Zach & Whitney Bates Part 6: That Thing In The Window Is Creepy

[TeaELSee]

Child restraint could simply be a seatbelt infraction and the assault in 94 could be a bar fight. I don’t think those records show anything unusual.

[just_ordinary]

I honestly don’t know if I should be impressed by all your detective skills or maybe rather frightened. It’s unbelievable what you can find out on the internet these days. 

But I would be careful with those records as we have no idea if they really belong to the Owens we talk about here. In the end it concerns different people and we are responsible for rumours that bare any truth. This topic alone needed several posts (thanks @VelociRapture for reminding us of it) to set things straight that were taken for the truth but are really just speculation. It happens fast that speculations turn up again years later in a “I think I heard/read that...“ way and become „facts“.

[AussieKrissy]

After reading all this, one of my underlying feelings is that I feel for the Owens. If (at face value) all they did was provide a safe place to fall for a young troubled girl. They sure are having their lives delved into and examined for no other reason than opening their door to help. I would hate it if I was them, that I was dragged into all of this purely because of some crap weird arse (non) reality show. 

[HarleyQuinn]

On 1/6/2019 at 3:38 PM, Laura2730 said:

No she is completely separate from them- it is implied by 'Whitney's best friend' that Whitney went from her biological parents, to Tammy, and then onto the Owens' who I presume are the adults who 'treat her wonderfully' and who she's 'getting the love and help' from.

 

Thank you, I read that as her friend was saying the Owens treated her like dirt and she went back to her bio parents. 

 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

1 hour ago, AussieKrissy said:

After reading all this, one of my underlying feelings is that I feel for the Owens. If (at face value) all they did was provide a safe place to fall for a young troubled girl. They sure are having their lives delved into and examined for no other reason than opening their door to help. I would hate it if I was them, that I was dragged into all of this purely because of some crap weird arse (non) reality show. 

I don't know anything about these people, but I don't feel bad for them.

If anyone should be prepared for complete transparency it people who take in unrelated minors.

if their motives and actions are pure, then great.  many are.  but imo your privacy goes out the window for your behavior when you take children into your home.

[AussieKrissy]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't know anything about these people, but I don't feel bad for them.

If anyone should be prepared for complete transparency it people who take in unrelated minors.

if their motives and actions are pure, then great.  many are.  but imo your privacy goes out the window for your behavior when you take children into your home.

I do see your point. 

But privacy should only go out the window (imo) in regards to the governing bodies over their fostering. If they are doing a good safe job it is no ones business except the fostering agents. 

If they are not then it is everyone's business, to get the kids out of there.

There is one thing for everyone to watch out for children and make sure they are safe, and another for people to be discussed on the internet when their only "crime" is to have had a, now publicly known foster kid. These people got dragged into this shit show purely because one of their kids became a z list celebrity.  

My sympathy is purely based on them doing the right thing and getting the crap back for it. I personally hate getting dragged into drama.

I suppose though, most foster parents may have the thoughts, run through the back of their mind, that they may get dragged into something due to a child's background. Yet they do it anyway. That's what makes the good foster parents, fantastic.

My friend fosters, and was devastated to see a news alert about a little boy she had in her care being kidnapped by the mother he was taken off. It could have easily been in the time that she had him.

 

[praying4u]

IMO, the records do show something unusual. The Owens were keeping a child that they did not have legal custody over and a judge had to mandate that the child be returned to its birth mother. I think this makes it more likely that Whitney was never adopted by the Owens. I doubt that she was even legally fostered by the Owens. CPS typically only steps in and removes children in drastic cases. Whitney's birth parents have no criminal records that I could find. I think Whitney severed ties with her parents of her own accord and moved in with the Owens as an older teen.

From what I've seen on Instagram, I think the Owens seem to be a conservative Christian family that takes in as many children as they can and indoctrinates (for lack of a better word) them in their Christian faith. They almost feel quiverfull to me, but without the dresses. I think they would love to take in a "troubled" teen and "save" them. They remind me of how the Duggars always talk about wanting to adopt even more children.

I'm personally kind of wary of the Owens. It seems odd to me that they would take in children that they don't have legal custody/guardianship over. I also think that something happened to cause Whitney to completely sever ties with them.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

2 minutes ago, praying4u said:

I'm personally kind of wary of the Owens. It seems odd to me that they would take in children that they don't have legal custody/guardianship over.

this concerns me whenever I hear of this.l

[bal maiden]

6 hours ago, praying4u said:

IMO, the records do show something unusual. The Owens were keeping a child that they did not have legal custody over and a judge had to mandate that the child be returned to its birth mother.

What is this based on? The 'child restraint' wording? 

[VelociRapture]

Just another brief reminder (for those posting and reading now and those who will read in the future) that we know nothing for sure and this is all still speculation. 

As for the Owenses, it sucks that people are digging around in their lives now. I get that they foster - officially or not - and that opens them up to scrutiny, but I don’t think they could have ever imagined one of the kids would one day star on a reality show or imagine the type of scrutiny that could potentially open them up to. I’d just like to remind everyone to be cautious in passing judgement based off any of the documents that have been shared since they may not refer to the right family. Same with any documents that could be unearthed in the future about Whitney’s birth parents. I’d feel terrible if anything said here got picked up by tabloids and we found out it wasn’t true. 

To be honest, the entire situation seems odd to me. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that any of the adults involved didn’t treat Whitney right. Until we know for sure - and by that, I mean we have official confirmation through one if the parties involved or through certified documents - we should just try to be cautious in how we approach the subject. 

ETA: I should add that I also wouldn’t be surprised if Whitney had been acting out - whether in a developmentally appropriate manner for a teenager or not - and that was the reason for her change in living arrangements too. I know some people don’t think she’s the type of person who would have acted out, but people can change and mature as they grow older.

Edited January 8, 2019 by VelociRapture

[HarleyQuinn]

I think it's pretty clear we're speculating here even without the reminders.

Child restraint I've always known to be a seat belt infraction. Is it ever something different? 

Taking kids without the legality behind it seems kind of common, at least where I grew up. I knew of a few instances where kids were living with other families without CPS involved and said families just sent money or what not. Of course one of those backfired pretty spectacularly but the others I knew of were temporary and didn't. 

[VelociRapture]

50 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

I think it's pretty clear we're speculating here even without the reminders.

Child restraint I've always known to be a seat belt infraction. Is it ever something different? 

Taking kids without the legality behind it seems kind of common, at least where I grew up. I knew of a few instances where kids were living with other families without CPS involved and said families just sent money or what not. Of course one of those backfired pretty spectacularly but the others I knew of were temporary and didn't. 

I’ve seen speculation - even very obvious speculation - get innocently mistaken for fact a lot on this site. With this specific subject I’d much rather be safe than sorry. 

[just_ordinary]

People already start mixing speculation with facts....

16 hours ago, praying4u said:

IMO, the records do show something unusual. The Owens were keeping a child that they did not have legal custody over and a judge had to mandate that the child be returned to its birth mother. I think this makes it more likely that Whitney was never adopted by the Owens. I doubt that she was even legally fostered by the Owens. CPS typically only steps in and removes children in drastic cases. Whitney's birth parents have no criminal records that I could find. I think Whitney severed ties with her parents of her own accord and moved in with the Owens as an older teen.

From what I've seen on Instagram, I think the Owens seem to be a conservative Christian family that takes in as many children as they can and indoctrinates (for lack of a better word) them in their Christian faith. They almost feel quiverfull to me, but without the dresses. I think they would love to take in a "troubled" teen and "save" them. They remind me of how the Duggars always talk about wanting to adopt even more children.

I'm personally kind of wary of the Owens. It seems odd to me that they would take in children that they don't have legal custody/guardianship over. I also think that something happened to cause Whitney to completely sever ties with them.

@praying4u I don’t want to call you out, but this a classic example of judging people based on „evidence“ when we even don’t have confirmation that the records are about them. (Not saying your impression is solely based on it though- but it seems to play a big part.)

That said, I have mentioned earlier that I am open to the idea that the Owens might not be without fault in this matter. It’s a 50/50 chance. The truth lies probably somewhere in the middle with every party telling the story slightly different.

[nokidsmom]

I never thought of Whitney's living with the Owens as that odd.   Namely because of not knowing the specifics of the situation(s) that may have brought her there and whether this was through official / legal channels or not.   

Wouldn't any official information regarding a minor child, such as being placed in foster care, etc. be legally sealed anyway?

[onyourwayhome]

1 hour ago, nokidsmom said:

I never thought of Whitney's living with the Owens as that odd.   Namely because of not knowing the specifics of the situation(s) that may have brought her there and whether this was through official / legal channels or not.   

Wouldn't any official information regarding a minor child, such as being placed in foster care, etc. be legally sealed anyway?

It absolutely would be sealed. 

[nokidsmom]

7 minutes ago, onyourwayhome said:

It absolutely would be sealed. 

I thought so.  So no way to know if Whitney was legally adopted, placed formally (via CPS) with the family or if this all an informal arrangement or what.   Which is why I don't think of being with the Owens family as odd.  There's just no legally available information (or complete lack thereof) that would explain what happened.  And probably a good thing so no one could go digging after she got onto a reality show.   

[rebeccawriter01]

51 minutes ago, nokidsmom said:

I thought so.  So no way to know if Whitney was legally adopted, placed formally (via CPS) with the family or if this all an informal arrangement or what.   Which is why I don't think of being with the Owens family as odd.  There's just no legally available information (or complete lack thereof) that would explain what happened.  And probably a good thing so no one could go digging after she got onto a reality show.   

I lived next door to a couple who worked through a church to encourage women (mainly) who were going to prison to sign custody/guardianship of their children over to this couple. They would tell these women that if they didn't, the state could take them away and they'd never see them and that family often kept the children away from visiting. The couple ended up with like 15 kids (8-18) they were raising (ignoring). Some of the kids came to them as friends of other kids they were fostering after they had fights with their parents or ran away. It was all a sad situation, as the "parents" were rarely around and completely ignored the children. These kids were wild with no supervision, tried to break into houses, and smoked a lot of illegal stuff just outside my bedroom window. 

Since that time I have moved and worked for a while with an organization that served foster children and others removed from abusive homes. I can honestly say that the majority of times there is very little legal trail, as you are talking about minors and most situations that sound like the Owens (raising 12 teens/children who are not their own) sounds less like a state-controlled DFACS situation and more like a private arrangement. The rules for a couple to be the state-appointed foster parents would be much stricter than it would seem Whitney lived under. For example, 12 children unrelated would be considered a group home (that's assuming all 12 were there at the same time). That means each child would need his or her own bed and in many cases his or her own room. The kitchen would have to be commercial grade. They would have to go through frequent inspections, including DFACS, health department, etc. They would have to work with schools and educational CASAs to develop an IEP and plan to get the children back on track with education. They would have to work with judges, case workers, and CASAs to reunite the families when appropriate or create long term plans when not. However, if they did like my former neighbors, they could simply form a non-profit 501(c)3 and make their own rules. 

[praying4u]

@rebeccawriter01 this is very interesting info, I've never heard of such an arrangement. It may well be a situation like that. Thanks for sharing!

@just_ordinary @VelociRapture As to my speculations, I tried to make it excessively clear where the court records end and my opinions begin. The custody case and child restraint charge are official public court records from their county. They are not second hand info from a gossip website. Unless there is another Johnny and Lydia Faith Owens in their small Tennessee county, then these records refer to them. I think they are fair game to discuss. 

 

[nausicaa]

6 hours ago, just_ordinary said:

People already start mixing speculation with facts....

@praying4u I don’t want to call you out, but this a classic example of judging people based on „evidence“ when we even don’t have confirmation that the records are about them. (Not saying your impression is solely based on it though- but it seems to play a big part.)

I understand wanting to slow down the ISB, but two of the charges involve a couple from a very small county with the same exact names as both of the Owenses, and the wife has a fairly unique name.  I think it's safe to assume those two cases relate to Whitney's adoptive parents. I've done research for publications before, and that would be considered reliable enough to publish and link to both parents. 

As to what one can extrapolate from those charges in relation to Whitney? I don't know. This whole thing is a headscratcher for me.  

[VelociRapture]

10 hours ago, nausicaa said:

I understand wanting to slow down the ISB, but two of the charges involve a couple from a very small county with the same exact names as both of the Owenses, and the wife has a fairly unique name.  I think it's safe to assume those two cases relate to Whitney's adoptive parents. I've done research for publications before, and that would be considered reliable enough to publish and link to both parents. 

As to what one can extrapolate from those charges in relation to Whitney? I don't know. This whole thing is a headscratcher for me.  

This is why I’m urging people to proceed with caution and to remember to be extremely clear when fact shifts to speculation. I’ve said nothing about stopping the discussion - in fact, I’ve stated that discussing it on the show opens Whitney up to questions and comments about everything and that, unfortunately, also opens up both sets of parents to scrutiny as well. But some of the potential reasons why Whit may have ended up with the Owenses are very serious and could have serious implications on everyone involved, even if the speculation turns out to be untrue. I just don’t want anyone reading through this, now or in the future, to take anything speculated about here as fact. 

And with that, I’ll bow out. As I said, Whitney discussing it on the show so vaguely absolutely opens the entire situation up for speculation - but it does make me somewhat uncomfortable and I’m not exactly sure why. So I’ll leave the rest of you to it for now.

[miss_batson]

Whitney about siblings love and siblings wanting another sibling. But i guess she really wanted to say how she and Zach despertly wanting another baby. 

[lumpentheologie]

This makes it seem like she's not pregnant, but wants to be.  I'm a bit weirded out by Bradley and Kaci praying every day for a new sibling. It could be harmless, but in the context of Zach and his siblings praying and fasting for Kelly to get pregnant it seems super cultish and creepy to me. I don't have kids, so correct me if I'm wrong, but those two seem too young to do something like that every day on their own initiative. 

[Hisey]

8 hours ago, lumpentheologie said:

I don't have kids, so correct me if I'm wrong, but those two seem too young to do something like that every day on their own initiative. 

Of course they are too young.

[meee]

It don't think it's pernicious. I've seen children ask for baby siblings and the parents redirect it to "that's not up to me, ask God" (but then I struggle with infertility and so do a lot of my friends, so that's not so unusual in my circles), and if the parents (Zach and Whitney I mean) answer like that every day, the kids may just get used to putting that in part of their usual daily prayers. But that sort of sounds like Whitney is struggling. How long ago did she miscarry? I agree, it sounds like she's not pregnant but wants to be.

[VelociRapture]

3 hours ago, meee said:

It don't think it's pernicious. I've seen children ask for baby siblings and the parents redirect it to "that's not up to me, ask God" (but then I struggle with infertility and so do a lot of my friends, so that's not so unusual in my circles), and if the parents (Zach and Whitney I mean) answer like that every day, the kids may just get used to putting that in part of their usual daily prayers. But that sort of sounds like Whitney is struggling. How long ago did she miscarry? I agree, it sounds like she's not pregnant but wants to be.

She miscarried between their vow renewal in mid-June and the Facebook Live where they announced the loss in early-ish July.