Ron's Incident With The Gun Spark Investigation was opened by DCF.

[kiki the parrot]

So far as I know, when he left for work, his daughter was alive. There is no evidence that Haleigh was the object of Ron's rage. Surely Crystal would have raised that at the custody hearing if that were the case. We can only talk of negligence in hindsight. Haleigh was clean, fed and sheltered, getting regular medical care, and left in the care of someone old enough to babysit. I used to watch kids younger and older than Haleigh when I was 14. As I have said time and again, certainly Misty was not an ideal babysitter, given her history. But we still have absolutely no proof that she was the direct or indirect cause of Haleigh's disappearance. If someone came into that trailer and took that child, how is that Ron Cummings's fault? How would he be more "responsible" than Ed Smart, who hired a psychopathic sexual sadist and introduced him into his home environment, where he kidnapped and assaulted and imprisoned his daughter? We absolutely know that the Smart family introduced the kidnapper to their home; we do not yet know that Misty did. Again, I am only responding to the notion that Haleigh would have been safer with her mother--which is just a backdoor way of saying that Ron is responsible. We could say that EVERY abducted child might have been "safer" had they been taken by the courts or sent to live with grandma. As has been pointed out repeatedly, Crystal has had a problem with drugs herself and wasn't a very conscientious mother when pregnant with Junior. She seems almost unconscious on television, at least when I've seen her. But even if Crystal was June Cleaver or Ma Walton and had custody, if a predator had his eye on Haleigh, he could have taken her when she was just visiting her father. Are we going to call for the removal by the state of all the siblings of all the children who disappear? or of all the children living with an alcoholic or drug abuser--including those who are abusing prescription pain killers? Or is it just Ron Cummings who should lose his son? If he is arrested and we are presented with evidence that he has done the unspeakable, then the issue of custody is moot. I am still waiting for the first shred of evidence that he was involved.

In the end, the only person responsible for Haleigh's disappearance is the person who took her out of that trailer.

(snip, bbm) Few of the scenarios I've suggested (other than rage) even required Ron to have been present at the time, but I can't rule out and don't know that at all--there is to date no proof that Haleigh was alive when her father left for work. Nor does his behavior in the days, weeks and months following lead me to dismiss the possibility of indirect involvement.

Crystal takes seizure med that may cause the slowing down of speech so to say almost unconscious is itself deliberately pejorative, an unnecessary indictment of her character. Let's worry about the lortabs, and other illegal drugs it's been reported that Misty--in whose care Haleigh was left--had been doing that weekend, at the very least up until the time Ron rounded her up just prior to leaving her in charge of his two young children, and the apparent stupor she slept in that night, instead.

Misty wasn't merely these children's occasional drop-in, daytime 'babysitter' she was the sole, on-and-off-and-on-again, fulltime, overnight teen stepnanny whom Ron and his two small children were depending upon to function as their protector and live-in, surrogate parent. And it isn't only about Misty's age--it is her state of mind, whether she was mature, sober, straight and consciencious enough to be given such an enormous responsibility. As *I* have said time and again, it's not that Misty just wasn't "ideal" lol, from what the neighbors say, she sounds more like the babysitter from downunder.

Lastly, the issue is not the HIDDEN, UNKNOWN risk factors for which any reasonably vigilant parent could be faulted--but those that lay open, and exposed, about which others even have long been aware(?) yet which are nevertheless ignored, overlooked or downplayed for the sake of an illicit, statutory live-in arrangement of convenience. Afaik neither Ed Smart nor many other reasonably prudent parents of missing children had an arrest record as long as your arm involving drugs eg which could have exposed their children to dangers, much less assaults and displays and threats of violence which can clearly put their children in harm's way. Every parent can make an error in judgment, we are speaking here of forseeable consequences. Last I knew leaving children where parents or caregivers are using, selling or possessing drugs illegally was considered child endangerment and yes does call for removal of children where children are repeatedly put at risk. If Ron had no questions re his associates I'm just curious why practically his first words were to the effect that, "It's not like she's property or something."

Anyone still convinced that Ron and Misty provide suitable quality care, and acceptable level of supervision, is free I guess to entrust their own children to them but not mine. JMO

arrot:

 

[Malesherbes]

Anyone still convinced that Ron and Misty provide suitable quality care, and acceptable level of supervision, is free I guess to entrust their own children to them but not mine. JMO

arrot:

I wouldnt even let those two walk my dog-

 

[PorcineGranny]

Elle, honest to goodness you never crossed my mind. But, no, I don't mean I am right and someone else is wrong and I don't understand why you would jump to that conclusion.

I just want others to know that different conclusions can be reached within the same information and in my opinion are more likely based on information and my personal experience. There are some of us on board here that are much older and have seen actual crime and defendants close up and personal. Thats not to disparage anyone younger but to say the old adage that things are not always as they seem.

I enjoy your posts also.

Elle, I'm happy for all your achievements in life. But that really does not put you above other posters here in my opinion. I have been trying to explain why Ron is responsible for Haleigh's fate and I guess I have not done that in a way others could relate to. For that I am sorry, but I still think I am right. I just want to reiterate that I really had not thought of or considered you when I wrote that post and I feel awkward explaining to you my personal ideas when I know you are perfectly capable of understanding the issues I was trying to convey. How my personal thoughts get so twisted in others minds is a puzzle to me. I'm at a loss as to your perception.

 

[PorcineGranny]

Whoa, I think I am right, but that doesn't mean that other's ideas are wrong, just that I don't agree with them. This is convoluted but I'm hoping you understand what I meant in the above post.

 

[elle1919]

Elle, honest to goodness you never crossed my mind. But, no, I don't mean I am right and someone else is wrong and I don't understand why you would jump to that conclusion.

I just want others to know that different conclusions can be reached within the same information and in my opinion are more likely based on information and my personal experience. There are some of us on board here that are much older and have seen actual crime and defendants close up and personal. Thats not to disparage anyone younger but to say the old adage that things are not always as they seem.

I enjoy your posts also.

Thank you, and if I jumped to the wrong conclusion please accept my apologies. I can agree that there must be many here in Haleigh's forum
that can be described as "older and wiser"....lol. Personally, I can only base my opinions on my life and my experiences. I have seen a lot of ugliness but I have also seen a lot of hope and reason for hope. Maybe I try to look for the good in people and in doing so I come to inappropriate conclusions, but at the same time, maybe you would be willing to say that because you have seen so much injustice you automatically think of people as guilty until proven innocent? Whichever it is, there is no wrong or right and I can respect the place from which your opinions come.

ETA...you edited while I was still replying. But, nevertheless I have not yet come to the conclusion that Ronald harmed Haleigh, or that he is directly responsible for her disappearance. Like I said above, I will respect your opinion but disagree.

 

[debs]

PorcineGranny, I never took your posts to suggest any such thing. I for one, look forward to your perspective in this convoluted matter. Thanks for your efforts.

 

[elle1919]

lol.....I give up. Must there be lines drawn and sides taken on absolutely every issue? Debs, because you agree with PorcineGranny's post does that make mine any less valid?

 

[MeoW333]

lol.....I give up. Must there be lines drawn and sides taken on absolutely every issue? Debs, because you agree with PorcineGranny's post does that make mine any less valid?

Elle, your post is just as valid as other posts on here! Don't worry, most people don't judge others opinions, we judge on facts!

 

[MeoW333]

Meow, I just went back and reread your post. I wish I knew how to copy and answer each statement underneath. your posts purposely twists some of my words, but at least others who read here can get a feeling on how your conclusions are being formed and for that I am grateful. If Ron had an inkling, well I believe Ron did have an inkling as he called home 21 times and no answer.

Your logic that other people do this all the time and their children aren't missing is very lacking. If your friends did something illegal or wrong, would it be ok for you to do the same thing? Just because they weren't caught, does that mean you wouldn't be?

I don't want to argue over these things, its just easy logic to arrive at these
conclusions. Maybe my life picture is larger than yours cause I'm older and have seen alot. I dunno.

Porcine Granny, i didn't mean to twist your words, i was attempting to make a metaphorical example of how Ron's previous criminal record is affecting him.

Why is my logic lacking? I don't understand that paragraph you wrote.

What i was saying is that it is happening other places people leaving their kids with babysitters on drugs, families raising kids while doing drugs basically people making bad choices, however we don't hear about them as their kids aren't missing. You didn't understand what i wrote. Or perhaps you twisted my words.
Can you explain what you meant by my logic is lacking? Thank you

 

[MeoW333]

Thanks was not enough! Great post! Logical and well presented!

Exactly, ITA! It's like saying someone wore a provocative dress so it was her fault she got raped. Ridiculous.

Thank you Curvecuti, i guess i did word it alright after all, you understood what i meant exactly! =)

 

[MeoW333]

Meow, I just went back and reread your post. I wish I knew how to copy and answer each statement underneath. your posts purposely twists some of my words, but at least others who read here can get a feeling on how your conclusions are being formed and for that I am grateful. If Ron had an inkling, well I believe Ron did have an inkling as he called home 21 times and no answer.

Your logic that other people do this all the time and their children aren't missing is very lacking. If your friends did something illegal or wrong, would it be ok for you to do the same thing? Just because they weren't caught, does that mean you wouldn't be?

I don't want to argue over these things, its just easy logic to arrive at these
conclusions. Maybe my life picture is larger than yours cause I'm older and have seen alot. I dunno.

I don't know how to post to answer each thing either..

That's a mean attack saying my logic is lacking when others understood perfectly fine.

How do you know how old i am to even make that comment? I have never announced my age to you or on here.

I am not attacking you, i just wish you would be a little bit nicer to me.
All i was doing was metaphorically giving an example of what you said using a different example.

And no i don't have friends that do drugs and have kids.

 

[MeoW333]

Completely to me means 100% so I must ask. What percentage of responsibility do you prescribe to Ron for his bad choices? 80%, 50%, 0%?



Obviously you don't and that's ok and if someone chooses to be a prostitute and subjects themselves to several known and unknown men during a week they will put themselves at more risk of crime, wouldn't ya think?



How about indirectly responsible?



Ron's child's is missing, if she hadn't have gone missing we wouldn't even be having this discussion. I think LE has said MITK, his former wife, the one he messaged she was being taken into confidence by her new friend after he told her he wanted a divorce <supposedly>

Question #1
Whatever results LE finds in the conclusion of this case would tell us the percentage of responsibility that Ron has for his choices.
Now if Ron left drugs out an Haleigh OD'd then obviously he should be held responsible (using that as an example)

Question #2
You completely missed my point.

So what you are saying is prostitutes deserve to be murdered as that is their career choice? That some human beings have less value than others.
I was using the prostitute example in reference to murder, not any other "crime" in general. Murder would be the only fitting example, as most likely Haleigh is not with us anymore, so the crime would have to be comparable.

I've defended my posts.

 

[elle1919]

I think that we all are looking forward to what hearing DCF has to say. Were we ever able to establish how long before they are required to put forth a finding? I guess different cases take more time than others and others require less time. Who knows.

 

[MeoW333]

you are right, it does not lessen the charge of murder. But would her vocation have put her in the sights of someone more likely to commit murder?

No one deserves to be murdered, prostitutes or not. Look at the Jennings, La murders. A lot of the girls killed were involved in drugs and prostitution. Not one of them deserved to die, they have families, some have children that loved them.

That they were a prostitute doesn't not mean they were asking for it. I feel bad for women who have fallen into prositution, they may have drug problems, maybe that's how they put food on the table,etc.
Since Ron made bad life choices of having a drugged out Misty babysit his kids, that doesn't mean he expected Haleigh to die or something to happen to her. That's the point i am trying to make, which some find hard to figure out, am i not wording myself clearly enough? If not, let me know and i will try and explain it better.

 

[MeoW333]

I wouldnt even let those two walk my dog-

I wouldn't let anyone i don't know well personally walk my dog. =)

 

[curvecuti]

Meow333, I removed my thanks from your posts because I don't want to be a Thanks abuser. But I do want to say Thanks for all of them! You make some great points and I enjoy reading your posts.

 

[atherella]

I think that we all are looking forward to what hearing DCF has to say. Were we ever able to establish how long before they are required to put forth a finding? I guess different cases take more time than others and others require less time. Who knows.

BBM

I thought I remembered 60 days from the last investigation so I went looking. (I think it was in a Palatka Daily News article, but those only stay available for a certain amount of time). However, I did find a quote from that verifies the 60 days. We do know that they are able to extend that 60 days since they went WAY past 60 days last time.

While there’s a normal 60 day deadline to finish child abuse probes by DFS, which ended last Tuesday, The Bald Truth has confirmed a news account reporting the deadline has been extended so investigators can keep digging into the fitness of the parents and determine whether Ronald Junior is safe living with his father and stepmother at the trailer home of Cummings grandmother in Welaka, or needs to be removed. “We typically try to wrap up cases in 60 days,” says John Harrell, Putnam County’s DFS spokesman. “Occasionally we go longer, but we try not to go too far beyond that.”

http://www.artharris.com/2009/05/14/the-bald-truth-on-cnn-jane-velez-mitchell/

 

[kiki the parrot]

Let's be clear. A prostitute by her chosen lifestyle is choosing only to endanger herself. NOT a comparable situation. Should she also engage in other crimes and lifestyle choices which knowingly put her CHILD at risk (ie possessing illegal drugs or weapons in the home; bringing known felons, drug users, dealers, those possessing drugs, or unsafe weapons into their home; brandishing and making threats with or possessing unsafe weapons eg, or leaving her CHILD while poorly attended etc, these however would be comparable.

arrot:

 

[pittsburghgirl]

(snip, bbm)
Crystal takes seizure med that may cause the slowing down of speech so to say almost unconscious is itself deliberately pejorative, an unnecessary indictment of her character. [snipped, with respect to your main point]

Lastly, the issue is not the HIDDEN, UNKNOWN risk factors for which any reasonably vigilant parent could be faulted--but those that lay open, and exposed, about which others even have long been aware(?) yet which are nevertheless ignored, overlooked or downplayed for the sake of an illicit, statutory live-in arrangement of convenience. Afaik neither Ed Smart nor many other reasonably prudent parents of missing children had an arrest record as long as your arm involving drugs eg which could have exposed their children to dangers, much less assaults and displays and threats of violence which can clearly put their children in harm's way. Every parent can make an error in judgment, we are speaking here of forseeable consequences. Last I knew leaving children where parents or caregivers are using, selling or possessing drugs illegally was considered child endangerment and yes does call for removal of children where children are repeatedly put at risk. If Ron had no questions re his associates I'm just curious why practically his first words were to the effect that, "It's not like she's property or something."

Anyone still convinced that Ron and Misty provide suitable quality care, and acceptable level of supervision, is free I guess to entrust their own children to them but not mine.

Interesting post, kiki. Seizure medication may well cause the slowing down of speech. Does such medication prevent slow but coherent response to relatively simple questions? Since I do not know Crystal's medical history, I can only say that she often appears to have difficulty communicating on television, and I have wondered if one reason she hasn't pursued custody more vigorously is that her health may not allow it. I wasn't stating anything pejorative; I was describing what I saw. She seems, at time, to be dazed or in a fog--whether from prescribed meds or depression or something else, I don't know. Certainly if she has seizure problems, taking illegal drugs is not the best choice. I did not say one thing about her character. And it isn't me who paints people as unfit to be parents due to drug use. If that's the criteria, the kids shouldn't be with Crystal either. So far as I can see, she seems to be a decent person. I admire that she doesn't use the media spotlight to trash her children's father publicly or to heap blame on him for Haleigh's disappearance. The topic of my post was whether Haleigh would be with her family now if Ron didn't have custody and Crystal did. My point is that there are some issues with Crystal, as well as with Ron. Unless we are to imagine that kids with less than perfect parents should be placed in foster care, with its dismal, dismal record, then courts are left with trying to shore up weak, imperfect families formed by young people who make some bad choices. Does it mean nothing that child welfare agents have responded to allegations about Ron's fitness as a parent twice since Haleigh disappeared, and under intense media spotlight, so far have not seen it necessary to remove his son? Perhaps the people investigating the household know more than we do. None of this means that I would hire Misty as a babysitter or want my daughter dating Ron Cummings. I am just waiting until we know what happened to Haleigh before determining that "Ron put her at risk" for abduction and worse.

I don't think, for example, that people invited into a home pose "hidden, unknown risk factors." Those risks are right out there for all to see. When we hire someone to work in our home, we use licensed, bonded workers, usually based on referrals from people we know or other professionals we have worked with. We kept a close eye on the workers building a new home in our neighborhood, locking doors even when we were all at home in the day time. Schools in PA require background checks before teachers, aides and other workers can be hired. And so on. Even these precautions aren't foolproof. A predator may not have an arrest record or use a stolen identity; the criminal may be the new guy on the job. If we teach kids "stranger danger," why give adults a pass for letting the stranger danger into the house? Because even the best of people with the best of intentions make mistakes that put their kids at risk.

How is a child's disappearance the "forseeable consequence" of Ron's arrest record for poaching deer or possessing drugs? I can see how a child's abduction might be the forseeable consequence of inviting a stranger to work in your house without checking references. And remember: I am not arguing that Ed Smart is at fault or is in any way responsible for his daughter's abduction. I don't think Haleigh's disappearance is a forseeable consequences of dating Misty or moving her in the house, etc. Now, if (and God forbid) Misty killed this child in the same way that Robert Manwill's stepfather killed him--beating him to death--and she is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then Ron will have to suffer the lifetime torment of wondering why he didn't see that his girlfriend was a homicidal child abuser.

But we do not know, yet, what happened to Haleigh. Who took her out of that trailer, and for what reason? If it was a child predator, and it turns out that Misty was indeed asleep in bed, then how would that be Ron's fault? I don't have to see him as a perfect parent or even a good one in all respects to withhold judgment on what he might have done to prevent Haleigh's disappearance until we know what happened.

 

[kiki the parrot]

I don't think either of us believes I was ever referring to deer poaching... lol. It sounds suspiciously like faulting Ed Smart. Further, the continued implication of "took her out of that trailer" is of course always stranger abduction.... Some have not narrowed it down to this--least of all LE. We shall agree to disagree concerning virtually everything else as well. JMO

arrot: