View Full Version : Bricktown Shooter: parents arrested dozens of times



Pages : [1] 2

Pete
06-03-2012, 06:25 PM
Newsok.com had a comprehensive story on the background of the 16 year-old that has reportedly confessed to shooting 8 people in Bricktown, Avery Meyers Jr.:

http://newsok.com/bricktown-shootings-suspect-grew-up-around-violence/article/3681113


Highlights (or more appropriately, low-lights):

Father has been arrested more than 20 times
Mother arrested many times; recently evicted
Long history of domestic violence between parents
Mother was 15 when he was born; one of 8 kids (not sure if he's even the oldest)
Stopped going to school back in August at age 15


What an absolute mess of a family. And there are seven more kids in this environment.


What is society to do in these situations?? This kid had been expelled for fighting, sat around watching gang movies, has horrific parents... And everyone just stands by until he starts spraying bullets into a crowd.

I don't have answers but this is a much bigger issue than Thunder Alley and that one night.

We all want to hold people accountable for their actions but he's only 16 and seemed to never really have a chance in life.

Easy180
06-03-2012, 07:05 PM
Read that this morning and thought the same...No surprise at all with those gems as parents...Not sure much can be done when parents only live for themselves...Only hope would have been grandparents willing to really step up

kevinpate
06-03-2012, 07:16 PM
...Only hope would have been grandparents willing to really step up

Not the only hope, but cetainly a hope. Others to step up could include a variety of folk, from a caring teacher (as in above and beyond the call caring), neighbor, parents or other relatives of a close friend, someone who was close to the family and in a more stable circumstance than his family, someone from a church or other outreach. I'm not suggesting a takes a village mantra, but sometimes the person who steps forward comes from outside the immediate family or even the extended family.

It is a shame the young man didn't have better raising and better impulse controls. He has severely mussed up a number of lives in addition to his own.

Just the facts
06-03-2012, 07:52 PM
The disintegration of the black family didn't happened in a vacuum all by itself. We have been going down the wrong road for a long time and maybe we need re-evaluate a lot of past decisions.

Roadhawg
06-03-2012, 08:34 PM
The disintegration of the black family didn't happened in a vacuum all by itself. We have been going down the wrong road for a long time and maybe we need re-evaluate a lot of past decisions.

Like which ones?

Spartan
06-03-2012, 08:49 PM
I first scoffed when I saw the suggestion on the news (from one of the victims) of praying for the shooter. Now I get it.

This is one of those only in America phenomenons. People who can't provide a good home life should not be procreating. A child is not a blessing. It is a responsibility. We have a totally screwed up society that is jubilant at child birth and irresponsible at child rearing - and it is a heightened situation the lower down the socioeconomic totem pole you go, regardless of race. I think poor whites are worse.

Midtowner
06-03-2012, 09:17 PM
Sounds like the kid and all of his siblings should have been in foster homes.

This is why I volunteer here.

http://www.oklahomalawyersforchildren.camp9.org/

PennyQuilts
06-03-2012, 10:01 PM
It doesn't matter the race and I can't imagine the basis of saying poor white parents are worse than poor black parents - or vice versa. If you have horrible parents living in horrible neighborhoods the poor kids' best hope - maybe only hope - is a responsible extended family member stepping in and rescuing them. The next best thing is for the state to step in and remove the child from the home and get them out of that violent, dysfunctional mess. I personally think it is misguided how hard the state tries to keep children in dysfunctional, violent homes when the best thing that could happen would be to rescue the child before his or her life is destroyed. I don't mean they should take the child - usually, I think they should throw their weight behind extended family and support them in getting custody. It is not a perfect solution but it beats heck out of leaving a child in a violent, terrible home or placing them in foster care.

But to get back to the problems of black families, my observation is that, so often responsible extended family members are fairly distant. Having dysfuctional children/grand children abusing drugs, being in and out of the criminal justice system and/or living a life that rejects values they hold close invariably results in a splintering of family, eventually. We've all seen nice families with a troubled family member who just wears out his brothers and sisters if not his parents. Due to that dynamic, so many black kids are often left in the charge of awful parents with fewer responsible extended members available to intervene. After several generations of this, grandma may be close by but just as messed up as the mother because this has been going on for several generations. And yet, their cousins might not have gone that route and would be wonderful homes if they had any influence over the situation or made themselves available.

At this point in time, a lot of simply awful white parents still have extended family with some sense nearby that might step in, but in another generation or so many will be far enough removed from responsible relatives that the troubled white kids will be in the same boat as so many of today's troubled black kids. Twenty years ago when I was working at the district attorney's office, I would see "poor white trash" come in on charges. It was about half and half - the first half frequently brought their kids and they were in dirty clothes that looked like they came out of a rag bag. They ran around practically unsupervised with no toys brought along to keep them occupied. No grandparents came to support them or if they did, they looked like meth heads. Those kids were in a second or third generation of dysfunctionality.

The other half would be young white parents who looked pretty scruggy but their nicely dressed parents would be there and, invariably, the children would be well dressed (in clothes bought by grandma, no doubt), with toys to play with to keep them occupied and a courtroom that had a number of responsible looking families members there for support even for minor hearings. All the difference in the world and still time for a family to turn around a downward spiral into poverty and all that goes with it.

But it isn't just about being poor - a well off parent who is working and married, living in a nice home can still be a clueless parent who doesn't understand what parenting is all about. We see them all the time letting their little darlings run wild in public being nuisances. But those poor neglected kids won't have the same skill sets their parents were taught and the whole thing is just tragic.

And single parenthood - which hits younger parents and poorer people in far greater numbers - is just so hard. I recall one particular time as a guardian ad litem being in a restaurant with a nice single young mother of a four year old who was running absolutely wild. "I can't control him," sez she. Well, she didn't even try. I finally looked at her and said, "You do realize this is the most control you will ever have over that child? What is he going to be doing in ten years, do you suppose?" She just shrugged. Fact is, she was a nice girl but exhausted trying to raise a child on her own. She loved him but without the father supporting her (and I don't just mean financially) and without family close by to help her, she was just treading water on a good day. Single parenthood is a recipe for disaster, so often. Certainly it can be done and has been done, but for those people on the edge, it is often just too much. Moreover, their personal lives often tend to be chaotic because they are raising children and trying to date at the same time with all the drama that goes along with that. I feel sorry for all of them. That being said, we can't have people spraying a crowd with bullets. That is a person so damaged that he or she must be removed from society until they can get themselves under control.

Stew
06-03-2012, 10:06 PM
Why did this turn into a racial thing?

PennyQuilts
06-03-2012, 10:11 PM
Why did this turn into a racial thing?

It didn't have to. Still, a lot of people are frustrated with senseless violent crime that seems to come more heavily than you'd expect, based on the numbers, from the black community. And the numbers truly are stunning and tragic. That being said, in my opinion, you get the same result from young people if you raise them so poorly no matter what race they are.

Spartan
06-03-2012, 10:36 PM
It doesn't matter the race and I can't imagine the basis of saying poor white parents are worse than poor black parents - or vice versa. If you have horrible parents living in horrible neighborhoods the poor kids' best hope - maybe only hope - is a responsible extended family member stepping in and rescuing them. The next best thing is for the state to step in and remove the child from the home and get them out of that violent, dysfunctional mess. I personally think it is misguided how hard the state tries to keep children in dysfunctional, violent homes when the best thing that could happen would be to rescue the child before his or her life is destroyed. I don't mean they should take the child - usually, I think they should throw their weight behind extended family and support them in getting custody. It is not a perfect solution but it beats heck out of leaving a child in a violent, terrible home or placing them in foster care.

But to get back to the problems of black families, my observation is that, so often responsible extended family members are fairly distant. Having dysfuctional children/grand children abusing drugs, being in and out of the criminal justice system and/or living a life that rejects values they hold close invariably results in a splintering of family, eventually. We've all seen nice families with a troubled family member who just wears out his brothers and sisters if not his parents. Due to that dynamic, so many black kids are often left in the charge of awful parents with fewer responsible extended members available to intervene. After several generations of this, grandma may be close by but just as messed up as the mother because this has been going on for several generations. And yet, their cousins might not have gone that route and would be wonderful homes if they had any influence over the situation or made themselves available.

At this point in time, a lot of simply awful white parents still have extended family with some sense nearby that might step in, but in another generation or so many will be far enough removed from responsible relatives that the troubled white kids will be in the same boat as so many of today's troubled black kids. Twenty years ago when I was working at the district attorney's office, I would see "poor white trash" come in on charges. It was about half and half - the first half frequently brought their kids and they were in dirty clothes that looked like they came out of a rag bag. They ran around practically unsupervised with no toys brought along to keep them occupied. No grandparents came to support them or if they did, they looked like meth heads. Those kids were in a second or third generation of dysfunctionality.

The other half would be young white parents who looked pretty scruggy but their nicely dressed parents would be there and, invariably, the children would be well dressed (in clothes bought by grandma, no doubt), with toys to play with to keep them occupied and a courtroom that had a number of responsible looking families members there for support even for minor hearings. All the difference in the world and still time for a family to turn around a downward spiral into poverty and all that goes with it.

But it isn't just about being poor - a well off parent who is working and married, living in a nice home can still be a clueless parent who doesn't understand what parenting is all about. We see them all the time letting their little darlings run wild in public being nuisances. But those poor neglected kids won't have the same skill sets their parents were taught and the whole thing is just tragic.

And single parenthood - which hits younger parents and poorer people in far greater numbers - is just so hard. I recall one particular time as a guardian ad litem being in a restaurant with a nice single young mother of a four year old who was running absolutely wild. "I can't control him," sez she. Well, she didn't even try. I finally looked at her and said, "You do realize this is the most control you will ever have over that child? What is he going to be doing in ten years, do you suppose?" She just shrugged. Fact is, she was a nice girl but exhausted trying to raise a child on her own. She loved him but without the father supporting her (and I don't just mean financially) and without family close by to help her, she was just treading water on a good day. Single parenthood is a recipe for disaster, so often. Certainly it can be done and has been done, but for those people on the edge, it is often just too much. Moreover, their personal lives often tend to be chaotic because they are raising children and trying to date at the same time with all the drama that goes along with that. I feel sorry for all of them. That being said, we can't have people spraying a crowd with bullets. That is a person so damaged that he or she must be removed from society until they can get themselves under control.

Penny, could you give us a cliff notes version? :tongue:

adaniel
06-03-2012, 11:04 PM
I first scoffed when I saw the suggestion on the news (from one of the victims) of praying for the shooter. Now I get it.

This is one of those only in America phenomenons. People who can't provide a good home life should not be procreating. A child is not a blessing. It is a responsibility. We have a totally screwed up society that is jubilant at child birth and irresponsible at child rearing - and it is a heightened situation the lower down the socioeconomic totem pole you go, regardless of race. I think poor whites are worse.

This is so true it is not even funny.

I cannot believe the increasing flippancy that some people (regardless of race) approach the issue of child rearing. Everyone is so excited when a woman announces her pregnancy, then is nowhere to be found when the kid pops out. Someone recently told me that they were ready to have a kid because they wanted "something to love." Really?!? If you need something to love go get a beagle! You are talking about a human being.

I have seen so many other people get pregnant with no resources and simply say, "we'll work it out." I seriously want to slap these people because their stupidity is just maddening. I also pray for their children. These kids coming into these homes seriously have no chance. More than anything else this is the reason for birth control. I know people have legitimate objections to abortions. But I really wish more people, instead of lying to themselves that they can raise a kid when they clearly cannot, would look into adoptions.

Also if you think this is a "minority thing" I think you are very mistaken. I would recommend you read "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. He quite a conservative guy, yet in his book he details may issues that are now plaguing the white working class in this country, many of which are not that different from the AA community, including the haphazard way many are approaching child rearing.

Just the facts
06-03-2012, 11:11 PM
You think all of this might cause some people to say, you know - legalizing drugs might not be a good idea after all because drug addicted people make bad parents. I doubt that will happen though. Anyone have any thoughts on replacing fathers with a non-judgemental, non-loving, and non-nurturing government check?

Sheetkeecker
06-04-2012, 06:49 AM
Newsok.com had a comprehensive story on the background of the 16 year-old that has reportedly confessed to shooting 8 people in Bricktown, Avery Meyers Jr.:

http://newsok.com/bricktown-shootings-suspect-grew-up-around-violence/article/3681113


Highlights (or more appropriately, low-lights):

Father has been arrested more than 20 times
Mother arrested many times; recently evicted
Long history of domestic violence between parents
Mother was 15 when he was born; one of 8 kids (not sure if he's even the oldest)
Stopped going to school back in August at age 15


What an absolute mess of a family. And there are seven more kids in this environment.


What is society to do in these situations?? This kid had been expelled for fighting, sat around watching gang movies, has horrific parents... And everyone just stands by until he starts spraying bullets into a crowd.

I don't have answers but this is a much bigger issue than Thunder Alley and that one night.

We all want to hold people accountable for their actions but he's only 16 and seemed to never really have a chance in life.


Is this not precisely why people have passed "three-time-loser" laws?
Three felonies, and you get Life, or until you are too feeble to offend.
It is a sad-but-necessary-part of having a civilized society.
Failure to do so, means this will continue and expand, exponentially.

Roadhawg
06-04-2012, 06:56 AM
I first scoffed when I saw the suggestion on the news (from one of the victims) of praying for the shooter. Now I get it.

This is one of those only in America phenomenons. People who can't provide a good home life should not be procreating. A child is not a blessing. It is a responsibility. We have a totally screwed up society that is jubilant at child birth and irresponsible at child rearing - and it is a heightened situation the lower down the socioeconomic totem pole you go, regardless of race. I think poor whites are worse.

I not only pray for the victims but for the shooter and his siblings too.

Pete
06-04-2012, 07:05 AM
It's a funny thing... Almost everyone would agree that adults should be held responsible for their actions. That's basically what everyone is saying here about the parents.

But, his parents were probably brought up in a very similar way. His mom had him when she was just 15, after all.


It's such a hard line to try and draw, isn't it? Almost everyone agrees this 16 year-old shooter never had a real chance in life, yet if this had happened when he was a couple of years older, there wouldn't be nearly the sympathy.

Sheetkeecker
06-04-2012, 07:08 AM
it's a funny thing... Almost everyone would agree that adults should be held responsible for their actions. That's basically what everyone is saying here about the parents.

But, his parents were probably brought up in a very similar way. His mom had him when she was just 15, after all.


It's such a hard line to try and draw, isn't it? Almost everyone agrees this 16 year-old shooter never had a real chance in life, yet if this had happened when he was a couple of years older, there wouldn't be nearly the sympathy.

Tough Love.
Parents will understand this.

PennyQuilts
06-04-2012, 07:31 AM
Penny, could you give us a cliff notes version? :tongue:


It is a complicated issue that doesn't lend itself to sound bites. All too easy to say this is bad, this is good but it does a horrible disservice to children who are impacted. There are a lot of ways to get to poor, a lot of ways to get to tragedy. A lot of ways to address it, some work well and others not so much.

PennyQuilts
06-04-2012, 07:42 AM
This is so true it is not even funny.

I cannot believe the increasing flippancy that some people (regardless of race) approach the issue of child rearing. Everyone is so excited when a woman announces her pregnancy, then is nowhere to be found when the kid pops out. Someone recently told me that they were ready to have a kid because they wanted "something to love." Really?!? If you need something to love go get a beagle! You are talking about a human being.

I have seen so many other people get pregnant with no resources and simply say, "we'll work it out." I seriously want to slap these people because their stupidity is just maddening. I also pray for their children. These kids coming into these homes seriously have no chance. More than anything else this is the reason for birth control. I know people have legitimate objections to abortions. But I really wish more people, instead of lying to themselves that they can raise a kid when they clearly cannot, would look into adoptions.

Also if you think this is a "minority thing" I think you are very mistaken. I would recommend you read "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray. He quite a conservative guy, yet in his book he details may issues that are now plaguing the white working class in this country, many of which are not that different from the AA community, including the haphazard way many are approaching child rearing.

That is part of the problem with the argument people have with abortion, so many times (not to change the subject). You always hear the argument that "every child should be wanted" with the stereotypical notion that the abused/neglected kids were an accident and because of that their parents didn't want them and treat them badly. That typically isn't the reality. The ones with doubts about having a child often turn into fantastic parents because they are realistic and with goals a baby can upend - thus the angst. But they also are the best equipped, so many times, to adjust to a new reality. The ones who end up abusing and neglected their kids, most of the time, are the ones who want them for all the wrong reasons - primarily to give their empty lives meaning. You go to the pound and see all the pups abandoned and abused as soon as they got aggravating - that is a close approximation of what happens to abused and neglected children, sadly. Unfortunately, the kids aren't just dropped off by families that move onto something else - they are left in abusive, neglectful families and when they are big enough, it is like turning an enraged pit bull on society. No offense to pit bulls.

And I completely agree with you that this isn't a race issue. The AA community has led the way down a path of distruction but many trashy white people are doing exactly the same thing at a break neck pace and in ever incresing numbers.

PennyQuilts
06-04-2012, 07:42 AM
I not only pray for the victims but for the shooter and his siblings too.

Absolutely.

Pete
06-04-2012, 08:27 AM
I just read that births to unwed mothers in the U.S. has increased from 5% in 1960 to 37% (!) in 2005. Fully 70% (!!) of African Americans are born to unwed mothers.

Certainly, there are lots of unmarried women that provide great environments for children, but these numbers and trends are staggering.

Sheetkeecker
06-04-2012, 08:39 AM
I just read that births to unwed mothers in the U.S. has increased from 5% in 1960 to 37% (!) in 2005. Fully 70% (!!) of African Americans are born to unwed mothers.

Certainly, there are lots of unmarried women that provide great environments for children, but these numbers and trends are staggering.

Most single mothers do an heroic job raising children on their own.
They are simply overwhelmed by culture and societal forces and "the hood" when it comes to raising boys without fathers.
Check out prisons. How many had fathers, real fathers who participated, in their homes?
It is simple cause-and-effect.

Richard at Remax
06-04-2012, 08:39 AM
Unfortunately for the child the mothers are seeing each kid as another couple hundred dollar paycheck from the gov't. No emotional attachment to the child so they dont care.

Just the facts
06-04-2012, 08:39 AM
...Certainly, there are lots of unmarried women that provide great environments for children,...

This simply isn't possible. Until we start telling the truth we can't implement a solution. Children need a loving mother AND father. Anything short of that isn't a great environment, no matter how great the mother is at her half of the equation.

RadicalModerate
06-04-2012, 08:50 AM
This simply isn't possible. Until we start telling the truth we can't implement a solution. Children need a loving mother AND father. Anything short of that isn't a great environment, no matter how great the mother is at her half of the equation.

So . . . How does that paradigm align with The Ghey Civilmarriage Movement?
Not to mention the FederalDHS Take'sAVillageChildRearing Centers that are on the drawing boards?

Even if I agree with you, it still sounds like Non-Millennialist NeanderthalOldeSchoolTraditionalFamilycentrism.
Not that there's anything "wrong"with that . . .

Back, For The Future!

NoOkie
06-04-2012, 10:43 AM
This simply isn't possible. Until we start telling the truth we can't implement a solution. Children need a loving mother AND father. Anything short of that isn't a great environment, no matter how great the mother is at her half of the equation.

I think this is false. My sister and I were raised by our mother. My dad paid his child support, and we went to stay with him on vacation, but he's a complicated, emotionally distant person. He never related to well to kids including the ones from his second marriage. My mother is a fantastic woman who did a lot for us. My sister and I reasonably successful(My sister much more so than I), reasonably well adjusted happy people.

What children need for emotional development are good role models who care about them, not a male parent and a female parent in the same home. Certainly being a single mother is hard, and coupling that with poverty reduces the chances for a good outcome, but many single mothers provide great environments for their children every day, in every part of the country.

The problem with this kid and the thousands(millions?) like him is a socio-economic problem that has more to do with education and income than anything else.

Also, marriage isn't always the indicator of a two parent household. It's super common in Quebec(Something like 60% according to an article I read) for couples, even with children, to not get married. It's not real common in the US, but it does occur.

Pete
06-04-2012, 10:51 AM
The problem with this kid and the thousands(millions?) like him is a socio-economic problem that has more to do with education and income than anything else.

I agree with most of your post but I'm not sure about this part.

Both the shooter and the other kid that was initially arrested were in the Putnam City school system. I know PC schools are not what they used to be but still, their API scores are pretty decent. There are tons of kids that come out of those schools and go on to great colleges and beyond. I have several nieces and nephews that have graduated from PC and PCW recently.

However, this kid stopped going to school at age 15. That is completely on the parents. In fact, the schools had the mother served with a misdemeanor for not having him in school. What else could the school system have done here?

By far his biggest issue was his home life and his parents. I'm sure they are low income but he had the opportunity to get a good education and threw it away, and there was no adult in his life to kick him in the tail and keep him going, much less stress the importance of school.

RadicalModerate
06-04-2012, 10:55 AM
The problem with this kid and the thousands(millions?) like him is a socio-economic problem that has more to do with education and income than anything else.

Actually, isn't the problem with THIS kid (as compared with the other thousands(millions?) like him) that he "thought" it would be a good idea to open up on a crowd of people with a gun?

I know . . . I know . . . "personal accountability for one's actions" . . . dinosaur thinking.
Of COURSE this mindless anomaly is Society's Child . . . and "Society" needs to accept the blame.
Too bad that Janis Ian or Joan Baez aren't around to write a song about him . . .
Maybe they could get the victims to join hands and sing the chorus in the background . . .

Pete
06-04-2012, 11:06 AM
The problem with this kid and the thousands(millions?) like him is a socio-economic problem that has more to do with education and income than anything else.

Actually, isn't the problem with THIS kid (as compared with the other thousands(millions?) like him) that he "thought" it would be a good idea to open up on a crowd of people with a gun?

I know . . . I know . . . "personal accountability for one's actions" . . . dinosaur thinking.
Of COURSE this mindless anomaly is Society's Child . . . and "Society" needs to accept the blame.
Too bad that Janis Ian or Joan Baez aren't around to write a song about him . . .
Maybe they could get the victims to join hands and sing the chorus in the background . . .

This kid is going to get dealt with through the correctional system. He's been arrested, supposedly confessed and we have plenty of infrastructure to deal with convicted criminals.

But that is all after the fact. 8 people have already been shot and one of the coolest, most unique experiences ever in OKC is forever ruined along with the city's reputation. AND, there are still seven other kids growing up in the exact same environment that produced this result; not to mention the thousands more in the area in pretty much the same circumstances.


The issue is: What does the broader society do about the underlying issues that led to all of this?

We can sit by and just wait for more crime and then hope to catch the responsible parties and lock them up... But this one incident graphically illustrates the consequences of that approach.

If anyone had really had their eye on this kid they would have seen this coming a mile away.

NoOkie
06-04-2012, 11:08 AM
I agree with most of your post but I'm not sure about this part.

Both the shooter and the other kid that was initially arrested were in the Putnam City school system. I know PC schools are not what they used to be but still, their API scores are pretty decent. There are tons of kids that come out of those schools and go on to great colleges and beyond. I have several nieces and nephews that have graduated from PC and PCW recently.

However, this kid stopped going to school at age 15. That is completely on the parents. In fact, the schools had the mother served with a misdemeanor for not having him in school. What else could have the school system done here?

By far his biggest issue was his home life and his parents. I'm sure they are low income but he had the opportunity to get a good education and threw it away, and there was no adult in his life to kick him in the tail and keep him going, much less stress the importance of school.

I think it's a bigger problem than one person deciding to not take the opportunity of education. I hate to bring up race again, but my understanding is that there's a lot of social pressure in black, urban societies to NOT get an education or at least to highly undervalue one. I suspect the same problem existed with his parents. It's a complex issue that I don't really understand, though I think it shows up in other subcultures as well. Probably a contributing factor.



Actually, isn't the problem with THIS kid (as compared with the other thousands(millions?) like him) that he "thought" it would be a good idea to open up on a crowd of people with a gun?

I know . . . I know . . . "personal accountability for one's actions" . . . dinosaur thinking.
Of COURSE this mindless anomaly is Society's Child . . . and "Society" needs to accept the blame.
Too bad that Janis Ian or Joan Baez aren't around to write a song about him . . .
Maybe they could get the victims to join hands and sing the chorus in the background . . .

Or, you know, we could be taking a look at the factors that led to this kid and the thousands of other ones that are currently incarcerated for a variety of crimes, to lack that personal accountability. Personal Accountability isn't a switch in someone's head that they turn off because they feel like it. Ethics and morals are something taught by the family and the community a child develops in. I think it's obvious that this child didn't have many teachers. His family and environment basically set him up to fail. If it wasn't this shooting, it would certainly be something else. Believe it or not, it is possible to examine the societal causes of something without absolving someone of responsibility for their actions.

NoOkie
06-04-2012, 11:09 AM
This kid is going to get dealt with through the correctional system. He's been arrested, supposedly confessed and we have plenty of infrastructure to deal with convicted criminals.

But that is all after the fact. 8 people have already been shot and one of the coolest, most unique experiences ever in OKC is forever ruined along with the city's reputation. AND, there are still seven other kids growing up in the exact same environment that produced this result; not to mention the thousands more in the area in pretty much the same circumstances.


The issue is: What does the broader society do about the underlying issues that led to all of this?

We can sit by and just wait for more crime and then hope to catch the responsible parties and lock them up... But this one incident graphically illustrates the consequences of that approach.

If anyone had really had their eye on this kid they would have seen this coming a mile away.

No Pete, we're supposed to sit on the porch in a rocking chair with a piece of straw in our mouths yelling "BOOTSTRAPS" at everything.

Pete
06-04-2012, 11:30 AM
I think it's a bigger problem than one person deciding to not take the opportunity of education. I hate to bring up race again, but my understanding is that there's a lot of social pressure in black, urban societies to NOT get an education or at least to highly undervalue one. I suspect the same problem existed with his parents. It's a complex issue that I don't really understand, though I think it shows up in other subcultures as well. Probably a contributing factor.

Fair and important point.

For those that don't know, for years I ran a nonprofit for at-risk teenagers in a very rough area of Los Angeles. We primarily worked in local high schools and provided mentoring and counseling in a variety of after-school programs.

The problems these kids face are extremely complex and there are no easy answers. I could write books on what I experienced and learned, most of which was shocking and different than I had expected.

However, the peer-pressure thing is very real when it comes to both the black and Hispanic communities. A common put-down in those schools is to call someone a "school boy", which basically means they are good in school and take it too seriously. There is also the common thought that buying into school and conforming to social protocol when it comes to dress of behavior is "acting white", and again routinely discouraged by their peers. The effect of these influences are incredibly strong.

At the same time, most Asian and Eastern European cultures (big Armenian & Ukrainian communities out here) have the exact opposite attitude about education. We rarely saw any of those kids because they were focused on school.


It is my strong opinion that young people only know what they see, and that comes from their parents, extended family, their neighborhood and schoolmates. What we tried to do -- with limited success -- was provide them another perspective. Open their ideas to other ways of thinking and to provide responsible adults that were available to them. We also recognized that college is not for everyone (despite the constant mantra of their schools) and that getting them through HS then having some sort of plan for afterward was the best thing we could do for them.

Just the facts
06-04-2012, 11:38 AM
This kid is going to get dealt with through the correctional system. He's been arrested, supposedly confessed and we have plenty of infrastructure to deal with convicted criminals.

This is the same correction system that so effectively dealt with his parents?

NoOkie
06-04-2012, 11:43 AM
Fair and important point.

For those that don't know, for years I ran a nonprofit for at-risk teenagers in a very rough area of Los Angeles. We primarily worked in local high schools and provided mentoring and counseling in a variety of after-school programs.

The problems these kids face are extremely complex and there are no easy answers. I could write books on what I experienced and learned, most of which was shocking and different than I had expected.

However, the peer-pressure thing is very real when it comes to both the black and Hispanic communities. A common put-down in those schools is to call someone a "school boy", which basically means they are good in school and take it too seriously. There is also the common thought that buying into school and conforming to social protocol when it comes to dress of behavior is "acting white", and again routinely discouraged by their peers. The effect of these influences are incredibly strong.

At the same time, most Asian and Eastern European cultures (big Armenian & Ukrainian communities out here) have the exact opposite attitude about education. We rarely saw any of those kids because they were focused on school.


It is my strong opinion that young people only know what they see, and that comes from their parents, extended family, their neighborhood and schoolmates. What we tried to do -- with limited success -- was provide them another perspective. Open their ideas to other ways of thinking and to provide responsible adults that were available to them. We also recognized that college is not for everyone (despite the constant mantra of their schools) and that getting them through HS then having some sort of plan for afterward was the best thing we could do for them.

How successful do you think your program and ones like it are? Could outcomes be improved with throwing more money at the programs, or do there need to be other, additional angles of attack?

RadicalModerate
06-04-2012, 11:46 AM
I suspect that sitting back, wringing our collective hands and saying we need a solution to "the root problem" will probably still be going on fifty years from now . . .

Of course . . . We could throw money at the problem . . . Has anyone thought of that?
Or would that just become an incentive to produce more problem children . . .
It's, like, an enigma, wrapped in a mystery, running around a Mobius Strip . . .

Maybe we need to fund a study as to why other kids from exactly the same circumstances choose NOT to pull this sort of sh--- thing?

P.S. I worked with "at-risk youth" for nine years.
Not all "at-risk youths" are the same.

Pete
06-04-2012, 12:00 PM
How successful do you think your program and ones like it are? Could outcomes be improved with throwing more money at the programs, or do there need to be other, additional angles of attack?

I was never satisfied with the impact we were able to make, but we did make a difference in some lives. Have some great success stories but the really troubled kids were too much at the mercy of their families and environment.

Also, you never know how you may have influenced a kid down the line. When I was out raising funds, I'd usually be meeting with someone like me (white, well-educated and not from these situations), I'd always ask: "How old were you when you figured out your mom and dad really knew what they were talking about?" The point being it's rarely in high school; those life lessons pounded into us by our parents usually only reveal themselves as sage wisdom when you get a little older and have already learned the hard way multiple times. And the follow up: "Do you think you would be where you are today without their guidance and expectations? Can you imagine a life where *nobody* even cares, let alone expects anything from you?"

That's where evaluating programs like this on measurable outcomes gets really tricky. We were primarily government funded through alcohol and drug programs, so we had to provide tons of data but I never felt like that was any sort of accurate measurement.

A big component of our program was a professional counseling staff and we always tried to get the family to come in for a series of professional sessions. At best, we would get the mom but even that was rare and again, any outcomes from getting that therapy were always difficult to measure. But through that process you gained an intimate knowledge of what went on in these homes and often come away thinking: Wow, it's amazing this kid isn't more screwed up.


Working with teens is tough because they are really only kids but with adult problems. They are also scary and even dangerous so the world feels better getting their photo ops giving school supplies to 2nd graders.

Pete
06-04-2012, 12:02 PM
P.S. I worked with "at-risk youth" for nine years.
Not all "at-risk youths" are the same.

Much respect to you and I never meant to imply there was any one way to approach these situations.

PennyQuilts
06-04-2012, 12:06 PM
This simply isn't possible. Until we start telling the truth we can't implement a solution. Children need a loving mother AND father. Anything short of that isn't a great environment, no matter how great the mother is at her half of the equation.

Allow me some leeway to discuss, here. I know it is going to disgust some people, especially those that don't have much of a background with zoology. I apologize in advance for offending certain sensibilities.

Domesticated animals, like dogs, tend to breed indiscriminately and rely on humans to help raise their young. Accordingly, domesticated male animals typically show no loyalty to a mate and don't stick around to raise their offspring. They don't need to for the species to survive and, in fact, it works out better for man because they can control breeding, numbers and bloodlines. Nothing controversial in that statement. It is the sort of thing that defines a domesticated animal (vs. a tamed one).

People, however, remind me of coyotes in that both are very adaptable to different environments. Unlike dogs, coyotes mate for at least the breeding season and the male sticks around to help raise the pups. They have to or the pups can't survive. They've done studies of alleged coydogs (dog/coyote crosses) and discovered that there are relatively very few of them in the wild. Male coyotes typically refuse to mate with a female dog. Female coyotes will mate with dogs but usually the pups don't survive in the wild because dogs, being domesticated, don't have any loyalty to their mate or offspring. A coyote mother in the wild usually can't raise them on her own, very successfully. She might save one or two but rarely a whole litter.

IMO, we've got a lot of people behaving more like domesticated animals than wild ones. They breed on a whim instead of as part of a long term commitment (and mind you, even male coyotes have better sense than that). As a society, we've been trying to take the place of the male but - if you will excuse the phrase - it is the tail wagging the dog. We can neuter and confine domesticated animals to control unwanted offspring but people are a different story. As long as we are content to try to domesticate people by removing any real need to mate for the duration, we are going to have this problem. And the thing is, people aren't livestock. We can't control how and when they breed and we are spending enormous sums of money to try to take the place of an intact, healthy family unit. Unsuccessfully. Anyone who thinks people aren't just another type of animal is off in some religious la la land. No, they aren't coyotes, they aren't blue birds and they aren't chimps, but it is insanity to think a single parent is equiped to raise a child without a lot of help from the rest of us. Some manage but many have no such resources and it isn't just about cash and food stamps. It is about long nights, homework, teenage angst, etc. Civilizing children is what makes them different from feral animals. Food stamps and section 8 housing is just about keeping them alive.

NoOkie, I want to say I am not impuning your mom. I am saying that for many women - perhaps most mothers, it is just too much. You described your dad paying child support and at least giving your mother a break during some holidays. Many, many poor women don't have any of that and have more chaos going on at the same time. You and your sister were from the same father and it sounds like your mother had her head on straight. It is all the more complicated to come from an environment where the mother has children by multiple men and who is willing to expose her kids to men coming in and out of their lives. Some men make great step father/role models. Some are only around for short term with no interest, or even animosity, towards existing children.

NoOkie
06-04-2012, 12:36 PM
Allow me some leeway to discuss, here. I know it is going to disgust some people, especially those that don't have much of a background with zoology. I apologize in advance for offending certain sensibilities.

Domesticated animals, like dogs, tend to breed indiscriminately and rely on humans to help raise their young. Accordingly, domesticated male animals typically show no loyalty to a mate and don't stick around to raise their offspring. They don't need to for the species to survive and, in fact, it works out better for man because they can control breeding, numbers and bloodlines. Nothing controversial in that statement. It is the sort of thing that defines a domesticated animal (vs. a tamed one).

People, however, remind me of coyotes in that both are very adaptable to different environments. Unlike dogs, coyotes mate for at least the breeding season and the male sticks around to help raise the pups. They have to or the pups can't survive. They've done studies of alleged coydogs (dog/coyote crosses) and discovered that there are relatively very few of them in the wild. Male coyotes typically refuse to mate with a female dog. Female coyotes will mate with dogs but usually the pups don't survive in the wild because dogs, being domesticated, don't have any loyalty to their mate or offspring. A coyote mother in the wild usually can't raise them on her own, very successfully. She might save one or two but rarely a whole litter.

IMO, we've got a lot of people behaving more like domesticated animals than wild ones. They breed on a whim instead of as part of a long term commitment (and mind you, even male coyotes have better sense than that). As a society, we've been trying to take the place of the male but - if you will excuse the phrase - it is the tail wagging the dog. We can neuter and confine domesticated animals to control unwanted offspring but people are a different story. As long as we are content to try to domesticate people by removing any real need to mate for the duration, we are going to have this problem. And the thing is, people aren't livestock. We can't control how and when they breed and we are spending enormous sums of money to try to take the place of an intact, healthy family unit. Unsuccessfully. Anyone who thinks people aren't just another type of animal is off in some religious la la land. No, they aren't coyotes, they aren't blue birds and they aren't chimps, but it is insanity to think a single parent is equiped to raise a child without a lot of help from the rest of us. Some manage but many have no such resources and it isn't just about cash and food stamps. It is about long nights, homework, teenage angst, etc. Civilizing children is what makes them different from feral animals. Food stamps and section 8 housing is just about keeping them alive.

NoOkie, I want to say I am not impuning your mom. I am saying that for many women - perhaps most mothers, it is just too much. You described your dad paying child support and at least giving your mother a break during some holidays. Many, many poor women don't have any of that and have more chaos going on at the same time. You and your sister were from the same father and it sounds like your mother had her head on straight. It is all the more complicated to come from an environment where the mother has children by multiple men and who is willing to expose her kids to men coming in and out of their lives. Some men make great step father/role models. Some are only around for short term with no interest, or even animosity, towards existing children.

Lot of good points here. The anecdote about my upbringing was more to counter the "Children MUST have a mother and a father present" argument, not to say that the same outcome should be expected from vastly different circumstances than my white, middle-class, surrounded by extended family one. There were definitely outside sources helping my mother raise us(Grandparents and some extended family) both with time and money.

Personally, I think we can never completely get rid of the problem(It's not new after all, just seems to be more prevalent and noticeable these days). But we can have better sex education and contraception access. Might help in reducing the number of basically unwanted children growing up semi-feral. The ones we already have...well, people like Pete and RM take their best shot and get a few victories.

Midtowner
06-04-2012, 12:52 PM
So an incompetent state child services agency will necessarily lead to feral children. Is that what you're saying Penny? I've got a little (not a lot) of experience representing children in our juvenile court system as an attorney-volunteer. That last word should strike some fear into society. That's right. Our child welfare services system is increasingly relying on volunteers, e.g., CASA or OLFC. If that doesn't just scream lack of funding at you, I don't know what will. I agree that just "throwing money" at things won't fix anything, but spending more and spending that money smart absolutely will.

Even fiscal conservatives, who only generally want to see the government spending where there's a return on investment can appreciate this.

Compare these HHS statistics between a state with relatively high child welfare spending, Massachusetts to one with a relatively low amount of per capita spending, Oklahoma.

http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/downloads/pdfs/massachusetts.pdf
http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/downloads/pdfs/oklahoma.pdf

You'll see that in Massachusetts, in 2010, 68% of families were reunified within one year. To get to reunification, typically, the parent must correct whatever the problem was in the household and then take a bunch of silly classes, submit to drug testing, etc. In Oklahoma, less than half are reunified within 1 year, 34.2% within the second year of being placed in foster care, and between years 2 and 3, we're still reunifying 11.8% there, which is ridiculous. A reunification case which takes that long should probably be a termination. Comparatively, Mass. is half that rate. Throwing money at a problem sometimes fixes the problem. Imagine that.

Now, back to the ROI. There are two major areas where states can realize a huge ROI from state investment--education and child welfare services. Both of those items invest in children to help them become productive adults. Penny's right. Without state intervention, many of these children are basically growing up feral. We can't afford to yell "bootstraps" at this problem because it is we, not the folks on welfare, who ultimately pay for the failure of society to churn out decent human beings in that we are the victims of their property crimes and often end up paying for them to be placed in prison.

We really do have a choice between higher social welfare spending now or higher corrections spending later. It sucks, but that's the choice.

Maynard
06-04-2012, 12:59 PM
Gotta love The Onion!


http://o.onionstatic.com/images/articles/article/28/28408/KellyNannyStateNinnyState-web_jpg_630x1200_upscale_q85.jpg

RadicalModerate
06-04-2012, 01:16 PM
Maynard . . . Maynard . . . Maynard . . .
(tsk x3) =)

So . . . Is it "Nature"? Is it "Nurture"?
Or is it just that the gene pool has been corrupted by Virtual Reality (and other stuff)?
(as compared to Real Reality)

I think that the hypothesis that IT (and by IT I mean The Root Problem, Cause of) is mostly about "education" and "income" is . . . less than . . . "all-inclusively accurate".

Thinking back a few years . . .
One of most "semi-sociopathic "at risk youths" that I had the rewarding challenge of dealing with was of non-African American heritage and had attended that "catholic" private school--St. . . . Something or other--over there just north of Crown Heights.

I, and all the rest of the caring and concerned participants in The Program, was/were able to move him . . . oh . . . i dunno . . . maybe thirty degrees off of "due south, straight to hell" over an 18 month period . . .

Yet, I still marvel at the fact that many kids from the bayou swampshacks and wards of "De' Boot" were much more responsive to "redirection" and "correction" . . .

Maybe it's because--in Louisiana--they never fell into the trap of referring to Hard Ass Hard Time Punishment Centers as "Correctional Facilities". They did, however, present a false image by the use of the phrase "Work Farms" . . .

BTW: Although the place I worked was Federally Funded, the staff prayed constantly and fervently every day.
Both individually and collectively. Nobody filed a lawsuit.

PennyQuilts
06-04-2012, 06:25 PM
So an incompetent state child services agency will necessarily lead to feral children. Is that what you're saying Penny? .
No, I sure didn't say that.


I've got a little (not a lot) of experience representing children in our juvenile court system as an attorney-volunteer. That last word should strike some fear into society. That's right. Our child welfare services system is increasingly relying on volunteers, e.g., CASA or OLFC. If that doesn't just scream lack of funding at you, I don't know what will. I agree that just "throwing money" at things won't fix anything, but spending more and spending that money smart absolutely will.

I have a lot of experience with this and it is, sadly, that way all over. The problem of imploding families is growing and state resources to try to address it are plummeting. Many places rely on property tax to fund services such as counseling, and with the housing bust in many parts of the country, the money just isn't there. I went though a housing bust in Virginia and it was just awful. Kids were being kept in borderline abusive homes (or, more likely, abusive homes we didn't have the goods on) because we didn't have the money to put them elsewhere. We increasingly had to rely on medicaid but even that only goes so far. I have to put a plug in for CASA - a volunteer organization that did stellar work for nothing. They are volunteers but the groups I've worked with have been absolute angels with one horrible exception of a male CASA predator (who fortunately focused on the mother rather than the child).

When I said that we can feed them and shelter them I meant what I said - that keeps them alive but it doesn't make the civilized. It frequently just keeps them in abusive homes with parents who ignore the kids and use them as a cash cow for government benefits. It is why I have such a problem with that type of welfare, so often. I was stunned when I saw this happening because when I started GAL work, I just didn't believe parents could be so calculating. I'd have punched you in the nose if you suggested it. I was just as shocked to see parents argue over custody to get out of having to pay child support. I was quite naive when I went into the business.

Counseling and training, however, are services often provided by social services and I support that. I think it helps in many instances but, still, even with education and counseling, expecting many of these truly horrible parents to civilize their children is irrational. They are out of control, themselves. And I say that based on many years of dealing with families, often with individual families over a period of 6 - 7 years. It is a heart breaking thing to see a sweet young girl abused at, say, age six who is such a sweetheart and by the time she is 14, she is pregnant with no idea who the father is, refuses to go to school, has 2 - 3 shoplifting convictions, a drinking problem and who hates her parents and all authority with all her heart and mind. Add in mental illness, add in a gang element, add in running around at all hours with neighborhood thugs and you are liable to have something even more dangerous - like spraying a crowd with bullets.

And while foster care can be a blessing, even in boom times, they don't pay foster families much of anything. Some offer their homes as a type of religious faith but there are others who just want the extra money and are willing to stack 'em like cord wood. When people talk about "unwanted children" and not having enough homes to adopt them, they usually are confusing adoption with fostering. We have enough adoptive parents, nearly all the time. But we have so few foster parents (and so many kids needing foster care) and they are so needed. People don't like to open their homes to a troubled child they aren't going to be able to keep and are understandably worried about giving their heart to a child that isn't going to stay with them. Plus, they get paid next to nothing and these kids tend to be expensive.

There is such a lack of foster homes that a lot of kids are just left with dysfunctional parents or placed in residential homes. I know I sound like a broken record but extended family members are usually the children's best chance. I am not suggesting social services has no part in that. Indeed, absent the support of social services, that is often not going to happen. I regularly worked with grandparents who desperately wanted to get custody/guardianship of their grandchildren but just didn't know how until the child somehow got into the system and the social workers and I encouraged them to take that step.

Tell a child that she is going into foster care to escape a bad homelife and if you think you are going to get a hug and big thanks, think again. You just ripped her from everything she ever knew - good and bad - and is afraid her family hates her for telling what was going on. So she goes to a strange family, a new school, she doesn't see her parents for several weeks, much of the time, she might be separated from her pets, siblings, friends, etc. From their perspective, it is often out of the skillet and into the fire. That is just one of the reasons I support extended family stepping in. They might still have to change schools but they are at least with their family who love them.

Lindsay Architect
06-04-2012, 07:00 PM
How much welfare $$ have we sent to his parents over the years? If they've had that many felonies, obviously they have too much time on their hands, so I'm assuming they don't work. I say 1 felony = no welfare, get a job. And I'm not heartless so take their money and give it to a single parent working to make ends meet.

Midtowner
06-04-2012, 07:10 PM
How much welfare $$ have we sent to his parents over the years? If they've had that many felonies, obviously they have too much time on their hands, so I'm assuming they don't work. I say 1 felony = no welfare, get a job. And I'm not heartless so take their money and give it to a single parent working to make ends meet.

When the welfare is the only thing keeping them from committing even more felonies and ending up (much more expensively) in the pokey, the country where Lindsay Architect is dictator for a day doesn't last very long.

Achilleslastand
06-04-2012, 07:14 PM
Welfare keeps people from commiting more felonys........coulda fooled me.

Midtowner
06-04-2012, 07:20 PM
Welfare keeps people from commiting more felonys........coulda fooled me.

Since ancient times, bread and circuses have been used to pacify the masses. Welfare = bread. Maybe daytime TV is the other part. Consider what happens when you actually put someone in a position where they have no skill set to get a job, no life skills of note and have two real choices--steal or starve. That's not a viable scenario for domestic tranquility and such. Also, consider that felons don't exactly have an easy time finding work.

We're always going to have a criminal element. You can't deal with it in a kneejerk/irrational manner. The real key is to identify issues with problem families and to get in there and either remove the kids or solve those families' problems.

Lindsay Architect
06-04-2012, 07:29 PM
Well their record isn't helping me understand your point. I'd say after the felony #1 they would be cleaning the county jail 8-5 or painting government buildings, mowing grass, cleaning up graffiti or something if they are still on welfare. I don't see how getting free money to smoke pot, drink all day etc. should be rewarded with our money in hopes that they don't commute felony #21.

Lindsay Architect
06-04-2012, 07:30 PM
Commit rather

PennyQuilts
06-04-2012, 08:59 PM
When the welfare is the only thing keeping them from committing even more felonies and ending up (much more expensively) in the pokey, the country where Lindsay Architect is dictator for a day doesn't last very long.

At that point, the kids can be rescued a lot easier. They are pretty much all I care about at that point. If giving them money is to keep the parents from committing felonies I don't see that as a good reason to give it to them.

ETA: http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/poor-relief-in-ancient-rome/

I found an article Mid may have been referencing. It didn't' sound like it worked out that well, actually.

PennyQuilts
06-04-2012, 09:06 PM
Since ancient times, bread and circuses have been used to pacify the masses. Welfare = bread. Maybe daytime TV is the other part. Consider what happens when you actually put someone in a position where they have no skill set to get a job, no life skills of note and have two real choices--steal or starve. That's not a viable scenario for domestic tranquility and such. Also, consider that felons don't exactly have an easy time finding work.

We're always going to have a criminal element. You can't deal with it in a kneejerk/irrational manner. The real key is to identify issues with problem families and to get in there and either remove the kids or solve those families' problems.

I'd never, ever, ever heard that bread was given to stop crime - and I taught history (although not ancient history). Perhaps I just missed that. I've heard about the circuses to entertain the masses, certainly. But most of the time the laws against theft were savage and that is the way most ancient (and many modern) cultures addressed thievery.
But that being said, I don't disagree that family problems have to be addressed in order for it to be safe for children to remain there. My experience might not reflect yours, Mid, but there wasn't a high success rate to "solve family problems" from the outside. In the beginning I used to pat myself on the back when we made progress but over the years I came to realize that the real work was almost always done by the families. The best work I ever did was point them in the right direction - or recommend a child be removed.
But I agree that family problems tend to be systemic issues that need to be addressed if they are going to be safe for children

Midtowner
06-04-2012, 10:30 PM
I'd never, ever, ever heard that bread was given to stop crime - and I taught history (although not ancient history). Perhaps I just missed that. I've heard about the circuses to entertain the masses, certainly. But most of the time the laws against theft were savage and that is the way most ancient (and many modern) cultures addressed thievery.
But that being said, I don't disagree that family problems have to be addressed in order for it to be safe for children to remain there. My experience might not reflect yours, Mid, but there wasn't a high success rate to "solve family problems" from the outside. In the beginning I used to pat myself on the back when we made progress but over the years I came to realize that the real work was almost always done by the families. The best work I ever did was point them in the right direction - or recommend a child be removed.
But I agree that family problems tend to be systemic issues that need to be addressed if they are going to be safe for children

Well that's pretty much how we do things in Oklahoma. Trouble is that when you have horribly incompetent caseworkers and judges who just go along with whatever DHS is doing (not all, but some), those wins are few and far between. The problem, simply, is money. Not sure if it was this thread, but I showed the real statistical differences between states which spend big bucks on social services and education vs. Oklahoma.

It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

PennyQuilts
06-05-2012, 06:55 AM
It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

I absolutely agree with that. But my point is that all too often, all the counseling and services that could be offered are to no avail so long as kids are left in dysfunctional family systems. Extended families taking them in is relatively inexpensive (for the state). Other options of removal are incredibly expensive and, unfortunately, good foster homes are few and far between. Counseling services tend to work better when the kids are living in a safe place with some structure where they are allowed to be children - especially with family members able and willing to provide structure and support. I regularly saw kids thrive, even excel, once they were placed someplace safe - only to backslide into tragedy upon being "reunited" with dysfunctional families. Happened more often than it didn't.

Keeping them in chaotic homes and expecting for counseling several hours a week (at best) to turn the tide is p*ssing in the wind, most of the time. At least short term when so many of them get into trouble with the law, experiment with drugs/alcohol, drop out of school, pregnant, etc. By the time the lessons learned by the counselors bear fruit in their early to mid twenties, it is often too late. Counselors can provide a lot of insight and they can help a child deal with abuse, neglect and other trauma. I agree with that. I approve of using them and I've seen them make wonderful strides. But they aren't parents.

The nicest kid in the world, even one not exposed to a great deal of emotional trauma, is still apt to act like a dumb teenager and when there is no competent parent to parent them, down they typically go. A counselor can help them deal with a dysfunctional parent but they can't transform a typical teenager into a responsible adult. And if they could, the damage done to the teenager who was forced to be the responsible adult presiding over a dysfunctional family creates its own set of heartbreak.

Roadhawg
06-05-2012, 07:17 AM
It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

I agree with this as well.

onthestrip
06-05-2012, 08:22 AM
Well that's pretty much how we do things in Oklahoma. Trouble is that when you have horribly incompetent caseworkers and judges who just go along with whatever DHS is doing (not all, but some), those wins are few and far between. The problem, simply, is money. Not sure if it was this thread, but I showed the real statistical differences between states which spend big bucks on social services and education vs. Oklahoma.

It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

Well too bad most Okies don't go along with this. It's seems most from here just expect every child, no matter how bad their living circumstances are, to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, raise themselves, work, then put themselves through college and become somebody. Many people who say this always seem to forget the many opportunities they were given as a child when plenty of others aren't given anything but dysfunction.

PennyQuilts
06-05-2012, 08:42 AM
Well too bad most Okies don't go along with this. It's seems most from here just expect every child, no matter how bad their living circumstances are, to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, raise themselves, work, then put themselves through college and become somebody. Many people who say this always seem to forget the many opportunities they were given as a child when plenty of others aren't given anything but dysfunction.

Which only goes to support the notion that it comes down to family. We can argue back and forth about what can be done, insist Oklahoma is just backward, etc., but the truth is, kids from these types of dysfunctional backgrounds aren't consistently doing better, anywhere. Not here, not in DC, not in California, not in Detroit, not in Miami - nowhere. If someone had a magic bullet to make the difference beyond trying to expose kids to strong mentors and counseling, they'd all be doing it. Some kids just wonderfully with counseling and mentors if that is the type of problem they have that lends itself to it. But a kid with feral parents living in a feral neighborhood full of crime and poverty who doesn't appreciate school and who is allowed to run the streets with thugs isn't going to be saved by counseling. The decisions he is making are logical, given his reality.

Midtowner
06-05-2012, 08:45 AM
I absolutely agree with that. But my point is that all too often, all the counseling and services that could be offered are to no avail so long as kids are left in dysfunctional family systems.

So aside from foster care and adoption or kinship, what options are there? Group homes seem to be an emerging trend in permanency, but outside of temporary placement, we really aren't using those here. I really hate to see kinship and non-kinship foster homes being used in cases which are definitely headed towards reunification because I'd like to see those homes being used for more permanent solutions for other children whose parents are headed towards termination.

I think there are some solutions here, but the problem with these solutions is money. I agree, get the kids out of the chaotic environments where they are surrounded every day with inappropriate sexual relations of adults, drugs, undernourishment, etc., and into placements where we can really concentrate services, provide adequate supervision and guidance, etc.

We have an entire political party which has developed a religious orthodoxy around smaller government and smaller taxes. Well, the majority of those folks in that party are white, middle class folks who have never had any sort of contact whatsoever with the child welfare system or the criminal system. They're good people, but in this aspect, they are wholly ignorant of the fact that we have to either undertake a major, expensive social engineering project which is not aimed at merely placating the underclass, but at investing in the next generation so that we can break the cycle of poverty. Otherwise, we are heading towards having a large and dependent social class in the U.S., which is something no society in the history of the world has existed for very long without some serious civil strife.

PennyQuilts
06-05-2012, 09:12 AM
So aside from foster care and adoption or kinship, what options are there? Group homes seem to be an emerging trend in permanency, but outside of temporary placement, we really aren't using those here. I really hate to see kinship and non-kinship foster homes being used in cases which are definitely headed towards reunification because I'd like to see those homes being used for more permanent solutions for other children whose parents are headed towards termination.

I think there are some solutions here, but the problem with these solutions is money. I agree, get the kids out of the chaotic environments where they are surrounded every day with inappropriate sexual relations of adults, drugs, undernourishment, etc., and into placements where we can really concentrate services, provide adequate supervision and guidance, etc.

We have an entire political party which has developed a religious orthodoxy around smaller government and smaller taxes. Well, the majority of those folks in that party are white, middle class folks who have never had any sort of contact whatsoever with the child welfare system or the criminal system. They're good people, but in this aspect, they are wholly ignorant of the fact that we have to either undertake a major, expensive social engineering project which is not aimed at merely placating the underclass, but at investing in the next generation so that we can break the cycle of poverty. Otherwise, we are heading towards having a large and dependent social class in the U.S., which is something no society in the history of the world has existed for very long without some serious civil strife.

Somethings simply can't be fixed by paying someone to do something and years of experience tell me without the slightest hesitation that we aren't going to break the cycle of poverty. It isn't going to happen on any grand scale or even any modest scale. We tend to treat this as an economic issue or some sort of mental health problem. But that isn't it. It is about the lack of basic parenting. That is because civilizing children is what parents do. Absent parents (or parent substitutes), it doesn't happen.

Given the breakdown of so many communities, I honestly wish there was some sort of governmental program that could substitute for parents but there isn't. The best the government can offer is something to supplement a family that needs help. But there is a list of services provided families, regardless of whether they are apt to help and it is draining the system dry of resources. No matter how bad a family is - short of going to jail, they are ordered to go to counseling, for example. Often, it is like forcing someone who wants out of a marriage and has emotionally moved on to attend marriage counseling. There is a list of things you order families to do that rarely changes unless it is to add something to it to address a specific problem. I had a social worker refer to it as the Trifecta - Parenting classes, counseling and anger management. One size fits all.

Parenting classes are helpful, IMO, for the right situation. Even most situations. And family counseling is really the only way to go if you are keeping families together because it is always - always - a system problem. But plenty of "parents" are just like the ones in the Bricktown/Thunder Alley case. All the services in the world aren't going to help them. Their idea of family has next to no comparison to what most of us think of when we think of family, no matter what people want to believe. If that weren't so, you wouldn't have a nonpsychotic child spraying a crowd with bullets. That family went through the system and all it had to offer. And guess what? He was still with them and he did his best to kill strangers for reasons that make no sense at all.

The only thing I see that would seriously lessen the tragedy of what is happening to so many children is to back off the unification efforts to such a degree and quit subsidizing animals posing as parents. All we are doing is trapping kids in environments that will raise them to be criminals and poor people. Mid, we may disagree on this but I want you to know that I appreciate that you want to help them. The difference between you and me is not that I don't care, too, but that based on my experience, I have far less faith in the system AND I have no illusions that the government can fix this. Not to be churchy, but the breakdown the family is more about relationships with family members and their community. It isn't about money, fundamentally. Plenty of new immigrants are dirt poor but their children aren't necessarily turning into criminals unless they let them run wild. Except in cases where families are dealing with mental illness, specific relationship problems or young parents who are just clueless, I honestly think a preacher would be more help than the government - and I'm not all that big on preachers.

onthestrip
06-05-2012, 09:21 AM
Penny, as others had mentioned, your posts are quite long. I know you have many opinions and some things aren't explainable in 2 sentences but I'd suggest trying to shorten them. I, and I'm sure others, usually skip over your posts when I see 4 paragraphs. Again, just a suggestion

Midtowner
06-05-2012, 09:30 AM
Reading over some of the research with regards to permanency in group homes where services can be concentrated and children really supervised, I think you may be wrong Penny. Facilities which house 50-80 children in cottage units of 6-8 children with "house parents" who live with the children 5 days per week and provide parenting have been fairly successful both here and abroad. We all know the simple solution is good families, but let's be honest about things, there aren't that many to go around.