Homeless mother who sent son to better school in the wrong town jailed for five years

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have no problem with a school district taking steps to ensure the kids at the school belong there. But there is no way in hell I am ever going to agree that it is actual theft or larceny to enroll your kid in a better school. Fuck that noise. I understand that this particular person is going to jail more for the drug dealing than anything else, but the precedent being set here is still fucked up.

I'm pretty sure that this precedent is VERY challengable and wouldn't hold up in a higher court.
 
Yep, exactly. I feel real sorry for the kid, but as always, I am very glad a crack dealer is off the streets.

Not sure why she wouldn't qualify for the mother of the year award. You're doing what you can to provide for your child.

She's close to being at the bottom of the barrel (there are worse conditions/scenarios involved with parenting, believe it or not).

She was THE individual, all alone, the last line of defense not for homelessness, but literally for life or death. There was no facilitation other than getting her kid into a "good" school illegally, or maybe going to homeless shelters for food (grandmother out of the picture until now). Granted there are other options (like putting her kid in a home and living for herself) but from her perspective she was doing what she could with what she had, however legal or illegal.

That's not bad. But oh well, it's not important now.
 
He might get abused in the foster care system. Who knows where his life with his mother would have led? I agree with you that she cares for him, but the danger to the child doesn't stem from her, directly, but rather from the dangerous elements that she has introduced into their lives through her crack dealing activities.

In either case, the danger is prospective, but I still feel that the risk of abuse in the foster system, when coupled with the benefits I listed earlier, outweigh the risks to the boy if he remained with a mother who deals crack.

Maybe, maybe not. It certainly isn't cause for the "yay another crack dealer off the streets" celebration that was going on, though. She also dealt drugs twice. Doesn't quite sound like Nino Brown to me.

Well, end of the foster care discussion. The kid is better off.

Only if we assume the arrangement is permanent. I wonder why they weren't living with grandma before.
 
Not sure why she wouldn't qualify for the mother of the year award. You're doing what you can to provide for your child.

She's close to being at the bottom of the barrel (there are worse conditions/scenarios involved with parenting, believe it or not).

She was THE individual, all alone, the last line of defense not for homelessness, but literally for life or death. There was no facilitation other than getting her kid into a "good" school illegally, or maybe going to homeless shelters for food (grandmother out of the picture until now). Granted there are other options (like putting her kid in a home and living for herself) but from her perspective she was doing what she could with what she had, however legal or illegal.

That's not bad.

Selling crack is never going to be okay in the traditional moral sense. She may have not had any other option (Very unlikely) but that doesn't make it okay to destroy countless other's lives with a very terrible drug. I'm behind her ideal of making a better life for her child, who doesn't want that?

But if that was truly her goal then she should have known that dealing crack was detrimental to it.
 
Maybe, maybe not. It certainly isn't cause for the "yay another crack dealer off the streets" celebration that was going on, though. She also dealt drugs twice. Doesn't quite sound like Nino Brown to me.



Only if we assume the arrangement is permanent. I wonder why they weren't living with grandma before.

quite a few homeless people I've met have had relatives they could go live with, but dont
 
If we're making up her life story it could be that grandma didn't allow drug dealing in her home and didn't want to get her daughter in trouble since she was taking care of the kid somehow. Shame of lifestyle could be a hindrance to reconciliation too.

They may not stand each other but she's closest kin. I would take care of my future grandkids over taking care of my future hypothetical drug dealing loser son anyday of the week.
 
Maybe, maybe not. It certainly isn't cause for the "yay another crack dealer off the streets" celebration that was going on, though. She also dealt drugs twice. Doesn't quite sound like Nino Brown to me.



Only if we assume the arrangement is permanent. I wonder why they weren't living with grandma before.

I don't have any experience with the foster care system, but it's my understanding that they prefer to place kids with relatives, provided that the relatives are in a position to take care of the kids. If they gave the kid to grandma in the first place, we have to assume that she has a reasonably stable home. I would also lean towards grandma being willing to house the kid as long as necessary, but that is an admittedly baseless assumption.
 
Is this the birth of a new crazed NeoGAF Defense Force™ ? Homeless crackdealing single mothers, the best environment a child can grow up in!
 
No, she's pretty much going to jail just for the drug dealing.

Point being they successfully charged her with the larceny and she plead guilty. So in the mind of the DA, that's a win on that charge, even if she got no jail time from it specifically.
 
This article is a good example of exactly why our war on drugs is one of the most detrimental things in our country.

It is why our jails are overcrowded, it is how non-violent offenders become hardened criminals, and it is also a big contributor of needless spending that effects our taxes.

The war on drugs was originally enacted by big paper corporations who bought out congress and told them to enact these laws in order to illegalize hemp, which was a major threat to the logging industry at the time. It is a good example of how corruption more often than not dictates the laws in this country.
 
Point being they successfully charged her with the larceny and she plead guilty. So in the mind of the DA, that's a win on that charge, even if she got no jail time from it specifically.

It's a crime on the books in Connecticut, so it's not like the DA shoe-horned what she did under some general larceny statute:

2005 Connecticut Code - Sec. 53a-119. Larceny defined.

(6) Defrauding of public community. A person is guilty of defrauding a public community who (A) authorizes, certifies, attests or files a claim for benefits or reimbursement from a local, state or federal agency which he knows is false; or (B) knowingly accepts the benefits from a claim he knows is false; or (C) as an officer or agent of any public community, with intent to prejudice it, appropriates its property to the use of any person or draws any order upon its treasury or presents or aids in procuring to be allowed any fraudulent claim against such community. For purposes of this subdivision such order or claim shall be deemed to be property.

You can argue that she did it for a good purpose, and I'm sympathetic to that argument, but the law doesn't take into consideration why she broke it. Still, she did not receive any jail time for this, and it really is just about the least of her concerns at this point.
 
quite a few homeless people I've met have had relatives they could go live with, but dont

Ok?

I don't have any experience with the foster care system, but it's my understanding that they prefer to place kids with relatives, provided that the relatives are in a position to take care of the kids. If they gave the kid to grandma in the first place, we have to assume that she has a reasonably stable home. I would also lean towards grandma being willing to house the kid as long as necessary, but that is an admittedly baseless assumption.

It's her lawyer's statement that the kid is with grandma. It's not clear that CFS made any determination. In any event, I simply don't think two incidents of non-violent low-level crime justify breaking up this family, but then again I'm not a drug warrior.
 
Ok?



It's her lawyer's statement that the kid is with grandma. It's not clear that CFS made any determination. In any event, I simply don't think two incidents of non-violent low-level crime justify breaking up this family, but then again I'm not a drug warrior.
Crack is a low level of crime. lol

Oh well at the end of the day a crack dealer is off the street and no amount of liberal guilt will stop that or allow her custody of a child.
 
Nope, that's my fucking point. I, nor he, is qualified to judge her in the matter.

But the US judiciary system is.

Ok?



It's her lawyer's statement that the kid is with grandma. It's not clear that CFS made any determination. In any event, I simply don't think two incidents of non-violent low-level crime justify breaking up this family, but then again I'm not a drug warrior.

I'm only pointing out that it's not that uncommon for people to continue being homeless than ask relatives for help.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom