The Television *Fell* on Him/4 Yr. Old Found Dead in N.Y.
tiny dancer
By TOM HAYS
NEW YORK (AP) - A 4-year-old boy found unconscious in a squalid Bronx
apartment visited previously by police and social workers died Monday while
the city's child welfare agency was still trying to explain another
youngster's death three weeks ago.
Investigators were questioning 4-year-old Quachon Brown's mother and her
boyfriend.
Late last year, caseworkers had visited the apartment where Quachon and his
siblings lived and deemed it ``to be in order,'' agency head John Mattingly
said.
The agency investigated the home based on a Nov. 15 complaint from the
school of one of Quachon's siblings, who range in age from 5 months to 11,
Mattingly said. The nature of the complaint was not disclosed.
Also, police said they had gone to Quachon's home last June after neighbors
reported that children there had been left there alone. The mother claimed
the children's grandmother had agreed to care for them so she could go to
Atlantic City, N.J.
On Monday, police found Quachon unconscious. The apartment was grimy, with a
broken window, no heat and no food in the refrigerator. Quachon and four
other children were found without clothes, sleeping in the same bedroom,
police said.
The mother told investigators that a television fell on the boy on Sunday
and that he began vomiting the next day, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly
said. The medical examiner said results of an autopsy were pending. But
there was preliminary evidence that the child had a fractured skull, a
damaged liver and atrophied leg muscles, a police official said.
The child welfare agency underwent a shake-up after the Jan. 11 death of
7-year-old Nixzmary Brown, who was allegedly tortured, abused and beaten by
her stepfather. Reports of her suffering had been made to several agencies,
including schools, police and child welfare.
Her death followed recent homicides of three other children known to the
agency.
An internal review uncovered several lapses by caseworkers, including a
failure to be more aggressive when they saw obvious evidence of abuse,
Mattingly said.
Mattingly announced several reforms, including a requirement that
caseworkers work more closely with police to get court orders to enter
abusive homes.
cro...@earthlink.net
suicidal TV sets, you know. My heart is too full of the abuse of these poor
little children; it never seems to end, it never seems to get better...it
gets more and more horrific, and the govt. agencies seem to be reluctant to
remove children from these "homes." No food, no clothing, no heat...it's
WINTER in NYC. I understand it is difficult to find foster homes, esp. for
sibling groups, and I hate to see the little guys and gals separated from
their brothers and sisters, but SOMETHING has to be done that is more
constructive and loving than leaving them in the "care" of monsters.
"tiny dancer" <tinyda...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:IlCDf.16010$dF5....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
Bo Raxo
<cro...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WwCDf.11221$Dk....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Dear God in heaven, please...a TV "fell" on him...gotta watch out for
those
> suicidal TV sets, you know. My heart is too full of the abuse of these
poor
> little children; it never seems to end, it never seems to get better...it
> gets more and more horrific, and the govt. agencies seem to be reluctant
to
> remove children from these "homes." No food, no clothing, no heat...it's
> WINTER in NYC. I understand it is difficult to find foster homes, esp.
for
> sibling groups, and I hate to see the little guys and gals separated from
> their brothers and sisters, but SOMETHING has to be done that is more
> constructive and loving than leaving them in the "care" of monsters.
Forget even the ones in *bad* homes, how about the ones with *no* homes? We
have homeless families, staying in shelters, and everyone is oh so
solicitous of the poor parents, struggling along. Gee, if you can't put a
roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason, you aren't fit to be a
parent. Period.
Not specifically at the poster I'm replying to, I'm objecting in general to
people who would look at a filthy home with no food in the refrigerator and
say, "take the kids away," but look at the even more fucked off situation
of not having any place to live at all, and not see an even more dire need
to remove the kid(s).
Bo Raxo
Strawberry
cro...@earthlink.net says...
> Dear God in heaven, please...a TV "fell" on him...gotta watch out for those
> suicidal TV sets, you know.
While it doesn't sound like it's the case here, it IS possible for a TV
to fall on a child depending on the circumstance. Way back in 1971 (on
the day of a big earthquake in Sylmar, CA (near LA) where a hospital
collapsed) I was babysitting a toddler. She was over near the TV and
was either pulling herself up while holding onto the little table it was
on or had done something else to cause it to tip -- and the TV started
sliding off toward her!!! She was just a tiny little thing and I was
shocked that it happened so easily! Fortunately I was very close to her
at the time (watching coverage of the earthquake, probably) and managed
to get to her and stop the slide before something tragic happened (which
was quite a feat since I was heavily pregnant at the time).
d~
I lost my nephew to a Falling TV. a week before his 2nd birthday, and
the very day my sister brought home her new baby. The TV was on a
dresser and my nephew stepped up on the lower drawer to try and reach
the TV. It toppled onto him and although he was rushed to the
hospital, air lifted to a head trauma center and worked aggressively
over pretty much all night; we lost him.
This happened 10 years ago this February and none of us have fully
recovered: and I'm sure we never will.
So, yeah; it happens.
d~ (not that I think it happened in this case. I mean, how does a TV
falling on you cause your legs to atrophy?)
--
* FYI: I don't check mail at this @ddy.
flick
news:FbEDf.3067$Nv2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> Forget even the ones in *bad* homes, how about the ones with *no* homes?
> We
> have homeless families, staying in shelters, and everyone is oh so
> solicitous of the poor parents, struggling along. Gee, if you can't put a
> roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason, you aren't fit to be a
> parent. Period.
>
> Not specifically at the poster I'm replying to, I'm objecting in general
> to
> people who would look at a filthy home with no food in the refrigerator
> and
> say, "take the kids away," but look at the even more fucked off situation
> of not having any place to live at all, and not see an even more dire need
> to remove the kid(s).
"If you can't put a roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason..."
This doesn't surprise me. Lotta people out there don't realize how elitist
Democrats and liberals are <sigh>. Bottom line is, if you aren't one of the
wealthy elite, you'll need permission to do everything. Even reproduce.
If people put off having children until they thought they were prepared for
everything, they'd never have kids. It seems like you can NEVER afford
kids. What would you suggest? An income test, to get a license to be
allowed to have children? Whoops, you had a work slowdown, they're gonna
come and break up your family!
Only people who own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage can
reproduce, maybe. I guess they might not be able to keep the utilities on,
but they'd be out of the weather. What a relief to realize that another Bo
Bureaucracy isn't going to pound on my door, demanding I turn over my kids
to the state. Will parents need to provide income and expense sheets to the
bureaucrats to prove their fitness as parents?
For many people in the U.S., a couple-three pieces of bad luck close
together means that they become homeless, even if they're working, careful
with their money and don't have bad habits (booze, drugs, gambling). Plenty
of folks were not prepared enough for Katrina. Maybe they should take the
kids away from the Katrina victims that still need help? Or does a FEMA
tarp count as a roof?
Just where in the hell are you gonna put all these kids, Bo? Think forced
abortions are called for, too? If you don't have that reproductive license,
the Pregnancy Police haul you off to the hospital?
Sheesh.
flick 100785 --> the Compassionate Conservative Parent
de Fragile Warrior Sports Supplies
> those suicidal TV sets, you know.
It's not unheard of, however. I remember a few cases of it actually
happening. Usually it's when someone puts a huge (or at least BIGGER) TV on
top of a flimsy piece of furniture or another unworking TV and the kid pulls
on the furniture in play or <whenever>.
The "atrophied leg muscles", however, will probably point to long term
abuse/neglect.
de Fragile Warrior Sports Supplies
"d~" <djo...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gtmut1t8ccmqb9hh4...@4ax.com...
That is awful. I'm so sorry to hear it. I do know of other cases, too,
although not personally but through news stories. I'm not sure how you do
get over something like that.
> So, yeah; it happens.
>
> d~ (not that I think it happened in this case. I mean, how does a TV
> falling on you cause your legs to atrophy?)
Yeah, that's a big clue to long term abuse right there although it does fit
in with the kid trying to pull himself up by using furniture.
Messalina
flick wrote:
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:FbEDf.3067$Nv2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Forget even the ones in *bad* homes, how about the ones with *no* homes?
> > We
> > have homeless families, staying in shelters, and everyone is oh so
> > solicitous of the poor parents, struggling along. Gee, if you can't put a
> > roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason, you aren't fit to be a
> > parent. Period.
> >
> > Not specifically at the poster I'm replying to, I'm objecting in general
> > to
> > people who would look at a filthy home with no food in the refrigerator
> > and
> > say, "take the kids away," but look at the even more fucked off situation
> > of not having any place to live at all, and not see an even more dire need
> > to remove the kid(s).
>
> "If you can't put a roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason..."
> This doesn't surprise me. Lotta people out there don't realize how elitist
> Democrats and liberals are <sigh>. Bottom line is, if you aren't one of the
> wealthy elite, you'll need permission to do everything. Even reproduce.
>
I think your bottom line is a good start. Most of the misery suffered
in this country by children is a direct result of poor, stupid people
reproducing.
Mez
ronniecat
07:48:29 -0500, d~ <djo...@nospamhotmail.com> wrote:
>I lost my nephew to a Falling TV. a week before his 2nd birthday, and
>the very day my sister brought home her new baby. The TV was on a
>dresser and my nephew stepped up on the lower drawer to try and reach
>the TV. It toppled onto him and although he was rushed to the
>hospital, air lifted to a head trauma center and worked aggressively
>over pretty much all night; we lost him.
My sincere sympathy for your family's loss.
My younger brother scrambled up an entertainment unit like it was a
mountaineering wall and would've brought the whole thing on top of
him, tv and all, if my mother hadn't been right there when it
happened. She had to throw her weight against the whole thing to get
it back upright once the center of gravity had begun to go in my
brother's direction. I remember the glass knicknacks and things
shattering on the floor. That evening my dad screwed the entertainment
unit and a couple of other pieces of furniture to the walls using
L-braces. It happens more often than you'd think.
ronnie
Kris Baker
"ronniecat" <ronn...@mycollar.ronniecat.com> wrote in message
news:647vt1dg5rnnm4bi4...@4ax.com...
Yes, it does. And it can happen to abused kids, too. They're
curious, and most TVs awkwardly, unbalanced boxes now (rather
than the solid things made years ago).
In fact, I think every TV we've bought in the past few years, has
had warnings on it, on the box, and in the instructions about
their danger to children.
Kris
Carmen
flick wrote:
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:FbEDf.3067$Nv2...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > Forget even the ones in *bad* homes, how about the ones with *no* homes?
> > We
> > have homeless families, staying in shelters, and everyone is oh so
> > solicitous of the poor parents, struggling along. Gee, if you can't put a
> > roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason, you aren't fit to be a
> > parent. Period.
> >
> > Not specifically at the poster I'm replying to, I'm objecting in general
> > to
> > people who would look at a filthy home with no food in the refrigerator
> > and
> > say, "take the kids away," but look at the even more fucked off situation
> > of not having any place to live at all, and not see an even more dire need
> > to remove the kid(s).
>
> "If you can't put a roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason..."
> This doesn't surprise me. Lotta people out there don't realize how elitist
> Democrats and liberals are <sigh>. Bottom line is, if you aren't one of the
> wealthy elite, you'll need permission to do everything. Even reproduce.
Kindly don't paint the whole lot of us with the same brush. Bo is
speaking for Bo. Bo's POV on this is mean spirited, short-sighted and
just plain wrong IMO. Liberals don't get issued a SIM card with their
thoughts pre-programmed any more than conservatives do.
Carmen
flick
news:1138725850.3...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> flick wrote:
>>
>> "If you can't put a roof over your kid's head, never mind the reason..."
>> This doesn't surprise me. Lotta people out there don't realize how
>> elitist
>> Democrats and liberals are <sigh>. Bottom line is, if you aren't one of
>> the
>> wealthy elite, you'll need permission to do everything. Even reproduce.
>>
>
> I think your bottom line is a good start. Most of the misery suffered
> in this country by children is a direct result of poor, stupid people
> reproducing.
There are plenty of people who were pretty well off, careful, and then
became poor due to a series of unfortunate events, through no fault of their
own. Even to the point of being temporarily homeless. Do we say they
weren't prepared enough to have kids? How much money does somebody need in
the bank before they have children?
Hmm, that fellow who went to Harvard and stayed in New Orleans and rescued
people comes to mind. He and his mother were so poor for a while when he
was young, they lived in their car. Well, I guess that's a roof <sigh>.
flick --> waiting for the Katrina refugees to have their children seized and
placed in group homes.
yaffaDina2
cro...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Dear God in heaven, please...a TV "fell" on him...gotta watch out for those
> suicidal TV sets, you know. My heart is too full of the abuse of these poor
> little children; it never seems to end, it never seems to get better...it
> gets more and more horrific, and the govt. agencies seem to be reluctant to
> remove children from these "homes." No food, no clothing, no heat...it's
> WINTER in NYC. I understand it is difficult to find foster homes, esp. for
> sibling groups, and I hate to see the little guys and gals separated from
> their brothers and sisters, but SOMETHING has to be done that is more
> constructive and loving than leaving them in the "care" of monsters.
The NY Daily News report said there were bite marks on him. Bite
marks! And on the other children too. I am assuming they were not
merely bite marks from his siblings or playmates, that the adults bit
the children.
yD
Bo Raxo
"flick" <fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:755dc$43df746d$94402b1b$54...@STARBAND.NET...
>
> Only people who own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage can
> reproduce, maybe. I guess they might not be able to keep the utilities
on,
> but they'd be out of the weather. What a relief to realize that another
Bo
> Bureaucracy isn't going to pound on my door, demanding I turn over my kids
> to the state. Will parents need to provide income and expense sheets to
the
> bureaucrats to prove their fitness as parents?
>
Or you could think that even if bad things happen to you, you know your kids
are taken care of. But that would be putting the kids first, a view you
apparently find abhorrent.
> For many people in the U.S., a couple-three pieces of bad luck close
> together means that they become homeless, even if they're working, careful
> with their money and don't have bad habits (booze, drugs, gambling).
Sure, I've seen it happen. Had 'em camped in my living room. Most people
can make arrangements with friends to couch surf for a while. Not everyone,
but most.
> Plenty
> of folks were not prepared enough for Katrina. Maybe they should take the
> kids away from the Katrina victims that still need help? Or does a FEMA
> tarp count as a roof?
No, the government should provide shelter for six months. They actually did
for about four months, not what I would like to see, but not bad.
>
> Just where in the hell are you gonna put all these kids, Bo?
I think we might have to spend some money creating well staffed group homes.
Maybe give some of these unemployed homeless parents you wax poetically
about a job.
My guess is you don't actually know any homeless families. I've volunteered
at a shelter, I've talked to some on the street, and let me tell you:
they're fucked up. Drinking, drugs, domestic violence, astounding levels of
stupid behavior. We're not talking about people who were living paycheck to
paycheck and got injured and couldn't work. We're talking about people who
lug their kids along as baggage, as something useful when panhandling, and
think it's all that terrible that the kid grows up, literally, on the
street.
Responsible parents who have to go sleep on a park bench or under an
overpass find someone to take care of their kid. The ones that don't, we
need to step in.
> Think forced
> abortions are called for, too? If you don't have that reproductive
license,
> the Pregnancy Police haul you off to the hospital?
>
Yeah, we'll dispatch them in the black helicopters. I'm against children
being homeless, and you equate that with forced abortions.
> Sheesh.
>
Indeed.
> flick 100785 --> the Compassionate Conservative Parent
>
Your compassion seems to be entirely for the parent. Save some for the
child who leaves school not knowing where she'll sleep that night, or if
she'll be able to go back to that same school the next day.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
"Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138729737....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Kindly don't paint the whole lot of us with the same brush. Bo is
> speaking for Bo.
Thank you. In fact, I'd bet most liberals disagree with me on this.
> Bo's POV on this is mean spirited, short-sighted and
> just plain wrong IMO.
I think that's because you don't see the funding component. What do we
spend on the Iraq war every week, $1.5 billion? What do you think a month's
worth of that funding would do per year to set up stable environments for
children without homes? And it would provide jobs for a lot of unemployed
people with child care skills.
> Liberals don't get issued a SIM card with their
> thoughts pre-programmed any more than conservatives do.
>
But the Kool-Aid is delicious!
Bo Raxo
flick
>
> "flick" <fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
> news:755dc$43df746d$94402b1b$54...@STARBAND.NET...
>>
>> Only people who own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage can
>> reproduce, maybe. I guess they might not be able to keep the utilities
> on,
>> but they'd be out of the weather. What a relief to realize that another
> Bo
>> Bureaucracy isn't going to pound on my door, demanding I turn over my
>> kids
>> to the state. Will parents need to provide income and expense sheets to
> the
>> bureaucrats to prove their fitness as parents?
>
> Or you could think that even if bad things happen to you, you know your
> kids
> are taken care of. But that would be putting the kids first, a view you
> apparently find abhorrent.
The lovely charitable people in this country operate some shelters, where I
can find a temporary roof for my family until I get back on my feet. Show
up at a shelter and lose your kids, is what you think should happen.
I wonder how many families would try to find ways to camp in the wilderness,
if your wish became law.
>> For many people in the U.S., a couple-three pieces of bad luck close
>> together means that they become homeless, even if they're working,
>> careful
>> with their money and don't have bad habits (booze, drugs, gambling).
>
> Sure, I've seen it happen. Had 'em camped in my living room. Most people
> can make arrangements with friends to couch surf for a while. Not
> everyone,
> but most.
That's right. Not everyone. If they're sleeping on your couch, Bo, they're
as homeless as they are at a shelter.
>> Plenty
>> of folks were not prepared enough for Katrina. Maybe they should take
>> the
>> kids away from the Katrina victims that still need help? Or does a FEMA
>> tarp count as a roof?
>
> No, the government should provide shelter for six months. They actually
> did
> for about four months, not what I would like to see, but not bad.
If some family is down on their luck and the parents get themselves into a
shelter, I'd say they provided a roof for their family. It may be a free
roof, one that they aren't paying rent or a mortgage for, but I fail to see
much difference between that and camping on your couch.
Oh, and speaking of roofs... What if I take my kids camping at the beach
next weekend, and we're staying in a tent? That okay with you? Or is that
child abuse too?
>>
>> Just where in the hell are you gonna put all these kids, Bo?
>
> I think we might have to spend some money creating well staffed group
> homes.
> Maybe give some of these unemployed homeless parents you wax poetically
> about a job.
Sure <sarcasm>. You are going to put the same parents in charge of children
that you've taken children away from because you think they're incompetent.
> My guess is you don't actually know any homeless families.
You guessed wrong.
> I've volunteered
> at a shelter, I've talked to some on the street, and let me tell you:
> they're fucked up. Drinking, drugs, domestic violence, astounding levels
> of
> stupid behavior.
It's always been fine with me if we find more ways to help people solve
their problems. But ending up at a shelter isn't synonymous with having the
types of problems you describe. Most of those problems would have warranted
intervention with the family before they got to the shelter, while they were
still paying rent or their mortgage.
Would you also take kids away from women or men who flee abusive
relationships with their children, and end up at a shelter? After all,
they're also at a shelter, technically homeless. They weren't prepared, I
guess - thereby being unfit parents, in your opinion, huh?
> We're not talking about people who were living paycheck to
> paycheck and got injured and couldn't work.
You just didn't happen to meet any.
> We're talking about people who
> lug their kids along as baggage, as something useful when panhandling, and
> think it's all that terrible that the kid grows up, literally, on the
> street.
>
> Responsible parents who have to go sleep on a park bench or under an
> overpass find someone to take care of their kid. The ones that don't, we
> need to step in.
If a family ends up at a shelter, they're about as homeless as people down
on their luck who camp out on your couch. They *are* providing a roof for
their kids, even though it's a roof that you apparently don't approve of.
>> Think forced
>> abortions are called for, too? If you don't have that reproductive
> license,
>> the Pregnancy Police haul you off to the hospital?
>>
>
> Yeah, we'll dispatch them in the black helicopters. I'm against children
> being homeless, and you equate that with forced abortions.
Hey, if parents aren't prepared enough for everything life throws at them,
and the family ends up in a shelter - instead of on your couch - you'd take
their kids away.
I don't see a big step from there to forced abortions.
>> Sheesh.
>>
>
> Indeed.
>
> Your compassion seems to be entirely for the parent. Save some for the
> child who leaves school not knowing where she'll sleep that night, or if
> she'll be able to go back to that same school the next day.
If a parent gets their family into a shelter, they do indeed know where
they'll sleep at night, and they know where they'll go to school the next
day.
flick 100785
Bo Raxo
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:JePDf.9600$vU2....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > kids
> > are taken care of. But that would be putting the kids first, a view you
> > apparently find abhorrent.
>
> The lovely charitable people in this country operate some shelters, where
I
> can find a temporary roof for my family until I get back on my feet. Show
> up at a shelter and lose your kids, is what you think should happen.
>
> I wonder how many families would try to find ways to camp in the
wilderness,
> if your wish became law.
This is a serious problem, I have thought about this. But you know, this is
primarily a problem in urban areas, where camping in the wilderness is not
an option.
>
> >> For many people in the U.S., a couple-three pieces of bad luck close
> >> together means that they become homeless, even if they're working,
> >> careful
> >> with their money and don't have bad habits (booze, drugs, gambling).
> >
> > Sure, I've seen it happen. Had 'em camped in my living room. Most
people
> > can make arrangements with friends to couch surf for a while. Not
> > everyone,
> > but most.
>
> That's right. Not everyone. If they're sleeping on your couch, Bo,
they're
> as homeless as they are at a shelter.
Uh, no. Sleeping in a shelter means showing up every night, hoping you get
a spot, maybe you don't if its full. Sleeping in a room full of
alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally ill.
Sleeping on my couch means they have a stable place, night after night, safe
and secure. Very different.
>
> >> Plenty
> >> of folks were not prepared enough for Katrina. Maybe they should take
> >> the
> >> kids away from the Katrina victims that still need help? Or does a
FEMA
> >> tarp count as a roof?
> >
> > No, the government should provide shelter for six months. They actually
> > did
> > for about four months, not what I would like to see, but not bad.
>
> If some family is down on their luck and the parents get themselves into a
> shelter, I'd say they provided a roof for their family. It may be a free
> roof, one that they aren't paying rent or a mortgage for, but I fail to
see
> much difference between that and camping on your couch.
If we provided truly safe shelters - where they had private space, safe from
assault and robbery, clean, heated, enough space that they could be
guaranteed a spot night after night, I would agree. But that doesn't
happen.
>
> Oh, and speaking of roofs... What if I take my kids camping at the beach
> next weekend, and we're staying in a tent? That okay with you? Or is
that
> child abuse too?
Now you're being ridiculous.
>
> >>
> >> Just where in the hell are you gonna put all these kids, Bo?
> >
> > I think we might have to spend some money creating well staffed group
> > homes.
> > Maybe give some of these unemployed homeless parents you wax poetically
> > about a job.
>
> Sure <sarcasm>. You are going to put the same parents in charge of
children
> that you've taken children away from because you think they're
incompetent.
I am going to give them a safe, warm, clean place and a job - the very
things that are what they don't have to provide for their kids. Win-win.
>
> Would you also take kids away from women or men who flee abusive
> relationships with their children, and end up at a shelter? After all,
> they're also at a shelter, technically homeless. They weren't prepared, I
> guess - thereby being unfit parents, in your opinion, huh?
I would give them an alternative that would let them know their kids were
being cared for in a responsible manner, which is preferable to being in an
abusive household. If they are too stupid to recognize this is preferable,
then all the more reason they shouldn't have custody of their kids.
> >
> > Your compassion seems to be entirely for the parent. Save some for the
> > child who leaves school not knowing where she'll sleep that night, or if
> > she'll be able to go back to that same school the next day.
>
> If a parent gets their family into a shelter, they do indeed know where
> they'll sleep at night, and they know where they'll go to school the next
> day.
>
I don't know about in your area, but in mine the family shelters are a
nightmare. They are "women and families", which means trannies get in there
and rob and beat people right and left. There are mentally ill, seriously
scary people. I wouldn't sleep in the same room with some of these people,
much less ask a child to do so. To equate that to staying on the couch of a
friend or relative is ridiculous.
And these shelters fill up fast in cold weather. Just because you have a
bed one night is no guarantee you will the next night, and so they trudge
from one shelter to another, or just give up and sleep under an overpass.
That's unacceptable.
Bo Raxo
flick
>
> "flick" <fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
> news:b611a$43e0207f$94402b1b$18...@STARBAND.NET...
>>
> I
>> can find a temporary roof for my family until I get back on my feet.
>> Show
>> up at a shelter and lose your kids, is what you think should happen.
>>
>> I wonder how many families would try to find ways to camp in the
> wilderness,
>> if your wish became law.
>
> This is a serious problem, I have thought about this. But you know, this
> is
> primarily a problem in urban areas, where camping in the wilderness is not
> an option.
People in the country lose their homes, too. And it doesn't seem outside
the realm of possibility that someone would hike or hitchhike out of town so
they could camp out.
>> That's right. Not everyone. If they're sleeping on your couch, Bo,
> they're
>> as homeless as they are at a shelter.
>
> Uh, no. Sleeping in a shelter means showing up every night, hoping you
> get
> a spot, maybe you don't if its full. Sleeping in a room full of
> alcoholics, drug addicts, the mentally ill.
Depends on what kind of shelter it is and how it's set up.
> Sleeping on my couch means they have a stable place, night after night,
> safe
> and secure. Very different.
>> If some family is down on their luck and the parents get themselves into
>> a
>> shelter, I'd say they provided a roof for their family. It may be a free
>> roof, one that they aren't paying rent or a mortgage for, but I fail to
> see
>> much difference between that and camping on your couch.
>
> If we provided truly safe shelters - where they had private space, safe
> from
> assault and robbery, clean, heated, enough space that they could be
> guaranteed a spot night after night, I would agree. But that doesn't
> happen.
There are no shelters as safe as, oh, a working class apartment complex? I
beg to differ. Perhaps there aren't any where you live.
>
>>
>> Oh, and speaking of roofs... What if I take my kids camping at the beach
>> next weekend, and we're staying in a tent? That okay with you? Or is
> that
>> child abuse too?
>
> Now you're being ridiculous.
No, you are. There are a bunch of families living under canvas on the Gulf
Coast, Bo. And under FEMA tarps. Sounds like you'd like to take their kids
away. After all, they're homeless.
>> Sure <sarcasm>. You are going to put the same parents in charge of
> children
>> that you've taken children away from because you think they're
> incompetent.
>
> I am going to give them a safe, warm, clean place and a job - the very
> things that are what they don't have to provide for their kids. Win-win.
<boggle>
>> Would you also take kids away from women or men who flee abusive
>> relationships with their children, and end up at a shelter? After all,
>> they're also at a shelter, technically homeless. They weren't prepared,
>> I
>> guess - thereby being unfit parents, in your opinion, huh?
>
> I would give them an alternative that would let them know their kids were
> being cared for in a responsible manner, which is preferable to being in
> an
> abusive household. If they are too stupid to recognize this is
> preferable,
> then all the more reason they shouldn't have custody of their kids.
In other words, you would. When someone LEAVES a dangerous situation,
taking their children with them to keep them safe, you would SEIZE their
children and put them somewhere else.
>> If a parent gets their family into a shelter, they do indeed know where
>> they'll sleep at night, and they know where they'll go to school the next
>> day.
>>
>
> I don't know about in your area, but in mine the family shelters are a
> nightmare. They are "women and families", which means trannies get in
> there
> and rob and beat people right and left. There are mentally ill, seriously
> scary people. I wouldn't sleep in the same room with some of these
> people,
> much less ask a child to do so. To equate that to staying on the couch of
> a
> friend or relative is ridiculous.
All shelters aren't the same. Seems to me it would be better for all
concerned - including the mentally ill - if shelters were much safer to stay
in, in the first place.
But to make the assumption that someone who needs a roof over their head
temporarily deserves to have their kids taken away is ridiculous. Oh, only
if they have to stay in a shelter you're going to do this? What if the only
friends they can stay with are out of town, and they can't travel there?
What if they have no relatives, or none that can help them?
Go to a shelter, have the state take your kids.
> And these shelters fill up fast in cold weather. Just because you have a
> bed one night is no guarantee you will the next night, and so they trudge
> from one shelter to another, or just give up and sleep under an overpass.
Again, that isn't the case with all shelters.
flick 100785
flick
news:MPG.1e4bed3c6...@news-central.giganews.com...
>
> There are actually quite a few number of shelters for those with
> children that are more like apartments than the single mens shelters you
> tend to see on the news.
>
> A friend of a friend left her step mothers house (with her toddler
> daughter) after her father died and the "shelter" included her own
> (lockable) room with a sink and toilet (showers were in the hall) and
> each room had an outside entrance. She was even able to get landline
> phone service to have dial up internet access. All residents were
> required to receive weekly therapy and there was a strong screening
> process to ensure that no current drug users/alcohol abusers/unstable
> were allowed since chidren were allowed free roam of the common areas.
>
> I'd consider that type of shelter a whole lot more stable than a friends
> couch/floor, but my standards may be higher than others.
I'm aware of shelters like the one you describe.
There's probably an advantage in getting involved in that shelter "system"
if you become homeless, as opposed to bunking with friends. If you need any
help - finding another job, medical, counseling, child care - probably
easier to get it, if you're officially homeless at a shelter.
flick 100785