Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Toddler Left Home Alone Found Dead
The Stir ^ | 11-2-2011 | Julie Ryan Evans

Posted on 11/02/2011 11:40:36 AM PDT by Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last
To: free me

If mom was mandated to a psych hospital and during the morning workup it was discovered that she had a small child at home, who may have been at risk, the hosptial social worker would have called the police to investigate and get the local Child Protective Services involved. Therefore no call.


61 posted on 11/02/2011 2:17:00 PM PDT by Chickensoup (In the 20th century 200 million people were killed by their own governments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: ozark hilljilly
The most dangerous words to a child are: "Say Hi to mommy's new boyfriend!"

That bears repeating.

62 posted on 11/02/2011 2:30:23 PM PDT by BfloGuy (Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shoff

“Positively no dogs allowed,
except for seeing-eye dogs.”


63 posted on 11/02/2011 2:38:50 PM PDT by Erasmus (I love "The Raven," but then what do I know? I'm just a poetaster.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Bike Vomit Carnage
 

 

64 posted on 11/02/2011 2:46:08 PM PDT by Incorrigible (If I lead, follow me; If I pause, push me; If I retreat, kill me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone
Note to all the druggie libertarians: this is another example of how drugs - somehow, someway - end up hurting innocent people, in this case someone who never even got a chance at life. Maybe you should lay off the ‘drugs are a victimless crime’ crap and grow up.

I'm a semi-libertarian. For most libertarians I know who are opposed to the War on Drugs, it's not that there's a desire for drugs, it's that the War on Drugs has an impact on our society that seems worse than the impact of drug use: restrictions on civil liberties and privacy as a result of the drug war; gang fights for drug turf; etc.

65 posted on 11/02/2011 2:49:39 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. Barbarism must always ultimately triumph.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OrangeHoof

“Trust me,” my friend said. “You do not want to have a child named ‘Jane Do’. Just trust me on this...”

A coworker’s first name choice for her expected daughter would have given her the initials “E.Z.” I pointed that out to her and she went with plan B.


66 posted on 11/02/2011 3:14:51 PM PDT by PLMerite (Shut the Beyotch Down! Burn, baby, burn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

Until about the age of two, you can’t trust a baby to be alone for even a minute.

But I think, after the age of two, you can start letting the child have a sense of independence in small amounts.


67 posted on 11/02/2011 4:58:01 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jonty30

wow you mean you never slept for 2 years? or did you take turns with your spouse and stare at him all through each night for 2 years?


68 posted on 11/02/2011 5:40:58 PM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Cain 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: TexasFreeper2009

I’m talking about during the waking hours.

During the sleeping hours, is probably fine. :)


69 posted on 11/02/2011 5:44:50 PM PDT by Jonty30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83
Are you serious?

Like friggin' heart attack, Mr. Ratman. I'm joyful your situation is a happy one. That usually is the case with normal, STABLE individuals. Sadly, we read and hear all too often of kids who start having kids young, no stable home life and no regular good male influence. Just a series of drunken and/or drug addled "boyfriends" who have no interest in the kids and eventually lose their cool with them because they are a glaring reminder that their love monkey was plooking someone else before them. THAT is where my remark was aimed. I'm sure you knew that.

For the record I lost my husband when my kids were young. It never occurred to me to run out and find another man. I didn't want to "replace" their daddy who loved them with all his might.

70 posted on 11/03/2011 5:16:27 AM PDT by ozark hilljilly (Tagline typed on a closed keyboard. Do not attempt. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ozark hilljilly

Who said anything about replacing the dad. If people where to take your view then Susan Smith is how some will look at mothers. I perfer to look at each case and person, generalizations to easy.


71 posted on 11/03/2011 7:18:43 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
“I'm a semi-libertarian. For most libertarians I know who are opposed to the War on Drugs, it's not that there's a desire for drugs, it's that the War on Drugs has an impact on our society that seems worse than the impact of drug use: restrictions on civil liberties and privacy as a result of the drug war; gang fights for drug turf; etc.”

Point well taken; I share that view on the so-callled war on drugs.

My original post was meant for those who clothe themselves in the libertarian blanket when all they really care about is the price and availability of drugs for their personal use. As I alluded to earlier, the rationale that drug use is always or mostly a victimless crime does not hold water when one looks at the evidence, such as in the above article. I have also witnessed things throughout my own life.

Even so, a free society based on person responsibility trumps the ‘evils’ of drugs, guns,...even jumping off bridges. I am only acknowledging that, like fire, these things are beneficial but can also be harmful to oneself and/or others.

72 posted on 11/03/2011 10:12:31 AM PDT by MichaelCorleone (Doesn't anyone love liberty anymore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MichaelCorleone
Even so, a free society based on person responsibility trumps the ‘evils’ of drugs, guns,...even jumping off bridges. I am only acknowledging that, like fire, these things are beneficial but can also be harmful to oneself and/or others.

The reason I maintain my position is that, prior to the 1900's, opium, cocaine, and other substances were, for the most part, legally available, and the United States managed to survive. The feds only really started regulating access to the above drugs in the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Tax Act. Meanwhile, drugs were not a visible scourge in our cities until after Congress passed things like the Boggs Act of 1952 and the Narcotics Control Act of 1956.

Each attempt to enforce the "Drug War" actually made things worse.

73 posted on 11/03/2011 10:34:36 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (Civilization is unnatural. It is a whim of circumstance. Barbarism must always ultimately triumph.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Ratman83

Oh dear...What I meant by that was that most of these girl-women can’t seem to function without a boyfriend, no matter how useless in their lives. Their self worth is tied to attracting a man and keeping them, often at the risk of the safety and security of their children. This plays out with alarming frequency here in the rural Ozarks, since jobs are few and drug abuse and alcoholism is rampant. It’s a generational thing here. So my view is tinted by seeing it so often.

Granted, our sitch was different, but I’ve shown and taught mine by example that they shouldn’t link their worthiness as a human being to having a boyfriend around and that bad choices domino into poverty and despair. That’s all I was meaning by that. (Now once they are grown and out of the house, and I’m old and alone I just might take up with some old, gray and feeble feller just for company. But right now that ain’t in the cards and oddly, I’m very content about that.)


74 posted on 11/03/2011 5:29:06 PM PDT by ozark hilljilly (Tagline typed on a closed keyboard. Do not attempt. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ozark hilljilly
that most of these girl-women can’t seem to function without a boyfriend, no matter how useless in their lives. for many it seems to be how they were raised and how mommy was.

The problem is two-fold women who have no spine and predatory males who should be castrated or killed when they commit their crimes. Family used to be how these situations were kept under control, now not so much many families no longer look after their own. I commend you on your family dedication.

75 posted on 11/04/2011 5:08:57 AM PDT by Ratman83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-75 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson