This is an incredibly sad story.

[Rainbowreflect]

I am not sure how I feel about the outcome.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/27/local/doc41f878e13a13f611448960.txt

After nearly 10 hours of deliberation Wednesday and more than six more on Thursday, jurors decided that Brandy Blair was responsible for her 22-month-old son's death.

Jurors decided Blair, 23, intentionally put her son in danger when she put him in an upstairs bedroom, wedged a towel in the door so he couldn't open it and left for two days, and that those actions resulted in Christian Reifler's death.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

1. I do. I know exactly how I feel.

I feel relieved that the legal system works.

She ought to be locked up like that for the rest of her life. What a monstrous thing to do to a little boy.

[UdoKier]

2. What a horrible woman.

I have a 4 and a 6 year old, and They haven't been out of either my or my wife's sight for more than 12 hours since they were born.

Who the hell leaves a year-old baby alone in a room with just some roommates "around" for 2 days?

Christ.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

3. Obviously, one who wants to go smoke meth

How much you want to bet why she named her kid "Christian"?

[Midlodemocrat]

4. That poor little boy.

He must have suffered. I hope they lock her up for the rest of her life.

[Kota]

5. I think parents who leave their kids alone and it doesn't

result in death should also be punished severely. It happens way to often.

[trotsky]

6. Curious: why are you ambivalent about the outcome?

Seems to me like this was justice served.

[Rainbowreflect]

8. I'm not sure. I have been following this case too closely, I think.

As part of my job, I read the police report on this case the day after it happened and I just cannot stop thinking about it.
It has really torn me up.

[AP]

16. One might feel ambivalent because she feels that as a society we're fail-

ing parents in the same way (but perhaps to lesser degree) that this parent failed her child.

She didn't protect her child as a mother should. But who doesn't believe that if our society worked better -- if we had more good jobs with benefits, jobs that helped people actually live middle class lifestyles, and if people felt they actually had options, and that they will be rewarded fairly if they work hard, then there would be fewer stories like this?

That's where the ambivalence comes from. It comes from the feeling that we all have responsibilities here that weren't met. She didn't meet her parental responsibilities, but we didn't meet are social responsibilities.

I'm not saying she shouldn't be punished for her actions, but I think anyone with heart must sense that there was probably some point where, if we had a better government, better social services, and more wealth reaching the working and middle class, this wouldn't have happened.

[Vinca]

25. No offense, but . . .

give me a freakin' break. The only hearts and flowers appropriate at this point are for this poor little kid who was penned in his room for 2 days and died. IMHO the punishment was not severe enough. When you bring a kid into the world, you assume the responsibility. If it gets in your way, you give it up for adoption. If you've been dealt a lousy stack of cards, you ask for help. This woman is despicable.

[AP]

43. I was pretty sure I'd get a response like that. I've been getting a lot of

that "law and order" stuff in response to my posts. I guess it's just a little too much for some people to handle when I suggest that there might be other more effective ways to stop misery like this other than just punishing people.

Anyway, if you notice, I didn't say she shouldn't get punished. I didn't even suggest that one should feel sympathetic. All I'm saying that if you really want to stop shit like this from happening, it might help to take a look at the bigger picture of why shit like this happens.

[Vinca]

68. There's just no need for this to happen.

If this woman did not want or was not capable of supporting a child, she should have gotten free contraception at Planned Parenthood. If, despite her efforts to prevent pregnancy, she had a child, she needs to care for it. Keep it, don't keep it, do whatever you have to do for the child to be safe. I don't have sympathy for a person who locks a kid in a room for 2 days rather than seeking out social services. That poor kid would be alive today if she had dropped him off at a hospital or police station, dumped him on a neighbor, left him with a family member and then taken off. There's just no excuse.

[AP]

78. I agree there's no need. But I don't think society's responsibility for

trying to stop it starts and stops at a criminal prosecution.

And the point of no return wasn't when she decided to have the child, or keep the child. Every day is an opportunity for everyone -- the parent, and government -- to make sure people can be the best parents possible.

And, once again, I wasn't asking anyone to have any sympathy for her. I was just saying that the source of ambivalent feelings might be that we know that it's not enough to just punish people, but that there are societal/governmental solutions too.

[Cheswick2.0]

139. You are right AP

Thank you for making the argument in favor of society being partly responsible. We do fail poor people.
The people you are debating literally make my stomach churn with their responses and yet they may be very nice people who are simply confused or lacking the empathy gene or have never been really down and don't understand it.

I feel so sad that we have become this ugly law and order state. To us it is more important to punish than fix societal problems.

[Orangepeel]

85. one can feel no sympathy and agree there is no excuse

but still think that society should look at the bigger picture and try to stop things like this from happening. Might be less dead kids that way.

[AP]

91. Exactly.

Hatred aimed towards this woman is an emotion that may be satisfying for a few moments. But after you're down feeling that emotion, I suspect that there are lots of other thoughts and emotions and strategies one could have which might actually help prevent things like this from happening in the future.

[iverglas]

106. and she didn't do all those things ...

If this woman did not want or was not capable of supporting a child, she should have gotten free contraception at Planned Parenthood. If, despite her efforts to prevent pregnancy, she had a child, she needs to care for it. Keep it, don't keep it, do whatever you have to do for the child to be safe.

... because she was BORN EVIL. That's it.

I don't have sympathy for a person who locks a kid in a room for 2 days rather than seeking out social services.

The point is that if you had any sympathy for THE KID, and other kids at risk of this sort of thing, you'd be looking for explanations of why it happened and ways of preventing it.

But like I said, that's not nearly as much fun ...

[TNMOM]

95. oh come now... do you really think

society should take responsibility for this? this woman is wholly, completely responsible for her child's death. As a member of society, I am sorry for the loss, but not guilty of the loss.

I think some people just aren't mature enough to have children, but because this is a democracy we can't (and I'm saying we should not) prevent such people from having children.

Incidents like this are the price of democracy.

There are limits to what a democratic society can do. We can't keep her from taking meth or abusing some other drug. And we can't keep her from having children. We can't keep her drug abuse from harming and, in this case, killing her child.

[AP]

103. I think you're confusing "blame" with, "if you really want to stop stuff

like this, maybe there's something we can all do."

I don't think society should take the blame for this.

Yet, I have faith in the power of collective action and I know that I and my fellow citizens could probably remove a lot of misery from the world if we all worked together and made an effort to change things.

Incidents like this are definitely not the price of democracy. They're evidence of the failure of society. Making sure people have wealth, opportunities, education, resources to fall back on, etc., so they have better things to do then crystal meth do NOT diminish democracy. They enhance democracy.

[iverglas]

105. don't you stop

if you really want to stop shit like this from happening, it might help to take a look at the bigger picture of why shit like this happens.

I know all too well how bruised the head gets from banging against that wall, but I gotta know that somebody's still gonna do it even when I despair. ;)

Trying to stop shit like this from happening isn't nearly as much fun as hanging the people who do it in the public square while screeching and calling them names though, of course. Maybe we should just stop denying ourselves that simple pleasure ...

[merh]

115. I will carry the torch when you get tired!

I have a very hard head and banging it against walls is something I have done for years. I am there to continue when your head hurts too much! :thumbsup:

[iverglas]

116. I know we're not alone

... but sometimes it does get lonely around here.

Everybody take one, now:



;)

[merh]

120. See my post 118 - unfortunately there was information

about this case that the original story didn't reference. She left the child in the care of her housemates.

:cry:

[FizzFuzz]

132. I am totally with you here, AP

And as the RW Xtians continue to force their insanity on us all, forcing women to give birth, denying Birth Control and sex eduaction, spending billions on abstinence programs that are proven to cause harm rather than help, AND as the corporate end of smirkCo continues to make us poorer and steal our jobs, and further dismantle education as well as safety nets that prevent people from having to take drastic measures when crises happen---why, yes we can absolutely expect more--many more--events like this.

It's easy to be morally outraged at singular occurences. Angrily advocating strict punishment of patheticially stupid individuals does nothing to address the causes, but makes one feel powerful and in control in the face of our national/global train wreck.

[AP]

141. Good point. Not only is the rhetoric "personal responsibility and

punishment" but the things we're doing on a social level are actually contributing to the problem.

So we do believe that society has a part to play and that this isn't just about this one woman being evil. We actually believe that society needs to produce more of these failed human beings (through the methods you described) so that we can feel better about ourselves.

OK, I'm exaggerating. But that's how it feels sometimes.

[FizzFuzz]

149. I don't know if I think society believes we need to produce more of these

failed beings, but its so gosh darn EASY to produce them, sex being the main concern of basic survival after food and shelter. It's just unconscious behavior, and very few people bother to wake up and and act out of purpose. Somtimes, some of us manage it occasionally, and that's usually about the best we do.......

ANyway, once there are surging masses of people to be managed, it's best to keep em entertained with bread and circuses; and public hangings!

I've just started reading H.L. Mencken (ha! I found out about him here at DU!!), and he mentions one of the necessities for happiness is having people you can feel superior to! Well, I guess maybe that's why the "news" has always loved reporting incidents like this!!

[Rainbowreflect]

87. I think you hit it.

Many people had warnings of the neglect of this child & nothing was done. Friends, family, CPS & no one helped this child.
I think maybe part of me believes we are all a little to blame.

[Vadem]

102. What you're stating was not indicated in the news story......

Yes, there are not enough drug treatment centers for people such as this mother; however, as a mother, I can't even imagine that I would ever get so drunk or so drugged out or so whatever you call it now, that I would not first think of my children! That's just it!

[AP]

104. Yet, many mothers get drunk and drugged out.

So, that you can't imagine that you'd do it doesn't really help us understand why it happens and what to do about it beyond criminally prosecuting people who do it.

[Vadem]

108. Yes, AP, you have a point......I guess I'm just not addictive enough!....

[AP]

112. Whatever it takes to see this from a perspective other than the very nar-

row, law and order, strict father perspective that you have, eh?

[Vadem]

113. Oh AP! You call me a strict father handing down proclamations.....

No, I am not! I can understand addiction; G_d knows, I have it in my own family....I am not in favor of the "death penalty" for this mother; my heart just breaks when I hear stories such as this, when little babies are the victims of a parent's idiocy! I hope she gets help; and I know she will be heartbroken at some point in her life over her son's demise when she finally sobers up.

[AP]

114. I mixed you up with Vinca.

Woops. Sorry.

[jdj]

124. you can. it's easy. it's called chemical dependency.

I don't have kids, but I went to AA for ten years and I have seen these moms and seen their horrible angst and guilt at what they have done.

There is such a thing as addiction and chemicals don't care if you are a mom or not, or if the kid is out in the cold, the dog isn't fed and the bills aren't paid. That's why it's called compulsive behavior. I thought we had gotten to a point as a society where we had pretty much accepted this, but I guess I'm wrong.

[Vadem]

146. OMG! You are so right!..........n/t

[FizzFuzz]

134. who knows, maybe she never wanted that kid in the first place.

Not all women bond with their offspring. Not all women are fit for motherhood.

Maybe this is yet another example of what happens when you live in a world where having kids is the only option offered, no matter what's really right for you.

Everyone seems to assume that just because they cherish their own kids, everyone feels the same way.

[Divernan]

47. No mention of job. Was she hooking to pay for meth?Collecting welfare for

herself and son. Wouldn't be the first woman to keep a child for financial gain.
You said you've been following this closely. So tell us, where was the father? According to the story, the monster housemates did not check on this child, feed him or change his diapers.
I shudder to think of the pain a baby would be in with horrible diaper rash from unchanged pants for days at a time. Or was he even dressed at all?

[jdj]

126. I lived across the street from people who were borderline

I found out alot of stuff I didn't want to know later on.
Came out one day and their two year old was at my fence in his diapers, poking his hand through the dog fence. (and my dog was a pit bull mix who did not like children) and his 1 year old was in her diaper playing in the neighbors junk pile. I'll never forget his yelling at her in baby-speak, and how she got up and moved away from the trash, he was only 2 and yet her only caretaker. That neighbor threatened her with calling social services if she didn't clothe the children and watch them closer. I found out later she was on coke and so was her husband. Long story short, their trailer burned down one day and killed the little boy just a little while later. I was there, it was horrible. I didn't know about their addiction until after the fire and the criminal investigation. She was being investigated for starting the fire on purpose (she didn't, I was there and am confident it was an accident; when it began to burn my dog started barking and I ran over there). That was a horrible time, haven't thought about it in a while..he ran back in to get his puppy. I have to ask did I fail somehow, knowing what I know now I should have called that day I found them in my yard, but, she was just across the street and called them home, and I know how kids can get away from you.

It came out that she used to lock them in the room and leave for the day and her husband would come home from work and have to clean all the feces and urine in that room. Apparently this was habitual. They were an extremely attractive couple too, both stunningly good looking, just poor.

[Vadem]

147. OMG, what a story.....I think you must be a saint, to be looking out.....

for these little babies....You know, most people in the US don't know from what you are reporting....they are happy in their choice of President.....and think that he is infallible.....God Bless You!

[Tacos al Carbon]

7. I'm not sure how I would have decided this

Is the woman completely unfit to be a mother? Absolutely. Was she criminally negligent? No doubt in my mind. Might the child have died even if she hadn't been criminally negligent? Maybe. The evidence seems sketchy with respect to a link between her negligence and the child's death. Specifically, it wasn't her leaving the child that caused death. He didn't starve. It was electrocution. Had she covered the outlets, he'd likely be alive today. However, the prosecution concentrated on her leaving him alone, her drug use, etc., all of which are persuasive emotionally but ... well, it's not the strongest case for child abuse leading to death on the bare facts. It's not as if she intended the child harm or beat it or the like. I think that that statute, and the 20 years to life penalty that goes with it, are for cases of overt and horrific abuse.

On this evidence, I just don't know if I'm comfortable with life in prison for her. On the other hand, I would not have any objection whatsoever to permanent sterilization, along with significant jail time.

[Warpy]

13. I'm not, either.

A playpen would have solved the problem, but I'll bet that was something she couldn't afford. Adequate income may have afforded her adequate childcare, but that's only a cruel dream for most single mothers.

That kid could have stuck a staple into an outlet and electrocuted himself even if she'd been in the room with him. Anybody who's been around a toddler knows they're lightning fast when it comes to stuff like that.

Outlet covers might have saved him, but I'm betting she couldn't afford those, either.

Chinese immigrants in Boston were always getting into trouble for swaddling their infants and toddlers and leaving them unattended while they were at work. In most cases, they had no real choice. Their work was so underpaid, usually in restaurants, that there was no way they could have afforded childcare, and extended family back in China was no help, either.

Until this country takes early childhood parenting a little more seriously and rewards it sufficiently that it can be done, along with educating new parents in how to do it, we will continue to get horror stories like this one. This country sucks for the young and the poor and especially for their children.

We can and must do better.

[Tacos al Carbon]

18. Oh, I don't buy the poverty excuse at all

First, she could afford meth ... and a TV, and a cell phone ... there is no indication whatsoever that she was particularly poor. Second, plenty of poor people manage to not be criminally negligent parents. Socket covers can be a piece of tape and some paper. Cribs that a child can't get out of or playpens can be made and/or are often given away by charities. Hell, she could have had the kid with her. Again, the poverty excuse is B.S. She was a lousy mother, poor, rich, or otherwise. I'm not blaming society or Bush or Martha Stewart or anyone else. She chose to have the child and this is all on her.

[AverageJoe]

26. Jesus, how does it feel to be morally superior

and, I suspect, perfect?

No one is suggesting this woman is a saint or that there should be no consequences for her actions. This world, though, is not done up in black and white. There are shades of gray and this situation is filled with them.

Poverty and despair are cumulative horrors. And you're right, most economically disadvantaged people don't let their kids die. But can you not at least entertain the idea that the weight of poverty, addiction and ignorance might lead to horrific outcomes for those living under such a burden?

This is a horrible situation, though. I'll certainly give you that.

Have you ever needed mercy? Have you ever been given mercy?

I'm not judging you. This situation is just awful.

[Tacos al Carbon]

31. Did you read my first post in this thread?

And yeah, I'm morally superior to this woman. Damn near everyone is. And where is the suggestion that she was poor or even an addict (as opposed to just another loser who liked to get high) or ignorant? It doesn't take knowledge to know that you shouldn't abandon your child. Animals know this. She didn't have the sense or the heart of a mother cat.

No, I would not give her life or even 20 years. Maybe 5-10 years, permanent sterilization and lifetime probation prohibiting her from ever having, caring for or supervising children ... or pets.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

35. How about this............

....put her in prison and release her on what would have been her son's 18th birthday. She should remember everyday she was responsible for his life.

[Tacos al Carbon]

38. Also a reasonable verdict

But she'd be 40 when she got out and I'd still insist on sterilization, not as a punitive measure but as protection for any potential children. Some people just aren't equipped to be parents.

[AverageJoe]

37. My apologies, Tacos al Carbon

I re-read your original post and now understand that you, too are struggling with this matter. Sorry if I offended. I don't agree with all you suggest, but I respect your struggle and passion.

[Tacos al Carbon]

39. No problem at all

eom.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

28. Wow, one page and you know all that.

Amazing.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

34. I'm still trying to figure out......

....how anyone knows she was living in poverty.....the article makes no such statement, therefore it's a poor defense at this point.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. Im still trying to figure out how you know she was well off?

The article doesn't say much about anything other than the verdict. So how so many people can jump to the conclusion that this was the correct verdict is amazing.

[merh]

51. If she were well off with a "cocaine" problem or a problem with

alcohol, she would have hired someone to watch her child for 2 days. During that 2 days, the child could have easily stuck the toy or whatever in the outlet and died. The well off mother would have been the victim of the accident. Therefore, since this 22 yr old child mother apparently could not afford child care, the assumption that she was poor is a legitimate assumption.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

69. Two problems there.........

1) Almost certain that if in fact a child died in the care of someone else, the police would investigate and ask the mother "What were you doing for two days that you needed the sitter/nanny/au pair.". There have been cases.

2) I don't know if it's reasonable to assume she was "poor" because she couldn't find someone responsible to watch her kid for two days while she scored a high and watched movies. Some people have trouble finding sitters for a few hours. Did she plan to be out for two days? Did she plan to go on a bender? Again, this comes back to personal responsibility.

Sorry, but you lose your right to be selfish, irresponsible, and immature when you decide to have a child.

[merh]

75. (1) Investigate is one thing, prosecute and

demand harsh sentences is another.

(2) Yeah, rich people don't ever have to worry about their responsibilities, they can afford nannies or child care.

We are a disposable society.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

90. (1) Do you really think...........

....anyone here wouldn't be as angry if it was some rich woman who did this to their child? And aside from a few who are corrupt, do you really think a prosecutor or law enforcement official would say "Oh, well it's okay, they are rich." if the circumstances were the same?

(2)You condemn rich people for having the means to employ someone to take care of their kids. That's a different argument for another time. The fact is if you get someone responsible to watch your children if you can't, that's called being a responsible parent no matter if you pay them, or they are a family member. The fact of the matter is if a rich person chose not to pay for someone, or couldn't find someone to take care of them, and chose to go off on a bender anyway, they would be responsible for their choice of action as this woman is. This woman made a choice to leave her child, apparently in the care of numbskulls, so she could get high and goof around. And apparently, she's so poor, she can barely afford that cell phone with games on it. Please. Shame on people making excuses for this woman when there are others who most certainly are poor who make sure they have someone to watch their child while they go out and make money to feed that kid.

[merh]

96. Yeah, those urbanites that left their kids in the car seats of their

vans or SUVs while they went into the office to work, to die a slow and painful deaths were prosecuted and judged just as harshly as woman. They were responsible, weren't they, they were taking their kids to day care, whoops forgot.

Not making excuses for the woman, just expecting a little more understanding and whole hell of a lot less judgment since you are not living her life, you have no idea what her circumstances were and you cannot deny that people with higher income face shorter sentences, if they are tried at all.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

101. Give me a break.......

...again, you are trying to act like those car-seat deaths were blown off by folks like myself. I thought those were just as heinous and horrible an act of total irresponsibility. But would it have mattered if they were strapped down in a car seat of a mini-van/SUV, or if the kid was allowed to cook while climbing around the back seat of a Pinto?

Sorry if I don't have understanding for a woman who brings a child into this world, then decides leaving him to go do drugs and hang out with her friends is worth the risk. Apparently the jury heard her circumstances, and felt otherwise. If you have a problem with people being put on trial, and think we should just hand out mulligans to everyone, that's your deal. I'm proud to say I've never brought a child into this world, and then chose not to take care of it, so judge me all you wish on this matter.

[merh]

111. I'm not being judgmental

I am pointing out how wrong it is that we, as a society, pick and chose who we will judge and prosecute, depending on their "status" in life.

Please provide a link to the article that discusses the prosecution and sentence of those who left their children in a car seats.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

130. Here you go........

This one refers to three cases, one prosecuted, the others not. If you want to figure out what the social and financial status of the people involved, feel free to speculate.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2003/aug/05/515436155.html

Some others:

http://www.4rkidssake.org/grandmom.htm

Uh oh, I guess maybe this next one proves your case, after all she was "poor" because she had to take out loans and apparently stole jewelry so she get her hair done while her kids baked.

http://www.detnews.com/2002/metro/0207/03/a01-528327.htm

Again, this is apples and oranges. The case this thread refers to is a woman willfully accepting the risks of leaving her child alone for two days so she could do drugs and hang out with her friends as opposed to cases where absent-minded parents left kids in cars. Both are reprehensible in their own way, but there is a difference. If the cops and/or the prosecuter can't prove and/or don't believe the parent knowingly left the child behind, of course they will not prosecute. In this case, there was no debate.

[merh]

135. At least the jury recognized negligence and the tragedy

that was the death of the child and acquitted the grandmother. They did not find that her actions were criminal. Maybe that is because she could afford to hire a qualified defense attorney. Money has nothing to do with justice, afterall does it.

State v. Deborah Welch, Acquittal of grandmother charged with manslaughter; left grandchild in car on hot August day while she was at work.

http://www.emarcusdavis.com/attorney/attorney.html

Not like the poor girl in Lincoln that was defended by a public defender. By the way, read the article, she did not leave the child unattended, she left it with 4 roommates, one of whom was her brother.

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/28/top_story/extras/doc41f9950e39580539165786.txt

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

140. I stated a few times........

....she left the child with apparently irresponsible adults like herself.

I must be poor too........I don't even have a cell phone like her.....

[merh]

142. Do you have a land line? Most folks now (especially those in

their teens and early 20's) don't have land lines, but opt to have cell phones. You can get a cell phone for $40, use up the minutes in it and then renew your minutes with cards, like calling cards. It is less expensive than land lines and doesn't require a deposit or down payment. Catch up with the times.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

145. I prefer not to be found when out and about......

.....and seeing as I don't have kids to worry about, it's my right. Leave a message at the beep.

[merh]

148. And that is your option. But as I said, a majority of people today

are chosing a cell phone over the land line. They can be less expense than a land line.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

54. I didn't say she was well off..........

.....I only pointed out in response to a complaint about her supposed poverty that she had money to afford meth.

And might I add, how one can jump to the conclusion that this was an incorrect verdict is amazing as well.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

59. No, if you read below, I said I don't know what the verdict should be.

But I know that calling for her head after reading one page is complete BS

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

19. "Outlet covers might have saved him...."

"but I'm betting she couldn't afford those either."

But she could afford the meth?

And by the way, you can get outlet covers for about 50 cents a piece. I doubt she ever thought for a second about buying them.

[AverageJoe]

9. I have a two year old son

whom I love more than life itself. He is sunshine, starlight, the best, the very best thing I am proudest of in this world. I would never, ever leave him alone or knowingly allow him to be put in danger.

It is devestating to even think about what happened to Christian. That poor child.

That said, I agree with Rainbowreflect. I don't know how to feel about the outcome of this trial, either. The story is incredibly awful, sad beyond imagining. I don't know what the proper punishment is for this woman. Right this second, I feel incredible pity for her.

Flame me if you like, but mercy is among mankind's highest attributes.

Ah, hell. It's just a terrible thing.

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. I hope they lock her away for a long, long time.

I'm not the least conflicted on that verdict.

:grr:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

11. Here comes the lynch mob, right on cue.

This mother was negligent as hell, but remember when our penal system was about rehabilitation instead of just locking someone away for the rest of their lives? This person was obviously fucked up. In addition to being a Meth addict who the hell knows what other mental problems she had. So for how much longer are we going to keep locking away people who aren't thinking clearly or who aren't mentally competant?

[Tacos al Carbon]

12. Your suggested verdict

and consequences?

[DrWeird]

15. Burn the witch.

nt

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

110. burn her but don't call her a witch please, witches rear their young. n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

17. I read 1 page on the woman. I hardly think Im qualified to pass judgement

But I know that throwing people in prison who weren't in their right state of mind when they committed said crime doesn't do anything for anyone.

This wasn't about justice though. This was about satisfaction. It's the same reason we send people to the death house. We somehow think it evens things out. It doesn't. A life taken is a life taken and it can never be brought back, not even by taking another life.

[Tacos al Carbon]

21. She's not being executed

In any case, it's not as if she was mentally ill (there's no suggestion of it) and she was supposedly in charge of her faculties when she CHOSE to get high. In any case, her getting high has little to do with the fact that she left a child alone for extended periods with uncovered outlets and was, in general, a completely unfit mother. That's not a mental disorder or a disability. It's a crime.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Yeah, addicts are completely in their right states of mind...

:eyes:

Please. As the child of an alcoholic I know better. An addict would sell their soul for a hit.

[Tacos al Carbon]

27. First, who says she was an addict

Second, are you saying that if someone is an addict, they cannot be held criminally liable for their actions during their periods of lucidity? She didn't sell this child for a hit. She ignored it while she watched movies in another room, hung out with friends, took a roadtrip and played video games. Please.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

29. No, but they need to be treated as an addict

And thats just it. It doesn't say is she was mentally deficient. It doesn't say is she was an addict. IT DOESN'T SAY. And let me get this straight...if she sold the child would you then say she was vindicated but because she left the child alone she is...worse?


And by the way...addiction? Yeah, it IS a disease.

[Tacos al Carbon]

36. First, addiction, at some point, is a choice

predisposition to addiction is, arguably, a disease. If she had sold the child he would probably still be alive, so yeah, ignoring him until he died is worse.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

40. Addiction is a choice?????

That is absolutely ridiculous. Why don't you go tell that to any member of AA or any recovering addict.

And as for the other thing...she did not ignore him until he died. Reread the article.

[Tacos al Carbon]

45. I read the article

If she had been more attentive or if she had been with him, he would likely be alive. The fact that he didn't starve to death doesn't change that. She left him alone until he managed to kill himself.

As for the addiction thing, someone can be predisposed to alcoholism but if they never touch a drop or take that first drink, they won't be an alcoholic. Someone can be predisposed to be a gambling addict but if they never step into a casino or see a deck of cards, that predisposition may never blossom into actual addiction. At some point, it's a choice. In any event, there's no evidence that she was an addict, or poor or in any way hampered from being a good mother.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

48. Ok, so every person who has ever had a drink is dirty scum.

Because they could risk becoming an addict and doing something stupid. Great reasoning.

[Tacos al Carbon]

52. Nice leap

I drink. I'm not predisposed to alcoholism so it's OK. There are people who know that they are genetically predisposed to alcoholism and have never touched a drop. At some point it's a choice. Predisposition makes it less of a choice after the first, second, third drink. In any event, there's no evidence that this woman is an addict or that meth had anything to do with her wilfull neglect of her son.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

57. What evidence???? You read ONE PAGE!

Since when is one page evidence? You are making it seem as though you sat in on the trial. You did not.

And it is not a leap. Some people do not know they are genetically predisposed. So what about them? Is it their fault?

[Djinn]

74. I think Tacos al Carbon is a little harsh

but he has a point in the addiction/choice thing. No-one said having ONE drink is irresponsible because you could become and addict, but if you realise your having several drinks every night, or that you're irritated without alcohol you can choose to stop THEN before your mind/body is properly addicted.

A few highschool friends of mine could have stopped when they were shooting up a gram of speed each weekend, they could have stopped when it became every second day - they could have stopped when they started using smack to come down, they could have stopped when the smack use increased but they didn't - they kept going.

Contrary to popular opinion most drugs aren't THAT easy to get addicted to - you actually have to do decent amounts of it over a fair period of time.

It's not exactly cut and dried but there's is certainly truth to the "choice" factor.

[FizzFuzz]

144. ever notice how people especially love to pillory women who mother poorly?

Everyone's acting as if this and all children were rationally and responsibly planned on by the mother (the child-woman, in this and many cases).

complicit fathers don't seemt to be targeted with reflexive hatred like this. (i.e. the husband who pushed his flamingly mentally ill wife to have a 4th, 5th and 6th? kid against warnings from doctors)

Women get such strong messages and romanticization, not to mention hormones or whatever, to have babies, as if they were some fun toy or fashion accessory--with barely any serious information as to what the reality of child rearing is like. When they crumble under impossible realities (no job, no childcare, no maturity) and their own failings, the morality enforcers on the left and right rush in to the thrill of swift and stern retribution.

[AverageJoe]

14. Right on, SemiCharmedQuark

Your post is very well taken. We've become a prison society in a mandatory sentence world. Damned scary, if you ask me.

[merh]

20. We are a disposable society.

We have land fills for our trash/garbage

Prisons for our citizens that don't meet our standards.

Nursing homes for the elderly that get in our way.

We don't try to rehabilitate or recycle or give a second chance. Just dump it in a place where you don't see what happens to it. Ignorance is bliss. No visual, no responsibility.

[Tacos al Carbon]

23. The only thing disposed of in this case

was a little baby boy and his mother did the disposing. I pay (much) more attention to my cats, for God's sake.

[merh]

30. .

"On this evidence, I just don't know if I'm comfortable with life in prison for her. On the other hand, I would not have any objection whatsoever to permanent sterilization, along with significant jail time."

[Tacos al Carbon]

32. Right ... you quoted my post

and?

[merh]

42. We are a disposable society.

She is a child herself - go study what meth does to the people addicted to it. No evidence of addiction, go study what "frequent" users face relative to the chemical reaction meth has on their systems.

I mourn for the child. I mourn too for a society that fails to recognize that incarceration for people with chemical dependencies does not work.

If it had been a middle class white or afluent white 22 yr old mother that left her child in a room, unattended for 1 hour and the child stuck a toy or whatever into the socket, that mother would have been coddled and understood and forgiven, for all would say "just think of the suffering she will go through for the rest of her life, knowing that she caused this". Think of those urbanites that forget their children are in their car seats - are they tried for murder and given 20 years (and sterilized as you would have)? No.

Addictions should be understood and treated, that is all I am saying.

We are a disposable society!

[Tacos al Carbon]

49. She's a child?

She's a 23 year old mother. That's no child. There is ZERO evidence that she is an addict, rather than just a user. She IS white and mey very well be middle class. She sure wasn't impoverished. I note that she had a cell phone and a car (or at least access to a car) and a roof over her head and private counsel at trial. ANd I'm not saying that she should get 20 years ... I'd cap it at about 10 ... but I'm not about to start making excuses for her.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

50. Do you know what the effects of meth are? Even the first time you try it?

Do you know how long the effects of just one hit last for?

[Tacos al Carbon]

53. Actually, I do

And it has ZERO to do with this case.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

55. Why don't you go ahead and list them out so we can all decide on that?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

70. Ok then, I'll list them:

Disturbed sleep Moodiness and irritability
Excessive talking Excessive excitation
False sense of confidence and power Uninterested in friends, sex, or food
Panic Anxiousness
Severe depression Delusions of grandeur leading to violence

[merh]

58. hmmm, but you would still have her sterilized?

We live in a judgmental, disposable society.

Only the rich and middle class are afforded the "but for the grace of God, go I" defense.

:shrug:

[donheld]

97. "We live in a judgmental, disposable society."

It's very sad, we recycle nothing. We throw humans away like they are just another piece of litter. I don't excuse what she did, but we never try to find out why people do these things and fix the problem, we just throw them away.

[merh]

121. Amen!

:cry:

[merh]

117. You say she had private counsel

Why do articles on this story state "But Blair's attorney, Deputy Public Defender Tim Eppler, urged jurors to separate emotion from evidence."?

She is an indigent.

[Tacos al Carbon]

122. My mistake

But having a public defender doesn't make you "indigent." A private attorney in this kind of case would charge several tens of thousands of dollars (or more). Plenty of non-indigent people can't afford that. Moreover, as I've said, economic status is no excuse or defense. You don't need money to care about your child.

[merh]

123. No, before you can have a public defender appointed to defend

you, you must be "found" indigent, i.e, you cannot afford legal counsel.

Ignorance of the facts is no excuse.

[Tacos al Carbon]

128. Actually, in Nebraska

a public defender is appointed at the Judge's sole discretion depending on the defendant's financial status, the seriousness of the charges and the Defendant's ability to pay for private counsel. Therefore, someone who is making, say, $30,000 a year and is not indigent may well be appointed a public defender if charged with a capital offense or other crime which no competent private attorney would undertake to defend for any price that the defendant could realistically pay (because of the scores and often hundreds of hours of time involved, not to mention costs for experts, investigators, deposition reporters, exhibit creation, travel, etc.).

[merh]

131. And I am sure that she made $30,000 or so since she was

living in a house with 4 other roommates and she was 23 years of age.

[Tacos al Carbon]

133. You have no idea one way or the other

You don't know what she had or how much her parents had or anything of the kind. Just grasping at straws now. And again, being poor, even if she was poor, is no excuse for not giving a damn about your baby.

[merh]

137. She left the child with her 4 roommates, one of whom was

her brother. If a middle class or rich parent sends their child to day care and the child dies as a result of electrocution like this child, was the mother at fault because she left the child with a day care that did not tend to the child?

Give me a break. I am not grasping at straws, the judge would not have given her a public defender if she could have afforded to hire one.

[merh]

118. She left the child with her house mate or room mate

How about posting all info available?

(snip)

But Blair's attorney, Deputy Public Defender Tim Eppler, urged jurors to separate emotion from evidence.

"You are not here to decide if she fulfilled her general responsibilities as a mother," he said. "You're here to decide if Brandy Blair committed a crime."

Blair was negligent when she left her son in the care of "inept" adults, but she didn't know that her four roommates would not feed Christian, change his diaper or let him out of his room for three days, Eppler said.

(snip)

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/27/top_story/extras/doc41f878e13a13f611448960.txt

[rocktivity]

150. She did NOT leave the child in care of her roomates

If she had left the house with "the understanding" that her roomates would watch the child, she wouldn't have have left him alone in a room and made made it impossible to for him to leave. Indeed, that suggests that no one was home when she left.

:headbang:
rocknation

[tubbacheez]

56. I'll agree with you on that. Addictions should be treated.

I especially would like it if addictions were treated prior to any associated breaches of law.

Even after conviction, by all means, I say any person suffering from an addiction should get help concurrently with any prison or probation time.

The treatment of addiction is independent of punishment for crime, IMO.

For example, I would not allow addictions to be reason for leniency. If we pass a law stipulating a range of punishments for a crime, and then a jury concludes that a person did indeed commit that crime, then the lawful range of punishment should be applied.

If we as a society think that range isn't right or just, we can introduce a measure to modify the law.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. Yeah. At least in prison she should get treatment. But she won't.

She'll come out no better at all.

[tubbacheez]

64. Prison reform is also important.

Imagine how much we could do with the $300 billion spent on the Iraq invasion/occupation.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

65. Yeah.

I think people here are misunderstanding. Again, nobody is saying that this woman is innocent or that she is sympathetic or anything. What is being said is that throwing her in prison for 20 years is doing nothing to solve the root of the problem. It's not bring the child back and it's not helping the mother.

A lot of times prisons only make people worse. They kill the last shreds of humanity within that person. Why do you think so many people come in and out and in and out of prison?

[tubbacheez]

72. I agree the root causes of this tragedy are barely touched...

... by the prison sentence. The big picture really involves more than this person's case. What you are addressing is a society-wide shift in how crime and punishment are viewed.

I do wish more compassion can be worked into the system. Trying to work it into individual cases can easily lead to inconsistent and unjust sentencing.

But it really needs to be worked in somewhere.

[theboss]

100. The "problem" in this case is a dead child though

And nothing is going to bring him back. I agree that we need beter systems in place to stop these sorts of things before they happen. And maybe a case like this can be the catalyst for change.

But, at some point, an individual is personally responsible for his or her actions. She abandoned her child and he died. She made a choice and it resulted in a horrible consequence.

Society can't simply give her a pass on the first dead kid (and yes I know that no one is calling for a "pass" but I can't think of a better way to phrase it). I think a severe punishment is in order.

[merh]

66. Yeah, those federal sentencing guidelines work so well.

Just lock folks up and throw away the keys. Out of sight, out of mind. That has been so effective - look at how it has cut down on crime.

Incarceration alone doesn't work. Do you know what society or nationality has the lowest ricividism rate and the most effective record on the positive effects of rehabilitation? Israel, a non-Christian society. I find that so ironic.

Just as land fills are overflowing, so are our prisons. We provide no means for convicted felons to make a living once they have paid their dues and done their time. In many states, they cannot vote. But hey, they was criminals, so they deserved to be locked up and who cares what happens when they have completed their sentences.

[tubbacheez]

73. Correct, incarceration alone is a waste.

I do think sentencing guidelines are important, because consistency is important.

But those same guidelines would be much better if they included items beyond various stretches of prison time.

[merh]

76. They have them, and they still prevent judges from being able to

consider the individual issues. Sentencing guidelines don't work and most federal judges would prefer that they be repealed. I say most, with the exception of the conservatives that see everything in black and white.

[tubbacheez]

80. Did you follow the recent SCOTUS ruling on sentencing?

Mixed message. Judges now cannot add to sentences based on facts not decided by the jury, which would lead to greater uniformity.

But the guidelines are now considered advisory only, and not mandatory. So anything goes, theoretically.

Much depends on what precedents get set by the first few judges to use this new model.

[merh]

82. I suppose it depends on the AG and the messages he sends to his

AUSAs. Ashwipe put out memos advising his assistants to monitor all judges and to report them if they did not give the sentences that the AUSA had recommended. His monitoring of the judges had a more chilling effect on their rulings than did the conflicted interpretations of the guidelines and the 6th amendment.

I am aware of US v. Booker and the Blakely case. The question that is yet to be answered is what will the new AG do to try to control liberal judges?

[tubbacheez]

84. If A. Gonzales is a two-faced as he sounds in his hearings...

... my hunch (and it's only a hunch) is that he's more loyal to Bush than to any particular ideology.

Whereas Ashcroft seemed to always have a far right-wing principle of one kind or another in mind whenever he did something, Gonzales seems to simply support Bush... even if that means back-pedalling.

That flexibility, if my hunch is correct, would mean a lot of confusion and inconsistency to come in the next 4 years.

I'll go on a limb here and predict that there will be a lot of variability in sentences. Unfortunately, it probably won't the kind of justice-serving variability that you're hoping for. It'll be more like a partisan GOP-serving variability that'll completely piss many progressive people off.

[merh]

89. Yeah, that's just what I anticipate...

Enron, Tyco, et al -- get the benefits of US v. Booker. While Martha does her 5 months at camp cupcake. (And as anyone who has ever done "time" will tell you, no loss of freedom is a "cupcake".)

[shesemsmom]

22. seems to me that

20 years is a bit light. How about life with no parole and even that doesn't seem enough

[OldLeftieLawyer]

44. It was never about rehabilitation

Don't get me started.

They're called "penitentiaries" because people were sent there to repent, to consider their crimes that brought them there, and to be punished.

She made choices every step of the way, and I'm not buying that sob story about how she was an addict. Bullshit. She could have given the child up for adoption, or even put him into foster care, but she made choices that led to his death.

Stuffing the towel into the door was a nice touch. Deliberate, with malice aforethought, and all the things that make me think she wanted what she wanted when she wanted it, and screw the kid.

Lock her up and throw away the key. She had her chance. She blew it and she caused her son's death. She was completely competent. She made her choices. Now, let her live with them. That's more than her son will ever have the chance to do.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. What the hell, let's send her to the electric chair!

Or how about let's cut off her hands? Or maybe put her head on a pike? That'll show all those other meth abusers out there! Im sure they'll put down their hits right this minute! Thank gawd we live in America where justice will be done!

[tubbacheez]

61. This is why civil society has the rule of law.

It's easy for people to over-punish or under-punish on a case by case basis. Law isn't a perfect solution, but it does have the advantage of being thought out and debated ahead of time.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

92. That's IT!!!

Your crystal meth is cut in half from now on, Champ.

And you're drinking decaf, too, from this day forth.

[tubbacheez]

33. Good verdict. Well prosecuted. Well defended. IMHO.

I don't think this woman is necessarily horrible or evil... more like stupid and irresponsible or perhaps under the influence of addiction.

But she the jury found she had committed a crime of "child abuse resulting in death", and not the crime of "intentional child abuse".

She was the legal guardian of the child and was therefore held to a reasonable standard of care.

Her defense tried to argue that her lack of specific actions connected with the cause of death were grounds to call the death accidental and not her fault.

As strong as that argument is, I would disagree with it under the reasoning that, she had a special relationship which can be held to a stricter standard than that of a babysitter or a roommate or a neighbor. After caring for the child for 22 months prior, she was in a unique position to know the child's needs and risks.

Having that unique knowledge, her duty went beyond the minimum of care required to keep the child alive.

The electrocution may've been unforeseeable by the mother. However, the odds that the child would get bored after 3 days and start playing with random items was very much foreseeable by the mother. Since the mother failed to provide or arrange for explicit care, I agree with the jury's finding.





Poor kid. Rest in peace, and may you reincarnate into a happy and loving home.

[elehhhhna]

62. I agree--here's a hypothetical Q:

If a paid caregiver had done the exact same thing this Mother did, she's be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and y'all know it. Right?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. Well, since this mother was also persecuted to the full extent of the law.

She would. But this isn't about what would happen. It is about what SHOULD happen. And things are never ever black and white. Not ever.

[tubbacheez]

67. Prosecution would be the same in any case, I'd hope.

The jury might be more sympathetic simply because the hot-button word "mother" isn't involved. (With notable exceptions, people tend to have very strong feelings about their mother, and by extension, about mothers in general.)

And the reasonable standard of care would be different. A paid provider would probably not be expected to know the child as well. And their defense would only need to prove that all the generically foreseeable things were handled reasonably well.

Still, a 3-day stretch without any food, water, diaper change, or supervised play would probably fall drastically short of that standard.

I think, all other facts being the same, that even a professional nanny would be found guilty of some form of child abuse for this situation.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

71. Let me ask you...what if she had in fact asked her friends to watch her

son?

[elehhhhna]

77. Perhaps she did.

There's not enough info for me to settle this one. Gross negligence? Without a question. I would have hated to be on that jury.

[tubbacheez]

81. You're right. We don't know. We don't have the full body of evidence. nt

[tubbacheez]

79. Depends on the agreement reached between mom and friend(s).

(Edited for typos)

If the mother had reasonable expectation that child care, appropriately substituting for her own, would have been provided, I would expect the jury to be somewhat more lenient.

The defense would need have to witnesses or evidence showing that certain conversations took place where child care was explicitly discussed. Who was "on shift" at any given time? When are the feedings? Where's the diaper supply? Etc. Some evidence of deliberately handing off responsibility to a willing recipient would be needed.

The mother still has primary responsibility, but if she were fooled into trusting someone who later committed child abuse or child neglect, that fact would be a slight difference in her favor.

I don't know the local law, so I can't guess whether she would be found innocent or merely guilty of a lesser crime. But some showing that she took her motherhood seriously could only help her case.





On the other hand, if the mother had only a very weak agreement (such as shouting over her shoulder to no roommate in particular as she was running out the door), then I don't think the jury would count that for much.

[Rex]

83. Was she emotionally disturbed?

I understand what she did, can the state decide if she is unfit as a mother or does an infant have to die first? To bad we have to spend trillions on BOMBS and nothing on or own fucking people!

They laughed at a Department of Peace!

[tubbacheez]

86. Dunno about "disturbed" but possibly emotionally IMPAIRED. nt

[ultraist]

94. Yes, the State can remove the child before anything that serious happens

Child protective services can have the child removed if the child has been abused/neglected or is in immediate danger. It would have been very easy for any social worker to have removed that child. Drug use is nearly an automatic to get the judge to approve removal. Showing a chronic history of drug/alcohol use is a new criteria that fast tracks removing the child. (I majored in SW and worked for a short time in Child Protective Services).

BUT, NO ONE called and made a report that this child was being neglected.

[tubbacheez]

98. Yeah, I don't think too highly of her so-called friends and roommates. nt

[noonwitch]

129. We're not psychic, someone has to report the parent to CPS/the police

Most people are hesitant to call CPS on their family, friends and neighbors. Often, they are right to do so-you don't call PS because you saw your neighbor spank their kid unless the kid was injured, for example.

But there are lots of services available for parents in crisis situations. I'm sure there were people that mother could have called upon to assist her, rather than leaving the child alone.

[poe]

88. Nero wasn't the only one who fiddled while Rome burned

This will get more media attention than any trial regarding Abu Ghraib or election fraud. Of course it is sad but is it really worth so much attention while the earth is on fire.

[ultraist]

93. How sad...

That the father, the roommates, the neighbors, and the community at large failed this child when his mother was unfit to care for him.

SOMEONE should have reported her to Social Services before it got to this point. WHY didn't any of the roommates or neighbors call Social Services the first time she left him? The mother needs drug rehab, meth is not a recreational drug, it's extremely addictive and social users don't do meth.

Now, this poor little boy is dead because no one cared enough about his well being to step up to the plate but left him to the devices of this 23 year old drug addict. And why did this young woman become a meth addict?

I'm not suggesting the mother not be held repsonsible, she should be charged and convicted, but life in prison is very harsh considering the circumstances and the fact that it was an accidental death.

Forced sterlization is OUT of the question and that type of rights violation was outlawed decades ago for obvious reasons.

It's sad this woman does not have a chance to turn her life around at such a young age of 23.

IF parents are going to continue to be charged criminally to this level for child abuse, they should start charging the men with RAPE for molesting/sex abuse, which currently they do not in most states. Why is it only the mothers that are getting these severe sentences?

[Vadem]

99. This so-called mother left her 22 month old baby ALONE for 3.....

days and you cannot decide how you feel about it??? Aside from the fact that she left him wandering in that room for 3 days so that he could stick a staple in an outlet and electrocute himself, the first and main sin was leaving her baby alone, anytime, let alone, 3 days! How the hell was he supposed to feed himself, change his diapers and comfort himself when he cried for help and there was no one around to help him?

OMG! This is one of those unbelievable stories that absolutely make me sick to my stomach!

[merh]

125. Go back and read the article.

She left the baby with "Four roommates, including her brother, remained in the house during that time but didn't feed the boy, let him out of his room or change his diapers. Three of the four roommates have been charged with misdemeanors related to Christian's death."

http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/01/28/top_story/extras/doc41f9950e39580539165786.txt

Darn it folks - read the articles on this and get the facts straight.

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

107. How can you not be sure of the outcome? What excuse can there be for her?

[Raised_In_The_Wild]

109. seems to me the roommates should do some time too, they knew

he was being neglected and they didn't report it. They could not be expected to take over the child's care but they could be expected to report that NOBODY was caring for him. They should be charged too, with a lesser charge.

[ultraist]

119. Most states do have "duty to report" laws on the books

It's been years since I worked in that field but I do rememeber that in NC, you can be criminally charged if you fail in your "duty to report child abuse." Teachers and Doctors take this law very seriously but lay people do not. It's rarely enforced. It's pretty difficult to prove a neighbor, friend or family member was aware of the abuse/neglect.

I wonder where this child's grandparents were? Oftentimes, it's the grandparents that report the parent for neglect/abuse, especially when drugs are involved. We used to get a lot of reports from worried grandparents.

We had one case where the mother, a young drug addict, left her toddler home alone in a trailer park. The grandmother found the toddler out playing by a large pond. They removed the child and placed her with family. The mother was required to complete drug rehab as part of her treatment plan. She had three months to jump through some hoops before they would consider giving her back custody. Most cases are extended to at least six months to watch the parents and be certain they have reached a point where they can be trusted to provide proper care.

In most cases where drug addiction is involved, the parents end up having their parental rights terminated. Sadly, there is a very low recovery rate for drug addicts, especially crack heads.

[jdj]

127. I know a woman who terminated her own rights.

I can't fathom it.

She was on heroin.

Addiction is so terrible. It's like a mini-war as far as it's affects on the people around the addict.

[ultraist]

136. I agree, addiction is a terrible disease

And unfortunately, they have yet to devise a treatment that is really all that effective. I think only about 20% of addicted people actually maintain long term abstinence.

We really lack drug edu and interventive programs in this country. Rehab, after the fact should be the back up plan, not the primary plan.

[rocktivity]

138. Working link

Jurors convict Blair in son's death

And a pic:


:cry:
rocknation

[Rainbowreflect]

143. Thanks, for some reason the Journal/Star does not

keep most link up very long.