Turpins 3: 2 Monsters, 13 Victims (WARNING abuse and torture)

[SapphireSlytherin]

You're not sure? Seriously?

And you put so much stock in MY reaction to your posts that you make a point of pointing that out?

Do you also take note of other posts that I disagree with? Do you also note that it's NOT JUST YOU that I disagree with?

Do you understand that anybody can downvote/disagree/fuckyou any post at any time for any reason without having to explain it? And do you also understand that if you say something, you need to defend it or back it up?

Your passive/aggressive BS is unbecoming.

I don't DO passive/aggressive. I call it as I see it, and if you're going to consistently (I'm not going back to look through all your posts where you've done this because:  lack of time and, frankly, interest) make "secret" digs at me, I'm gonna call you on it. If you have a problem with ME, take it to my inbox, and keep the good people of FJ out of it.

 

/done with this topic 

 

[Bad Wolf]

It's possible that this won't go to trial. With the amount of forensic evidence, even someone who has been in a cave for the past few months and has never seen any news would be able to convict. The case here, the perpetrators pleaded guilty, and the victims chose to make a statement in court and face their abusers before sentencing. Not saying that's the right thing, it was just what these children chose to do.

[scribble]

1 hour ago, Anonymousguest said:

 

I wonder if they will have separate trials for termination of parental rights? And will that occur before the criminal trial. Typically a child can't be adopted until parental rights have been terminated after a period of time where the parents are given a chance to rectify issues. Will they fast track that process? Or will the kids have to wait until after the criminal trial to be adopted? How old is the 12th child? 12 yrs old? Some of the current minors will turn 18 before they go to trial.

 

In cases of horrendous abuse like this, TPR can be fast-tracked (in my state anyway.) But I'd guess it will be at least a year before there is a trial or guilty plea anyway, so fast-tracked isn't all that fast, really. Some states (and I don't know if California is one of them) don't like to go through with TPR until an adoptive resource is  found. Kids who are 14 and up have some say in whether they are adopted or not. So, some could choose that and others might not.

I hadn't really thought about this before your post, but I wonder if TPR is even an option for the adult kids (and probably the 17 year old, who will hit 18 before the court system wends its way along.) Perhaps it's different for the Turpin kids because the state has some sort of protective custody over them? Anyone have any idea? I suspect if they ultimately go to family members it might be a guardianship situation rather than an adoption.

[chaotic life]

California is strongly opposed to creating legal orphans. Typically they do every step BUT the TPR and then hold that final step until an adoptive home is identified. Certainly the LA area operates that way, and I am familiar because I adopted from the foster care in that area. I was surprised at the difference between how CA handled it and most other states.

What is ALSO not being spoken about is the fostercare subsidy. I can hope the relatives lining up have not yet realized what that would entail. The minors are automagically classified as special needs by their sibling group size, medical needs and ages alone. If their medical and emotional needs are more than standard, and I suspect they are, when my son died in 2012, California had just raised their top payment to $3000/month

[Hisey]

5 hours ago, scribble said:

In cases of horrendous abuse like this, TPR can be fast-tracked (in my state anyway.) But I'd guess it will be at least a year before there is a trial or guilty plea anyway, so fast-tracked isn't all that fast, really. Some states (and I don't know if California is one of them) don't like to go through with TPR until an adoptive resource is  found. Kids who are 14 and up have some say in whether they are adopted or not. So, some could choose that and others might not.

I hadn't really thought about this before your post, but I wonder if TPR is even an option for the adult kids (and probably the 17 year old, who will hit 18 before the court system wends its way along.) Perhaps it's different for the Turpin kids because the state has some sort of protective custody over them? Anyone have any idea? I suspect if they ultimately go to family members it might be a guardianship situation rather than an adoption.

I believe the adults are considered adults, and there certainly wouldn't be an issue of TPR. The only exception would be if they were unable to care for themselves (like severe autism, for example), in which case a guardian would be appointed. In most cases, that would be the parent, but not here of course.

I don't know if it would be healthy to appoint a guardian for the adult children. I wonder if it would be better for them to learn to take charge of their own life. It seems insulting and infantalizing to have a guardian, when there was really nothing wrong with you except you had abusive parents. JMHO

[feministxtian]

22 minutes ago, Hisey said:

I don't know if it would be healthy to appoint a guardian for the adult children. I wonder if it would be better for them to learn to take charge of their own life. It seems insulting and infantalizing to have a guardian, when there was really nothing wrong with you except you had abusive parents. JMHO

Just sort of thinking out loud here...the adult children might benefit from a guardianship arrangement for awhile...like maybe a year or two...because...well, they've never had to adult and to put them out there with full responsibility for themselves without any guidance isn't a good thing. I could see maybe a time-limited thing...but to toss those kids out to the wolves with no ability to care for themselves (cooking, cleaning, budgeting, paying bills, driving, etc.) would be (to me) almost as abusive as the situation they were brought out of. 

::::::::::ducking the rotten tomatoes now:::::::::::::::

[nausicaa]

18 minutes ago, feministxtian said:

Just sort of thinking out loud here...the adult children might benefit from a guardianship arrangement for awhile...like maybe a year or two...because...well, they've never had to adult and to put them out there with full responsibility for themselves without any guidance isn't a good thing. I could see maybe a time-limited thing...but to toss those kids out to the wolves with no ability to care for themselves (cooking, cleaning, budgeting, paying bills, driving, etc.) would be (to me) almost as abusive as the situation they were brought out of. 

::::::::::ducking the rotten tomatoes now:::::::::::::::

So I apologize if this has already been mentioned, and I should also preface this with I really know nothing about the legal ramifications of this, but in terms of the financial situation, would the Turpin children have access to their parents assets after both parents are (presumably) jailed for life? Like, would there even need to be a court case, wouldn't they just inherit as next of kin even under normal conditions? Granted, the parents declared bankruptcy seven years ago, so there probably isn't much in the way of assets.

Also, I wonder if they can sue the state for failing to protect them. Wasn't there a yearly check up by the fire marshal that was skipped?

Of course, this opens up a whole other can of worms with shady lawyers taking advantage of them. 

[luv2laugh]

I just feel like the state and society as a whole failed these kids and I can’t pinpoint how and why but it’s just a feeling in my gut. Perhaps I’m just sad and want to find fault in it? The sad part is, I don’t put a lot of faith into the resources they will be receiving because so many politicians want to cut state benefits that would help them. On the bright side, they are in California high I’ve heard has better state benefits. Republicans talk a lot about charitable giving vs. paying higher taxes so I’d like to see some charitable Republicans come out here and help now.

[EmCatlyn]

Regarding the foster care situation, if relatives from outside California wanted custody of the minors, would the state ordinarily just let the relatives have custody?  Would the state where the relatives reside then be responsible for home visits an anything else needed to protect the children?  Or would the children simply be turned over to “blood relatives” with no further accounting?  

I am hoping the children (and kiddults) can stay under the protection of the California system for as long as they need.  The “blood relatives,” as we have noted before, may have problems of their own.  

Foster care, with a family that can help them heal would seem better for the kids than relatives with whom they had no prior emotional bond.  

As for those who are over 18, a lot depends on how they have been affected cognitively and how they are able to cope in a year or so.   

[Anonymousguest]

18 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding the foster care situation, if relatives from outside California wanted custody of the minors, would the state ordinarily just let the relatives have custody?  Would the state where the relatives reside then be responsible for home visits an anything else needed to protect the children?  Or would the children simply be turned over to “blood relatives” with no further accounting?  

I am hoping the children (and kiddults) can stay under the protection of the California system for as long as they need.  The “blood relatives,” as we have noted before, may have problems of their own.  

Foster care, with a family that can help them heal would seem better for the kids than relatives with whom they had no prior emotional bond.  

As for those who are over 18, a lot depends on how they have been affected cognitively and how they are able to cope in a year or so.   

I don't know about CA, but if guess it's similarly, in my state they try to find a suitable relative or friend placement. The requirements to be a relative placement are much lower. They have an expedited training and home study and they can do that while they have the children in the home. If the kids are placed out of state they then become wards of the new state. How much over sight the state gives depends on the circumstances. But if they found a relative placement they were confident in they may turn guardianship over to them. 

I believe technically the parents address can be used for their defense. I have no idea what happens after they are convicted. 

I wonder how brain damaged or cognitively delayed the adults are. If they are unable to care for themselves they will be eligible for social security and will have a guardian appointed. They'll have to have a competency hearing to determine that. 

[luv2laugh]

Also, I’ve heard David Turpin’s brother who is a pastor and Christian college president, wants to adopt the children.

At first, I was happy to see family stepping up but I am concerned they’ll be indoctrinated. 

[EmCatlyn]

45 minutes ago, Anonymousguest said:

I wonder how brain damaged or cognitively delayed the adults are. If they are unable to care for themselves they will be eligible for social security and will have a guardian appointed. They'll have to have a competency hearing to determine that. 

I wonder also.  Since the oldest son (who is around 26 or 27 now) reportedly had a 3.9 GPA  in commmunity college, he seems to have at least average cognitive abilities.

We can’t know about the others.  

What we do know is they have been kept uninformed and uneducated. We also know that starvation and environmental deprivation of other types can interfere with brain development. 

At this point it seems that none of them are capable of functioning in normal society, but it may be more through ignorance and emotional trauma than severe cognitive damage.  I don’t think any assessment of done in the next six months to a year could be definitive. Therapy and education can do wonders, especially for those under 25. 

 

 

[scribble]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding the foster care situation, if relatives from outside California wanted custody of the minors, would the state ordinarily just let the relatives have custody?  Would the state where the relatives reside then be responsible for home visits an anything else needed to protect the children?  Or would the children simply be turned over to “blood relatives” with no further accounting? 

Assuming the kids remain in the foster system, any out of state relatives would have to complete a homestudy and what's called an ICPC -- an Interstate Compact for Placement of Children, which is reviewed by both states involved. It's a pretty lengthy process that takes something like six to eight months to complete in my state. If all that is approved and the kids are moved, it depends on how everything is set up. If the relatives are adopting the kids, the state stays involved until that happens (and the kids have to be in the adoptive home for at least six months before adoption can be pursued.) If it ends up as guardianship, the state bows right on out.

Also, just wanted to note, that when I was speaking of guardianship for the "adult kids," it was because I was thinking about the news reports that indicate they may have developmental issues due to the neglect and abuse they experienced and making an assumption that they wouldn't be able to care for themselves. I truly hope that is not the case.

[Frog99]

1 hour ago, EmCatlyn said:

Regarding the foster care situation, if relatives from outside California wanted custody of the minors, would the state ordinarily just let the relatives have custody?  Would the state where the relatives reside then be responsible for home visits an anything else needed to protect the children?  Or would the children simply be turned over to “blood relatives” with no further accounting?  

I am hoping the children (and kiddults) can stay under the protection of the California system for as long as they need.  The “blood relatives,” as we have noted before, may have problems of their own.  

Foster care, with a family that can help them heal would seem better for the kids than relatives with whom they had no prior emotional bond.  

As for those who are over 18, a lot depends on how they have been affected cognitively and how they are able to cope in a year or so.   

For minors in the custody of one state with relatives in another state, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) applies. The sending state (in this case, CA) has to request a home study by the receiving state, and has to send full case information, including health, psychological, and educational needs. The receiving state completes a home study, including background checks on family members 18 and older, medical reports, home health evals (water, housing safety, etc), references are checked (including school references for any minor children).  There are time frames for completion, however, it’s difficult to meet them because some times  the requirements take longer than anticipated (sanitary surveys for example). Also, ICPC’s tend to not be priority for receiving states. Children can go pending home study but can only legally stay for 30 days and then must return to the sending state. 

If a relative is approved, the court in the sending state can send the children out of state but the sending state retains jurisdiction. The receiving state must give approval for a transfer of custody (receiving state also monitors the placement). We had a case where a young girl was sent from CA to be placed with her father. Placement disrupted and we had to place the child in a foster home until the worker from CA could get to the East Coast to take the child back. 

This is how ICPC is supposed to work. Some jurisdictions play dirty- but in this case with the publicity and likely high level of court involvement, I think the rules will be closely followed. And as a clinical sw supervisor (former, Im in higher ed now) who had supervisory responsibility for ICPC, we wouldn’t accept placement in this type for situation without very thorough and detailed medical and educational reports and recommendations, because we would assess the family as well as the availability of needed resources. 

[Bad Wolf]

If there's a suitable relative in another state, they would go through a background check and home study. The new state would report back to CA for about 6 months. It's called ICPC, the interstate compact for the placement of children. I used to do that.

@Frog99 and @scribble. You beat me to it.

[Beermeet]

@SapphireSlytherin. I really hope you get my humor right now!  This thread and life gets so freakin' intense, I'm choosing humor!

And, @luv2laugh and everyone else

 

[Beermeet]

2 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

Also, I’ve heard David Turpin’s brother who is a pastor and Christian college president, wants to adopt the children.

At first, I was happy to see family stepping up but I am concerned they’ll be indoctrinated. 

I'm scared of any family being in charge.   None of them seem level headed.  

[EmCatlyn]

Thanks @scribble, @Frog99, and @Bad Wolf for answering my question about sending kids out of state to be with relatives.   From what you say, it can be complicated and the relatives wouldn’t just be handed the kids.  That is good to know because none of the relatives seem a good choice.  They may be fine as parents of their own kids but I doubt that they are equipped to handle the problems of the Turpin abuse victims.  I hope the complicated process discourages them from trying to get custody.

 

 

[church_of_dog]

2 hours ago, luv2laugh said:

Also, I’ve heard David Turpin’s brother who is a pastor and Christian college president, wants to adopt the children.

At first, I was happy to see family stepping up but I am concerned they’ll be indoctrinated. 

Per the conversation over on websleuths, the brother has written a book extolling the benefits of 21-day fasts.  Just doesn't seem like the healthiest mindset for these siblings, who not only need super nutritious food and enough of it, but they are at risk for all sorts of psychological food issues and they need a really healthy atmosphere around food.  I don't think that guy would offer that.

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, scribble said:

Also, just wanted to note, that when I was speaking of guardianship for the "adult kids," it was because I was thinking about the news reports that indicate they may have developmental issues due to the neglect and abuse they experienced and making an assumption that they wouldn't be able to care for themselves. I truly hope that is not the case.

I know what you mean.  The news has seemed to suggest that some of the older ones may never be able to care for themselves.  I hope that this is a worst case scenario and that, with help, all of them can become relatively self-sufficient.  

[clueliss]

I caught part of the Dr Phil nightmare yesterday (courtesy of flu B ). Rehash, he had the wife’s sister on.  And I think he was about to tie the whole thing to Michelle McKnight when I changed the channel.  

[upkacrane]

1 hour ago, clueliss said:

I caught part of the Dr Phil nightmare yesterday (courtesy of flu B ). Rehash, he had the wife’s sister on.  And I think he was about to tie the whole thing to Michelle McKnight when I changed the channel.  

Which sister? I'm asking because one strikes me as somewhat of a narcissistic type and all these TV interviews are starting to look suspicious...is the money the sister is paid going to go towards her nieces' and nephews' fund? Do we know?

[quiversR4hunting]

13 hours ago, Hisey said:

I believe the adults are considered adults, and there certainly wouldn't be an issue of TPR. The only exception would be if they were unable to care for themselves (like severe autism, for example), in which case a guardian would be appointed. In most cases, that would be the parent, but not here of course.

I don't know if it would be healthy to appoint a guardian for the adult children. I wonder if it would be better for them to learn to take charge of their own life. It seems insulting and infantalizing to have a guardian, when there was really nothing wrong with you except you had abusive parents. JMHO

The news has reported the children don't know basic life skills. If that is true for the adult kids, then a guardian is most appropriate. We don't know who or how much each child is delayed. A guardian doesn't infantilize them if they have never been taught to adult. All the kids will need to learn how to clean, what does clean mean (for self and household), food preparation & care, and all hygiene aspects (basing this off the news reports of the house). Let alone all the other things they missed.

12 hours ago, nausicaa said:

Also, I wonder if they can sue the state for failing to protect them. Wasn't there a yearly check up by the fire marshal that was skipped?

Question - why would the fire marshal do a yearly check up on a residence? Is that a law in CA? In my area the fire marshal only inspects businesses. If it is a residential new construction the building code inspector is the one that checks for adequate fire alarms, etc.

[smittykins]

I could be wrong, but I think the inspection was required because the Monsters had registered their home as a private school. 

[Granwych]

1 hour ago, upkacrane said:

Which sister? I'm asking because one strikes me as somewhat of a narcissistic type and all these TV interviews are starting to look suspicious...is the money the sister is paid going to go towards her nieces' and nephews' fund? Do we know?

Call me cynical, but I think the any $$$ goes right into the interviewee's pocket