Ohio kids found in cages (1 Viewer)

[Scott L]

Did some more research, here's a pic of the father:

 

[Jimi C]

There was enough information to prove that this was not the case. They put a 1 YEAR OLD BABY in a cage. You dont actually beleive that this 1 year old baby was one of the most ferocious humans alive, do you? What could an infant do that would require it to be locked in a cage?

 

[Joseph S]

Anyone know the name of the doc the Learning Channel ran a few months ago about kids who grew up like this?

 

[Paul Padilla]

It was called "Wild Child: The Story of Feral Children" but I can't seem to find it on TLC/Discovery's website. I did find a reference to it here. http://www.feralchildren.com/en/listbooks.php?tp=6

It was really amazing, though sad. There is a point past which these childrens' brains simply can't recover and develop "normal" behaviors.

 

[MarkHastings]

DustinLC, I'm on your side. While I don't see any real reason to do what they did, we still don't know all the facts and I'm not about to load the gun until we know all the facts.

and on the flip side, why is everyone assuming the KIDS are the danger (that the parents feel is real)? Perhaps the parents were worried about themselves harming the kids, or what about wild animals?

Anyways, perhaps instead of being incredibly MEAN parents, maybe...just maybe the parents have psychological issues. If that's the case, it would be even sadder (then what they did to the kids) to put a gun to their heads.

When they prove the parents are 'sane' and did this act out of shear evil, then I will be first in line to pull the trigger on the gun, but until then, we need to wait until all the facts are present. I think that's what he was getting at. People with children are most likely quick to judge these people and kill them without any more information. People without kids are probably more rational since we would judge them based on the facts. That's why he was appauled why someone would immediately conclude them guilty and kill them over the brief news article.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

Yahoo story
If the parents were disturbed or troubled in any way my new question is, why were they given more children to damage and put in cages?

 

[chris_everett]

Most state departments dealing with foster kids are hopelessly underfunded, and don't do anywhere near the number of inspections and the like that the law "requires" them too. There are always a few bad foster parents that slip through the cracks.

Regardless, I can't think of _any_ reasonable explanation for this sort of treatment, unless the reports are greatly exaggerated (always a possibility)

Sidenote: We hear about animal "hoarders" that collect 300 cats or whatever, could the same apply to children, with a similar disorder? My understanding is that those people believe they are doing what's best for the animals involved.

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Hey, I only have three cats. :b

 

[Jeff_Standley]

I think this is probably more common than not. Im sure there are plenty of people out there that are doing what they can to help these children and are coming up short in the care department.
I dont believe this to be the case here but we will see.

 

[chris_everett]

Probably, but there's "coming up short", and there's "going off the deep end" which seems to be a deeper problem.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

Most definitely

 

[Jeff_Standley]

I heard you put them kids an cages.

 

[MarkHastings]

Unfortunately that's true. We don't know if the parents TRULY believed that what they were doing, was ok.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Um ... not quite. There are two sorts of children in this grouping. First there are feral children who have been raised by wild animals (incredibly rare) and then there are those who have been raised practically in isolation (attic children, and very rare, though commoner than feral kids).

In both cases, we cannot be sure how the children would have developed had they been reared in more typical environments. 'Well d'uh' I hear you say. What I mean is that it is possible that in some cases the kids had atypical development to begin with. For example, in several of the cases of attic children, there is reasonable evidence that there was an underlying mental handicap that would have manifested itself anyway. In the case of at least one feral child (the wild boy of Aveyron - Truffaut did a wonderful dramatisation of this in 'Wild Child' which I would urge anyone to see) there is reasonable conjectural evidence that he was autistic (and autism is congenital). So if a feral or attic child fails after rescue to develop normally, this could be due to their bizarre upbringing or it could be due to an underlying genetic problem that would have manifested itself in any environment, or it could be an interaction between genes and surroundings (i.e. a problem would have arisen, but its precise pattern is determined by method of upbringing).

However, the current case under discussion isn't an attic or feral child case. From what I can see it's only the sleeping arrangements that are under question.

 

[Jack Fanning]

These are asinine statements.

 

[MarkHastings]

Jack, instead of simply just bashing, it would most helpful to explain why.

 

[Jack Fanning]

I think it's fairly obvious. Generalizations such as these are asinine, imo.

 

[MarkHastings]

Just as your "generalization" about people without kids (voicing their opinions on the story) were assinine.

 

[Paul Padilla]

There is always that possibility particularly since autism was unknown when many of the early cases took place. I'll certainly yield to what is obviously your specialty Andrew.

However, that isn't the point of view the documentary took. It suggested that of cases stemming from either type, feral or "attic", that when the isolated children went without help beyond the age of 8 to 10 that they were unable to master things like speaking in full sentences and typical social interaction. The conclusion drawn in the documentary was that, among other things, the language center received no stimulation during the critical developmental years and it was rendered permanently hindered.

The case of "Genie" in the documentary illustrated that point. Sadly, she was taken away from her case worker and returned to her mother who had originally allowed her abuse to go on at the hands of her father since birth. Ultimately she ended up institutionalized and further isolated in anonymnity.

This case in Ohio may not be indiciative of these kinds of "attic" children, but it could easily have been the beginnings of exactly that. The oldest child cited in the article is 14. How long has that child been kept in those conditions? We don't know yet, and that's the problem I have with the story itself. It gives us just enough sensational information to evoke these emotional responses. The parents had not been charged...but the extremely important "yet" was left to our imaginations which makes us (if only figurtively) shout, "WTF do you mean they haven't been charged?!!!" They will certainly be held accountable, but the news agencies will be happy to let us stew in our outrage until details are released.

 

[Jack Fanning]

So, you're gonna stand by these statements?