Quote:
|
Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti
Another side of the story:
By late Friday, people close to the woman raised doubts about the children's claims, describing the mother as straitlaced and hardworking.
If anything, they said, the 35-year-old mother may be guilty of neglect - she works 16-hour shifts as a certified nursing assistant ...
"That lady has bent over backward, crying sleepless nights, working double shifts, keeping her house together to get her kids back, for her kids to turn on her like that . . . they're just ungrateful kids," said Valencia Ward, who said she's known the woman for 18 years. * * *
"I just totally think that's not true," [the woman's landlord] said of the abuse allegations. "Every time I would go over there, the kids were always clean. Their room was fixed so nice. They had matching bed sets, beautiful curtains, plenty of toys." ... some friends question story
Ungrateful little brats! |
There is always 2 sides to a story and I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that the truth lies somewhere inbetween. However, 15 kids is a bit excessive. I am not judging strictly on the number of children, although I admit 15 kids does offend my sensibilities a bit.
I am all for people having sex as often as they want with as many partners as they want. Their business. I am all for people having as many children as they want. Their business.
Where I draw the line is when a person CLEARLY cannot provide financially or emotionally for thier children and continue to have more. This could mean I draw the line when a person has 1 child or when they have 20.
So, this woman works 16 hours a day. Well, good. On the surface this appears responsible. She has mouths to feed and bodies to clothe and she is working her butt off trying to do it. Great. But CLEARLY she doesn't have the time to meet their emotional needs. Equally clearly is that even as a RN she doesn't make enough money to support 15 kids. I mean how much can she be working if she has had 15 kids by age 35? She has had children removed by the state. Because I am related to a social worker who has had children removed from parents I am not ignorant of the fact that sometimes the state removes children from a home where they are better off than they are in foster care, but as a very general rule if the state steps in there is usually something amis in the family.
I recall a case of a polygamist with a zillion wives and kids being covered by a new magazine show. At first I supported the polygamist because he seemed like a nice guy and his wives were interviewed and seemed OK with the situation. Well, who am I to judge? To each their own. Then it came out that these 'wives' were collecting welfare as single mothers. I drew the line.
If one can support a family with multiple wives and a tribe of children, fine. If one needs to rely upon public assistance to do it, I draw the line. It is one thing to be down on one's luck and utilize public services for awhile, it is another to choose a lifestyle that makes one permanently dependant upon it.
This woman appears to fall into the category of biting off far more than she can chew and state intervention has been required on multiple occasions.
Sterilize the woman already. I don't care if she is mentally ill, that just makes the sterilization more necessary. She isn't a mother, she is an obsessive, compulsive breeder and at some point society needs to say 'enough is enough' and intervene. I don't know at what point the line should be drawn, but I think this woman presents a case that is over the line.