NC - Shaniya Davis, 5, Fayetteville, 10 Nov 2009 - Allegedly sold by mother #26

[kiki the parrot]

But there was NO "official" court-ordered custody agreement only BL saying: "it's time to be a mother."

All Carey had to do is "defy" her brother and just not bring Shaniya. BL was already in another state.

Let's see how that scenario would have worked out. AD doesn't get Shaniya on October 9th. AD calls Carey and asks "where is Shaniya?" Carey says: "I am not bringing her as I am concerned for her welfare".

AD calls BL in Utah or wherever he was working and tells him "Carey won't bring Shaniya to the house." BL calls Carey and demands Carey to bring Shaniya to the house. Carey refuses and BL MUST return to North Carolina.

BL also calls the police, of which, then some sort of court custody papers/birth certificate should come into play when the police arrive. The police might get DCFS involved to look at AD's home and for the welfare of Shaniya.

Carey would have to show "legal non-custodial" papers to the police, of which, probably don't even exists.

Now BL has to come back and perhaps finally either end up in court to get this all taken care of properly.

Maybe the police would have asked BL to bring Shaniya directly to AD's home and then they all could take a peek inside of the house.

Maybe the police, IF satisfied after speaking with BL on the phone, that the police would bring Shaniya to AD. :waitasec:

Perhaps Shaniya would have been taken by DCFS and put into foster-care until all the paperwork is all in order.

I would sooner "defy my brother" and face the consequences in a court of law.

Hypothetically thinking: IF Carey didn't hand over Shaniya and AD pressed charges against Carey, at least at some point someone would have looked into the situation.

IMO, even if Carey defied her brother's wishes, chances are Carey would have gotten a "slap on the wrist". Carey was just the "carpooler" for delivering Shaniya.

For all we know, Carey MAY have been told to deliver Shaniya on October 2nd, and decided not to take her there for another week. :waitasec:

Carey wouldn't lose her own children because Carey defied her brother. DCFS would have to show proof that Carey's own children were in harms-way and considering based on the scenario, Carey was concerned over the welfare of Shaniya.

I don't know if Carey called DCFS at any time between 10/2 - 10/9; chances are this never happened because IF it did, we would have heard about it during the many press conferences and national cable/prime shows.

Get out of my head Patty lol, and THAT'S IF AD--AND BL--cared enough to take on CDL. I'm not convinced CDL would have had that much resistance from either one to be perfectly honest. It likely would never have ever even reached that point IMO had there been some determination on her part to keep Shaniya w her. Even if AD did actually express some interest in having Shaniya I'm not convinced she would pursue anything had CDL refused; and even tho I am confident BL did in all probability suggest that Shaniya go there, had his sister objected, I seriously doubt BL would have flown home. And the main point is, even the "worst case scenario" would have been Shaniya's only prayer: had CDL angered or alienated both of them, at least someone would have had to get involved and attention would have drawn to the risk factors. Couldn't have made these points any better. This is exactly how I see it too. Hope we can stay focused, at least there is MAM's court appearance tomorrow (re kidnapping) and maybe we'll learn something. :crossfingers:

arrot:

 

[not_my_kids]

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_7B/GS_7B-1900.html

Lists the only people that can take control of a child without a court order. Paternal aunt is not on that list.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_7B/GS_7B-500.html


And another list with more complete info. Once again, no mention of non-custodial paternal aunts. If she is not on this list, she is not immune from prosecution.

ETA: 2nd link only applies to Safe haven Law. palm-forehead-duh.

 

[Patty G]

I am with you. I am wondering what brought the human trafficking charge in. Who fingered AD? There must have been some pretty compelling evidence IMOO. This is NOT a charge you see levelled against someone every day (although we know now that exploitation of this kind does happen way more than we'd like to think).

I want to know what LE has. :banghead:

When AD's charge first came about, I thought and still think that it doesn't make any sense. I don't feel AD is guilty of "human trafficking", however AD based on the missing child report may be guilty of child endangerment or child neglect. I find it hard to "wrap my brain" around that AD sent her daughter off to make money for the household.

Perhaps LE based this charge because of what MAM said: "he picked Shaniya up in front of the trailer", IF that is accurate according to what has been released by the media. And perhaps LE, after seeing the video of MAM in the hotel with Shaniya, made them walk the line of "human trafficking".

Neither AD or MAM have any history of "human trafficking" in their background. MAM has no history of sexual crimes against children.

IF MAM needing "sex", he had his gf, his ex-gf, and even AD if needed.

I look forward to see how this all unfolds in court. I know I would be a good juror for this case because there are too many untold answers.

 

[not_my_kids]

And let's bear in mind, Carey and BL seem to have a strained relationship, at best.

He could have threatened her with charges or other things if she didn't take Shaniya back. I doubt she would have mentioned that on the air. MOO

 

[kiki the parrot]

Patty made the point clearly--which I fully support. I added to my own post above that at least someone would have tried. And even "worst case scenario" it would have been Shaniya's only hope: had CDL angered or alienated both of them, at least someone would've been forced to intervene and attention would've been drawn to the situation--there are times you have to risk upsetting people in order to do the what's right and get the proper agencies to take your concerns seriously. So be it.

arrot:

 

[not_my_kids]

Patty made the point clearly--which I fully support. I added to my own post above--that at least someone would have tried--and even "worst case scenario" would have been Shaniya's only prayer: had CDL angered or alienated both of them, at least someone would have had to get involved and attention would have drawn to the situation--there are times you have to risk upsetting people in order to do the right thing and get the proper agencies to take your concerns seriously. So be it.

arrot:

But is it worth risking the wellbeing of your own children? IMO, she made a choice, based on the information at hand. The law is clear on two things: A non custodial paternal aunt cannot keep a child without proof of abuse and even then, it's a guessing game as to what the state will do. A parent that is going to jail will lose her kids to state care, as there is no one to care for them.

Patty made her point, but that's not how it works all the time.

I wouldn't have wanted to be in Carey's position; choosing between the well being of my kids and the well being of my niece.
That's how I see it, based on the laws in place.

 

[tlcya]

When AD's charge first came about, I thought and still think that it doesn't make any sense. I don't feel AD is guilty of "human trafficking", however AD based on the missing child report may be guilty of child endangerment or child neglect. I find it hard to "wrap my brain" around that AD sent her daughter off to make money for the household.

I look forward to see how this all unfolds in court. I know I would be a good juror for this case because there are too many untold answers.

respectfully snipped by me for brevity

DITTO!! I would have understood if AD had been charged with neglect, abuse, endangerment, etc. but trafficking? Now before everyone gets all over my case: I AM NOT SAYING SHE DID NOT DO THAT. I am simply surprised bt that charge. I would have thought she would be charged with endangermenet, neglect, etc. and then - as evidence was gathered - charged with trafficking if it applied. It is just so odd to go straight to that charge. It really makes me wonder what they have on AD.

And I still cannot figure out how the heck you can charge MAM with kidnapping AND charge AD with trafficking. If she trafficked, there is no kidnapping. Kidnapping implies removing a child from a parent or legal guardian without their consent. Trafficking equals consent! Am I nuts?

 

[kiki the parrot]

But is it worth risking the wellbeing of your own children? IMO, she made a choice, based on the information at hand. The law is clear on two things: A non custodial paternal aunt cannot keep a child without proof of abuse and even then, it's a guessing game as to what the state will do. A parent that is going to jail will lose her kids to state care, as there is no one to care for them.

Patty made her point, but that's not how it works all the time.

I wouldn't have wanted to be in Carey's position; choosing between the well being of my kids and the well being of my niece.
That's how I see it, based on the laws in place.

Disagree. I'm not under any "illusions" either I just don't buy she was risking her children that's all. That's how *I* see it based on the laws and all circumstances. We'll leave it there. JMO

arrot:

 

[not_my_kids]

I am still wondering how LE charged AD with "human trafficking" based on a missing child report.

That one I agree with, and I have no idea. I don't know, but we can hope more comes out over the next few days of hearings.

 

[Patty G]

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_7B/GS_7B-1900.html

Lists the only people that can take control of a child without a court order. Paternal aunt is not on that list.

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_7B/GS_7B-500.html

And another list with more complete info. Once again, no mention of non-custodial paternal aunts. If she is not on this list, she is not immune from prosecution.

Section (e) states:
(e) An individual described in subsection (b) or (d) of this section is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of any omission or action taken pursuant to the requirements of subsection (c) or (d) of this section as long as that individual was acting in good faith. The immunity established by this subsection does not extend to gross negligence, wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing that would otherwise be actionable. (1979, c. 815, s. 1; 1985, c. 408, s. 1; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 863, s. 1; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 27, s. 2; 1995, c. 391, s. 1; 1997‑443, s. 11A.118(a); 1998‑202, s. 6; 1999‑456, s. 60; 2001‑291, s. 2.)

Sections (b) and (d) in section (e) refer to an "infant under 7 days of age" ; if I am reading that correctly.

 

[not_my_kids]

tlcox - That's my issue too. If AD trafficked her, she was given to MAM ( or sold). That is trafficking.
If MAM took her without permission, that's kidnapping.

The two charges don't seem to go together, unless there are charging MAM for this incident and AD for past incidents.

 

[not_my_kids]

Section (e) states:
(e) An individual described in subsection (b) or (d) of this section is immune from any civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of any omission or action taken pursuant to the requirements of subsection (c) or (d) of this section as long as that individual was acting in good faith. The immunity established by this subsection does not extend to gross negligence, wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing that would otherwise be actionable. (1979, c. 815, s. 1; 1985, c. 408, s. 1; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 863, s. 1; 1994, Ex. Sess., c. 27, s. 2; 1995, c. 391, s. 1; 1997‑443, s. 11A.118(a); 1998‑202, s. 6; 1999‑456, s. 60; 2001‑291, s. 2.)

Sections (b) and (d) in section (e) refer to an "infant under 7 days of age" ; if I am reading that correctly.

If you read the whole statute that is actually only relevant only to Safe Haven. That was my mistake.

 

[Patty G]

And let's bear in mind, Carey and BL seem to have a strained relationship, at best.

He could have threatened her with charges or other things if she didn't take Shaniya back. I doubt she would have mentioned that on the air. MOO

The worst thing anyone can do to me is "threaten" me with something IF I did something. I'm USED TO be known for "cutting off my nose to spite my face." :crazy:

 

[Patty G]

If you read the whole statute that is actually only relevant only to Safe Haven. That was my mistake.

Thank you.

 

[Muffet]

But is it worth risking the wellbeing of your own children? IMO, she made a choice, based on the information at hand. The law is clear on two things: A non custodial paternal aunt cannot keep a child without proof of abuse and even then, it's a guessing game as to what the state will do. A parent that is going to jail will lose her kids to state care, as there is no one to care for them.

Patty made her point, but that's not how it works all the time.

I wouldn't have wanted to be in Carey's position; choosing between the well being of my kids and the well being of my niece.
That's how I see it, based on the laws in place.

Me too, NMK. She's a single mother, with three kids to take care of. She is obviously devastated and unlike her brother, she has said everything right about how this never should have happened, imo.

I see BL as having a very, very small hurdle to jump to do the right thing by Shaniya, while CL had a very huge hurdle, and the odds are it would have done no good to attempt it anyway - DCF had already said that AD was fit enough this summer.

So she would have invited a ton of anguish and achieved nothing, IMO. If she angered BL, she may have even lost total access to Shaniya.

She is obviously in a mountain of pain, and I trust that she, unlike her brother, is beating herself up enough already. (I have no problem rebuking BL because imo he still doesn't get it, and looks to me to be rewarded for the results of his neglectful parenting. :sheesh

 

[not_my_kids]

Thank you.

Hey, I'm passionate, not perfect.
If I were perfect, i would be utterly boring.

 

[Muffet]

Disagree. I'm not under any "illusions" either I just don't buy she was risking her children that's all. That's how *I* see it based on the laws and all circumstances. We'll leave it there. JMO

arrot:

LOL Mark the calendar! We actually disagree on something!

Not gonna love ya any less, though. :hug:

Oops! Trial back in session. See ya there.

 

[Patty G]

Hey, I'm passionate, not perfect.
If I were perfect, i would be utterly boring.

I'm the same way.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Hypothetically thinking: IF Carey didn't hand over Shaniya and AD pressed charges against Carey, at least at some point someone would have looked into the situation.

IMO, even if Carey defied her brother's wishes, chances are Carey would have gotten a "slap on the wrist". Carey was just the "carpooler" for delivering Shaniya.

For all we know, Carey MAY have been told to deliver Shaniya on October 2nd, and decided not to take her there for another week. :waitasec:

Carey wouldn't lose her own children because Carey defied her brother. DCFS would have to show proof that Carey's own children were in harms-way and considering based on the scenario, Carey was concerned over the welfare of Shaniya.

I don't know if Carey called DCFS at any time between 10/2 - 10/9; chances are this never happened because IF it did, we would have heard about it during the many press conferences and national cable/prime shows.

I agree with you on this one, Patty G.
No way would Carey have lost her children if she refused to turn Shaniya over to AD.

IMO:

In fact, Carey could have shown LE that she, herself, was listed as the contact person at Shaniya's school. Carey could have also gotten several people to state that Shaniya had, in fact, been living with herself and her brother for most of her little life. Worst case scenario, DCFS could be called in and neither would have wound up with Shaniya until all had been sorted out. That would have kept Shaniya out of harms way temporarily at least. Had Carey raised he!!, it would have brought awareness to Shaniya and she would possibly still be alive. She could have brought awareness to the fact that there had been possible child abuse while Shaniya was at her mother's.

Then, if Shaniya still would have been turned over to AD, Carey could have raised he!! every single day ensuring that AD wouldn't dare let anything happen to Shaniya while many eyes would be watching. Somehow, I just do not think that AD would have put up much of a fuss to get Shaniya back because of her living conditions. She knew the drill.

Just as an aside: In the state of Louisiana, unless you have proof of parentage and/or custody papers, LE cannot do anything. It is a civil matter to be resolved through the courts. That would have been the down side for Carey. But, at least DCFS can be called at any time on anyone.

 

[not_my_kids]

I think the main difference here with me, is that I don't trust the child welfare system at all.
You can call every day, CPS won't act unless they want to. The workers have discretion, the ones that go to houses and the ones that take the reports. A good deal of reports go straight into the "round file" the minute they are made.

ETA: I guess what I'm getting at is that Carey seems the private type and I don't think she would or will ever say what reports she made and how many times, least not publicly. I know she has reveled some personal things, but that was teh day after the funeral, even I can cut some slack there for her and BL.
I'm not going to hang a woman for protecting her children and following the law. MOO.