Jackson Free Press

WLBT got a tape of a mother severely abusing her child, and the mother is now in jail. Beating a child for ten minutes straight with a belt and a cable cord is inexcusable.

I watched the footage in horror as at one point, two men held the girl down on a bed while the mother continued to beat her. You know, I was whipped as a child, but NEVER like that. Do you know how long ten minutes is when you're in pain? I'm glad the girl was taken from the home, but I wonder what will happen to her after this.

I hope there will be updates on this by WLBT soon.

Previous Commentsshow

hey Latasha, it's Pat I had to change what text you were linking the story to cause it was making the front page get all out of alignment that's why the word "tape" is the only thing highlighted. just wanted you to know :)

William Patrick Butler

Jul 26 2006

The woman was charged with felony child abuse. Maybe now DHS will get some damn funcing. Don Taylor called WLBT and said that he was glad "they had brought attention to the enormity of the problem" and that no child would stay in an abusive situation. I'm so glad he said that. Hope that means it will actually happen. I only know that if it does happen, we're going to need an awful lot more social workers than they have right now.

Lori G

Jul 26 2006

funcing-->funding

Lori G

Jul 26 2006

they--->we Crap.

Lori G

Jul 26 2006

More DHS funding would be great, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Our governor doesn't give a damn about abused kids, and if he's willing to veto funding basic education, he'll be just as willing to veto hiring more social workers. I'd be willing to march and otherwise raise hell for this, though. Maybe wake up a few of our legislators. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 26 2006

Tom, I would not say Barbour, who I will never vote for, does not care about abused kids. When he came in office, Medicaid alone had a 230 million dollar deficit that was not getting any smaller. And DHA and others had deficits as well. This is a rural state with limited resources. We don't spend our money smartly. We have two houses in the legislature. Sorry, we only need one. We have 82 counties. We damn sure don't need that many. We have per capita a higher rate of non teaching personnel compared to other states. We have 8 universities and 22 junior colleges for a population under 3 million people. Its like when Johnston told Jefferson Davis, he could defend Tennesse or Vicksburg, but not both. He was told to do both and lost both. We don't prioritize and make tough choices and the political will among the people is not there to do it either. Talk about cutting back on a college or a county and hear come the banshee screams. Having digressed, the whole health and human services part of state govt. have been running at a deficit. How do you fix that problem? good question and unfortunately, I do not have a good answer.

Kingfish

Jul 26 2006

How do you fix the problem? Two fundamental essential ways in conjunction: 1)A more progressive state income tax structure - particularly on: Families earning more than $150,000/yr DINKs earning more than $130,000/Yr Single-person households earning more than $70,000/yr Higher taxes on companies, whether domiciled or maintaining operations in MS, employing more than 1,000 people with an average payroll of more than $45,000 per employee. 2) More efficient and better trained bureaucracy - especially more thorough laws regarding nepotism. This includes increased automation to increase efficiency per bureaucracy employee. That should generate enough revenue to increase both the quantity and quality of public services in this state - or at least be a good running start. Did I leave anything out?

Philip

Jul 26 2006

As for preventing child abuse, I think we have to get at the people when they are young - even all the way down to pre-school. We know so much more about human behavior patterns than we did even 20 years ago - not to mention more about the human brain, thanks to MRI machines. This, in turn, allows us to make more accurate predictions of how a person will behave in a given situation. Although the exact details of how and why people act this way is still partially a mystery, the overall actual behaviorial traits of child abusers seem (to me, at least) fairly clearly understood. If they aren't learning the hows and whys "you" should behave in such-and-such a way from home or their peers, or even church, then they have to get those ideas of good behavior AND the rationale behind them from somewhere. (then again, I think students need to be educated in so many matters that I would actually support a 13th and 14th grade if necessary, with a law stating that successful completion of 14th grade be required for admission to a Mississippi University of College, or even Junior College. Perhaps that's where a large amount of all that hoped for extra revenue should got to.

Philip

Jul 26 2006

Philip, that sounds nice as slogans but when you look at the actual numbers you could tax all of those people and suddenly realize you don't have enough money for the spending. Tax the companies? Go ahead. I don't guess you noticed what happened to the NE and the flow of businessess out of it in relation to its tax structure. All you will do is make companies not want to do business in Mississippi. Your goal should be focused more on growing the state's economy, which will always bring in much more tax revenue. and frankly, you are clueless. You seem to think 70K is rich and should be taxed at a high rate. Currently 35% or more is taken at various levels through taxes. After tax income is thus around 50,000. that is not assuming you are not making any payments at work to health insurance, retirement so you don't have to survive on social security at 900 or more a month. Subtract 5 grand a year at least for those things. we are now at 45K. Hmmm....want to actually live in a house that is more than 1200 square feet? Like maybe 1600 or so? Heaven forbid you don't want to live in an apt the rest of your life. Well, that note is 800 or more a month. So figure 12,000 dollars and up for housing. Now we are roughly at $30,000. Oh yes, car notes. Figure 400 a month for car and insurance. We are now down to $24,000. That is after taxes, car, house. You can still get sick, have sick kids, have to buy clothes, groceries etc. But hey, you think these people are rich. Either you are divorced from reality or think anything more thant $300 dollars a week is rich.

Kingfish

Jul 26 2006

Philip, that sounds nice as slogans but when you look at the actual numbers you could tax all of those people and suddenly realize you don't have enough money for the spending. Tax the companies? Go ahead. I don't guess you noticed what happened to the NE and the flow of businessess out of it in relation to its tax structure. All you will do is make companies not want to do business in Mississippi. Your goal should be focused more on growing the state's economy, which will always bring in much more tax revenue. and frankly, you are clueless. You seem to think 70K is rich and should be taxed at a high rate. Currently 35% or more is taken at various levels through taxes. After tax income is thus around 50,000. that is not assuming you are not making any payments at work to health insurance, retirement so you don't have to survive on social security at 900 or more a month. Subtract 5 grand a year at least for those things. we are now at 45K. Hmmm....want to actually live in a house that is more than 1200 square feet? Like maybe 1600 or so? Heaven forbid you don't want to live in an apt the rest of your life. Well, that note is 800 or more a month. So figure 12,000 dollars and up for housing. Now we are roughly at $30,000. Oh yes, car notes. Figure 400 a month for car and insurance. We are now down to $24,000. That is after taxes, car, house. You can still get sick, have sick kids, have to buy clothes, groceries etc. But hey, you think these people are rich. Either you are divorced from reality or think anything more thant $300 dollars a week is rich.

Kingfish

Jul 26 2006

I almost forgot, suppose you have kids and are divorced. there goes another 14% of your income right there. Hmmm...that would be close to ten thousand if just one kid. So let us take from that figure of 24,000 dollars another ten grand. however, since this man or woman is making too much, we should raise his tax rates.

Kingfish

Jul 26 2006

The 70K a year assumes single household NO kids, Kingfish. At any rate, I never specified WHAT rate. To clarify things for you, I think only those earning double that amount given their present household typeshould be taxed at a "high" rate (by that, I assume you mean raise their yearly tax bill by 25% or more) I certainly agree that 70K/yr its NOT rich even for a DINK household - hence I said 130K/yr for DINKs. That's why I also said Family Income of 150K/yr (well, let's even bump it up a bit -- to 175K/yr). Consider this, the 2000 census figures for the following suburbs: Median Family Income in 1999 Madison (Jackson): 77,202 Plano, TX (Dallas): 91,162 Allen, TX (next one north of Plano):82,747 Collierville (Memphis-next one east of G'town):84,830 Germantown (Memphis): 103,726 And now, for the big one - Highland Park (the Beverly Hills of Dallas):200,000+ Of all those municipalities only the majority of Highland Park's residents should be complaining (well, it's in TX, yes, but this is sufficient for my scenario). So don't worry, only the minority of Madison's families will have extra sweat breaking out come tax time.

Philip

Jul 26 2006

Further comments about the Taxation issue should be posted on the board For Whom Should the Taxman Cometh?

Philip

Jul 26 2006

To the tape: That was stupid. I wonder who turned it in? I have the feeling that no matter how much you funded it, there would always been some cases to slip out of view. There is no societal pressure to behave and raise kids calmly.

Ironghost

Jul 26 2006

Irong, however, what about the kids who are figuring out that all they have to do is call DHS and threaten mommy or daddy with a phone call to it. I hear of this more and more.

Kingfish

Jul 26 2006

Kingfish writes: Irong, however, what about the kids who are figuring out that all they have to do is call DHS and threaten mommy or daddy with a phone call to it. Other than on South Park? Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Jul 26 2006

I've seen it happen. I've a couple of stories I'll email you later about this. Not for public consumption.

Kingfish

Jul 26 2006

The few DHS workers I've met in my travels along life's path seemed to have a couple of clues about how the system really worked, and could tell when they were being spun a story or two. If the kids start making threats like that, it's time to find them new friends.

Ironghost

Jul 27 2006

This is sad to me. Even when DHS shows up, guess what? It's not the cure-all. Sometimes it even gets worse for the child. I hate child abuse. I am dealing with this right now, actually. Have a child I know of and I suspect that someone in her family has been hitting her. But I don't know for sure & cannot think of how to help her as she is only 7 yrs. old. If I call DHS I'm pretty certain they will clear her family as they are very well off & can surely afford a big time lawyer if it came to that. This kind of situation depresses me very much.

Izzy

Jul 27 2006

not just that Laurel, but too often the child recants when they think they might b e leaving mommy and daddy.

Kingfish

Jul 27 2006

that's it. that's just it. mommy and daddy are their support system, however brutal it may be. It's sad, really. It's similar to women in abusive situations, except unfortunately a child isn't old enough to leave and take care of his or her self.

Izzy

Jul 27 2006

Laurel, lets not forget the use of "experts" in divorces who sour the court system on getting involved in helping a child.

Kingfish

Jul 27 2006

Kingfish-that whole "let's call DHS on mom and dad" does happen. But it doesn't happen enough for it to be a legitimate concern. And, as stated, DHS workers are usually battle weary enough to figure it out. Beyond that, Laurel, if you call in an abuse charge to DHS they are BY LAW required to go out and investigate. Now, the reason that I was saying this tape was a good thing, was because I have been told TO MY FACE by DHS workers that even though they are required BY LAW to investigate every charge of abuse, they just can't. They don't have the money or the manpower. Kingfish (once again) And how do you know that Barbour likes abused kids? That's in direct contrast to what the woman who run's the Children's Defense Fund in MS says at ALL of her talks. She, in fact, states that Barbour and his current administration seem to have something against any legislation that keeps children safe. She actually stated in one talk that she's never seen another state where the Governor seems to have less interest in helping children in danger and poverty. You know why we have a deficit? Because for years our DHS system sat on about 40$ million in federal funds and didn't use them because we wanted to be the "good little republican" state that actually RETURNED it to the government. The poorest state in the nation....RETURNING federal funds for DHS. Please, explain to me how this makes sense and how this makes Barbour really believe in helping children and families. If you want to continue to BLAME the children and families, fine, but I just want you to know that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Lori G

Jul 27 2006

Ali, can you email me, I want to ask you about this situation in private. Thanks, Laurel (use [email]laurel@laurelmakesmusic.com[/email]) when you get a chance

Izzy

Jul 27 2006

Ali: when barbour took office medicaid had a 230 million dollar deficit. That was under Musgrove. Musgrove and the legislature expanded what Medicaid could cover and the bill skyrocketed. That is not Barbour's fault. Having said that, which is fact, not opinion, I think Barbour isn't really interested in this area. He hired an idiot like Robinson to run Medicaid who is very unqualified for the job. You have Robinson and Moody, who is a farmer with a two year degree, running the system and they literally have no clue as to what to do. I think Barbour has little interest, looks at the charts put in front of him after telling these guys to get costs under control and do what the cost-cutting playbook tells them to do. I think Barbour is more interested in Katrina recovery and cutting back the power of the legislature, which to be fair, did a great job of putting the state's finances in horrible shape. I also think Barbour is very political, surprise, and if he does not see much political gain in an issue (unless it is something like Katrina which is a catastrophe) then he does not waste time or political capital on it. Not nec. a bad thing, you can only fight so many fights, but its how you prioritize things that causes controversy. by the way, may not happen much but it is legitimate if you are on the receiving end of one of those false accustaions.

Kingfish

Jul 27 2006

If you are on the receiving end and not beating your child, shouldn't really be a problem to you, should it? And I'm not talking about Medicaid. I'm talking about DHS funding, so what you say about Medicaid doesn't apply. And, I sure hate it for Barbour that he sees no political validity in helping our state's most vulnerable population. That makes him a GREAT politician, huh?

Lori G

Jul 27 2006

Sorry we got off on medicaid. the same things you complain about at DHS has happened at medicaid. Barbour admin shifts programs over to DOH from Medicaid cuz those two geniuses said they can get more federal dollars if they do it. That is true. however, the federal dollars don't materialize because the budget was not increased so that enough state money was put in so that we could qualify for federal dollars. Result is federal dollars are not received as promised. Same type of thing you are complaining about over at DHS. I don't think Barbour is against children per se. Really don't. I think he has appointed some people who don't know what the hell they are doing, were told to get costs in line, and are clueless as to what to do. they don't know the rules, the programs, federal laws etc and I include Taylor in that statement. You know more about this than I do and I defer to your judgement on alot of this stuff because you are experienced in this field. As for if you are not beating your child what do you have to worry about? That is similar to what Melton says on his roadblocks, warrantless searches. If you have nothing to hide, why worry about anything since you are innocent? I have a major problem with that whole concept. We could have a nice discussion on how the system is overwhelmed and too often the kids are not protected. The only point I am making is for it to be recognized that sometimes it goes the other way.

Kingfish

Jul 27 2006

Yes, sometimes it does go the other way. But, not enough. And the system HAS to have that "investigate every call" clause otherwise social workers would use sunjective judgement to determine which calls to actually look into...and that wouldn't be a good thing. So, if it protects the majority of children, YES, then the occasionally false claims are something that we all must learn to live with. Besides the fact that DHS is so overwhelmed, unless you are beating your children daily with extension cords, they aren't going to take them. And, feel free to tell any kid who threatens that phone call this statement. I have. ;)

Lori G

Jul 27 2006

sunjective-->subjective

Lori G

Jul 27 2006

The guys who stood by and let the woman beat the child (or held the child down) are in hot water too: http://www.wlbt.com/Global/story.asp?S=5226455&nav=2CSf

LatashaWillis

Aug 3 2006