11 kids in Ohio found living in cages

[mrs_pell]

I did a search for this b/c I was sure there would be a thread on it, but didn't see it. This is soooo unbelievably sad! :( :mad:

11 kids found living in cages in Ohio (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,169207,00.html)


WAKEMAN, Ohio — Sheriff's deputies removed 11 disabled children from a home where some of the youngsters were made to sleep in cages less than 3 feet high, authorities said.

The children's adoptive parents, Mike and Sharen Gravelle (search), denied during a custody hearing Monday that they'd abused or neglected the children. No charges had been filed as of Monday night, and telephones at the county prosecutor's office repeatedly rang busy Tuesday morning.

One official agreed that there was no sign of abuse.

"The impression that we got was that [the parents] felt it was OK," Lt. Randy Sommers of the Huron County Sheriff's Office told The (Lorain) Morning Journal.

He said a baby slept in a small bed and two girls used mattresses, and the remaining children slept in the cages.

The Gravelles said a psychiatrist recommended they make the children sleep in the cages at night, County Prosecutor Russell Leffler said. The cages, averaging about 30 inches high, 40 inches wide and 40 inches deep, were stacked in bedrooms on the second floor of the house, officials said. (bolding mine)

Rest of the story is at the above link.

My question is how can there be "no signs of abuse" when there are children sleeping in FREAKING CAGES that are 30"x40"x40"???

[mrs_pell]

CNN has the following to say: (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/12/caged.children/index.html)


Authorities said the kids were kept in wooden cages, less than 3 feet by 3 feet, without pillows or blankets.


"Basically, the parents thought they were providing for the protection of the children from themselves and from each other," said Sommers.

"They thought there was circumstances with these children that warranted the cages at night," Sommers added, but he would not go into details of what those circumstances were.

[lawyerlee]

My question is how can there be "no signs of abuse" when there are children sleeping in FREAKING CAGES that are 30"x40"x40"???
No shit, man!!!! :mad: That *is* abuse. How ignorant. :mad: :( Those poor little kids. :(

[keska]

I don't understand it, but maybe one or more of the children had a history of inappropriate or violent behavior with other kids (not that that excuses locking them in cages). I'm guessing that's why the parents said something about the circumstances and the police don't want to explain.

[EmilyBronte]

This makes me SOOOOO mad! No child deserves to sleep in a cage, regardless of whether or not they are violent. Put them in different bedrooms for crying out loud. And if you can't handle 11 children, then DON'T adopt 11 children.

Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if this blows over with minimal punishment because the children are disabled (I have a younger brother with Down's and I have witnessed MANY times discrimintion against people with disabilities).

[BTB]

The full article says the parents put the children in the cages at night to protect them from each other, at the advice of a psychiatrist.

Neighbors said they saw the children regularly, walking outside, playing normally, well-dressed, well-behaved, and well-fed.

What is it about "restraining" your child at night that is so offensive? I'm having the same gut reaction here - of course it's abuse, duh! - but I can't figure out why. It's common for parents of young toddlers to install baby gates across the doorways of the child's bedroom, so that if they get out of bed at night they can't wander the house. Others go a step further and put rails on the bed, for the child's safety. Child needs something = child screams for the parent. My DD's only 5 months old, and has that part all figured out. ;) Humor aside, DH and I have jokingly called DD's crib a "cage". That word is so loaded, it's hard not to feel anger and disgust when kids are locked up in cages to sleep. But how is that so different from other ways of restraining them?

I know the ages of the children matter, the oldest is 14. I don't know what emotional and/or behavioral problems existed (nor do I know a psychiatrist who'd recommend an actual cage at night, instead of other methods of restraint, but that's kinda OT). The article says the cages were brightly painted wood and had mats - I didn't see the part about no pillows or blankets, but that does put a different spin on it if true.

I wonder how they continued to pass the adoption home studies "with flying colors"? A baby is mentioned, so they must've gone through one at least semi-recently. The baby slept on a "small bed", that's weird to me - since again, cribs kind of are cages, and it's easy to see the need for one with a baby.

I think these parents far outstretched their abilities, and should not have been allowed to adopt so many children.

[jennylou]

From a local paper.

http://www.chroniclet.com/Daily%20Pages/Front/Html/Head1.html

Things like this make me angry. :mad:

[EmilyBronte]

I think being in a cage (where the child can't even stand up) is different from other forms of restraint. Not only could the children not stand up, they didn't have beds, and part of the cage was made with wire that investigators found had been pulled at as if someone was trying to escape. But back to how they are different....

1. My child's crib keeps him from getting out at night, sure, but I also have quick access to him and in an emergency I could grab him without having to worry with taking a top off.
2. If I place my child in a room with a gate, he has an entire room to play in, and I am almost always either in the room he's in or the room next to the room he's in (although this example is hypothetical as we don't have a gate yet for our 8 month old).
3. We place our child in the PNP to play sometimes, but he can always see me, and like a crib I can get him out quickly if necessary.

The article Jennylou posted states that the smoke detectors outside the children's rooms weren't working (which, to me, implied the ones in the rest of the house were - but I could be wrong). Also, what is any family doing trying to care for 11 special needs children?

[ysolde]

I am not a psychologist, but I seem to recall reading somewhere about the phenomenon of "collectors" of animals and, in some cases, children, especially special needs children. I don't remember all the details, but these are people who think they are doing good by adopting an overwhelming number of pets or children, making it impossible to care for any of them, and keeping them in inhumane conditions. Could that be what is going on here?

[LittleFredPunkinHead]

I think that sounds like a strong possibility, ysolde.

[paiger]

Also, what is any family doing trying to care for 11 special needs children?

I had forgotten about this fact until I saw it in the article, but this could be why they were doing it:

A boy born with HIV was adopted as an infant in 2001 through the Cuyahoga County Department of Children and Family Services, the agency’s director Jim McCafferty said. The Gravelles receive a subsidy of at least $500 a month.

For every special needs child, they were receiving a subsidy. If they weren't using that money for the needs of the child, then they were making a profit. My cousin babysat in college for a special needs child whose parents didn't even really need the money, but the state gave them a subsidy for help which paid for them to give a little extra money to a babysitter since the child needed so much help.

These people could have easily used that money to do things like hire a contractor to build on to their house to make living conditions better for the kids and/or hired someone to help them take care of them. To me, for them to receive that money and not use it for the better-ment of those kids says it all.

[BTB]

How do we know they're not using the money for the betterment of the children? $500 per month wouldn't even begin to cover the cost of an antiretroviral regimen for the HIV+ boy. Even if you have fabulous insurance, there is often a monthly and/or yearly reimbursement cap for pharmaceuticals in the fine print.

I agree they stretched themselves too thin; what is weird to me is the tone of the CNN article which is surprisingly sunny - there's mention of an odor of urine to the house, but it seems to go out of it's way to point out how the neighbors thought the kids were doing so well, the cages were painted in bright primary colors, etc. The article jennylou posted is decidedly more somber.

[keska]

Unfortunately, the use of cage beds is not new. Such devices are routinely used in psychiatric institutions in many countries. Here's a report I worked on with a human rights organization on the use of cage beds (http://mdac.info/cagebeds/cagebeds.htm) in Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovenia (complete with photos). We found people who'd literally been forced to live in such beds for years.

[maxandmolly]

Any child adopted from a government agency should have Madicaid coverage to the age of 18, so the meds for the HIV+ baby argument doesn't fly.
When I was in social services, I did see some foster parents (granted, of average needs children) take in more than they really wanted or could care for, for the money. It may not make sense to most people, but there are some who do it.

[BTB]

Any child adopted from a government agency should have Madicaid coverage to the age of 18, so the meds for the HIV+ baby argument doesn't fly.

I'm not trying to make an argument "for" anything - just pointing it out. As I will point out that Medicaid does not cover all HAART options, only some, and as your HIV flora changes - and everybody's does change - most HIV+ patients need non-Medicaid formulary meds within the first decade of their management.

Personally, I think ysolde's psychological theory makes a lot more sense than the parents being in it for the money. It's just not that much money, and caring for kids is expensive. If there had been evidence the children weren't properly clothed, fed, etc., then maybe, but clearly the parents were spending the necessary money to care for the kids - except maybe on proper beds.