to help her and took her to the hospital/police is my HERO. I haven't really mentioned him much yet, but I am so glad that he was in the right place at the right time. This could have had a much different ending.

 

[not_my_kids]

But the child was living in the basement, so that was her bedroom.

But unless someone told them that, it wouldn't matter. It says upthread that on one referral, they told the workers that the boys bedroom was actually the girls bedroom. Unless someone told them differently, they couldn't have searched the basement, unless they have different standards.

 

[jjenny]

But unless someone told them that, it wouldn't matter. It says upthread that on one referral, they told the workers that the boys bedroom was actually the girls bedroom. Unless someone told them differently, they couldn't have searched the basement, unless they have different standards.

There were multiple allegations of abuse over a number of years. But CPS couldn't figure it out. If they were trying to question the child in the home don't they realize the child is going to be scared to tell them anything? Have they tried to remove her from the home and question her then? And lets say they were told the boys bedroom was the girls bedroom. Have they looked to see if any of her clothes were in there?

 

[MarthaM]

There were multiple allegations of abuse over a number of years. But CPS couldn't figure it out. If they were trying to question the child in the home don't they realize the child is going to be scared to tell them anything? Have they tried to remove her from the home and question her then? And lets say they were told the boys bedroom was the girls bedroom. Have they looked to see if any of her clothes were in there?

I think we have to realize that what we now know, from what the victim said to Law Enforcement and human services/medical personnel, is not necessarily what was reported to CPS. There probably weren't really allegations of abuse, but individual incidents that were reported to CPS. One neighbor interviewed on our local news said that she was outside and they heard the girl being yelled at inside the house. Another one (or maybe the same one, can't remember now) said they saw her rummaging through the trash. CPS had brief moments to go on, not the long list of specifics we now know. And as far as clothes being in the boys' room, any adult trying to cover up the abuse going on in their home could very easily stage the whole visit to make it look like things were a-ok.

I'm trying not to come across as either defending CPS or criticizing them; as I said, I don't know enough right now to do either. Just trying to be realistic until I know more.

 

[MarthaM]

I just saw a promo for one of our local channel's (WISN-12) 10 pm news. They are going to have an interview with the girl's birth mother. I'll be watching that.

Also read a new article tonight from another station, and the last part is a little troubling. It sounds to me like Human Services might be implying that some of those previous visits to the Chritton home weren't in regards to this child, but perhaps involved another of the children:

Lynn Green, the director of the Dane County Department of Human Services, said in essence the reports generated from the previous visits to the Chritton home, "did not rise to the level of giving the department the authority to conduct the investigation."

They add some of the other cases may not have involved the same child. All children are now in protective custody.

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/139552983.html

 

[Belinda]

Quote:
Lynn Green, the director of the Dane County Department of Human Services, said in essence the reports generated from the previous visits to the Chritton home, "did not rise to the level of giving the department the authority to conduct the investigation."

They add some of the other cases may not have involved the same child. All children are now in protective custody.

Total cop out.

 

[STEADFAST]

Interview with the victim's mother: http://www.wkow.com/story/16963702/victims-mother-arrives-in-madison-hoping-for-reunion

"Diddle Diddle was her nickname," she said. "I thought I was doing the right thing. I was not capable of taking care of my child."
. . . Pease terminated her parental rights in 2006 because she was married to a sex offender, but she says that she's not with that man anymore. In fact, she says he passed away. She believes she is now in a home where she could care for her child.

I hope child services does a very thorough investigation before they release the victim to her mother or her mother's family.

 

[jjenny]

The mother showed up? That would be the same mother who married a sex offender even though she had a little girl in the house? If the mother terminated her parental rights then I don't see how they could release the girl to the mother.

 

[JeannaT]

The mother showed up? That would be the same mother who married a sex offender even though she had a little girl in the house? If the mother terminated her parental rights then I don't see how they could release the girl to the mother.

Um hmm. The way the article reads it may be that she terminated her rights before marrying a sex offender. If so, that's a pretty cold and calculated choice. I'd much rather see reinstating the rights of a parent who, though ignorance of good parenting skills, lost their child due to neglect but was fighting to get the child back.

Doing the math she lost this child when she was about 10. I can't imagine handing over my 10 year old so I could marry a sex offender.

 

[tlcya]

I just saw a promo for one of our local channel's (WISN-12) 10 pm news. They are going to have an interview with the girl's birth mother. I'll be watching that.

Also read a new article tonight from another station, and the last part is a little troubling. It sounds to me like Human Services might be implying that some of those previous visits to the Chritton home weren't in regards to this child, but perhaps involved another of the children:



http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/139552983.html

I would think multiple reports involving mutiple children would be an even bigger red flag than multiple reports regarding one child in a home with several other children.


Troubling yes.

 

[jjenny]

Um hmm. The way the article reads it may be that she terminated her rights before marrying a sex offender. If so, that's a pretty cold and calculated choice. I'd much rather see reinstating the rights of a parent who, though ignorance of good parenting skills, lost their child due to neglect but was fighting to get the child back.

Doing the math she lost this child when she was about 10. I can't imagine handing over my 10 year old so I could marry a sex offender.

Her rights were not terminated before she married the sex offender. This child first lived with her and the sex offender husband. There are allegations that sex offender molested the child when the child was 8. After that the child moved with father. So this child was first allegedly abused by the sex offender husband of the mother, then moved with the father, where the son of the step-mother also allegedly sexually abused the child.

 

[bellyup]

Her rights were not terminated before she married the sex offender. This child first lived with her and the sex offender husband. There are allegations that sex offender molested the child when the child was 8. After that the child moved with father. So this child was first allegedly abused by the sex offender husband of the mother, then moved with the father, where the son of the step-mother also allegedly sexually abused the child.

I'm going to reserve my judgement on this until (or if) I hear more.
As the mom's "husband" was accused of abusing the daughter at 8 , it's not a far stretch to believe the mother was abused and/or scared as well. Not that it excuses her actions, but she could have been terrified and thought she was doing the right thing by getting her daughter out of the situation. Not realizing she was sending her to an even worse situation.

 

[STEADFAST]

An article summarizing the victim's statement to LE:

When the malnourished 15-year-old awoke each morning, she could hear her family eating and getting ready for the day. If she felt especially brave or desperate she would call to her stepmother and beg for food, but usually she just went back to bed and hoped her hunger pangs went away. . .

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/starved-wis-girls-statements-detail-life-15754440#.T0McgLR9mSo


Oh, and this part really steams me -- how does the child welfare office justify allowing suspected abusers to forbid questioning of the reported victim???

Neighbors expressed concern. One called authorities after watching the parents scream at the girl as she was forced to push cement blocks from one side of the yard to the other for no apparent reason. However, the parents blocked county workers from speaking with the girl.

 

[Reader]

An article summarizing the victim's statement to LE:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/starved-wis-girls-statements-detail-life-15754440#.T0McgLR9mSo


Oh, and this part really steams me -- how does the child welfare office justify allowing suspected abusers to forbid questioning of the reported victim???

I'm just wondering in all the visits that CPS made, even if the step-mother and father lied about where the girl slept, etc., didn't they at least see her and notice that she was, uh, 'rather' small for her age?And ask why the parents are breaking the law by not sending her to school?

And refusing to let the CPS worker talk to the child? That's when you call LE to go back with you and explain to the parents that the worker has an abuse complaint and the law demands they have to interview and examine the child. Then when you get her story and see the shape she is in, you take her to the doctor. Been there, done that, many times....

I'm interested in the rest of the CPS story also....but right now, there is no excuse for this having gone on so long with the previous reports, IMO...