**REPORTED FOR UTENSILISM **
Re the OP, I will be more inclined to give the birth mother benefit of the doubt if the lawsuit fails and she’s still around.
Time will tell even though time has shown that this woman isn’t really a mother. We’ll see.
Personally, I’d like to slap the taste out her mouth! (Yes, I’m using ebonics… I think)
She is a bitch. We all know what really motivates her but like I said, we’ll see what her mettle’s made of.
Shayna, as I said before, I hope you are absolutely right. Well, except the part where mom may have been the victim of rape or molestation, which I wouldn’t wish on anybody. And despite your protestations, some other things I didn’t say include: mom deserved her pregnancy and enjoyed it, mom made the wrong choice in giving the child up, mom wanted to be a grandmother, or any other intimations about what I thought you made. You know why I didn’t say those things? Because WE DON’T KNOW what happened. As more facts come out, I’m sure we’ll learn more and more about it, but I am very cynical because mom went out of her way to hire an attorney to sue the state for monetary damages within a week of finding out what happened.
And perhaps you’ll have better luck with the search function, but the scum who raped the poor girl, and DFS HAVE been roasted here in the Pit before. And oddly enough, in that thread, I don’t remember a single person blaming the mother. Odd, no? Now that mom has shown up and decided she wants to finally be a part of her daughters life now that, by sheer coincidence I’m sure, they have a pretty good lawsuit.
Once again, I hope you are right. But I fear you’re not.
Y’know, when someone gives their child to a government organization that is supposed to protect children and other incompetent individuals, they are entitled to believe that the interests of the child will be looked after. It was not in the best interest of this incompetent adult to be raped and impregnated by a nasty old man. The State breached it’s duty to protect the ward.
When someone gives their child to a government organization that is supposed to protect children and other incompetent individuals, especially when a 14 year old someone does it, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that the “incubator” would allow herself to put the whole event behind her and not look back. Remember, the milipede was just a kid when she surrendered her baby. 4 years later, a lifetime for someone so young, she is a legal adult (at which point she is expected to be responsible HENCEFORTH). To beat it into the ground, we don’t know the circumstances of her pregnancy nor of her ability to visit the baby. I think it would be safe to say she, for some reason or other which we can not know, she cut this event out of her life.
So she finds out the hard way that the state “TOTALLY dropped the ball” and now she’s a grandmother. A GRANDMOTHER. And now she is given the opportunity/responsibility to raise the grandchild and, while she’s at it, give her own daughter the care that she evidently was not receiving from the state…possibly even to make amends for decisions made in a previous life as a teenager?
Now–and I’m going to assume that she’s not a gold-digger–she would never have been put in the position to take care of her severely impaired daughter and granddaughter (basically two kids) had the state not “TOTALLY dropped the ball.” But she has expressed a desire to do so now. None of this would have happened had The State done its job. All would have continued, with mamma paying her taxes that went to support her daughter’s care (indirectly).
Where am I going? Well, it’s not Mamma’s fault that she now has two kids, it’s The State’s fault. The State owes her an amount sufficient to cover the care of her daughter, the care of her granddaughter as well as whatever lifestyle is owed to the 2 kids and the woman who is now an unintended mother.
This is a tidy sum, just for the actual costs. Punative damages are also in order because the state breached its duty to mama, who expected her child to be well cared for; and to her daughter who was RAPED goddammit by a servant of The State and thus The State itself. Call it gold digging if you want, but someone needs to be reprimanded in order to make it worthwhile to keep the predators away from the mentally ill!
NONE of here know the whole truth about the situation.
And Thurgood, get over it. You got called when you played the race card. It’s people like you that reduce its effectiveness when racism really IS the issue. You need to make DAMN sure you see a wolf if you’re gonna scream “WOOOOLLLLLFFFF!” you big ding dong!
(I’m pretty sure “ding dong” is not a racial slur.)
Perhaps I’m just an idealist, but at reading the article I interpreted the mother as someone who got pregnant young, was unable to care for the child and gave the child over to the state for care assuming a minimum level of care would be administered.
Upon finding out that a minimum level was not being maintained - and the state (representatives of the state, that is) were actually harming her child the mother sought to take over care. The mother then finds out that, without her knowledge, the state has terminated her parental rights without having consulted her. So she seeks legal recourse.
I dunno, I think a lot of you folks must be awfully jaded about people. I don’t see any motives in this person’s behaviour other than trying to provide care for this poor woman.
Eh. There I go again - giving people the benefit of the doubt.
I get the impression that Thurgood is one who believes The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is racist.
Okay, so if I complain about my dad’s “smelly, black socks”, I’m a racist?
Sure.
:dubious:
Oh, and I think Shayna nailed it.
You’re insane. You know that, right?
As for the OP, there’s as much evidence that the woman is seeking parental rights because she’s finally in a place where she can take care of her daughter as there is that she’s just doing this for money. Therefore, I choose to believe that she’s doing this out of compassion and not greed, because it makes me feel better about humans in general.
I’ve just finished reading everything I could get my hands on regarding this. May have missed something, but what we know so far…
A thirteen or fourteen year old girl (GDS) gave birth to a severly disabled child.
At some point around the time the child (JDS) was two or three, the child was placed in a group home.
In 1995 the state of Florida (perhaps illegally) terminated GDS’ parental rights.
In 2003, JDS, now an adult, was molested by one of her caregivers and subsequently gave birth.
August, 2003, the judge in charge of the case, Lawrence Kirkwood, learned that JDS had a younger brother and ordered that her family be located.
September, 2003, GDS was contacted by a reporter and told what had befallen her daughter.
September, 2003, GDS decided that she wanted custody of her daughter and granddaughter and forms plans to sue both for custody and for damages.
Differing accounts of the story have JDS residing in the group home with the Strongs anywhere from 14 to 21 years.
The only person who’s gone on record as saying that GDS hasn’t seen JDS since the child was two or three years old is Patti Jarrell, the court appointed guardian for JDS.
Patti Jarrel, as JDS’ guardian, is eligible to sue for damages on JDS’ behalf, making her a rather unreliable witness.
Ok, done with the facts, now for my rather disjointed thoughts…
JDS was probably molested numerous times while in the Strongs home. They should both have the book thrown at them. I get so very angry when I think of how awful that poor little girl’s life must have been.
GDS was a child herself when she gave birth to JDS. She was incapable of properly caring for her daughter. I was 17 when I had my son, and believe me, it’s a challenge. He’s 17 himself now and I look at him and his maturity level and wonder to myself just how we ever managed to survive. If I’d been younger, and/or if he’d had the disabilities that JDS has, I really don’t think we could have.
As a mother, you worry excessively about your child. I’m sure that worrying never ceases, even when that child is out of your home. Therefore, I feel not a day went by that GDS didn’t stop and think about JDS and wonder how she was doing and if she was happy and healthy.
I have a cousin, Karen, who’s blind, deaf, and mentally retarded. She was placed in a group home when she was seven. My aunt used to go and visit her every week, but after a few months, she was asked to stop, as the visits were upsetting to Karen. They were pretty darn upsetting for my aunt also. She’d be in tears worrying if she’d done the right thing by placing Karen in the home and it never got any easier for her. It was a painful situation all around. Perhaps the same sort of scenario took place with GDS and JDS, with GDS asked to stop visiting, or perhaps she stopped visiting due to the guilt and pain she felt when she did visit. Imagine if you want so much to do the best thing for your child, but you know that there’s absolutely no way that living with you is the best thing you can do.
I do find it a bit strange that GDS didn’t know her parental rights were terminated. Since this happened in 1005, and GDS wasn’t aware of it, I can only conclude that the last visit paid to her daughter was prior to 1995, perhaps due to the reasons listed above. I do think that if a visit wasn’t in order, at least there would have been occasional phone calls with the caregivers and gift giving on holidays, however. Perhaps, though, GDS was trying to get on with her life and the act of calling or sending a gift for JDS would have been too painful for her to bear.
At any rate, I don’t think we have enough facts here to either deify or vilify her. Perhaps she is a conniving, money hungry witch, but then again, perhaps she truly is wanting to do the best possible thing for her child and grandchild, and perhaps, prior to this, she’d thought that what she was doing was in the best interests of her daughter. I’d vote on waiting for more facts before making a judgement, myself.
Ignorance talking, be warned.
Um, how many parental rights should someone have if they stop taking care of their child for whatever reason?
I’m just looking at the situation as a complete outsider. I have a baby, take the baby to the state (however that’s done), leave the baby with the state, expect the state to care for and protect the baby, how am I a “parent” and how would I expect to keep “parental rights”?
Note: I absolutely 100% don’t blame any young woman for putting a child up for adoption or placing the child in a home or under the state’s care. But that, to me, is a voluntary withdrawal of any claim on that child. It seems that having the rights of a parent should mean having the responsibilities of a parent, and vice versa.
Julie
jsgoddess,
Good point, but if ANYONE is in a position at this point to assert some kind of ‘parental rights’ in light of the current situation my guess is that the birth mother should at least have dibs over another stranger. At least, all other things being equal, the birth mother may pose less of a threat to the kid.
Of course in tons of cases birth parents have absolutely no business being allowed near children.
Pardon me if this sounds crass, but a “severely disabled” woman placed under the care of the State? I hardly think she’s going places and meeting people. If I were the woman who handed her over, I’d just pray she was well-cared for and not expect anything beyond that for her. It’s not like she was going to have a career or a family (hopefully, anyway) for herself.
Getting back in touch with children from the past is an economy-sized can of worms, and forgive a woman if she makes the choice not to whip out the culinary-grade opener. Don’t imply that she’s any less of a human being.
“Children from the past” is perhaps one of the single most cynical and depressing phrases I’ve ever read in my life.
In this case, I think the trouble is that every indication makes it seem that a “child from the past” is all that JDS has been all these years.
But JDS is GDS’s daughter. Just because JDS was turned her over to the state for her day to day care didn’t mean that GDS couldn’t visit, couldn’t call to check in, couldn’t come on birthdays or holidays or something – at least once or twice in the last 14-21 years, however long it’s been – just to say “I’m your mother and I give half a good damn about your continued existence on the planet, however abysmal it may be.”
I will concede that at 14, 16 or even 18 years old, GDS may not have had the emotional or perhaps even the physical capability to be a part of JDS’s life in some capacity, but now GDS is an adult. In 1995, when her rights were terminated, she was an adult. The only thing stopping GDS from being a part – even a remote, unattached part – of JDS’s life was her own choices. She made that decision.
And that’s what I’m having a hard time with. How does one reconcile the fact that GDS had no involvement with JDS after GDS was an adult and had the ability to make choices on their own merits with the idea that GDS is a concerned mother looking to make a commitment and get justice and security for her child and grandchild? Forget about holding GDS accountable for choices she made as a 14 year old or a 16 year old. Look at her record as an adult.
Then think what scenario seems more realistic – that GDS has spent the years as an adult being concerned about JDS, wondering where she was (but unable, apparently, to pick up a phone, call someone and ask), wondering how she was doing, worried about her safety and wellbeing and just waiting for the time when someone else might come and find her and give her some means of entry back into JDS’s life?
Or scenario two, GDS, as an adult, decided that dealing with JDS was going to be too much of a burden to her – physically, emotionally, whatever – until lo and behold, there was a chance to get some cash out of it without having to put forth any effort with JDS (because JDS is still and will always be in some kind of institutional care due to the extent of her disabilities) and hey, as a bonus, she might get a healthy baby (the one she was cheated out of with JDS’s birth) to raise in the bargain.
I hate to be a skeptic, but nothing that’s been made known about GDS’s behavior (or should we say “lack thereof”) from 1993-2003 (we’ll be kind and presume the 14 year date, making GDS around 28 years old, therefore an adult for the last ten years) doesn’t exactly suggest “concerned mother.” When there’s a potential for a big payoff, I have a hard time giving her benefit of the doubt.