Breakdown of the family

[tod evans]

The ugly reality of government funded "families".....


Police: Daycare owner was attacked while protecting kids

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/14/police-daycare-owner-was-attacked-while-protecting-kids/?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork

http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/876/493/gofundme1014.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

A Montana daycare owner was punched and hit in the face with a shovel after refusing to hand three young siblings to their father, who was drunk and lacks legal custody, authorities said.

Martha McClure had surgery for her injuries Monday and is still struggling with double vision, according to her sister-in-law, Marlene Heath.

Lake County officials say McClure was caring for Francis Joseph Jackson's three children, all under the age of 4, when he showed up at her Ronan daycare center with an unidentified woman last week.

McClure knew Salish and Kootenai Tribal Child Protective Services had suspended Jackson's parental rights and he was not allowed to have contact with them.

Deputy county attorney James Lapotka wrote in an affidavit that Jackson, 31, "has been in an ongoing CPS case for the past three years" and was served court papers saying the agency had legal custody of his children.

McClure reported she could smell alcohol on Jackson, that he was angry she wouldn't let him pick up his children, and that he threatened to assault her in front of the kids at Martha's Mini Daycare, court records said.

She was able to physically remove Jackson from the daycare center and lock the door. But she said he began throwing toys, including a tricycle, at the window in an apparent attempt to get back inside, court records said.

McClure went outside, where she and Jackson fought until a woman hit McClure in the face with a snow shovel. Jackson then hit McClure in the face, knocking her down, court records said. The suspects fled without the children.

Jackson was arrested Monday in Usk, Washington, on the Kalispel Indian Reservation. He faces aggravated burglary charges in the Oct. 7 incident.

He waived extradition Tuesday during a court hearing in Pend Oreille County. His bond was set at $100,000, and he was expected to be returned to Montana later this week, a jail officer said.

Charges are pending against the woman accused of hitting McClure in the face with a shovel. She has not been arrested, and her name has not been released.

Meanwhile, Heath says McClure is recovering from surgery for an eye injury. A photo on a gofundme.com page set up by McClure's stepdaughter shows the daycare owner with two black eyes and other facial injuries.

"She's still in high spirits, positive and trying to get better so she can get back to her (daycare) kids," Heath said.

[euphemia]

I'm not sure this story makes your point, Tod Evans. It's really sad that children have to be in day care at all because the economy forces both parents to work. In any case, we don't really know the whole story of why this dad lost custody, but I would say the drunken violence probably contributed to the decision.

I get that there is a lot of inequality in the system, but this is probably not such a case. Likely the man will be in jail for a while now. He beat up someone who had nothing to do with his custody issue. She was the caregiver of many children, not just his, and his behavior demonstrates a lot of contempt for the safety of others.

I don't think teachers and caregivers should be forced in the middle of these things. I have experienced it on a couple of occasions. It's awkward at best. I don't know what the answer is. In all my years of working with kids, I have seen one joint custody situation work very well. It was a lot of work for everyone, but the adults were sane and logical people with the best interests of their children in mind. The kids were happy, healthy, and accomplished.

[tod evans]

I'm not sure this story makes your point, Tod Evans. It's really sad that children have to be in day care at all because the economy forces both parents to work. In any case, we don't really know the whole story of why this dad lost custody, but I would say the drunken violence probably contributed to the decision.

I get that there is a lot of inequality in the system, but this is probably not such a case. Likely the man will be in jail for a while now. He beat up someone who had nothing to do with his custody issue. She was the caregiver of many children, not just his, and his behavior demonstrates a lot of contempt for the safety of others.

My point was without government interference there's a high probability that the family unit would have been intact.

A working father and a stay at home mother don't need daycare.

Without government support the "daycare" would quite likely never exist.

Without government intervention the traditional family would probably be intact even if the father drank.

Government solutions for problems created by government............

[euphemia]

Maybe not. If a man will do this to a stranger, would be hesitate to do it to his wife?

It sounds like it's not just government, but tribal government. That might be different. In any case, a man would have to earn a lot of money to be able to support a wife and I think this said three kids. I don't know what this guy does, but it sounds like not much if he was at the day care, intoxicated, on a work day.

Hard cases make bad law. Government should be a lot less involved in our lives, but I'm not sure this story makes that point.

[tod evans]

Maybe not. If a man will do this to a stranger, would be hesitate to do it to his wife?

It sounds like it's not just government, but tribal government. That might be different.

Try keeping my kid from me and there's no telling how I'd react.

Neither of us know if his alleged drinking was due to being separated from his kids or the cause of the separation....

[euphemia]

And that's not the point in custody. He was drunk when this happened. This woman had her instructions--probably in writing and from the custodial parent. She faced prosecution if she departed from those orders. She could have lost her license and incurred heavy penalties for releasing the children to anyone not on the list.

Article says it had been an ongoing CPS case for three years.

[pcosmar]

Damn,, Tod you make a good point.

But I also see several others..

If this woman is there to protect children,, why is she not armed or otherwise capable of protecting said children.

and though I could accept tribal counsels decision,, if someone was that dangerous that he should be removed from his children,, why is he walking around?

and I see the Tribal leadership ,, assimilating. they have become one and the same as the state.

[tod evans]

And that's not the point in custody. He was drunk when this happened. This woman had her instructions--probably in writing and from the custodial parent. She faced prosecution if she departed from those orders. She could have lost her license and incurred heavy penalties for releasing the children to anyone not on the list.

Article says it had been an ongoing CPS case for three years.

Without government intervention in every aspect of family life there would be no "custody" judgements period.

Find even one child custody court order prior to the 1920's.

It'd be extremely difficult to find many custody orders prior to the invention of government funded CPS.

I blame government for the failure of this family, for the beating of both people with a shovel and for the prosecution of this father.

This goes to a statement I keep repeating;

"Everything government gets involved in it fucks up, everything!"

[tod evans]

Damn,, Tod you make a good point.

But I also see several others..

If this woman is there to protect children,, why is she not armed or otherwise capable of protecting said children.

and though I could accept tribal counsels decision,, if someone was that dangerous that he should be removed from his children,, why is he walking around?

and I see the Tribal leadership ,, assimilating. they have become one and the same as the state.

Of course they have!

They are funded by the same coffers as CPS and the district attorney.

[cajuncocoa]

Tod, the case you're making here is a lot like the case that gun control people make when they blame guns for gun violence.

Can you not see why his parental rights were suspended and he was not allowed to see his children?

Even if CPS didn't exist, as violent as he is, somehow he should be kept far away from his children. And it's predictable how he'll react when he's told that must happen.

This has nothing to do with CPS, daycare, the move away from mothers who stay at home that began in the 1970s. This is about a violent man who would have done the same thing to his wife if those children had been at home with her that day.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm not sure this story makes your point, Tod Evans. It's really sad that children have to be in day care at all because the economy forces both parents to work. In any case, we don't really know the whole story of why this dad lost custody, but I would say the drunken violence probably contributed to the decision.

I tend to look at that a different way. I don't blame a faceless economy. It's our own fault -- if you want to point the finger somewhere, point it at your own mothers and sisters.

When women entered the workforce, in droves and by choice, in the 1970s due to the "women's liberation movement" the newly-formed two-income family had more disposable income....causing an effect on the supply and demand of goods and services. Demand went up...families suddenly had more money to spend; prices went up to meet the demand. NOW it became necessary for all women to work -- not right away, but eventually -- and it was our own fault. We brought it on ourselves. Because we caused the prices of goods and services to rise to the point that it required two incomes for most families to afford them.

[Anti Federalist]

When women entered the workforce, in droves and by choice, in the 1970s due to the "women's liberation movement" the newly-formed two-income family had more disposable income....causing an effect on the supply and demand of goods and services.

Once government got all the women out the home and on the tax rolls, it turned to immigrants next.

[Anti Federalist]

When women entered the workforce, in droves and by choice, in the 1970s due to the "women's liberation movement" the newly-formed two-income family had more disposable income....causing an effect on the supply and demand of goods and services.

Once government got all the women out the home and on the tax rolls, it turned to immigrants next.

[Ender]

Tod is pretty right on this.

We know nothing about the man- was he really drunk? Why were his kids taken from him? In a family court the woman is always right and the man usually loses. I have seen friends destroyed by lying wives.

And women didn't enter the marketplace because of "liberation". They entered because of gov manipulation of the economy forcing women into the workplace.

The American Dream is to make people into compliant slaves.

[Ender]

Once government got all the women out the home and on the tax rolls, it turned to immigrants next.

'Zactly.

[cajuncocoa]

Once government got all the women out the home and on the tax rolls, it turned to immigrants next.
Government didn't do that. We did it by choice.

[tod evans]

Tod, the case you're making here is a lot like the case that gun control people make when they blame guns for gun violence.

Can you not see why his parental rights were suspended and he was not allowed to see his children?

Even if CPS didn't exist, as violent as he is, somehow he should be kept far away from his children. And it's predictable how he'll react when he's told that must happen.

This has nothing to do with CPS, daycare, the move away from mothers who stay at home that began in the 1970s. This is about a violent man who would have done the same thing to his wife if those children had been at home with her that day.

Neither one of us know that.

I assume that the father was distraught over being kept away from his children.

It appears as though you assume he was kept away due to violence.

Neither one of us knows if the violence was due to the separation...

I do know that violent or not government has no business interfering in family affairs.

If the guy was violent the the girl is well within her rights to kill or maim him in his sleep.

If the girl is keeping his children from him for financial gain then he is within his rights to be violent toward her.

Either way government isn't involved.

[euphemia]

Why are he and the mom not together? If a man wants to stay with his kids he really needs to stay with mom.

That's something to think about when making babies. Stay together.

[cajuncocoa]

I'm not staying in this thread after I post this. I just want to say two things, but I know no one will be convinced by either.

Government is bad when it interferes, but it isn't responsible for EVERYTHING.

Tod is right. I did assume the guy was kept away due to violence. But Tod, you don't know that he wasn't. There's a better chance that I'm right, given he acted the way he did. But you can continue to believe whatever you want.

[tod evans]

Why are he and the mom not together? If a man wants to stay with his kids he really needs to stay with mom.

That's something to think about when making babies. Stay together.

If.............Big if because I don't know..........The mother gave him the boot as so many women are wont to do today, given all the government freebies afforded to "single mothers", he'd have no choice in the matter.

If she chose that route he'd not only be separated from his children he'd be on the hook financially to fund 2 households due to her choice.

I don't know the particulars in this case but I'm certain government funding and current laws were major contributors to the story in the OP.

[Intoxiklown]

Ummmmm

Firstly, I agree bad things come when you break up a family unit. Blood can cause serious evil.

Secondly, before anyone feels too bad for the daycare owner, did you really read the details in the article?

1) She was able to remove him from the daycare, and lock the door. So, there was arguing, maybe some light pushing, but he was not physically resisting her. A woman will not man handle a man, and throw him from a room.

2) The daycare owner decided to go outside with him while he was throwing a tantrum. She had removed herself and the children from the situation, but decided to go out and get back in his face instead of waiting for help.

3) The man's girlfriend (?) hit the daycare owner with the shovel, not him. Don't take this for anything other than just a statement of fact, but if your wife was shoving and cussing at me, my wife would beat her like a drum with whatever she could put her hands on.

4) This is when the man hit her. While we don't really know, I find it very plausible that the daycare owner and the other girl were now fighting, and he intervened.

Not condoning anything, but don't feel too sorry for the daycare owner. When she went back outside, she dropped nuts.

[euphemia]

I agree the babysitter was dumb to go outside. I'm not sure what kind of law enforcement was available to her there on the reservation, but that would have been a good case to call them.

There is nothing in the OP that says why the dad of the children is not still with the mom. It does say he came to the day care with another woman. It also does not say where the mom was, and the article says the children were in the custody of DCS, and it had been an ongoing case for three years. It doesn't sound to me as if the children were away from their parents due to medical kidnap or anything like that. It says the tribal court took away the father's parental rights.

I think FoxNews was eager to post a sensational photo and left the story with a lot of holes.

[morfeeis]

Try keeping my kid from me and there's no telling how I'd react.

Neither of us know if his alleged drinking was due to being separated from his kids or the cause of the separation....

Wish i had saved that +1 rep for this post....

[acptulsa]

Government didn't do that. We did it by choice.

You do have a point, but there is more at play.

The seventies were a time of near hyperinflation. It was the first serious hyperinflation the dollar had experienced, or that the nation had experienced, in just over a hundred years. It was largely driven by the OPEC oil embargo, but that itself is highly suspect, as is everything that affects oil pricing. The feminist movement came along simultaneously (actually it got rolling strong just a couple of years before) and it was driven--hard--by the Luce-dominated mainstream media. In fact, the feminist movement to send the women to work happened at just about the exact same time as the final Bretton Woods agreement which removed the dollar from any remaining vestiges of the gold standard and made it completely monopoly money.

Is this really a coincidence? Or is it the declaration of the war on the middle class that we've seen prosecuted on several fronts ever since? If I were planning a war on the middle class, so I could steal their wealth, a combination of currency devaluation, and a campaign to convince women they want (for trendy reasons) to be in the workplace so two incomes would keep the middle class middle class even as the real spending power of one of their incomes shrivels would be the way I'd go. By the time the middle class woke up to the fact that they were once richer on one income than they are with two, the damage would long since be done.

Throw in the obvious fact that the government wanted us to stop teaching our children American values and put them in indoctrination centers where they could be taught communism and not critical thinking (as evidenced by the creation of the wholly unnecessary and completely damaging Department of Education before the end of the decade), and the puzzle is complete.

No, I think you're being a coincidence theorist on this one. Things seldom work out this sweetly except by design.

[CrissyNY]

Tod is pretty right on this.

We know nothing about the man- was he really drunk? Why were his kids taken from him? In a family court the woman is always right and the man usually loses. I have seen friends destroyed by lying wives.

And women didn't enter the marketplace because of "liberation". They entered because of gov manipulation of the economy forcing women into the workplace.

The American Dream is to make people into compliant slaves.

usually? maybe. but not always.

i deal with a violent ex daily and there is no court ordered favoritism, i promise you.

i don't deal with daycare, but i feel for those who need to

[cajuncocoa]

You do have a point, but there is more at play.

The seventies were a time of near hyperinflation. It was the first serious hyperinflation the dollar had experienced, or that the nation had experienced, in just over a hundred years. It was largely driven by the OPEC oil embargo, but that itself is highly suspect, as is everything that affects oil pricing. The feminist movement came along simultaneously (actually it got rolling strong just a couple of years before) and it was driven--hard--by the Luce-dominated mainstream media. In fact, the feminist movement to send the women to work happened at just about the exact same time as the final Bretton Woods agreement which removed the dollar from any remaining vestiges of the gold standard and made it completely monopoly money.

Is this really a coincidence? Or is it the declaration of the war on the middle class that we've seen prosecuted on several fronts ever since? If I were planning a war on the middle class, so I could steal their wealth, a combination of currency devaluation, and a campaign to convince women they want (for trendy reasons) to be in the workplace so two incomes would keep the middle class middle class even as the real spending power of one of their incomes shrivels would be the way I'd go. By the time the middle class woke up to the fact that they were once richer on one income than they are with two, the damage would long since be done.
Throw in the obvious fact that the government wanted us to stop teaching our children American values and put them in indoctrination centers where they could be taught communism and not critical thinking (as evidenced by the creation of the wholly unnecessary and completely damaging Department of Education before the end of the decade), and the puzzle is complete.

No, I think you're being a coincidence theorist on this one. Things seldom work out this sweetly except by design.

Even if everything else you said is true, (and I'm not saying you are, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) you lost me as to how keeping moms at home was going to change what took place in the public school system. It wasn't only working moms who were sending their children to public schools.

[MelissaWV]

This guy picking up his kids and hitting some daycare worker was angry. It's totally okay. They took his kids, after all. He was so upset he had to take up with another woman and bring her along to get in on the asskicking action. Heck, the wife obviously drove him to drink... and so did Government!


She was able to physically remove Jackson from the daycare center and lock the door. But she said he began throwing toys, including a tricycle, at the window in an apparent attempt to get back inside, court records said.

McClure went outside, where she and Jackson fought until a woman hit McClure in the face with a snow shovel. Jackson then hit McClure in the face, knocking her down, court records said. The suspects fled without the children.

The reason she went outside (though not a very smart one) is that he was trying to get back inside by breaking a window. He's not exactly a genius, either, because the shovel would probably have worked better than random kids' toys.

The Good Samaritan narrative some of you have cooked up (the two women were fighting! he was breaking it up!) does not compute with the statement, though it could be a false one.

They cared so much about the kids they then left without them. This is not likely to be a good memory for them. I'm sure it's still the mom's fault, though.

If you find yourself saying "it is!" then at least concede that maybe he should have gone and hit HER with a shovel, rather than a daycare worker? And yeah it still makes you a bad person, don't worry.

[fr33]

Freedom is messy. Actions have consequences.

Government should not be involved in separating a family.

[acptulsa]

Even if everything else you said is true, (and I'm not saying you are, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) you lost me as to how keeping moms at home was going to change what took place in the public school system. It wasn't only working moms who were sending their children to public schools.

It allowed the children to become accustomed to input from someone other than family at an earlier, more tender age. It allowed for children to get more of it, as schools always let out at 3 or 3:30 and Mom doesn't get off work until five. It ensures Mom is as exhausted as Dad in the evening. It has effects.

[cajuncocoa]

This guy picking up his kids and hitting some daycare worker was angry. It's totally okay. They took his kids, after all. He was so upset he had to take up with another woman and bring her along to get in on the asskicking action. Heck, the wife obviously drove him to drink... and so did Government!



The reason she went outside (though not a very smart one) is that he was trying to get back inside by breaking a window. He's not exactly a genius, either, because the shovel would probably have worked better than random kids' toys.

The Good Samaritan narrative some of you have cooked up (the two women were fighting! he was breaking it up!) does not compute with the statement, though it could be a false one.

They cared so much about the kids they then left without them. This is not likely to be a good memory for them. I'm sure it's still the mom's fault, though.

If you find yourself saying "it is!" then at least concede that maybe he should have gone and hit HER with a shovel, rather than a daycare worker? And yeah it still makes you a bad person, don't worry.
+rep

[euphemia]

I would be interested to know how courts find in favor of one parent or another. Like I said, I have seen one case where joint custody worked very well. But the divorced parents were very invested in the well being of their children.

[MelissaWV]

I would be interested to know how courts find in favor of one parent or another. Like I said, I have seen one case where joint custody worked very well. But the divorced parents were very invested in the well being of their children.

Oh there's absolutely no doubt there is gender bias when it comes to custody. There are also far more ready-made arguments for a mother looking to paint a man in a bad light than vice versa. All of that, however, has very little to do with whether or not someone on the losing end of that inequity is applauded when they get into a fight with the daycare worker where their kids could conceivably have watched the fight between daddy, daddy's girlfriend, and the nice lady who was just reading them a story.

[euphemia]

I have a feeling these things are changing.

[tod evans]

This guy picking up his kids and hitting some daycare worker was angry. It's totally okay. They took his kids, after all. He was so upset he had to take up with another woman and bring her along to get in on the asskicking action. Heck, the wife obviously drove him to drink... and so did Government!



The reason she went outside (though not a very smart one) is that he was trying to get back inside by breaking a window. He's not exactly a genius, either, because the shovel would probably have worked better than random kids' toys.

The Good Samaritan narrative some of you have cooked up (the two women were fighting! he was breaking it up!) does not compute with the statement, though it could be a false one.

They cared so much about the kids they then left without them. This is not likely to be a good memory for them. I'm sure it's still the mom's fault, though.

If you find yourself saying "it is!" then at least concede that maybe he should have gone and hit HER with a shovel, rather than a daycare worker? And yeah it still makes you a bad person, don't worry.

Drinking and fighting aside the likelihood of the children being in either a broken family or in a government funded daycare would be extremely low without government interference.

The children being in this situation in the first place is the fault of government programs and although the father will be punished by the government courts it's the children whose lives will be affected from this point forward, and not in a good way.

[MelissaWV]

Drinking and fighting aside the likelihood of the children being in either a broken family or in a government funded daycare would be extremely low without government interference.

The children being in this situation in the first place is the fault of government programs and although the father will be punished by the government courts it's the children whose lives will be affected from this point forward, and not in a good way.

You're making a whole lot of "good ole days" assumptions, and that's part of the problem. Government interference aside, the chances of the children being in a broken family (even if not broken outwardly) if their parents fight, their dad takes up with another women in public, or they stagger around drunk in public... they would still be pretty darned high. These kids were not in danger exclusively because at least one parent put them in daycare. They were in danger because at LEAST one parent is an utter idiot. Could be both, and girlfriend makes three; more's the pity.

[euphemia]

Yes, it says a lot that the dad brings a violent woman into his life. Who knows? The mom of the kids might be a jerk, too. She hooked up with that guy enough to make a few babies.

[Seraphim]

Gun free zones, bro.

It's all the rage. State-suckers tell me gun free zones have a magical force field erected around them and that they are impenetrable thanks to our local friendly unicorn that farts magical force field dust around said gun free zone.

It's for the kids, bro. The kids.


Damn,, Tod you make a good point.

But I also see several others..

If this woman is there to protect children,, why is she not armed or otherwise capable of protecting said children.

and though I could accept tribal counsels decision,, if someone was that dangerous that he should be removed from his children,, why is he walking around?

and I see the Tribal leadership ,, assimilating. they have become one and the same as the state.

[cajuncocoa]

Drinking and fighting aside the likelihood of the children being in either a broken family or in a government funded daycare would be extremely low without government interference.

Long before this "government interference" you speak of, my grandmother was in a similar situation. My paternal grandfather (who I never knew) was an alcoholic. When he drank, he would come home and physically abuse my grandmother. She left him, along with my mother and uncle....moved from Kentucky back to her original home of Louisiana. This was in the 1930's. She had to raise her children as a single mother, and she had to work to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. There was no day care. My mom and uncle stayed with my Aunt, my grandmother's sister. There was no government assistance to be had.

All that to say, your assumption that a broken home isn't likely without government assistance is bullshit. And suggesting that my grandmother should have stayed with a man who might have ended up killing her and her children is equally stupid.

[euphemia]

One of my grandmothers also grew up in a home with her grandmother, aunt, mom, and probably other assorted relatives. No dad.

[tod evans]

Long before this "government interference" you speak of, my grandmother was in a similar situation. My paternal grandfather (who I never knew) was an alcoholic. When he drank, he would come home and physically abuse my grandmother. She left him, along with my mother and uncle....moved from Kentucky back to her original home of Louisiana. This was in the 1930's. She had to raise her children as a single mother, and she had to work to put a roof over their heads and food on the table. There was no day care. My mom and uncle stayed with my Aunt, my grandmother's sister. There was no government assistance to be had.

All that to say, your assumption that a broken home isn't likely without government assistance is bullshit. And suggesting that my grandmother should have stayed with a man who might have ended up killing her and her children is equally stupid.

I never suggested that anybody stay with an abuser, never even insinuated it.

Nor did I insinuate that there weren't broken families back in the "good ol' days".

What I quite clearly said is that there were far less broken families and the increase is due entirely to governmental interference.

Government doesn't belong in family matters in any capacity.

Without more information on the people discussed in the OP the odds are in my favor when I stated that this particular newz story would have never happened if government hadn't been involved long before the incident at the kids "daycare"..

[euphemia]

Tod Evans, I get that this is a very sensitive issue for you, and I don't want you to think I am ignoring that. I don't think this story makes your point.

[tod evans]

Tod Evans, I get that this is a very sensitive issue for you, and I don't want you to think I am ignoring that. I don't think this story makes your point.

There are lots of really good points to be made with this story, one Melissa made; Idiots breeding is generally not good for the kids......

None of us know anything about the mother in this story beyond that she was awarded custody and that she had kids with the idiot.

I'm not, nor have I tried to stand up for the guy or justify his behavior.........

What I did do was try to put myself in his shoes, being refused access to my kids.....

I think it's good to have discussions about abuse, custody and governments role in family matters even if this story isn't a prime example.....

[euphemia]

The article doesn't exactly say the mother has custody. It says CPS has custody. Paragraph #5.

[cajuncocoa]

Tod Evans, I get that this is a very sensitive issue for you, and I don't want you to think I am ignoring that. I don't think this story makes your point.
Neither do I.

[tod evans]

The article doesn't exactly say the mother has custody. It says CPS has custody. Paragraph #5.

That's even worse!

Poor comprehension on my part.....:o

[Intoxiklown]

The reason she went outside (though not a very smart one) is that he was trying to get back inside by breaking a window. He's not exactly a genius, either, because the shovel would probably have worked better than random kids' toys.

The Good Samaritan narrative some of you have cooked up (the two women were fighting! he was breaking it up!) does not compute with the statement, though it could be a false one.

They cared so much about the kids they then left without them. This is not likely to be a good memory for them. I'm sure it's still the mom's fault, though.

If you find yourself saying "it is!" then at least concede that maybe he should have gone and hit HER with a shovel, rather than a daycare worker? And yeah it still makes you a bad person, don't worry.

If this is aimed at me, nowhere n my life did I say he was breaking it up. I said he intervened with them, and ended it. Never said he was a good samaritan. But, if he was trying to break in, why allow her to escort him out so she can lock the door? He may have been trying to break the windows, but it reeks of a childish temper....not an attempt to gain entry. He was drunk showing his ass, she got riled up and started showing her ass, and apparently the other girl decided to show some ass as well.

Which is why I made it clear (or so I thought) that I don't condone any of what happened. But I've known enough crazy low lifes to have a good idea of what happened.

[cajuncocoa]

That's even worse!

Poor comprehension on my part.....:o
There are better solutions than CPS, certainly. But it's an assumption to say that it's worse than giving the mother custody. She could have abused those children herself, maybe she's on drugs...maybe she's even dead (the article doesn't mention her at all!) The real problem? Families won't step up in a situation like that. Many times, they don't want to. Aunts and uncles have their hands full with children of their own, and grandma might say she's done with raising kids at that point in her life. I'm glad my aunt took my mother in while my grandmother HAD to work, but it doesn't always work out that way now. Families don't always take care of their own like they used to.

[donnay]

Government didn't do that. We did it by choice.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCpjmvaIgNA

[Zippyjuan]

21 year old girlfriend who hit the woman with the shovel arrested. Not that it matters but she is ten years younger than the man charged with assault.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2015/oct/17/woman-arrested-in-daycare-owners-beating/


A woman wanted by police in the beating of a Montana daycare owner who refused to hand over three children to their drunken father is now in custody.

Lake County Sheriff Dan Bell said Tashiana Schlensker, 21, turned herself in to authorities in Polson around 6 p.m. Friday after a warrant was issued for her arrest.

KTMF-TV reported (http://bit.ly/1NNC3Hf ) that Schlensker is being held in the county jail pending a court hearing.

Police earlier arrested Francis Joseph Jackson on a warrant charging him with aggravated burglary.

Lake County officials say Martha McClure was caring for Francis Joseph Jackson's three children, all under the age of 4, when Jackson showed up Oct. 7 at her Ronan daycare center with his girlfriend, identified by police as Schlensker.

McClure knew Salish and Kootenai Tribal Child Protective Services had suspended Jackson's parental rights and he was not allowed to have contact with them.

McClure told investigators that she could smell alcohol on Jackson, that he was angry she wouldn't let him pick up his children, and that he threatened to assault her in front of the kids at Martha's Mini Daycare, court records said.

She was able to physically remove Jackson from the daycare center and lock the door. But she said he began throwing toys, including a tricycle, at the window in an apparent attempt to get back inside, court records said.

McClure went outside, where she and Jackson fought until the woman with Jackson hit McClure in the face with a snow shovel. Jackson then hit McClure in the face, knocking her down, court records said. The suspects fled without the children.

McClure later said she knew what the consequences would be for keeping Jackson from his children.

"I knew he was going to throttle me, he was going to pound me, but he wasn't going to get back in the house," McClure said this week in a phone interview from her daycare.

A broken down family? Yes. Can we blame it on government? Not enough evidence to say so. Perhaps he has a problem with alcohol and violence. (again- we don't know). Maybe if the government stayed out, the wife and or kids may have been abused or even killed by him. (again- we don't know).


CPS had been involved for three years and all the kids were under four.

The daycare center is on an Indian reservation and is probably under their laws- not those of the US Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan,_Montana

Perhaps the government should support the family- ban divorce and not allow women to work. Then they can stay at home and take care of their family. If the husband was abusive (and that is why he lost custody), she was saving the family by leaving him.

"Leave It To Beaver" or "Andy Griffith" are perhaps ideal families (actually Andy was a single, working father trying to raise his son with help from family- Aunt Bea- where was his wife?). But even at that time, mostly a myth.

[THX 1138]

I think it's good to have discussions about abuse, custody and governments role in family matters even if this story isn't a prime example.....


Agreed!

[alucard13mm]

Meanwhile.. you have A Syrian family with 15 children that recently sought asylum or Uragauy complaining about how he can raise his 15 children... lol

[limequat]

One thing that's difficult for me to grok: just because the gov't is the bad guy, doesn't mean that its victim isn't also the bad guy.

[tod evans]

One thing that's difficult for me to grok: just because the gov't is the bad guy, doesn't mean that its victim isn't also the bad guy.

Absolutely!

[jllundqu]

I'm not sure this story makes your point, Tod Evans. It's really sad that children have to be in day care at all because the economy forces both parents to work. In any case, we don't really know the whole story of why this dad lost custody, but I would say the drunken violence probably contributed to the decision.

I get that there is a lot of inequality in the system, but this is probably not such a case. Likely the man will be in jail for a while now. He beat up someone who had nothing to do with his custody issue. She was the caregiver of many children, not just his, and his behavior demonstrates a lot of contempt for the safety of others.

I don't think teachers and caregivers should be forced in the middle of these things. I have experienced it on a couple of occasions. It's awkward at best. I don't know what the answer is. In all my years of working with kids, I have seen one joint custody situation work very well. It was a lot of work for everyone, but the adults were sane and logical people with the best interests of their children in mind. The kids were happy, healthy, and accomplished.

Your point is well taken... My family is blessed in that I am the only one who works. My wife keeps the home-fires burning and homeschools the kids. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't drop to my knees and thank the gods that we are able to pull this off. This is, in my opinion, how it should be. Dad brings home the bacon, and mom takes care of the home/kids. This was my wife's first choice, too. She was working at a very lucrative job where she made plenty of money. When we were pregnant with our first, she decided she wanted to stay at home.

[helmuth_hubener]

Your point is well taken... My family is blessed in that I am the only one who works. My wife keeps the home-fires burning and homeschools the kids. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't drop to my knees and thank the gods that we are able to pull this off. This is, in my opinion, how it should be. Dad brings home the bacon, and mom takes care of the home/kids. This was my wife's first choice, too. She was working at a very lucrative job where she made plenty of money. When we were pregnant with our first, she decided she wanted to stay at home.

That is of course how it should work, and is of course the right way to do it, and is of course the solution to the problem of family break-down!

Good job. You're not the only one doing this, don't feel alone or weird. And it will pay huge dividends.

The rebel of the 21st century will be old fashioned.

[Zippyjuan]

Most family breakups are due to personal choices the people in that family made- whether that is hooking up with the wrong person or getting into substance abuse problems or physical/ emotional abuse. Blaming the government for their choices is excusing their actions. They made those choices- the government didn't order them to make those decisions. Personal responsibility is important.

[jllundqu]

That is of course how it should work, and is of course the right way to do it, and is of course the solution to the problem of family break-down!

Good job. You're not the only one doing this, don't feel alone or weird. And it will pay huge dividends.

The rebel of the 21st century will be old fashioned.

Such an odd thing, too. I do feel both empowered and out of place. Since when did 'old fashioned' and 'traditional' become dirty words. I tell my family (most of whom are liberals) that my wife is a homemaker and our kids are homeschooled and they think I should be committed to the psych ward!

My only hope is that there are many more like us who live humbly and drive toward personal freedom and personal responsibility and teaching those values to the next generation. Hell I'm only 35 yrs old. Judging by my peers, I'm more like 65.

[tod evans]

Most family breakups are due to personal choices the people in that family made- whether that is hooking up with the wrong person or getting into substance abuse problems or physical/ emotional abuse. Blaming the government for their choices is excusing their actions. They made those choices- the government didn't order them to make those decisions. Personal responsibility is important.

Government empowers poor decision makers.

Get the bastards out of family situations all together!

[helmuth_hubener]

Most family breakups are due to personal choices the people in that family made- whether that is hooking up with the wrong person or getting into substance abuse problems or physical/ emotional abuse. Blaming the government for their choices is excusing their actions. They made those choices- the government didn't order them to make those decisions. Personal responsibility is important. Yeah, uh huh.

I can feel the sincerity oozing out of you. You care so deeply about personal responsibility. You want so badly to be able to preserve traditional family values. You know, the ones you said a few posts ago were just a fantasy and a fairy tale.

Just like you are for unlimited third-world immigration because to limit it in any way would be a expansion of government. And if there's one thing you hate, Zip-P/S, it's big government. We all know that. So the correct pro-small-government stance is unlimited third-world immigration! You just want us all to know that. You're not in favor of a flood of peasants because they are Democratic voters. Oh, no. You just want to shrink the state. Really.

And you're not against people believing that government welfare is destructive to families because you are a leftist in favor of handouts. Oh, no. It's because you're a huge advocate of personal responsibility!

Look, I can appreciate the creative triangulation and rhetorical virtuosity, but seriously: get a life.

[helmuth_hubener]

Bump, in hopes that as many people as possible can read the post above and realize Zippy's modus operandi. And thus see through it, as the ploy that it is.

[euphemia]

It would be nice if people reflected on the impact of their choices. It doesn't take much to think what a situation will look like in 1, 5, or 10 years. People do not change all that much. If someone is irresponsible when they are 20, it likely won't look much different down the road. Granted some people do grow up, but I would much rather be with someone who has grown up than to base my future on the hope that an irresponsible person will suddenly become responsible.

[helmuth_hubener]

It would be nice if people reflected on the impact of their choices. It doesn't take much to think what a situation will look like in 1, 5, or 10 years. People do not change all that much. If someone is irresponsible when they are 20, it likely won't look much different down the road. Granted some people do grow up, but I would much rather be with someone who has grown up than to base my future on the hope that an irresponsible person will suddenly become responsible.
You are thinking like a K. That is just not how Rs think.

Deep down, it actually doesn't matter to them whether the person ever becomes responsible at all. That's irrelevant. Why would it be relevant? It wouldn't, and it's not. They are not breeding for quality.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU