Here is the article for reference:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9319446/
and…
Who in their right mind would think it was ok to lock your kids in a cage? WTF?
There is absolutely no reason, no matter how bad your kids may get, to do this. What gets me is that these people were foster parents. This means that the kids were already removed from some sort of abuse and now were subjected to more.
I am so totally livid right now.
So let’s put them in some cages and see how they like it.
raises hand
…errr, if by “cages,” you mean “cribs” or “playpens,” and the kids are toddlers. Otherwise, no.
If by “normal” you mean “have been sorely tempted to but didn’t” well, uhh…
Pardon my ignorance, but aren’t foster parents subject to home visits to ensure the conditions are suitable? I rather thought that wasn’t a one-time thing, but sort of an ongoing process, particularly as more children were placed. How horrific that this went on for so long before someone finally rescued those children.
Were the cages painted a soothing color, like light blue?
To make it worse, there was no bedding in the cages. I hope some heads roll at the agency that placed those poor kids.
“Cage” is such a loaded word. Why not try referring to them as “protective habitats” instead when you re-read the story? It’ll put a whole different spin on it.
Well, not my kid. But I did trick my sister into going into the dog kennel when she was about 4 or 5. (I was less than 10, so I don’t feel too guilty.)
I locked my little brother in the basement once. I was 12. Does that count?
I’m with you on that …
[Dogbert]
We’ve replaced all your cages with Protective Habitats. They look exactly the same, but we’ve made great advances in what they’re called.
[/Dogbert]
One couple…11 foster kids…<sound of alarm going off>
Whoever placed that many kids in one home should get jailtime, right after the foster parents have been dealt with.
I’m sure that argument will serve the foster parents well in court. I can just see it now:
Deadbeat parents: Your honor, those were not cages, they were protected habitats, intended to keep the children from harming themselves and others.
Judge: With a Dr. Evil tone in his voiceRiiiight!
It’s really difficult to grasp why this situation started in the first place.
These were autistic children who have special needs and their caregivers should have been given correct education on how to care for them.
I can imagine someone getting thown into this situation panicking and doing a similar thing (don’t want the kids hurting eachother or wandering off/running away, don’t want to give them bedding cause they could hurt themselves somehow). But I don’t understand who would give these people 11 children to take care of, not train them on how to take care of a special needs child, and not check up on the well being of these kids.
Sounds like these people had good intentions but the system failed them.
A lot of unknowns still in the equation.
They’d raise their hands, but it’s pretty tough to do in cuffs.
Cage? Not so much. Smart Box? A world of yes!
But, seriously, that’s the strangest case of life reflecting SA I’ve ever seen. A psychiatrist recommended they place the children in cages? Was it a pet psychiatrist or something?
My kids? Hell no!
Your kids? Well, that depends…
I would raise my hand, but it is difficult for me to fully extend my arm in my protective habitat. Does poking my fingers through the happiness bars count?
Whilst I wouldn’t exactly define it as normal I note that there is no suggestion or reference to the children suffering or in any way being detrimentally effected by the ‘cages’. Other than a reference to no shoes there is no suggestion of neglect in the article.
In fact aside from the fact that they slept in cages the other information would appear to suggest that they were well cared for. Might this not simply be a case of the media grabbing hold of once part of a story about what is doubtless a household of troubled children and in effect exploiting the ‘cage’ issue for headlines.
It would be a tragedy in my view to remove children from a house where they are well cared for and well brought up simply on the basis of the foster parents perhaps rather primative methods of night time restraint.
One of the things that I didn’t think was clear was whether these “cages” were locked in any way, or were they merely alarmed. It seemed from the article that at least one of them was blocked by a dresser, which would, of course, be a major problem in case of fire.
Note: I’m not advocating cages. I’d just like a better idea of what was going on here.