When do we institute the death penalty for parental neglect?

[Darth Wong]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10 ... index.html

State workers to be fired in neglected boys case

Monday, October 27, 2003 Posted: 10:54 PM EST (0354 GMT)

The house in Collingswood where the four brothers lived. The oldest, 19, was so malnourished that police thought he was 10.

TRENTON, New Jersey (CNN) -- Nine employees of New Jersey's Division of Youth and Family Services will be fired for their roles in a case in which four malnourished brothers were found in an adoptive home, state officials announced Monday in Trenton.

Authorities say the couple that had adopted the brothers -- aged 19 to 9 -- used locks to keep them away from the kitchen and said they had been reduced to looking through the trash for food.

One of those employees is the caseworker who visited the Collingswood, New Jersey, home 38 times in the past four years and reported that they were "happy and thriving."

Three of the siblings were released from a hospital Monday, but their older brother remained in a cardiac care unit, according to a county prosecutor.

Meanwhile, the state of New Jersey was attempting to find out how the brothers' conditions failed to come to the attention of state officials.

"We're here again today because again we have a situation where New Jersey failed to protect children," said Gwendolyn Harris, the commissioner of the state's Department of Human Services. "The situation is horrible, unacceptable. I am faced with the fact that I have staff who are incompetent, uncaring or who falsified records."

DYFS became the focus of national attention in January when the agency prematurely closed the file on Faheem Williams, a 7-year-old boy from Newark found dead inside a plastic bin in a basement. His brother was locked in an adjoining room.

The division immediately instituted new procedures and Gov. James McGreevey allocated more resources after caseworkers complained about old computers and other problems they said hampered their performance.

None weighed more than 45 pounds; none taller than 4 feet

"We have done a lot and still, we have folks who don't get it," Harris said. "And if they don't get it, they're going to have to leave outta here."

The New Jersey couple who adopted the boys was arrested Friday, two weeks after Collingswood Police found their four emaciated adopted sons, the Camden County prosecutors office said.

Raymond Jackson, 50, and his wife Vanessa, 48, have been charged with four counts of aggravated assault and 14 counts of child endangerment.

The four sons had been starved to the point where none of them weighed more than 45 pounds, said Camden County Prosecutor Vincent Sarubbi.

"The children were extremely emaciated," Sarubbi said. "They were gaunt, they had distended stomachs, you could clearly see the outline of their shoulder blades and their ribs."

Colleen Maguire, special deputy commissioner of New Jersey Children's Services, which oversees DYFS, said she visited the children over the weekend at the hospital. She said doctors believe "that with the appropriate care the kids will grow and develop."

Sarubbi said in a news conference Monday all four of the boys had gained between five and seven pounds as of last Friday.

Maguire said state officials are considering an ongoing assessment policy for children approved for adoption as well as other measures to improve the division.

The investigation began October 10, when the Jacksons' neighbor contacted Collingswood police to report someone rummaging through trash cans for food. When they found Bruce Jackson, 19, police said he was so malnourished they thought he was 10 years old.

Police then found three more boys, ages 14, 10 and 9, at the Jacksons' home. Believing them to be malnourished, they took the four children to a hospital.

Prosecutors said Bruce weighed just 45 pounds, his 14-year-old brother weighed 40 pounds, the 10-year-old weighed 28 pounds and the 9-year-old weighed just 23 pounds.

None of them, prosecutors said, stood taller than 4 feet.

Entrances to the Jacksons' kitchen were locked, authorities allege, and the boys survived on a diet of uncooked pancake batter and oatmeal.

"We've found evidence, and the boys have also told us, that they were eating portions of the wall and the insulation behind it," Sarubbi said.

The Jackson family received a stipend from the state for their adopted children that peaked at around $28,000 a year. It was reduced last year when Bruce turned 18.

A DYFS case worker visited the Jacksons every month over the past two years to evaluate whether the Jacksons could adopt a 10-year-old foster daughter. The case worker never reported the boys' severe malnutrition and has since resigned, state officials said.

Raymond Jackson's brother reportedly defended him and said he provided adequate care for the brothers.

"It has nothing to do with being neglected," he told The Newark Star-Ledger. "They were born with drug addiction and eating disorders. As long as I've known these kids, they've never grown. They've provided everything for them."

However, Sarubbi said doctors examined the children and concluded that "they didn't suffer from any diseases or any genetic defects that would account for their stunted growth."

In addition to caseworkers not reporting the condition of the Jackson children, DYFS officials also failed to notice the youths when a safety assessment of all children in the agency's care was conducted as part of a landmark settlement with the child advocacy group Children's Rights.

Last Thursday DYFS announced it had completed its assessment of more than 14,300 children in foster care. It said 31 of those children were deemed unsafe, but the Jackson's 10-year-old foster daughter was not among them.

The Jacksons also have two adopted daughters, ages 5 and 12. Those girls, and the foster daughter, who was living in their home pending adoption, are now in foster care.

The couple also have five biological adult children, four of whom lived in their house.

Sarubbi said the couple's daughters and biological children appeared healthy.

The Jacksons are being held at Camden County Correctional Facility in lieu of $100,000 bail each.

-- From CNN Assignment Editor Jonathan Wald

As said earlier, when do we institute the death penalty for parental neglect? And what about the social service caseworkers who rubber-stamped this behaviour for years? Isn't job termination a rather limp-wristed punishment for this kind of negligence?

[Crayz9000]

Death by Bubba for them, if you ask me.

[Frank Hipper]

There's more and more cases of child welfare officials displaying gross incompetance all over the country. Florida seems to be particularly bad.

As to when the death penalty is implemented, it unfortunately probably will never be. Seeing as how the death penalty is sometimes argued to be a deterrent, that's unfortunate. Fear of death might motivate some of these pieces of shit to, oh, I dunno, maybe FEED THEIR KIDS?
We could use a real hangin' Judge for a lot of these cases.

[Gil Hamilton]

Holy shit. I'm not one who generally supports capital punishment, but those parents very sincerely deserve it. That's just fucking gross.

[Dillon]

That's fucking awful. That fucking caseworker who visited them, must be fucking blind not to have noticed anything wrong there.

And that asshole's brother bothers to claim that the kids look like that as a result of eating disorders. As if that explains the kids eating of the fucking garbage and the locks on the kitchen.

[BoredShirtless]

As said earlier, when do we institute the death penalty for parental neglect?

When parental negligence kills children. With proper nutrition these kids will grow according to the doctors so not all the damage these "parents" wrecked on them will be permanent. Having said that I'm almost sure they won't grow to there pre-foster care potential and the emotional damage may be permanent. But killing these "parents" seems a bit extreme. A massive fine, jail time, and putting them on a foster care blacklist should sort them out. Or maybe some time in a mental hospital. And evaluate there five biological adult children for mental retardation; they may have been too scared to report there parents, but it could be that they're fucked in the head like there parents.

And what about the social service caseworkers who rubber-stamped this behaviour for years? Isn't job termination a rather limp-wristed punishment for this kind of negligence?

Yes. They should also be charged with some crimes. This isn't personal job negligence; it's effected other peoples lives, it's criminal.

[haas mark]

Taken from the phone book: Fuck, Ho Lee.

It is people like this that make me fucking sick. Words deceive me.

~ver

[Companion Cube]

Fuck. What is it with these people?

[Col. Crackpot]

these parents should be drawn and quartered. Also, the utterly lazy and incompetant shit bags that were working at child welfare and made 38 glowingly positive reports should be fired, locked in a closet and fed nothing but half a kilo of rice a week.

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

I saw that story on the news last Saturday. Apparently, the kitchen door was locked. You get at least one case where some moron parent leaves a bunch of kids in a small, dirty house with nothing to eat.

This whole story just screams abuse to me. I say the people who abused them should get at least 10 years in prison, and the state workers who said they were doing fine should be fired.

[Tribun]

Give them nothiong to eat for one year, except shit. Then let's see what they will look like. Would be a very good punishment for what they have done.
I wonder if some can survive eating shit....?

[Sir Sirius]

Public flogging, that is what I would like too see in cases like this. Something like a hundred lashes would be nice in this case + for added effect pour salt water on their wounds afterwards. If seeing negligent parents being whipped until their skin peels of their backs doesn't motive assholes like this to feed their kids better I don't know what will.

[Majin Gojira]

I say let the manurished children get some food and eat their "Foster Parents". It's be poetic in a gross/disturbing way -- They'd probably gain more pounds that way

But seriosuly, for something this horrendous, the Death Penalty should be an option.

[Darth Wong]

When a 19 year old kid is 4 feet tall and weighs 45 pounds due to malnutrition, his whole life is basically ruined. All of his body organs will be fucked up forever (the kid is in an intensive cardiac care unit, for fuck's sake). The parents should fucking FRY, as should their adult children, the brother, and anyone else who knew about the situation and did nothing. I consider them all accomplices.

[Stormbringer]

Personally, I'd like to see those assholes rot in a squallid little dungeon of a prison. That's monsterous neglect.


I don't however think firing the caseworkers is the way to fix the situation though. Most child welfare organizations are so overwhelmed that they can't actually find these kind of cases. It's not really the caseworkers fault when the whole system is fucked to begin with.

[Darth Wong]

I don't however think firing the caseworkers is the way to fix the situation though. Most child welfare organizations are so overwhelmed that they can't actually find these kind of cases. It's not really the caseworkers fault when the whole system is fucked to begin with.

Did you miss the part about how the caseworker claimed that he visited the home 38 times and found the kids to be "thriving"? He obviously fabricated his reports, and should be held accountable for the results.

[RedImperator]

Personally, I'd like to see those assholes rot in a squallid little dungeon of a prison. That's monsterous neglect.

Fortunately, New Jersey's state prisons are among the worst in the country, and the inmates there probably won't take kindly to parents who starved their children.

As for the case workers, I think you could make some sort of case for criminal neglect. It might not stick, but it would put the fear of God into the rest of those clowns as DYFS (I knew a few kids who had to deal with them for one reason or another--that agency's performance and responsiveness wouldn't be much worse if it were staffed entirely with tackling dummies). And maybe the legislature could put a new law on the books holding social workers criminally accountable in cases where dereliction of duty or gross incompetence led directly to the harm of a child.

[Stormbringer]

I don't however think firing the caseworkers is the way to fix the situation though. Most child welfare organizations are so overwhelmed that they can't actually find these kind of cases. It's not really the caseworkers fault when the whole system is fucked to begin with.

Did you miss the part about how the caseworker claimed that he visited the home 38 times and found the kids to be "thriving"? He obviously fabricated his reports, and should be held accountable for the results.

No, I didn't. I have a cousin that used to be a school worker and she quit because they literally would not let her do the job. Visits were confined to a quick stop by for a matter of minutes and that's not enough. Given that they did have other healthy children around the reports are not necessarilly false, just inadequate.

If they are guilty of falsifying reports then fire them. But it's also a bad habit of child welfare organizations to scapegoat caseworkers when it's the system that doesn't work. And that might be the case here.

[Darth Servo]

No, I didn't. I have a cousin that used to be a school worker and she quit because they literally would not let her do the job. Visits were confined to a quick stop by for a matter of minutes and that's not enough. Given that they did have other healthy children around the reports are not necessarilly false, just inadequate.

If they are guilty of falsifying reports then fire them. But it's also a bad habit of child welfare organizations to scapegoat caseworkers when it's the system that doesn't work. And that might be the case here.

So what really happened with the case worker? Did she stop by, ask the parents how the kids were doing and simply take their word for it?

[Darth Wong]

No, I didn't. I have a cousin that used to be a school worker and she quit because they literally would not let her do the job. Visits were confined to a quick stop by for a matter of minutes and that's not enough. Given that they did have other healthy children around the reports are not necessarilly false, just inadequate.

No, they're necessarily false. The caseworker claimed the kids in question were "thriving". This claim cannot be made without seeing the kids, and seeing the family's other (biological) kids is no substitute. The caseworker lied on his report.

If they are guilty of falsifying reports then fire them. But it's also a bad habit of child welfare organizations to scapegoat caseworkers when it's the system that doesn't work. And that might be the case here.

Unless they framed him by fabricating the false reports that he filed, that's not the case here.

[Darth Wong]

So what really happened with the case worker? Did she stop by, ask the parents how the kids were doing and simply take their word for it?

I think the caseworker never visited at all. It would take all of 3 seconds to realize how badly the kids had been treated if you got a look at them.

[Stormbringer]

No, they're necessarily false. The caseworker claimed the kids in question were "thriving". This claim cannot be made without seeing the kids, and seeing the family's other (biological) kids is no substitute. The caseworker lied on his report.

Actually, given the practice for such visits they might well have had to settle for taking the family's word and the evidence of the healthy as proof the other kids were healthy. Not that they should but that they aren't given any other choice. Caseworkers are given damn little ability to check up on the families they supervise unless they can prove their is abuse.

Unless they framed him by fabricating the false reports that he filed, that's not the case here.

I think it's a case where both sides screwed up and so they're getting scapegoated. No doubt they failed to detect the abuse but unless New Jersey is unique in the US in having an effective child welfare system they probably weren't given the ability to either.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, given the practice for such visits they might well have had to settle for taking the family's word and the evidence of the healthy as proof the other kids were healthy. Not that they should but that they aren't given any other choice. Caseworkers are given damn little ability to check up on the families they supervise unless they can prove their is abuse.

Then they can truthfully fill out a report which says they were unable to directly observe the kids in question. But if they fill out a report which states that they have verified that the kids were "thriving" (verification being the only purpose of an onsite visit), then they were guilty of fraud.

I think it's a case where both sides screwed up and so they're getting scapegoated.

What do you base this on? It would take seconds to see how the kids were obviously mistreated if you could see them, and it doesn't take more than five minutes to figure out that the parents aren't letting you see the kids.

[Stormbringer]

Then they can truthfully fill out a report which says they were unable to directly observe the kids in question. But if they fill out a report which states that they have verified that the kids were "thriving" (verification being the only purpose of an onsite visit), then they were guilty of fraud.

Their reports were definitely wrong. But I'd hesitate to decide they committed fraud with out the rest of the report. It's three word quote out of at least thirty eight reports.

What do you base this on? It would take seconds to see how the kids were obviously mistreated if you could see them, and it doesn't take more than five minutes to figure out that the parents aren't letting you see the kids.

Do you realize how hamstrung most of these agencies are? Visits are usually five to ten minutes and they don't have the ability to go beyond that unless they can prove abuse.

[Darth Wong]

Their reports were definitely wrong. But I'd hesitate to decide they committed fraud with out the rest of the report. It's three word quote out of at least thirty eight reports.

It's a glowing quote out of a person who has obviously never even laid eyes on the kids. You can't smell the bullshit?

What do you base this on? It would take seconds to see how the kids were obviously mistreated if you could see them, and it doesn't take more than five minutes to figure out that the parents aren't letting you see the kids.

Do you realize how hamstrung most of these agencies are? Visits are usually five to ten minutes and they don't have the ability to go beyond that unless they can prove abuse.

Read what I wrote. Why should it take more than 5 minutes to figure out that a parent won't let you see the kid, and why should you go and fill out a fraudulent report which gives them glowing marks for a "thriving" kid that you've never even laid eyes on?

Your entire argument boils down to "it's a tough job, so it's OK to bullshit on your reports".