The woman accused of forcing her 11 adoptive children to live in filth and sleep in "cages" took the stand at a hearing for custody yesterday.
Gravelle stated that some of the kids requested to be forced to sleep within the confines of the wooden cages which surrounded their beds. Uh-hun. Of course they did.
Beneath what everyone thinks and says regarding this case is one question that had remained on my mind. According to the Gravelles, the cages were there to protect their children. To prevent them from harming themselves, and were not a form of abuse. And yet, they have recently stepped forward and indicated that they have removed the cages. If in fact the cages were the only way to protect their children, then why remove them at all?
In life, your words must be followed through by your actions. You can not stand strong defending yourself for the use of something, insisting that it is the only way- and then stop using it. That just makes people question your belief that that was the "only way".
I'm really not into getting on a rampage about people today. However, I just want to make it clear- children are not to be abused. They are to be protected, sheltered, loved and educated by the adults in their lives, and far too often these adults are forgetting that. Once that is forgotten, the only way to insure that they recall it is to correct their thinking on the matter. If you find that the kids next door seem to be troubled- step in and take actions. No child should have to live this way.
FOXNews.com - U.S. & World News - Ohio Mother Says Kids Requested Cages
Categories: abused, caged
Gravelle stated that some of the kids requested to be forced to sleep within the confines of the wooden cages which surrounded their beds. Uh-hun. Of course they did.
Sharen Gravelle testified Wednesday that she and her husband Michael built bunk beds and attached a wooden playhouse the family called a club house for some of the children's toys.
The other children then requested them and the couple felt the brightly painted beds enclosed with wood and wire helped keep them from getting into trouble at night, she said.
Beneath what everyone thinks and says regarding this case is one question that had remained on my mind. According to the Gravelles, the cages were there to protect their children. To prevent them from harming themselves, and were not a form of abuse. And yet, they have recently stepped forward and indicated that they have removed the cages. If in fact the cages were the only way to protect their children, then why remove them at all?
In life, your words must be followed through by your actions. You can not stand strong defending yourself for the use of something, insisting that it is the only way- and then stop using it. That just makes people question your belief that that was the "only way".
I'm really not into getting on a rampage about people today. However, I just want to make it clear- children are not to be abused. They are to be protected, sheltered, loved and educated by the adults in their lives, and far too often these adults are forgetting that. Once that is forgotten, the only way to insure that they recall it is to correct their thinking on the matter. If you find that the kids next door seem to be troubled- step in and take actions. No child should have to live this way.
FOXNews.com - U.S. & World News - Ohio Mother Says Kids Requested Cages
Categories: abused, caged
Comments
I have no doubt that this couple should lose these children.
But to conclude: "To prevent them from harming themselves, and were not a form of abuse. And yet, they have recently stepped forward and indicated that they have removed the cages. If in fact the cages were the only way to protect their children, then why remove them at all?" is simply circular.
The couple removed the cages because the state would never give the children back if they did not, and they want them back.
But the real travisty of this case is a state system so overwhelm with special needs cases that they would allow a single couple to take care of this many high needs children in the first place. I have no doubt after two children this couple was in way over there heads. Creative solutions were obviously not there specialty.
The other travisty is an appathic public like yourself, unwilling to put their money where there big mouths are, but seemingly happy to make sure the maxium number of high needs, low functioning children are born.
You clearly have missed my point:
First, they said they caged these children for the protection of the children. One has to wonder, if in all that time they had these kids locked away in cages, they failed to find another way to A BETTER way to "protect" them, how can we reasonably expect that they have found one now? That's IF you even begin to buy that line of bull.
Now, suddenly out of no where we hear that the children asked to be conditioned to this sort of abuse. No, after all it wasn't about protection. It was because the kids wanted it. Well, all expect the two that needed the cages.
My question has been what statement are we expected to believe? It's hard to tell.
These "parents" had problems BEFORE the first two children where even brought into the home for adoption, as records showing that their own biological children made claimes of sexual abuse.
Some people are just not fit parents, and anyone who feels that caging a child is an exceptible means of "protection", fits into the not being fit to be parents role.
I have to wonder about your parting comment, I must say it is the first time anyone has accused me of being appathic to matters concerning children.
And I personally have done nothing to ensure that the " maxium number of high needs, low functioning children are born", how you would even come to that thought is mind boggling to say the least. But, because my rather good mood has been tarnished- I'll attempt to make amends for whatever offense I seem to have committed in your eyes, by offering you five dollars to not have children. That would also settle the issue of my not "putting my money where my mouth" is, as you stated was an issue.
It makes you wonder what Tea Time Tim is putting in his tea... he even writes with a slur.
The Gravelles have a history of child abuse dating back at least 25 years. They met at gathering for people involved in child sexual abuse. Sharen Gravelle had allowed a previous partner to move back in with her and the victim after he was released from prison for molesting that victim, her biological daughter. Michael Gravelle had been ordered into a sex abuse counseling program after confessing to molesting his biological daugher.
Between them they have five biological children. But, on applications for foster care and adoption they claim to have only one child. The other four 'disappear' because each of them alleges abuse and was driven out of the home before he or she reached adulthood. Two of the adult children who say they were abused testified at trial -- for the prosecution.
The cages are just the latest twist in a long history of abuse and lies to cover it up. There's no reason to dignify Sharen Gravelle's claim the children requested to be caged. It is just another instance of prevarication.
As are the claims the children are special needs. None of the psychological ailments alleged by the Gravelles have been supported by examinations of the children since they were removed. In fact, 'reactive attachment disorder' is one of those dubious theories that experts don't support. Claiming the children have all kinds of problems was a way for the Gravelles to increase adoption subsides paid them by the state.
Instead of quibbling over this blogger's language in an entry, people should be looking at the big picture. It is hard to find one that is uglier.
I didn't miss the point at all. You actually make my point for me. Its not strange to find the couple change what they are doing given that it has been found to be a problem which is keeping them from having the children. It logical and predictable.
It doesn't address the larger issue at all though. The fact is most children in foster care aren't in good homes. There is is a reason of course most of it driven by money and comittment. Special needs children are a much larger problem for a foster parent since they require a lot of skill and creativity and outside help to raise in a fitting fashion.
Question is what are you going to do to make that work better?
Are you going to take one of these children into your own home? Become a social working and help the foster parents devolop the components they need to take on these challenging children?
These children after all are not the biological offspring of this couple, they were place by the state in their care. And that state system is over tax and underpaid which allows couples like these to obtain children they have no business caring for. And the Question remains, what are Ohioans going to do about it.
Simply Circular could be apply to the number of bad foster homes kids get ship through. Many unable to find permant resident, or an adoptive parent not to mention a good parent.
As for the Slur (aka adhom attack below) I drink sugar when I have tea, and sometimes I put Maple syrup in it. But if you think real hard you can figure out what Teatimetim actually means. But you might have to do some historical reading.
Good by and Good luck
It's good to see you use Maple syrup in your tea. I find the best comes from Quebec, but occassionally I get it from Nova Scotia. It must be Canadian though. It's far and away the best.
Anyway, should you return to read this, I think the real issue people have with your comment was the inappropriate accusation that L. is "apathetic". (At least, I assume you meant apathetic... you actually wrote "appathic".) Believe me, she is far from it. She feels deeply about these issues and does what she can to bring them to light. Besides, you don't know enough about her or what she does to make that kind of statement. It was callous, un-called for, and bad form.
By the way... I think you meant Good "Bye" and Good Luck... but that could just be the maple syrup talking...
I don't doubt her caring of the subject, that is quite apparent.