Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But the fact that she was out partying doesn't change what many of us have been arguing the whole time. It doesn't matter that her children are by different fathers, and all of the other judgmental crap you all are spewing. No one is really saying that it was OK for her to leave them at home UNLESS she was out at work. And we were waiting for word on that. And now yes, like PP said, we got word that she's a piece of crap for THAT decision. Not having children by different men. Different issues entirely.

But really, what was the point of this thread? OK, we all got the message. Don't leave your children at home alone while you go out partying. Got it.

But we all know that wasn't the point of this thread. It's a bunch of DC folks pointing at "those people" and chortling their judgmental "oh, see, here's her picture, hee hee hee."
Enjoy the rest of your fun.

I think this thread was about people being fed up by irresponsible behavior and then others coming on here giving excuses...

it's okay to have a bunch of kids by different baby daddy's, even if you can't take care of them, it's totally acceptable.....
she was probably volunteering and working.......
we are all so racist and judgemental, those people don't know better because their poor, you know you can't expect much from them folks down south......(this one really bugs me, WTH?)


Such ignorance, really. And the truth is? Girlfriend was getting down at the club and found that to be more important than taking care of her children. Sorry some of us are pissed and appalled by this kind of behavior.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:when it comes to calling someone a dirtbag, we should all be class-blind and color-blind. I don't care if you are a billionaire or on welfare, a bad mother is a bad mother.

These are my thoughts. Why in the world are the PPs on here defending this woman?

Anonymous wrote:when it comes to calling someone a dirtbag, we should all be class-blind and color-blind. I don't care if you are a billionaire or on welfare, a bad mother is a bad mother.

Anonymous wrote:But the fact that she was out partying doesn't change what many of us have been arguing the whole time. It doesn't matter that her children are by different fathers, and all of the other judgmental crap you all are spewing. No one is really saying that it was OK for her to leave them at home UNLESS she was out at work. And we were waiting for word on that. And now yes, like PP said, we got word that she's a piece of crap for THAT decision. Not having children by different men. Different issues entirely.

But really, what was the point of this thread? OK, we all got the message. Don't leave your children at home alone while you go out partying. Got it.

But we all know that wasn't the point of this thread. It's a bunch of DC folks pointing at "those people" and chortling their judgmental "oh, see, here's her picture, hee hee hee."
Enjoy the rest of your fun.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The charges have been updated because she was at a F**KING CLUB.

http://www.katc.com/news/charges-upgraded-against-mother-accused-of-leaving-children-who-died-in-fire/

OK, I'm a pp who wanted to withhold judgment until we found out where the mom was. Now I know. You're right, she is a terrible parent.

See, it didn't hurt to wait until we found out, did it?

Anonymous wrote:RE: the Bethesda fire - the family got a lot of flack not only for the crib tents, but also for having a nanny who did not speak English well enough to convey what was going on to the Dad who was working from home, and the Dad tried to put the fire out himself before calling 911. All questionable parenting decisions.

Anonymous wrote:The charges have been updated because she was at a F**KING CLUB.

http://www.katc.com/news/charges-upgraded-against-mother-accused-of-leaving-children-who-died-in-fire/

That is exactly what happens when we JUDGE people like this woman. We put them on trial and set a precedent for the future!!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But what benefit is there to judging this woman in the abstract? It won't serve any useful purpose or bring the kids back. A focus on what can be done to prevent things like this from happening in the future would be more useful (reporting mechanisms, more prompt intervention by social services and police where there is suggestion of abuse or neglect).

That is exactly what happens when we JUDGE people like this woman. We put them on trial and set a precedent for the future!!!!

Anonymous wrote:But what benefit is there to judging this woman in the abstract? It won't serve any useful purpose or bring the kids back. A focus on what can be done to prevent things like this from happening in the future would be more useful (reporting mechanisms, more prompt intervention by social services and police where there is suggestion of abuse or neglect).