[CW: Child Sex Abuse] Josh & Anna 31: Charged on 2 LaCounts

[Jasmar]

Quote

I have never known a court to terminate one parents rights if they are not terminating both since you are not liable for child support once terminated.

Is that true? Ive never heard that before and if it is, it’s repulsive. How can it possibly be argued that losing your right to parent your child, which as we all know, requires long-standing patterns of extreme abuse and/or neglect (at least for middle class white people) gets you off the hook for providing for them?

[theotherelise]

That’s certainly not the case in MO. One parents rights are voluntarily or by court order terminated in many instances here. And at least for voluntary TPR, you still could be liable for child support. Like if a man’s partner gets pregnant and he doesn’t want to participate, he could sign away rights, but he still has a child support obligation.

When I was a CASA in Missouri, one parent was in jail awaiting trial and one was working the plan to see if she could be reunified with her kids. Dad was convicted for a long long sentence and TPR’ed and mom kept working her plan. 

[JenniferJuniper]

I think a lot may depend on how long Josh actually spends in prison.  If its a relatively short period of time, Anna will wait.  If it's longer or if he ends up right back in prison again for something else, I think there is a good chance she'll drift away.  I'm not sure what her odds of finding another headship would be with seven kids in tow, but I can see her back in Florida eventually.  In five years, her oldest will be nearing 17 and her youngest will be nearing five and won't know her father very well, if at all.  The older kids will understand full well what Josh is, and may not want to know him very well themselves.  There's only so much you can lie about or excuse away, and as time goes on, Anna will have plenty of opportunity to think everything over.  

Lazy ass Josh, on the other hand, may end up being JB and Michelle's last kid at home.  God knows they'd deserve that.  Reaping what you sow, and all that.

[justoneoftwo]

I will say hiring a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean that they think you should get off. My mother played for her her brother's lawyer and then never spoke to him again. She always said love is conditional and paying for his lawyer with as far as her love for him and got her. I should point out he did not have anything to do with CSA

[OrchidBlossom]

17 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I will say hiring a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean that they think you should get off. My mother played for her her brother's lawyer and then never spoke to him again. She always said love is conditional and paying for his lawyer with as far as her love for him and got her. I should point out he did not have anything to do with CSA

That’s very interesting. I’m not sure I could pay for an attorney for my kid if they were accused of unprovoked violence or especially any kind of DV, CSA, etc. I suppose it would depend on the facts very much. And whether I really believed they were guilty. But for parents (who aren’t the Duggars et al) I can see how that would be an almost impossible choice. 

[RainbowSky]

13 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

That’s very interesting. I’m not sure I could pay for an attorney for my kid if they were accused of unprovoked violence or especially any kind of DV, CSA, etc. I suppose it would depend on the facts very much. And whether I really believed they were guilty. But for parents (who aren’t the Duggars et al) I can see how that would be an almost impossible choice. 

The most recent that I know of (family are in higher leadership in church, and have friends who are as well. I don't generally just hang with people like this for the heck of it. Actually, I tend to stay at my house, away from people most of the time lol) who is going through the state case I know of (which again, I'm not sure why on a computer/internet with receiving and distribution is a state case in their case) his mom remortgaged her house for legal fees plus selling other things and taking money out of her retirement fund because he's been fighting it for the past couple of years. She was just SURE that he was framed to keep the Black man down. I kept trying to tell the person in my family who was counseling her (no, it wasn't a broken confidence)  to please help her realize that it wasn't a traffic stop where he was followed or profiled or something, she needed to face head on what he actually was accused of and for sure had done and continued to do even after all their electronics were taken. I can completely understand the shock and horror and "Of course my baby could NEVER!" and try to blame someone, anyone, other than your child even if he is a giant sick creep to put it as light as possible...

This wasn't a case where they saw him and decided to go after him because they didn't like him either. I really hope as the case moves on, they can see that he just is that disgusting of a person whether they wanted initially to believe it or not. It is truly sad and horrifying that someone with that many kids in their family could ever think something like any of this is okay. 

[OrchidBlossom]

1 minute ago, RainbowSky said:

The most recent that I know of (family are in higher leadership in church, and have friends who are as well. I don't generally just hang with people like this for the heck of it. Actually, I tend to stay at my house, away from people most of the time lol) who is going through the state case I know of (which again, I'm not sure why on a computer/internet with receiving and distribution is a state case in their case) his mom remortgaged her house for legal fees plus selling other things and taking money out of her retirement fund because he's been fighting it for the past couple of years. She was just SURE that he was framed to keep the Black man down. I kept trying to tell the person in my family who was counseling her (no, it wasn't a broken confidence)  to please help her realize that it wasn't a traffic stop where he was followed or profiled or something, she needed to face head on what he actually was accused of and for sure had done and continued to do even after all their electronics were taken. I can completely understand the shock and horror and "Of course my baby could NEVER!" and try to blame someone, anyone, other than your child even if he is a giant sick creep to put it as light as possible...

This wasn't a case where they saw him and decided to go after him because they didn't like him either. I really hope as the case moves on, they can see that he just is that disgusting of a person whether they wanted initially to believe it or not. It is truly sad and horrifying that someone with that many kids in their family could ever think something like any of this is okay. 

I can understand the reaction to initially disbelieve. I can understand it especially in the context of a person of color, since they don’t exactly have ample reason to trust the police or justice system. I would hope if Rufus forbid I were ever in the situation where my child was charged with a serious crime, I would be able to objectively look to the evidence to form my belief about their guilt or innocence. But honestly, the reality is I can see how it’s nigh on impossible for some parents to try to do so. 
 

not the Duggars, obviously. They’ve known what josh is for years. But like in general. 

[JenniferJuniper]

22 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

That’s very interesting. I’m not sure I could pay for an attorney for my kid if they were accused of unprovoked violence or especially any kind of DV, CSA, etc. I suppose it would depend on the facts very much. And whether I really believed they were guilty. But for parents (who aren’t the Duggars et al) I can see how that would be an almost impossible choice. 

I don't think I could either, but I've never been a child worshipping/overindulgent sort of parent.  Now, if I had the means and felt my adult child might suffer more than s/he should, and likely otherwise would in the hands of a public defender, I'd probably provide the funds.  But to your point, it would be fact driven.  If I were Jim Bob or Michelle and heard what was described in court, knowing I still a couple of young daughters in my own home in addition to a bazillion grandkids, I really don't think I'd fund a defense.  He's not worthy.

[RainbowSky]

3 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

I can understand the reaction to initially disbelieve. I can understand it especially in the context of a person of color, since they don’t exactly have ample reason to trust the police or justice system. I would hope if Rufus forbid I were ever in the situation where my child was charged with a serious crime, I would be able to objectively look to the evidence to form my belief about their guilt or innocence. But honestly, the reality is I can see how it’s nigh on impossible for some parents to try to do so. 
 

not the Duggars, obviously. They’ve known what josh is for years. But like in general. 

In the one I was talking about, his mom was trying to find anyone who would/could possibly help. I looked at the info, frankly wasn't surprised from having known him and thinking he was a creep back then, and told them what I said. I completely and totally understand the reaction of disbelief and trying to do anything possible to be told it was all a huge mistake or a huge misunderstanding!! I can't even imagine knowing the little baby you birthed growing up to be...that.

But... there has to be a time when you realize that they did it and no amount of begging or throwing money at it will help it go away, sadly. Especially if they keep doing it or things in the same realm (*Cough* Josh too) There's nothing to be done past that except since I know they're believers, to pray and ask for help for your own/family's minds/hearts that are now absolutely broken-after the people who suffered and were and will forever be hurt more from it of course. You can't fix it or the offender if they're to that point. It's horrific for sure. I hope that especially whoever was hurt from this and now the family members who are thrown back into the spotlight about this specifically from what he did before do finally get a chance to heal or at least move on from it in reality.

[Queen Of Hearts]

2 hours ago, Jasmar said:

Is that true? Ive never heard that before and if it is, it’s repulsive. How can it possibly be argued that losing your right to parent your child, which as we all know, requires long-standing patterns of extreme abuse and/or neglect (at least for middle class white people) gets you off the hook for providing for them?

It is true. Losing custody does not get you out of support but having your rights terminated does.  

[nini9]

4 hours ago, SillyDillys said:

I am very surprised that she hasn't named one of her daughters Michelle or given it as a middle name. She idolizes that woman, I remember on 19kac she said that she often says 'what would michelle do?' when she gets overwhelmed. 

It's similar to the question of why there wasn't a child named Julie in the Duggar family (like really Jubilee before Julie??) I've heard a theory that Julie was Boob's favorite name and Shelly wasn't a fan of it for whatever reason. 

Also my current guess is that perhaps Josh is the one who vetoes the name Michelle, I can just imagine him being weirdly mad about the idea of one of his kids is named after his mom. 

[OrchidBlossom]

1 hour ago, JenniferJuniper said:

I don't think I could either, but I've never been a child worshipping/overindulgent sort of parent.  Now, if I had the means and felt my adult child might suffer more than s/he should, and likely otherwise would in the hands of a public defender, I'd probably provide the funds.  But to your point, it would be fact driven.  If I were Jim Bob or Michelle and heard what was described in court, knowing I still a couple of young daughters in my own home in addition to a bazillion grandkids, I really don't think I'd fund a defense.  He's not worthy.

*casual defense of public defense attorneys because I am one!* ?

but yeah if it was anything like with Josh, for sure. Couldn’t do it. Sorry. Good luck. 

[SorenaJ]

The name LaCount is a surname (given as a first name). It is a New England spelling of the French surname le Conte, which was an occupational or nickname surname from Old French conte "count" (as in the nobility title). 

[CaptainFunderpants]

It's similar to the question of why there wasn't a child named Julie in the Duggar family (like really Jubilee before Julie??) I've heard a theory that Julie was Boob's favorite name and Shelly wasn't a fan of it for whatever reason. 
Also my current guess is that perhaps Josh is the one who vetoes the name Michelle, I can just imagine him being weirdly mad about the idea of one of his kids is named after his mom. 

Julie was supposedly Michelle’s bully throughout school.

[Jess]

 

7 hours ago, theotherelise said:

That’s certainly not the case in MO. One parents rights are voluntarily or by court order terminated in many instances here. And at least for voluntary TPR, you still could be liable for child support. Like if a man’s partner gets pregnant and he doesn’t want to participate, he could sign away rights, but he still has a child support obligation.

When I was a CASA in Missouri, one parent was in jail awaiting trial and one was working the plan to see if she could be reunified with her kids. Dad was convicted for a long long sentence and TPR’ed and mom kept working her plan. 

Really did they actually TPR him fully with court order or just do the trial. I have seen them hold one trial for the parent not working their plan or allow them to sign away rights, so that they can then terminate both formally later. If the mom completed her plan they would then give Dad a no contact order, but he would not have his rights terminated. 

As to the first example in cases where men say they have signed their rights away, buts still have child support what they mean is right to custody and visitation not parental rights.

[Glasgowghirl]

5 hours ago, nini9 said:

It's similar to the question of why there wasn't a child named Julie in the Duggar family (like really Jubilee before Julie??) I've heard a theory that Julie was Boob's favorite name and Shelly wasn't a fan of it for whatever reason. 

Also my current guess is that perhaps Josh is the one who vetoes the name Michelle, I can just imagine him being weirdly mad about the idea of one of his kids is named after his mom. 

The fact they used Jinger before Jennifer and Jedidiah before James alway makes me laugh. 

[SweetLaurel]

3 hours ago, CaptainFunderpants said:

Julie was supposedly Michelle’s bully throughout school.

 Werd, in my school, the cheerleaders were the bullies, not the bullied.  Though am sure that does happen.  

[Jana814]

35 minutes ago, Glasgowghirl said:

The fact they used Jinger before Jennifer and Jedidiah before James alway makes me laugh. 

I always thought that was unusual. 

[nellautumngirl]

Josh has seemed so checked out mentally and physically in the last years, I wonder if prison could be good for him. He never had to stick to a rountine and a schedule, which can be beneficial for mental health. Will he get counseling? Therapy? Sports? Company with fellow inmates? It would all be better than the nothing he got growing up.

[Marionette]

1 hour ago, Glasgowghirl said:

The fact they used Jinger before Jennifer and Jedidiah before James alway makes me laugh. 

I feel like I remember Michelle saying (maybe in one of the books) that she had always loved the name Ginger.... And then they obviously modified it to be spelled with a J. 

[fundieundies]

1 hour ago, nellautumngirl said:

Josh has seemed so checked out mentally and physically in the last years, I wonder if prison could be good for him. He never had to stick to a rountine and a schedule, which can be beneficial for mental health. Will he get counseling? Therapy? Sports? Company with fellow inmates? It would all be better than the nothing he got growing up.

you know it's bad when prison beats the TTH

but then again i'm sure a warden is more present than Michelle

[pooplexed]

11 hours ago, OrchidBlossom said:

I just read @formergothardite’s insights on community reactions (and @HerNameIsBuffy thank you for pointing it out! These threads are moving so fast I missed it). It makes a lot of sense. I hope it means she may divorce him. Although if I were her I’d be wary of what it would mean for his ability to get custody, I suppose if he does end up convicted he’d probably get supervised visitation (although family law isn’t my specialty so I’m not sure of the exact risk, but it seems low).
 

@Jackie3 I think you did make a great point about how his obligations don’t necessarily shift, although that isn’t entirelyyyy true (in the sense of how complicated child support can be, I mean: that right now he presumptively managed his own money so he decided how much money to allocate to Anna’s needs or the M’s needs versus his own wants, and I’m somehow guessing he didn’t give them the same consideration a judge will when Josh is ordered to pay a % of his income to Anna). But you’re definitely right that at first blush he may not see it as likely to change much. But I guess I just see him as like, such a lazy MFer. And if there are civil suits down the line for this or other behavior, or if his lawyer fees for the criminal case dry up the well, he will also be a broke MFer. I don’t see the Bank of JB funding a divorce action though I could see him funding a defense to Anna divorcing him, maybe. That’s sort of why I can more easily see Josh just bouncing, but not going through the effort to find a lawyer, pay a lawyer, figure out custody and child spousal support, go to mediations, all that. And I guess if he’s planning to be a deadbeat, being a deadbeat dad can be a bit tricky in this day and age if you’re relatively high profile. It’s much easier to find someone and garnish their bank accounts, etc. than it once was. I can’t imagine Anna would be at a loss for lawyers volunteering to help, both fundie and non, if she wanted to go after him. If josh wants to go deadbeat, might be easier to just disappear! Then again I don’t know if he’s smart enough to think that all through... 
 

I could be wrong. I mean I hope I’m wrong somehow, someone needs to divorce someone and the sooner the better! 

 

Maybe this is lazy, because I could look shit up...

I do not know the nitty-gritty of who owns what LCC, etc., but a bank account owned in its name is not a bank account that belongs to a person. If an LCC is owned by a dead beat parent, it could be considered an asset the parent must sell and use the cash so obtained for arrears in CS. Otherwise, only profits that hit the parent's pockets and/or salary the parent pays themself counts as income available to support children. Obviously, this could become a game of shuffle-the-money and look how broke the poor dead beat is. Clearly, scheming assholes who scheme will have far more energy to put into this game than exhausted parents who have to decide, at least for the next several years, whom they trust to depend upon financially and emotionally the most. If emotionally it is oneself, the likely only financial supporter will be government run welfare programs. which can burn bridges with some humans that had been available.

I do not know the nitty-gritty of who owns what LCC, etc., but it did pop into my mind that the car lot that possibly did draw profit/salary for Josh disappeared soon after he was raided and brightly predicted the reason for the raid, smart thing that he is. I wonder, and probably should research rather than speculate, if this raid was distressing enough for Anna that she did toy with divorce. And JB and other asshole schemers who scheme pointed out that Josh no longer has income/means to pay CS; JB is not legally responsible. Go ahead and try to compare assets. You will find that 1) you own more LLC shit that Josh, and 2) it is worthless hokey shit thanks to your co-owners who are in the business of hide-the-money from Anna. Yeah, you live in this warehouse now, and are making the best of it. But it is not Josh's. It is not yours. And I don't legally owe you anything. I speculate that the closing of that lot and apparent lack of job for Josh since was a threat.

I haven't looked up Arkansas welfare laws. But welfare is very difficult to live on, unless one lives someplace on a very low rent (like the warehouse, assuming JB would let her stay) and/or with other in-kind help that does not get subtracted from the welfare grant, like access to a car for free, or free baby-sitting, etc.. It is generally designed to be much, much less than minimum wage (fair enough...but minimum wage is its own problem) and, contrary to popular belief, adding kiddos does not grow the grant very much- certainly not as much as the kiddos cost.

AND... I haven't looked up the nitty-gritty of the new tax credits for children. THAT has potential to be a big cha-ching for Anna if she is the legally separated head of HH, and the children are her dependents. This could really bring in income. It MIGHT be that she has to have earnings to get these credits. It might be the earnings could be profits from those LLC's, or it might be that they have to be wages. Maybe you have to not be on public assistance, or can only get the money that exceeds what public assistance has paid. But I bet it is a lot of money. So, if Anna decided to separate, it would be messy (knowing the assholes she is up against). And she would need a lawyer who understands tax laws as they are written right now. (I imagine the men invisibly handle it all, now, and Anna has no idea what the marital assets or income is. But she probably does understand that it can be manipulated to her detriment if she is not the perfect in-law.)

BUT...I know that the scheming assholes who scheme can't have both- a broke Josh who can't pay CS and a monied Josh who is better positioned financially to support his children, and thus should have custody. If Anna has a good lawyer on her side, she could probably live on a part-time minimum wage job, perhaps working only on Friday afternoons and all day Saturday at Christian Chicken or whatever, and that income, plus earned income tax credits, and the new child credits would likely be doable if she has an ally to, for instance, baby sit her large family. Maybe the biggest M could get a buck an hour to watch one of the brood if she agrees to it, and the second and possibly 3rd M could get a 5 or 10 dollar bonus for behavioral goals. to watch another. There would still have to be a very generous adult watching those kids, including supporting the deputies so they are challenged to learn childcare, not parentified and burdened, and especially not empowered to abusively use their age and size, I don't think Anna's only choices are Duggar support, Keller support or Welfare support. I think that the tax laws now are such that working is MUCH more profitable than welfare, and if she has the friends she would have to have to survive on welfare, she could do so more comfortably with a part time job.

Someone has to do the math, research and advocacy for her. But I put my money on it can be done, and she can do it.

And, as a woman with 2 kids, When I went back to work after the 2nd, I missed my babies, but it was SO MUCH EASIER at work, pumping milk while returning phone calls, than being home with 2 itty ones. I could just say, "Excuse me," and go to the bathroom! Arguably, at my job. I have some more freedom than I would working fast food. But... I can't imagine working fast food being more minute-to-minute demanding than 7 little ones, no matter how crabby the clients and blaming the boss. Anna might just feel she is on vacation while working. If she then comes home and distributes cash rewards for behavior and/or a small child care payment to the older M's she is going to feel like a Fundie Man! Hardly working (compared to parenting 7) and then being the one with a fist full of money and the power to pay and reward.

I can look it up, but Anna would likely be eligible for some additional government help such as Medicaid with that income. But most of her income would be tax credits. I don't think she would be eligible for "welfare" in the form of cash from County Gov't. Maybe some SNAP, especially while the economy is recovering. Josh would likely be incarcerated, but if not, any income could be considered for child support. And, Anna's children could be in line to get part of any windfall such as inheritance he could get. If the scoundrel dies, they could get SS survivor benefits.

Anna could do it. She just needs the right person to help her on her terms. My suggestion may not work for her... because I do not know her and have not spoken to her. But someone who does know her, and knows what she wants...should know that if it fits for her she could skip "welfare" if she wants to work very part time and "make it" that way, separated from Josh, she can. And her time at work might be a refreshing break for her.

Just some thoughts, none of my business.

Edit: I suspect that there is a money shell game in those LLC's but if income is profit, and Josh is incarcerated, he could still earn it, and still owe some of it to his children.

Edited May 11, 2021 by pooplexed
edited to add that an incarcerated person could have income

[theotherelise]

3 hours ago, Jess said:

 

Really did they actually TPR him fully with court order or just do the trial. I have seen them hold one trial for the parent not working their plan or allow them to sign away rights, so that they can then terminate both formally later. If the mom completed her plan they would then give Dad a no contact order, but he would not have his rights terminated. 

As to the first example in cases where men say they have signed their rights away, buts still have child support what they mean is right to custody and visitation not parental rights.

Ahh, fair enough. It was 9 years ago and I'm sure I didn't always know the right terms back then! Things went pretty haywire in the entire situation and the CASA office lost its director (and only employee) so we weren't getting support. The kids were at 2 different locations 2 hours away from the county where the cases were and the court check ins kept getting moved around but no one would notify me. The mom had lost custody years earlier and was really only back as a potential custodial parent because the dad was likely going to prison for CSA. 

I drove the 2 hours once to where one child was living and then got told I couldn't see her because she'd violated rules that morning.

I was 23 and in way over my head. I still feel guilty about not being able to be more present for the kids. 

[pooplexed]

6 hours ago, CaptainFunderpants said:

Julie was supposedly Michelle’s bully throughout school.

Well, then. No wonder JB was so found of it. 

[quiversR4hunting]

11 hours ago, Jasmar said:

Quote

I have never known a court to terminate one parents rights if they are not terminating both since you are not liable for child support once terminated.

Is that true? Ive never heard that before and if it is, it’s repulsive. How can it possibly be argued that losing your right to parent your child, which as we all know, requires long-standing patterns of extreme abuse and/or neglect (at least for middle class white people) gets you off the hook for providing for them?

No, it isn't true. Or at least not in all states. In my state, the only time parents aren't liable for child support is if the kid is adopted but the parents are liable for child support up to the adoption (if they are able- some aren't due to mental or physical disabilities or drugs or prison or such). 

The thought 'if I terminate my parental rights I don't owe child support' is an urban legend that seems many believe.