jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (29 posts)

CPS Should Intervene in This Case

  1. gmwilliams profile image85
    gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago

    http://s2.hubimg.com/u/9076257.jpg
    Child Protective Services investigated William and Jada Smith for their parenting skills in terms of their daughter Willow Smith.  However, it was later discovered that Williams and Jada Smith were innocent as regards to Willow.  However, there IS a family that SHOULD be THOROUGHLY investigated-the Duggars.  Jim Bob and Michelle Duggars are the parents of the year in an extremely negative sense.  One can say that they aren't parents at all. 

    They are parents in name only.  They have children and give them to the older children to raise.   They seem to have a psychotic obsession in having children.   In fact, they have MORE than enough children that they can effectively raise.  This is abusive to the children.   The  children raise themselves and are mostly left to their own devices.

    In fact, the Duggars DON'T raise their children at all but enforce the older ones to raise the younger ones.   However, Michelle Duggar does not care about this in the slightest.  She intends to keep on reproducing until......   Well, something is really wrong with this family and CPS should really investigate this family.   What do YOU think about CPS investigating this family?

    1. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Without "looking up" the Duggars - and going on just the details you provided - I think you are way over the line.

      Can you imagine the generations of kids, (in healthy families), that have helped raise, watch, and care for their younger siblings?

      Are you just as aghast at the farm families where children are expected to help with farm chores and farm work because the family can't afford a hired hand?

      Do you see the need for a government office of parental regulations?

      GA

      1. Quilligrapher profile image88
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks Quill, but you better be careful - some of my curmudgeonry might wear off on it you. I warned Credence2 too late, he is almost as purple as I am now.  smile

          GA

          1. Quilligrapher profile image88
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You are very welcome, GA. Emulating your curmudgeonliness provides some stimulating conversation.

            I have wondered for a really long long time if
            +100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
            was rendered trite and meaningless by its own exaggerated repetition. However, now that I have done it myself, I am convinced. big_smile

            I just could not resist the temptation. I have not placed so many zeros on the same line since the days when I was writing my own payroll check. cool
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            1. bBerean profile image61
              bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I could legitimately write a check like that on a whim today.  Except for the "1", of course!

              1. Quilligrapher profile image88
                Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                big_smile

    2. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I think CPS will/would investigate if there is reason to do so.  That the family has more kids than you (or I) think prudent is insufficient reason to involve government in private lives.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image88
        Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x infinity

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks a lot, Quill!  You just blew up the numeric part of my computer.  I'm sending the repair bill to you.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image88
            Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I am terribly sorry, Wilderness. I should have known that multiplying by infinity was over the top! big_smile
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              lol

      2. 0
        SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I was going to plus you - but thought x infinity pretty much did it.

        1. Quilligrapher profile image88
          Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          big_smile

    3. 0
      SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How do you know they have more children than they can effectively raise? While I do not follow this family, from what I've garnered with a quick search - they raise them and pay for them all on their own without government hand outs.
      They are home-schooled - so they aren't overwhelming some school system.

      To me, though I can agree with you on it now appearing to be almost an obsession to them, they are far less an issue than the welfare moms having 5 kids that we're supposed to foot the bill for. What is your opinion on that?

    4. bethperry profile image88
      bethperryposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      If there is a legitimate grounds to suspect something is askew in the home, sure. In the case of the Smiths, there was a questionable photo. With the Duggars? I'm not seeing any even remotely excusable reason to suspect them of abuse or neglect.

      While I may wonder if the Duggars are trying to win some world record, and while I might suspect they get a kick out of their celebrity AND while I certainly don't agree with their personal religious beliefs, my opinions about these things bear no evidence to any abuse or neglect going on. Society is much better off when we keep in check preconceived ideas about how many children others should have. If a couple can afford to provide for their children and give them the love they need, I think it is nobody's damned business how many they have. And when we indulge our own "psychotic obsession" over the choices of others, it reveals a lot more about ourselves than the people we obsess over.

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          ...and 2.

    5. Askme profile image83
      Askmeposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Yep I don't get the whole investigation by CPS on the Smith family.  They were at home. They have a healthy understanding of what is or is not age appropriate. They are involved parents. I admit, I was a parent who said I would rather know what is going on with my kids and encouraged they and their friends  hang out at our house rather than go elsewhere.  I am sure some parents would have taken issue with allowing Play Station playing for hours or girls in the boys bedrooms (with the doors open). You have to pick your battles.  Allow children to exercise their own judgment once in a while.

      The Duggar kids are not allowed friends or hanging out.  The philosophy in the Duggar home is assume kids will do the wrong thing and disallow any normal childhood development.

      People who have not watched the show have no idea of the level of dysfunction in the Duggar family.

      1. gmwilliams profile image85
        gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        THANK YOU, SOMEONE FINALLY ON CENTER!    I also don't see why the Smiths were investigated.  They are proactive and democratic parents who are INVOLVED with their children.  They do not cipher one child to raise another child.  Now, the Duggars are a different case entirely,  HELL YES, CPS should INVESTIGATE these sorrow excuses for parents.  Their children are left to raise themselves, they aren't involved parents in the least.  All they do is pop'em out and give them to the oldest to raise.  How they treat their children is abusive.  Thank Askme, finally someone who sees through the so-called Duggar hype!  How these children are treated is totally abnomral to the discerning person!

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So then you do think we should have a federal Office of Parental Regulations?

          GA

          1. gmwilliams profile image85
            gmwilliamsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Of course not!

        2. 0
          SassySue1963posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So let me just understand a minute:
          They homeschool them but they aren't involved?
          The kids (by what you say) are not allowed to hang out and are always at home, but their parents aren't involved?
          I'm not sure how that is even possible.

          My sisters' often had me in their care when I was young. There is zero abusive about older siblings helping to care for younger siblings. It is not abnormal but quite normal in regular families and has always been the case. I would even say that it fostered a closeness that would not exist if left to their own devices. Certainly they would not have had me tag along with them or include me in things if I were not in their care and the choice was solely their own.

          Are you aware that Mormon children are not allowed to do many of the things you are demonizing this family for? I can't say I agree with the approach, but I attended school with many Mormon children and it certainly did not have some horrible and detrimental effect on them.

          I am really not familiar with what went on with the Smith case but I think I'd be more concerned with a 13 year old girl quite comfortably lounging on a bed with a half dressed adult male than with the issues you mention with the Duggars. That's just me.

  2. Sed-me profile image83
    Sed-meposted 2 years ago

    I don't like the +1 system. It feels too much like when you're a kid and you and your friends make up a word and try to throw it into conversation a lot, hoping it will eventually catch on as a new cool word. l realize it works very well and is well established, but I still feel stupid every time I use it. I would love a thumbs up symbol or something we could click on to show support for someone's statement. (Someone pls +1 this post.)

    1. bBerean profile image61
      bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1...You didn't even have to ask!

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You are a friend in deed!

        1. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=HN.608029977620776096&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0

    2. Quilligrapher profile image88
      Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      +1+1-3+2 (a more scenic +1)
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

      1. Sed-me profile image83
        Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I had not intended to incorporate math into this simple system, but it does give it some weight, doesn't it? I suppose we could begin using exponents and save some space.

 
working