Turpins - 13 shackled kids

[Foudeb]

14 minutes ago, pelerine said:

For me personally, I oppose government involvement in my personal life because where does it end?

Usually when you're safe from mass shootings because there are no guns around, with a safety net that will catch you and support you at best it can if you are ill, unable to get a job etc. You also know that, if you chose to have a child, it will always have a home (free housing goes to families with kids in priority), a good education and free health care for its entire life. And the evil government will also intervene in your life by forcing child benefit payments into your bank account to help you look after that kid you chose to have, after paying you to stay home for up to a year after its birth (this meddling Nanny State gives you free contraception too, so it really is your choice).

I sound like a caricature, but I really don't buy the "we Americans are free" dogma. You can be forced into bankruptcy for being the victim of a shooting and surviving long enough to accrue a big hospital bill. In some areas there is no access to women's health, so you really are not free to do what you want with your own body. Even when there is, healthcare is so expensive that many sensible (non-fundie!) people don't feel like they're free to have the big family they'd really like. There's no parental leave, so in many jobs you really aren't free to spend any significant time with your newborn at all. I'm also under the impression that some minorities really don't feel like they're free to act as they want either, even for things as simple as going to vote (queues at the voting booth, extensive ID checks for some minorities etc).

Honestly not trying to start a war here - my point is merely that I'm a citizen of a nanny state and it's nice to be nannied. I even get a letter in the post to remind me to go to the doctor's (for free) at regular intervals to get checked out for cancer, something that quite frankly I'd never remember to do if left to my own devices. If that makes me a big baby, then I'm a very satisfied big baby. We also get to vote about who's in charge - so we do ourselves get to decide where the government's involvement in our lives end. Although I struggle to see where I (personally) would suffer from that involvement. Apart from an exchange of emails with my local authority on the topic of where, and when, I should have to pay to park my car, which resulted in what can only be described as a difference in opinions, the government's involvement in my life has always been for my own benefit.

[quiversR4hunting]

3 hours ago, bird said:

I wonder if I may ask a general question here. I have never lived in America and only have a theoretical knowledge of the culture from reading and the PR version from Hollywood. But I am very interested in the more personal reasons for why Americans appear to be set against government "intrusion" in their personal lives. For example, I find it hard to understand how children can be born and no one knows they exist, can be schooled without any checks/ standardised tests, can be raised without health care etc. Obviously I understand these cases represent the extreme but rational people still defend the rights of people to live this way. In the country I live in now I have been surprised by the opposite- that the government dictates so much about how people live and I'm always trying to figure out why everyone generally seems happy to go along with the "nanny state". But this is even more fascinating to me. I'm hoping someone is also having a slow day and feels like giving an opinion.... 

I hope I've worded my question properly! 

I have a difference stance than @pelerine.

First, I want to say (and I assume you already know this), NY and Hollywood are not represented of most of the United States.

I am all for accountability in education, so if homeschooling is your thing then it needs to be regulated like private or public school with tests and bench marks. I don't agree with majority of homeschooling, charter schools or public school of choice because I think if you want the schools to be better you need to be involved in the district you live in and if you live in one district but go to another you don't have a vested interest to help make your home district a great place. Charter schools in my state do not have the same requirements for reporting and can discriminate against handicap kids. Charter schools get public school money for private companies with less regulation. A lot of them are awful and teachers are paid worse than private school teachers who are paid worse than public school teachers. I know many do not agree with my opinions on schools. What I don't like is the department of ed (state and federal level) focusing all public schools to have all students be college bound. Not all kids are college bound but all kids need to have skills to be a productive adult. So the emphasis on everyone learning Algebra II or taking Chem II is stupid. Me for example, I have a BS in business. I should have been taking advanced business classes (just as hard as science) instead of some of the science classes. I enjoy experiments in chemistry but I don't want to do it. If I would have had classes in marketing and such I would have been much happier and more prepared to go to work in an office after HS. I am a smart person but physics and chemistry II makes me stupid. I can understand the concepts but I can't do the work. Make sense?

I also am all for mandatory universal health care. It makes sense that if a disease is diagnosed early the cost of treating the disease is less. I don't think government has any say to reproductive health or any health decisions. I think the government should help fund it but then let the doctors do their jobs. Currently in the US, health insurance companies have a lot of say in the treatments patients get. I think that is bull. Insurance companies aren't doctors and shouldn't have a say on how my doctor treats my migraines. My doctor knows that I have "graduated" through 2 lower cost migraine meds and now I need the next step. I think insurance companies should step in and alert doctors if they see a patient having many prescriptions for narcotic drugs from different doctors. It's ridiculous that people with insurance still go bankrupt because of cancer or a heart attack or a long term disease like MD or MS.

Day care Is EXPENSIVE! and the maternity and paternity leave is almost non existent and usually depends on how well you are employed. And since my husband I make too much money we also had to pay 100% for preschool. All this needs to be fixed. Put it this way, we are way behind on retirement because of paying for 12 years of daycare/preschool for our 3 kids. Lori (Alexander) would say I should be a stay at home mom but then we would be more stressed with a tiny house, unreliable transportation, no extra curricular activities for the kids and no fun, ever.

I also think the US needs gun control. I own guns and I hunt. What I think needs banned are bump stocks, any clip over 10 rounds and high caliber bullets. I also think a back ground check and mandatory registration on all guns should happen. Will it fix everything with our gun problems in the US, no, but it should make it better.

I don't know other areas where socialist countries are "taken care of" by the government but I think health care, education (including child care) and gun control are biggies.

I forgot, not registering births and not giving kids an identity should be criminal. Period.

[MayMay1123]

did anyone else reading websleuths have a feeling of wanting to protect "our" rod kids? its really bothering me that they are comparing the two families so harshly...

[apple1]

I. just. can't. (with a few things)

However - a few strung together comments:

- I'm a grandma. Never. Just never. That's not being a grandma.

- Vow renewal: To each their own. However - Mr. Apple and I have been married to each other for 40 years. One wedding was enough. Our continuing commitment is a very private thing between us and our God. Not some expensive public thing to repeat.

- I truly don't understand how this could have gone on with nobody knowing. There has to be more to this story.

[Howl]

10 minutes ago, apple1 said:

I truly don't understand how this could have gone on with nobody knowing. There has to be more to this story.

I saw an aerial view of the neighborhood and the neighbors' houses on either side are just a few feet away.  One neighbor did note that the kids always looked skinny.  It could be the kids were being starved and didn't have the strength to get away or even get outside until the one daughter managed to call 911. 

[BlackSheep]

The vow renewal video that someone posted on page 4 of this thread... It would have been a sweet, if at times charmingly awkward, video, if we didn't know what we know now about the Turpin family.

[meee]

Here's yet another question.

They are so uniformly, exactly malnourished the same "amount". Now, I'm not a nutritionist, but I'm perplexed at just how these monsters managed to starve every single one of them exactly enough to make them all have the build of children (and not one of them managed to have a growth spurt in spite of it), yet nobody died of starvation. (Yes, I know. That we know of. But I'd be surprised if anybody died, at least past infancy, because surely the grandparents at least would have known of their existence.)

[Platipus]

20 minutes ago, apple1 said:

- I truly don't understand how this could have gone on with nobody knowing. There has to be more to this story.

I'm not sure. When I was a kid, one of our neighbours had five children who looked quite skinny and sad. Our parents told us to avoid playing with them because they were 'poor' and the parents weren't well seen.

It's a by-product of everyone not wanting any outside intervention or opinions on how to live their lives, that everyone turns their heads from each other and there isn't any sort of community as a support system for families in trouble. So honestly, sadly, I can't say I'm surprised that these things go unnoticed. 

[iweartanktops]

6 hours ago, Sideways said:

Yes, I found this today.   The video news report is very unsettling.  It shows the home, presumably where they lived in TX.  A neighbor stated it was filthy when they left, broken windows, and scratch marks on the inside of the bedroom doors that she attributed to pets

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/video/category/news/3793664-before-california-the-turpin-family-lived-in-north-texas/

I feel absolutely sick. And I'm quite sure the scratch marks aren't from pets. Oh my word... 

 

4 hours ago, bird said:

I wonder if I may ask a general question here. I have never lived in America and only have a theoretical knowledge of the culture from reading and the PR version from Hollywood. But I am very interested in the more personal reasons for why Americans appear to be set against government "intrusion" in their personal lives. For example, I find it hard to understand how children can be born and no one knows they exist, can be schooled without any checks/ standardised tests, can be raised without health care etc. Obviously I understand these cases represent the extreme but rational people still defend the rights of people to live this way. In the country I live in now I have been surprised by the opposite- that the government dictates so much about how people live and I'm always trying to figure out why everyone generally seems happy to go along with the "nanny state". But this is even more fascinating to me. I'm hoping someone is also having a slow day and feels like giving an opinion.... 

I hope I've worded my question properly! 

As a black woman, I do not generally trust law enforcement. When I think about government involvement, I think police. I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal history or record, and I'm acutely aware of the fact that they could still choose to shoot me to death and get away with it, even if I've done nothing wrong. I'm barely awake and on the train to work, so I'm still waking up. Too lazy to write more, because there are other reasons, @pelerinedescribes above. But honestly, for me, the primary reason is my skin. 

@quiversR4hunting, fabulous post! 

17 minutes ago, meee said:

Here's yet another question.

They are so uniformly, exactly malnourished the same "amount". Now, I'm not a nutritionist, but I'm perplexed at just how these monsters managed to starve every single one of them exactly enough to make them all have the build of children (and not one of them managed to have a growth spurt in spite of it), yet nobody died of starvation. (Yes, I know. That we know of. But I'd be surprised if anybody died, at least past infancy, because surely the grandparents at least would have known of their existence.)

I think it's been going on for decades. If one doesn't receive the nutrition they need as a child, their body will not develop properly. Also, we need lots of fat to develop our brain, particularly before 3. I'd be willing to guess that most potential delays in these young people can be attributed to a lifetime of malnutrition. In my opinion, Louise breastfed the kids, and they starved after weaning. I don't have hard evidence, though. 

I'm also not confident they haven't lost a child or more. 

[Hashtag Blessed]

29 minutes ago, meee said:

Here's yet another question.

They are so uniformly, exactly malnourished the same "amount". Now, I'm not a nutritionist, but I'm perplexed at just how these monsters managed to starve every single one of them exactly enough to make them all have the build of children (and not one of them managed to have a growth spurt in spite of it), yet nobody died of starvation. (Yes, I know. That we know of. But I'd be surprised if anybody died, at least past infancy, because surely the grandparents at least would have known of their existence.)

I don’t think it would be that difficult or complicated. Restricting them to a low-nutrient, low-calorie diet over their entire lives is as simple as feeding them only small portions of bread and water or rice every day. Maybe with very occasional portions of protein. As long as they’re eating a bare minimum of something they’re not going to starve to death, but they sure aren’t going to thrive.

 

[Burpies]

12 hours ago, Rachel333 said:

I also thought of Dylann Roof, the Charleston murderer. It seems like the bowl haircut is popular with evil men.

I thought of Prince Valium from Space Balls, but you're right, the haircut is just like Dylann Roof's.

[Firebird]

I think a lot of distrust of having a nanny state in the US comes from the fear that one would lose say in one's life. A lot of people in my area are live and let live. It's like that book 1984 by George Orwell or the book the Giver by Lois Lowry. Alot of people fear that nanny state means total loss of autonomy. When government does get more involved most of what we see is higher and higher taxes.

[FecundFundieFundus]

I think people who are antisocial and unable/unwilling to get along in society are probably just more likely to end up with horrible, unfashionable haircuts. 

[pelerine]

(Not quoting because I suck at snipping things without ruining the formatting of other things.)

I personally don't fear gun violence or high medical bills.  Statistically, gun violence per capita in the US is low.  My city saw a record number of homicides in 2017, and everyone is freaking out.  I'm just like, guys the total number of homicides was 0.01% of the population.  It's not that bad.  (Not saying I don't have sympathy for the victims and their families though.)  I have savings for medical bills, and in my experience, hospitals are always willing to negotiate.  Honestly, healthcare is not really all that expensive.  (And I've had my gallbladder out, have sleep apnea and scoliosis, and have all my regular physical exams, so I'm not skimping on care.)  

To me, living in a more "nanny-ish state" (I find that term somewhat derogatory toward people who live in those countries, as I don't think everyone who lives in such a place is childish or incompetent at life) would generate the same sort of frustration I get when my mother tells me to wear my coat when it's cold.  Cue the eyerolling and shouts of "Mom!  I'm 31 years old and I think I can judge for myself whether or not I need a coat!"  I'm an adult, I can take care of myself.  Just because some people are bad at taking care of themselves, doesn't mean I want or need more laws (or higher taxes).  I'd rather be on my own, with all the risks that entails, than living in a place that provides more aid but less independence.  It's not, to me, really about the money, but the philosophical principles at stake.  

[What follows in this paragraph is purely my personal perspective, so PLEASE don't take this as me judging anyone, because this is an opinion I really am not projecting on anyone else.]  I'm a fairly philosophical person, and I take my own personal life philosophy very seriously.  To me, I like to pay my own way on everything as a point of honor.  For example, I qualify for public service loan forgiveness for my student loans.  Instead, I have chosen to pay back my entire loan amount.  Partly because I wanted to pay extra and get the loans done in 5 years rather than be on the hook for 10 years, but mostly because to me it is a matter of personal honor.  I borrowed $30,086 and by george, I will repay $30,086 and not a penny less (actually quite a few pennies more, yay for daily compounding interest!).  To do anything else would make me personally feel dirty.  But if you (generic you) used PSLF, that's okay.  I am truly not judging you and I don't think you're wrong or bad.  It's not illegal, it's not cheating, and you're entitled to your life philosophy.  But don't lobby for mandatory PSLF, because I don't want it for me.

(If you're familiar with US political ideology, I'm definitely a libertarian )

As far as education goes, on the one hand I don't believe in the "I'm going to be a historian so I shouldn't have to learn geometry" line.  I learned SO MUCH about clear logical thinking from my geometry class, and this day and age we need all the logical thinkers we can get.  On the other hand, I have no real use for central education planning from federal and state departments of education because every student is different, with different talents, different interests, different abilities, and different life goals.  So I don't know what to think.

I do love hearing different people's perspectives though.  Although I'm kind of a stereotypical "live free or die" American, I'm also a political historian by training and hearing from people who believe differently or who live under other theories of government is fascinating and educational.  (I love thinking through my assumptions in light of new ideas, even if I end up returning to my original ideas.)

[libgirl2]

I can't understand how that neighbor was saying all that yet didn't do a thing. I know people don't want to get involved but when it has to do with children I can't help to think I would. Then again, who knows?

Those pictures of the house are awful. I'm reminded of homes that are on the hoarding shows. 

[OhNoNike]

11 hours ago, FaithAndReason said:

This is an awful situation. 

I'm late to the party with this comment but re; the mom giving birth to a child at 47. It's certainly possible. My GG grandfather was born when his mother was 49. He was child 9 or 10 with a large span between him and the child before him. I think some families just have a genetic tendency towards long lasting fertility. My cousin had her only two children in her 40s with no fertility issues. I am 45 and as "regular" now as I was when I was 20. (Sorry if that's TMI). I often joke that if we were fundie or living in the old days of my German farming ancestors, I'd have 20 kids, be pregnant now, and might have 1 or 2 more.   And I hope, for the sake of those poor older daughters, that the youngest is the mother's child.

I mentioned earlier, but I have a very similar family history.  It seems several of the women either had a boost in fertility before menopause, or just had generally late-running fertility.  Babies were healthy and fine.  It definitely happens (and has happened for generations).

[bird]

3 hours ago, pelerine said:

@bird Okay, I'll bite...

For me personally, I oppose government involvement in my personal life because where does it end?  Once there's a precedent that it's okay for the government to get involved, how do we maintain boundaries?  Who decides what's okay and what isn't?  There are a lot of people in the United States, the national government can't possibly know what's best or right for all of us.  Even the state and local governments can't know what's best or right for us all.

That said, these people are disgusting beyond words and deserve to be punished SEVERELY.  My general political philosophy really boils down to "As long as you're not hurting anybody, you do you."  This family was clearly hurting their children.  The problematic areas are those borderline areas where you get good people on both sides.  I mean, most people agree that beating your children is bad and people who beat their kids should get in trouble.  But lots of people are okay with spanking.  But when does spanking become beating?  Lots of people, most of whom are not bad parents, are going to draw that line in different places.  The same thing goes for, say, education.  I was homeschooled.  My education looked nothing like public school education (year-round schedule, emphasis on the classical humanities, using actual books for history and literature instead of textbooks) but obviously it worked (scholarship to private university, two master's degrees, very successful career).  Still, there are "homeschoolers" who are doing nothing but failing their children in terrible ways.  But I would hate for those who homeschool the way I was to have to stop and teach to the standardized test just because some people do a bad job.  

(Actually, that's what irks me in life more than just about anything: when a few bad apples ruin something for everyone else when everyone else is actually doing a good job.)

Speaking more broadly of American culture and political philosophy, well, our entire country was founded on the idea that the government doesn't get to tell us what to do if we don't like what they're telling us.  (I jest, but only a little.  Speaking as a historian, I don't think most people in the US have as good a grasp of American history as I would like, but the idea that we don't have to submit to tyranny has stuck with us.  Most people just have a... somewhat odd sense of what constitutes tyranny.)

I hope this makes sense.  I'm still pre-coffee.

It's a really great pre coffee reply. I see there are differing opinions for me to read but I didn't want to forget to thank you. 

A quick question: is it right to assume the history you are writing about has to do with people fleeing persecution in their own countries ending up in America? Do you think this influenced the current culture? 

Also, is there a reason why the government can't be trusted to have some influence without assuming that to relinquish some rights will mean they swoop in and take them all? Just wondering where the perceived all or nothing attitude comes from. 

Thanks again for your interesting perspective! 

[FiddleDD]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-couple-charged-torture-brought-13-kids-along-when-they-n838026

 

This article has a picture with names and  approximate ages of the adult children. (Identified by their aunt) some were the ones I’d guessed had to be the older ones, but it’s still very hard to make them be adults in my mind. 

Those poor kids. I can’t even imagine, and honestly I don’t want to. Did you see the article where a previous home had vents in the closets? 

A former neighbor from one of their houses said that their children played together. Until she asked one of the kids their name, which they said they weren’t allowed to tell people. After that they stopped playing with her children. 

[libgirl2]

18 hours ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

8 minutes ago, FiddleDD said:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-couple-charged-torture-brought-13-kids-along-when-they-n838026

 

This article has a picture with names and  approximate ages of the adult children. (Identified by their aunt) some were the ones I’d guessed had to be the older ones, but it’s still very hard to make them be adults in my mind. 

Those poor kids. I can’t even imagine, and honestly I don’t want to. Did you see the article where a previous home had vents in the closets? 

A former neighbor from one of their houses said that their children played together. Until she asked one of the kids their name, which they said they weren’t allowed to tell people. After that they stopped playing with her children. 

Well I did guess the oldest girl. 

 

[Curious]

16 hours ago, TSOWOATNK said:

Seal and Heidi Klum did it every year, and clearly it worked out well for them. The Gosslein's seemed to have faired exceptionally well after their big vow renewals too. Heh.

The Gosslin’s were headed toward divorce before the vow renewal and Jon didn’t want to do it. Kate wanted to go to Hawaii and Kate got what she wanted....always 

[JesusPony]

In the photo with the adult children IDed, are the boys (men) kneeling or do they have a physical disability?

[Jana814]

5 minutes ago, JesusPony said:

In the photo with the adult children IDed, are the boys (men) kneeling or do they have a physical disability?

 I think they are kneeling.  

[JermajestyDuggar]

10 minutes ago, JesusPony said:

In the photo with the adult children IDed, are the boys (men) kneeling or do they have a physical disability?

They are kneeling. The second oldest boy being in his 20s isreally surprising. More than the girls. He looks so young to me in all the photos. The oldest son looks much older and much taller. Maybe he got more nourishment growing up because he's the second oldest. 

[bird]

1 hour ago, iweartanktops said:

 

As a black woman, I do not generally trust law enforcement. When I think about government involvement, I think police. I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal history or record, and I'm acutely aware of the fact that they could still choose to shoot me to death and get away with it, even if I've done nothing wrong. I'm barely awake and on the train to work, so I'm still waking up. Too lazy to write more, because there are other reasons, @pelerinedescribes above. But honestly, for me, the primary reason is my skin. 

 

This is something that completely baffles me. I don't know anyone who understands how this goes on unchecked in a country that appears to claim to be a beacon of democracy and freedom. It's a disgrace but nobody (in a position to) seems bothered enough to do anything about it. I mean like actually prosecuting police who kill unarmed civilians. 

My own country has a shameful history but we stood up and voted for change and most right minded people are ashamed. Still not perfect.... but we don't claim any moral high ground! 

Thank you for your reply. I clearly asked too early in the morning/ wrong time zone! 

 

[formergothardite]

1 hour ago, pelerine said:

I have savings for medical bills, and in my experience, hospitals are always willing to negotiate.  Honestly, healthcare is not really all that expensive.  (And I've had my gallbladder out, have sleep apnea and scoliosis, and have all my regular physical exams, so I'm not skimping on care.)  

Do you realize how lucky you are? I know of people who lost everything over medical bills and had their lives ruined. 

I know I am lucky because we have AMAZING insurance and are pretty well off financially. But I have spent enough time in waiting rooms with people who weren't as lucky as I am to see that healthcare is fucking expensive for many, many people. I've talked to so many parents whose insurance only cover around two to three months worth of therapy(speech therapy and occupational therapy seem to be the ones least likely to be covered) for their children and after that they have to pay out of pocket. We are talking about several hundred dollars a week in just therapy that their child needs and this goes on for years and years and years. Perhaps you can afford to shell out that sort of money without it being an issue, but there are so many who just can't. 

As for education, do you think it is okay for parent's to use the lax homeschool laws to make sure no one sees their children and can pick up on the abuse? Or to just not educate their children. Who was the fundie who bragged about how their daughters couldn't read but could clean? Thanks to the lack of homeschool laws parents can get away with this. Right now in NC there is a case where parents horrifically abused their child and almost certainly murdered her, but it tooks years for anyone to notice she was even missing because of the homeschool laws make sure the government stays out of the house. Freedom from the government that allows children to be murdered and abused without notice isn't freedom, not for those children. 

2 hours ago, MayMay1123 said:

did anyone else reading websleuths have a feeling of wanting to protect "our" rod kids?

I don't want people to say cruel things about the Rod children because I have a feeling Jill lets them read these threads to show how evil the world is. We have had(I think) two former fundie children say that they read the threads about their families.