Sparkling Adventures in Child Neglect - "Gayby" is Born!

[lilith]

Not to be one-upping, but I can't afford to work unless I make twice minumum wage, which is close to impossible. I'm actually planning to abandon my previous career and get a whole nother degree whch will pay enough to cover child care. And my kids are neither numerous nor particularly young.

And the PP's husband's not just in the top tax bracket, he's so far into it that the amount he pays within it dwarfs the amount below it. I can't be bothered figuring it out exactly, but he must be making well north of half a million a year. Closer to a million if my mental calulations are right (they're probably not).

ETA: just checked and yes, $14 an hour over a 40 hour week is the break even point without including SS tax or state tax or increased costs like a bus pass or bought lunches. Just afterschool/summer childcare and federal income tax. I can only dream of contributing to the mortgage. 59 million out of 156 million workers in the US earn below $14 an hour, so it's not like I'm all that unusual. And to live less than an hour from my husband's work would mean a town with a median price of $900,000. And, of course, don't forget that we pay $2000 a month for health insurance (OOP and packaged) So yeah, maybe I am one-upping you.

Andplusalso, our federal tax rates aren't the whole story. We pay 6% SS tax, plus 6% health insurance OOP, plus state tax, which we'll call 6% so as not to give away where I live. And these are on every cent, flat rate, so our BASE rate, on the first $18,000, is 28% (although we take the standard deduction, so the liability is lower). Our family's supposed top marginal rate is 22%, but in reality it's 40%. High income earners do get a break, though, SStax is only on the first $120,000 (it's regressive, not progressive).

And after all that, we still get to drive past starving homeless men because they're not worth giving welfare to. Or homeless women with children because what child deserves welfare for more than two years straight, right? And they're all diseased, because hey have no insurance. So really, don't start with me on how expensive your country is and how onerous your tax burden is and how heinous these welfare frauds are. Just don't even. Because I live in a more expensive country, pay more taxes, and there isn't even welfare here for people to dream of defrauding.

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make in my comment- maybe I didn't make it well.

As far as taxation goes I was simply pointing out that people in our top tax bracket aren't necessarily wealthy, especially when living in Sydney or Melbourne. This was in response to the "second Mercedes" quip. I don't think our tax system is bad or unfair, although I would like to see families allowed to share income between spouses for tax purposes and to see childcare costs tax deductible. But generally I think we have a pretty fair system.

I'm also a fan (and past beneficiary) of our relatively generous welfare system and would like to see benefits increased for the elderly and unemployed. I'm glad I live in a country with a safety net and I'm happy to contribute to it.

I don't, however, believe that living off Center link benefits forever Is a laudable lifestyle choice that should be encouraged, especially for Lauren, who is educated, has an employment history, owns her home and is privileged in ways many welfare recipients could only dream of.I don't want to see Lauren's daughters go without food or shelter and I'm glad we have a system that provides the resources to ensure that they don't. I do, however, believe Lauren has a responsibility to support herself and her kids when she is able to, and that she has a moral obligation to pay back into the system that has supported her family. If that means that she can't be home unschooling her kids then so be it - many women sacrifice time with their kids so they can work.

[snarkelle]

I must say I think this is quite a city-dwelling POV. Many of us who live in the country raise our kids in a way that can seem quite hair raising to someone from the suburbs. I watched that program on Sunday Night about raising boys in a way that's too sheltered and we laughed and said - "that's a city problem, not a gender problem". My kids ride on motorbikes, use knives, climb trees, use power tools and my oldest (nearly 8) can use a 0.22 rifle pretty well and safely.

Some of what horrifies you guys about the girls childhoods doesn't bother me whatsoever and it's not because I'm a hippie or free-ranger or whatever you call it - it's because I'm a farm person.

The stuff that bothers me is the psychological and emotional neglect and probable parentification. Lauren seems to have several markers that look very much like a personality disorder but may just be a result of her own childhood. I would think if you are raised in a fundamental religion then it's very hard to let go of some of those things, even when transferred to a "rainbow lifestyle". Because I live in a region that's very "heavy" in those belief systems then I'm pretty familiar with it and I think she's taking it too far.

Very valid, but what about things like letting a prickle fester in an eye, not being concerned about a child being lost with a stranger (or in city crowds for that matter), and eschewing vaccinations?

I agree I can't get fussed on bare feet, nits, or normal childhood risk taking with climbing, machines etc, but physical neglect is connected to emotional/ psychological neglect in this case, IMO.

[DaffyDill]

The whole problem with Lauren receiving Social Security (welfare) is not that she receives it, but her attitude towards it and towards those that work to pay into the system she so abhors, yet is happy to have fund, or partially fund, her chosen lifestyle.

As far as I am concerned as a one-time recipient, Social Security is there for those in need as a safety net. It is not, and was never intended to be a career choice. I received it as a single mother, but rather than uproot my children and travel about, I kept them in school, re-educated myself so I could find a decent job, then left Social Security behind for those who needed it.

Lauren has espoused her current lifestyle as a new way of living, a more enlightened way of being, just a generally more superior lifestyle to working 40 hours a week. If we all took her advice, there would BE no god damn system for her to choose and THAT's what people find galling.

[August]

MMM, if a parent is homeschooling (let's leave aside how badly she's doing that) then they are probably saving the govt more than they spend on the family. You could make an argumentthat it's a better deal in terms of dollars for them to support a homeschooling parent of four than a SAH parent of a non-school aged child.

IIRC our district spends $8-9,000 per child per year. If that were analogous, the taxpayer's saving $36,000 or so on not schooling those kids.

[Blahblah]

MMM, if a parent is homeschooling (let's leave aside how badly she's doing that) then they are probably saving the govt more than they spend on the family. You could make an argumentthat it's a better deal in terms of dollars for them to support a homeschooling parent of four than a SAH parent of a non-school aged child.

IIRC our district spends $8-9,000 per child per year. If that were analogous, the taxpayer's saving $36,000 or so on not schooling those kids.

Yep I understand that and agree, BUT (you knew there was a but coming) what about the future costs of having four more citizens reliant on social security? If things continue as they are, I can't see the girls being equipped (academically or socially) to contribute to society in any fiscal way. In a self-sustaining "new economy" that's fine. But in a "new economy" that refuses to let go of us Job Types to fund their existence, then I have a problem.

I agree with earlier posters that social security should be for those who have no other choice. It should not be a choice in and of itself. And particularly in Sparkles' circumstances where she is probably hiding legitimate income from the house in order to maximize her benefits, whilst sneering at those of us who are funding those benefits.

[Mermaidgrrrl]

Very valid, but what about things like letting a prickle fester in an eye, not being concerned about a child being lost with a stranger (or in city crowds for that matter), and eschewing vaccinations?

I agree I can't get fussed on bare feet, nits, or normal childhood risk taking with climbing, machines etc, but physical neglect is connected to emotional/ psychological neglect in this case, IMO.

I agree there's elements there that aren't great (huge understatement) , but because I know what a caseload DOCS have in this region those things wouldn't even warrant attention. Mullumbimby has the lowest vaccination rate in a coastal region in all of Australia, but I can assure you the same parents who eschew vaxxing turn up very demanding in the public health system when their kids catch preventable illnesses. Same with the poor dentition of the local children - it's infuriating if you let it get to you.

I think it's a fundie type of mindset, just now the rainbow variety. It's about pushing the envelope too far because of blindly following a belief system and then urging each other on in that community to be more extreme. I think Hellena is less extreme in that than Lauren and basically fits the norm for the community she lives in. Maybe she's a more settled type person because she wasn't actually raised in extremism?

[snarkelle]

Yeah I guess the difference is most people don't proudly blog about it! :)

[formergothardite]

I must say I think this is quite a city-dwelling POV. Many of us who live in the country raise our kids in a way that can seem quite hair raising to someone from the suburbs. I watched that program on Sunday Night about raising boys in a way that's too sheltered and we laughed and said - "that's a city problem, not a gender problem". My kids ride on motorbikes, use knives, climb trees, use power tools and my oldest (nearly 8) can use a 0.22 rifle pretty well and safely.

Some of what horrifies you guys about the girls childhoods doesn't bother me whatsoever and it's not because I'm a hippie or free-ranger or whatever you call it - it's because I'm a farm person.

The stuff that bothers me is the psychological and emotional neglect and probable parentification. Lauren seems to have several markers that look very much like a personality disorder but may just be a result of her own childhood. I would think if you are raised in a fundamental religion then it's very hard to let go of some of those things, even when transferred to a "rainbow lifestyle". Because I live in a region that's very "heavy" in those belief systems then I'm pretty familiar with it and I think she's taking it too far.

:lol: This is funny since I grew up in an extremely rural area and live in an even more rural area. I'm surrounded by farms, forest and kids who grew up roaming the woods with guns and knives. Me, my parents and no one in my community would react the way Lauren and David did if a child disappeared. Do no claim that acting that way is a "city" idea. Police would be called, people would be combing the woods and everyone would freak the fuck out at a strange man having found the child and spent the night with her. Same with the prickle in the eye. People treat medical problems in the country too. Have you seen the fork lift video? Because while I grew up around machines, not even the most old timey farmer would have thought what they did was a good idea. Putting toddlers and preschool age children on a platform raised high over a cement floor all while they are playing with razor sharp saw blades is also not seen as a good idea in my rural part of the country. Do people in your community really treat the safety of children so casually nobody would blink an eye at that?

[browncoatslytherin]

:lol: This is funny since I grew up in an extremely rural area and live in an even more rural area. I'm surrounded by farms, forest and kids who grew up roaming the woods with guns and knives. Me, my parents and no one in my community would react the way Lauren and David did if a child disappeared. Do no claim that acting that way is a "city" idea. Police would be called, people would be combing the woods and everyone would freak the fuck out at a strange man having found the child and spent the night with her. Same with the prickle in the eye. People treat medical problems in the country too. Have you seen the fork lift video? Because while I grew up around machines, not even the most old timey farmer would have thought what they did was a good idea. Putting toddlers and preschool age children on a platform raised high over a cement floor all while they are playing with razor sharp saw blades is also not seen as a good idea in my rural part of the country. Do people in your community really treat the safety of children so casually nobody would blink an eye at that?

same here, and that's exactly what i thought. when i was growing up in mcdonough, ga, we had a grand total of two neighbors. we were out there. of course, nowadays, atlanta has slithered in and developments have sprung up everywhere, but twenty and more years ago, my area was fairly deserted.

and the above mentioned things would have never happened. medical attention was given promptly. i was never, ever allowed to play with anything sharp, like saw blades. i went outside barefoot once and got a rusty wire lodged deep in my foot, and i was immediately taken to the hospital (that was a fun experience :P ).

so yeah, don't try to blame it on "city folk". even we (former, for me) country bumpkins still know that playing with saw blades is dangerous and if a child needs medical attention, they need it whether they want it or not (that was lauren's justification for not taking the girl to the doctor...she didn't wanna go...well too fuckin bad, i never wanted to go to the doctor, but i was taken anyway).

[formergothardite]

My brother stepped on nails two different times and after that we wore shoes outside. We for sure could not run barefoot when we went shopping or to museums. The second time my brother stepped on a nail he threw a huge fit about going to the doctor because he knew it was going to hurt, my parents would have been considered foolish if they had listened to him.

[treemom]

Not every affluent person drives one Mercedes much less two. I fall into a similar tax bracket in the U.S. And drive a 2001 Nissan Sentra, husband drives a 1999 Chevy prism and we have w third car we bought used in 2011 a 2006 town and country van which we use for hauling scouts, longer trips, etc. we made those choices because we don't place a lot of value in vehicles and would rather spend our money elsewhere, etc.

I have been the recipient of welfare and I don't think most recipients are grifters, but I think Lauren is and her disrespect of those who pay into the system, most of whom I assume don't look anything like wealthy is really shitty. As is the second Mercedes comment. No one was talking about expecting children to feel guilty about their aid, they were looking for a shred of respect and self awareness from Lauren.

[amydamy]

MMM, if a parent is homeschooling (let's leave aside how badly she's doing that) then they are probably saving the govt more than they spend on the family. You could make an argumentthat it's a better deal in terms of dollars for them to support a homeschooling parent of four than a SAH parent of a non-school aged child.

IIRC our district spends $8-9,000 per child per year. If that were analogous, the taxpayer's saving $36,000 or so on not schooling those kids.

That number is not the incremental cost of educating each child. It's the total district budget divided by the number of students. The cost of adding four kids to the very large district I live in is not going to be anywhere near 54,000 even though they spend 13,500 per student.

[August]

Yep I understand that and agree, BUT (you knew there was a but coming) what about the future costs of having four more citizens reliant on social security? If things continue as they are, I can't see the girls being equipped (academically or socially) to contribute to society in any fiscal way. In a self-sustaining "new economy" that's fine. But in a "new economy" that refuses to let go of us Job Types to fund their existence, then I have a problem.

I agree with earlier posters that social security should be for those who have no other choice. It should not be a choice in and of itself. And particularly in Sparkles' circumstances where she is probably hiding legitimate income from the house in order to maximize her benefits, whilst sneering at those of us who are funding those benefits.

If she were a decent homeschooler that point wouldn't apply, though. I thinkit's more likely to apply to schooled children with chronically unemployed parents.

[Blahblah]

If she were a decent homeschooler that point wouldn't apply, though. I thinkit's more likely to apply to schooled children with chronically unemployed parents.

Absolutely. She's got skill and talent herself and would be very employable if she chose to work. But she is applying very little of that skill and talent towards ensuring that her girls will have choices for themselves. So she's screwing the system both ways - choosing to not contribute herself, and removing that choice for the girls.

[Mermaidgrrrl]

same here, and that's exactly what i thought. when i was growing up in mcdonough, ga, we had a grand total of two neighbors. we were out there. of course, nowadays, atlanta has slithered in and developments have sprung up everywhere, but twenty and more years ago, my area was fairly deserted.

and the above mentioned things would have never happened. medical attention was given promptly. i was never, ever allowed to play with anything sharp, like saw blades. i went outside barefoot once and got a rusty wire lodged deep in my foot, and i was immediately taken to the hospital (that was a fun experience :P ).

so yeah, don't try to blame it on "city folk". even we (former, for me) country bumpkins still know that playing with saw blades is dangerous and if a child needs medical attention, they need it whether they want it or not (that was lauren's justification for not taking the girl to the doctor...she didn't wanna go...well too fuckin bad, i never wanted to go to the doctor, but i was taken anyway).

But I agreed about the medical stuff, and think its really hypocritical that the same people who refuse to vaccinate or attend dental care then want it all fixed up for free in the public health system and want all the benefits of medical knowledge, research and interventions but conveniently reject it when they feel like taking the "rainbow route". Having a prickle in your eye is completely different than arguing over removing a splinter from a foot - if you get an optical infection it can lead to blindness. That is not just a sore foot with localised infection. That is permanent disability.

I just notice here that some people put so much emphasis on the little things (like bare feet) that it takes away from the really big stuff. And why that big stuff is happening. It's like it's all taken to such an extreme with Lauren - like the eye prickle. That takes the idea of giving a child a small degree of natural consequence and takes it to that extreme level. She was raised as a gay-hating fundie Xtian and has now "repented" of that and gone to the other extreme of being a "traditional surrogate" to a gay couple to make amends. Why not just donate to PFLAG or something like a normal person?

[formergothardite]

Mermaidgrrl, you responded to my post saying it was a city-dwelling POV. What exactly about MY post did you feel was a city-dwelling point of view.

~The wandering off and spending the night with a strange man?

~The prickle in the eye?

~Toddlers and young preschoolers being suspended high above a concrete floor by a fork-lift while playing with razor sharp saw blades?

And the list of stuff that even country folks would not approve of can go on. I am genuinely curious why you thought my post was from a city point of view.

[Mermaidgrrrl]

I just used yours as the quote cause it was the closest one on the form to be honest. When I read back on yours it was a poor choice to use. I had read many, many posts criticising what I saw as relatively minor issues and asking why child services weren't getting involved.

DOCS won't care about many of the things listed by people, they won't even care about the eye prickle or the staying in the bush with the "family friend" (or however it got explained away) overnight. When you compare this case to families with similar ideologies who perpetuate much greater physical risk than this on their kids, then this case pales in comparison. The mandatory reporting rules have changed in NSW and may well have changed in other states too, but I don't work in those states. To meet the criteria of "significant risk of harm" as opposed to "risk of harm" and then actually get the case investigated and have a worker allocated is very difficult. Even with photographic and video evidence.

[August]

I just notice here that some people put so much emphasis on the little things (like bare feet) that it takes away from the really big stuff. And why that big stuff is happening. It's like it's all taken to such an extreme with Lauren - like the eye prickle. That takes the idea of giving a child a small degree of natural consequence and takes it to that extreme level. She was raised as a gay-hating fundie Xtian and has now "repented" of that and gone to the other extreme of being a "traditional surrogate" to a gay couple to make amends. Why not just donate to PFLAG or something like a normal person?

Yes, she is an extremist who is just entirely reacting to things.

But, bare feet is a cultural blind spot. For some people/cultures any bare feet anywhere is just insanity. I think you also see that in the threads where people are outraged that the Duggars don't wear enclosed shoes all the time. For others (like me) it's not a huge thing, and only noteworthy when it's outright dangerous, like around animals, in the city, etc. Like cash gifts at weddings or apologising when someone bumps into you you can't fight people on it, you just have to observe it and note that people are going to think you're rude in those situations.

[formergothardite]

I just used yours as the quote cause it was the closest one on the form to be honest. When I read back on yours it was a poor choice to use. I had read many, many posts criticising what I saw as relatively minor issues and asking why child services weren't getting involved.

DOCS won't care about many of the things listed by people, they won't even care about the eye prickle or the staying in the bush with the "family friend" (or however it got explained away) overnight. When you compare this case to families with similar ideologies who perpetuate much greater physical risk than this on their kids, then this case pales in comparison. The mandatory reporting rules have changed in NSW and may well have changed in other states too, but I don't work in those states. To meet the criteria of "significant risk of harm" as opposed to "risk of harm" and then actually get the case investigated and have a worker allocated is very difficult. Even with photographic and video evidence.

Okay. I was just really confused why you would think my post was from a city point of view. I have never seen anybody in the country think that the way Lauren is treating her kids is acceptable. Running around outside with no shoes isn't that huge of deal. Like I said my mother made us stop after one of my brothers got a nail stuck in his foot on two different occasions. Going shopping and to museums with no shoes has never been a "country" or "farm" way of thinking around here, but is it in Australia?

It sounds like in her community this is normal, though, and that was what I was wanting to know from Quick_lives, if Lauren was the odd one out or if nobody blinked an eye at letting a child get lost and spend the night with strangers, having a prickle that festers in the eye, or small children playing with razor sharp saw blades while being suspended over a concrete floor. Majik Fairie seems to take pretty good care of her daughter and Helena and Currawong might be crazy but they seem to put a lot of effort into making sure their children are safe and secure. Even reading the blogs of people who live like Lauren, I haven't seen one who seems to be so careless with their children's safety.

[Mama Mia]

I think one problem with seeing the really dangerous or emotionally harmful things that Lauren does is that it's mixed in with lots and lots of posts that are just alternative, but normal, activities.

If I didnt read here, and only occasionally checked her blog, I might think she was just traveling about going to parks and museums and gatherings with a bunch of free-spirited girls.

It would be easy to miss the eye prickle -- or even just skim the post, see the photo and think "-aggghhh..that must have been awful" --- and not realize that her daughter not only had that eye prickle for 3 days, but that her mom knew it AND was congratulating herself on not interfering by removing it.

Or to not have not been reading when Elijah died, and then only seen that she was a surrogate . And that she can't seem to comprehend that while she might be fine with that -- it's not humanly possible to know how it will impact any of her daughters -- who happen to be actual individual human beings.

So I think if you weren't paying close attention, over time It would be easy to see her as just a mom who is living a particular lifestyle, who might occasionally make choices I didn't agree with or seemed off ( hell, a good portion of my own parenting I find off ) , and posted some of the bad -- lice, scrapes, getting lost --- along with the overall good - picnics, parks, travel.

You wouldn't neccessarily see the overall narcissistic and neglectful picture.

[Mermaidgrrrl]

Okay. I was just really confused why you would think my post was from a city point of view. I have never seen anybody in the country think that the way Lauren is treating her kids is acceptable. Running around outside with no shoes isn't that huge of deal. Like I said my mother made us stop after one of my brothers got a nail stuck in his foot on two different occasions. Going shopping and to museums with no shoes has never been a "country" or "farm" way of thinking around here, but is it in Australia?

It sounds like in her community this is normal, though, and that was what I was wanting to know from Quick_lives, if Lauren was the odd one out or if nobody blinked an eye at letting a child get lost and spend the night with strangers, having a prickle that festers in the eye, or small children playing with razor sharp saw blades while being suspended over a concrete floor. Majik Fairie seems to take pretty good care of her daughter and Helena and Currawong might be crazy but they seem to put a lot of effort into making sure their children are safe and secure. Even reading the blogs of people who live like Lauren, I haven't seen one who seems to be so careless with their children's safety.

Lauren was living in SE Queensland before they started a nomadic lifestyle, and since then has spent a lot of time in northern NSW, where I live. When I first moved to Qld I was quite shocked and the casual standard of dress in the sub-tropical climate. It's not unusual to wear a bikini top and sarong to the shops with bare feet if you're not in the CBD. In northern NSW there is a really mixed population amongst a region of small villages surrounding a rural city. Toward the coast there are pockets of cult-like communes, but further in is more people like Hellena and Currawong. They are a pretty good example of people living on an MO (multiple occupancy property) near Nimbin. It has a large amount of hippies from generally a middle-class type background, mixed up with multi-generational farmers. A lot of MO's make money from marijuana crops (I'm not saying that's what H & C are doing - just that it's common). I have not heard of any serious child abuse or neglect claims from the place that they live in.

Education is generally considered important by the hippies of this region and if the kids are homeschooled or unschooled it's usually done pretty well. That's because of the roots in the educated middle classes who moved here in the 60's and 70's. H & C and their kids wouldn't even rate a second glance by the locals in the towns they would frequent for shopping etc. It's really normal for kids in this region to go shopping or out to other things with no shoes. It would not be seen as very acceptable at all in more southern regions, but I can see how Lauren's kids are used to it and they only wear them if it's really, really required.

Generally kids who grow up on the farms or MO's etc. are probably raised less conservatively in many ways than other kids, including safety issues.

I'm surprised that Lauren hasn't settled in the area and it would probably be good for her and the kids if she did. She would generally be considered reasonably normal around here on the surface, and maybe being more immersed in a stable "rainbow" type culture would let her stop taking it to the extremes so much eg: the ridiculous surrogacy. It would mean her kids would have a stable support system and ongoing access to health care providers who understand a bit better what is going on for them and they would have peers who are raised in a similar way so they're not so isolated later on from a societal group. They could go more mainstream and enter the education system if they could convince Lauren, and then not be considered weird etc when they entered a school.

[Saffy]

I think that if she settles down anywhere she will be called out on her neglect etc. Too much risk of coming into contact with a mandatory reporter if she stays in one spot. You can shrug off something you see one or twice, but anyone in a position of authority would have to report her repeated and ongoing neglect.

[Coco]

Beyond the physical things that seem to be neglect, and treating their baby brother's death as neutral, is the horrifying reality that Lauren took her sensitive children to see graphic art. Strange paintings of murdered animals and cows dressed as holocaust victims. The little one who wears a hat most of the time definitely seems very sensitive in the blog posts. As a sensitive child myself, i can't imagine her heartbreak and confusion being exposed to surreal graphic things like that. This kind of emotional and spiritual abuse is going to have long term effects on the girls mentally. Being dragged around and exposed to things that disturbs them deeply in the name of authenticity or art... my heart hurts for them. The post said something about she just didn't want to leave. And that is the effect very hurtful things have on a sensitive child - a grip of horror.

I just remembered that post most because that's when i had to stop reading Lauren's blog. By doing things like that on purpose she is running roughshod over her children's spirits. I hope so much that they're able to be in the sunshine and around other friends and just get out and away from the oddness and put it behind them. I hope Lauren doesn't make them dwell on their pain. Lauren did blog about making her daughter talk about it. Why does she pry into what disturbs them? A well, balanced parent would soothe those hurt feelings and be a protector, not focus on it and cause more pain upon pain in the name of being authentic. I think Lauren loves her girls but her own hurt is making pain seem to be the most authentic thing. It is difficult to get beyond an effed up past or grief like Lauren's experienced. I hope the girls come out of it strong and resilient, not disturbed.

[Mama Mia]

Beyond the physical things that seem to be neglect, and treating their baby brother's death as neutral, is the horrifying reality that Lauren took her sensitive children to see graphic art. Strange paintings of murdered animals and cows dressed as holocaust victims. The little one who wears a hat most of the time definitely seems very sensitive in the blog posts. As a sensitive child myself, i can't imagine her heartbreak and confusion being exposed to surreal graphic things like that. This kind of emotional and spiritual abuse is going to have long term effects on the girls mentally. Being dragged around and exposed to things that disturbs them deeply in the name of authenticity or art... my heart hurts for them. The post said something about she just didn't want to leave. And that is the effect very hurtful things have on a sensitive child - a grip of horror.

I just remembered that post most because that's when i had to stop reading Lauren's blog. By doing things like that on purpose she is running roughshod over her children's spirits. I hope so much that they're able to be in the sunshine and around other friends and just get out and away from the oddness and put it behind them. I hope Lauren doesn't make them dwell on their pain. Lauren did blog about making her daughter talk about it. Why does she pry into what disturbs them? A well, balanced parent would soothe those hurt feelings and be a protector, not focus on it and cause more pain upon pain in the name of being authentic. I think Lauren loves her girls but her own hurt is making pain seem to be the most authentic thing. It is difficult to get beyond an effed up past or grief like Lauren's experienced. I hope the girls come out of it strong and resilient, not disturbed.

That's a very insightful post. And it made me realize what IMHO, is the common denominator with all the bad, scary, neglectful situations the girls have been in. It's that she seems to have absolutely no concept of child development, like none. It's as if the second a child is weaned and walking and talking -- they might as well be 15 ish. I would say an adult but I think she does like still having the control of where they go and what their adventures are. And I'm sure there are times at least some of the girls have said they want to stay put somewhere.

So, for the example of the art exhibit -- if you had a militantly vegan teenager - that might be the type of thing they would respond to. But it's wildly inappropriate for a four year old.

Or like with the surrogacy, when she said she talked to the girls and made sure they were ok with it -- she doesn't understand that children that young have no way of knowing how they will feel when it actually happens. Really neither would a nearly adult child -- but you would have a much bigger chance that they would tell you their reservations, and why.

Even with the complete un- schooling. If you had a 15 year old who was motivated and actually liked to learn, they could piece together an education themselves through their iPads , books and activities .

Of course you might have a teen who would do horribly with any of those situations. But because she's a narrssacist she assumes they are all like her, and would handle any situation the way she would.

So to her, the girls are all a bunch of replicas of herself.

[August]

I think it's a result of not having been parented herself. She went to that abusive boarding school at age six. What experience does she have of being protected and reassured?