CT - Adopted child locked in dog crate, Old Saybrook

I cannot believe this isn't being taken more seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

"She did make efforts to remediate some issues with the child, and I commend her for that, although it's not normal practice for a parent/guardian to put a child into a dog crate for an extended period of time," Roche said"

But it's ok for short periods of time????

GAHHHHHH

http://www.wfsb.com/news/27109337/detail.html

Ummm its not ok ever!!!!!

WOW......

I know!! CPS has issues.. OMG!

Now i have heard everything~!:banghead:

Peeples--Can I respectfully ask why you added the label, "adopted" to this header? If a child is legally adopted, they have the same legal standing in a family as a birth child.

Abuse is abuse, plain and simple. And ITA, this sounds like abuse. There are many humane ways for children to be restrained under doctor's orders if it is deemed necessary for a child's safety. There are locking beds and all manner of alarmed gates.

But as the adoptive mother of 11 lovely children, I'm bothered by that label as it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the case. If the child was in foster care that would be different as the foster family acts as an agent of the state.

IMO, it's like saying "Asian child" or "blind child" or "Catholic child". A child is a child.

I have to say that on behalf of my children and the adoptive community the label seems unnecessary.

Anthony told police she got the idea to repurpose a large pet crate that the kids had played in when they had litters of kittens in there, that the crate had "good memories for both kids.

I guess it's okay if the crate had good memories!

Why isn't this woman behind bars?

Is CPS gonna let this child continue to live with her?

WOW!

Mel

Because it's an important fact. Someone who did the home study dropped the ball. I have nothing against adoption... My mother is adopted.
Please don't try to turn this into something it's not. I put in the title what I thought was important.

And if the child was blind.. I would have put that in the title as well.
It's a fact nothing more or less.
The article mentioned it, I don't know why I can't.

It's just very hurtful, Peeples. I can't imagine stating that a child was a birth child in the header.

You are correct in that you may do as you wish. I'm just weighing in on how I respond as an adoptive mother and looking at this story through the eyes of an adopted child. I have no problem with the fact being mentioned, if it is pertinent to the story--the same way I would respond to race, religion or disability being mentioned, if they were pertinent to the story.

I worked very hard with the media during our rape trials to remove all mention of the fact that our children who were raped were also adopted. It came up repeatedly and sometimes there was pertinence but not always. I'm just very sensitive about the issue.

I think adopted is a relevant descriptive, especially when the perp is a parent.

We expect adopted parents to be upheld to a higher standard. They are chosen by social service agencies and birth parents. They are screened. There is a presumption they really want children. We entrust them almost more than birth parents.

In the case where a perp isn't a parent (as in yours) it's not really relevant that they're adopted, I agree.

Missizzy said:

It's just very hurtful, Peeples. I can't imagine stating that a child was a birth child in the header.

You are correct in that you may do as you wish. I'm just weighing in on how I respond as an adoptive mother and looking at this story through the eyes of an adopted child. I have no problem with the fact being mentioned, if it is pertinent to the story--the same way I would respond to race, religion or disability being mentioned, if they were pertinent to the story.

I worked very hard with the media during our rape trials to remove all mention of the fact that our children who were raped were also adopted. It came up repeatedly and sometimes there was pertinence but not always. I'm just very sensitive about the issue.

Click to expand...

I understand your feelings on this, and it always irks me, for example, when the press refers to Tom Cruise's adopted children, but with all of the horrific stories that have come to light in the last couple of weeks having to do with unspeakable abuse/murder of children at the hands of their adoptive parents I think it's extremely relevant. Our government has a system in place that is supposed to ensure that children with no family to take them be adopted by loving, supportive families such as your own and treated as flesh and blood in every way. Unfortunately, though, we have been seeing in several cases that the system has allowed for the adoption of children to people who had no business raising children and who treated those precious human lives as a means to receive money from the government all the while hurting, maiming or killing them. The system is failing many of these children, despite the fact that many others are thriving. In order to try to make sure that all adopted children end up in homes and families like yours it is important to expose these horrors when they come up.

All I ask is that all the facts be considered. As an advocate for special needs children placed in adoptive homes for the last two decades, this is an area I know well. Most definitely, there are horror stories and wicked people who adopt. However, I will be the first to say that DHS often is not nearly careful enough about placing extremely troubled children with parents who might start out with good intentions and yet have no idea how to access services or to deal with strange, unsettling behaviors. To be quite blunt, many many things are not taught in "Adoption 101". Then, to add insult to injury, DHS has gotten into trouble again and again for not fully funding adoptive families as mandated by the Child Welfare Act of 1980. That Act makes it extremely clear that no family should be expected to bear a financial burden in raising a special needs child placed as a waiting child. This program is an entitlement program and states have to be often reminded to follow their own State Plans concerning these issues. Parents must be emotionally and financially supported in raising these challenging children. This is the goal of the Act....moving children out of foster care and into permanent placements. It's been a resounding success and yet much work remains to be done.

For twenty years I worked for the North American Council on Adoptable Children where the motto is "for every child, a family". With all due respect to an organization I highly respect, I don't fully agree. Some children (I have no details about this specific child) should never be placed in a family home. Just as those with dementia cannot always be safely managed at home, there are some children who have incredibly complex needs and who deserve our support in specialized placements. Tragically, those placements are disappearing and DHS is trying to fill the need with "regular" family homes. This is a set up for disaster, IMO.

I'm extremely sorry if I have offended. That was not my intention at all. If anyone is interested in the mandates of the Act and the Issue Briefs which precipitated it , I would be more than happy to answer your questions by PM and to provide links to the law.

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/middlesex_cty/old-saybrook-mom-kept-son-in-dog-crate

It seems once the child left "mom" he's only had a couple bed wetting problems.

As an aside-
I grew up in Old Saybrook. It's a pretty small, tight-knit community where everybody knows everybody.. most families have lived there for generations. Freaky to read about something like this going on there.

peeples said:

I know!! CPS has issues.. OMG!

Click to expand...

Sadly that quote was from Sgt. Roche of the OSPD who should also know better!

http://www.newhavenregister.com/art...oc4d76c7c9d2867577681266.txt?viewmode=default

3 pages

Go figure, there's a history of complaints going back to 2007.. black eye, bruising of the face and of course they were found to be "unsubstantiated". Go DCF! :banghead:

EDIT- to add another link.

An even sadder picture emerges. The boy tried to steal food at school because he didn't get much to eat at dinner (umm what about breakfast?) wasn't allowed to drink after a certain time at night (that I understand if he was wetting his bed) and when he cried sometimes "mom" would put him in the basement so neighbors wouldn't hear him. She didn't even bother to get him checked out by the doctor to see if perhaps he had a medical issue and couldn't help messing the bed.

http://www.ctnow.com/news/connecticut/hc-child-abuse-dcf-0309-20110308,0,2313161.story

The warrant
http://www.ctnow.com/news/connecticut/middlesex/hc-old-saybrook-warrant-pdf-html,0,4670747.htmlpage

Sorry I have been out of town for a funeral, so just catching up....

Just wanted to say, I was a bed wetter until 8 yrs old... According to my parents, and my own DD is almost 6 and still wears a pull up at night, she wets 4 times a week or so..... I cannot fathom punishing a child for this. And I have talked to professionals, just to see if this is normal, and they say no alarm is raised unless there is still night wetting after 10 yrs old! Its not common, but it happens, and as parents, all we can do is try to save the mattress ( lol) and offer support for our kids. I hate when there are people that can't just love kids for who they are

have charges been filed??

I have waited to comment on this because I have had family drama which has me all riled up.

I fought for my adopted son. I fought like hell. He came to me at 14 an emotionally battered wreck. He is going to graduate with honors this year ( I hope)
His bio dad just showed up, and since he was 18 I could not stop him from going to live with him.
I have a bio son who was a chronic bed wetter til 12. Docs said there was nothing wrong with him. I never punished him for it.
\
To this day, I would lay down my life for either one. One that came from my womb, one that came from luck.

No matter what, this child should have been loved.

Kathlyn Anthony and the dog crate.

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/Woman-Kept-Son-in-Dog-Crate-Cops-117572784.html

Looks like she got a 6 month suspended sentence and 2 years probation Hopefully her kids were all taken away, at least.
http://www.jud2.ct.gov/crdockets/Ca...ding&Key=1c647630-19ff-4778-a859-15c75566ce32

Oh, and she had a history with the CPS.

According to the arrest warrant, DCF investigated her for "two or three different incidents" of reported abuse in 2007, but the accounts could not be substantiated. The reports were for a child having a black eye and bruises on the boy's face. Another alleged that Anthony twisted the boy's wrist and hurt him because he didn't go to the bathroom...

Click to expand...

http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/...te-Mother-Had-History-with-DCF-117644348.html