Order yours at Amazon.com
Posted on 10/21/2005 12:50:33 PM PDT by SmithL
Members of the family of La-shuan Ternice Harris said they had argued that the 23-year-old woman was unstable and unfit to care for her boys -- 6-year-old Trayshaun Harris, 2-year-old Taronta Greely Jr. and 16-month-old Joshua Greely.
They had given up trying by Wednesday, when Harris went to the home of a cousin and told her she was going to feed her children to the sharks.
The cousin tried frantically to prevent Harris from leaving for San Francisco with her boys, but she failed, relatives said. At 5:30 p.m., police said, Harris took the children to the end of Pier 7 along the Embarcadero, stripped them naked and threw them in the water.
Taronta's body washed up more than four hours later at Fort Mason. The bodies of the other two children have not been found, and the Coast Guard suspended its search late Thursday, about the time Harris was formally charged with three counts of murder and three counts of child assault.
Her aunt, Joyce Harris of Oakland, said Thursday that Lashuan Harris' mother had contacted Alameda County social services officials about three months ago to seek partial custody of the children because Harris had stopped taking medication for schizophrenia and had made threats regarding the boys.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
I'm confused. Why do all these "mentally ill" women kill their kids but not kill themselves?
Why is it that in these situations, it always seems that the violence is aimed outwards and never towards self?
Michael Savage quit social work when he found out the bums he was serving were making more than him.
"What is this filed under?"
I'd file it under: Mental illness is the worst.
Even when the family is involved and trying to help insane people can get the better (or worse) of them. I do wonder how this women was able to throw these three children in the water at 5:30 in the evening, the place doesn't sound like some deserted area to me, but of course I could be wrong.
So where's the father in all of this?
Seems to me that should have been considered a physical threat and acted upon accordingly. There are other ways than a "mental illness" determinant to handle matters.
I'd have done the same thing you advocate !
You would rather trust a government bureaucracy ? Not me. We've become so conditioned to letting the government handle all life's problems that we've become incapable of acting for ourselves.
The Jackson case in New Jersey is just one illustration. Those kids, as I recall, were seen by social workers over 34 times in a year, yet not one social worker noticed any problems in the house or with the kids or the parents.
IMO government workers under the chief executive level simply follow rules and do not have the ability or the mandate to think for themselves; therefore they are ineffective in most situations requiring thought and analysis and action.
I wouldn't trust my dog with any state's child protective services, nor do I trust most psychiatrists/psychologists.
As you point out in other posts, people expect the government to "do something," and so they don't take common sense actions themselves ... like restraining a woman who says she's going to feed three children to the sharks!
Now it's true, I've been known to say that I'm going to take the baby and the credit cards and head for the airport, but I'm NOT known to be off my schizophrenia meds :-).
That's the thing--for every story where soc services intervened inappropriately there are 100 stories where they did nothing in the face of true evidence children were being endangered.
No, but a *diagnosis* of mental illess *plus* the prescription of medicine *plus* threats serious enough to prompt *family members* to see agency intervention should have triggered a thorough investigation, at the least.
Yes, they should have barred the door, let the air out of her tires and called the police.
The sad thing is that the police probably would not have done anything, seeing as social services didn't do anything.
Sure it is. Read the DSM and see for yourself.
From the definition:
There is currently no physical or lab test that can absolutely diagnose schizophrenia - a psychiatrist usually comes to the diagnosis based on clinical symptoms. What physical testing can do is rule out a lot of other conditions (seizure disorders, metabolic disorders, thyroid disfunction, brain tumor, street drug use, etc) that sometimes have similar symptoms.
And further:
People diagnosed with schizophrenia usually experience a combination of positive and negative symptoms. These may include (but are not limited to) racing or uncontrollable thoughts, uncontrollable mannerisms, talking to yourself, paranoia, hallucinations or delusions, sensing that people are following or talking to you, insomnia.
So, what some might think is schizophrenic behavior might be an underlying physical ailment that goes undiagnosed, or a temporary condition that improves when something that is worrying and causing insomnia (like drug abuse, an imminent job loss or wondering where you'll get food for tomorrow) gets resolved.
No mental illness is objective - if it was it'd be a disease of the body. The brain is an organ too, and we have neurologists who repair brain diseases. It's a crucial distinction.
Where did you get that opinion? I don't think you can defend that assertion in the face of these facts. The official figures don't support your statement.
Well, I've said much the same myself. I'm a gonna buy a Harley and head west (I'm in the East). When I see the Pacific, I'll head south until I see the Gulf. Then I'll head north...
you get the picture ;)
Puhleeze. When there is doubt, err on the side of the safety of the child. Failure to do so can have pretty awful results.
The key was, I had developed a relationship with her - even though her parents never married. She knew who loved her and who to call when her mother abandoned her. She was six. She just turned 13 - and she's doing just great!
I hate it when the little ones slip through the cracks. Yet it is easy to forget what it was like to be a child now that I am grown.
That would be my guess, too.
Order yours at Amazon.com
From the names, probably "fathers." Er, "sperm donors."
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.