"Journalism" and the Nanny State

[w00dy]

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/anne-arundel-county/family-found-on-decrepit-boat-with-no-heat-little-food/24578240

I would like to know a lot more about the situation before I cast judgment, but my initial reaction is that the people on this boat sound like they could be members of this forum. Who here has running water or a shower in your cabin? Ever repaired your inflatable with duct tape? God forbid, have you ever had fecal matter on your boat? I guess I just identify with these people somewhat.

What do you think?

[s/v Faith]

Excellent post.

  Grog to you for bringing it here.

The story;

Two parents are facing child neglect charges after police said they allowed their children to live on a boat in Anne Arundel County's Magothy River without any heat and in deplorable conditions.

Sounds absolutely terrible!  Unless you understand that this may well be a life choice.. Then it only is "terrible" when framed in the context of our western expectations of comfort... Of course anyone without 273 channels of cable television is living in horrible conditions.  :P

The Maryland Natural Resources Police were initially called to the boat on Feb. 9 to check on the welfare of the family.

I have in my life experience, a fair amount of experience with "social services" folks, and can say with a high degree of confidence that while they often mean well they are often neither trained nor competent to provide the advise to the courts that they do.*   Imagine the consequences of folks with the authority to take children from parents, or even to take liberty from a person (sometimes limited to 72 hours)... Given to someone who's qualifications are sometimes as little as a 2 year degree! 

Officers found the 28-foot boat called the Suki Too stranded in thick ice with no heat on board. Officials said John and Sherri Kelly; their sons, ages 14 and 15; and 22-year-old Adrian Stead were wearing several layers to stay warm in a small cabin that had fecal matter in it.

Not sure what that means... Composting head?  Wonder what the boat was?  Triton?

Investigators said two small dogs were also found. The boat didn't have a shower or any running water, and the five occupants slept on two makeshift mattresses.

My goodness!  No running water!  What a terrible situation!   Oh, wait... I don't have that aboard Faith either!

Officials said an inflatable raft that was the only means to get to shore was not suitable for the ice, and someone had tried to repair it with duct tape. The family also had one cellphone, but it wasn't charged.

Their dingy was not ice breaker certified?  Wow!  That is awful.... Maybe someone needed to "save them"?

The children did not attend school, police said, and the family declined an offer to be taken to shore.

This is a very interesting sentence.  How many of "us" might be needing of "rescue" by some folks?

Officers returned to the boat on Feb. 12 to again check on the family before last week's big snowstorm. Investigators learned that the family had been rescued elsewhere by the Coast Guard about a month before and that investigators determined children shouldn't be living on the boat.

I have known personally (in NC) and heard of (FL, GA..) folks who have had "investigators" determine that children should not be living aboard the boat.  Now granted, often this was the result of a custody battle... But it happens.  The courts are not too surprisingly closed minded about children living aboard boats... Especially if they are (gasp!) being homeshcooled!

Police said they interviewed a previous roommate of the Kelly family, who said the parents expressed a strong hatred for the U.S. government and that they acted as if they were hiding from government officials. The man said both parents are mentally unstable and that he was concerned for the children.

Not wanting to go into the political, but I have to ask if this seems like an unreasonable thought pattern given the context of the story?

Coast Guard and Anne Arundel County Child Protective Services boarded the boat again on Friday, where officials said the boys ate everything they were offered and looked malnourished. Officials said there was very little food on the boat, and no way to heat it up.

Investigators determined that the boys' parents had multiple aliases and dates of birth with no fixed address.

John Kelly was charged with neglect of a minor, second-degree child abuse and failure to send a child to school. It's unclear so far if Sherri Kelly was also charged.

I will be very surprised if there is is any further coverage of this story.

This article can have profound implications for any of us.  The concern for anyone who might choose to cruise with children, liveaboard, or even exist in some manner that might be seen as strange by "normal people" with cable television and car payments....

What do you see here?

[Jim_ME]

Here's another article...

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2014-02-20/news/bs-md-ar-boat-kids-20140220_1_natural-resources-police-sailboat-magothy-river

[w00dy]

Thanks for the article, Jim.

It's easy for me to second guess the police and authorities, even though I only have second hand knowledge of the situation. If it was my responsibility to uphold the law, maybe I would make the same call in that case. I don't know....The truth is usually somewhere in the middle, right?

I guess that there's just a part of me that fears the day when my individual autonomy to make choices that really matter will be gone. Where is the freedom in deciding which cable channel to watch?

[ralay]

Here's another article.  I don't agree with the title, but I think it includes some details that are relevant.   

http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/maryland/2014/02/19/couple-accused-of-child-abuse-on-boat-were-homeless-relatives-say/5619469/

To me, it sounds like a case of the state intervening in a family that is so impoverished that they are no longer getting by rather than the state intervening in a happy family living an alternative lifestyle.  In the article above, it sounds as if the family themselves told investigators that they were in those conditions out of necessity rather than choice.  It sounds like the boat was given to them for free by other boaters who couldn't afford the slip rent and that they were staying aboard it as "the only safe place the family could live after relatives were unable to take them in."  The children also told investigators that they were unable to go to shore for weeks at a time.  Not having any heat or cooking fuel in an area cold enough to ice-lock your boat is another detail that seems unlikely to be present in a voluntary situation.  Is there anyone on this forum that plans to overwinter in the Northeast with no heat and no stove?

[Jim_ME]

Woody, By posting only the link to another article without commenting on it, I didn't mean to give the impression that I disagreed with you. It was just late and I didn't feel up to the task last night.

I was already thinking that this was probably in large part the result of poverty. Here in Maine, considered a compassionate state, poverty and homelessness has gone up. 1 in 4 (or 5 depending on the poll) children is experiencing food insecurity...(what we used to call going hungry) frequently.

I just saw this article that "A new report reveals that the United States has the highest first-day infant death rate out of all the industrialized countries in the world."  

So it seems rather easy to point to a couple on a sailboat doing something unconventional and say "Gotcha"...maybe it distracts us from looking in the mirror as a society? Who should be held more accountable for neglect...these poor desperate parents or the wealthiest country in the world?

I have read that it is people in the age group of these parents who have had the hardest time finding work since the recession. There are three of them for each job opening, and many have just given up and withdrawn from the workforce. So if it wasn't already difficult enough for them, what is having felony child abuse convictions going to do for their prospects. They may never be able to find work again.

So I do wonder, how this could be serving the interests of the children? Of society? This family needs help, not to be made permanent outcasts from society.



 

[Jim_ME]

I wrote my previous post before reading the article referenced by Rachel.

I had wondered why they had not chosen to go farther South, and the article explains "January 28th when they attempted to sail to Norfolk Virginia in the second vessel but were besieged by violent winter weather."

These unusual weather patterns, including the polar vortex, have made areas that have been fairly mild, much colder and subject to frequent storms. With the unusually cold weather and ice, it seems understandable that having so little resources to work with, that they were overwhelmed. Even major cities like Atlanta have been.

The situation on the boat was clearly beyond merely unconventional. I do understand that authorities had a responsibility to act, but bringing felony charges against them and setting bail so high that anyone so obviously in such poverty would never be able to raise the money to make them, seems harsh.

It does seem bizarre that the father "told investigators he was not a citizen of any state, believes in the Constitution, and is not bound by the laws of the US Government. He demanded to have the case handled according to the Geneva Conventions." since the Constitution is the foundation of US Laws for US citizens. Of course, as cruisers, we expect to be subject even to the laws of countries that we visit.  

In the other article an anonymous former roommate said that the parents "expressed a strong hatred for the U.S. government and that they acted as if they were hiding from government officials."

I think that there actually is a good deal of genuine fear and distrust of the government out there and how far reaching its abilities have become, with the jumps ahead in technology, and so on. Changes have been made that seem to have outpaced our abilities to reach consensus about, including whether they are constitutional. We are a polarized country with many decisions interpreting this being made by close 5-to-4 votes of the Supreme Court, that could have gone either way, depending upon which narrowly-elected president got to make the latest justice appointments.

I realize that this is getting into the political realm, but hope that it is fairly vague and non-partisan, and also relevant to the individual liberties that are so important to we cruisers, that it may be somewhat okay.

[w00dy]

Well put, Jim. You pose some insightful questions and yes, it seems harsh to me too. I don't want to make any claims to knowing the truth, the right answer, solutions etc. One can only hope that we can look past our mistrust of the government and the controversial practices required by it and continue to relate to one another one-on-one;on a human level. Humanity is what motivated the authorities to intervene in this case and hopefully the end result will be that these kids' needs are met in a way that was lacking before. I'm sure the thought of three kids surviving in a cold boat cabin weighed heavily on them.  Still, its easy to mean well, but ignore the big picture. I agree with you that it's short sighted to temporarily separate the children from this situation, but fail to see the over arching issues of poverty, disenfranchisement, and other societal ills that contribute to creating situations like this. Jailing and fines are poor carrots indeed if we are in any way trying to improve and uplift people like this.

[Kettlewell]

Having lived aboard for years with babies and small children I can vouch for the fact it is best to keep a very low profile, though we never went out of our way to hide from the government. In South Carolina we were paid a visit by the county health authorities when my son was born because we listed our boat as our home. We were in a marina, with air conditioning, electricity, refrigeration, sanitation, etc., but you could tell they thought we were weirdos. On the other side of the coin, the so-called "derelict boat" problem, often cited by landlubbers as the reason for anti-anchoring laws and such, is directly caused by the occasional situation like this. My guess is these folks are not sailors or cruisers like we meet on here. They are probably boat squatters who are living onboard because it is cheap and the only thing they can afford. Sounds like there may also be some mental health issues there, which are common amongst homeless people. No matter how poor one of us would be, we would have read the weather and kept struggling south to at least take advantage of nature's free heat, better fishing opportunities, and better prospects for being able to live reasonably comfortably with little money. I have met boaters and cruisers like that in places like Florida and Panama who were managing just fine on what would barely support a homeless person wandering the streets of most U.S. cities. Their boats were simple and often not in perfect repair, but they tended to be clean, functional, and seaworthy enough to get around. I've helped some of them out with various things, and they are often very appreciative for bits of old gear you have no use for. One guy I met was onboard a pretty bad boat in the winter in South Carolina and I was able to get him a decent sleeping bag to stay warm. I can picture myself ending up in a situation like that given some bad luck. But, they are still cruisers. These folks happened to end up on a boat, but they could just as easily have been living in an old RV and we wouldn't be discussing it here.

[Frank]

good points....

[Kettlewell]

One other thought on this. When kids are involved everything changes for the authorities. Imagine what the reaction would have been if a child fell overboard out there in the winter and it was found that they had been living out there for some time with no heat, etc. People would rightly be castigating the authorities for not doing something earlier.

[Jim_ME]

I agree that when children are involved that changes everything, and did write earlier that the authorities had a responsibility to get involved.

Yet it does seem to me fair to question whether it was appropriate in this situation for the authorities to arrest the parents, charge them with felony child abuse, imprison them, and then set the bail at $50,000 for the father and $25,000 for the mother. What we have read about in these articles are so far only allegations, and these people are entitled to due process and to make their case in court without prejudice by the media.

Is it reasonable for this couple, about whom it has been reported could not remain in a marina due to a lack of funds, to be expected to raise $75,000 bail to remain free pending their trial? Will their children have to go on some kinds of public assistance since the parents are prevented from providing for them? On average it costs over $25,000 for low-security imprisonment per year per person.

A family with an apartment on land would have rights that would protect them from being evicted into winter conditions--or to have their utilities or heat turned off. They would probably have access to needed services. Yet this family and their boat home seem to have been pushed out into these conditions due to a lack of funds with few if any rights, protections, or consideration.

If this family had been allowed to stay in a marina with power for heat, restroom facilities, showers, and easy access to shore to get food, etc., for perhaps another month, they would likely have been able to proceed South as they had planned without encountering the winter storms, ice, or bad conditions. What would that have cost...a few hundred dollars?

Why is it that the authorities (representing the public with tax dollars) have many thousands of dollars to spend on incarcerating and prosecuting these parents, but nobody had any funds available to prevent the situation and to deal with it in a more compassionate way?

It seems like what could have been handled as a temporary problem, with a family inexperienced in boating facing unprecedentedly severe winter storms for this area, has been turned into a very long-lasting one for the parents and children alike. Certainly the parents made some errors in judgment, but does this outcome and punishment (and future consequences) seem proportional to their offenses?

I can hardly imagine a more effective way to absolutely confirm in those boys' minds that their father's most cynical views on government and authority are justified...and to perpetuate this outlook for another generation.

[Kettlewell]

Jim, lots of questions for which I have no answers, but knowing some people very high up in the local law enforcement community I do know that there is often much more known behind the scenes that doesn't ever appear in the press or in court. You can be nearly 100% certain that many of the "facts" as presented in the news media are wrong. Things like child abuse are often hidden crimes that are never prosecuted. I am not accusing these folks of anything, just trying to point out the type of thing authorities may have knowledge of in similar cases. I do think it is possible for boaters to be mistreated because we are a tiny minority living an unusual and misunderstood lifestyle. I have no inside knowledge of the facts of this case, nor do I have an opinion on whether or not the actions taken by the authorities are right or wrong. And, I'm not ready to jump to a knee-jerk defense of people I know nothing about, in a situation I know nothing about other than what I have read here and in the news media.

[rorik]

I agree that when children are involved that changes everything, and did write earlier that the authorities had a responsibility to get involved.

Yet it does seem to me fair to question whether it was appropriate in this situation for the authorities to arrest the parents, charge them with felony child abuse, imprison them, and then set the bail at $50,000 for the father and $25,000 for the mother. What we have read about in these articles are so far only allegations, and these people are entitled to due process and to make their case in court without prejudice by the media.

Is it reasonable for this couple, about whom it has been reported could not remain in a marina due to a lack of funds, to be expected to raise $75,000 bail to remain free pending their trial? Will their children have to go on some kinds of public assistance since the parents are prevented from providing for them? On average it costs over $25,000 for low-security imprisonment per year per person.

A family with an apartment on land would have rights that would protect them from being evicted into winter conditions--or to have their utilities or heat turned off. They would probably have access to needed services. Yet this family and their boat home seem to have been pushed out into these conditions due to a lack of funds with few if any rights, protections, or consideration.

If this family had been allowed to stay in a marina with power for heat, restroom facilities, showers, and easy access to shore to get food, etc., for perhaps another month, they would likely have been able to proceed South as they had planned without encountering the winter storms, ice, or bad conditions. What would that have cost...a few hundred dollars?

Why is it that the authorities (representing the public with tax dollars) have many thousands of dollars to spend on incarcerating and prosecuting these parents, but nobody had any funds available to prevent the situation and to deal with it in a more compassionate way?

It seems like what could have been handled as a temporary problem, with a family inexperienced in boating facing unprecedentedly severe winter storms for this area, has been turned into a very long-lasting one for the parents and children alike. Certainly the parents made some errors in judgment, but does this outcome and punishment (and future consequences) seem proportional to their offenses?

I can hardly imagine a more effective way to absolutely confirm in those boys' minds that their father's most cynical views on government and authority are justified...and to perpetuate this outlook for another generation.

^ this