I was shocked she didn't at least take the mothers to task, but maybe there was more that was edited out. That's all I can figure. That, or there are criminal charges pending, since the police were called. Mr. Funky half expected her to yell at the Plaintiff a bit for having stuff out where kids could get at it, but thankfully she left that alone. With the staggering amount of damage those kids did, there's really no innocent excuse for it. Mr. Funky thought the blonde might have some sort of delay of some variety - his actions in court were....odd. And yes, the other one seems like a classic joiner-inner.
I did find the comments they made to the witness to be a little chilling - so matter-of fact, like there was zero wrong with what they were doing. I hope anything done by the cops included a visit to both homes by CPS, to find out why these kids are running the streets. If one of them would have gotten hurt, you darn well better believe the moms would have sued. Kids to get in to mischief, and are nosy. I will own up to some of it. Growing up, a friend's parents managed a mobile home park. There would be mobiles sitting in a holding area of sorts, pulled off their lots due to lack of payment of rent, etc. A lot of times, they'd be chocked full of stuff - they'd know they were getting evicted, and they'd take what they needed and let everything else behind. It was really easy to get in and out of those mobiles. Eventually, they'd either get claimed or sold, but we'd go in there and hang out. One of them, we called our "clubhouse". But we never stole anything, or vandalized anything. Ever. Seriously. And we were pretty young too, but our parents taught us right from wrong. We were under the mistaken impression that my friend's dad owned those mobiles. Once we found out he didn't, we stopped going in, unilike last night's kids.
The dog case was really odd. I somewhat believed the plaintiff that she had an agreement to cook and clean in exchange for a room, becuase the Defendant never asked her for rent, even though he claimed she was lying. I also found his "friend" creepy as all get-out. She didn't allege they gave the dog sugar, though. The dog's name was Sugar (that confused me at first, but it was on the vet rport). The vet report said the dog was fed goulash, and vomited up onion, which can be fatal to some animals - especially cats, who should hever have onion. The dog had pneumonia, but I wonder if it ate the goulash, vomited, and aspirated, which could cause pneumonia. Not sure why she was in a hurry to get the dog out of the vet, but it could be due to money, or she was trying to get home because she knew they'd kick her out. Still, a bad idea to pull the dog from vet care early.
I also somewhat believe they fed the dog, because I can't fathom how a tiny dog could get at food, unless it was left low where it could reach, or the dog got it from the trash, but I don't recall hearing that. I don't think it was necessarily malicious, but I do think they fed the dog people food.