TOTALLY GEEKED!

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Missouri mom charged after kids found living in crate, underground cave

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

What.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

That's terrible.

As an aside, 70 year round? That's pretty nice. Dad use to talk about building an underground house. One reason was the consistent temperatures.

Lindley · Guru

She looks as evil as her heart. Those poor babies.

huskerbb · Guru

Another oxygen bandit.

TrudyML · Guru

huskerbb wrote:
Another oxygen bandit.

I'm stealing this! Burst out laughing.

cadiver · Senior Member

That under ground cave systemlook huge, I never new they existed. Evidently it is called subtropolis.

The kids were actually found at a shop called underground deisel. The owner stated they did not live there just visited.

CRATE%20ME%2020150914%20KAM%200061F

-- Edited by cadiver on Thursday 17th of September 2015 02:09:33 AM

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Yes, he is denying anything and everything but apparently he paid for her to move there from FL. They didn't come right out and say it but it did sound like she was his g/f. I really think he's just trying to distance himself from all of this so he doesn't get into any trouble.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

The owner told the police they all (mom and kids) lived in a motel with their grand parents. But when they questioned the mom and the kids no grand parents were forth coming. They still haven't found the grand parents either and this has been on the news. If the grand parents existed you'd think they'd have come forth.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Well, that's a bit nicer than I expected. Are they homeless?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

The kids are in custody.

cadiver · Senior Member

I wanted to look up the conditions because it reminded me of the article about the couple with six children living of the grid in tents on their property. The headline was the children were taken away for camping. What really is the difference?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, if there's no running water and no plumbing there can't be a bathroom. That is not sanitary. And apparently the kids were not being fed very well. Dry cereal and dry ramen noodles. Not exactly what growing kids need to survive.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

cadiver wrote:
I wanted to look up the conditions because it reminded me of the article about the couple with six children living of the grid in tents on their property. The headline was the children were taken away for camping. What really is the difference?

I would actually agree with you except for a few very major differences. The kids in this instance seem like they were left alone to fend for themselves and they were way too young for that. They were left without adequate food or supervision. If they were all living together in this cave - not a big deal, IMO. But mom was not there and they did not have adequate food. In the camping instance, mom and dad were actually staying with them, there were older siblings available to watch them when the parents went away, and they had adequate provisions.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Well, in the camping incident the kids were returned. In this one the kids have not yet been returned and remain in foster care. So I'd wager there is more to THIS story than the camping one.

cadiver · Senior Member

Lawyerlady wrote:
cadiver wrote:
I wanted to look up the conditions because it reminded me of the article about the couple with six children living of the grid in tents on their property. The headline was the children were taken away for camping. What really is the difference?
I would actually agree with you except for a few very major differences. The kids in this instance seem like they were left alone to fend for themselves and they were way too young for that. They were left without adequate food or supervision. If they were all living together in this cave - not a big deal, IMO. But mom was not there and they did not have adequate food. In the camping instance, mom and dad were actually staying with them, there were older siblings available to watch them when the parents went away, and they had adequate provisions.

It seems NJN has followed more then I have. The one other article I read has the shop owner saying they did not live there and mechanics were present and the kids were not left alone and mechanics were at the shop. If he is telling the truth about the mechanics being there I wonder why the police would say otherwise but the police felt justified in taking the camping kids. If he is telling the truth he has offered the security tapes of the shop.

As for provisions it does not mention if there was other food. Evidently there was milk and water in the fridge.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article35190114.html

cadiver · Senior Member

Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Well, in the camping incident the kids were returned. In this one the kids have not yet been returned and remain in foster care. So I'd wager there is more to THIS story than the camping one.

True, and since the charge is felony child endangerment I would guess that would stem from being left alone not the conditions.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

cadiver wrote:
Nobody Just Nobody wrote:
Well, in the camping incident the kids were returned. In this one the kids have not yet been returned and remain in foster care. So I'd wager there is more to THIS story than the camping one.
True, and since the charge is felony child endangerment I would guess that would stem from being left alone not the conditions.

Not necessarily. Child endangerment can cover a lot of things. And when the POLICE got there there was no one there. So someone is lying.

huskerbb · Guru

cadiver wrote:
I wanted to look up the conditions because it reminded me of the article about the couple with six children living of the grid in tents on their property. The headline was the children were taken away for camping. What really is the difference?

The permanency of the situation.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

huskerbb wrote:
cadiver wrote:
I wanted to look up the conditions because it reminded me of the article about the couple with six children living of the grid in tents on their property. The headline was the children were taken away for camping. What really is the difference?
The permanency of the situation.

I can't believe I'm saying this but I agree. Camping for the summer is not the same as living permanently in an underground tunnel with no running water, plumbing, heat, or air.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

And that they were dirty and on their own.

The way I read it, the kids lived there, she lived somewhere else.

Am I wrong about that?

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

lilyofcourse wrote:
And that they were dirty and on their own.

The way I read it, the kids lived there, she lived somewhere else.

Am I wrong about that?

Apparently the story is the kids say they live there alone. The mom and her (maybe) b/f/boss are both saying the woman and her kids don't live there. They are saying they live with grand parents in a motel. But the grand parents are nowhere to be found. Gone in thin air.

IMO and that is ONLY IMO she was probably boinking the boss and the kids were in the way. I don't believe there were any grandparents. My guess is that neither of them wanted the kids around so they put them in the tunnel so they wouldn't be bothered and now that they were found they're trying to come up with a cover story.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

That's what I thought.

So that is the difference between this and the camping family.

Nobody Just Nobody · Rib-it! Rrrib-it!

Also the camping family had food and water. A place to sleep. Clothes. These kids didn't have real food. Dry noodles and cereal. No water. The kids didn't own a pair of shoes. And they slept on old chairs from a car.