|
|
Post by aprile78 on Jul 25, 2003 14:04:27 GMT -5
From what I could tell this wasn't physical abuse as in hitting, but neglect, like not feeding the children or bathing them or other things. To me, this is the fault of both parents. The dad would be home enough to know if his children are being fed and bathed. My dad was the worker of the family when we were growing up but he still fed and bathed us right along with my mom. I just don't get how anyone could neglect their children. It's so upsetting. We had a situation in our town about 10-15 years ago that still makes me so sad. A mother and father were seperated. They had 4-5 kids. The dad used to come get the kids quite often, but not the littlest one. He was always "somewhere else". The mother kept him in a closet, fed him there, everything. Then finally, teachers started to get suspicious because of a picture or something the other kids had/drew, and the mother killed him in a horrible way..... The father never seemed to ask enough questions. I agree, it is both of the parents fault. AWFUL 5 years ago, we moved into a house down the street from there. I hate that house. |
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 25, 2003 14:05:58 GMT -5
Have you seen the comercial about Holiday Inn? Well there are people saving nuclear plants from blowing up, or delivering a baby, or doing a concert. According to the commercial this people are not Dr's or Nucleo Enginners or Rock&Roll players, but they stay at the Holyday Inn. So you ask about a Social Worker, get it? I have not seen the commercial. I don't watch much tv anymore. I see, you stayed at Holiday Inn so you can be anything you want! haha That's funny. |
|
|
|
Post by aprile78 on Jul 25, 2003 14:06:11 GMT -5
ask Him then and let us know. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 25, 2003 14:29:11 GMT -5
If both parents live in the household, they both are responsible for the well-being of their children  <>< |
|
|
|
Post by Blemonds on Jul 25, 2003 14:37:36 GMT -5
I have a question and I'm sorry I don't know the details. I was reading in the paper today a comment from a concerned citizen here in my part of the country who brought up a good question and now I have it too. There was a lady in some state who was arrested for child neglect. She is married and yet only she was arrested. The husband went without an arrest or a charge. Aren't both parents responsible for the welfare of the children? Why is the mother at fault and not the father? Sorry I don't know the details of the case, but I don't think they are relevent in the question. Maybe they are. Maybe there is something that was not in the original news story that has the mother completely at fault, but if not, the question stands. I think you should wait until you get more info on this story. there are plenty of reasons why one parent would be arrested and not the other. Such as, suppose the father left for work as is his normal routine. If the mother then left very young children home alone while she went out partying, unbeknownst to the husband, he would not be the one guilty of neglect. A neighbor may witness the children home alone, unable to contact the father he calls the police, then subsequently reaches the father who rushes home to care for his children. Just a scenario, but entirely possible, would you arrest that husband? |
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 25, 2003 14:38:50 GMT -5
If both parents live in the household, they both are responsible for the well-being of their children <>< I agree. |
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 25, 2003 14:39:47 GMT -5
I think you should wait until you get more info on this story. there are plenty of reasons why one parent would be arrested and not the other. Such as, suppose the father left for work as is his normal routine. If the mother then left very young children home alone while she went out partying, unbeknownst to the husband, he would not be the one guilty of neglect. A neighbor may witness the children home alone, unable to contact the father he calls the police, then subsequently reaches the father who rushes home to care for his children. Just a scenario, but entirely possible, would you arrest that husband? That is a possibility as well. Which is why I said that there could be (probably are) circumstances and information that we are not aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by MidnightBirdGirl on Jul 25, 2003 15:01:38 GMT -5
From what I could tell this wasn't physical abuse as in hitting, but neglect, like not feeding the children or bathing them or other things. To me, this is the fault of both parents. The dad would be home enough to know if his children are being fed and bathed. My dad was the worker of the family when we were growing up but he still fed and bathed us right along with my mom. I just don't get how anyone could neglect their children. It's so upsetting. But we don't know if the dad was home enough. We just don't know. Let me give you a personal story, I don't know this case so I do not know if this applies or not. My DH's first wife was very abusive to their daughter.DH was in the military, so he wasn't home very much and went he was he still had to work long hours. He could not control what his ex was doing when he wasn't home. She would take their daughter to drug houses and lock her with other kids in a room. He tried to get her help but she did not want it. When he was home he took care of his daughter, but it could not make up for the mother not doing her job all day. Finally he took his daughter and left. Three years later after she signed away her rights and had not seen or contacted either for the three years she fought for custody and got 50% Even though she was an abusive druggy. Father's are often powerless against such abuse. And removing the child often dosen't work because the mom often gets custody anyway. DG spent $30,000 on a battle where the mother had signed away her rights and still could not protect his child from the abuse. I do not understand this case, but it is possible the dad has tried, and just can't fix the situation. Maybe he is guilty. But I am just giving you a possible reason. |
|
|
|
Post by babysis on Jul 25, 2003 15:11:56 GMT -5
But we don't know if the dad was home enough. We just don't know. Let me give you a personal story, I don't know this case so I do not know if this applies or not. My DH's first wife was very abusive to their daughter.DH was in the military, so he wasn't home very much and went he was he still had to work long hours. He could not control what his ex was doing when he wasn't home. She would take their daughter to drug houses and lock her with other kids in a room. He tried to get her help but she did not want it. When he was home he took care of his daughter, but it could not make up for the mother not doing her job all day. Finally he took his daughter and left. Three years later after she signed away her rights and had not seen or contacted either for the three years she fought for custody and got 50% Even though she was an abusive druggy. Father's are often powerless against such abuse. And removing the child often dosen't work because the mom often gets custody anyway. DG spent $30,000 on a battle where the mother had signed away her rights and still could not protect his child from the abuse. I do not understand this case, but it is possible the dad has tried, and just can't fix the situation. Maybe he is guilty. But I am just giving you a possible reason. That is another possibility. My dad was in the military too, so I know what it's like when the mom is in charge all the time. What does DH and DG stand for? I'm guessing, by context DH is dear husband? I'm not sure about DG. |
|
|
|
Post by MidnightBirdGirl on Jul 25, 2003 15:56:04 GMT -5
That is another possibility. My dad was in the military too, so I know what it's like when the mom is in charge all the time. What does DH and DG stand for? I'm guessing, by context DH is dear husband? I'm not sure about DG. You are right about DH. DG was a typo for DH  |
|
|
|
Post by MidnightBirdGirl on Jul 25, 2003 16:01:17 GMT -5
If both parents live in the household, they both are responsible for the well-being of their children <>< Maybe the father couldn't just take the kids and go. The law often won't allow that. Maybe he was trying to do what he could to protect them by staying there. But he still had to work. We really don't know. It often is not so cut and dry. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 25, 2003 21:19:57 GMT -5
Maybe the father couldn't just take the kids and go. The law often won't allow that. Maybe he was trying to do what he could to protect them by staying there. But he still had to work. We really don't know. It often is not so cut and dry. Mothers up and leave with their children and go to shelters - why not Dad's? It works both ways - look at the lady in Texas who drowned her kids...the Dad knew she was having problems but did nothing - didn't even make sure she was on her meds  <>< |
|
|
|
Post by AmericanBetty on Jul 25, 2003 22:01:51 GMT -5
I can add to the military man stories. Hub told me about cops coming to his house as soon as he got homme from being in the field. He had no idea what was going on. The neighbors had called because of his ex's going's on. A warning was given but nothing much else was done.
He did get custody when they divorced. I helped him raise them since 6 and 4 years of age. They are very good kids at 17 and 15!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 25, 2003 22:46:21 GMT -5
Amen! <><
|
|
|
|
Post by SierraFaith on Jul 25, 2003 22:53:35 GMT -5
Mothers up and leave with their children and go to shelters - why not Dad's? It works both ways - look at the lady in Texas who drowned her kids...the Dad knew she was having problems but did nothing - didn't even make sure she was on her meds <>< I thought the lady who drowned her kids was in SC, and the one in Texas stabbed hers. Both blamed a false assailant, though. Was there another one in Texas who drowned them? |
|
