"...There was not cruelty, excessive restraint or risk of harm.." Yep, that's the line in the story that first caught my eyes- half way down the column it jumped out at me before I could even read the first sentence.
I would like to point out that further in the column it will talk about Ohio state law. It will say that law doesn't require checking up on families after an adoption is final. That's true. But they didn't adopt all the kids at one time- and state law does require background checks (which are only good for one year), in home interviews with the family and inspection of the home, and references from friends or family. How many kids where adopted after the use of the cages started? Who interviewed the family on those that did go through after the cages? How many cages where in place during the interviews? And why didn't someone pick up on this? I love how the state washes their hands by saying no checks are needed after the adoption. What happened during the ones before the adoptions??
***others pondering this case:
News Of Doom- Includes Photos Of Cages
Randomized Drivel- Includes Mathematical Display of How These People Prospered At Cost to Kids
SOURCE
"...More details revealed about caged kids
By CONNIE MABIN The Associated Press
WAKEMAN — The modest, two-story home where authorities say a couple confined their adoptive children in small cages sits off a winding, hard-to-find country road in a sparsely populated, rural town where neighbors are separated by cornfields and privacy is not hard to find.
So it makes sense that few folks here knew much about Michael and Sharen Gravelle, the parents of 11 disabled children.
But over the past week, authorities, neighbors and court documents have helped form a picture of a working class, middle-aged white couple with a history of marital problems who traveled across Ohio and other states to find the neediest children.
The Gravelles adopted black youngsters with ailments such as autism, fetal alcohol syndrome, HIV and pica, an eating disorder in which children compulsively eat nonfood items such as dirt and rocks.
At some point, the couple began putting the children in homemade, wooden 3½ foot tall cages at night. The cages, painted bright blue, red and yellow, were surrounded by chicken wire and plywood and rigged with alarms to signal when the cages were opened.
No charges have been filed, and the children, aged 1 to 14, have been placed in foster care.
The Gravelles have not commented publicly or been at their home, where toys and bicycles share the yard with roosters, dogs and a black, potbellied pig whose pen is about twice the size of the children’s sleeping quarters.
Their attorney, David Sherman of Westlake, said the Gravelles have been portrayed unfairly in the media. He said the children were not caged but kept in “enclosures” built around bunk beds to stop them from doing things such as setting fires, eating batteries and cutting themselves.
“There was no cruelty, excessive restraint or risk of harm,” Sherman said. “The children were free to leave their beds anytime they wanted.”
He said the alarms were meant to alert the parents of when the kids got out of bed so they could be checked on.
Interviews with adoption officials and reviews of court documents show that the Gravelles received thousands of dollars in government adoption subsidies and disability payments for the children — $4,265 a month in 2001 when the family had eight children.
But local and state authorities say they were not checking up on the Gravelles. State law doesn’t require them to after an adoption is finalized, and Ohio doesn’t limit the number of children that can be adopted into one home.
Authorities say they are trying to find out where the youngsters came from and how so many special needs children ended up in one home without raising red flags.
The Associated Press has learned the origins of six of the adoptions. Three siblings who were removed from their Canton home in 1999 joined the family in 2000; an HIV-positive infant boy was adopted from Cuyahoga County in 2001; and two children, both siblings of another child adopted elsewhere by the Gravelles, were adopted in Hamilton County in 1999.
Officials in Stark and Cuyahoga counties said their reviews of the Gravelles turned up no problems. Hamilton County confirmed the adoptions but refused to discuss details.
In 2001, Sharen Gravelle accused her husband in court documents of mistreating the children, an allegation he denied. The couple reconciled and eventually adopted three more children. It wasn’t known if the adoption agencies reviewed the abuse allegation.
Nancy Udolph, an associate professor of sociology at Ashland University, said Friday the divorce filing and accusation would raise questions for any social worker checking the home for subsequent adoptions.
Udolph said it’s difficult to understand how the Gravelles went without visits from authorities because of the previous allegation and the number of special needs children.
The Gravelles appeared to have kept a low profile in Wakeman, a town of about 1,000 people that is more than 98 percent white. The children, most given biblical names by their adoptive parents, were home schooled. Authorities say the family attended services at a church the Gravelles built on their property. A large wooden cross sits before a small building that appears under construction.
Leah Hunter, a neighbor who lives two houses away from the Gravelles, said she barely knew the couple but often saw the children playing barefoot.
“I knew them as a white couple that took in black children over a period of years,” Hunter said. “The youngsters looked fine. “They hardly ever wore shoes, but I’m a country girl and for me that’s normal.” ..."
They traveled to find the neediest children, which in my words would read something more like this "they traveled to find the children they could neglect, abuse and make the most income from" But hey, that's just how I would describe it. A pot bellied pig had a bigger enclosure. Nope- don't be offended by that- after all it was to protect theincome oops I mean children.
Categories: abused, caged
I would like to point out that further in the column it will talk about Ohio state law. It will say that law doesn't require checking up on families after an adoption is final. That's true. But they didn't adopt all the kids at one time- and state law does require background checks (which are only good for one year), in home interviews with the family and inspection of the home, and references from friends or family. How many kids where adopted after the use of the cages started? Who interviewed the family on those that did go through after the cages? How many cages where in place during the interviews? And why didn't someone pick up on this? I love how the state washes their hands by saying no checks are needed after the adoption. What happened during the ones before the adoptions??
***others pondering this case:
News Of Doom- Includes Photos Of Cages
Randomized Drivel- Includes Mathematical Display of How These People Prospered At Cost to Kids
SOURCE
"...More details revealed about caged kids
By CONNIE MABIN The Associated Press
WAKEMAN — The modest, two-story home where authorities say a couple confined their adoptive children in small cages sits off a winding, hard-to-find country road in a sparsely populated, rural town where neighbors are separated by cornfields and privacy is not hard to find.
So it makes sense that few folks here knew much about Michael and Sharen Gravelle, the parents of 11 disabled children.
But over the past week, authorities, neighbors and court documents have helped form a picture of a working class, middle-aged white couple with a history of marital problems who traveled across Ohio and other states to find the neediest children.
The Gravelles adopted black youngsters with ailments such as autism, fetal alcohol syndrome, HIV and pica, an eating disorder in which children compulsively eat nonfood items such as dirt and rocks.
At some point, the couple began putting the children in homemade, wooden 3½ foot tall cages at night. The cages, painted bright blue, red and yellow, were surrounded by chicken wire and plywood and rigged with alarms to signal when the cages were opened.
No charges have been filed, and the children, aged 1 to 14, have been placed in foster care.
The Gravelles have not commented publicly or been at their home, where toys and bicycles share the yard with roosters, dogs and a black, potbellied pig whose pen is about twice the size of the children’s sleeping quarters.
Their attorney, David Sherman of Westlake, said the Gravelles have been portrayed unfairly in the media. He said the children were not caged but kept in “enclosures” built around bunk beds to stop them from doing things such as setting fires, eating batteries and cutting themselves.
“There was no cruelty, excessive restraint or risk of harm,” Sherman said. “The children were free to leave their beds anytime they wanted.”
He said the alarms were meant to alert the parents of when the kids got out of bed so they could be checked on.
Interviews with adoption officials and reviews of court documents show that the Gravelles received thousands of dollars in government adoption subsidies and disability payments for the children — $4,265 a month in 2001 when the family had eight children.
But local and state authorities say they were not checking up on the Gravelles. State law doesn’t require them to after an adoption is finalized, and Ohio doesn’t limit the number of children that can be adopted into one home.
Authorities say they are trying to find out where the youngsters came from and how so many special needs children ended up in one home without raising red flags.
The Associated Press has learned the origins of six of the adoptions. Three siblings who were removed from their Canton home in 1999 joined the family in 2000; an HIV-positive infant boy was adopted from Cuyahoga County in 2001; and two children, both siblings of another child adopted elsewhere by the Gravelles, were adopted in Hamilton County in 1999.
Officials in Stark and Cuyahoga counties said their reviews of the Gravelles turned up no problems. Hamilton County confirmed the adoptions but refused to discuss details.
In 2001, Sharen Gravelle accused her husband in court documents of mistreating the children, an allegation he denied. The couple reconciled and eventually adopted three more children. It wasn’t known if the adoption agencies reviewed the abuse allegation.
Nancy Udolph, an associate professor of sociology at Ashland University, said Friday the divorce filing and accusation would raise questions for any social worker checking the home for subsequent adoptions.
Udolph said it’s difficult to understand how the Gravelles went without visits from authorities because of the previous allegation and the number of special needs children.
The Gravelles appeared to have kept a low profile in Wakeman, a town of about 1,000 people that is more than 98 percent white. The children, most given biblical names by their adoptive parents, were home schooled. Authorities say the family attended services at a church the Gravelles built on their property. A large wooden cross sits before a small building that appears under construction.
Leah Hunter, a neighbor who lives two houses away from the Gravelles, said she barely knew the couple but often saw the children playing barefoot.
“I knew them as a white couple that took in black children over a period of years,” Hunter said. “The youngsters looked fine. “They hardly ever wore shoes, but I’m a country girl and for me that’s normal.” ..."
They traveled to find the neediest children, which in my words would read something more like this "they traveled to find the children they could neglect, abuse and make the most income from" But hey, that's just how I would describe it. A pot bellied pig had a bigger enclosure. Nope- don't be offended by that- after all it was to protect the
Categories: abused, caged
Comments