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

[SassyPants]

7 hours ago, SorenaJ said:

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). 

Like Spurgeon?

[Four is Enough]

11 hours ago, Jasmar said:

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?

As an adoptive parent of two severely neglected children, I would have been surprised that the birth parents were actually giving money to the state to support their neglected children. Hell, they neglected them when they were in the same house! Are they going to step up when someone else is feeding them, housing them, clothing them, sending them to school? 

Sorry, that set me off.. I don't have any photos of my two youngest until I met them when they were school aged. Their previous caregiver does but she won't share them. Our social worker said it was important for them to remember and grieve that time, but she has steadfastly refused to show anyone those photos.

Oh, and... all those holding companies... isn't that a good way to launder money? JB? got an answer?

[onekidanddone]

8 minutes ago, SassyPants said:

Like Spurgeon?

You mean Josh is staying with the Count from Sesame Street?

[SassyPants]

3 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

You mean Josh is staying with the Count from Sesame Street?

No...the Count was my favorite character along with Ernie!

[quiversR4hunting]

21 minutes ago, Four is Enough said:

As an adoptive parent of two severely neglected children, I would have been surprised that the birth parents were actually giving money to the state to support their neglected children. Hell, they neglected them when they were in the same house! Are they going to step up when someone else is feeding them, housing them, clothing them, sending them to school? 

Sorry, that set me off.. I don't have any photos of my two youngest until I met them when they were school aged. Their previous caregiver does but she won't share them. Our social worker said it was important for them to remember and grieve that time, but she has steadfastly refused to show anyone those photos.

Oh, and... all those holding companies... isn't that a good way to launder money? JB? got an answer?

The bio parents (while the kids were in foster care) might have paid the state but usually not voluntarily. In child support, we grab wages from any employer, unemployment and take tax refunds (in 2020 we took a lot of the 1st stimulus money, I think we should have only taken half but the dumb legislatures didn't think of that). If the bio parent(s) are in prison or chronically unemployed then there isn't anything to take but we will still charge and the arrears build and we keep enforcing it until we can't (either statute of limitations happens or they are full disabled, dead or in prison for a long time). Foster care families wouldn't know if the bio parents pay because the money goes to the state or local agency funding the foster care placement. 

Thank you for taking in kids that needed love and stability. 

[EmCatlyn]

1 hour ago, pooplexed said:

[snipped]   
...   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.

[snipped]

... 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.

....

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.  . . .

It seems to me that we are putting much more thought on finding a way that Anna could leave Josh than Anna herself has done or will.  

The scenario where she might have considered divorce right after the raid (but she was reminded that she was financially dependent on the Duggars) seems very unlikely among other things because the odds are that Josh didn’t tell her what the raid was really about.

And Anna would not find satisfaction in a part-time job that took her away from her children.  She is attached to the ideal of being a SAHM. She does not believe it would be right for her to work outside the home.

She also doesn’t think divorce is right.  ?

[SnarkyLawyer]

There are many reasons teens molest children. The good news is, with an appropriate treatment plan, most do not go on to engage in further illegal sexual behavior. FWIW, I think wondering aloud about the human condition, and what makes certain people tick, is normal and healthy, regardless of whether you know them. I appreciate the thoughtful perspectives. http://www.ncsby.org/content/understanding-adolescents-illegal-sexual-behavior

[Jillybits]

1 hour ago, quiversR4hunting said:

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. 

It's true in Florida. I currently have two cases where they are terminating the rights of the fathers and leaving the kids with the mothers. The State is wanting the rights terminated, fathers can't do it themselves. The fathers will not be liable for child support once the rights are terminated. Of course, child support usually isn't an issue because they really only terminated rights to the poor who wouldn't have anything to pay, anyway.  Rich and middle class people generally don't get their kids removed, only the indigent. 

[Jackie3]

23 minutes ago, Jillybits said:

Rich and middle class people generally don't get their kids removed, only the indigent. 

People who are dysfunctional (can't raise their kids) usually have difficulty holding steady jobs too. So they're likely to be terrible parents AND unable to hold a job.

People in lower income groups are often involved with social services in other ways (food stamps, etc) and so it's easier to see neglect and abuse. Wealthy families can isolate more easily.

In wealthy families, the parents often hold prominent positions in the community (doctor, rabbi, lawyer, etc) and social services find it more intimidating to challenge them, or they tend to give these parents the benefit of the doubt.

But abuse and neglect certainly happens in wealthy families.  It's just easier to stay under the radar. 

[RainbowSky]

1 minute ago, Jackie3 said:

People who are dysfunctional (can't raise their kids) usually have difficulty holding steady jobs too. So they're likely to be terrible parents AND unable to hold a job.

People in lower income groups are often involved with social services in other ways (food stamps, etc) and so it's easier to see neglect and abuse. Wealthy families can isolate more easily.

In wealthy families, the parents often hold prominent positions in the community (doctor, rabbi, lawyer, etc) and social services find it more intimidating to challenge them, or they tend to give these parents the benefit of the doubt.

But abuse and neglect certainly happens in wealthy families.  It's just easier to stay under the radar. 

What does having SNAP have to do with seeing neglect or abuse? 

[Jackie3]

18 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

I imagine Josh - like nearly all abusers, criminals, and pedophiles - has horror stories of his own victimization. As we’ve discussed to no end this doesn’t excuse him of responsibility or make us required to like him, but it reminds me, at least, that we really so know little of what has gone on in that - or any ATI family (like Anna’s) - over the years.

It doesn't excuse Josh of anything. But yes, JB and Michelle were actively abusing their children. Perhaps they still are. They hit them with a rod, probably PVC pipe. That's abuse.

It's often glossed over, but these kids were required to provide instant, cheerful obedience. If they didn't they were hit with a PVC pipe or other "rod". I have to say that Michelle and JB seem like they really believed in this discipline. The Pearls were listed in the bibliography of their first book. The Pearls!

In that first book book, Michelle often talks about "correction." Your kid is acting up in the store? Take him out to the car for "correction." Baby crawls off the blanket? Swoop in and "correct" him. She spoke often about how busy she was with cleaning, cooking, "correction". . . Must've taken up some time!

Imagine hitting a five year old with a PVC pipe for failing to close a ziplock of food (an actual example in the Pearl's book). As the oldest, Josh was probably the recipient of their greatest religious zeal. So, yes, I believe Josh was an abused child. 

With that said, his brothers show no signs of deviant interests or behavior. So there's that. It's a complicated question.

[AliceInFundyland]

9 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

People who are dysfunctional (can't raise their kids) usually have difficulty holding steady jobs too. So they're likely to be terrible parents AND unable to hold a job.

People in lower income groups are often involved with social services in other ways (food stamps, etc) and so it's easier to see neglect and abuse. Wealthy families can isolate more easily.

In wealthy families, the parents often hold prominent positions in the community (doctor, rabbi, lawyer, etc) and social services find it more intimidating to challenge them, or they tend to give these parents the benefit of the doubt.

But abuse and neglect certainly happens in wealthy families.  It's just easier to stay under the radar. 

I think you have a skewed perspective of how easy it is to have certain state benefits. It doesn't "guarantee" that anyone is checking in on anything more often. That statement comes off as a little bit classist.

[SnarkyLawyer]

14 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 

In Colorado, we now have state laws that offer more protection to domestic violence and sexual assault victims, with regard to this issue. https://www.womenslaw.org/laws/co/custody/all

[Idlewild]

Anna has not had to worry about her living costs in her entire married life- she’s always had somewhere to live, nice clothes for her and her kids, trips out, family nights and food on the table. She’s also had praise, admiration and   the unchallenged status of godly wife of the first born.

Since her rudimentary college education finished she has not acquired any marketable skills. I really don’t see her thinking she’ll try for a part time job in a shop or restaurant to make ends meet. She will continue expecting Josh to ‘provide’ - and I suspect for some time that has translated as Duggar Inc will provide.

[Howl]

32 minutes ago, Jackie3 said:

It's often glossed over, but these kids were required to provide instant, cheerful obedience. If they didn't they were hit with a PVC pipe or other "rod".

And as the years went on, the sister moms were tasked with providing "correction" among their many other responsibilities. 

[Jillybits]

9 minutes ago, RainbowSky said:

What does having SNAP have to do with seeing neglect or abuse? 

A lot, actually.  People who qualify for SNAP generally live in closer quarters than the rich or middle class.  It's easier to see if someone is doing drugs, spanking their kids, or hear if a relationship is violent when you are sharing a wall with them in an apartment or hotel than it is when you live in a house with a yard and/or fence between you.  If you live in a place with a doorman people are much more likely to "mind their own business" than if you are poor.

People with money also have more resources to hide themselves--the mom addicted to pain meds can hire a nanny to drive the kids around or, like the Duggars, can have a parent stay at home and homeschool so the kids don't have teachers to disclose abuse to or to see them every day.

Also, the way the system is set up, even if a report is called in on a rich or middle class person the kids are way less likely to be removed.  Having more resources usually equates to having more support as well, and the State can safety plan easier.  A rich batterer husband has the money to move out of the home so the kids can stay with mom, for instance. Whereas someone on SNAP may not have anywhere to go or any way to feed their kids without the other person's help.

Also, when a child is removed from the rich or middle class, they have more resources to to their case plans.  Parents only have a year to comply or get their rights terminated, which sounds like a lot, but not when you have little resources.  A typical scenario may be that a mom victim of domestic violence is told she has to leave her abuser boyfriend or not get her kids back. So then she has to figure out housing, employment, and transportation suddenly on her own. She has to get a job, which could be shift work, that makes it almost impossible to keep while scheduling around domestic violence counseling and parenting classes.  The boyfriend had the car and we live in the sticks so there's little to no Uber.   The buses run infrequently and stop at 6, so she has to beg rides from people for classes and is limited to jobs within walking distance. Not to mention she has no money to pay for the classes. The State says they will offer classes at a "nominal" fee but $45 dollars a week for a class isn't nominal to people scraping by and trying to save for housing. If she has a felony or an eviction history most apartment complexes will deny her after taking her $100 application fee, so finding housing even not in COVID times is a challenge.  It can be impossible.  But if you have money, going to counseling and a couple of classes sounds pretty easy. 

I could go on and on for days, but the point is the system favors people with money.  The Duggars have nothing to fear on that end. 

[Talitha Cumi]

15 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

Since “Maudlin” comes from “Magdalen,” the name may be an especially appropriate one, given the situation. ?  Mary Magdalen was associated with weeping (at the cross). She was also (mistakenly) associated with sexual sin and repentance.  I believe fundies still believe she was a reformed prostitute. (In fact, she was almost certainly a favored disciple, and either the first or one of the first to whom the resurrected Jesus appeared.)

 

I wonder if this means Madeleine is more or less likely. I've always liked the name, but if fundies know it comes from Magdalen (a tossup given the SOTDRT education) they might not go for it.

[RainbowSky]

14 minutes ago, Jillybits said:

A lot, actually.  People who qualify for SNAP generally live in closer quarters than the rich or middle class.  It's easier to see if someone is doing drugs, spanking their kids, or hear if a relationship is violent when you are sharing a wall with them in an apartment or hotel than it is when you live in a house with a yard and/or fence between you.  If you live in a place with a doorman people are much more likely to "mind their own business" than if you are poor.

People with money also have more resources to hide themselves--the mom addicted to pain meds can hire a nanny to drive the kids around or, like the Duggars, can have a parent stay at home and homeschool so the kids don't have teachers to disclose abuse to or to see them every day.

Also, the way the system is set up, even if a report is called in on a rich or middle class person the kids are way less likely to be removed.  Having more resources usually equates to having more support as well, and the State can safety plan easier.  A rich batterer husband has the money to move out of the home so the kids can stay with mom, for instance. Whereas someone on SNAP may not have anywhere to go or any way to feed their kids without the other person's help.

Also, when a child is removed from the rich or middle class, they have more resources to to their case plans.  Parents only have a year to comply or get their rights terminated, which sounds like a lot, but not when you have little resources.  A typical scenario may be that a mom victim of domestic violence is told she has to leave her abuser boyfriend or not get her kids back. So then she has to figure out housing, employment, and transportation suddenly on her own. She has to get a job, which could be shift work, that makes it almost impossible to keep while scheduling around domestic violence counseling and parenting classes.  The boyfriend had the car and we live in the sticks so there's little to no Uber.   The buses run infrequently and stop at 6, so she has to beg rides from people for classes and is limited to jobs within walking distance. Not to mention she has no money to pay for the classes. The State says they will offer classes at a "nominal" fee but $45 dollars a week for a class isn't nominal to people scraping by and trying to save for housing. If she has a felony or an eviction history most apartment complexes will deny her after taking her $100 application fee, so finding housing even not in COVID times is a challenge.  It can be impossible.  But if you have money, going to counseling and a couple of classes sounds pretty easy. 

I could go on and on for days, but the point is the system favors people with money.  The Duggars have nothing to fear on that end. 

It sounded like you were saying that there is extra checking on poor people somehow. I'm poor and was really confused about how having some food meant anything as far as people being around. I see what you mean though.

Edited May 11, 2021 by RainbowSky

[EmCatlyn]

1 minute ago, Talitha Cumi said:

I wonder if this means Madeleine is more or less likely. I've always liked the name, but if fundies know it comes from Magdalen (a tossup given the SOTDRT education) they might not go for it.

I would guess if they liked the name they would be oblivious to the origins and associations. ?   

[Don'tlikekoolaid]

17 hours ago, Bad Wolf said:

Misery Duggars, or Miserie.

Miranda, they should call the baby Miranda. 

[pooplexed]

1 hour ago, Idlewild said:

Anna has not had to worry about her living costs in her entire married life- she’s always had somewhere to live, nice clothes for her and her kids, trips out, family nights and food on the table. She’s also had praise, admiration and   the unchallenged status of godly wife of the first born.

Since her rudimentary college education finished she has not acquired any marketable skills. I really don’t see her thinking she’ll try for a part time job in a shop or restaurant to make ends meet. She will continue expecting Josh to ‘provide’ - and I suspect for some time that has translated as Duggar Inc will provide.

 

2 hours ago, EmCatlyn said:

It seems to me that we are putting much more thought on finding a way that Anna could leave Josh than Anna herself has done or will.  

The scenario where she might have considered divorce right after the raid (but she was reminded that she was financially dependent on the Duggars) seems very unlikely among other things because the odds are that Josh didn’t tell her what the raid was really about.

And Anna would not find satisfaction in a part-time job that took her away from her children.  She is attached to the ideal of being a SAHM. She does not believe it would be right for her to work outside the home.

She also doesn’t think divorce is right.  ?

Good points. I haven't spoken to Anna- probably you have not either. I am speculating. I do not think she is so indoctrinated that she is not subjected to "booster shots," from time to time, to keep her on the Duggar Ranch, so to speak. I speculate that little reminders like threats that if she tries anything stupid like legal separation, she won't get a penny. I don't think she was unaware of what the threats mean. Details like Josh's "joke" about the raid being because "someone" downloaded the abusive materials he called CP have to have gotten to her in some form at some time, and she knows what it means, I believe. I also do not think I am putting more thought into this than she is! (I acknowledge I am putting more thought into this than I should!) My goodness, She can't be like, "what evs," about Josh's arrest and her marriage! 

I speculate that legal separation is far more tolerable to her than divorce because it simply separates them financially, but does not unmarry either of them.

I acknowledge that I don't know Anna and haven't spoken to her about this. I stand by my guesses, as no more than reasonable guesses. I bet she has been threatened with an LLC shell game if she tries to separate. I also stand by my reasonable guess that she would be more comfortable with getting tax credits that come with earned wages, even a small amount of wages, than with welfare or complete dependence on her birth or marriage families. I think your guesses are as good as mine- they are different because we are different guessers. Obviously, Anna's real preferences and actual decisions are Anna's alone. She has a responsibility to keep her children safe. How she does it is up to her. 

[HerNameIsBuffy]

25 minutes ago, Don'tlikekoolaid said:

Miranda, they should call the baby Miranda. 

The first name is irrelevant, what they should be doing is changing all the M kids last name to Keller before they have to mix with the real world.  They've been through enough without having to go through life with a surname that immediately brings their sex-offender father to mind.   (Of course once they are 18 it would be their choice if they want to go by Duggar, but they may not see it as an option if no one points it out.)

[onekidanddone]

Please no on Miranda or Madeline. 
My niece’s name is Miranda and my grandmother was Madeline. Oh and another niece’s middle name is Madeline as well. 

Edited May 11, 2021 by onekidanddone

[sansan]

20 hours ago, neuroticcat said:

Michelle wrote that she felt bad for wanting a new washing machine for goodness sake but Jim Bob reinvested some money they made into some sort of farm equipment. 

I thought JB was supposed to be such a financial wizard, how stupid was he to not invest in appliances to help with the growing herd. Did she laundromat everything or clean them in a river on a rock? Every time I have to go to a laundromat to wash an oversized comforter it ticks me off at the cost but it beats tearing up my washer at home, I want it to last a reasonable time.

[Giraffe]

2 minutes ago, onekidanddone said:

Please no on Miranda or Madeline. 
My niece’s name is Miranda and my grandmother was Madeline. Oh and another niece’s middle name is Madeline as well. 

I think the Miranda was mocking his arrest. "Miranda rights" are what's read to the person when they're arrested.