[CW: Child Sex Abuse] Josh & Anna 30: LaCounting On to His Trial Date

[older than allosaurs]

1 hour ago, SnarkyLawyer said:

 When you appoint a guardian ad litem, you are transferring custody to that person, to make legal decisions for the children.

Not in my state. My daughter is a GAL for children in foster care and is also a foster parent to a child who has a GAL. Neither GAL makes legal decisions for the child and they do not have custody.They represent the child's best interest and give advice, but they don't have decision-making power. 

[Jess]

5 minutes ago, SnarkyLawyer said:

I worked at the state level, and because I dealt in felonies, the children had already been removed, and a guardian ad litem appointed, if necessary, by the time the case got to our office.

The Feds have their own child abuse statutes, and procedure. I'm looking up now, as to whether they have to go to state family court, to get an order for a guardian ad litem. Federal Procedure Rule 17(c) says that federal courts have the authority to appoint a guardian ad litem. It states that "Federal courts "shall appoint a guardian ad litem for an infant or incompetent person not otherwise represented in an action or shall make such other order as it deems proper for [his or her] protection." In practice, the courts have interpreted this last provision broadly: the term infants is taken to mean unborn children and all minors. That could refer only to minors, who have no other custodian, which wouldn't apply here. I have no issue with being told I'm wrong, but I do find it odd that federal courts wouldn't have their own system in place.

However, my point still stands that if the prosecutor thought there was sufficient evidence to believe the children had been molested, due to the images alone, he would have initiated whatever procedure was necessary to obtain a guardian ad litem, and then conduct the forensic exams. He wouldn't just shrug his shoulders and wait, knowing he could add additional charges, and potentially remove all visitation rights by Josh, pending the outcome of the trial. 

 

Okay so I think (but would need to know more facts and do research to be sure) that the issue would be the federal court would not have jurisdiction. If they had reason to believe Josh abuses his children the recourse is to refer the matter to local police. Then a family court judge would handle it. Federal courts do appoint GALs for example if its a civil case with a monetary judgement and they think a GAL needs to appointed. Legally incapacitated defendants could also get GAL. That is why there are rules about them. I am sure the court house has a process for this reason. But in order to appoint one they need a legal basis. They are there to protect someone’s rights during a court proceeding. Nothing I have seen indicates that Josh’s children are part of this case at this time so there is no legal basis to appoint someone to protect his children’s legal rights in the federal case.

That being said again there will certainly be a state child welfare investigation that will involve the children. If there are indicated findings then and the state family court can appoint a GAL/make a court order that bans the children from seeing Josh or requires a different supervisor. These proceedings and court orders will be closed. I doubt any of the Duggar’s will admit a state court banned Josh from seeing his children. So, for all we the general public know a state court judge could make an order today giving him no visitation or visitation only with a social worker. I doubt it would ever become public knowledge.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

10 minutes ago, bettertomarry said:

So what does everyone think?  Will JB encourage the girls to drop the lawsuit so #JoshDuggar isn't trending?  I'd they won anything, I'd assume the money would go right to them and bypass Josh's defense fund JB.

I don't see how JB could get the money unless they handed it over to him.  Any settlement or judgement will be for the victims themselves.

I cannot see Jill or Jinger handing over a dime.  I don't know anything about Joy's public persona as an adult, but it's my understanding she and Austin aren't supported by her parents?  The only one I can see getting strong armed is Jessa if he pulls some emotional bullying like how he gave them a house or whatever.  I can't imagine the pay off being worth the bad press if that got out.  

ETA even if he tries to get them to drop it I can't see Jill going along with that, and Jeremy wouldn't look great if he encouraged Jinger to do so.  Even if it's just Jill it's going forward, and the others dropping would make that news as well.  

Edited May 7, 2021 by HerNameIsBuffy

[Coconut Flan]

1 hour ago, Jess said:

One thought I would add is to keep in mind a federal magistrate judge is not a state family court judge they are not empowered to act as a family court judge and can’t violate the constitution by acting as one. As far as we know Ann and Josh still have full parental rights and the only way to change that is for a state family court judge to make an order. She can only do so much but that doesn’t mean a state court judge can’t make an order forbidding him to have contact with his own children if cause is found. They would be two separate cases and the family court case would not something we as the public have ready access to the way we do the federal proceedings.  

Repeated because the bolded part needs to be understood.  Judges and magistrates can only act within their legal authority.  The federal magistrate can not usurp state powers.  

[bettertomarry]

1 minute ago, HerNameIsBuffy said:

I don't see how JB could get the money unless they handed it over to him.  Any settlement or judgement will be for the victims themselves.

I cannot see Jill or Jinger handing over a dime.  I don't know anything about Joy's public persona as an adult, but it's my understanding she and Austin aren't supported by her parents?  The only one I can see getting strong armed is Jessa if he pulls some emotional bullying like how he gave them a house or whatever.  I can't imagine the pay off being worth the bad press if that got out.  

That was my assumption as well.  So, does the lack of JB payout plus the potential Josh bad press mean JB will 'encourage' the women to drop the lawsuit?

 

Have a bunny picture:

 

 

[SnarkyLawyer]

2 minutes ago, older than allosaurs said:

Not in my state. My daughter is a GAL for children in foster care and is also a foster parent to a child who has a GAL. Neither GAL makes legal decisions for the child and they do not have custody.They represent the child's best interest and give advice, but they don't have decision-making power. 

In my state, they were allowed to consent to forensic exams, and other medical care, as well as make recommendations for foster care, etc., in child abuse cases. We used them, all of the time.

[HerNameIsBuffy]

Just now, bettertomarry said:

That was my assumption as well.  So, does the lack of JB payout plus the potential Josh bad press mean JB will 'encourage' the women to drop the lawsuit?

I edited my post after you responded, it won't matter.  I can't see Jill dropping it so even if the other three would, it's still going forward and now there is more press on why the other three dropped the suit.  

And I know I don't know much about these people, but I can't see Jeremy telling her to drop it as he won't want to be seen looking like they are trying to help Josh.  

[SnarkyLawyer]

9 minutes ago, Jess said:

Okay so I think (but would need to know more facts and do research to be sure) that the issue would be the federal court would not have jurisdiction. If they had reason to believe Josh abuses his children the recourse is to refer the matter to local police. Then a family court judge would handle it. Federal courts do appoint GALs for example if its a civil case with a monetary judgement and they think a GAL needs to appointed. Legally incapacitated defendants could also get GAL. That is why there are rules about them. I am sure the court house has a process for this reason. But in order to appoint one they need a legal basis. They are there to protect someone’s rights during a court proceeding. Nothing I have seen indicates that Josh’s children are part of this case at this time so there is no legal basis to appoint someone to protect his children’s legal rights in the federal case.

That being said again there will certainly be a state child welfare investigation that will involve the children. If there are indicated findings then and the state family court can appoint a GAL/make a court order that bans the children from seeing Josh or requires a different supervisor. These proceedings and court orders will be closed. I doubt any of the Duggar’s will admit a state court banned Josh from seeing his children. So, for all we the general public know a state court judge could make an order today giving him no visitation or visitation only with a social worker. I doubt it would ever become public knowledge.

Yes, thank you. My entire point was, there would have to be a legal basis, regardless of the procedure to get there, and I'm very surprised a child welfare investigation and interviews weren't already conducted, as part of the initial investigation. I'm extremely sorry that the procedural elements were the issues that stood out. 

[older than allosaurs]

12 minutes ago, SnarkyLawyer said:

In my state, they were allowed to consent to forensic exams, and other medical care, as well as make recommendations for foster care, etc., in child abuse cases. We used them, all of the time.

That sounds similar. It was the transfer of custody part that didn't jibe with our experiences. The state is working to insure that every foster child has a GAL or at least a volunteer CASA. And on the other end of the money/privilege spectrum, GALs may be appointed when rich divorcing parents are duking it out via their lawyers and no one is speaking for the child. (I know you already know this -- just making a general statement.)

[viii]

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if they win a settlement, who is paying the money? The victims receive the money but who actually pays it? JB?

[onekidanddone]

4 hours ago, Satan'sFortress said:

On the subject of solitary confinement--I highly recommend Eastern State Penitentiary for those in the Philadelphia region.

OneKid went there on school field trip 

[justoneoftwo]

It is a very different thing to attend deceiver hosted by a Jewish family. Personally I have never hosted one that didn't include at least one person who had never been to one before. That is not the same thing as hosting your own, I am inviting you to share and understand my tradition, and when someone interrupts to talk Jesus they are asked to leave and not invited back.

On the girls case, if they settle the agreement will say how they are to be paid, and it could say anything they want. 

[MamaJunebug]

Gots no bunny pictures....

...gots something I heard on KTRS Radio 550 out of Saint Louis (they have an app if you’re not near there).

HOST 1: So, will TLC cancel the Doogar [her pronunciation!] family show over this latest situation?

HOST 2: Where the oldest son has c***d p**n, so, he should die.  Then, the show can go on or not.

It may lose something in the re-telling, and of course neither the hosts nor I wish death on anybody. But I LOVED that the host’s reaction was so matter-of-fact, blasé.  And while I don’t wish death on anybody, I’ll confess that the thought to do so has crossed my mind. Briefly. All over, now. ?

[Jess]

5 minutes ago, viii said:

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if they win a settlement, who is paying the money? The victims receive the money but who actually pays it? JB?

The remaining defendants would pay. I believe all the big money defendants have managed to get their cases dismissed so it’s basically civil servants in their personal capacities. These peoples are unlikely to have much in the way of assets. IIRC the city and county governments got the case against them dismissed. This is probably why the case has stalled so much. Assuming it makes it to trial, they win, and the defendants actually have the money to pay and pay it will go to their lawyers escrow they will remove their fees and costs and then cut a check to the sisters.

[neuroticcat]

2 hours ago, Emma said:

I knew a man who had a Native American mother and Caucasian father. He was killed in a car accident.  When I attended the viewing a few women from his mother’s tribe came in and sang a song. I had no idea what was going on so I just stepped back and watched quietly and respectfully thinking what a privilege it was to observe this. The funeral was done inside a Presbyterian church, led by a Presbyterian minister, some of the tribe were there, quiet and observing. The graveside service was turned over to the tribe and I was really upset that the Presbyterian minister tried to participate. I felt it was disrespectful to try and participate in something he really couldn’t understand.

That said, I attended a Seder at a private home. Jesus observed Seder and the Last Supper (Seder) is an important part of Holy Week for Christians. Should Christians try and take over Jewish customs? No. But the Last Supper, aka Maundy Thursday, aka Seder, has been part of Christianity’s Holy Week for millennia. Is it wrong for Christians to observe the Last Supper?

I’ve been at Christian Seder dinners for Holy Week. Personally I think it’s strange to try and force it and always has felt exhibitionist and performative cloaked in “educating” everyone on how Jewish practices all lead to Jesus. I can understand a shared meal during Holy Week to remember the Upper Room, but why must we use - because it feels like using it or some sort of entertainment component I can’t put my finger on - the Jewish sacred rituals? Besides being generally understood to be appropriation, it seems contradictory to NT teaching that says that Gentile Christians oughtn’t to try and become Jewish or adopt Jewish religious practice. 
 

Personally, I find the Christian seders that go step by step through the Jewish practice and explains it like a participatory experience insensitive at best and intentionally antisemitic at worst. And if Jewish people are saying it’s deeply offensive, that seems the final word in my opinion. 

I do think Christians could do a shared meal or something on Thursday but why must it be a clumsy adaptation? The ones I’ve been to have always been cringe and remind me of the fundie branches that adopt Jewish practice for weddings and Sabbath and stuff. Besides, Christians historically have more focused on footwashing on Maundy Thursday anyway. But have you ever been to one of those? We can do cringe without offending other religions. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by neuroticcat
Typos everywhere - thanks autocorrect

[GiggleOfGirls]

9 hours ago, AnnEggBlandHer? said:

Just want to mention for everyone hoping Anna will put the kids first…she has been taught her entire life that your spouse is more important than your kids. She has been taught that the best thing you can do for your kids is maintain your marriage. 
I would be absolutely shocked if she initiated a divorce. 

Trying again to reply! Timed out before.

 
The above really cannot be emphasized enough.

Even in fairly mainstream Christian circles (Dobson) it is either implied or outright said that the parental relationship is more important than the children’s relationship with their mother (obviously I’m paraphrasing). I heard it myself in a young parents’ Sunday school class (Baptist church, fundy-lite) right before never going back to a Christian church again... 

Parenting stuff (punitive and pitting the father’s needs against/above the children’s needs) from Christian authors and churches was my first clue that maybe I wasn’t a good fit for general Christianity after all ?‍♀️ It’s really pervasive and not just in extreme circles like ATI, AR, and (the defunct) VF.

[FunFunFundie]

4 minutes ago, GiggleOfGirls said:

Trying again to reply! Timed out before.

 
The above really cannot be emphasized enough.

Even in fairly mainstream Christian circles (Dobson) it is either implied or outright said that the parental relationship is more important than the children’s relationship with their mother (obviously I’m paraphrasing). I heard it myself in a young parents’ Sunday school class (Baptist church, fundy-lite) right before never going back to a Christian church again... 

Parenting stuff (punitive and pitting the father’s needs against/above the children’s needs) from Christian authors and churches was my first clue that maybe I wasn’t a good fit for general Christianity after all ?‍♀️ It’s really pervasive and not just in extreme circles like ATI, AR, and (the defunct) VF.

Even in mainstream mainstream circles! Esther Perel was on a podcast and made the point that the best thing parents can do for a child is to have a stable relationship. Which I get. And in a functioning relationship, probably true. But if you're any shades of Anna Duggar, you probably hear "to love my kids, I really have to make this work."

[SnarkyLawyer]

43 minutes ago, older than allosaurs said:

That sounds similar. It was the transfer of custody part that didn't jibe with our experiences. The state is working to insure that every foster child has a GAL or at least a volunteer CASA. And on the other end of the money/privilege spectrum, GALs may be appointed when rich divorcing parents are duking it out via their lawyers and no one is speaking for the child. (I know you already know this -- just making a general statement.)

I should have clarified that custody was transferred to the state, with the GAL given authority to make certain legal decisions. But the GAL works for the state, on the child's behalf. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

39 minutes ago, viii said:

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if they win a settlement, who is paying the money? The victims receive the money but who actually pays it? JB?

They are suing the government agency that redacted the reports improperly so that the girls were immediately identified as victims, not the family.  It has nothing to do with JB.

[gustava]

3 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

Re: the “theology” - it isn’t consistent or even wholly Protestant, because it is a cult. ATI does pull on general fundamentalist/evangelical theology but with all the Gothard add-ins. 
 

Yes, I think they believe that the substitutionary atonement on the cross covers all sin past, present, and future, so in one sense Josh’s salvation is always assured through faith and by grace alone. BUT they also believe true conversion is evidenced in continued sanctification - so becoming more Christlike. So it is faith alone, but you are then inclined toward good works  because - after conversion -you love God and want to obey him. AND they have all the legalistic rules about true Christianity so it really is one mishmash of Christianese wrapped up in Gothard’s  authority.
 

So, a Christian who keeps choosing sin may have never been a true Christian or may be “quenching the spirit” which can lead to apostasy. Similarly if you don’t confess/receive forgiveness (always in private prayer of course) you will become hardened. And if you do that enough you may be “delivered over” to Satan and fall away. 
 

That being said, I also think these groups do understand some vocabulary about addiction so it’s possible they can use that to justify to themselves that Josh *wants* to do good but is under the power of sin/addiction and needs to pray harder, try harder. Certainly with ATI there’s a lot of “principles” in how to control for right behavior so maybe they are dusting off old manuals to see what to do, though perhaps they’ll be confronted there with the reality that Gothard himself molested countless girls.
 

So I think there are theological reasons -even warped nonsensical ones - for them to process this, but I imagine they have intense pressure for Josh to “truly” repent and find victory which would not only exonerate their system but also demonstrate his true salvation - for all to see. What, to me, is so inconsistent in their beliefs is that as far as I know the ATI conclusions (and literal biblical interpretation) of this kind of continual “life dominating sin” is actually to, after warning him, have nothing more to do with him and boot him out of the church.

So shunning basically. But obviously boundaries have never been on the radar with these groups so they will likely keep enabling and controlling. 
 

I do wonder if any of this has the power to shatter the allure of the ATI cult that has entranced them for so long. I’m doubtful, just because they’re so deep in it, but my personal opinion has always been that the adults most drawn to these cults (vs those born into them) have themselves come out of chaotic, abusive homes and love  the rules/consistency as well as the familiarity of being abusive leadership and the power of finally being able to control things. Also, the parenting teaching IS abusive, so even if they were tender to their children back in the day, you have to push through that to beat toddlers and spank for everything and squelch all personhood - including your own. I think the reality is abuse - Josh’s kind of evil as well as others - is much more endemic in these communities than even we here could suspect. 
 

They don’t speak much on it but JB vaguely references his father’s anger (and maybe alcohol but I can’t quite remember) issues as well as neglect/poverty n his growing up years. Michelle has always been uncannily silent about her parents. My speculation is that they both came from abusive backgrounds of some sort and were drawn to the promise of the perfect family. But it’s a pretty big reckoning to, as a parent of grown children, open your eyes to how your parenting formula screwed up with such devastating consequences - all the more if you’ve strived to be perfect parents and in the public eye. 

Do I misconstrue ATI beliefs/interpretation to support patriarchy above all else, even though/especially  that same patriarchy supports the power of [the abused] finally being able to control things.

[BlackberryGirl]

BlackberryKid2 married a woman with same name as our deceased daughter. She took his last name. It gives me pause every single  time I see her name on FB. I adore her, but it still gives me pause. 

[Smee]

31 minutes ago, GiggleOfGirls said:

Trying again to reply! Timed out before.

 
The above really cannot be emphasized enough.

Even in fairly mainstream Christian circles (Dobson) it is either implied or outright said that the parental relationship is more important than the children’s relationship with their mother (obviously I’m paraphrasing). I heard it myself in a young parents’ Sunday school class (Baptist church, fundy-lite) right before never going back to a Christian church again... 

Parenting stuff (punitive and pitting the father’s needs against/above the children’s needs) from Christian authors and churches was my first clue that maybe I wasn’t a good fit for general Christianity after all ?‍♀️ It’s really pervasive and not just in extreme circles like ATI, AR, and (the defunct) VF.

Yep, I remember a women’s bible study group arguing that hypothetically, if we could choose between our husband being saved and our children being saved, we should choose our husband because we are “one” with him and not our kids. I thought it was a dumb distinction anyway, like “ranking” your family relationships - no one would have dared ask “hypothetically, if you could only save one of your children, which one would you choose?” And erases the free will and decision making capabilities of the other people involved, adult and child, none of whom we have absolute control over.

As far as sin flattening, the way it was explained to me was that yes, some sins are worse than others, but all sins are enough to separate us from God. Illustrations included “would you drink this glass of milk that has a big spoonful of poop from my child’s nappy in it? How about THIS glass of milk that has only touched the same spoon?” and “if Hitler is in the Marianas Trench and Mother Teresa is on the top of Mount Everest, God is on the moon. Mother Teresa is closer, but without Jesus she’s still not going to get there.” There is also a distinction made between “sinning against God” which can only be forgiven by Jesus and IS always forgiven by Jesus as long as you’re truly sorry and try not to do it again, and “sinning against others” which may or may not be forgiven by the person who you’ve harmed. But if you’re a believer, you’re supposed to forgive those who sin against you, because you’ve been forgiven so much by God.

This is mainstream evangelical theology, I can’t speak to fundies.

[BlessingsVonFundiePants]

As I yardstick to measure the severity of the narcissistic delusion with the Duggar adult males I would like to know how many details of this investigation/potential for arrest Jim Bob and Josh shared with Jed prior to the election.

Because either they let him put himself out there WITHOUT letting him know this bomb of horrors could blow up during a campaign or once he was in office (which is a really shitty thing to do to your son/brother). 
 

Or Jed KNEW this was coming and still thought this was the right time to run for office (which points to how divorced from reality the men from this family are) and they thought it would help if Jed was elected. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by BlessingsVonFundiePants
*Riffles

[gustava]

1 hour ago, TuringMachine said:

We usually have non Jewish friends at our seders, but they're there from a learning / appreciation perspective. It's a very different situation than when Christians try to claim it for themselves. Then it feels like an attempt at erasure. Especially when these are often people who are already trying to erase us through conversion. 

Someone in my rural, ultra conservative Christian/political county is saying that *"The Jews will be grafted back into God’s kingdom and they will see our Jesus and their Messiah is one and the same Romans 11:23:25 Micah 2:12."  Tabernacle  in a storefront building with services.  Craycray.

[neuroticcat]

12 minutes ago, gustava said:

Do I misconstrue ATI beliefs/interpretation to support patriarchy above all else, even though/especially  that same patriarchy supports the power of [the abused] finally being able to control things.

I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but, if I’m reading it right, I would agree that it’s completely contradictory. People feel like they have control/power by submitting to ultimate authorities that tell them how to live their life (vs. the anxiety produced by freedom and personal responsibility). 
 

Which is why the women in particular are victims AND perpetrators. Victims under the thumb of patriarchy but empowered in a twisted way because they are choosing what they’ve deemed to be the Right Best Thing, which is empowering, and that will guarantee Good Controlled Outcomes (godly offspring, spiritual blessing, etc).