Regarding how the children looked in the photos. I also didnt notice at first how thin and sickly looking the children were. I think there is an element of hindsight involved here. I also think knowing the childrens actual ages and then matching that up to each child really points out how starved and unhealthy they looked.
Having said all that, there is something else, a real shrewdness at work here. Dressing the children up in these gimmicky ways for these staged photographs seems very clever. The matching clothes, the Dr Suess inspirations, the children all photographed together. It distracts the eye and focuses the viewer on the clothes, the cutesy gimmick, the location, the number of children. It prevents you from paying attention to each individual face.
Given what has come out, these photos are obviously staged, whether to put off relatives, engaging in a kind of fantasy, seeking attention, or a bit of all of it.
When did the family move to California? 2010? Im wondering the reason why the charges are from that date. From the press conference, it was stated that LE believe there was always neglect and the abuse was happening in Texas, it just intensified over time and particularly in California. Thats why Im wondering about the 2010 reference.
Also in reference to the 2 year old. The parents have been charged with child abuse in respect to her although not torture as she wasnt being starved like the rest. When asked about this, the prosecutor (?) said he didnt know why. I wonder why. I think the two year old, being so much younger, cuter (Im guessing), and more easily controlled served to bolster up a kind of parental fantasy (like the family photos). For example, LT was reported to have had this child with her often when buying her slice of pizza. Shes a little child, strangers will often smile and comment on babies and little children.
On the other hand, it is my experience that it isnt unusual for dysfunctional families to have a favourite child (or a scapegoat), usually based on arbitrary and nonsensical reasoning. These positions of favourite children and scapegoated children are then reinforced through a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy by the parents own actions. If the favourite child gets better food, nicer things, more attention, better care, then naturally that relationship will be a bit stronger, the childs behaviour will be better, they will present better in front of others. This reinforces to the parent that this child really is better than the others and thus more deserving of nice treatment, and the nice treatment will continue. (This doesnt mean that abuse wont be present just that comparatively speaking it is less.)
On the other hand, The scapegoat will be punished more, neglected more, rejected more, denied more, and blamed for everything. Their behaviour will then become worse, reactive attachment develops, their presentation deteriorates. The parent then feels justified in their abuse of the scapegoated child and will blame them more than ever, and abuse intensifies.
