CPS Should Intervene in This Case

1. 85

   gmwilliamsposted 10 years ago

   
   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?

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin 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

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin 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. 
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin 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.
               
               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.
               

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

                  replyreport
                  1. 73

                     Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     

                     replyreport
      2. 58

         Amanda Roddyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         The  current generations that helped raised and care for siblings were among the first to use birth control. Note it was only the females who tended to kids. Large families are no longer needed in this manner We don't live 100 years ago.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

            +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000!!! Hi Amanda, nice to hear from you again! Agreed,  in many cases, oldest/older children in large/very large families will use birth control as they HATED being in large/very large families.   Oldest/older children in large/very large families HATE being in such families as they didn't have normative childhoods & adolescences.  They were regulated to slave status very early in life.   They had to be parents.....VERY EARLY.  To make an analogy, their childhoods are like the winter solstice.
            
            
            The only people who love being in large/very large families are the younger/youngest children.  After all, they had it made in the shade.  They didn't & will never have the responsibilities in childhood that oldest/older children had at similar ages.   Oldest/older children in large/very large families want to escape from their hell as soon as possible & disassociate themselves from such families.  Well, the SMART ones do.
            
            Large/very large families are unnecessary in the 21st century.   Even having a sibling is totally unnecessary in the21st century.  With the myriad social networks, children really don't need siblings to have friends & companionship.  The notion of having a sibling or siblings is very atavistic in scope.   There are agencies & networks which provide social connection.   Furthermore, intelligent & educated people have SMALL families because they know the BENEFITS of such families.  It is oftentimes the less intelligent & less educated people who have LARGER families because they don't know the benefits of having small families.  Studies have authenticated this.   Look at a large/very large family & one will discover that the parents aren't highly educated nor possess a high degree of intelligence.
            
            Women who have large/very large families oftentimes have nothing in their lives.  They have no outside interests such as friends, careers, activities, hobbies, or other constructive outlets.  So instead of cultivating positive outlets, they merely have children for such outlets.  This is very rife for women who have large/very large families.  They have NO OUTSIDE INTERESTS.  As my late father stated, if women had OUTSIDE INTERESTS, they wouldn't have large/very large families, they would have.....SMALL FAMILIES.  Really, NO ONE needs to have more than two children.  Two at the most is sufficient.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Amanda Roddyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               Well at least no more than 4 kids is sufficient
               The DUggar friends the Bateses now have their own show. Everyone says they seem better but viewers thought the Duggars were nice too. The Bateses follow the same Quiverfull teachings and GIl is on the board of directors at ATI.. One daughter Erin has a serious clotting disorder yet she has two kids in quick succession. They seem to avoid discussion of Gothard or Quiverfull yet they appeared at ATI with the DUggars on 17 Kids. BUt lately they brought up the subject of purity rings. They aren't nicer at all IMO

               replyreport
   2. 78

      wildernessposted 10 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 78

            wildernessposted 10 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I am terribly sorry, Wilderness. I should have known that multiplying by infinity was over the top!
               

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  wildernessposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  

                  replyreport
      2. 0

         SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   3. 0

      SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin 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?

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Amanda Roddyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

         Little late but if it didnt matter before it matters now-the welfare argument is irrelevant.How do you know the situations of 'welfafe queens' with 5 kids? Obviously the Duggars are the biggest 'welfare queens' I'be ever seen. "welfare moms can't take expensive world trips or live in huge houses.

         replyreport
   4. 81

      bethperryposted 10 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

         replyreport
         1. 59

            bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            ...and 2.

            replyreport
   5. 78

      Askmeposted 10 years agoin 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.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin 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!

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

            replyreport
            1. 85

               gmwilliamsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               Of course not!

               replyreport
         2. 0

            SassySue1963posted 10 years agoin 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.

            replyreport
            1. 58

               Amanda Roddyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

               A little late but now let's look at this in wake of the scandals. They had the perfect set up for siblings sexual abuse. SOurces say not only living in close quarters is a breeding ground(sorry for pun) for sexual abuse, but also when the line is blurred between parent and child. Siblings should not be primary caretakers of kids. WHile some may stay close, others who had the primary role of caring for siblings resented the parents. How can kids raise kids? Thats what we see here, especially given the gender roles. I see no male handling children. It's always the daughters. It's why sane people will limit the number of kids. Again it's an unfair thing to place on one who is still growing, too.
               In wake of Josh's downfall. they set up no sitting in big brothers lap and so forth but they forget same gender attractions.-but that's another topic
               I'm not saying Mormons are perfect, I think at least Mormons are allowed some college. Marie Osmond is mormon and she has a career in TV. I don't think they women have to wear a certain length of hair.
               As far as 13 yr olds with naked men, it happens often in consevative regions.  Bill GFothard, the minister teh DUggars follow, was charged with 34 counts of sexual misconduct.

               replyreport
               1. 85

                  gmwilliamsposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                  I am WITH YOU Amanda.  Siblings shouldn't be raising & parenting other siblings.  That is tantamount to child abuse.  If the parents have the children, then they should RAISE & PARENT them.  If they aren't capable of RAISING & PARENTING the children, then guess what-THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THEM.
                  
                  Yes, many oldest/older daughters of large/very large families RESENT, EVEN HATE their mothers for having the former parent their younger siblings.  Many oldest/older children hate their mothers for depriving them of normative childhoods & adolescences.  I have discussed this many times.  Many oldest/older daughters of large/very large families REALLY DON'T RESPECT their mothers.  I have seen this in my maternal family.  My mother & first aunt, both oldest/older daughters talked down & didn't respect my grandmother.
                  
                  Also, when such women become adults, they try to live their lost childhoods.  They also tend not to have children themselves.  Either they don't have children or  very small families of 1 child.  My mother enjoyed me, never wanting to have another child.  She wanted me to have a normative childhood.  When I loved to stay at home as a teen, my mother found that perplexing.  I was quite settled as a teen.  The people I knew who came from large/very large families were always out of the house- they ESCAPED anyway they could & these were......MIDDLE children.  They also hated their mothers for having large/very large families.
                  
                  In fact, the majority of children who come from large/very large families except FOR THE YOUNGEST CHILD/CHILREN.......HATE their mothers w/a passion.   It goes w/o saying that oldest/older daughters hate & resent their mothers & even their younger siblings.   My first aunt(3rd oldest in a family of 10 siblings) resented her life because she was forced to parent younger siblings.  She left home at 16 at the first opportunity; my mother left home for school at 14. 
                  
                  "Life" for oldest/older children in large/very large families is analogous to a forced laborer or a slave.  They must be ON 24/7/365 for parents & siblings.  Reminds me of the Temptations' song, Slave....
                  To paraphrase:
                  
                  Hear that sound
                  The hammer pounding.....pounding
                  From sunup to sundown......
                  Men from all walks of life are living here in chains...
                  They're known by numbers, stripped of their name......
                  
                  Yes, that is the life for oldest/older children in large/very large families.  They are only valued & needed when asked to do something for parents & siblings.  They really aren't valued for themselves & individuality at all.  When they aren't needed by parents & siblings, they are.......cast aside until needed yet again..........cast aside........then needed again ad infinitum.   "Life" for the oldest/older child of large/very large families is akin to Dante's ninth circle of hell.
                  
                  Again, nice talking to you again Amanda.  Don't be a stranger!

                  replyreport
                  1. 58

                     Amanda Roddyposted 8 years agoin reply to this

                     I keep wanting ot come back and write Hubs but I have been pursuing other endeavors. Plus keeping up with the scandals befalling Patriarchy. I can't believe the DUggars are sitll on yet HOney Boo Boo got axed for the same. And reality tv is abuse in itself The kids get paid zilch. It doesnt fall under Coogan laws that protect kids.
                     
                     Dolly Parton thought she had raised enough kids as she raised 5 of them after marriage. She used birth control. Interesting many of the Gilbreth (Cheaper by the Dozen fame) had 4 kids or fewer. 11 of 13 GIlbreth kids survived into adulthood.The last one passed in 2015 at 99,. The mom Lillian  was quite an acocmplished woman for her time.

                     replyreport
2. 81

   Sed-meposted 10 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.)

   replyreport
   1. 59

      bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

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

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Sed-meposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You are a friend in deed!

         replyreport
         1. 59

            bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            

            replyreport
   2. 73

      Quilligrapherposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      +1+1-3+2 (a more scenic +1)
      

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Sed-meposted 10 years agoin 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.

         replyreport