Here is a story about bad Dad number two that will freeze your brain.
A delay of more than five hours before an official search was started on Christmas Day for two missing children in the West Magic Reservoir area may have led to the death of an 11-year-old girl.
Now, this little girl wasn't actually missing, the Dad knew where she was all along, and he could have saved her an hour later, but he didn't. She was walking 16 kilometers in -3 to -15C with winds up to 40km/h, to her Mother's house on Christmas Day, he told her, and her brother to do it. Look at the time line, and weep for the little ones.
Dec. 25
9:30 a.m. Sage Aragon, 11, and 12-year-old brother Bear Aragon start walking to West Magic Reservoir residential area after their father’s car gets stuck in snow on West Magic Road.
10:30-11 a.m. Robert Aragon, the children’s father, drives back to MagicValley after getting car unstuck.
1-2 p.m. Joletta Jenks, the children’s mother, notifies Robert Aragon that the children have not arrived.
7 p.m. Blaine County Sheriff’s Office notified that children are missing and search and rescue operation begins mobilization.
9:50 p.m. Bear Aragon found alive at BLM rest area about 4.5 miles west of where children started walking.
10:20 p.m. Blaine County Search and Rescue dog teams contacted to help with search.
Dec. 26
2 a.m. Sage Aragon found along West Magic Road about 2.7 miles from where children started walking.
4:15 a.m. Sage Aragon pronounced dead at St. Luke’s WoodRiverMedicalCenter.
Bad enough that the Dad told his children to walk in freezing weather, but he got unstuck an hour later, and instead of going to pick his kids up, he turned around and drove home, leaving his kids to freeze to death. He left his kids out in that weather for over 8 hours before the police were contacted. Read the whole story, it will disgust you.
The Dad should be sent up here, with the same lack of clothes that his children had, we will give him 10 hours to walk 16 kilometers in -40C weather and if he doesn't make it, too bad. Maybe both Dad's should suffer the same punishment that they doled out to their children.
Harsh? No harsher than what those two Dad's dealt out to their own children. Justice.
41 comments:
Hunter, didn't you know that these incidents are caused by 'white people' who have refused to allow the culture of these noble people to flourish.
If we only would give them the respect due to their long frustrating battle with the 'white culture' this would not have happened.
Oh yah, we should also provide them an unlimited supply of money, free daycare when they party, a monitoring system in the off chance they forget something outside etc.
The bottom line is, anyone else would be in jail, and justifiably, for Criminal Negligence Causing Death.
I guess the healing circle didn't work eh.
Ah, the first racist of the day. Shouldn't you be over at SmallDeadAnimals?
Hunter, check out his Gravator -- he swears! Bad wingnut! This is a family blog!!!!
Bad Dad #1, should be thrown in jail, stiffer sentence, no healing circle and throw the loser judge, in with him.
Bad Dad #2, will get a stiffer sentence likely because it is the US and they actually have a judicial system that isn't written on a piece of TP.
I predict that all of the bleeding hearts will be out in force "spending money" on rehabilitation and claiming "racism".
Well, you cannot rehabilitate conscience and you cannot bring back innocent, dependant children.
What utter scum these guys are and it has nothing to do with race, creed or religion. Scum is scum!
In S.Q's world, everyone gets a turn, no one keeps score, they all link hands and sing 'Age of Aquarius', government pays for everything, 'personal responsibility' is a foreign language and innocent children continue to die like animals.
Oh but wait, we're all racist and S.Q. is a 'caring, sharing' socialist.
Puleeze.
"Well, you cannot rehabilitate conscience and you cannot bring back innocent, dependant children."
Last time I checked, you cannot bring back anybody.
SQ - right on cue as the blog's token jerk. Robin - your comment is not racist at all; SQ is just being a jerk, as always.
What Robin said is true - because these so-called men are native, they have options open to them that other men would. The bad father, here in Canada, will see less jail time and more "healing circle" type of justice. What people like SQ forget - conveniently - is that children have died because of the actions of these jerks. The children did not ask to freeze to death. They didn't ask to be born. They didn't ask for the crummy lives to which they were born.
And it is NOT the fault of the while man or the white man's culture. Perhaps that was the reason a couple of generations ago but not today.
It is obvious that SQ hates children and wants to see them all dead.
Forgot to mention: Bec, you're absolutely correct. Scum is scum regardless of gender, race, colour, etc.
Perhaps some of you have failed to notice, but no one here (or in any of the news articles I have read) has claimed these offences have anything to do with the race and culture of the offenders.
The fact that some of you have pointed out their race as relevant in some fashion suggests racism.
And robin - your point would be more effective if you bothered to follow up on the facts. The healing circle has not taken place yet.
And maybe you all missed the point that this man is in jail for breaching the terms of his release, so perhaps you should stop whinging about how people like him should be in jail - because he IS in jail.
Hunter - your characterization of the second story is not quite accurate. You fail to note that this man and his cousin were searching for these children for hours before they called the police. That does not mitigate the fact that he should have kept them with him or at least gone to find them as soon as he got his car running, but it is not like he went home and forgot about them as your post suggests.
The Canadian "father" is in jail for breaching the terms of his release. He should be in jail for effectively killing his daughters. The American "father" should not have made checking up on his kids a priority. Going to look for them after the fact doesn't count.
Both of these so-called men abdicated their responsibilities and four children suffered as a result. Anybody who causes a child to suffer is scum. Period. And should be dealt with like scum. No child should be the victim of an alleged adult's stupidity or cruelty.
Great to hear.
I wish you lived in Alberta so you could call up your local MLA and ask why so many children who are permanent wards of the government are living on the streets of Edmonton due to the lack of group home beds.
Why are these children wards of the province, in the first place. Where are the parents? Why are the bad parents not prosecuted and punished? Parents should not be permitted to just dump their kids without any kind of consequences. Nobody has that right to do this to a child.
And, Gayle, we have the same problems in Ontario - it seems to go with our nice liberal, "progressive" society courtesy of the bleeding hearts.
Here's one for you: years ago, in Winnipeg, a woman was arrested. She was a drug addict and had already produced 3 special needs children who were wards of the province and was pregnant with number 4. The judge sentenced her to rehab to get off drugs and to get her life on track...until some bleeding heart stuck her nose into the mix and accused the judge of violating this drug addict's rights. Screw the babies - who gives a flying f**k about them but the druggie mom who keeps on producing children with defects...well, she has the right to continue to do so.
The woman is probably dead by now - with her rights to shoot drugs all protected.
So, EofE. You believe that parents should not be able to dump their kids without any consequence? If this were the case, these kids would never get a chance. At least as wards of the state, they get the chance of being with a family (or group) that cares. If someone is punished for being a 'bad parent' the consequences are much worse for the child.
If we are talking about bad parents, why wasn't the women in Saguenay mentioned? She killed three kids AND her husband.
SQ - you are misinterpreting my comment. Perhaps I could have said that parents should not be able to dump their kids AND suffer no consequences for doing so. I'm old enough to believe in the old swift kick in the butt to smarten people up.
The trouble today is that bearing kids without benefit of marriage is totally acceptable. Unfortunately, those men and women also see the resulting babies as disposable and that behaviour should be punished. Parenting is not that complicated - thousands of generations did it without benefit of government social programs, through depressions, wars, famines, and what have you. There is no reason for unwanted children and there is no reason for being incapable parents.
We accept far too many excuses and children are being hurt. That is wrong - no matter how you slice it, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. No child should be hurt. As for the woman who killed her 3 children, somebody will find a way to excuse her. People assume that mothers are all about nurturing and protection of their children and, for the vast majority, that is the case. But mothers do harm their children but most times, somebody excuses her behaviour and blames some man or male influence.
Look at Susan Smith in the States - she was pitied and not overly condemned. Same as that Yeats woman. Sorry, it just doesn't wash. How come mothers in Britain during the war managed to take care of their children with their husbands off at war and bombs going off around them? No, today, we accept too much and little children are being harmed as a result.
Like I say, a good swift kick in the butt.
Yes, a little violence always works.
SQ @ 1:43 pm
"a good swift kick in the butt."
This statement, is a cliche and you know it.The intent is discipline.
EoE also said,
"We accept far too many excuses and children are being hurt. That is wrong - no matter how you slice it, it is wrong, wrong, wrong. No child should be hurt"
If you are going to pick apart a position, reflect the whole position, in it's entire context.
"Why are these children wards of the province, in the first place."
Who cares?
Does this somehow exempt the province from providing proper care?
You can point your fingers at the parents all you want, but at the end of the day it is the children who matter, so I am not sure why you think the provinces should be let off the hook.
If the problems are the same in Ontario, stop wasting your time whining about parents here and pick up your phone and call your MLA. Believe me, things will not change until more people do that.
Well, Gayle, I care. For every child who is a ward of the province, I would estimate that there is at least one who is being mistreated but nobody knows about it. Yes, I will point my finger at bad parents - they have no right to mistreat their children. Oh, and Gayle, I most certainly did NOT say that provinces should be let off the hook so stop trying to make things up. If you can't understand what I'm saying, don't put words there which are not there. I try to have a reasonable discussion with you but you just can't help but make silly conjectures like that.
Whether you want to believe it or not, Gayle, it is not that difficult to be a decent parent. How did millions of dirt-poor immigrants come to this country and raise their children properly with food on the table, love, clothes, etc. without any governmental intervention. How is it, Gayle, that suddenly the government must be the nanny? I don't know about you, Gayle, but I am not that far removed from dirt-poor, illiterate immigrants who landed here on a boat not knowing exactly where they were landing - they only knew it wasn't Lebanon and that it was one of the Americas - some of my family ended up in Brazil - most likely they misunderstood which America they were going to land.
So, yes, I will point fingers at the lousy, uncaring, stupid parents who stoop so low as to hurt their children and their children's lives. As I said - anybody who harms a child is scum.
And, SQ - you are such an a**hole.
Happy New Year, East of Eden!
Once again, the focus should be on the children instead of the parents.
It is amazing how some people can so lack self-awareness that they can say this at 8:07 am:
"It is obvious that SQ hates children and wants to see them all dead."
And then get all indignant at 3:03 pm and say this:
"And, SQ - you are such an a**hole."
Dear lord.
"Once again, the focus should be on the children instead of the parents."
Good grief. Gayle, you deliberately twist thing. I realize, now, that you are incapable of an adult discussion. You amaze me. I sure hope you're not like this at work - that is, if you do, indeed, work.
Happy New Year, East of Eden!
I mention that, because in all your posts on the subject you go on and on and on and on about the parents and barely acknowledge that as taxpayers WE are responsible for the children in care.
"I mention that, because in all your posts on the subject you go on and on and on and on about the parents and barely acknowledge that as taxpayers WE are responsible for the children in care."
Gayle - you have gone on and on and on about us being responsible yet not once have you made a suggestion as to what you expect the government to do. And I don't mean throw money, I mean just how do you expect the government to get more kids off the streets; if those kids would even come off the streets.
It is like saying there are so many more homeless now when the fact is that many of those "homeless" would not go into a shelter or a group home anyway. Many of them are mentally ill and had their care taken away when the socialist demanded that all the mental hospitals be closed because we were "discriminating" against them.
I would bet that many of the kids on the streets would not go to group homes anyway.
So please tell us how you expect the government to save these children.
You "suspect" wrong. I know different.
We need more beds - period.
By way of example. in the early 1990's, when I started my career, any youth 14 years old or younger who needed assistance was immediately provided with one. Now it is virtually impossible to find one, because the few that are available are full.
Why is this? Because the government closed a lot of group homes over the past 10 years.
And what you can do is call your MLA and ask.
"And, SQ - you are such an a**hole"
"It is obvious that SQ hates children and wants to see them all dead."
Right on cue. You can't make your arguement so you go directly to the ad hominen. I have never called you a name, yet you insist on verbally attacking me. Do you realize you have become a conservative cliche? Which brings up something that I have always wondered -- Do people that are cliches know it?
"Do people that are cliches know it?"
Well SQ - I don't know, you would know he answer to that!
"Why is this? Because the government closed a lot of group homes over the past 10 years."
Why Gayle - what were the reasons. And to get back to E o E comment - what are the reasons there are so many more children on the streets?
Drugs?
Prostitution to support drugs
Gangs? as a result of the drugs
But, Gayle - you are of the hug a thug crowd and you refuse to acknowledge that maybe if we had stiffer sentences, maybe if juveniles were actually punished instead of slapped on the wrist and put out on the streets where they need "group homes" - maybe if the socialists were not so dead against responsiblity and justice; we wouldn't have so many kids on the streets.
And your statement that you started your career in the early 90's says that you have not lived when responsiblity was a given and those who broke the law or got into trouble were sent to reform school.
This whole conversation started with the disregard 2 Fathers had for the safety of their children.
Parents, need to be better at their job and it is not naive to expect them to be and demand it of them.
Children are in group homes for one simple reason, lousy parents.
Children become adults and go to jail for one simple reason, lousy parents.
There is no job more important to succeed at and if a person has a child only to sluff off their responsibility to a government body,they are lousy parents.
At some point, you need to take responsibility for your life, your mistakes and live with the consequences.
If social programs are working better than loving and nurturing parents/parent, I would say BS.
You do not need tons of money,material things, perfect jobs etc to be a strong and safe family.
Every child deserves that the moment they enter the world.
"you refuse to acknowledge that maybe if we had stiffer sentences, maybe if juveniles were actually punished instead of slapped on the wrist and put out on the streets where they need "group homes" - maybe if the socialists were not so dead against responsiblity and justice; we wouldn't have so many kids on the streets."
You refuse to acknowledge that there is absolutely no evidence at all that increasing jail sentences decreases crime. I know that is your ideology, but that is not the reality.
And in any event, I am not sure what sentencing has to do with homelessness.
The biggest reason children and youth end up on the streets is because they are escaping violence and sexual abuse in their homes. So if it is a choice between sleeping in a dumpster or being raped by their step-fathers, well, it's not much choice at all, now is it.
Drug abuse - sure. The biggest reason children and youth abuse drugs is because they have suffered violence and sexual abuse in their homes. The next biggest is because their parents abuse drugs and make it available to them.
Why, one young "reprobate" I work with was sold as a child prostitute by his drug addicted mother so she could have enough money to buy more drugs.
One therapist I spoke to told me that she once did a survey of the girls incarcerated in a young offenders centre in BC and learned that every girl in there had been sexually abused.
See how these things go hand in hand?
And if you think I am exaggerating, that is because you live in a nice safe little world where bad things do not happen - and when they do it is someone else's fault so no need for YOUR taxes to pay to repair the harm.
Sorry if you think my tone is harsh, but this is the reality of the people I deal with every day. It would be nice if some of you could try to understand how awful it really is.
That was a very poignant message, Gayle. I have a lot of respect for anyone that does that horrifically, difficult work. Tragic and impossible situations, would rip the heart out of me, for sure.
I think that it can be summed up by saying this, quick thing.
We/society, also feel like victims, of the crimes committed by some of these folks.
It becomes frustrating for everyone then and the solutions become difficult to find.
Cheers and good for you!
Exactly Gayle - it is horrible and yet pedophiles and rapists get six years and they are out on the street; stepfathers who rape their children get a slap on the wrist.
But try to put in harsher sentences and the left come out and say - No Way; you Tories are barbaric.
So Gayle; perhaps we are not so far apart after all - perhaps if justice were to be metted out for crimes commited; some of these children would not be subjected to the horrors you describe.
And you have no idea of what kind of a "nice safe world" I have come from so don't presume to lecture me.
My heart is so sad for those children, they had no choice and no chance, because of the circumstances and parents they were dealt in life.
The government can not ever catch all the disadvantaged kids and put them into a safe situation.
I have to disagree with Gayle's portrayal of all bad kids as abused kids, this is blatantly false. Many kids from good families get involved with drugs, not because of their parents, but in spite of them.
Lefties like Gayle like to use "shock" tactics to make their points, even if they are lying through their teeth to do it. They use faulty arguments and present them as true. Or, like my pest SQ, they don't have a clue how to argue their position because they don't have one.
Not all bad kids have been abused.
Hunter - let me guess - one of your friend's kids turned to drugs and your friend turned to "tough love"?
Of course not all kids are abused. Some of them are mentally ill or brain damaged. I would estimate about 85% of the kids I deal with are either ill, brain damaged or abused.
Of course, I am just a "lefty" so you can sit back and claim I am making it all up. That makes it very convenient for you to continue to point the finger at others.
"We/society, also feel like victims, of the crimes committed by some of these folks."
I understand this. But I always thought conservatives believed people should not fall back on claiming victimization and instead be proactive about solutions.
You cannot find a solution until you acknowledge the problem. Advocating for longer sentences is the easy way out, but it is meaningless. Saying we should just put the parents in jail really does nothing to help the kids.
Lousy parents - could not have said it better, myself. Even children from what are called good homes can go bad. Children from bad homes can grow up to be successful and productive adults - it happens and it's something to celebrate.
Gayle, you mentioned selling children into prostitution - your post at Thursday, January 15, 2009 6:45:00 PM says this so clearly. Children are open books and they are pretty much helpless. If the parents allow or even initiate what you wrote, then those parents should be punished severely.
In order to cure the disease, you have to root out the cause and excise it. I never once said that the children were not the most important factor - I was trying to make the point that the children ARE the most important factor and that anybody who causes harm to those children should be punished severely.
Remember - I did work for a while with abused children but it had too much of an effect on me - I could not separate my heart from what I saw and had to leave that particular volunteer work.
We should not need group homes and beds - these children should be growing up in loving, supportive, and secure environments. We would not need government intervention if children were not being born into these environments. We must do what is necessary to eliminate or at least minimize these environments so that the children can grow up safe and loved. In the meantime, we should take care of these children. Technically, though, they are not our responsibility but we are a compassionate people living in a country which was founded on Judeo-Christian values and right near the top of the list of priorities is taking care of the less fortunate.
I would urge all those who can do so to take in a disadvantaged child instead of just waiting for the government to step in. If I were younger and a stay at home father, I'd seriously consider taking such a child into my home. Back in the old days (which lefties think are so bad), it was pretty much normal to have playmates who had been adopted or fostered because they had been either abandoned or removed from terrible home environments. You don't see that, these days. Instead, we have group homes which, although better than what lies at home, are still not the same as a family environment.
Why are these children not adopted by stable and loving families? Why are they not fostered by stable and loving families? These children belong in good homes with parents who love them - be they biological or adoptive. The bottom line is that children need a safe and loving environment in which to grow and develop and although group homes are good, they can't compare to a real nuclear family.
As for those who abuse children, punish them severely. For all the faults you perceive about me, Gayle, I am 100% a child advocate. They come into this world totally innocent and anybody who abuses or harms a child should be punished as severely as possible. And I do not care one whit if that makes me somebody who promotes "violence". Where a child is concerned, no holds are barred.
Gayle - What E o E said.
Thanks, A-Girl.
"We should not need group homes and beds..."
Agreed - but we do.
"Why are these children not adopted by stable and loving families? Why are they not fostered by stable and loving families?"
Not enough support. These children generally have significant psychological issues. It is even worse if they are brain damaged. Have you ever tried to reason with a child who has FASD?
It is rarely simply a matter of adopting or fostering a child. They generally have significant behaviour management issues. A lot of adopted children end up back in care because their parents cannot cope.
All these nice pie in the sky ideals are nice, and I agree with most of them. In the meantime, however, we have hundreds of children and youth living on the street without access to schooling, proper nutrition and proper medical care. What do you propose we do about them?
Well, I think it is a sad commentary on the alleged progress we have made when nuclear, supportive, loving, and secure families are a pie in the sky ideal. Back in the 50s, this was simply normal, everyday life. Granted, relegating women to hearth and home was not fair and I am happy that women now have equal choices.
I am not happy, however, to see so many kids being neglected. The cases of which you speak, Gayle, are horrid and I wish we could wipe out that sort of thing. On a less noticeable and less extreme scale, there are millions of children who are, for all intents and purposes, neglected.
I observe my younger colleagues and some of my younger neighbours. Both parents work and evenings are spent rushing to feed the kids before rushing them off to some game or activity. Weekends are both parents, in separate vehicles, ferrying their kids to this activity or that activity and trying to get in shopping and chores between chauffering their kids.
The parents are "giving them everything"...but their time. Those are the kids from good families who can go off the rails. I live in a nice part of town and I see pubescent and adolescent kids doing really dumb things because...their parents gave them everything except their time and time to just be children.
My sister has raised three totally useless children. They had everything that money could buy (her husband is wealthy), went to private schools, had cars, clothes, memberships...everything but my sister's and brother in-law's time. They are not bad young adults; just useless.
While we work on sheltering these children, we must go to the root and cut it out. No amount of group homes or therapy can make up for a bad childhood.
I do, actually, know two young FASD adults. Both had behavioural issues and both went to a special needs school (I have the utmost respect for those teachers, let me tell you). The older of the two is fine - he has a steady job and is quite intellectual in some ways, although his capacity is lacking in others. The younger of the two, unfortunately, has been enabled most of his life because his father walked out on the family when he was 8 (he's now 20).
He and his brother come from the same drug-addict mother but from two different and unknown fathers. They were adopted when they were 3 and 1 years old into a family which had 4 biological children. It was difficult and no doubt led to the marriage breakup but the mother stood firm and paid a heavy price. However, this is what God directed her to do and she did it.
My two closest friends have a brain-damaged adult son (car accident when he was 6 months) and two younger daughters who are regular (I don't like to use the word "normal") and married. These two friends did an amazing job with their son - I had been friends with them for years, not realizing the depth of their son's limitations until they actually spelled them out for me. They and the special teachers did such a great job that he appears only to be a little slow - he can carry on a conversation, read, sort of spell (hey, lots of adults spell badly) so he doesn't appear to be damaged; but he is and he cannot fend for himself. Fortunately, there is lots of family who will take him in when the parents pass away.
You see, these parents were dedicated and made sacrifices for their children and it paid off. We need to ensure that unfit parents either be punished for inflicting harm or taught to be fit parents. One of the other. But...bottom line: no child should suffer at the hands of an adult.
Post a Comment