Jennifer Crumbley found guilty. Hope this opens the door for prosecuting parents for their children's violent crimes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

She was so worn out and checked out that she had plenty of time to create a log in on an adultery dating site, to support a long-time affair with one guy, which scheduling hookups on the app with other men (so she was cheating on her husband and her AP). She tried to argue that she only arranged her hookups while the shooter was in school. She also was so worn out that she made time to go out and tend to horses (horses are not a low-maintenance pass time) and go riding. She had plenty of time to go out drinking. Since they moved to Michigan when the shooter was in elementary school, they Crumbleys would routinely leave him home alone without a phone so they could go out to eat and drink. For hours on end. Enough that the neighbor called CPS on them more than once. The neighbor started calling CPS when he was 8 years old and he was 15 at the time of the shooting. So she had been neglecting him for 7+ YEARS.

She was not so worn out that she could develop a significantly long rap sheet of crimes and misdemeanors.

As for her job, the boss said the workplace was flexible. He said that she could have taken him out of school and brought him back to the office and that others had brougtht their kids to work. She could have taken the day off. And she admitted on the stand under oath that she would have been able to call in for the afternoon and go home with her son, but she didn't want to.

How about she put some of the time and energy she spent into her swinging lifestyle into her husband, son and home?

Also, although the jury was not supposed to use this as part of their rationale for conviction, the fact is that the parents were amazingly selfish. When the warrants for their arrests went out, they abandoned their son and fled. They took out $6000 cash, bought new clothing, burner phones, found a hideout, hid their car and went into hiding. They claim they were preparing to turn themselves in the next morning, but that doesn't explain buying enough clothes and food for a couple of weeks. That doesn't explain the need for two sets of burner phones.

PP, did you miss the bolded above?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

Did your parents buy your brother a gun when he was 15? The Crumbleys did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still dumbfounded how the murderer's parents were not charged i the Sandy Hook shooting. It's infuriating.

These shootings nearly never occur in a vacuum, and both parents are responsible for not taking warning signs seriously.

So many parents abdicate responsibility by thinking their son could never go these lengths. The denial is massive, and I'm sure there are some parents on DCUM who are denial about their kids issues.

The shooter in Sandy Hook killed his mom first. He was, also, not a minor. That was such a horrible day.

You are right he was 20. His father was still alive when the shooting happened and he should have been held civilly accountable. He knew what was going on in that house. No excuses. The mother got what she deserved. Zero empathy for them only for the living brother of Adam.

Also, any supporter of Alex Jones can F off. You complete and utter subhuman monsters.

Virginia Tech shooter was not a minor either however I firmly believe his parents, VT and Fairfax counties schools all should have been held civilly accountable as well.

Personal responsiblity is one thing for an adult neither of these cases happened in a vaccum. Both could have been prevented.

He hadn't been a student at Fairfax county schools for years. How long is someone supposed to be "accountable" for a crime they did not commit?

Oh damn, the VT shooter stalked several women. Why am I not at all surprised?

As for your question, maybe there can be a statute of limitations on the non parental parties - but not the parental parties.

Absolutely ridiculous. Once people turn 18 they are in charge of their own lives legally unless for some reason cooerced and not of present mind. Sorry you don't understand the law. People are not responsible for others for eternity or even a day after age 18.

Sorry for you, you are making excuses for this killer. Fact remains, if someone is deemed a threat to themselves or others, in most states, they can be committed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm still dumbfounded how the murderer's parents were not charged i the Sandy Hook shooting. It's infuriating.

These shootings nearly never occur in a vacuum, and both parents are responsible for not taking warning signs seriously.

So many parents abdicate responsibility by thinking their son could never go these lengths. The denial is massive, and I'm sure there are some parents on DCUM who are denial about their kids issues.

The shooter in Sandy Hook killed his mom first. He was, also, not a minor. That was such a horrible day.

You are right he was 20. His father was still alive when the shooting happened and he should have been held civilly accountable. He knew what was going on in that house. No excuses. The mother got what she deserved. Zero empathy for them only for the living brother of Adam.

Also, any supporter of Alex Jones can F off. You complete and utter subhuman monsters.

Virginia Tech shooter was not a minor either however I firmly believe his parents, VT and Fairfax counties schools all should have been held civilly accountable as well.

Personal responsiblity is one thing for an adult neither of these cases happened in a vaccum. Both could have been prevented.

He hadn't been a student at Fairfax county schools for years. How long is someone supposed to be "accountable" for a crime they did not commit?

Oh damn, the VT shooter stalked several women. Why am I not at all surprised?

As for your question, maybe there can be a statute of limitations on the non parental parties - but not the parental parties.

Absolutely ridiculous. Once people turn 18 they are in charge of their own lives legally unless for some reason cooerced and not of present mind. Sorry you don't understand the law. People are not responsible for others for eternity or even a day after age 18.

Sorry for you, you are making excuses for this killer. Fact remains, if someone is deemed a threat to themselves or others, in most states, they can be committed.

Let's say that deeming someone a threat to themselves or others is not as straightforward as you think. Not to be repetitive, but Google Creigh Deeds. He is lucky to be here and, PP, he took all the steps you think can be done.

[Anonymous]

If the Crumbleys were either checked out or worn out and were not willing to be attentive parents to their son, then buying their son a gun and then not even making basic protections to secure the gun is about as negligent and irresponsible as can be. If they were checked out or worn out and did not want to pay attention to their son, then they had options. They could not get their son a gun until he was 18 and an adult. They could get the gun, but do basic security to ensure that he did not have access to the gun when he wasn't supposed to. Remember that the gun lock was found by authoritizes still in the original plastic wrapping and preset to the default combination. So, it had never been used. Neither the gun nor the ammunition recently purchased at the gun range were secured. Even despite all of this, if after the meeting at the school, either parent could have stopped at home to check on the gun that was drawn on the very disturbed picture they were shown, was still there.

There were many ways that they were negligent. They had many opportunities to do something to stop this tragedy both before and after the day of the murders. And the fact that they did none of these, show that they were criminally negligent.

Jennifer Crumbley was correctly convicted. It would be a huge miscarriage of justice if the man who bought and provided the gun, failed to secure the gun, failed to heed his son's depression and mental crisis, failed to care enough to pay attention to the picture and check on the gun, and failed to take that morning's warning about the photo seriously, was not also found criminally negligent in the murders of these children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

People who don't have to experience the mental health treatment world also don't understand that it's full of messed up people treating messed up people with no standards and many people actually do worse in care than without it. It's not a panacea by any means to receive mental health care. There are plenty of adults who received mental health care as children and as adults who still go on to commit crimes.

Doesn't mean you should basically abandon your kids and do nothing.

+1 !!

[Anonymous]

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/14/1238641709/james-crumbley-guilty-oxford-school-shooting-involuntary-manslaughter

Frher guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

They were found guilty because they were so negligent and enabled his behavior by taking him to a shooting range, buying him a gun, not locking it up. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to watch Jennifer Crumley‘s trial because it really showed you why the jurors voted guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the guilty sentence was deserved. I live in DC. I would like to see parents of all the children carjacking and murdering also charged. The only hope of the U.S. is for us to demand better, more stable, more engaged parenting. Schools can't solve it all.

I would like to see the children carjacking and murdering have parents rather struggling single mother, grandmother, or aunts who are pushed into taking children they are too tired or otherwise overwhelmed to care for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

They were found guilty because they were so negligent and enabled his behavior by taking him to a shooting range, buying him a gun, not locking it up. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to watch Jennifer Crumley‘s trial because it really showed you why the jurors voted guilty.

The bolded is a lot more significant than this small aside makes it out to be.

The family owned a gun safe. Combination was still set to factory default 0-0-0. Father put two other guns in that gun safe, but not the one that was "gifted" to the son. That one he hid under some clothes in his dresser. The ammunition was also not stored in the gun safe, but stored under other clothes in the same dresser. They were also give a trigger lock cable for the gun when they purchased it. The DA showed that it takes about 10 seconds to thread the trigger lock through the trigger and lock it. The cable lock was still in the bag that it came in and was not kept where the guns were kept. So, it was trivially easy for the gun to be secured in multiple ways. At any point after the gun was at the gun range, they could have secured the gun. In fact, it was almost easier to secure it properly than to find an unsecured hiding place under clothes in the dresser, but the father still did not secure the gun.

Also, knowing that his son had a gun like the one in the drawing, at no time did it occur to the father that the gun was unsecured, easily accessible and that if he wasn't going to take his son out of school that day like he should, that he should go and check to see if the unsecured gun was still in the hiding spot. He didn't think about this until after he heard that there was a shooting at the school. And the fact that immediately after he heard about the shooting, he texted that he thought his son might be the shooter, shows that he did think of these things, but he didn't care to do anything about them after the disturbing meeting at school, only after he heard some people had been shot. This is the epitome of negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

They were found guilty because they were so negligent and enabled his behavior by taking him to a shooting range, buying him a gun, not locking it up. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to watch Jennifer Crumley‘s trial because it really showed you why the jurors voted guilty.

The bolded is a lot more significant than this small aside makes it out to be.

The family owned a gun safe. Combination was still set to factory default 0-0-0. Father put two other guns in that gun safe, but not the one that was "gifted" to the son. That one he hid under some clothes in his dresser. The ammunition was also not stored in the gun safe, but stored under other clothes in the same dresser. They were also give a trigger lock cable for the gun when they purchased it. The DA showed that it takes about 10 seconds to thread the trigger lock through the trigger and lock it. The cable lock was still in the bag that it came in and was not kept where the guns were kept. So, it was trivially easy for the gun to be secured in multiple ways. At any point after the gun was at the gun range, they could have secured the gun. In fact, it was almost easier to secure it properly than to find an unsecured hiding place under clothes in the dresser, but the father still did not secure the gun.

Also, knowing that his son had a gun like the one in the drawing, at no time did it occur to the father that the gun was unsecured, easily accessible and that if he wasn't going to take his son out of school that day like he should, that he should go and check to see if the unsecured gun was still in the hiding spot. He didn't think about this until after he heard that there was a shooting at the school. And the fact that immediately after he heard about the shooting, he texted that he thought his son might be the shooter, shows that he did think of these things, but he didn't care to do anything about them after the disturbing meeting at school, only after he heard some people had been shot. This is the epitome of negligence.

And BTW, the reason for the elaboration is that there are some that think it is problematic that parents are being held responsible for their children's actions. In point of fact, the parents here were NOT held responsible for the son's actions. They were held responsible for their own actions in not asserting basic responsibility that gave their son the opportunity for his crimes. So, this is not going to mean that parents are going to start being held liable for their children's crimes, but that parents need to take basic responsibility in their homes and in parenting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been thinking about this case a lot. By all accounts, the woman was a terrible parent and made really awful choices. I don't disagree that she abdicated her responsibilities and bears some blame for what happened.

BUT. I invite you to read the special needs forum. There are many parents that do mean well and still seem to be throwing their hands up. And I get that. Mental illness is not something you plan for as a parent. You can have the best intentions and get lost along the way - I don't know, end up escaping the daily pain and grind by seeking out affairs and risky behavior?

I am so lucky I've not had to go through this. But I think we have entered a really really slippery slope with this verdict. Think of the civil litigation this will enable if a kid punches another on the playground, or if a minor drinks alcohol at home and kills someone with their parents' car. Where does the liability end?

I'm also struggling here with the verdict. Some parents are worn down to the bone, mentally and physically, as there are no sustaining supports for their kids, including the adult ones. There are shortages of beds and programs and, ultimately, treatment is not compulsory regardless of what folks on here claim.

The Cumberleys seemed checked out, not necessarily worn out, though perhaps they were. They also seemed emotionally stunted/immature as if they didn't quite grasp parental duties.

Maybe they did have flexible work sites and could've worked remotely that day or their son could've joined them at their offices. I am a little skeptical, however, of their bosses' claims that this would not be an issue. Perhaps not in retrospect, but a lot of bosses want butts in chairs and don't create an environment where this could be broached.

I've been thinking about this verdict a lot as well. My younger brother has a ton of mental health problems, and I've watched my parents try and parent him for a lifetime (I'm 10 years older). Given the facts of the case, it does seem like the Crumbleys may have been neglectful. Does this make them responsible for their son killing people? I don't know. I do think it is a slippery slope. People who are quick to blame the parents are probably lucky to have never dealt with a child who has serious mental health issues.

They were found guilty because they were so negligent and enabled his behavior by taking him to a shooting range, buying him a gun, not locking it up. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to watch Jennifer Crumley‘s trial because it really showed you why the jurors voted guilty.

The bolded is a lot more significant than this small aside makes it out to be.

The family owned a gun safe. Combination was still set to factory default 0-0-0. Father put two other guns in that gun safe, but not the one that was "gifted" to the son. That one he hid under some clothes in his dresser. The ammunition was also not stored in the gun safe, but stored under other clothes in the same dresser. They were also give a trigger lock cable for the gun when they purchased it. The DA showed that it takes about 10 seconds to thread the trigger lock through the trigger and lock it. The cable lock was still in the bag that it came in and was not kept where the guns were kept. So, it was trivially easy for the gun to be secured in multiple ways. At any point after the gun was at the gun range, they could have secured the gun. In fact, it was almost easier to secure it properly than to find an unsecured hiding place under clothes in the dresser, but the father still did not secure the gun.

Also, knowing that his son had a gun like the one in the drawing, at no time did it occur to the father that the gun was unsecured, easily accessible and that if he wasn't going to take his son out of school that day like he should, that he should go and check to see if the unsecured gun was still in the hiding spot. He didn't think about this until after he heard that there was a shooting at the school. And the fact that immediately after he heard about the shooting, he texted that he thought his son might be the shooter, shows that he did think of these things, but he didn't care to do anything about them after the disturbing meeting at school, only after he heard some people had been shot. This is the epitome of negligence.

And BTW, the reason for the elaboration is that there are some that think it is problematic that parents are being held responsible for their children's actions. In point of fact, the parents here were NOT held responsible for the son's actions. They were held responsible for their own actions in not asserting basic responsibility that gave their son the opportunity for his crimes. So, this is not going to mean that parents are going to start being held liable for their children's crimes, but that parents need to take basic responsibility in their homes and in parenting.

+1. Checking a box by birthing kids is not working out for some.

[Anonymous]

Both parents were sentenced to 10-15 years each for their convictions for involuntary manslaughter.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2024/04/09/jennifer-james-crumbley-sentencing-school-shooting/

[Anonymous]

These people only cared about themselves, and did not give a rat's behind for their own offspring, never mind the families forever affected. They only cared about themselves, and that is never ever going to change.

10-15 years is not nearly enough for their negligence and wrongdoing. Those poor families.

[Anonymous]

I am happy both parents got the same time. Society blames moms for so much! They both were culpable