1003
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
1003 points (99.4% liked)
News
23257 readers
3780 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Meanwhile:
Whatever this therapy is supposed to be, it doesn't really sound like that's what's happening.
Yeah I agree. There's something fishy about this whole article though.
How is the mother even in jail when a year ago Colorado put restrictions on the therapy in just these sorts of cases? I feel like either some facts are being misrepresented, or we're not being told everything, or this is some strange outlier and judicial malfeasance.
I mean the article explains it pretty clearly.
Putting aside the insanity of this ever being allowed, it doesn't apply in this case because custody has not been (officially) cut off. She's in jail because she objects to the therapist and her methods, believing them to cause severe anxiety in her children, and has thus tried to interfere with the court ordered sessions.
Sure, but if the therapy is going as described, it seems to me like the situation fits
And besides, according to the article, the mother can and did point to the investigation into the abuse. All together, this just doesn't make sense. Given that this publication is owned by a company well-known for bullshit under their Washington Examiner label, I'm withholding judgement until I learn more. This just reeks of ragebait.
I don't understand how it fits. They're not cutting off their relationship to the protective parent (the mother), which is what the new restrictions prohibit. She still has access and custody, but they are also required to attend reunification therapy. Where is the contradiction?
It's also explained why the abuse investigation does not impact the ordered therapy.
The father is only seeking custody of the two youngest sons, who were, as far as the court is aware, not abused by their father. So the judge does not see this or the seven charges of abuse of a minor as relevant in this case.
I'm all for being aware of the quality and reputation of a paper, but it seems you are putting more weight on that then the quality of the article itself. You are pointing at supposed inconsistencies that seem to be explained by the article.
It's pretty insane to think a proven child abuser will simply not choose to abuse some of his kids when it's proven he abused his other kids.
Perhaps I did misread something in the later half of the article regarding the mother and the therapy. I'm not going to dig through it again to confirm, but I can acknowledge I may have misunderstood.
A judge has a responsibility to take a broader context into account, with the overall health of the children being the main consideration. This would be opposed to a strictly mechanical interpretation of the law, where just because you're not accused of abusing this specific child, you're deemed a safe parent to them. If the judge does not see things this way, they're being derelict in their duty. My suspicion remains that there is quite possibly more to this story though.
Correct, I think one should absolutely not adopt a trusting stance towards a new publication. Trust in reporting needs to be earned, and an appropriate caution should be exhibited until then in 100% of cases. This is because we cannot judge the quality of the article itself from just the article, you can't tell if something is being omitted or misrepresented without other sources to compare it to. All we can judge is how it sounds, and that is not very good evidence of anything.
Admitting I may have misunderstood on how the law applies to the mother's jailing has nothing to do with my other two arguments.
There's frankly little point in digging through an article I do not trust to begin with, it's a waste of time. You can give it your trust if you want, but I have no strong reason to.
So your two paragraphs of pontificating have nothing to do with what's in the article?
I guess you're just here to say "I believe judges are always good at their jobs and never make mistakes"?
No, I am definitely complaining about the article's portrayal of the therapy.
You should reread my comment, which specifically said the judge was being derelict in his duty if he wasn't taking a broader context into account.
I do understand that reading comprehension isn't the strongest point of the internet ragebait-swallowing community. Why you all are so eager is a little beyond me though. Ultimately you should be remembering the profit-driven priorities of media companies, and how their models often revolve around triggering people's emotions.
Perhaps I did misread something. I'm not going to dig through it again to confirm, but I can acknowledge I may have misunderstood.
Fair enough, at least you can admit it.