Jean in Newcastle Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 We are talking about THIS MOTHER. Reckless endangerment HOW? Neglect of her FETUS, HOW? What has THIS MOTHER done to her fetus? Possibly malnutrition if they are not eating enough. Probably a lack of prenatal care. I read that mothers who don't get prenatal care are more likely to have babies with health problems. (I'm assuming the lack of prenatal care because of their published opinions of health care.) Possibly drug use since there is public record of the dad at least using pot. All I can find for risk for marijuana use on a fetus is low birth weight and higher NICU admission. That said, I think these are reasons to try and reach out to the mother and to try and coax her into better care, not to incarcerate her. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypamama Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Is unassisted home delivery illegal where she lives? I do not believe unassisted delivery is illegal in any state (although Google says that in Nebraska, the father cannot catch the baby in a non-emergency situation; it says nothing about the mother, though). Plenty of people intend to go to the hospital or have a midwife but give birth too quickly. (In some states, certain types of midwives are illegal.). An unassisted birth, for a low risk woman with a low risk pregnancy, with a reasonable amount of birth knowledge and a reasonable backup plan, can be a valid and safe option. It may not be safe or good for every single birth, but it doesn't automatically make a mother neglectful. (There may be other things in this scenario that ARE neglectful -- I haven't read all the articles, but feces all over is disgusting -- but UC in and of itself is not automatically dangerous or neglectful.). I just had to say that. Carry on with the discussion. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 The thing is.......if the mother has a history of abuse/neglect of other children, chances are SUPER high that the same thing will happen to the next child, in this case her baby.......sadly, often with longterm or deadly consequences. I am parenting a child that should have been removed at birth......ok, 2 of them. The 3rd one was. The bio parents had a long term history of abuse and neglect and my children are now suffered the effects of things that could have been prevented. As foster parents for over 100 kids, I have to agree with removing the baby at birth........UNLESS the mother gets SIGNIFICANT help and has a change in living environments between now and the birth of the baby. I already wrote, yesterday: "If they don't have adequate housing for a newborn, then she probably will lose custody of the new baby." That is a FAR CRY from jailing the mom*, taking the baby at birth and then putting that baby up for adoption. THIS mom, not any other mom. I'm not talking about generalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susan Wise Bauer Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Catwoman and Moxie: take it to PM and don't derail the thread. SWB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I do not believe unassisted delivery is illegal in any state (although Google says that in Nebraska, the father cannot catch the baby in a non-emergency situation; it says nothing about the mother, though). Plenty of people intend to go to the hospital or have a midwife but give birth too quickly. (In some states, certain types of midwives are illegal.). An unassisted birth, for a low risk woman with a low risk pregnancy, with a reasonable amount of birth knowledge and a reasonable backup plan, can be a valid and safe option. It may not be safe or good for every single birth, but it doesn't automatically make a mother neglectful. (There may be other things in this scenario that ARE neglectful -- I haven't read all the articles, but feces all over is disgusting -- but UC in and of itself is not automatically dangerous or neglectful.). I just had to say that. Carry on with the discussion. :)Can you imagine a mom in Omaha, pushing out her baby at home and yelling at the dad, "don't touch her! It's illegal!" (Although I'm assuming by catch they mean act as birth attendant.) 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 So, this is a totally ignorant question - farm people, help me out. What are the costs associated with keeping animal and human areas separate? Is this something they probably legitimately can't afford to do, or is it something they just don't care enough to do? I understand that proper fencing probably is expensive, but couldn't they do these janky reclaimed-wood fences like the one they have around their kitchen? The choice to free-range their kids, farm animals, and dogs all on the same plot of land... I find that so baffling. Also the idea that they are, in part, drawing from their pond for water use, but the animals aren't contained and rainwater is washing the animal waste into the pond. How much of a substantial upgrade in resources would it take for them to be able to keep their animals contained and away from water sources and human living areas? Yes, it costs money to properly pen and house animals. Even free-range animals have to have an enclosure of some kind or they won't be yours for long. It is imperative to keep animal sanitation away from humans. This isn't a new concept either, nor a hard one to figure out, but it does cost money and it also costs you labour which needs to have a certain skill level or your efforts will be for naught. From a farming perspective, what I am seeing in their pictures is a catastrophic convergence of sheer ignorance and pure stupidity. Ignorance is simply not knowing -- it can be remedied with knowledge. Stupidity is not caring about your own ignorance -- that can only rarely be remedied. They've been lucky so far not to have contracted fatal illnesses. Every day on that plot is just pushing that luck. It will run out. It is one thing to want to live in harmony with nature, but if you don't respect it, it will get you. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I promise to give your opinion the weight it deserves as we make our decision. You seem to be taking everything so personally these days, Moxie. You have been acting differently lately. I hope everything is OK. And I mean that sincerely. I am not being snarky. (And that is all I will say about it, as SWB doesn't want us to derail the thread.) 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Huh? The welfare of the animals isn't on my radar. It should be. How one treats one's animals is an excellent indicator of their capabilities, not only of animal husbandry, but of compassion and respect. I can tell most of what I need to know about a person's character in how they treat their animals. I am going to bet the other farmers on here would say the same thing. 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 It should be. How one treats one's animals is an excellent indicator of their capabilities, not only of animal husbandry, but of compassion and respect. I can tell most of what I need to know about a person's character in how they treat their animals. I am going to bet the other farmers on here would say the same thing. :iagree: I agree completely. (And I'm not even a farmer!) And before anyone gets upset, I'm sure both Audrey and I are referring to the Naugler family here, and not to Moxie. I think their treatment of their animals is further evidence of their inability to properly manage their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I already wrote, yesterday: "If they don't have adequate housing for a newborn, then she probably will lose custody of the new baby." So, how would that work? Social services would be hanging out at their place, waiting for the birth, then swoop in and take the newborn? That seems cruel. Take the newborn after a few days? If anything happened to the mother or child in that time, God forbid, social services would catch hell for waiting. Surely, if the family expected something that, they'd go on the lam. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I'm agreeing with Dr. Bauer. PMs for the sub-topics of caring about animals and compassion. I don't want to see anybody in trouble at the boards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Are they living in filth, though? I know nothing about goats, but having raised chickens and given how tiny their space is, I assumed that the chickens were roosting outside. While that leaves them open to predators, given that their shack isn't predator proof anyway, I don't think it makes much a distance, and in fact, depending on the breed, they might be more safe, since they will roost higher up. Is this ideal chicken raising, no? But not everyone sees them as pets, like I do. So, as much as I love chickens, I didn't really think to worry about them. They certainly seem to have a much nicer life than most factory farmed animals. If you look at the pictures, especially the latter ones, the goats' legs are all covered in muck, which is likely not just mud, but a slurry of mud, feces and urine. The chickens look a bit better off from the muck, but some pictures show them with pale combs and drop wing. They are sick animals. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 "Off the grid" to me means sustainable living, no electricity, well water, etc. Does "off the grid" also refer to the anti establishment bs that's going on here? I would love to be "off the grid" in the environmental sense. But I'm seriously confused why you wouldn't want a birth certificate or SSN? I think a large portion of the off the grid community are a bunch of anti-government conspiracy nutters. And I say that as someone who leans libertarian. ;) ETA: I actually don't know how large a portion that would be. Could be a small vocal minority. Just seems like I've encountered quite a few, mostly online. I'm surprised at how much support the Nauglers are getting from the off-grid crowd and even found supportive posts about them at a couple off-grid web sites. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I'm agreeing with Dr. Bauer. PMs for the sub-topics of animal care and compassion. I don't want to see anybody in trouble at the boards. I think the animals are a legitimate part of the discussion, particularly because the condition and care (or lack of care, in this case) of the animals has a real impact on those children. If the kids are playing in animal droppings, that is a health hazard. If the animals are walking around, lying down in, and potentially eating the excrement of other animals on the property, that is also a health hazard. The family's lack of concern about the welfare of the animals is yet another big issue. Obviously, the children are the main priority here, but I am surprised that it appears that no action has been taken thus far taken to ensure the proper care of the pets and livestock as well. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heatherwith4 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 If you look at the pictures, especially the latter ones, the goats' legs are all covered in muck, which is likely not just mud, but a slurry of mud, feces and urine. The chickens look a bit better off from the muck, but some pictures show them with pale combs and drop wing. They are sick animals. Exactly. They need clean water just like people, and I'm guessing they aren't able to feed them properly, either. Considering I have chickens and ducks that live in better shelter than their children do, I think it's fair to assume they don't have any ability to care for their animals, either. It's really a sad situation, for everyone involved. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renai Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Catwoman and Moxie: take it to PM and don't derail the thread. SWB I think the animal care is a legitimate part of the discussion, particularly because the condition and care (or lack of care, in this case) of the animals has a real impact on those children. If the kids are playing in animal droppings, that is a health hazard. If the animals are walking around, lying down in, and potentially eating the excrement of other animals on the property, that is also a health hazard. She was referring to the SWB post above. It was getting personal, and not about the Nauglers anymore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 So, how would that work? Social services would be hanging out at their place, waiting for the birth, then swoop in and take the newborn? That seems cruel. Take the newborn after a few days? If anything happened to the mother or child in that time, God forbid, social services would catch hell for waiting. Surely, if the family expected something that, they'd go on the lam. This does seem cruel and awful. Thinking about my first day, weeks, even months, with my newborns, the thought of anyone taking them away makes my chest tighten. But the thought of a brand new baby living in such conditions makes me a little ill. :( I agree that my ideal solution would be to convince or require Nicole Naugler to change living situations and get better nutrition and care. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthwestMom Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I have not gotten anything done the last few days due to this thread! :eek: :eek: :eek: <me, glued to the continuous new posts> 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 So, how would that work? Social services would be hanging out at their place, waiting for the birth, then swoop in and take the newborn? That seems cruel. Take the newborn after a few days? If anything happened to the mother or child in that time, God forbid, social services would catch hell for waiting. Surely, if the family expected something that, they'd go on the lam.Are you asking for my opinion or the logistics of removing a newborn from his or her family? The situations I know involve moms giving birth at hospitals and testing positive for illegal drugs. CPS is called and the baby is taken into foster care from the hosptial. In THIS case, I don't know what would happen or what the mom would do. Would she run away with her newborn and leave behind her 10 children? I would hope not. I've already said my hope is the mom gets safe housing, keeps this baby and gets the help she needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I'm agreeing with Dr. Bauer. PMs for the sub-topics of caring about animals and compassion. I don't want to see anybody in trouble at the boards. My post about the animal care is not a reference to anything other than Moxie's response that the animals aren't on her radar. I have no idea what Cat and she are talking about and I don't have time to go digging through a million posts to find out what else is going on there. I think the care of the animals is an important consideration in the case that this whole thread is about. Or rather, I should say, the LACK of care for the animals is indicative of the family's lack of abilities, skills, judgment and respect for nature, life and homesteading. In other words, to me, the animals speak volumes about this family. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orthodox6 Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I think the animals are a legitimate part of the discussion, particularly because the condition and care (or lack of care, in this case) of the animals has a real impact on those children. If the kids are playing in animal droppings, that is a health hazard. If the animals are walking around, lying down in, and potentially eating the excrement of other animals on the property, that is also a health hazard. The family's lack of concern about the welfare of the animals is yet another big issue. Obviously, the children are the main priority here, but I am surprised that it appears that no action has been taken thus far taken to ensure the proper care of the pets and livestock as well. Cat, that is why I changed my original wording into "caring about animals" from the original, ambiguous,"animal care". As per Renai's observation. I like you ladies, and don't want any warning points assigned! :001_smile: 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Cat, that is why I changed my original wording into "caring about animals" from the original, ambiguous,"animal care". As per Renai's observation. I like you ladies, and don't want any warning points assigned! :001_smile: Thanks! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 She was referring to the SWB post above. It was getting personal, and not about the Nauglers anymore. Thanks, Renai -- point taken. :) I appreciate your post. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catwoman Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I have been out of likes for hours and it's driving me nuts to not be able to click the little button! There are so many posts I want to like today!!! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Just watched this video, and it's just so sad. This is what will happen to these children when they get older if something doesn't change. https://youtu.be/CPtpKNyaO0U 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Unsinkable, in addition to the concerns about abuse and malnutrition, both of which seem to be real from the evidence that we know already, people who claim to know the family have been alleging that there's drug use. I'm not in favor of imprisoning pregnant women, even in marginal situations. Barring any other criminal charges or more information, I'm not in favor of imprisoning this pregnant woman. But if they did imprison her, I think there might be cause. No one should lose their rights to their child so quickly, IMO. Not unless they want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I probably need to get over my sick fascination with this family. They're... compelling in that trainwreck way. Must. Look. Away. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Are ticks common in Kentucky? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lang Syne Boardie Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I probably need to get over my sick fascination with this family. They're... compelling in that trainwreck way. Must. Look. Away. I know. Between checking for updates and scrubbing my house to a fare-thee-well*, I'm exhausted. *I've also replaced all the kids' personal toiletry items, bought all new shower curtains and washcloths, and weeded the ditch. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 If they don't have adequate housing for a newborn, then she probably will lose custody of the new baby. But the new baby might be the first stepping stone to her getting help, counseling, maybe meds if needed... I don't understand why this baby would be a stepping stone when the ten previous weren't. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Are you asking for my opinion or the logistics of removing a newborn from his or her family? The situations I know involve moms giving birth at hospitals and testing positive for illegal drugs. CPS is called and the baby is taken into foster care from the hosptial. In THIS case, I don't know what would happen or what the mom would do. Would she run away with her newborn and leave behind her 10 children? I would hope not. I've already said my hope is the mom gets safe housing, keeps this baby and gets the help she needs. She'll certainly have the money for it once she gets the cash from the GoFundMe account. If she doesn't get safe housing after that, it's because she doesn't want it, and if she doesn't want safe housing, she has no business caring for a newborn baby. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I do not believe unassisted delivery is illegal in any state (although Google says that in Nebraska, the father cannot catch the baby in a non-emergency situation; it says nothing about the mother, though). Plenty of people intend to go to the hospital or have a midwife but give birth too quickly. (In some states, certain types of midwives are illegal.). An unassisted birth, for a low risk woman with a low risk pregnancy, with a reasonable amount of birth knowledge and a reasonable backup plan, can be a valid and safe option. It may not be safe or good for every single birth, but it doesn't automatically make a mother neglectful. (There may be other things in this scenario that ARE neglectful -- I haven't read all the articles, but feces all over is disgusting -- but UC in and of itself is not automatically dangerous or neglectful.). I just had to say that. Carry on with the discussion. :) A planned home delivery is not legal in MD with or without assistance. Unassisted delivery is illegal in NC. We have friends (more than one couple) who have had some stressful interactions with law enforcement on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DawnM Posted May 13, 2015 Author Share Posted May 13, 2015 I probably need to get over my sick fascination with this family. They're... compelling in that trainwreck way. Must. Look. Away. Well, there is a real train wreck holding my attention right now. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 A planned home delivery is not legal in MD with or without assistance. Unassisted delivery is illegal in NC. We have friends (more than one couple) who have had some stressful interactions with law enforcement on this issue. Are you sure? I know people in MD who had CNM deliveries at home, which strongly implies it's legal. Also many people who have had lay midwife planned homebirths in MD. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Well, there is a real train wreck holding my attention right now. That's a whole other horrible story. :( 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikslo Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Yes, the cooler is their only fridge. I have no idea how that even works. And old blog of Nicole's. She was pregnant with number 9 at this point. http://homespunharvestfarm.blogspot.com/?m=0 Another one, more political. http://theycallmemomm.blogspot.com/?m=0 I haven't read much at either of these, just thought people might be interested. Interesting that on the TheyCallMeMom page linked Extreme Makeover Home Edition is listed as one of the shows she liked to watch online. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halcyon Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 It nauseates me that she has the money to spend renovating her dog salon, but refuses to allow her kids to live in a solid, safe and secure structure. Grrr.. http://blessedlittlegroomingcompany.com/amazing-salon-makeover/ 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renai Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 It nauseates me that she has the money to spend renovating her dog salon, but refuses to allow her kids to live in a solid, safe and secure structure. Grrr.. http://blessedlittlegroomingcompany.com/amazing-salon-makeover/ Yeah, she said it was because it is what the clients will see, and the business will be paying for shelter, etc. smh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Are you sure? I know people in MD who had CNM deliveries at home, which strongly implies it's legal. Also many people who have had lay midwife planned homebirths in MD. I googled to see if anything had changed in MD in the past couple years, and it appears that a bill has passed and Gov Hogan was expected to sign it yesterday, which would allow non-nurse midwives to attend homebirths other than VBACs. I knew of couples who had midwives come from PA to attend their homebirths when I lived in MD, but they knew it wasn't legal. I tried to find when it became legal for certified nurse midwives to attend homebirths in MD, but I couldn't find that info. However, I did find a letter to the MDHHS that said there are only four CNMs who will attend homebirths in the entire state. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-midwines-hearings-20150209-story.html http://wtop.com/maryland/2015/02/maryland-lawmakers-mull-home-birth-bill-license-midwives/ http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2015/05/12/maryland-legalizes-homebirths-midwives/ 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 (edited) I don't understand why this baby would be a stepping stone when the ten previous weren't. nm Edited May 13, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer Really not helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 So far, while we all have heard that the internet fundraising machine, the LDS church, and various neighbors have tried to help this family, the government hasn't. While I suspect they may be too far gone to really make any change, I feel like they should be helped before they have rights to their kids more permanently severed. I'm glad the kids are now in foster care. Honestly, I hope they stay there. But I'm also glad for the sake of all of us and the existence of errors in judgement and so forth, that there is a long road of steps in between this step and any further steps where they might lose the kids for good. And I'm glad that that involves first trying to help the parents get their lives together. Even if it doesn't work, because hopefully the kids are in a safe situation now. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mommaduck Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Ugh, give up the damn salon and the internet. Should have kept the shed they had for housing or found a way to get an old mobile home. Connect to electricity till other things come together. Don't steal, don't do drugs, get a job even if it means being aerostats from your family. When you are a parent, you put your family FIRST. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renai Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Ugh, give up the damn salon and the internet. Should have kept the shed they had for housing or found a way to get an old mobile home. Connect to electricity till other things come together. Don't steal, don't do drugs, get a job even if it means being aerostats from your family. When you are a parent, you put your family FIRST. I thought the salon was their only source of income. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daria Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 So far, while we all have heard that the internet fundraising machine, the LDS church, and various neighbors have tried to help this family, the government hasn't. While I suspect they may be too far gone to really make any change, I feel like they should be helped before they have rights to their kids more permanently severed. I'm glad the kids are now in foster care. Honestly, I hope they stay there. But I'm also glad for the sake of all of us and the existence of errors in judgement and so forth, that there is a long road of steps in between this step and any further steps where they might lose the kids for good. And I'm glad that that involves first trying to help the parents get their lives together. Even if it doesn't work, because hopefully the kids are in a safe situation now. We will never know what help the government offers because they are bound by confidentiality, and the Nauglers are not motivated to share things that make the government look good. Generally it takes years and many failed interventions for a family to permanently lose rights. I have worked with kids whose families were guilty of far worse things than these parents are accused of, and the termination of rights still took many years. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I don't understand why this baby would be a stepping stone when the ten previous weren't. The only way I can think of to spin that in to the positive is that maybe... just maybe... since she's now on the radar and been caught in her negligence ... maybe she will be forced to make significant changes to get the kids back. But cynical me says that even that will just be a temporary act and as soon as the stage lights are off, it will be back to the same old negligence. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 I thought the salon was their only source of income. Yes. As said in other places in this thread - dog grooming can apparently be lucrative enough to be a real profession. And, they're not wrong necessarily to invest in a business that could provide for them before investing in housing for themselves. I mean, that should be the smarter thing to do... except that their most basic needs aren't met. It would be the smarter thing to do if they were stuck in a bad living situation that was livable. Also, it would be smarter if they had more of a head/personality for business, something they seem to sorely lack. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 When she gets the other kids back, she can have the baby back too. I wouldn't have it given up for adoption, but it should go into foster care until she gets her act together, starting with getting out of the cesspit she is living in. Is the snark really necessary? I've typed and deleted so much counter-snark, but I'm leaving the question as to why the snide comments about my lack of understanding are necessary. It's not snark at all. Nor is it snide. Your inability to understand what might motivate a mother to change has no bearing on whether a mother changes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mergath Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 :rolleyes: I've already said multiple times that I think she will have her baby taken away unless she has safe housing and can care for the baby appropriately. Yes, but I get the impression you think they should leave the newborn with her until after she abuses and neglects it like the others. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 It's not snark at all. Nor is it snide. Your inability to understand what might motivate a mother to change has no bearing on whether a mother changes. It is not my inability to understand. It was a rhetorical question. Some people can change. She should have to demonstrate the change before she is allowed to retain custody of a helpless newborn. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unsinkable Posted May 13, 2015 Share Posted May 13, 2015 Yes, but I get the impression you think they should leave the newborn with her until after she abuses and neglects it like the others. Your impression is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts