An old article on Abandoned boy, Steve Kelso's family visit
Patty
Father's salary and travel
I have another article I found that has some other info that's a little
different than previously reported. I'll post it if anyone's interested and
if I can find it again.
Dumped boy may return eventually
Agency goal to reunite families
by Yvonne Latty and Barbara Laker
Daily News Staff
Steven Kelso will ring in the New Year in a hospital bed, but may soon be
back at home with the parents who abandoned him.
At least that's the goal of child welfare workers.
"Ideally, the child will be reunited with his parents, and the support
services will be in place to help the parents and the child," said Jim
Forsythe, executive director of the Chester County Division of Children
Youth and Families. "That's always our goal whenever we take custody of a
child."
Steven, who has cerebral palsy, was left at a Wilmington hospital the day
after Christmas, four days after his 10th birthday. His parents, Dawn and
Richard Kelso, packed boxes of his toys, clothes and medical records and
left them in the hospital lobby. They also left a note at the front desk
that said they could no longer care for the boy.
The couple was charged Monday with abandonment and conspiracy. They spent
Monday night in jail and were released the next day on $5,300 bail. A trial
is scheduled for March 7.
Steven Kelso is in the custody of Delaware Department of Services for
Children, Youth and Their Families but remains at the Alfred I. du Pont
Hospital.
He can't have any contact with his parents, court documents said.
Forsythe said Chester County is expected to get custody of Steven next week
because the family lives in Exton.
"We will immediately do an assessment of the child and the family to find
out what they need and where the breakdown in services are. Then we'll try
to bridge that gap," he said.
"We're hoping we can identify what issues there are and find services to
reunite the child with the family," Forsythe said. "I'm sure it's very
difficult to raise a handicapped child with special medical needs."
On the surface, it seemed the Kelsos were coping.
Richard Kelso, 62, is the president and CEO of PQ Corp., a multimillion
dollar chemical company based in Valley Forge.
A source at the company said that three years ago, Kelso made about $500,000
in salary and $500,000 in bonuses.
Dawn Kelso was an outspoken advocate for disabled children.
She testified at a National Council on Disabilities hearing in Philadelphia
five years ago and was also appointed by Gov. Ridge to a three-year term on
the Pennsylvania Development Disability Council, an advisory board to the
Department of Public Welfare.
But the stress of caring for Steven was obviously too much for the couple.
Dawn Kelso's uncle, Glover Crouch, said they had no nursing care over
Christmas and slept in shifts to handle Steven's round-the-clock needs.
The boy is confined to a wheelchair.
He has seizures and depends on mechanical devices, that Dawn Kelso fought
for, in order to communicate and breathe.
Getting nursing help was a problem for the couple. Rachel Mann, senior staff
attorney for the Disabilities Law Project, said there's a severe shortage in
homecare pediatric nurses because they can make more money at hospitals.
In court documents obtained by the Daily News Dawn Kelso said the she
couldn't work because she didn't have enough nursing help.
A PQ Corp. source said Richard Kelso traveled as much as 25 days every month
for the company. He sometimes had to travel as far away as Asia and Europe.
"All the time it was go, go, go," the source said.
That left his wife, Dawn Kelso, with most of the burden of caring for their
disabled son.
The source said Kelso often spoke of Steven fondly. "It was never negative,"
he said.
Kelso, he said, was divorced and "got whacked," by his first wife, meaning
he had to pay her a lot of alimony, the source said.
Kelso didn't go on vacations for pleasure, the source said. His life
revolved around work and helping take care of Steven.
He described Kelso as a "quiet, nice guy. He is very low-key."
"He's known as 'the sponge,' at work because he always absorbs information,
not saying a lot at meetings, then making decisions outside the meetings."
He said that while employees have empathy for Kelso's situation, they don't
understand why the Kelsos abandoned a child they love.
"There are people with less money but they don't leave their child on the
doorstep and run."
Maggie
>This article from late December or early January has some additional info:
>Father's salary and travel
>I have another article I found that has some other info that's a little
>different than previously reported. I'll post it if anyone's interested
>and
>if I can find it again.
>
>Dumped boy may return eventually
>Agency goal to reunite families
>by Yvonne Latty and Barbara Laker
>Daily News Staff
>
>Steven Kelso will ring in the New Year in a hospital bed, but may soon be
>back at home with the parents who abandoned him.
>
>At least that's the goal of child welfare workers.
>
>"Ideally, the child will be reunited with his parents, and the support
>services will be in place to help the parents and the child," said Jim
>Forsythe, executive director of the Chester County Division of Children
>Youth and Families. "That's always our goal whenever we take custody of
>a
>child."
***Thanks, Patty. I hope this will help to quiet those who continue to insist
that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Kelsos *really* want their son
back. ...and those who say, despite his CEO position, Mr. Kelso may not have
made enough money to enable the parents to pay out-of-pocket for respite help.
This is a nightmare situation and I feel for any parents in this position, but
at this point, two months after Steven's abandonment, it seems silly to insist
that it's merely red tape of some sort that's keeping the parents from
regaining custody of their son.
Maggie
"Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly."
-Batman Costume warning label
Martha
Where do you see in this article any indication that the Kelsos do *not*
want their son back, Maggie? You don't know, and I don't know, what
they want. I assume that, like every other parent I know, they want
their child back when they are able to care for him. To my knowledge,
the Kelsos have *never* stated publicly that they do not want their son
back. The only people who have addressed the question, Dawn Kelso's
uncle and the Kelsos' attorney, have said that the Kelsos *do* want
their child back.
...and those who say, despite his CEO position, Mr. Kelso may not
have
> made enough money to enable the parents to pay out-of-pocket for respite help.
Yes. He "got whacked" in his divorce from his first wife; nursing help
is hard to come by (what is this, the third article that mentions the
nursing shortage? And have you found any mention of *any* nursing
agency that has said, "Oh, they should have called us--we'd have had
someone there the next morning!"?). I don't think anyone here has
claimed that Mr. Kelso doesn't make enough money to hire help; to the
contrary, I (and others) have posted news stories explaining that the
Kelsos pay for a good portion of the nursing services Steven receives--
when they can find someone to do the work.
The problem isn't money, Maggie; there simply aren't enough qualified
people willing to do this work.
>
> This is a nightmare situation and I feel for any parents in this position, but
> at this point, two months after Steven's abandonment, it seems silly to insist
> that it's merely red tape of some sort that's keeping the parents from
> regaining custody of their son.
The child remains in the hospital. His condition is such, apparently,
that no foster placement can be found. The lawyer for his parents has
said that they want him back home when they have the nursing support to
help care for him. How on earth you can dare to assume the worst of
these parents, when you don't know *anything* about their lives, is
beyond me.
Martha
Maggie
> The only people who have addressed the question, Dawn Kelso's
>uncle and the Kelsos' attorney, have said that the Kelsos *do* want
>their child back.
and
> The lawyer for his parents has
>said that they want him back home when they have the nursing support to
>help care for him.
***I have read every article posted here about the case and don't recall
anything about the Kelso's lawyer saying that the Kelsos want Steven back home.
Of course, some may not have made it to my server. Could you repost or let me
know where to find this info (the lawyer's name should be enough for a dejanews
search)?
And it's very clear from the articles posted that the uncle was not speaking on
behalf of the parents, but was only saying what he imagined to be the case.
martha said:
> I don't think anyone here has
>claimed that Mr. Kelso doesn't make enough money to hire help;
***I'm pretty sure you were the one who posted, early on, that the fact that
Kelso's a CEO doesn't mean he makes lots of money, and you wanted to see the
company's report to the SEC before you made a determination about his income (I
answered you that, as Kelso's company was privately owned, he wasn't required
to report his salary to the SEC). I believe you also pointed to the relative
modesty of the Kelso's home, in the same regard.
martha said:
to the
>contrary, I (and others) have posted news stories explaining that the
>Kelsos pay for a good portion of the nursing services Steven receives--
>when they can find someone to do the work.
***I don't remember any stories that stated unequivocally that the Kelsos were
paying for any services, but it doesn't surprise me to hear they were. I
wonder, though, if they *were* really paying for the service themselves, why
they discussed the shortage only in regard to *one* nursing provider. You may
remember the article that Patty posted about another family with a child who
was also wheelchair-bound and on a respirator that, even though they were using
insurance, were able to find more steady nursing care by using a different
nursing service.
martha said:
> How on earth you can dare to assume the worst of
>these parents, when you don't know *anything* about their lives, is
>beyond me.
***And how you assume these parents are just like you and the people you know,
when, likewise, you know nothing about them is beyond me. Expecially since
all evidence indicates that they are not making any effort at all to regain
custody of their son. It boggles my mind to think of this woman, with no job
and no other children, in a family with the means to *hire* a couple of
full-time caregivers (what would it cost--$100,000 a year? maybe $150,000 with
all the benefits? That's just 10%- 15% of the husband's annual earned income.
I suspect their total income is much higher) who can't be bothered to bring her
son home. The kid has been in the hospital for two months now. It's
disgraceful.
Martha
>
> Martha said:
> > The only people who have addressed the question, Dawn Kelso's
> >uncle and the Kelsos' attorney, have said that the Kelsos *do* want
> >their child back.
>
> and
>
> > The lawyer for his parents has
> >said that they want him back home when they have the nursing support to
> >help care for him.
>
> ***I have read every article posted here about the case and don't recall
> anything about the Kelso's lawyer saying that the Kelsos want Steven back home.
> Of course, some may not have made it to my server. Could you repost or let me
> know where to find this info (the lawyer's name should be enough for a dejanews
> search)?
I'll try to find one of those stories for you. There've been several,
but maybe I didn't post all of them.
>
> And it's very clear from the articles posted that the uncle was not speaking on
> behalf of the parents, but was only saying what he imagined to be the case.
Of course. But he is in a better position to know the parents' wishes
and plans than, say, you are.
>
> martha said:
> > I don't think anyone here has
> >claimed that Mr. Kelso doesn't make enough money to hire help;
>
> ***I'm pretty sure you were the one who posted, early on, that the fact that
> Kelso's a CEO doesn't mean he makes lots of money, and you wanted to see the
> company's report to the SEC before you made a determination about his income (I
> answered you that, as Kelso's company was privately owned, he wasn't required
> to report his salary to the SEC).
Yes, I did say that. I never said that I knew that they didn't have a
lot of money, just that one shouldn't assume from a job description. I
also have said, over and over, that it doesn't matter how much money you
have if what you want to buy isn't for sale.
I believe you also pointed to the relative
> modesty of the Kelso's home, in the same regard.
They *do* live in a modest house, Maggie. Two hundred thousand, around
this part of PA, is around the average middle-class quarter-acre lot
suburban development house. If this man is making a million dollars a
year, I would expect them to live in a much pricier house. In some
neighborhoods, $200,000 is what you pay for a *starter* house--and I
read that the Kelsos' house was recently appraised at something like
$179,000.
>
> martha said:
> to the
> >contrary, I (and others) have posted news stories explaining that the
> >Kelsos pay for a good portion of the nursing services Steven receives--
> >when they can find someone to do the work.
>
> ***I don't remember any stories that stated unequivocally that the Kelsos were
> paying for any services, but it doesn't surprise me to hear they were. I
> wonder, though, if they *were* really paying for the service themselves, why
> they discussed the shortage only in regard to *one* nursing provider.
There aren't a whole lot of agencies to choose from, Maggie, for
services of this kind. Ridgaway-Philips may be their only option. And
the shortage is apparently nationwide.
You may
> remember the article that Patty posted about another family with a child who
> was also wheelchair-bound and on a respirator that, even though they were using
> insurance, were able to find more steady nursing care by using a different
> nursing service.
That family lives in Philadelphia. I know that you believe Exton to be
a suburb and therefore accessible to all the services Philadelphia
offers, but such is not the case. Exton is in Chester County, and many
services are county-based. Even within a county, availability of
private services varies from town to town. For example: when we lived
on the western side of our county, I was able to hire a special-needs
babysitter from a private agency. Now that we are on the other side of
the county, even though it's only a half-hour drive away, that agency
will not serve us; we have to use its "sister" agency, closer to us.
And the "sister" agency does not handle pediatric services.
>
> martha said:
> > How on earth you can dare to assume the worst of
> >these parents, when you don't know *anything* about their lives, is
> >beyond me.
>
> ***And how you assume these parents are just like you and the people you know,
> when, likewise, you know nothing about them is beyond me. Expecially since
> all evidence indicates that they are not making any effort at all to regain
> custody of their son.
Because there is no evidence one way or the other, Maggie, except the
words of people who know them, who say they *do* want to regain custody
when the supports are in place.
It boggles my mind to think of this woman, with no job
> and no other children, in a family with the means to *hire* a couple of
> full-time caregivers (what would it cost--$100,000 a year? maybe $150,000 with
> all the benefits? That's just 10%- 15% of the husband's annual earned income.
> I suspect their total income is much higher) who can't be bothered to bring her
> son home. The kid has been in the hospital for two months now. It's
> disgraceful.
You simply don't believe, do you, that the services they require are not
available at any price.
Martha
Martha
<snip>
> You may
> remember the article that Patty posted about another family with a child who
> was also wheelchair-bound and on a respirator that, even though they were using
> insurance, were able to find more steady nursing care by using a different
> nursing service.
Indeed I do. Here is the relevant paragraph:
Though their insurance company has agreed to pay for
16 hours of nursing a day, they had virtually no help
between February and May. They have switched agencies
now, and things have improved, but there still are
many holes in the schedule. "There's never a week
that goes by that we don't have at least one or two
day shifts uncovered and maybe a night or two," said
Nicholas Black, director of children's ministries for
New Life Presbyterian Church in Glenside.
Note that this family didn't find *another* agency, as in *additional*
help; they *switched* agencies. I am not sure whether the insurance
referred to in this story is private insurance or, as I suspect, Medical
Assistance, in which case the family is limited to providers approved by
MA. Their situation, too, is different from the Kelsos in that the
father is a minister of some kind, while Mr. Kelso, according to the
story posted today, is away from home on business 25 days/month. I
would assume that a minister's duties would keep him closer to home and
more available to help out.
This same story further states (referring to the Kelsos):
In court papers, the
couple contended they needed a break from "exhausting
round-the-clock" care they had been forced to provide
because of the "nationwide shortage of skilled,
specialized pediatric nurses."
and:
Even parents who have regular nursing care are one
case of the flu or a back injury away from nothing,
because agencies have fewer backup nurses now.
And hospitals are finding it harder to send young
patients home.
Monica Kondrad, a case manager at Temple University
Children's Medical Center, recently had to discharge
a 3-month-old baby who needed oxygen, tube feeding,
and eight hours of nursing care a night. One agency
told her it would take five to six weeks to find a
nurse. Another said it would take at least two weeks
and maybe much longer. The baby went to a skilled
nursing facility and wasn't able to go home for at
least two weeks.
Why is it so hard for you to understand that caring for children with
these medical needs is beyond draining, and that there simply are not
enough nurses to fill the needs of families?
Patty's entire post is at
http://x23.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=582693513&CONTEXT=951511652.474480649&hitnum=85,
btw.
More:
Only a small percentage of nurses want to work with
medically fragile children at home. Unlike other home
nurses, who go to several houses in a day, these
nurses work their entire shift with one child.
"You're one-on-one for eight to 12 hours with this
one patient in the home, and it can be boring for a
long time," Rinke said. "You're just listening to
machines and making sure that nothing is going
wrong."
Martha
Every9man
From: maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie)
Date: Fri, Feb 25, 2000 11:49 AM
Message-id: <20000225104941...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Patty posted:
>This article from late December or early January has some additional info:
>Father's salary and travel
>I have another article I found that has some other info that's a little
>different than previously reported. I'll post it if anyone's interested
>and
>if I can find it again.
>
>Dumped boy may return eventually
>Agency goal to reunite families
>by Yvonne Latty and Barbara Laker
>Daily News Staff
>
>Steven Kelso will ring in the New Year in a hospital bed, but may soon be
>back at home with the parents who abandoned him.
>
>At least that's the goal of child welfare workers.
>
>"Ideally, the child will be reunited with his parents, and the support
>services will be in place to help the parents and the child," said Jim
>Forsythe, executive director of the Chester County Division of Children
>Youth and Families. "That's always our goal whenever we take custody of
>a
>child."
<snip>
***Thanks, Patty. I hope this will help to quiet those who continue to insist
that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Kelsos *really* want their son
back. ...and those who say, despite his CEO position, Mr. Kelso may not have
made enough money to enable the parents to pay out-of-pocket for respite help.
This is a nightmare situation and I feel for any parents in this position, but
at this point, two months after Steven's abandonment, it seems silly to insist
that it's merely red tape of some sort that's keeping the parents from
regaining custody of their son.
Maggie
************
My God Maggie, you seem to be on some rollercoaster mission to trash these
parents.
No one doubts that Child Welfare doesnt want to close this case and get a
difficult to place child off their hands.
It says *ideally* the support services will be in place so he can be returned
to his parents.
Have you any information that those support services are in place or that any
negotiations that may be taking place among all of the agencies that are
involved in this case are over and the Kelso's are free to take
Steven home? Or do you have any information other than a self serving surmise
that they dont want him despite what his uncle has said?
'
It might be nice to give it a rest until we have some facts to go by.
Barbara
Every9man
From: Martha <Kathry...@hotmail.com>
Where do you see in this article any indication that the Kelsos do *not*
want their son back, Maggie? You don't know, and I don't know, what
they want. I assume that, like every other parent I know, they want
their child back when they are able to care for him. To my knowledge,
the Kelsos have *never* stated publicly that they do not want their son
back. The only people who have addressed the question, Dawn Kelso's
uncle and the Kelsos' attorney, have said that the Kelsos *do* want
their child back.
...and those who say, despite his CEO position, Mr. Kelso may not
have
> made enough money to enable the parents to pay out-of-pocket for respite
help.
Yes. He "got whacked" in his divorce from his first wife; nursing help
is hard to come by (what is this, the third article that mentions the
nursing shortage? And have you found any mention of *any* nursing
agency that has said, "Oh, they should have called us--we'd have had
someone there the next morning!"?). I don't think anyone here has
claimed that Mr. Kelso doesn't make enough money to hire help; to the
contrary, I (and others) have posted news stories explaining that the
Kelsos pay for a good portion of the nursing services Steven receives--
when they can find someone to do the work.
The problem isn't money, Maggie; there simply aren't enough qualified
people willing to do this work.
>
> This is a nightmare situation and I feel for any parents in this position,
but
> at this point, two months after Steven's abandonment, it seems silly to
insist
> that it's merely red tape of some sort that's keeping the parents from
> regaining custody of their son.
The child remains in the hospital. His condition is such, apparently,
that no foster placement can be found. The lawyer for his parents has
said that they want him back home when they have the nursing support to
help care for him. How on earth you can dare to assume the worst of
these parents, when you don't know *anything* about their lives, is
beyond me.
Martha
*************
Sorry, you took the words out of my mouth.
Barbara
Patty
Steven Kelso was on a ventilator until about three years ago, said
Martha Parra, administrative director of the Ventilator Assisted
Children Home Program.
Parra has had no contact with the family since.
"Parents on an every-day basis face a great deal of stress," she
said. "And we know parents are very concerned about the shortage of
nurses in home health care."
snip
Yesterday, neighbors of the Kelsos' $203,000 home said the couple kept
to themselves.
"What bothers me is that people are going to condemn them, but we don't
know what they've gone through," said John DiCandilo, a neighbor, who
learned the couple's names after their arrest.
No one answered the door at the Kelso home.
A Christmas tree lay haphazardly on the Kelsos' front lawn. The Kelsos'
Plymouth Voyager, which they used for driving Steven around, was parked
in their driveway underneath a basketball hoop.
A bumper sticker on the rear of the minivan read "Caution I can go from
0 to bitch in 2.5 seconds."
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Honeychickpea
Martha <Kathry...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:38B6F1...@erols.com...
> This same story further states (referring to the Kelsos):
>
> In court papers, the
> couple contended they needed a break from "exhausting
> round-the-clock" care they had been forced to provide
> because of the "nationwide shortage of skilled,
> specialized pediatric nurses."
>
> and:
>
> Even parents who have regular nursing care are one
> case of the flu or a back injury away from nothing,
> because agencies have fewer backup nurses now.
>
> Why is it so hard for you to understand that caring for children with
> these medical needs is beyond draining, and that there simply are not
> enough nurses to fill the needs of families?
At the risk of sounding like a callous bitch (which, of course, I am :-),
perhaps Mrs. Kelso should have thought about the consequences to her son as
well as herself when she refused her doctor's advice and condemned her son
to a life of pain and misery. The reason I've read is that she had
previously lost a baby, and had difficulty conceiving Steven. It seems that
the desire to be a "Mommy" overroad her judgement.
Margaret
Maggie
>> And it's very clear from the articles posted that the uncle was not speaking
>on
>> behalf of the parents, but was only saying what he imagined to be the
>case.
>
>Of course. But he is in a better position to know the parents' wishes
>and plans than, say, you are.
***Oh, but, unlike me, he's not a disinterested party. That's why we didn't
take OJ's aunt's word for it when she said he wasn't guilty.
maggie said:
> I believe you also pointed to the relative
>> modesty of the Kelso's home, in the same regard.
>
martha said:
>They *do* live in a modest house, Maggie.
***Uh, that's what I said.
martha said:
Two hundred thousand, around
>this part of PA, is around the average middle-class quarter-acre lot
>suburban development house. If this man is making a million dollars a
>year, I would expect them to live in a much pricier house. In some
>neighborhoods, $200,000 is what you pay for a *starter* house--and I
>read that the Kelsos' house was recently appraised at something like
>$179,000.
***I wonder what they're spending their money on?
>
>>
>> martha said:
>> to the
>> >contrary, I (and others) have posted news stories explaining that the
>> >Kelsos pay for a good portion of the nursing services Steven receives--
>> >when they can find someone to do the work.
>>
>> martha said:
>> > How on earth you can dare to assume the worst of
>> >these parents, when you don't know *anything* about their lives, is
>> >beyond me.
>>
maggie said:
>> ***And how you assume these parents are just like you and the people you
>know,
>> when, likewise, you know nothing about them is beyond me. Expecially
>since
>> all evidence indicates that they are not making any effort at all to regain
>> custody of their son.
>
martha said:
>Because there is no evidence one way or the other, Maggie, except the
>words of people who know them, who say they *do* want to regain custody
>when the supports are in place.
***I'm paying absolutely no attention to anyone's word, because talk is cheap.
It's *actions* that count and these people abandoned their child, clearly
intending it to be permanent, they've lost custody and in two months, they
haven't petitioned to regain that custody. And this is all in spite of the
fact that social service agencies are practically begging them (at least in the
news stories) to take the kid back.
>
maggie said:
> It boggles my mind to think of this woman, with no job
>> and no other children, in a family with the means to *hire* a couple of
>> full-time caregivers (what would it cost--$100,000 a year? maybe $150,000
>with
>> all the benefits? That's just 10%- 15% of the husband's annual earned
>income.
>> I suspect their total income is much higher) who can't be bothered to
>bring her
>> son home. The kid has been in the hospital for two months now. It's
>> disgraceful.
>
martha said:
>You simply don't believe, do you, that the services they require are not
>available at any price.
***Of course not---not unless the laws of capitalism have been suspended.
What does a nurse at one of these agencies make? $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a
year? Offer her $60,000 or $70,000. Or more. They could afford it.
These people are verifiably *rich*, with over $1 million in income a year.
They could hire someone if they wanted to, but it would cost them. I had no
idea that this family's income was so high (I, too, was fooled by the modest
house). Although I'd never want to change places with them, these folks could
certainly afford to pay for someone to care for their child. They were trying
to do it on the cheap, that's their problem.
Maggie
>
><snip>
>
>> You may
>> remember the article that Patty posted about another family with a child
>who
>using
>> insurance, were able to find more steady nursing care by using a different
>> nursing service.
>
>Indeed I do. Here is the relevant paragraph:
>
>Though their insurance company has agreed to pay for
> 16 hours of nursing a day, they had virtually no help
> between February and May. They have switched agencies
> now, and things have improved, but there still are
> many holes in the schedule. "There's never a week
> that goes by that we don't have at least one or two
> day shifts uncovered and maybe a night or two," said
> Nicholas Black, director of children's ministries for
> New Life Presbyterian Church in Glenside.
>
>Note that this family didn't find *another* agency, as in *additional*
>help; they *switched* agencies. I am not sure whether the insurance
>referred to in this story is private insurance or, as I suspect, Medical
>Assistance, in which case the family is limited to providers approved by
>MA. Their situation, too, is different from the Kelsos in that the
>father is a minister of some kind, while Mr. Kelso, according to the
>story posted today, is away from home on business 25 days/month. I
>would assume that a minister's duties would keep him closer to home and
>more available to help out.
****Maybe, maybe not. But in the family in Patty's article, *both* parents
worked and I doubt the church was paying the husband $1 million a year. In the
Kelso's case, one parent is unemployed and presumably needs something to fill
up her days. Big difference.
>
martha said:
>This same story further states (referring to the Kelsos):
>
>In court papers, the
> couple contended they needed a break from "exhausting
> round-the-clock" care they had been forced to provide
> because of the "nationwide shortage of skilled,
> specialized pediatric nurses."
>
>and:
>
>Even parents who have regular nursing care are one
> case of the flu or a back injury away from nothing,
> because agencies have fewer backup nurses now.
>
> And hospitals are finding it harder to send young
> patients home.
>
> Monica Kondrad, a case manager at Temple University
> Children's Medical Center, recently had to discharge
> a 3-month-old baby who needed oxygen, tube feeding,
> and eight hours of nursing care a night. One agency
> told her it would take five to six weeks to find a
> nurse. Another said it would take at least two weeks
> and maybe much longer. The baby went to a skilled
> nursing facility and wasn't able to go home for at
> least two weeks.
>
>Why is it so hard for you to understand that caring for children with
>these medical needs is beyond draining, and that there simply are not
>enough nurses to fill the needs of families?
***Reread what you wrote. The parents in these articles had problems for a
couple of weeks and were relying on agencies to help them. Rich people hire
nurses themselves and with the income the Kelsos have, they certainly could
have done this. Why do you keep insisting that in over 2 months the Kelsos
couldn't find any help. It's absurd.
Martha
>
> Martha said:
> > The only people who have addressed the question, Dawn Kelso's
> >uncle and the Kelsos' attorney, have said that the Kelsos *do* want
> >their child back.
>
>
> > The lawyer for his parents has
> >said that they want him back home when they have the nursing support to
> >help care for him.
>
> anything about the Kelso's lawyer saying that the Kelsos want Steven back home.
> Of course, some may not have made it to my server. Could you repost or let me
> know where to find this info (the lawyer's name should be enough for a dejanews
> search)?
Here's a quote from the Jan. 8 Phila. Daily News
(http://www.phillynews.com/daily_news/2000/Jan/08/local/DUMP08.htm):
The attorneys have, however, filed a motion in
Delaware Family Court asking that the Kelsos be
permitted to visit their son.
"Richard and Dawn Kelso never intended to abandon
their son," the motion read. "They merely needed a
respite from the exhausting round-the-clock care
which they had been providing and in preparation
for
the round-the-clock care which they would be
required to provide in the upcoming month."
Their lawyer, Beth Savitz, also said:
"Richard and Dawn Kelso have never done anything
which was not in the best interest of their son or
which would jeopardize his physical well being,"
Savitz stated in the motion.
"When they brought Steven to the Alfred I. du Pont
Institute, they knew he would receive good and
proper
medical care, medical supplies and equipment,
necessary attention to his health and hygiene needs,
and that the staff was familiar with Steven and his
special needs."
(http://www.phillynews.com/inquirer/2000/Jan/07/sj/ECHILD07.htm)
Martha
Maggie
>My God Maggie, you seem to be on some rollercoaster mission to trash these
>parents.
>No one doubts that Child Welfare doesnt want to close this case
***I'm sure you must mean *wants* to close the case. And I agree.
and get
>a
>difficult to place child off their hands.
>It says *ideally* the support services will be in place so he can be returned
>to his parents.
>Have you any information that those support services are in place or that
>any
>negotiations that may be taking place among all of the agencies that are
>involved in this case are over and the Kelso's are free to take
> Steven home? Or do you have any information other than a self serving surmise
>that they dont want him despite what his uncle has said?
***Why do you think it's self-serving on my part? I have no interest in this
case--I'm merely an observer of the facts. And I just found out these people
have income of over $1 million a year. How much longer are you going to assume
the family is searching for a nurse? They could hire one today if they were
willing to pay for her. Obviously, they aren't.
>'
>It might be nice to give it a rest until we have some facts to go by.
***We do have facts. It's the dog that didn't bark.
Maggie
>>
>> Martha said:
>> > The only people who have addressed the question, Dawn Kelso's
>> >uncle and the Kelsos' attorney, have said that the Kelsos *do* want
>> >their child back.
>>
>> and
>>
>> > The lawyer for his parents has
>> >said that they want him back home when they have the nursing support
>to
>> >help care for him.
>>
>> ***I have read every article posted here about the case and don't recall
>> anything about the Kelso's lawyer saying that the Kelsos want Steven back
>home.
>> Of course, some may not have made it to my server. Could you repost
>or let me
>> know where to find this info (the lawyer's name should be enough for a
>dejanews
>> search)?
>
>Here's a quote from the Jan. 8 Phila. Daily News
>(http://www.phillynews.com/daily_news/2000/Jan/08/local/DUMP08.htm):
>
>The attorneys have, however, filed a motion in
> Delaware Family Court asking that the Kelsos be
> permitted to visit their son.
>
> "Richard and Dawn Kelso never intended to abandon
> their son," the motion read. "They merely needed a
> respite from the exhausting round-the-clock care
> which they had been providing and in preparation
>for
> the round-the-clock care which they would be
> required to provide in the upcoming month."
***So....the attorney said they needed a respite from January's nursing
shortage and here it is almost March? I'll ask again--why didn't they just
hire their own nurse?
>
martha said:
>Their lawyer, Beth Savitz, also said:
>
>"Richard and Dawn Kelso have never done anything
> which was not in the best interest of their son or
> which would jeopardize his physical well being,"
> Savitz stated in the motion.
>
> "When they brought Steven to the Alfred I. du Pont
> Institute, they knew he would receive good and
>proper
> medical care, medical supplies and equipment,
> necessary attention to his health and hygiene needs,
> and that the staff was familiar with Steven and his
> special needs."
***What does this have to do with whether or not they want him back?
Martha
>
> maggie said:
> >> And it's very clear from the articles posted that the uncle was not speaking
> >on
> >> behalf of the parents, but was only saying what he imagined to be the
> >case.
> >
> >Of course. But he is in a better position to know the parents' wishes
> >and plans than, say, you are.
>
> take OJ's aunt's word for it when she said he wasn't guilty.
Your analogy is silly. We're not talking about did they or didn't they.
We're talking about *why* they did. No one disputes that they did what
they're charged with.
>
> maggie said:
> > I believe you also pointed to the relative
> >> modesty of the Kelso's home, in the same regard.
> >
> martha said:
> >They *do* live in a modest house, Maggie.
>
> ***Uh, that's what I said.
>
> martha said:
> Two hundred thousand, around
> >this part of PA, is around the average middle-class quarter-acre lot
> >suburban development house. If this man is making a million dollars a
> >year, I would expect them to live in a much pricier house. In some
> >neighborhoods, $200,000 is what you pay for a *starter* house--and I
> >read that the Kelsos' house was recently appraised at something like
> >$179,000.
>
> ***I wonder what they're spending their money on?
Patty mentioned an expensive divorce from his first wife. I read in
another article that they were spending $150,000/year on nursing help.
I am certain that they are trying to plan for Steven's future care,
after they are dead, so maybe they're socking money away for him.
> >
> >>
> >> martha said:
> >> to the
> >> >contrary, I (and others) have posted news stories explaining that the
> >> >Kelsos pay for a good portion of the nursing services Steven receives--
> >> >when they can find someone to do the work.
> >>
> >> martha said:
> >> > How on earth you can dare to assume the worst of
> >> >these parents, when you don't know *anything* about their lives, is
> >> >beyond me.
> >>
> maggie said:
> >> ***And how you assume these parents are just like you and the people you
> >know,
> >> when, likewise, you know nothing about them is beyond me. Expecially
> >since
> >> all evidence indicates that they are not making any effort at all to regain
> >> custody of their son.
> >
> martha said:
> >Because there is no evidence one way or the other, Maggie, except the
> >words of people who know them, who say they *do* want to regain custody
> >when the supports are in place.
>
> ***I'm paying absolutely no attention to anyone's word, because talk is cheap.
But Maggie, words is all we have to go by. They *said* they couldn't
care for him. They *say*, through a lawyer, that they want him back
when the nursing care is in place. They do not have custody now, so
they can't take him home at this time, nor do they want to, unless the
nursing care is in place and hasn't been reported.
> It's *actions* that count and these people abandoned their child, clearly
> intending it to be permanent, they've lost custody and in two months, they
> haven't petitioned to regain that custody.
Not according to their lawyer--see another post of mine.
And this is all in spite of the
> fact that social service agencies are practically begging them (at least in the
> news stories) to take the kid back.
Can you point me toward those stories? I don't recall seeing anything
like that, except for the hospital saying that there's no medical reason
for him to be hospitalized.
> >
> maggie said:
> > It boggles my mind to think of this woman, with no job
> >> and no other children, in a family with the means to *hire* a couple of
> >> full-time caregivers (what would it cost--$100,000 a year? maybe $150,000
> >with
> >> all the benefits? That's just 10%- 15% of the husband's annual earned
> >income.
> >> I suspect their total income is much higher) who can't be bothered to
> >bring her
> >> son home. The kid has been in the hospital for two months now. It's
> >> disgraceful.
> >
> martha said:
> >You simply don't believe, do you, that the services they require are not
> >available at any price.
>
> ***Of course not---not unless the laws of capitalism have been suspended.
> What does a nurse at one of these agencies make? $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a
> year? Offer her $60,000 or $70,000. Or more. They could afford it.
They're paying $150,000 now and can't get help. I truly don't think
it's the money, Maggie. We've offered $20/hour for babysitting (and not
on New Year's Eve, either) and couldn't get anyone.
>
> These people are verifiably *rich*, with over $1 million in income a year.
> They could hire someone if they wanted to, but it would cost them. I had no
> idea that this family's income was so high (I, too, was fooled by the modest
> house). Although I'd never want to change places with them, these folks could
> certainly afford to pay for someone to care for their child. They were trying
> to do it on the cheap, that's their problem.
Well, that's your opinion, based on nothing. It's my suspicion that we
don't want to face the fact that good parents, parents like us, could be
driven to such measures. These people must be different from us, in
some really profound way, to be able to leave their child like this.
Even though they're so rich, and even though they apparently don't mind
spending $150,000/year on his nurses, and even though they don't live in
a mansion, and even though they don't have other children to provide
for, they must be doing this because they don't want to spend their
money on their child. Yeah. Right.
Martha
Martha
> At the risk of sounding like a callous bitch (which, of course, I am :-),
> perhaps Mrs. Kelso should have thought about the consequences to her son as
> well as herself when she refused her doctor's advice and condemned her son
> to a life of pain and misery. The reason I've read is that she had
> previously lost a baby, and had difficulty conceiving Steven. It seems that
> the desire to be a "Mommy" overroad her judgement.
Of course, it's easy to second-guess someone else's judgment, and I can
understand your feeling that it would have been better all around if
Steven had been allowed to die. I'm not sure that a mother can face
that feeling, if she has it, and I'm *really* not sure how helpful such
a comment is. Once a child is born, no matter what its condition, it is
my opinion that to talk of "what if" re: its survival is an abomination.
Martha
Honeychickpea
I disagree. In my opinion, if a child is born in such a state that he will
never be able to live without the support of machines, that child should be
allowed to die. It's an abomination to keep him alive in a state of pain and
suffering, with constant seizures, to fulfull a misguided woman's desire to
pass on her genes. If Mrs. Kelso felt such a desire to be a "Mommy", there
are plenty of disabled children that could be adopted, who would at least
have some quality of life.
Margaret
Margaret
Martha
You misunderstand. The abomination is not the idea that a baby born
with serious defects might better be allowed to die than to be "saved"
for a life of pain. I'm with you there. I'm even with your suggestion
that it might have been better if Steven Kelso had been allowed to die,
as his doctor recommended. My point is that once the child is born and
(here's the problem: I wasn't explicit about this part) the decision
made to keep him alive, then talking about "I should have had an
abortion" or "I should have let him die" is an abomination. If you have
children, try thinking it about one of your own. It's really upsetting.
Martha
Martha
I'm going to bow out of this for now. It's clear to me that the basic
problem is that you can't believe that money can't fix this problem. I
guess you have to be there.
Martha
Merc
> Patty posted:
> >This article from late December or early January has some additional info:
> >Father's salary and travel
> >I have another article I found that has some other info that's a little
> >different than previously reported. I'll post it if anyone's interested
> >and
> >if I can find it again.
> >
> >Dumped boy may return eventually
> >Agency goal to reunite families
> >by Yvonne Latty and Barbara Laker
> >Daily News Staff
> >
> >Steven Kelso will ring in the New Year in a hospital bed, but may soon be
> >back at home with the parents who abandoned him.
> >
> >At least that's the goal of child welfare workers.
> >
> >"Ideally, the child will be reunited with his parents, and the support
> >services will be in place to help the parents and the child," said Jim
> >Forsythe, executive director of the Chester County Division of Children
> >Youth and Families. "That's always our goal whenever we take custody of
> >a
> >child."
> <snip>
>
> ***Thanks, Patty. I hope this will help to quiet those who continue to insist
> that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Kelsos *really* want their son
> back. ...and those who say, despite his CEO position, Mr. Kelso may not have
> made enough money to enable the parents to pay out-of-pocket for respite help.
>
> This is a nightmare situation and I feel for any parents in this position, but
> at this point, two months after Steven's abandonment, it seems silly to insist
> that it's merely red tape of some sort that's keeping the parents from
> regaining custody of their son.
>
> Maggie
>
> "Caution: Cape does not enable user to fly."
> -Batman Costume warning label
Personally, I do not know if/not the Kelsos want Steven back, nor does anyone else
know, besides the Kelsos - but I cant see how this article concludes that the
Kelsos do not want him now and do not never want him back.
It certainly is a tragic case - but I _can_ understand how a parent in this
situation can feel so overwrought and frustrated that they fall apart. OTOH, Mrs
Kelso was not ignorant of the resources available for families in her situation,
nor of the shortfalls, thus she of all people should have had the foresight to
prepare for any emergency, instead of reaching that point of no return, where she
felt so overwhelmed, that her only option was to abandon Steven.
Which is why, IMHO, I somehow think that their reluctance in fighting for his
return, has to do with the issues that got them to this place in the first place
and until some changes are implemented and those issues resolved, Steven is better
off where he is. Perhaps, she _is _ trying to force a change in the system (as
someone suggested) by protesting the best way she knows how and which she feels
will bring on positive changes - via media awareness.
Merc
Maggie
>> >> And it's very clear from the articles posted that the uncle was not
>speaking
>> >on
>> >> behalf of the parents, but was only saying what he imagined to be the
>> >case.
>> >
>> martha said:
>> >Of course. But he is in a better position to know the parents' wishes
>> >and plans than, say, you are.
>>
>> ***Oh, but, unlike me, he's not a disinterested party. That's why we
>didn't
>> take OJ's aunt's word for it when she said he wasn't guilty.
>
>Your analogy is silly. We're not talking about did they or didn't they.
>We're talking about *why* they did. No one disputes that they did what
>they're charged with.
***You have, somehow missed the entire point of my analogy, which was very much
on target. The point is that it's foolish to take favorable comments made by
relatives of defendants at face value.
maggie said:
>> ***I wonder what they're spending their money on?
>
martha said:
>Patty mentioned an expensive divorce from his first wife.
***No way the guy's still paying alimony after what?--12 or 14 years, at least.
The expensive divorce was, no doubt, a big property settlement and probably
explains the modest house the Kelsos now live in.
martha said:
I read in
>another article that they were spending $150,000/year on nursing help.
>I am certain that they are trying to plan for Steven's future care,
>after they are dead, so maybe they're socking money away for him.
***What for? Aren't you the one who thinks that no amount of money is
sufficient to induce anyone to care for this child?
maggie said:
>> ***I'm paying absolutely no attention to anyone's word, because talk is
>cheap.
>
martha said:
>But Maggie, words is all we have to go by. They *said* they couldn't
>care for him. They *say*, through a lawyer, that they want him back
>when the nursing care is in place. They do not have custody now, so
>they can't take him home at this time, nor do they want to, unless the
>nursing care is in place and hasn't been reported.
***And that's my point--talk is cheap. For god's sake, they took care of the
child for 10 years. Did the entire supply/demand structure for in-home
pediatric nurses change last December?
maggie said:
> And this is all in spite of the
>> fact that social service agencies are practically begging them (at least
>in the
>> news stories) to take the kid back.
>
martha said:
>Can you point me toward those stories? I don't recall seeing anything
>like that, except for the hospital saying that there's no medical reason
>for him to be hospitalized.
***It's in the article that Patty posted--the social service guys were saying
that they really wanted to reunite the family.
martha said:
>They're paying $150,000 now
***Correction. They, at some time (and I never saw this particular article)
paid $150,000.
and can't get help. I truly don't think
>it's the money, Maggie. We've offered $20/hour for babysitting (and not
>on New Year's Eve, either) and couldn't get anyone.
***Well, I've had trouble finding sitters from time to time myself. Are you
saying that you are *never* able to find a sitter for $20 an hour? I'd bet
that if you offered $20 per hour plus benefits for a full-time position you'd
get some takers. And if you were the Kelsos, you could go up to $25/hour if
that didn't work and keep going up until you found someone.
>
maggie said:
>> These people are verifiably *rich*, with over $1 million in income a year.
>> They could hire someone if they wanted to, but it would cost them. I
>had no
>> idea that this family's income was so high (I, too, was fooled by the
>modest
>> house). Although I'd never want to change places with them, these folks
>could
>> certainly afford to pay for someone to care for their child. They were
>trying
>> to do it on the cheap, that's their problem.
>
martha said:
>Well, that's your opinion, based on nothing. It's my suspicion that we
>don't want to face the fact that good parents, parents like us, could be
>driven to such measures. These people must be different from us, in
>some really profound way, to be able to leave their child like this.
>Even though they're so rich, and even though they apparently don't mind
>spending $150,000/year on his nurses, and even though they don't live in
>a mansion, and even though they don't have other children to provide
>for, they must be doing this because they don't want to spend their
>money on their child. Yeah. Right.
***So how much longer do you think it will take to get all the arrangements in
place so that they can get their son back? Did you think two months ago that
Steven would still be in the hospital and his parents would still have not
filed for custody? If he's still in the hospital two months from now will you
be more inclined to think that, just perhaps, they aren't looking for Steven to
be returned to them?
debby
can sell for 300,000 plus. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Martha
>
> Dear Martha: Did you know that Exton is on the Main Line, the most expensive suburbs
> of Philly???? Nobody will even talk to you unless you are on the damn Social
> Register:) Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
On the Main Line? Are you sure? A $203,000 house?
Martha
Martha
>
> Dear Martha: I think you misunderstood her. Maggie said the parents couldn't afford
> to keep the boy, not that they didn't want him. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
Oh, Debby--I'm so glad to see someone else interpreting! Watch out--it
got me in trouble.
Martha
debby
trouble!!!! Trouble is my middle name..... Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com>
debby
on the Main Line but I wasn't sure:) I really doubt the house is 203,000, or it's really a
shack. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> whose former boyfriend lived on the Main Line
and who had friends who lived on the Main Line.
Martha wrote:
Martha
>
> Dear Martha: Go back to the Philadelphia Inquirer and look at the map. I thought Exton was
> on the Main Line but I wasn't sure:) I really doubt the house is 203,000, or it's really a
> shack. Debby S.<sarg...@injersey.com> whose former boyfriend lived on the Main Line
> and who had friends who lived on the Main Line.
I can't tell from the map--of course, there's Main Line and *Main Line*,
too. I think of the real Main Line as Bryn Mawr and Haverford.
There was a photo of their house in the paper, and I think it looked
about right for $200,000 or so.
Martha
Mr. Sweetness & Light.
Exton was a area consisting of farms 25 years ago. The 'Main Line' is more
of an old and arbitrary name for what used to extend from Wynnewood to
Wayne. Route 30 (AKA Lancaster ave.) was looked upon as the Main Line. This
is much changed by the fact that Downingtown is now considered the
terminator of the ML by the Inquirer presently. 200K is not a very expensive
figure for real estate in the Exton area at present either. It was a high
figure in the late 80's or the early 90's for new homes.
HTH.