Homeless Mom Arrested After Leaving Kids in Car During Job Interview

[Valthazar]

A mom in Arizona was arrested for leaving her 2 year old and 6 month old in her car, while she went for a job interview for about 45 minutes.  A bystander saw the kids and called the police, who arrested her on two felony counts of child abuse.  Difficult and sad story all around, but someone started a fund raiser for her, to pay for her bail of $9000.  The donation total has reached $86,000+.

What are your thoughts on this?  Apparently the kids are with CPS now (but on CNN I heard they are with her family).  Should she be arrested?  There's also a petition to drop charges against her.  Personally, I am confused why people are donating such huge amounts when one of her kids (especially the baby) could easily have died from her actions.  Apparently the temperature outside was about 82 degrees F and the temperature inside the car exceeded 100 degrees F.  It would be a different story with an unfortunate outcome like that.

[Vekseid]

"The law, in its magnanimous equity, forbids both the rich and the poor to sleep beneath bridges."

Of course she shouldn't have left her kids in her car. In a country with ten times as many empty homes as there are homeless families, why should she have to?

[Valthazar]

Yeah, just a confusing situation any way you look at it.  On one hand, she's trying to better herself by getting a job.  On the other hand, she could have killed her kids.  I think the donation idea to cover her bail ($9000) is a nice gesture for people who can empathize with her.  But $86,000 for making a mistake like this seems a bit too much.

[Vekseid]

Yeah, just a confusing situation any way you look at it.  On one hand, she's trying to better herself by getting a job.  On the other hand, she could have killed her kids.  I think the donation idea to cover her bail ($9000) is a nice gesture for people who can empathize with her.  But $86,000 for making a mistake like this seems a bit too much.

Letting her kids run loose in the sort of neighborhood where she is homeless could not get them harmed?

Edit: That is to say, it's not a mistake, it's just one of those traps that poor people are forced to tiptoe through. She got caught. Most humans understand this and react accordingly.

[SheerFantasia]

I think its indicative of the human condition towards the law - something that's not important to the common wo/man until it's breathing down their necks.

If I had any say, I would not have had her arrested (costing her the job she needed and potentially traumatising her kids).  As Valthazar points out, this could easily have ended in tragedy, but the general consensus would seem to be that she wasn't doing it for bad reasons, and sometimes you just have to make a hard call when you don't have anyone to rely onto (and these days you wouldn't really trust your kids with anyone you don't know).

As for the $86,000... well, wherever children are concerned, especially in sad cases, it always generates a lot of sympathy (and as I said before, people don't really have the law in mind, or that a potential tragedy could have occurred - there's a picture of crying mother, and there are some kids who stand to suffer - 1 out of 15 people are already reaching for their wallets on that image alone before hearing the details).

[Beguile's Mistress]

The fact that she was on a job interview more than likely helped generate the sympathy and giving.  She didn't leave them home alone while she went out to party which is the story you usually see.  Needing to care for two babies and being homeless and destitute can make a person desperate.  She's going to need more than $9000, though, because it's going to be a legal fight and a lawyer to get the kids back.  She'll need the job, a home, furnishings and clothes at least to show she can provide adequate care.  That extra $75,000 will come in handy.  She'll be lucky some lawyer doesn't try to take it all.

[Florence]

This definitely stinks of just being a crappy situation all around.

As Veksied put it. She shouldn't have left her kids alone in the car, but she shouldn't have had to.

I don't think she should go to jail for making a tough call when there wasn't really any 'right' decision to make.

It sounds like she could have done a few things better though. I don't know if there was a place she could have parked with better shade, but she certainly could have left her windows open some more. But it doesn't sound like she was being willfully negligent. She was just trying to do what she had to do.

[TheGlyphstone]

Honest question: Could she have taken the kids with her and left them to sit in the waiting room/reception area?

[Oniya]

A 2-year-old and a 6-month-old?  If she's homeless but has a car, then that car is essentially 'home'.  A familiar place for both children.  A waiting room is a strange place to either be skittish in, or to explore - and if you've ever seen a 2-year-old 'explore'... I doubt that would have helped her chances at the interview.

[Beguile's Mistress]

And...

As someone who interviews job applicants on a regular basis I can tell you that bringing your children to an interview no matter what the reason only makes you look bad.  We have a day care facility in our building and that is available for needs like this but most companies are not understanding of this at all.  They don't want your personal life impacting on your ability to do your job any more than is absolutely necessary.  With the number of applicants for each opening it's too easy to get put at the bottom of the list no matter how good you are.

[vtboy]

A 2-year-old and a 6-month-old?  If she's homeless but has a car, then that car is essentially 'home'.  A familiar place for both children.  A waiting room is a strange place to either be skittish in, or to explore - and if you've ever seen a 2-year-old 'explore'... I doubt that would have helped her chances at the interview.

Homeless with a car does not necessarily mean one is living in the car. But, even if the car had been home to this family, it would still have been an extraordinarily bad decision under almost any circumstance to leave a two year old and six month old alone in it. What is most significant to me about this incident, though, is how well it demonstrates the inability or unwillingness of our society, which does little enough to help the impoverished, to come up with a response better than arrest and felony prosecution of a mother who likely did not enjoy an array of better options. It's one thing to withhold a helping hand to someone who has fallen into a ditch; it's quite another to shovel dirt in on top of her.

[Valthazar]

What is most significant to me about this incident, though, is how well it demonstrates the inability or unwillingness of our society, which does little enough to help the impoverished, to come up with a response better than arrest and felony prosecution of a mother who likely did not enjoy an array of better options.

CNN mentioned in their video broadcast of this story that the kids are now with family relatives, so it makes you wonder why that wasn't an option at the time.  Obviously we don't know the full story though.

[vtboy]

CNN mentioned in their video broadcast of this story that the kids are now with family relatives, so it makes you wonder why that wasn't an option at the time.  Obviously we don't know the full story though.

That there may have been relatives who could have watched the kids for a couple of hours would not change my view that it is extremely callous and counterproductive policy to treat people who make bad parenting decisions, even if dangerous ones, the same way  those who commit murder, rape, arson, and robbery are treated. It is difficult for me to imagine the threat of criminal prosecution represents an optimal means of encouraging more prudent parenting.

I also wonder whether a white woman, who left her babies for 45 minutes in a Porsche Cayenne outside a suburban Neiman Marcus, would be facing felony counts.

[meikle]

What are your thoughts on this?  Apparently the kids are with CPS now (but on CNN I heard they are with her family).  Should she be arrested?  There's also a petition to drop charges against her.  Personally, I am confused why people are donating such huge amounts when one of her kids (especially the baby) could easily have died from her actions.  Apparently the temperature outside was about 82 degrees F and the temperature inside the car exceeded 100 degrees F.  It would be a different story with an unfortunate outcome like that.

Right.  Put her in jail for being homeless.  The solution here is to put sufficient safety nets in place so that a single mother of two children doesn't have to choose between getting a job (you know, what she's going to need to pay someone to watch her kids or afford a house to stick them in) at risk of going to prison or letting them die, not to tell her tough shit, stay homeless because a job interview is not financially viable for a homeless mother of two.

CNN mentioned in their video broadcast of this story that the kids are now with family relatives, so it makes you wonder why that wasn't an option at the time.

"Can you stay home from work and watch my kids while I go to a job interview?"  "Sorry, I'm busy."  The assumption that family is an unfailing support network is an incredibly privileged one.

It doesn't take a lot of work to figure out how getting someone to babysit during a particular 1 hour period while you have no money to pay for the service is not tenable.  A family that suddenly finds themselves in a position of "You'll take these kids or the state will take them" may find that they are making a decision under more duress than "leave them with their mom, who is homeless but will otherwise take care of them."

[Valthazar]

What safety nets would you suggest to help those in her situation?

[Mathim]

Speaking as a child taken out of the custody of a homeless mother, I think I should say something.

The system is broken. If it was not broken stuff like this would never happen. There should be an infrastructure set up where there is no such thing as being homeless. We are already in a position where it is impossible to starve to death in the U.S. so why can housing not emulate this?

There does need to be something said about personal responsibility. My mother had no business being a parent. Take my word for it. That incapability and her unpreparedness put her in a position where we ended up homeless and no amount of family could help avoid that. But at least the mother in this story is supposed to have been trying to better herself; if only mine had the brains to figure out a concept like that. If a solution is going to present itself, it's going to have to come in the form of societal overhaul and people thinking really hard about major decisions like family planning and long-term education and employment BEFORE these kinds of decisions are staring them in the face demanding immediate responses.

Desperation is never good for helping the critical thinking process but limited options don't either. I can't say what fate would have awaited the kids if they'd just been okay until she got back but I do admire her ability to care for them enough not to just surrender them to CPS (which, for the record, merely trades one form of abuse and neglect for several other forms of the same). Many European countries have an absolutely genius way of covering these societal dysfunctions and yet our delusional American Dream prevents this from becoming a reality.

[meikle]

What safety nets would you suggest to help those in her situation?

Put her in a house.  I mean, your call: a house is expensive, but I'm using "house" loosely.  A small apartment would be better than a fucking car.  The net gain to society once she finds a job (and it is sensible for active job search / work to be a prerequisite for able-bodied people who use the service) is significantly greater if we subsidize a small but private & reliable living situation to people in her situation than if we pay to lock her in a cage.  Sending this woman to prison will be more expensive and she will not contribute to society or the economy from prison.

http://usich.gov/usich_resources/research_and_evaluation/cost_effectiveness_studies

[Valthazar]

Put her in a house.

http://usich.gov/usich_resources/research_and_evaluation/cost_effectiveness_studies

How does this prevent a situation like this though?  It isn't exactly safe to leave 2 year old and a 6 month old alone at home.

[meikle]

How does this prevent a situation like this though?  It isn't exactly safe to leave 2 year old and a 6 month old alone at home.

I think it's ridiculous when you expect me to write up an entire gameplan whenever I disagree with you.  Put her in an apartment with a daycare.  Institute a system that allows people managing the location to make spot-purchases as necessary (like allowing a $15 expenditure to hire a babysitter for two hours.)  There are many ways to solve this; putting her in a place where she can live that isn't a sedan is a good first step toward letting her find the services necessary to resolve this one specific situation.  Happy?  Support is what matters; spending a few extra dollars on providing the necessary care for, say, a single mother of two young children to make it to a job interview and become employed is significantly preferable to saying, "Fuck it, she's on her own," and not just for her, but for you and me too.

[Valthazar]

Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot or anything.  I guess from my perspective, I am not sure how much of her leaving her kids in her car has to do with the fact that she is homeless, as opposed to the fact that she doesn't have any family members or close friends, let alone another parent, to help her raise/support her kids.

While a government-subsidized daycare service is certainly one potential solution, I don't think it necessarily addresses the root causes of these problems.

[vtboy]

Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot or anything.  I guess from my perspective, I am not sure how much of her leaving her kids in her car has to do with the fact that she is homeless, as opposed to the fact that she doesn't have any family members or close friends, let alone another parent, to help her raise/support her kids.

While a government-subsidized daycare service is certainly one potential solution, I don't think it necessarily addresses the root causes of these problems.

A tourniquet doesn't address the root cause of bleeding, either, but it can nevertheless be quite useful.

I doubt Meikle was suggesting that subsidized daycare is the sole or the most fundamental remedy for poverty, but its availability might have avoided the dilemma this poor woman faced.

[meikle]

While a government-subsidized daycare service is certainly one potential solution, I don't think it necessarily addresses the root causes of these problems.

No.  Most changes that will make significant impact on society and social programs have many root causes that need to be addressed.  The most difficult thing about effecting change on a wide scale is getting people to appreciate that everything impacts everything else and that the only real solutions must be comprehensive: if you are dealing with homelessness, poverty, single parenthood, then affordable housing is a stopgap; it should show financial returns on top of improving the situation for people currently struggling and help fewer people to find themselves in this situation in the future, but the most ideal way to handle any problem is to prevent that problem in the first place.

On the other hand, it's not acceptable or feasible to ignore the symptoms of the problem either.  Repairs to these sorts of problems need to be made comprehensively, dealing simultaneously with the people who are in trouble now (like single mothers without support who are facing felony charges for not having a place to store their children during a job interview) and preventing similar problems from coming up in the future (for example, by improving quality of education, accessibility of resources, changing attitudes toward reproductive freedom, etc.)

In the meantime, however, saying, "Look, subsidized housing for the homeless shows financial gains and loosens the burden on the taxpayer over simply leaving the homeless to fend for themselves which is actually really expensive for the rest of us," is a better idea than saying, "We need to completely rewire our society from the groundup to fix all of these problems."  A comprehensive solution isn't always viable; one step at a time.

[Valthazar]

A lot of great points being brought up here. 

At first I was opposed to this idea because I misunderstood it, but now that I have read more about it, I actually think a citizen's wage concept may be worth exploring in the US (to a degree) as a way to reduce poverty and homelessness.  While I'm not so sure we should do it to the degree of some European countries, I think it's something to consider.

It would definitely simplify things considerably, since we could dramatically reduce the need for government programs - and more dollars would be going to support the US economy then.  It would also seemingly cut down on a lot of the bureaucracy surrounding applying for aid programs (since we could eliminate many of them).  But I doubt anything like this will ever be compromised on in the US, unfortunately.

[Oniya]

As Veks pointed out, there are enough empty houses, currently driving down property values and providing 'shelter' for nothing but wildlife and meth labs, to put up every homeless person in this country.  At the moment, they represent a net loss for the communities they are in, when you factor in crime and animal control expense.  Cleaning them up and turning them into even low-rent/subsidized housing that people care about keeping up would raise property values and lower crime rates, as well as getting people off the streets and into a 'permanent address' that employers so often look for.

[meikle]

But I doubt anything like this will ever be compromised on in the US, unfortunately.

For this sort of thing to happen, we need to be able to convince people to focus on selfishness which is actually really counter-intuitive, but makes sense, right?  People look at our homeless population and say, well, it wouldn't be fair to give them housing, but I'm not callous enough to let them die if they come into the emergency room.  But we crunch the numbers are determine that the cheaper option is to build houses for people who don't have them so that they can situate themselves and stop, for example, using the emergency room as a free (for them) and reliable health care alternative, or so that they can find jobs and reliably work them without having to worry about having a place to go home and shower that night, so that they can start making money and paying taxes and buying things -- and people don't want that.

We have a major attitude problem when we reach this position where people would prefer to hurt themselves to punish others than help themselves by helping others.

[Nadir]

For comparison, another mother in Arizona got high and forgot she had put her baby's seat (with baby strapped inside) on the roof of her car and drove for 12 miles before realising what she had done. Too late. The seat was not there where she stopped, it had fallen in the middle of the freeway.

The baby was recovered unharmed, but it was a much more dire endangerment. She got sentenced recently, and got... probation. Source

It's mind boggling.

[Falanor]

Not saying what the woman did with her baby on the roof of the car is right.  Keep in mind she's got 16 years of probation.  That's not a person living a standard life.  She'll be randomly drug tested constantly.  She'll have to regularly schedule meetings with a probation officer.  She's got a lot of things that her life will be altered by.  If she violates these, then she could spend however many years of probation she has left behind bars.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well I think Utah has the right idea of it so far with their distribution of housing.  Also a public daycare of sometime has long been something that has to be addressed as more households are either two income or one income parent households.  This coupled with the rising cost of daycare and young childhood education is leading up to a tipping point of their needing to be a public daycare service provided by the government in order to assist low income and homeless members of the population.

[Valthazar]

This coupled with the rising cost of daycare and young childhood education is leading up to a tipping point of their needing to be a public daycare service provided by the government in order to assist low income and homeless members of the population.

If we are going to have such a program, I think there should be a corresponding program to encourage those who cannot afford children, to not have children.

[Kythia]

If we are going to have such a program, I think there should be a corresponding program to encourage those who cannot afford children, to not have children.

Absolutely.  Free access to birth control and abortions is really important.

[Valthazar]

Absolutely.  Free access to birth control and abortions is really important.

That would certainly help. Though it is unfortunately unlikely to realistically be implemented in a private healthcare system, unless Medicaid was expanded even more so than it already is.  ACA already tried this, and only 25 States wanted to.

Many of these low income parents have two or more children, for example, which makes me question their decision making. There needs to be some sort of negative feedback mechanism built into our infrastructure that makes people understand after their first child, that they really should avoid having more.

[Kythia]

That would certainly help. Though it is unfortunately unlikely to realistically be implemented in a private healthcare system, unless Medicaid was expanded even more so than it already is.  ACA already tried this, and only 25 States wanted to.

Many of these low income parents have two or more children, for example, which makes me question their decision making. There needs to be some sort of negative feedback mechanism built into our infrastructure that makes people understand after their first child, that they really should avoid having more.

Errr....

How do you propose they avoid having more?  Is your argument "poor people shouldn't be allowed to have sex".  Because if its anything else, then your sole problem is with a system that prevents access to birth control and abortions.

A "negative feedback mechanism" without that increased access is just a method of punishing people for having sex.

[Valthazar]

No, I'm agreeing with you that these people need to have increased, subsidized (or free) access to birth control and abortions.  I was just saying that at this point in the game, based on how Medicaid expansion failed in half the states, it is unlikely to realistically be a possibility in the US.  Obamacare is not getting overturned anytime soon, unfortunately.

[Kythia]

So, would you still support:

If we are going to have such a program, I think there should be a corresponding program to encourage those who cannot afford children, to not have children.

even though we agree that increased access is a prerequisite?

[Valthazar]

Of course.  Even if we did ever offer free birth control and abortions, I don't think that alone would solve this problem, though we should certainly try to push for it.  The Affordable Care Act has made it impossible though.  There's an aspect of personal responsibility as well (getting people to actually go to their doctors to pick up this contraception, making sure they actually use condoms, having the responsibility to pay any small co-pays, etc. .)

There's also a lack of importance placed in fatherhood in many of these low income communities, largely due to rampant drug problems.  I believe that working to solve this issue will help many of these communities immensely.

Education is another big one.  I kid you not, there are countless kids graduating high school who cannot read past a 3rd grade level, and this prevents them from ever getting employed.

[Kythia]

Of course.  Even if we did ever offer free birth control and abortions, I don't think that alone would solve this problem, though we should certainly try to push for it.  The Affordable Care Act has made it impossible though.  There's an aspect of personal responsibility as well (getting people to actually go to their doctors to pick up this contraception, making sure they actually use condoms, having the responsibility to pay any small co-pays, etc. .)

There's also a lack of importance placed in fatherhood in many of these low income communities, largely due to rampant drug problems.  I believe that working to solve this issue will help many of these communities immensely.

Education is another big one.  I kid you not, there are countless kids graduating high school who cannot read past a 3rd grade level, and this prevents them from ever getting employed.

So wait.  I'm sorry if it looks like I'm repeating myself but I'm just checking because I suspect one or both of us is misunderstanding.

We agree that without easier and subsidized access to birth control and abortions, the program you suggest is nothing more than a way of taxing poor women for having sex.  And yet, despite that agreement, you think its still a good idea?

[Valthazar]

I am confused, I'm agreeing fully with you.

I am just saying that it is unlikely that we are going to see free birth control and abortions in the US anytime soon, even though we both think it would be a good idea. The ACA has made it even more difficult to achieve now.

What program have I suggested that would tax women to have sex?  So far I suggested more initiatives to increase the role of fathers, and improving educational standards.

What I would say though, is that as far as free daycare service, there should be some sort of a cap, or limit on this.  While from an ethical perspective, we should offer this even if a homeless person has 6 children, realistically, we must also be fiscally conscious.

[Kythia]

What program have I suggested that would tax women to have sex? 

This one:

If we are going to have such a program, I think there should be a corresponding program to encourage those who cannot afford children, to not have children.

We seemed to agree that without free access to birth control and abortions it was nothing but a tax on poor women having sex

A recap

Without access to birth control and abortions, there is no reliable way to control pregnancy.  So each time they have sex, there is a chance of unavoidable pregnancy.  You aim to put negative repercussions on that pregnancy, hence you are putting negative repercussions on sex.  Assuming those repercussions are financial, you are taxing those people who can't afford a child for having sex.

Obviously you're only taxing the females - there are enough single mothers that basing that on families would be pointless and if the tax could be avoided by claiming you didn't know who the father was then everyone would do that.  The only way of making it work is to attach it entirely to the female.

and then when I asked in explicit terms:

So, would you still support:
<The statement you made>
even though we agree that increased access is a prerequisite?

you said:

Of course...

[Valthazar]

The programs encouraging the role of fatherhood and educational standards were the corresponding programs I was referring to, as well as caps on daycare that Pumpkin Seeds mentioned. 

I never said tax in this entire discussion.  I'm not sure how you got the impression I was suggesting any sort of tax.  If anything, I used the word negative feedback incorrectly, giving off the impression that I was talking about taxes.

[Kythia]

The programs encouraging the role of fatherhood and educational standards were the corresponding programs I was referring to, as well as caps on daycare that Pumpkin Seeds mentioned. 

No, you weren't.  This is objectively a lie, Valthazar, and I'm not sure why you've made it. 

The programs regarding fatherhood and educational standards were mentioned for the first time in that same post.  I asked you if you still agreed with the program penalising people for having children they couldn't afford and you said "of course".  Noone in the world is going to believe you that you were referring to programs that hadn't even been mentioned.

If you've changed your mind about the initial program then that's great.  But it's just not clear whether you have or not.

I never said tax in this entire discussion.  I'm not sure how you got the impression I was suggesting any sort of tax.  If anything, I used the word negative feedback incorrectly, giving off the impression that I was talking about taxes.

Negative feedback and negative repercussions were what you said.  I would be intrigued to know what you had in mind then, other than financial.  Or, if you did mean financial, why you believe "a compulsory contribution to state revenue added to the transaction costs of having a child you cannot afford" is somehow different from "a tax".  For the avoidance of doubt, I refer you to the definition of a tax

Once again, Val, if you no longer support that program now you've thought about it then that's fine. Everyone changes their mind.   But at the moment you are outright lying (as above) to avoid saying that.

[Valthazar]

I am not sure why you are trying to force a disagreement between us when we are in agreement.  I honestly was not referring to any sort of tax.  I've always been a strong proponent of the Medicaid and Medicare programs, as evidenced by many of my prior posts here on E.  It's the ACA that I criticize, and the corresponding lack of Medicaid expansion by half the United States which was purely a political move.

Since you asked what I meant by negative feedback, I was referring to daycare facilities having caps on the number of children per adult that were subsidized in full via the social aide program.  While they would permit additional children to be taken care of, it would come at the cost of additional co-pay by the client - which would thus influence people to have fewer children.  I happened to clarify this in a post following my initial, broad statement which first stated my desire for a policy which would limit the scope of public daycare services.

Nowhere was I suggesting any sort of compulsory contribution of money, and I would appreciate not being called a liar, especially when I don't even see a reason to lie, considering I use these forums purely as a hobby.

[Kythia]

I honestly was not referring to any sort of tax. 
<snip>
Since you asked what I meant by negative feedback, I was referring to daycare facilities having caps on the number of children per adult that were subsidized in full via the social aide program.  While they would permit additional children to be taken care of, it would come at the cost of additional co-pay by the client
<snip>

So you're proposing a system whereby parents who had children they couldn't afford would be forced to make payments to the government - co-pay to the social aide program - for accessing a service.  Val, that's a tax.  That's what a tax is.

And, as I have said repeatedly, if there's no free access to birth control and abortions, then that tax is levied at the poorest women for having sex. 

[Valthazar]

Any government-coordinated daycare service would be offered through private daycare companies in the US via subsidies.  A "subsidized" daycare program would involve the government either paying a subsidy to the client to then purchase daycare services at a private daycare, or the subsidy going directly to private daycare centers.

Once the subsidy is extinguished, the remainder of the cost (for instance, beyond the maximum children per adult permitted via subsidy) is paid by the client directly to the private business.  Thus, it is not a tax - the government is not receiving any of this.  It's a voluntary, private transaction.  This is identical to how the Affordable Care Act works. 

Are co-pays on ACA exchange insurances considered a tax?  They are not.

Let us not argue for the sake of arguing.

[Kythia]

We're not arguing for the sake of arguing, Val.  I'm trying to make you see your proposed system imposes a cost on the poorest women in society (in fatc, it does so precisely because they're the poorest) for something that they potentially have no control over. 

While your system might make some degree of sense in a perfect world, without the free birth control and abortions all you're doing is removing the usefulness of the childcare from the most vulnerable people solely because you believe that they have too many children.  Even though, and I return to this, that isn't something they can control.  This is inhumane, Val, and I can't understand how you are - knowing all of this - still promoting it.

THAT'S why we're arguing. 

[Valthazar]

While your system might make some degree of sense in a perfect world, without the free birth control and abortions all you're doing is removing the usefulness of the childcare from the most vulnerable people solely because you believe that they have too many children.

I am in agreement for a push towards offering free birth control and abortions.  In the United States, this would come via an expansion of Medicaid and Medicare.  The only thing I mentioned was that this is exceedingly unlikely to happen in the near future, due to prevailing views on Medicare/Medicaid expansion, which is a real shame.

I stated earlier that while from an ethical perspective we should offer subsidies even if a homeless person has 6 or 7 children, realistically, we must also be monetarily sensible.  I tend to value fiscal sensibility as the primary consideration in my view of any policy, as well as in my own life - and perhaps that's simply a value difference between us.  That value difference is not something we can debate.

That's also part of the reason I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, because both of these parties waste money in their own ways.

[Kythia]

I stated earlier that while from an ethical perspective we should offer subsidies even if a homeless person has 6 or 7 children, realistically, we must also be monetarily sensible.  I tend to value fiscal sensibility as the primary consideration in my view of any policy, as well as in my own life - and perhaps that's simply a value difference between us.  That value difference is not something we can debate.

So you're happy with people suffering because it saves the government money.  What on earth do you think the government should spend that saved money on?  The $X they save by limiting free places in this program to two (or whatever), what should they do with it?  Anything other than "swim in it Scrooge MacDuck style" is going to negate your alleged fiscal sensibility so why not use it to remove the suffering of its citizens?

Bah.  This isn't gonna work.

[Valthazar]

So you're happy with people suffering because it saves the government money.  What on earth do you think the government should spend that saved money on?  The $X they save by limiting free places in this program to two (or whatever), what should they do with it?  Anything other than "swim in it Scrooge MacDuck style" is going to negate your alleged fiscal sensibility so why not use it to remove the suffering of its citizens?

Bah.  This isn't gonna work.

I would hope that they consider restoring the fidelity of social security - and prevent it from going bankrupt (as it most certainly will).  I also hope they would spend more of it on improving America's aging infrastructure - roads, buildings etc.  Several of the gas mains in New York City, for example, are over 127 years old - and we recently had an explosion.  I also would like to see a drastic expansion of scholarship programs.

Decreasing budgetary expenditures would naturally, over time, correlate with a corresponding decreased need for revenue coming in.  Having more US dollars circulating in the private economy would decrease the need for the Treasury's continued printing of money - in an effort to "stimulate" the economy.  It is leading to high rates of inflation, and is only helping those of us who have money invested in the stock market (not the poor man or women).  I can assure you that this is going to hit all of us hard when it ends, and the US dollar, once a sign of confidence, is increasingly being viewed timidly by other countries.

I support the citizen's wage concept of paying all citizens a small yet reasonable sum of money per month, and then removing all social welfare and aide programs.  I was skeptical at first, but now think it makes a lot of sense.  It would be taxed no differently from earned income.  Though this is more of a fantasy than anything that is realistically plausible in the US.

[consortium11]

So you're happy with people suffering because it saves the government money.

Such a criticism could be applied to pretty much every situation any government (real or hypothetical) finds itself in and thus becomes either meaningless or a simple rhetorical point; every government will have a budget and because of those confines (and for simplification I'm going to load gilt spending into that area) will have to make decisions about what it spends money on, decisions that will almost certainly lead to some people suffering. An easy and obvious example to use is something like NICE in the UK and the drugs it leads to being offered on the NHS; there are (many) drugs and treatments out there that can reduce suffering that aren't offered on the NHS because they're too expensive.

Moreover there's a difference between being monetarily sensible/fiscally sensible (technically they're two different things but I suspect Valthazar was using them to mean the same thing) and simply "saving money". A government completely shutting down and not spending a penny (outside of possibly the tax administration) would save them a lot of money... I doubt anyone (including anarchists) would view that as fiscally sensible.

What on earth do you think the government should spend that saved money on?  The $X they save by limiting free places in this program to two (or whatever), what should they do with it?  Anything other than "swim in it Scrooge MacDuck style" is going to negate your alleged fiscal sensibility so why not use it to remove the suffering of its citizens?

This is where the fiscally sensible part comes in. Assuming we're keeping overall tax income the same, could the money be more efficiently spent elsewhere? Would putting it towards debt reduction help in the long term? Would not spending it (and remembering that in the modern world economy we're essentially talking about debt spending here) do more good by reducing the deficit?

I should stress there's not necessarily a "right" answer to above question/examples and what you choose is likely to come down to your own political/economic views and the issues one cares about most. Someone more interested in strict fiscal responsibility is likely to argue in favour of reducing the debt or deficit (and support it by pointing out how this would help lower interest payments). Others would want it more directly spent... but where? Green issues? Healthcare? Infrastructure? Other social spending? Some form of direct economic spending? Etc etc. If reducing suffering is the key goal of the government then it surely falls on the government to spend it in the most efficient way possible. Is extending the discussed subsidies to cover every child the most efficient way of spending the money to lower suffering?

[Kythia]

You're right as far as you go, consortium, but I didn't get the impression that was Valthazar's argument.

Let's assume that the childcare gives a net cost to the state.  What is magic about the third (or whatever) child?  There is no marginal cost to a child, the third one costs as much to care for as the second.  And being as we're assuming childcare is a net cost for kids one and two, any arguments about efficiency go out of the window if we're prepared to pay for any of them.

Putting a cap on the number makes no sense, it's solely punitive.  If the argument was about an effective usage of resources then the answer would be either to support zero (because its a net drain) or as many as is wanted (because the benefits outweigh the costs).  With no increase in marginal costs for successive children, there's no "fiscal responsibility" argument for a cap.

So, yes.  I agree with you that money should be used effectively, but that wasn't what was being discussed.  The punitive aspect of val's suggested policy was all I was talking about.



Off topic:

Several of the gas mains in New York City, for example, are over 127 years old - and we recently had an explosion.  I also would like to see a drastic expansion of scholarship programs.

I realise that was just an example, but is that not New York State's problem (as opposed to the federal government)

[Valthazar]

Actually, consortium is very much articulating my assertion.  If the United States were serious about offering subsidies for daycare, there would likely provide a dollar amount subsidy per adult based on earned income.  The adult would then be able to select from a wide variety of private daycare facilities, and choose a price point that worked for their needs (and number of kids).

It's the same way that subsidies are determined with the Affordable Care Act.  There are caps for the subsidies based on income as compared to the federal poverty line.

Off topic: I realise that was just an example, but is that not New York State's problem (as opposed to the federal government)

There's a state and federal budget for city infrastructure.  Especially for roads, declining federal budget allocation for city infrastructure have caused many more states to increase their investment in infrastructure, but it's not enough.

[Kythia]

Actually, consortium is very much articulating my assertion.  If the United States were serious about offering subsidies for daycare, there would likely provide a dollar amount subsidy per adult based on earned income.  The adult would then be able to select from a wide variety of private daycare facilities, and choose a price point that worked for their needs (and number of kids).

So, lets assume that the limit you refer to here:

What I would say though, is that as far as free daycare service, there should be some sort of a cap, or limit on this.  While from an ethical perspective, we should offer this even if a homeless person has 6 children, realistically, we must also be fiscally conscious.

is a cap of two kids.  Just to pick a number.  You claim that those two kids should receive the free daycare but not the third.  The third kid costs exactly the same as the first two, why are you willing to pay for the first two but not the third?  If you were going purely on fiscal sense, you'd pay for all of them or none of them, surely, as the costs don't change.  Either its worth paying for or its not.  There has to be another aspect here on top of you avowed fiscal sensibility.

[Iniquitous]

Because if you do not put a cap on the number of children free childcare is provided for you could very well end up with someone who thinks like the Duggar's come waltzing in with 13 children. That's a lot of money used for one family. By saying "here's the cap, any children over this cap you have to pay X amount a year for" you are one, making it clear that some responsibility is on the parents and two, offsetting the cost of providing daycare.

[Valthazar]

I am not sure what you are trying to get at.

Based on someone's income level, they would receive a corresponding subsidy to pay for daycare - which would factor in the number of children they have.  This is generally how subsidy programs work, like the Affordable Care Act.  Depending on one's income, and the number of dependents (children) in your household, the subsidy will vary considerably.  These subsidy rates are preset based on financial analysis.

For example, with the ACA, you can use this calculator to see how subsidies vary based on family size, and earned income:
http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/

[Kythia]

IO - that's exactly my point.

By putting that limit in you're no longer talking about "fiscal sensibility".  You're making political and moral value judgements.  By necessity, at that point, arguments about monetary and economic efficiency are playing second fiddle.  People make political and moral value judgements every day, there's nothing wrong with it.  But we should be open about when we're doing it.

Val - as above, really.  There's no justification for putting the cut off after two children instead of after three beyond what "feels right" is my core point.  The situation doesn't change unless the cap is either zero or infinity.  Solely how much money you're prepared to give to the program. 

[Valthazar]

It is very much a financial issue.  For example, if the subsidies for the ACA were higher, more people would have affordable healthcare coverage.  They aren't higher though, because more federal subsidies would mean greater expenditure by the federal government.

[Kythia]

I didn't say it wasn't a financial issue.  You are putting that cap in to encourage people to have less children.  That's why you want it in, right?  That was why you said you wanted it in in the first place, but I'm not sure if that has changed.

That cap could go in after one, two, three, etc children.  With steadily escalating costs.  By putting it in after x children not x+1 you are making a value judgement on how many children is "ok" and how many "too much".

[Valthazar]

As I said earlier, our philosophical basis in evaluating policy is likely why we hold different views on many other topics as well.  I can explain to you my perspective on this issue, but realize that we simply hold two equally valid, but different views.

I work in the field of business, and I'm a strong believer that economic limitations drive behavior.  As I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting places no caps on the number of children who will be provided daycare.  In contrast, a subsidy rate (in $ amount) is determined through a calculation no different from one used for the ACA, which takes into account earned income and family size.  This subsidy is provided to the parent to purchase daycare services.

The parent has a variety of private daycare plans to choose from - extremely cheap to extremely expensive, giving the parent the ability to choose how many of their children are covered under the subsidy.  As with the ACA, the decision making is in the consumer's hands.

The ACA offers higher subsidies for larger families, but it operates on a curve, factoring in earned income.

[Kythia]

I work in the field of business, and I'm a strong believer that economic limitations drive behavior.  As I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting places no caps on the number of children who will be provided daycare. 

No, but it does place a limit on how many will be funded.

Once the subsidy is extinguished, the remainder of the cost (for instance, beyond the maximum children per adult permitted via subsidy)

Since you asked what I meant by negative feedback, I was referring to daycare facilities having caps on the number of children per adult that were subsidized in full via the social aide program. 

Which is implicitly the government saying how many is appropriate - you say it yourself in that last post with "economic limitations drive behaviour".  You are basing your policy on a desire to change/regulate behaviour.  That's fine (actually, I disagree with it but that disagreement is waaaaaaay outside the scope of this conversation). 

My sole point is to make clear that claiming a program explicitly designed to regulate behaviour from someone who "<tends> to value fiscal sensibility as the primary consideration in <their> view of any policy" is bordering slightly on the disingenuous.  In this policy, the one we were discussing when you made the claim, fiscal sensibility is not your primary consideration.  Controlling behaviour is.   Consortiums comments don't apply because the aim here isn't to manage money efficiently, it's to give "negative repercussions" to people who have more children than you think they should have.

Fine.  All of that is fine, if that's the argument you're making.  But be honest about it.

I'm not sure we're going to get any further on this though, are we.

Have a good Easter.

[Valthazar]

I appreciate the validity of your perspective, but please realize that mine is not disingenuous.  Milton Friedman was at the polar extreme of this view - that the natural decision-making behaviors of men and women are regulated by the economic conditions they face.  In other words, these economic conditions are not drivers of behavior modification, but simply the natural external factors influencing mankind's decision-making at the truest level.  I am not at his end of the spectrum, I am much more of a moderate, since I encourage the implementation of subsidies, as well as several programs like Medicare and Medicaid. 

However, in my perspective, I think his view of economics driving the natural behavior of people is a valuable one.  You are certainly entitled to disagree, but suggesting that these views are disingenuous is failing to at least acknowledge the merit of libertarian perspectives on the role of economics on personal behavior.

[Kythia]

I appreciate the validity of your perspective, but please realize that mine is not disingenuous.  Milton Friedman was at the polar extreme of this view - that the natural decision-making behaviors of men and women are regulated by the economic conditions they face.  In other words, these economic conditions are not drivers of behavior modification, but simply the natural external factors influencing mankind's decision-making at the truest level.  I am not at his end of the spectrum, I am much more of a moderate, since I encourage the implementation of subsidies, as well as several programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

However, in my perspective, I think his view of economics driving the natural behavior of people is a valuable one.  You are certainly entitled to disagree, but suggesting that these views are disingenuous is failing to at least acknowledge the merit of libertarian perspectives on the role of economics on personal behavior.

This is not remotely related to what we were discussing. 

I'm out.

[Zakharra]

No, but it does place a limit on how many will be funded.

Which is implicitly the government saying how many is appropriate - you say it yourself in that last post with "economic limitations drive behaviour".  You are basing your policy on a desire to change/regulate behaviour.  That's fine (actually, I disagree with it but that disagreement is waaaaaaay outside the scope of this conversation).

  At some point there does need to be a limit on what is the appropriate number and the government should -not- spend any more money on people who do things like keep producing children. Honestly, it's rare fort many women to have more than what, 2-4 children now?  The government should not be seen as a source of revenue for those people, especially not the sole source and there should be a point when that revenue is cut off (not counting Soci Sec or MediCare/Aid) because the person is sponging off the government. At some point the person themselves needs to stand on their own two feet and provide for themselves and their families. I'm not against the government giving some help, but not to an excess. There needs to be an arbitrary limit at which financial aid is cut off.

[Kythia]

  At some point there does need to be a limit on what is the appropriate number and the government should -not- spend any more money on people who do things like keep producing children. Honestly, it's rare fort many women to have more than what, 2-4 children now?  The government should not be seen as a source of revenue for those people, especially not the sole source and there should be a point when that revenue is cut off (not counting Soci Sec or MediCare/Aid) because the person is sponging off the government. At some point the person themselves needs to stand on their own two feet and provide for themselves and their families. I'm not against the government giving some help, but not to an excess. There needs to be an arbitrary limit at which financial aid is cut off.

For the purposes of this conversation, I agree.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that Val was trying to pretend his policy wasn't based on that.

[Zakharra]

 He is correct that at some point there does need to be a disincentive to stop or slow the behavior. Some people (many) will in fact abuse the system if they can get something from it. Financial disincentive is one of the most effective methods though in curbing excess. No many, people tend to stop doing it. you might call it a tax (which you did I think), but I fail to see how requiring people to start paying for services is a tax when they are using it excessively.

[Kythia]

He is correct that at some point there does need to be a disincentive to stop or slow the behavior. Some people (many) will in fact abuse the system if they can get something from it. Financial disincentive is one of the most effective methods though in curbing excess. No many, people tend to stop doing it. you might call it a tax (which you did I think), but I fail to see how requiring people to start paying for services is a tax when they are using it excessively.

He may or may not be correct.  Once again, that's not the point.  The point is that there is a game changing difference between supporting a policy because it makes good financial sense and supporting one because it encourages society to be the way you think it should be.  Regardless of whether you think society should be "good" or "bad", pretending you have reasons for supporting a policy that you actually don't is sinister.

Again, as I have said repeatedly, I don't care if his argument is in favour of changing society, I care about the deception in pretending its not.

[Oniya]

If there is a cap, regardless of how much it is, there needs to be a way for people to limit their ability to conceive - one that is accessible to women (or men) of any socioeconomic background.  Accessible not solely as far as cost, but also as far as moral judgement.  As long as birth control and abortion are stigmatized, then women will get pregnant above this 'cap', feel that they have no option other than to carry the child to term, and will therefore have to deal with the (far greater) costs of raising the child and having to deal with child care. 

The lower on the socioeconomic scale you go, the less accessible contraception becomes - ergo, the more likely it is that people in that strata will have children (wanted and otherwise) above the arbitrary cap.  It is far easier for a middle-class or higher individual to maintain their family size under the cap, since they have access to condoms, birth control pills, etc.  With the religious right's vendetta against things like Planned Parenthood, the people with low income don't.

As a result, any cap without free and unstigmatized access to birth control for everyone is going to put the burden squarely on those who can't afford it.  We've all seen how successful 'abstinence only' education is.

[Kythia]

As a result, any cap without free and unstigmatized access to birth control for everyone is going to put the burden squarely on those who can't afford it.  We've all seen how successful 'abstinence only' education is.

Thank you, Oniya.  And so placing that cap, given all of that, is inherently a value judgement on how many children you think people should have.

You're entitled to make value judgements, you're not entitled to pretend your value judgements are objective truths.

[Kythia]

And incidentally, Zakharra, now I think of it:

How the hell will people take advantage of the program?  Are you saying that people will have children they otherwise wouldn't have purely because they can get free childcare for them?  Seriously?  I'd suggest that was unlikely.  Abuse doesn't seem to be a factor here.

[Iniquitous]

For the purposes of this conversation, I agree.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that Val was trying to pretend his policy wasn't based on that.

Considering that this topic is something Val and I have discussed outside of this thread, I know for a fact that he wasn't trying to pretend what he was saying wasn't based on this exact thing. I honestly think you are pushing for an argument with him because all I've seen from you is constant baiting to try and start one.

[Kythia]

Considering that this topic is something Val and I have discussed outside of this thread, I know for a fact that he wasn't trying to pretend what he was saying wasn't based on this exact thing. I honestly think you are pushing for an argument with him because all I've seen from you is constant baiting to try and start one.

I stated earlier that while from an ethical perspective we should offer subsidies even if a homeless person has 6 or 7 children, realistically, we must also be monetarily sensible.  I tend to value fiscal sensibility as the primary consideration in my view of any policy, as well as in my own life - and perhaps that's simply a value difference between us.  That value difference is not something we can debate.

I obviously have no idea what you two have discussed outside the thread.  If he indeed has claimed something different outside the thread I can only advise you confront him to find out why he's saying one thing in one place and another in another.  *shrug*  That's entirely up to you though.

[Iniquitous]

Kythia, not trying to be rude or uncivil here, but what is your issue with Val? I read what he says here and it matches up perfectly with what we've talked about in IM. In all honesty, it really does seem that in every thread you and Val debate in, you zero in on him and you pick away at every little thing he posts. Hell, he's told you numerous times that he AGREES with you in this particular topic and you still go out of your way to nitpick and try to create controversy out of his words.

[Kythia]

Reread, IO.  You're mistaken.  Consortium made a series of points about efficiency.  I said, in essence, "sure, but Val isn't talking about economic efficiency, he's talking about punitive measures."  Val said "no, consortium has expressed my views correctly."

Valthazar specifically stated he was talking about economic efficiency, specifically reecting my suggestion he was talking about changing behaviour.  The entire conversation is public record, claiming he didn't just makes it clear that you haven't read it.

As to the meat of your question - my issue with Valthazar - a lot of the time he avoids direct questions.  Take his claim that

As I have said repeatedly, what I am suggesting places no caps on the number of children who will be provided daycare.

This is outright dishonest.  It stops short of a lie, but barely.  I provided the quotes above, I can requote them if you like.  I have no problem with him in the abstract, but would you allow such blatent dishonesty to go unchallenged?  If so then kudos to you, I guess, but I won't.

However, I suspect the remainder of this should be taken to PM if you (and Val) want to discuss it further.

[Mithlomwen]

However, I suspect the remainder of this should be taken to PM if you (and Val) want to discuss it further.

Yes please. 

[RainyHigh]

Man she could have rolled the windows down some more. Me being from Arizona and having been left in car by my mother (she wan't even interviewing for the a job, she was buying crack for her drug addiction) in the heat of the summer more times than I count know how unbearable it is. Especially for younger children. My baby brother and I would have something to drink a few of the times and I would even open the door to cool us down. It was still unbearable. I know this wasn't really in the hottest time of the year though, and that the mother was trying to get a job, I applaud her for that. But leaving the windows up and leaving nothing for the kids to drink is ... harsh.


edit: I think she should be given another chance though. My mom was given numerous chances even after CPS got on her case several times.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

For comparison, another mother in Arizona got high and forgot she had put her baby's seat (with baby strapped inside) on the roof of her car and drove for 12 miles before realising what she had done. Too late. The seat was not there where she stopped, it had fallen in the middle of the freeway.

The baby was recovered unharmed, but it was a much more dire endangerment. She got sentenced recently, and got... probation. Source

It's mind boggling.

Hmmm... I don't want to jump any conclusions, but my mom also got let off easy too. She's Caucasian--my mum that is, and this woman I'm assuming she is too. The mom arrested for leaving her children in the car during an interview is African American. Arizona does have it's ... ummm.... prejudices to put it lightly. Just saying.

[Valthazar]

Kythia, I would really appreciate you not accuse me of lying.  I respect your perspective, and can respects its validity based on your world view.  But there is no need to call me a liar, claiming that I am using value judgements instead of simply using an affordable allocation of the budget.

My views are based on libertarian notions of laissez-faire economics, and how the economic realities people naturally face drive their personal behavior.  I am aware that we hold a difference of perspective, and that is completely fine, but realize that most libertarians also tend to be fiscal conservatives - with a notion of a limited budget.  I am not at this end of the spectrum, though I do find value in this perspective.  That is why I am advocating limits on the extent of subsidies (no different from every other subsidy the United States provides), based on affordability, and balancing the budget.

Also, I do fully agree with you - we do need free birth control and abortions before any of this takes place.  It will be an uphill battle for sure.

I am confused, I'm agreeing fully with you.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Kythia, I would really appreciate you not accuse me of lying.  I respect your perspective, and can respects its validity based on your world view.  But there is no need to call me a liar, claiming that I am using value judgements instead of simply using an affordable allocation of the budget.

My views are based on libertarian notions of laissez-faire economics, and how the economic realities people naturally face drive their personal behavior.  I am aware that we hold a difference of perspective, and that is completely fine, but realize that most libertarians also tend to be fiscal conservatives - with a notion of a limited budget.  I am not at this end of the spectrum, though I do find value in this perspective.  That is why I am advocating limits on the extent of subsidies (no different from every other subsidy the United States provides), based on affordability, and balancing the budget.

It was suggested this conversation continue in PMs.  Please do so and keep this side-bar issue out of the main thread.

[consortium11]

You're right as far as you go, consortium, but I didn't get the impression that was Valthazar's argument.

Let's assume that the childcare gives a net cost to the state.  What is magic about the third (or whatever) child?  There is no marginal cost to a child, the third one costs as much to care for as the second.  And being as we're assuming childcare is a net cost for kids one and two, any arguments about efficiency go out of the window if we're prepared to pay for any of them.

Putting a cap on the number makes no sense, it's solely punitive.  If the argument was about an effective usage of resources then the answer would be either to support zero (because its a net drain) or as many as is wanted (because the benefits outweigh the costs).  With no increase in marginal costs for successive children, there's no "fiscal responsibility" argument for a cap.

So, yes.  I agree with you that money should be used effectively, but that wasn't what was being discussed.  The punitive aspect of val's suggested policy was all I was talking about.

I'm not sure we can quite so simply say that childcare is a net cost. If anything isn't the idea that it is a net gain one of the driving forces behind support for it?

As this story shows it is very difficult for a parent without access to childcare to find a job, let alone keep one. That generally means that in economic terms they're a drain on the state both directly and indirectly. Directly because they will claim welfare as an unemployed parent and indirectly because due to being unemployed they're not offering an taxable income for the state. In essence a lack of childcare becomes a two-punch; if the lack of childcare means they can't get a job and need to claim other benefits then the cost of those benefits has to be factored in and because they can't get a job they're not paying the tax they would if they were employed.

So access to free childcare doesn't necessarily mean a net cost. If the amount saved on other benefits by the parent being able to work (thus not claiming them) and the tax gained by them working end up being more than the cost of providing childcare then its a net gain to the state by doing so.

And with that in mind one can certainly put a cap on the number of children covered and still claim that the primary goal is managing money efficiently. Because there will be a point where the number of children covered by the free childcare pushes the cost of the service beyond the money saved and gained by the parent being in work.

Is two the magic number? I don't know... just as I don't know what level of means testing there should be (and I think we'd all accept that there should be some means testing requirement so that a billionaire can't get their childcare paid for by the state). But one can calculate (or at least estimate) what the limits (both on the number of children covered in a family and the threshold for when the service is offered) are to keep it as a net gain.

As above, I don't know if two is the right limit there... but considering that the average number of children per woman in the US is 2.01 it seems like a decent place to start working out figures from.

[Beguile's Mistress]

My company subsidizes an on-campus childcare facility for employees.  They have found that having good, affordable daycare for several reasons.  The facility is fully staffed by professionals which gives our employees confidence in the quality of care their children will receive.  The parents/guardians are also offered medical advantages such as availability of vaccinations and inoculations and frequent checks by the staff nurse to head off viruses and other illnesses.  Parents/guardians are encouraged to keep their children home when they are sick and can use personal and sick days to cover lost wages if necessary.  This all makes for a more reliable work force and less downtime for the company.

This is basically the same sort of plan a government sponsored program would offer with a copay coming from the parents based on income.  The parents are productive members of a workforce returning tax money to the government because they are able to take advantage of the lower cost of childcare.  A government sponsored program such as a shelter of some sort that offered childcare to parents/guardians looking for jobs so they can have the time to interview while their children are cared for might have given the woman another option.

[ladia2287]

I can empathise with the mother who, from my understanding, was torn between a rock and a hard place. I couldn't fathom leaving my children anywhere unsupervised, even for a couple of minutes. I'd be too paranoid about them hurting themselves, or being kidnapped, or even worse. I think it's a sad state of affairs that this particular mother felt she had so little support that her only viable option was to leave her very young children unsupervised in a presumably strange location for an indeterminate amount of time.

That being said, I have to say that I do think she was guilty of the criminal negligence of her children. Regardless of her reasoning, she made a choice to leave her children unsupervised and uncared for, for almost an hour. If she couldn't make arrangements for the children for such a short space of time, then how did she expect them to be looked after while she was working, if she had gotten the job? Would she have left them in the car during her shifts as well?

I do agree that prison might be too extreme a penalty, but she has no business looking after children until she learns to be responsible for their safety. This would be one of the very few instances where I would argue that children should be cared for by someone other than the mother. She's putting them in danger.

[Jusey1]

I don't know...

This is just one of those situations where you simply can't pick a right direction... I mean, it is possible for good things to happen in the end but either way there is a risk of something bad happening at the same time.

I really don't know what to say on this. Though I do believe the mother shouldn't have been fined unless something bad actually happened to the kids.

[Lord Inquisitor]

Isn't the US 17tr in debt at this point?
I know this is a tangential point, but it needs raising. Everyone is saying "let's put in a program for this" et , but don't you think that the government would have done so if it could afford to?
You can't afford to put in these programs right now.

[Oniya]

Can we afford not to?  Right now, the woman is contributing nothing to the US economy.  Ignore debt.  Any economic student can tell you that the amount of national debt is a red herring.  If she manages to get a job, then she's at least paying for part of her impact on the economy, if not creating an actual surplus (as she will have an income, buy food and other necessities, pay taxes, etc.)

[Falanor]

On the flip side, it turns out that during the investgation by the prosecution, she did have a home address and already had a job.

[Valthazar]

There was an update to this case:

In a nutshell, "the child abuses charges were dropped and, after being cleared by protective services, Taylor’s children were returned to her."  However, as part of the condition for dropping these charges, Shanesha Taylor was barred from accessing donations raised through the crowdsourcing for her legal fees and other expenses. She was also ordered to put the funds (only $40,000 of the $70,000 total (originally $114,000 total - but after taxes)) into a trust for the children, which can only accessed if the children ever choose to go to college (Source).

However, she apparently missed the deadline to put money into a trust fund for her kids, and instead spent $6,000 at a music studio in Tempe to finish her "baby daddy's" rap album (according to someone who alerted her attorney).  Her bank statements also show she spent the money on Michael Kors and designer jeans.  Civil rights activist Rev. Jarrett Maupin, who led the charge to support Taylor following her arrest — now says he’s done.  Maupin says he lined up numerous job interviews for Taylor in the hotel, restaurant and retail industries. Interviews he says she never showed up for (Source).  However, Jarrett Maupin himself has been accussed of extortion for political donations by Taylor - so I am not sure who is believable here.

In her defense, "three jobs (total) have been actually offered to her, two were part-time positions with pay that would not even cover the cost of rent let alone childcare and the third was an hour and a half away, and required her to be at work at a time before her daycare facility opened."  This article does a great job of presenting the other side of her story.

In the meantime, Taylor is using social media, once again looking for public donations to pay for her legal expenses, and she has not yet found a job (Source).  Really confusing situation, and it is difficult to tell who is being honest about what.

[la dame en noir]

While most would be outraged, I don't think the people knew she was homeless. She was a woman going to an interview to make a better life for her children. She didn't have anyone to watch her kids, what was she supposed to do? I haven't followed up with this case since it happened, but I hope things are better for her.

[Caehlim]

Really confusing situation, and it is difficult to tell who is being honest about what.

I think this is one of the downsides to philanthropy covering these sorts of issues. In Australia she would be provided with these sorts of services through Centrelink and her Job Network Provider, these groups have the resources needed to investigate these situations and while fraud does occur it comes with the heavy risk of being caught, being required to pay back the money and risking prosecution. With crowdfunding it is difficult to ensure that the resources are being allocated in a fair and equitable manner.