The Wherewithal of the Abuse of the Turpin Children in California

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   
   According to a recent article in Time Magazine, a psychologist indicated that since  David Turpin was at least $100,000 in bankruptcy, there was a belief that the only way to keep expenses down was to starve the children & to subject them to other deprivations.  According to other news sources, David & Louise Turpin couldn't keep up w/the expenses of raising 13 children.   
   
   I have followed the case.   The Turpins are parents of 13 children.  They had economic difficulties in raising a large amount of children.  They filed for bankruptcy before in Texas.  They knew that it was socioeconomically daunting to raise a large amount of children yet they continued to have children.  Subsequently, they were in such dire socioeconomic straits that they had to resort to EXTREME means to keep the family together. Also, Louise Turpin wanted to have a 14th child.  They gave their children the minimum food because they couldn't afford to feed their children adequately & had them bathe twice yearly because they couldn't afford bath products.   What are your thoughts on this?

   replyreport
   1. 82

      gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I heard too that she told her brother-in-law that she wanted to have another baby. Being broke is NO reason for torturing the children. I believe that was just an excuse. I think they received some of gratification/power doing whet they did. Just my opinion.

      replyreport
2. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 6 years ago

   Although the Turpins resorted to extreme measures to control their family & in order to keep expenses down, large & very large families tend to have socioeconomic difficulties w/even the necessary because money can only be stretched so far among a large number of people.  Children in large & very large families are going to endure some type of deprivation whether it is food, health care, or other rudiments..
   An investigation of the Turpins revealed that the children never had medical nor health care. 
   
   Abuse of one type or another is normative in large & very large family households, parents are stretched to the limit emotionally, mentally, & psychologically.   Parents of large & very large families don't have the resources nor the time to have teachable moments w/their children.  Instead, because of time limitations & a large number of children, they apply harsh forms of corrections which is oftentimes corporal.  Children who grew up in large & very large families endured corporal punishments.
   
   Oftentimes the attitude of parents of large & very large families aren't joy & happiness regarding their children.  They either view their children as tolerable obligations or burdens, which is reflected in their behavior towards their children. They are inundated w/raising expenses correlating to the number of children they have.   Yes, this can result on abuse in varying degrees.
   
   Children in large & very large families grow up in harsh environments.  They have to navigate their environments themselves as their parents aren't there for them.  They also, on some occasions, have to RAISE themselves.  On average, parents of large & very large families DON'T interact w/their children.  It is the OLDEST/OLDER children who parent & raise the children.  Parents of large & very large families have children, only to give them to the OLDEST/OLDER children to parent.
   
   Parents of large & very large families resort to two methods of raising their children.  Either they are neglectful & laissez faire, leaving children to fend for themselves or they adopt a draconian authoritarianism which the children are emotionally, mentally, psychologically, & psychically homogenized to make it easier for the parents to control them.  Extreme control is necessary in raising children in large & very large families as such families are CHAOTIC enough!
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 82

      gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I wrote an article about how families should start limiting themselves to 3 or maybe 4 children at the most. Not only do the families suffer in several ways but the world will start suffering in the future for several other reasons.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

         +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!

         replyreport
         1. 82

            gregasposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            ??????

            replyreport
            1. 85

               gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

               The abovementioned plus means I am in TOTAL AGREEMENT w/you.  You are correct.   Adverse financial situations led to the Turpins abusing their 13 children because they felt that these actions would curtail expenses somewhat.  They were bankrupt several times because of a growing number of children.
               
               They didn't or refuse to have the cognizance to have a smaller family. Despite their arduous financial situation, they elect to continue having children.  Even though the Turpins are extreme, many parents of large/very large families(6-more children) face similar situations.  Their children oftentimes go without.  They also have to depend upon OUTSIDE assistance to stay somewhat socioeconomically afloat.
               
               Oftentimes, in large/very large families, older children go w/o food so that younger children can eat.   In large/very large families, there is an inverse psychology & culture that doesn't exist in small(1-2 children) & medium sized families(3-4 children).  Struggle is quite normative in large/very large families.  I wasn't surprised what the Turpins did, given their dire socioeconomic situation & the number of children they have.

               replyreport
3. 94

   Glenis Rixposted 6 years ago

   I think the woman is demented. End. Of!

   replyreport
   1. 85

      gmwilliamsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      +1

      replyreport