Would you expose your kids to these people?

[Amber in AUS]

Read this article first -

 

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/parasite-jailed-for-medicare-fraud-20081205-6sf1.html?page=1

 

This girl Naylor was my best friend in school for many years. She is moving VERY close to us soon and has made contact through my Mum and her Mum (they are working together) and wants to 'catch up' trying to get some new friends and life back on track with new house and new job etc.

 

She is now engaged to this guy, he gets out of jail in 4 weeks. I am a little concerned/nervous about potentially exposing the kids to these people but she said it was in the past and she is paying back her debt and wants to move on. It was fraud, so i guess a different kind of crime.

 

How do you feel about it? They did plead guilty. He has 3 kids they have every other weekend 8, 7 and 5. Would you expose your kids to these people?

[Catwoman]

If she is still with that guy, I would say no, definitely not. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with her, because the man is clearly bad news, and your friend doesn't want to see that.

 

If you remain friends with her, be prepared for a lot of drama and the potential for her to try to involve your family in her personal problems with a guy who sounds evil to me.

 

I know I don't sound very charitable toward your friend, but she has not learned from her mistakes, and if she is still with the same guy, she is almost bound to repeat them, or at least to try to cover up his future crimes. (And yes, I do believe there will be future crimes.)

 

I didn't read anything about him being violent, but he still sounds like very bad news to me, and I wouldn't want to get involved with that family.

 

Cat

 

PS. I couldn't help but notice this part of your post:

 

It was fraud, so i guess a different kind of crime.

 

 

Crime is crime. Wrong is wrong. "Paid their debt" means that they got caught, not that they're sorry and will never do it again. Had they not gotten caught, they would still be criminals.

Edited May 4, 2009 by Catwoman

[specialmama]

Well, "exposing your kids to these people" gives the image of putting your kids on an altar and backing off, waiting to see what these folks will do to them. I would not leave my kids alone with them, but then again, I'm a little fussy with who they see anyway. I most certainly would not leave sensitive paperwork, bills, wallets or purses with them LOL, in fact I think it would be a long while before I invited them to my home, especially if I didn't have a security system. But I see no harm in meeting them for playdates at the park and befriending them, especially her. He is immature, but it's not like he will be your child's role model, kwim? The nature of their crimes is such that there is no personal face to who they wronged, they admitted their crimes and they do want a fresh start. HTH!

[Amber in AUS]

Estranged friend, I have not seen her since 1998. She has only just made contact with me asking to 'catch up' since she will be living so close.

[bettyandbob]

I'd have to wait a while before I let the kids meet them. I'd have to see if the time in jail provided the right kick in the rear for this man to grow up and be a responsible adult. That would take a while.

 

If you want you could visit your former friend on your own and get reacquainted and as the previous poster said watch for drama. Just you getting involved could be an emotional drain, but if you want to give her a chance then you have to get involved. Only time will tell if these two are ready to move on. I hope they are. Until you've truly seen the evidence of being responsible I wouldn't involve my children at all.

[Amber in AUS]

Good point Betty. DH works away so i would just have to T it up for when he is home to have the kids so i could have coffee with her to test the water. I know she will be desperate to see the house and meet the kids i think i would be comfortable at arms length.

[Catwoman]

The nature of their crimes is such that there is no personal face to who they wronged, they admitted their crimes and they do want a fresh start. HTH!

 

They got caught.

 

They didn't see the error of their ways and turn themselves in.

 

And crime is crime, whether or not they stole from an individual or from a "faceless" company or organization.

 

Cat

[Catwoman]

Estranged friend, I have not seen her since 1998. She has only just made contact with me asking to 'catch up' since she will be living so close.

 

A lot can happen to change a person in 11 years. This former friend of yours has made some very poor choices, and continues to do so if she has remained with the same guy.

 

Other than feeling somehow obligated to see her, are you really interested in rekindling the friendship? If you haven't seen her since 1998 and haven't truly missed her company, why bother getting together with her now?

 

Cat

[Impish]

For whatever reason, she's willing to betray anyone and everything for him, risking her own freedom for him. If she were no longer with him, I'd lean to giving her a chance. Since she is now engaged to him, there's no way I'd risk having her in my life, personally. I simply wouldn't trust either one of them for a nanosecond, and why invite people in your life that can't be trusted?

 

While SpecialMama is right in saying that it wasn't an individual they wronged by their crime, their behaviour shows that they are absolutely willing and capable of committing crime for their own benefit, and lack a moral compass...at least HE does, and she is well under his influence. The fact that he walked away from 2 children and another on the way because he was 'sick of the kid thing', and then managed to exert such influence over her to convince her to commit such crimes...nope. No way would I invite either of them anywhere near my life, my family. Nope.

[pqr]

These people stole. They stole from every taxpayer, they stole time, they stole services and they did this from the needy, they represent much of what is wrong with society today.

 

She stole on 91 separate occasions, this is habitual.

 

Not only would I not allow my children anywhere near them, but I would have no contact.

 

Do you seriously want someone like this having any contact with your children? If, aside from her being a thief, she is nice and friendly then your children may grow to like her. They may even look up to her....then, one day, they will find out what type of individual she is. Just what lesson is that going to teach them?

 

As parents our job is to protect our children and this is... what do people say....Oh yes...a "no brainer." Keep your children away.

[Elizabeth Conley]

I'd keep some distance. You can "catch up" with her by enjoying the occasional cup of coffee together a a neutral location.

 

Sadly, I have considerable volunteer ministry and professional experience with the personality types who perpetuate fraud. They are unbelievable dangerous to healthy family and community relations. They charm their way into your life and do things you would never have dreamed possible. Equally hard, they can tar your reputation, and you won't have to do something wrong for this to occur. These consequences effect your kids, because it effects who you, and therefor who they may associate with.

 

The old me, the woman who never met a stranger and gave everyone a chance, would never warn you as I am now. For what it's worth, these people sound dangerous to me. They have exhibited a pattern of anti-social behavior well into adulthood. This means they will almost certainly continue to behave in anti-social ways. Note that violent behavior is not necessary for an anti-social pattern to be present:

 

http://www.psychnet-uk.com/clinical_psychology/criteria_personality_antisocial.htm

 

We can help people with these problems without becoming enmeshed in their day to day lives. The harm they do is potentially very, very serious. They are often interpersonal wrecking balls, yet they are so good at deceit they can make you appear to be responsible for the disasters they generate. They tend toward a very dramatic interpersonal style. What may have seemed like "life of the party" behavior 10 years ago may be less amusing now. The drama inherent in associating with them is usually exhausting.

 

Many, many people have ended up in legal trouble because a con artist has implicated them in a crime rather than face the consequences for their latest con. If the con artist gets in trouble with law enforcement, the con artist will often leave you looking responsible for crimes you weren't even aware had been committed. Even when law enforcement officials suspect this to be the case, they often assume the victim is getting what's coming to him/her. After all, "Birds of a feather flock together." has been their experience. Please be careful.

 

As an example: My husband and I have rights to a pre-paid satellite INTERNET access account we do not use. We bought it, but we don't need it. We were very careful who we ultimately allowed to use the air card. The people we knew who were most financially needy were people we had encountered while doing ministry volunteer work. They all had histories of anti-social behavior that had landed them in dire financial straits. We weighed the decision carefully. The ultimate beneficiary of this windfall was not the most financially needy. He was a handicapped friend of ours whom we had known for decades. We knew he was honest to a fault. He would never commit a crime over the INTERNET that would possibly be associated with the nontransferable account which we technically owned.

 

I know, it sounds cold. It's self protection. If you or your husband is employed by the government or works in security, even a casual association with an ex-con can cause you to lose your job. Professionals whose job it is to calculate risk will not take a chance on anyone who displays anti-social behavior or associates with them. Your tender heart is a beautiful thing, and it deserves protection. There are safe ways to help, and I suggest you err on the side of caution.

[Night Elf]

I honestly don't know. On the one hand, she is making a great effort at rehabilitating and improving her life. On the other hand, she willingly and thoughtfully broke the law and is basically getting away with it with a slap on the hand. I'm most stuck on the idea that the crime was borne out of need rather than greed. That just doesn't sit well with me. There are plenty of desperate people out there needing help who are not turning criminal. What a precedent this case sets!!

 

If it were me in this situation, I'd be honest and say I'm happy she's making efforts to improve her life but I'm just not comfortable having my family associate with hers at this time. Hopefully no one will pressure you. It's really your choice.

[specialmama]

They got caught.

 

They didn't see the error of their ways and turn themselves in.

 

And crime is crime, whether or not they stole from an individual or from a "faceless" company or organization.

 

Cat

 

I realize that and I agree. I just think some people are willing to commit these crimes if there is no face attached to it, they justify it somehow because it isn't personal. I'm not saying it makes it okay, but this is the mindset that often prevents the same people from committing a crime to a a person with a face, especially a person they know. Does that make sense? Probably not LOL... anyhow, to further expand on my point, I see no harm in meeting her for coffee or out in public or just having a phone relationship. I would not want him near my kids. Arm's distance for a long time. The second any red flags come up I'd bail.

 

Ultimately, follow your gut. Mama's intuition is rarely wrong. :D

[Dobela]

Quotes from the article

The court heard the scam was Naylor's idea, aimed at filling the financial hole caused by Lewis being too "lazy" to get a job

Naylor had already started paying her $18550.85 share of the money back, and Ms Webb said the repayments would be most likely to continue if her client stayed out of jail.

 

 

She has poor taste in men. Dangerous men. Unles you know something not in the article, she is still engaged to this dangerous man. I don't believe the crime was out of need. It was driven by the greed of a man that is too lazy to work and a woman that would rather perpetuate a bad relationship rather than tell him to move on. She had other choices. She didn't have to bill fraudulently over 90 times and then personally cash about half of them.

 

I can understand her wanting to see you and catch up. I have had the same feelings about close friends of mine from high school. A couple I went out for coffee with and that was it. After we shared, we discovered that we had nothing in common anymore and thta need to see each other was gone. My guess is that she is suddenly very isolated and lonely right now and remembers how nice it was having you as a friend.

 

If you are curious, then have someone watch your kids and meet her at the cafe for lunch. After you eat your meal, leave and move on. Otherwise I would send a polite no thank you and leave it at that. You are a busy homeschooling mama that has no need to make excuses.

[Catwoman]

I just think some people are willing to commit these crimes if there is no face attached to it, they justify it somehow because it isn't personal. I'm not saying it makes it okay, but this is the mindset that often prevents the same people from committing a crime to a a person with a face, especially a person they know. Does that make sense?

 

Yes, it does make sense -- but there's still the underlying problem that this woman clearly knew she was breaking the law, whether or not she was able to rationalize it in her own mind. I realize that she didn't physically harm anyone, but considering how controlled she was (and apparently still is,) by this boyfriend/fiance of hers, I'm not entirely convinced that she wouldn't have just as quickly decided to hold up a bank with him if he'd insisted they do that instead of committing the fraud.

 

Whatever the case, she knew she was committing a crime -- over and over and over again -- yet she continued to break the law. I would be very concerned about having any sort of relationship with her, because I would never, ever be able to trust her. Additionally, her children may not exactly be the future pillars of the community, either, as they haven't had the best possible parental influences.

 

Also, this is a "friend" that the OP hasn't seen in over 10 years, so we're not talking about a terrible loss if they don't resume the relationship.

 

Cat

[LadyAberlin]

I have an aunt who has constantly embezzled money over the yrs and has been in and out of prison. She always said she had changed and never did. She even stole my mom's credit card once and charged it up to the max. The thing is that there may be more problems then just the fraud. With my aunt she was also addicted to prescription medication, alcohol and harming herself. She also used people, even her own children and you never knew if she was telling the truth. She would lie about stupid things like telling other people in the family that my mom buys all my dad's clothes at garage sales. We never bought clothes for him at garage sales. We did for us, but not for him. So I say all this to say that if they are guilty of fraud, most likely there are other areas of thier life that are problematic as well. I'd stay away.

[Catwoman]

If it were me in this situation, I'd be honest and say I'm happy she's making efforts to improve her life but I'm just not comfortable having my family associate with hers at this time.

 

I think that sounds like a very reasonable approach. Personally, I would avoid any contact if at all possible, as Amber hasn't seen this former friend for over 10 years. If the woman's mother asks Amber's mom about it, her mom could just nicely say that Amber is so busy and doesn't really have much free time. Hopefully, the woman will get the hint. Otherwise, if there's no way to politely avoid the woman, I'd come right out and say exactly what you suggested.

 

Cat

Edited May 4, 2009 by Catwoman
stupid typos!!!

[Tree House Academy]

No.

[specialmama]

Additionally, her children may not exactly be the future pillars of the community, either, as they haven't had the best possible parental influences.

Cat

 

Excellent point, Cat!

[gardening momma]

"There's no disputing the case that this was not a case of greed but a case of need," Magistrate Heaney said of Naylor's role in the scam.

 

This sounds to me like he's excusing her actions because it was "a case of need." I definitely disagree with that--not that it was greed--but there are many other options available in a time of need, without resorting to crime.

 

And she ran for the courtroom doors after hearing her sentence--what was that about? If she was just totally upset and not thinking about what she was doing, I'd excuse it. Otherwise, she was actually trying to flee, and it was a good thing she was stopped before she got out, or she'd be in deeper water.

[FlockOfSillies]

"Do not be deceived: bad company corrupts good morals."

 

Never in a million years would I renew a relationship with someone like this, much less expose my children to her.

[joannqn]

No way.

 

No way would I let her near my house.

No way would I let her near my purse.

No way would I let her near my family.

No way would I befriend her.

 

She is a criminal.

She's willing to be with a deadbeat dad.

She's willing to be with someone who uses her.

She's willing to put up with a lazy man unwilling to get a job to support himself, let alone her, her children, his children.

 

Which means she's willing to put herself in circumstances that put her in "need" of stealing again. That does not show that she has learned from the experience. You could be her next victim.

 

And, you could be held liable if she does steal from you whether it is through identity theft or by stealing your bank card or checks. I had a renter steal and forge my checks. The bank held me liable because, in their eyes, I allowed her access to my checkbook by not keeping it locked up. You could find yourself in a similar, but much worse, situation.

 

No way!

 

ETA: I also think they both got off way too easy.

 

ETA: If you do meet with her in person, take as little as possible with you so you don't have to worry about your purse. Stick your license in your pocket and take just as much cash as you need for your coffee and order separately. That way you have nothing to steal (ie. your identity or credit cards) and you won't be able to bail her out if she "forgets her money."

Edited May 4, 2009 by joannqn

[2cents]

My answer to the original post question is an emphatic NO.

 

Fraud is fraud and it was a crime punishable by jail. They are bad news IMO. These people may have paid a debt as defined by the law but whether they are morally and ethically rehabilitated is a huge question mark. These are the kind of people that don't care who they hurt as long as they can profit. I wouldn't want these people anywhere near my family and especially not any elderly or impressionable family members.

[Amber in AUS]

Thankyou for all your responses. I have finally got hold of DH this morning and we have talked it through. We have decided that we will make no further contact but if she should choose to contact me then i will meet her at coffee shop without kids for our 'catch up'.

 

I do think she is lonely now and isolated. I don't know anything about him, only what is in the article. She isn't a skilled worker and i dod remember now some questionable truths she told people at school so maybe she does have some other problems. Her Mum is giving her the house to live in that is close to us, so she must hold some belief that she & he have changed.

 

I am going to ask my Mum specifically not to give my phone number or address to her Mum. So far she has made contact over the internet only.

[Amber in AUS]

Thankyou for all your responses. I have finally got hold of DH this morning and we have talked it through. We have decided that we will make no further contact but if she should choose to contact me then i will meet her at coffee shop without kids for our 'catch up'.

 

I do think she is lonely now and isolated. I don't know anything about him, only what is in the article. She isn't a skilled worker and i dod remember now some questionable truths she told people at school so maybe she does have some other problems. Her Mum is giving her the house to live in that is close to us, so she must hold some belief that she & he have changed.

 

I am going to ask my Mum specifically not to give my phone number or address to her Mum. So far she has made contact over the internet only.

[Catwoman]

I do think she is lonely now and isolated. I don't know anything about him, only what is in the article. She isn't a skilled worker and i dod remember now some questionable truths she told people at school so maybe she does have some other problems. Her Mum is giving her the house to live in that is close to us, so she must hold some belief that she & he have changed.

 

I think you're doing the right thing in trying to avoid this woman. She doesn't sound like she was exactly the Voice of Honesty, even before she met the fiance, and that says a lot about her integrity.

 

As for her mother giving her a house to live in, the poor woman is probably at her wit's end with worry over how her senseless daughter is going to survive with her lazy, ex-convict fiance who has a long history of not wanting to work or accept responsibility. The mom is probably terrified that her grandchildren will end up living in a cardboard box on the street if she doesn't help her daughter. I sincerely doubt she trusts the fiance, and if she has half a brain, she realizes her daughter is either a gullible fool or is just as big a loser as the fiance. She probably doesn't know any other way to keep her grandchildren safe, and she most likely hopes that if her daughter and the kids live nearby, she will be able to watch over them.

 

Please don't feel sorry for your former friend. There's a reason she's alone and lonely. She has made terrible choices in her life, and by staying with the fiance, she is continuing on the same unfortunate path. Please don't get involved with her, or let her manipulate you into being her friend again.

 

Cat

[kalanamak]

If she is still with that guy, I would say no, definitely not. I wouldn't want to have anything to do with her, because the man is clearly bad news, and your friend doesn't want to see that.

 

 

PS. I couldn't help but notice this part of your post:

 

 

 

Crime is crime. Wrong is wrong. "Paid their debt" means that they got caught, not that they're sorry and will never do it again. Had they not gotten caught, they would still be criminals.

 

If she were rid of the guy, and seemed like a normal person, yes, but not with that guy along.

 

Well, crime is crime, but I do see a difference between a shoplifter and someone who has a knife to my throat.

[Catwoman]

Well, crime is crime, but I do see a difference between a shoplifter and someone who has a knife to my throat.

 

I do, too -- and it's a huge difference!

 

I stated that "crime is crime," because I don't think the moral and ethical issues disappear just because there's no physical injury or damage to one individual person. Just because the "victim" is unseen, as in this type of fraud case, does not mean that the criminal doesn't know that he or she is doing something wrong.

 

The woman in question didn't just commit one incident of fraud, see the error of her ways, and admit her guilt. She did it dozens and dozens of times and only quit because she got caught. This is not the kind of person I would ever trust, or would want any kind of relationship with.

 

Certainly, if the former friend were a violent person, I would have been even more adamant that Amber steer clear of her. I may not have been clear about that in my post, but I don't think there was ever any question of potential violence here, so I was only addressing the problem as Amber described it, and didn't think I needed to clarify between different degrees of criminal behavior.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear! :001_smile:

 

Cat

[katilac]

meh, there aren't very many friends from 11 years ago that I'd make a big effort to see in the first place, kwim? crimes aside, you've had no reason to speak with her in years, so I wouldn't make this big decision of "being friends or not, exsposing the kids to her or not."

 

I'd probably tell her that I don't have a great deal of time (which is true) but I'll try to meet up with ya at some point. Go ahead and start your new life, kwim, don't wait on me! Depending on the 'feel' of the first couple of emails and conversations, I might go meet her for lunch or something, sans kids.

 

Then just take it from there - - if she pushes for a quick renewal of the old friendship, or guilts you about not being there for her enough, run run as fast as you can.

 

Certainly, I wouldn't 'commit' to being friends or supporting her efforts; I wouldn't do that even w/o these issues. People who want to plan ahead to be friends or make big plans when I haven't seen them in years make me go all squinty and suspicious.

[Audrey]

Thankyou for all your responses. I have finally got hold of DH this morning and we have talked it through. We have decided that we will make no further contact but if she should choose to contact me then i will meet her at coffee shop without kids for our 'catch up'.

 

I do think she is lonely now and isolated. I don't know anything about him, only what is in the article. She isn't a skilled worker and i dod remember now some questionable truths she told people at school so maybe she does have some other problems. Her Mum is giving her the house to live in that is close to us, so she must hold some belief that she & he have changed.

 

I am going to ask my Mum specifically not to give my phone number or address to her Mum. So far she has made contact over the internet only.

 

 

Sounds like a good plan. It also sounds like you don't want to cut her off completely, which is very kind-hearted of you. Maybe you can be a bit of a good example to someone who has fallen and needs a little hand up.

[kalanamak]

I do, too -- and it's a huge difference!

 

I stated that "crime is crime," because I don't think the moral and ethical issues disappear just because there's no physical injury or damage to one individual person. Just because the "victim" is unseen, as in this type of fraud case, does not mean that the criminal doesn't know that he or she is doing something wrong.

 

The woman in question didn't just commit one incident of fraud, see the error of her ways, and admit her guilt. She did it dozens and dozens of times and only quit because she got caught. This is not the kind of person I would ever trust, or would want any kind of relationship with.

 

Certainly, if the former friend were a violent person, I would have been even more adamant that Amber steer clear of her. I may not have been clear about that in my post, but I don't think there was ever any question of potential violence here, so I was only addressing the problem as Amber described it, and didn't think I needed to clarify between different degrees of criminal behavior.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear! :001_smile:

 

Cat

 

What I meant is that I wouldn't be worried she would defraud my children, but I would be worried about impulse control and recklessness towards life if she had done something with a knife to someone's throat.

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear! :)