December 06, 2005

Kids in Cages

Back on September 9, social workers and law enforcement removed 11 adopted children from their home when it was discovered that their adopted "parents" kept them in CAGES.  This is how the social worker described these "cage-like enclosures" during the hearing today:

"I saw wooden structures that had a solid wooden piece for a door, an alarm to left of the opening. There was a small handle on it. They were piled one on top of another. They looked like a kennel," said Jo Ellen Johnson, of Huron County Children and Family Services.

She also said cages with alarms and locks are not appropriate for children. 

Folks - this is a CUSTODY HEARING.  This isn't a criminal trial as these two miscreants have not been charged with anything...yet (and that's a very skeptical yet, I might add).  These people adopted 11 special needs children and because they couldn't handle the challenges these children's disorders presented, they chose to stick them, ages 1-14, in cages.  CAGES!  They aren't "cage-like enclosures" or merely "enclosures" as their attorney would attempt to tell you.  They are CAGES...containment designed so the child can't get out.

The custody hearing will determine if the children were abused or neglected, Cleveland TV station WEWS reported.

Michael and Sharen Gravelle said before court that they were optimistic about getting custody of their children back.

For the love of God - they shouldn't get their children back.  We have people in DC worried about Gitmo and the conditions for vile terrorists who would love to see us sizzle at sunset but someone is still entertaining the idea that it ISN'T abuse or neglect to lock a child in a cage?

The Gravelles have said they adopted children with special needs and behavioral problems, and built what they have described as enclosures with alarms where the children could sleep for their own protection.

The Gravelles have said the children have health and behavioral problems such as fetal alcohol syndrome and pica, a disorder in which children eat nonfood items such as rocks or dirt.

Yes, these disorders are very challenging.  My mother worked with special needs adults and children for years and saw her fair share of both disorders.  They are challenging to deal with - even in a medical institution.  But even in the most sterile halls of hospitals and institutions that Mom worked in, I never ONCE saw a cage.  Those with these syndromes and disorders needed a higher level of monitoring and observation in order to protect them from their environment and their disorder.  NOT a cage.  While it is entirely possible that this couple felt they were doing great deeds by adopting these children, they obviously didn't think about what they were doing.  And because they didn't think through what a challenge one special needs child would be in terms of care, let alone 10 more, who pays the price?  The kids, of course. 

Discretion and common sense don't seem to be at the top of the list when a couple decides "hey, let's build some 'enclosures' for them to live in...wow, that will solve everything!"  My heart aches at the thought of a fire breaking out in their home.  Those kids would have potentially been trapped in cages without a fighting chance to get out...how safe is THAT?!?!?!

Lastly, the thing that really got to me was the pictures their attorney released, showing how "happy" the children are (you can see the photos on the article I linked to above).  Every picture was one that showed them at family functions, the holidays, special events, etc.  And of course they were happy - they weren't trapped in their cages!

===========

Update: Just saw this article on Fox News.  Talk about blood boiling.  If the story is accurate, this was brought to the attention of child welfare workers 2 years ago and because the parents weren't cooperative, a full investigation was never pursued.  If that is the case, they are almost as guilty as the parents of neglect in my opinion. 

But this....this makes my blood boil:

Insurance agent Edward Clunk said that he visited the couple in summer 2004 to sell them policies. He observed two children — one sleeping in a cubbyhole and another in what he described as a cage.

"I've been in thousands of homes. ... This was something just a little bit out of the ordinary," Clunk said, adding he did not file a report because he did not believe the children were being abused by the Gravelles.

"I thought it was very admirable for them to adopt children of that nature that nobody wanted," he said.

Admirable that they adopted them?  Perhaps.  Admirable that they would keep those adopted kids in cages?  Hardly.  ...and didn't file a report because he didn't think they were being abused or neglected?  For real?  Get a clue!