Bricktown Shooter: parents arrested dozens of times

[PennyQuilts]

Since ancient times, bread and circuses have been used to pacify the masses. Welfare = bread. Maybe daytime TV is the other part. Consider what happens when you actually put someone in a position where they have no skill set to get a job, no life skills of note and have two real choices--steal or starve. That's not a viable scenario for domestic tranquility and such. Also, consider that felons don't exactly have an easy time finding work.

We're always going to have a criminal element. You can't deal with it in a kneejerk/irrational manner. The real key is to identify issues with problem families and to get in there and either remove the kids or solve those families' problems.

I'd never, ever, ever heard that bread was given to stop crime - and I taught history (although not ancient history). Perhaps I just missed that. I've heard about the circuses to entertain the masses, certainly. But most of the time the laws against theft were savage and that is the way most ancient (and many modern) cultures addressed thievery.
But that being said, I don't disagree that family problems have to be addressed in order for it to be safe for children to remain there. My experience might not reflect yours, Mid, but there wasn't a high success rate to "solve family problems" from the outside. In the beginning I used to pat myself on the back when we made progress but over the years I came to realize that the real work was almost always done by the families. The best work I ever did was point them in the right direction - or recommend a child be removed.
But I agree that family problems tend to be systemic issues that need to be addressed if they are going to be safe for children

[Midtowner]

I'd never, ever, ever heard that bread was given to stop crime - and I taught history (although not ancient history). Perhaps I just missed that. I've heard about the circuses to entertain the masses, certainly. But most of the time the laws against theft were savage and that is the way most ancient (and many modern) cultures addressed thievery.
But that being said, I don't disagree that family problems have to be addressed in order for it to be safe for children to remain there. My experience might not reflect yours, Mid, but there wasn't a high success rate to "solve family problems" from the outside. In the beginning I used to pat myself on the back when we made progress but over the years I came to realize that the real work was almost always done by the families. The best work I ever did was point them in the right direction - or recommend a child be removed.
But I agree that family problems tend to be systemic issues that need to be addressed if they are going to be safe for children

Well that's pretty much how we do things in Oklahoma. Trouble is that when you have horribly incompetent caseworkers and judges who just go along with whatever DHS is doing (not all, but some), those wins are few and far between. The problem, simply, is money. Not sure if it was this thread, but I showed the real statistical differences between states which spend big bucks on social services and education vs. Oklahoma.

It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

[PennyQuilts]

It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

I absolutely agree with that. But my point is that all too often, all the counseling and services that could be offered are to no avail so long as kids are left in dysfunctional family systems. Extended families taking them in is relatively inexpensive (for the state). Other options of removal are incredibly expensive and, unfortunately, good foster homes are few and far between. Counseling services tend to work better when the kids are living in a safe place with some structure where they are allowed to be children - especially with family members able and willing to provide structure and support. I regularly saw kids thrive, even excel, once they were placed someplace safe - only to backslide into tragedy upon being "reunited" with dysfunctional families. Happened more often than it didn't.

Keeping them in chaotic homes and expecting for counseling several hours a week (at best) to turn the tide is p*ssing in the wind, most of the time. At least short term when so many of them get into trouble with the law, experiment with drugs/alcohol, drop out of school, pregnant, etc. By the time the lessons learned by the counselors bear fruit in their early to mid twenties, it is often too late. Counselors can provide a lot of insight and they can help a child deal with abuse, neglect and other trauma. I agree with that. I approve of using them and I've seen them make wonderful strides. But they aren't parents.

The nicest kid in the world, even one not exposed to a great deal of emotional trauma, is still apt to act like a dumb teenager and when there is no competent parent to parent them, down they typically go. A counselor can help them deal with a dysfunctional parent but they can't transform a typical teenager into a responsible adult. And if they could, the damage done to the teenager who was forced to be the responsible adult presiding over a dysfunctional family creates its own set of heartbreak.

[Roadhawg]

It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

I agree with this as well.

[onthestrip]

Well that's pretty much how we do things in Oklahoma. Trouble is that when you have horribly incompetent caseworkers and judges who just go along with whatever DHS is doing (not all, but some), those wins are few and far between. The problem, simply, is money. Not sure if it was this thread, but I showed the real statistical differences between states which spend big bucks on social services and education vs. Oklahoma.

It's a question of investing in kids or criminals, as in whether we want to pay now to help kids become productive members of society or pay later to have them be wards of the Dept. of Corrections. I choose kids.

Well too bad most Okies don't go along with this. It's seems most from here just expect every child, no matter how bad their living circumstances are, to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, raise themselves, work, then put themselves through college and become somebody. Many people who say this always seem to forget the many opportunities they were given as a child when plenty of others aren't given anything but dysfunction.

[PennyQuilts]

Well too bad most Okies don't go along with this. It's seems most from here just expect every child, no matter how bad their living circumstances are, to pull themselves up by the bootstraps, raise themselves, work, then put themselves through college and become somebody. Many people who say this always seem to forget the many opportunities they were given as a child when plenty of others aren't given anything but dysfunction.

Which only goes to support the notion that it comes down to family. We can argue back and forth about what can be done, insist Oklahoma is just backward, etc., but the truth is, kids from these types of dysfunctional backgrounds aren't consistently doing better, anywhere. Not here, not in DC, not in California, not in Detroit, not in Miami - nowhere. If someone had a magic bullet to make the difference beyond trying to expose kids to strong mentors and counseling, they'd all be doing it. Some kids just wonderfully with counseling and mentors if that is the type of problem they have that lends itself to it. But a kid with feral parents living in a feral neighborhood full of crime and poverty who doesn't appreciate school and who is allowed to run the streets with thugs isn't going to be saved by counseling. The decisions he is making are logical, given his reality.

[Midtowner]

I absolutely agree with that. But my point is that all too often, all the counseling and services that could be offered are to no avail so long as kids are left in dysfunctional family systems.

So aside from foster care and adoption or kinship, what options are there? Group homes seem to be an emerging trend in permanency, but outside of temporary placement, we really aren't using those here. I really hate to see kinship and non-kinship foster homes being used in cases which are definitely headed towards reunification because I'd like to see those homes being used for more permanent solutions for other children whose parents are headed towards termination.

I think there are some solutions here, but the problem with these solutions is money. I agree, get the kids out of the chaotic environments where they are surrounded every day with inappropriate sexual relations of adults, drugs, undernourishment, etc., and into placements where we can really concentrate services, provide adequate supervision and guidance, etc.

We have an entire political party which has developed a religious orthodoxy around smaller government and smaller taxes. Well, the majority of those folks in that party are white, middle class folks who have never had any sort of contact whatsoever with the child welfare system or the criminal system. They're good people, but in this aspect, they are wholly ignorant of the fact that we have to either undertake a major, expensive social engineering project which is not aimed at merely placating the underclass, but at investing in the next generation so that we can break the cycle of poverty. Otherwise, we are heading towards having a large and dependent social class in the U.S., which is something no society in the history of the world has existed for very long without some serious civil strife.

[PennyQuilts]

So aside from foster care and adoption or kinship, what options are there? Group homes seem to be an emerging trend in permanency, but outside of temporary placement, we really aren't using those here. I really hate to see kinship and non-kinship foster homes being used in cases which are definitely headed towards reunification because I'd like to see those homes being used for more permanent solutions for other children whose parents are headed towards termination.

I think there are some solutions here, but the problem with these solutions is money. I agree, get the kids out of the chaotic environments where they are surrounded every day with inappropriate sexual relations of adults, drugs, undernourishment, etc., and into placements where we can really concentrate services, provide adequate supervision and guidance, etc.

We have an entire political party which has developed a religious orthodoxy around smaller government and smaller taxes. Well, the majority of those folks in that party are white, middle class folks who have never had any sort of contact whatsoever with the child welfare system or the criminal system. They're good people, but in this aspect, they are wholly ignorant of the fact that we have to either undertake a major, expensive social engineering project which is not aimed at merely placating the underclass, but at investing in the next generation so that we can break the cycle of poverty. Otherwise, we are heading towards having a large and dependent social class in the U.S., which is something no society in the history of the world has existed for very long without some serious civil strife.

Somethings simply can't be fixed by paying someone to do something and years of experience tell me without the slightest hesitation that we aren't going to break the cycle of poverty. It isn't going to happen on any grand scale or even any modest scale. We tend to treat this as an economic issue or some sort of mental health problem. But that isn't it. It is about the lack of basic parenting. That is because civilizing children is what parents do. Absent parents (or parent substitutes), it doesn't happen.

Given the breakdown of so many communities, I honestly wish there was some sort of governmental program that could substitute for parents but there isn't. The best the government can offer is something to supplement a family that needs help. But there is a list of services provided families, regardless of whether they are apt to help and it is draining the system dry of resources. No matter how bad a family is - short of going to jail, they are ordered to go to counseling, for example. Often, it is like forcing someone who wants out of a marriage and has emotionally moved on to attend marriage counseling. There is a list of things you order families to do that rarely changes unless it is to add something to it to address a specific problem. I had a social worker refer to it as the Trifecta - Parenting classes, counseling and anger management. One size fits all.

Parenting classes are helpful, IMO, for the right situation. Even most situations. And family counseling is really the only way to go if you are keeping families together because it is always - always - a system problem. But plenty of "parents" are just like the ones in the Bricktown/Thunder Alley case. All the services in the world aren't going to help them. Their idea of family has next to no comparison to what most of us think of when we think of family, no matter what people want to believe. If that weren't so, you wouldn't have a nonpsychotic child spraying a crowd with bullets. That family went through the system and all it had to offer. And guess what? He was still with them and he did his best to kill strangers for reasons that make no sense at all.

The only thing I see that would seriously lessen the tragedy of what is happening to so many children is to back off the unification efforts to such a degree and quit subsidizing animals posing as parents. All we are doing is trapping kids in environments that will raise them to be criminals and poor people. Mid, we may disagree on this but I want you to know that I appreciate that you want to help them. The difference between you and me is not that I don't care, too, but that based on my experience, I have far less faith in the system AND I have no illusions that the government can fix this. Not to be churchy, but the breakdown the family is more about relationships with family members and their community. It isn't about money, fundamentally. Plenty of new immigrants are dirt poor but their children aren't necessarily turning into criminals unless they let them run wild. Except in cases where families are dealing with mental illness, specific relationship problems or young parents who are just clueless, I honestly think a preacher would be more help than the government - and I'm not all that big on preachers.

[onthestrip]

Penny, as others had mentioned, your posts are quite long. I know you have many opinions and some things aren't explainable in 2 sentences but I'd suggest trying to shorten them. I, and I'm sure others, usually skip over your posts when I see 4 paragraphs. Again, just a suggestion

[Midtowner]

Reading over some of the research with regards to permanency in group homes where services can be concentrated and children really supervised, I think you may be wrong Penny. Facilities which house 50-80 children in cottage units of 6-8 children with "house parents" who live with the children 5 days per week and provide parenting have been fairly successful both here and abroad. We all know the simple solution is good families, but let's be honest about things, there aren't that many to go around.

[Kaye]

I agree that we must invest in the kids in order to save as many as we can. The effort is worth it. That said, it's an uphill battle. And I certainly don't think we'll ever be able to really solve the problems.

PennyQuilts is right. It all starts with the family. And too often lifestyles that we would consider horrendous are for at-risk kids normal. Growing up if your daddy goes to work everyday, that's normal. If he goes to jail, that's normal.

[PennyQuilts]

Reading over some of the research with regards to permanency in group homes where services can be concentrated and children really supervised, I think you may be wrong Penny. Facilities which house 50-80 children in cottage units of 6-8 children with "house parents" who live with the children 5 days per week and provide parenting have been fairly successful both here and abroad. We all know the simple solution is good families, but let's be honest about things, there aren't that many to go around.

Yes, I agree that they've frequently been successful and I really like those types of facilities for the right child. Unfortunately, there aren't that many of these types of facilities available (and just try finding a place for a pregnant teen!). They are incredibly expensive and it is hard to get kids in. The cost per child in the local one we used back in Virginia was about $85,000.00 a year. Putting all the kids who should be removed from crappy homes in these types of places isn't possible - there just isn't the money for it or enough facilities.

As an aside, I found that there are two main types of residential homes. The first is based on a case manager model and the second is more like the one you described. My experience, was that the most troubled kids, including the delinquents, did much better in the case manager style homes. They weren't trying to be their parents. They were trying to give them intense therapy and structure. My hardest cases (other than the ones with serious mental illness or drug abuse problem - they need a different type of care) tended to do quite well in this type.

The foster home types simply couldn't handle them - they didn't have the training needed and they often lacked real support by the parents. And they had a different type of child. Foster care group homes such as you described, candidly, was the place we put a lot of essentially good kids whose parents couldn't be bothered and as a result, the kids got into trouble. The kid whose main problem was that she had wretched parents often did well in this type of foster care home. If it were up to me, we'd have far more of these types of homes. Traditional foster care homes vary dramatically in terms of safety and consistency. I'd certainly rather them go with a family member but if that isn't possible, for the kids who are just adrift with crappy parents, I personally like the structure that comes with a group type foster care home such as what you described.

[Dubya61]

We have an entire political party which has developed a religious orthodoxy around smaller government and smaller taxes.

Midtowner, please forgive me for editing your comments in this reply, but I agree with the bulk of your post. So with the part I left in my reply I would add that I think we should be voting and governing differently on the different levels. I happen to harbor a strong libertarian tendency, but I would only like that philosophy applied to the national level. I happen to harbor socialistic tendencies, as well that I would like to see applied to the local level. I want the state government to work supporting both. Sadly, we focus on the president of the nation for all our political energies when we should be exercising our political and governance desires much more locally to get more bang for our political / governance buck. I can't imagine that we want the solutions to all our problems provided by the folks in D.C., painting us with the same brush that coats Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, NYC, and other commuinties large and small. We Oklahomans generally do that very well, rarely being content to vote into local, state or national offices people cut from the same cloth.

[PennyQuilts]

Penny, as others had mentioned, your posts are quite long. I know you have many opinions and some things aren't explainable in 2 sentences but I'd suggest trying to shorten them. I, and I'm sure others, usually skip over your posts when I see 4 paragraphs. Again, just a suggestion

I'll work on it, thanks.

[PennyQuilts]

Midtowner, please forgive me for editing your comments in this reply, but I agree with the bulk of your post. So with the part I left in my reply I would add that I think we should be voting and governing differently on the different levels. I happen to harbor a strong libertarian tendency, but I would only like that philosophy applied to the national level. I happen to harbor socialistic tendencies, as well that I would like to see applied to the local level. I want the state government to work supporting both. Sadly, we focus on the president of the nation for all our political energies when we should be exercising our political and governance desires much more locally to get more bang for our political / governance buck. I can't imagine that we want the solutions to all our problems provided by the folks in D.C., painting us with the same brush that coats Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, NYC, and other commuinties large and small. We Oklahomans generally do that very well, rarely being content to vote into local, state or national offices people cut from the same cloth.

I appreciate what you said. I feel much the same.

[Midtowner]

Midtowner, please forgive me for editing your comments in this reply, but I agree with the bulk of your post. So with the part I left in my reply I would add that I think we should be voting and governing differently on the different levels. I happen to harbor a strong libertarian tendency, but I would only like that philosophy applied to the national level. I happen to harbor socialistic tendencies, as well that I would like to see applied to the local level. I want the state government to work supporting both. Sadly, we focus on the president of the nation for all our political energies when we should be exercising our political and governance desires much more locally to get more bang for our political / governance buck. I can't imagine that we want the solutions to all our problems provided by the folks in D.C., painting us with the same brush that coats Seattle, San Francisco, San Diego, Miami, Dallas, Chicago, NYC, and other commuinties large and small. We Oklahomans generally do that very well, rarely being content to vote into local, state or national offices people cut from the same cloth.

Child welfare is definitely a local issue and should be under the purview of state governments. The only federal oversight would be the Dept. of Justice who can pursue federal civil rights actions in cases where the system is a systemic failure.

I'm not suggesting Congress do anything at all. We have a state and local government of a bunch of stark raving lunatic conservatives who absolutely will not raise taxes to fund something even when it is funding which is the exact problem. Since Oklahoma has a balanced budget amendment, we actually do have to pay for everything our government does as it's done.

As far as Penny stating $85K/year as the cost for one child in a residential group home, I really hate when people come up with numbers like that without having a clue as to how that number came into being. Most likely, that number comes from someone who is arguing that despite the efficacy of these placements, they cost too much to be feasible on a grand scale. These calculations are probably including infrastructure costs, which disappear once the infrastructure is paid for, probably fail to recognize the efficiency benefit of being able to provide services to several children at the same physical plant, probably fail to recognize the fact that the expenses now in raising these children, in studies, would be justified by the positive outcomes we'll see by these children not going to prison once they grow up.

Dubya, I'm not sure what you're saying regarding not painting with a broad brush. It's not like we Okies are a different species than those in what I'm guessing you're thinking are more liberal cities. Our children are basically the same as their children and having a different longitude/latitude isn't really a valid reason to not try to learn from what other states are doing. That's the laboratory of Democracy. In business, if you don't pay attention to your competitors, what do they call you? I'm guessing they call you stupid. Let's not be stupid. If what they're doing works and what we're doing doesn't and a big factor there appears to be funding, how can funding not be a problem?

As a state, we have to decide what matters. I think child welfare and education really matter. It's an outrage that our taxpayers aren't willing to pony up what it costs to have a decent system.

[PennyQuilts]

As far as Penny stating $85K/year as the cost for one child in a residential group home, I really hate when people come up with numbers like that without having a clue as to how that number came into being. Most likely, that number comes from someone who is arguing that despite the efficacy of these placements, they cost too much to be feasible on a grand scale. These calculations are probably including infrastructure costs, which disappear once the infrastructure is paid for, probably fail to recognize the efficiency benefit of being able to provide services to several children at the same physical plant, probably fail to recognize the fact that the expenses now in raising these children, in studies, would be justified by the positive outcomes we'll see by these children not going to prison once they grow up.

Er - this was how much it cost, Mid. I used to bust my butt to try to find scholarships and it was routine for the judges who ordered kids into those facilities to tell them that they were fortunate to go and that this is how much it cost, per year. They'd tell them not to blow their chance because other kids didn't get the chance due to lack of funding. FAPT is the statutory means to approve funding for services and I would routinely have to argue to the FAPT that this particular child was a good candidate to justify the expense. They had paperwork with the expense sheet and everything...

[Midtowner]

Er - this was how much it cost, Mid. I used to bust my butt to try to find scholarships and it was routine for the judges who ordered kids into those facilities to tell them that they were fortunate to go and that this is how much it cost, per year. They'd tell them not to blow their chance because other kids didn't get the chance due to lack of funding. FAPT is the statutory means to approve funding for services and I would routinely have to argue to the FAPT that this particular child was a good candidate to justify the expense. They had paperwork with the expense sheet and everything...

Any link as to the methodology to come up with that number?

That said, if that's what it costs and the costs can be reasonable justified, let's build these things in Oklahoma.

[PennyQuilts]

Any link as to the methodology to come up with that number?

That said, if that's what it costs and the costs can be reasonable justified, let's build these things in Oklahoma.

No link but I worked with them for years and, as I said, it was well known in the area. To get a child into one of them was considered quite a feat due to the cost.

Mid, the problem is that we can't afford them in any great number That is what I've been saying to you. They are astronomically expensive. Do a google of residential facilities - there are even some Washington Post articles that reference the costs to the communities, generally you have to read the articles to get a feel for it. The facilities typically don't advertize their rates. Moreover, these are generally private, nonprofit facilities that have full time staff dedicated to fund raising and are usually of a religious bent. The government typically doesn't run them - they contract with them. In fact, due to budget problems, in Northern Virginia, for a time, they shut down the publically run case manager group homes and began contracting with the foster care type group homes to try to save money. The nonprofits had pitched a "deal" to accept some of the group home kids thinking it would be easy money. It was a complete disaster all the way around - they ended up shutting down the case manager type group homes and I was constantly in court with my kids facing assault charges when they would attack staff. They just didn't know how to handle them.

And btw, one of the things I ran into, constantly, was parents on the public dole who tried to block getting their kids in because they lost their benefits if the kids didn't live with them. They've rather their kids live in poverty than nice places if it meant the checks stopped. Enough to make your blood boil. As I said, those types of homes do pretty well with kids who are just wild kids with rotten parents. They don't do so well with kids who have moved on down the thug route.

[Midtowner]

No link but I worked with them for years and, as I said, it was well known in the area. To get a child into one of them was considered quite a feat due to the cost.

Mid, the problem is that we can't afford them in any great number That is what I've been saying to you. They are astronomically expensive. Do a google of residential facilities - there are even some Washington Post articles that reference the costs to the communities, generally you have to read the articles to get a feel for it. The facilities typically don't advertize their rates. Moreover, these are generally private, nonprofit facilities that have full time staff dedicated to fund raising and are usually of a religious bent. The government typically doesn't run them - they contract with them. In fact, due to budget problems, in Northern Virginia, for a time, they shut down the publically run case manager group homes and began contracting with the foster care type group homes to try to save money. The nonprofits had pitched a "deal" to accept some of the group home kids thinking it would be easy money. It was a complete disaster all the way around - they ended up shutting down the case manager type group homes and I was constantly in court with my kids facing assault charges when they would attack staff. They just didn't know how to handle them.

If we can afford 7 billion dollar warships which the Chinese have already joked they could take out with a fleet of explosive-laden fishing boats (or just one torpedo), then we can afford to take proper care of the most vulnerable and needy children in society. Let's say Congress took the cost of the new Zumwalt class destroyers, about $21BN for the current fleet and instead directed that money to child welfare.

We can afford it. It's just that our Congress is bought and paid for by lobbyists for various industries and needy children don't have lobbyists.

With the expansion of poverty and the permanent underclass, the real question should be can we afford not to do something like this?

[PennyQuilts]

If we can afford 7 billion dollar warships which the Chinese have already joked they could take out with a fleet of explosive-laden fishing boats (or just one torpedo), then we can afford to take proper care of the most vulnerable and needy children in society. Let's say Congress took the cost of the new Zumwalt class destroyers, about $21BN for the current fleet and instead directed that money to child welfare.

We can afford it. It's just that our Congress is bought and paid for by lobbyists for various industries and needy children don't have lobbyists.

With the expansion of poverty and the permanent underclass, the real question should be can we afford not to do something like this?

I'll just have to disagree, Mid. Having been in the trenches, for years, I found out just how many needy kids are out there. It is a never ending raging torrent of misery that continues to increase as families fall apart. I used to talk to the old timers who'd been doing this kind of work for decades and they tell me that things changed about 15 years ago and these kids simply aren't the same kids they used to see - they are often completely feral and the services aimed to deal with kids who have been victims don't work so well with kids who have turned predatory. Plus, a lot of doctors are quick to prescribe medication intended to work short term to help a child settle down and behavior therapy to take place - but the parents aren't able to change and tend to just keep them on the meds with the doctor's permission. So we often have drugged up kids - drugged by parents who don't know how to deal with them, otherwise.

Moreover, it isn't like a state could have 2 - 3 of those facilities and it would be fine. Like most foster care, they are really geared towards non violent offenders. Once a child goes down that ruiness path they no longer meet the criteria for most of those types of programs. Heart breaking.

[Dubya61]

If we can afford 7 billion dollar warships which the Chinese have already joked they could take out with a fleet of explosive-laden fishing boats (or just one torpedo), then we can afford to take proper care of the most vulnerable and needy children in society. Let's say Congress took the cost of the new Zumwalt class destroyers, about $21BN for the current fleet and instead directed that money to child welfare.

We can afford it. It's just that our Congress is bought and paid for by lobbyists for various industries and needy children don't have lobbyists.

With the expansion of poverty and the permanent underclass, the real question should be can we afford not to do something like this?

You're confusing national and state issues/monies

[Midtowner]

You're confusing national and state issues/monies

A very large portion of our child welfare budget comes from federal matching dollars or federal grants. On a national level, we are wasting money on ridiculous weapons systems we'll never need when that money could be sent to the states to encourage funding of child welfare by providing matching dollars.