The Lonely Js Club: James, Jackson & Johannah

[emmawoodhouse]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Exactly! And there is no way Jana actually wrote this. And Jana, if you truly preferred a private life, you wouldn’t be hawking random products on SM, nor would you have public SM accounts sharing details of your life with millions of strangers. Private people share with family and friends only. Just like Jinger claiming she prefers a “private life” are complete BS, so are Jana’s claims. 

Yeah, these girls are trying to have it both ways. Jill is the only one who doesn't seem to mind whatever criticism is thrown her way.

[Cinnabon]

4 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

Yes- I think Jana likes the benefits of a public life (instagram followers for example) but not the draw backs. Not that public figures owe the media a camera in their bathroom while they are bathing (as an extreme example), but come on now Jana. 

Josiah and Lauren's decision to leave public social media is looking better and better these days.

Like Jessa and Jinger, she wants it both ways - to take advantage of being a public figure when it suits her, but also wants to keep embarrassing incidents private. Can’t have it both ways.

[Calibabydolly]

If Jana wanted to NOT be associated with that last name (Dugger) then she could get MARRIED! Move away and live this so- called private life she strives for. She does not need to still be associated with the TTH....not since she was 18, right?

[GeeGolly]

Jana so could have headed this off. All she had to do was post a little snippet. Something like, oh my goodness what a day - insert story here - so glad it turned out all right! #IYKYK

[Tikichick]

1 hour ago, laurakaye said:

If Jana does have to take a babysitting class as part of her probation, perhaps she'll take a good look around the class and realize that she's the only 30-year old amongst a bunch of 12 and 13 year old girls and start to get a clue.

If that is a term of her probationary sentence it will actually be a child development class that's most likely going to be filled with parents whose children have been removed from their custody and/or parents who are under a PS safety plan in an effort to keep the children in the home while the parents make efforts to correct all identified areas of risk to the children.

[Cinnabon]

I also don’t buy her disingenuous “I support and respect law enforcement “ blah blah blah. JUST like JB’s statement. In private, I have no doubt they tore that cop and the judge in Josh’s case a new one. They (like too many Americans these days) only love and respect law enforcement when they are treated well and when those they don’t like are the ones being charged and punished. Their continued need to be seen a certain way and court the public’s approval means they continue to lie, minimize, and obfuscate the truth. I absolutely think that the  whole family (maybe minus Jill) does think they are being persecuted.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Cinnabon

[ginger90]

In my neck of the woods, the Children and Youth (the name where I am) case would not be closed just because the child was unharmed during this incident. There’s founded (it happened) and unfounded. This fell under founded, from what is known to us at the moment, and admitted to by Jana herself. Services may be put in place but that would be separate from the investigation under the same agency.
 

[Cinnabon]

If this incident prompts the adults in that home to start locking the doors, then the charge and probably small fine, have been worth it. Seriously, how were the doors unlocked in a family with dozens of small kids running around? Especially with ALL OF THE WATER within feet of the front door?

Edited December 14, 2021 by Cinnabon

[Absolom]

Locking doors is not always the solution it sounds like.  Some children are very enterprising at unlocking doors even before age 2.  The Duggar TTH has quite a few exterior doors so one or more could get overlooked.  It's also compounded by the age range of children involved.  Keeping two pre-schoolers in sight while the school age children run in and out also while tending a newborn in a large house sounds like a recipe for what happened. 

My daughter uses an alarm system that announces when any door or window is opened.  She was my escape artist who could get out of every door in the house before 15 months.  

Edited December 15, 2021 by Absolom

[Cinnabon]

12 minutes ago, Absolom said:

Locking doors is not always the solution it sounds like.  Some children are very enterprising at unlocking doors even before age 2.  The Duggar TTH has quite a few exterior doors so one or more could get overlooked.  It's also compounded by the age range of children involved.  Keeping two pre-schoolers in sight while the school age children run in and out also while tending a newborn in a large house sounds like a recipe for what happened. 

My daughter uses an alarm system that announces when any door or window is opened.  She was my escape artist who could get out of every door in the house before 15 months.  

We have a similar alarm system that makes a noise every time a door is opened. And it’s just my elderly mom and me. Why don’t they?

[Madtown]

5 hours ago, deaja said:

She can spare me the victim act.

You want a private life? Move out, get a private job, instead of living with your parents who never met a camera they didn't like. You didn't have a choice when you were a minor but you have had a choice now for THIRTEEN YEARS. 

Louder for those in the back!!!!

[crazy8s]

2 hours ago, Ljohnson1987 said:

I support Jana, but where were all of  the Duggar boys when Jill needed their support? 

since the duggar parents and all minor duggars living at home were away. that would leave Jason and James as the only brothers in the TTH. I can't remember if they were shown at the Bontrager home school thing. Jeer and Hannah certainly were, since the Wissmans were preforming there.

the new duggar money maker seems to be snapping up cheap lots in Bella Vista and Jase, James, etc slapping up houses for Joe to sell. So I expect they were away or out to breakfast and then maybe showing up at a job site.

also since this was months ago there was no newborn in the house as far as the m kids jana was watching

Edited December 15, 2021 by crazy8s

[cmr2014]

23 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

If this incident prompts the adults in that home to start locking the doors, then the charge and probably small fine, have been worth it. Seriously, how were the doors unlocked in a family with dozens of small kids running around? Especially with ALL OF THE WATER within feet of the front door?

I was thinking about this and locking the doors isn't really the safeguard I was originally thinking it was. The TTH really isn't a safe space for small children, and toddlers really need to be supervised indoors there as well.

There may or may not be simple safeguards like outlet covers and cabinet locks (I'm guessing "no," though). There are countertops and surfaces where a small child will have seen aunts and uncles climbing. There are hard-surfaced stairs and no child guards on the stairway. There is a ton of just junk in the house: bikes, harps, etc. There are also guns.

If Jana is telling the truth about what happened (and I don't think she is), she should have gone into a bedroom to take a nap, brought the child with her, and locked that door.

[Absolom]

7 minutes ago, crazy8s said:

also since this was months ago there was no newborn in the house as far as the m kids jana was watching

True.  I had a bit of memory slip there.  Thanks.

[cmr2014]

I looked at the aerial view of the house again. The TTH is quite a way from the road, and it is fenced at the entrance. The warehouse areas, however, are all quite close to the road.

I'll go back to my earlier post that I don't think Jana was watching this child at all. The officer brought the child to the door and asked Jana if she was watching him, and she said "no" because she wasn't. She then backtracked because she didn't want to say that Anna had left the kids alone in a warehouse that may or may not be zoned for habitation.

In their world, a twelve year old girl is more than old enough to care for five younger siblings (Back in the olden days, I watched my siblings at 12, too). A toddler getting away from the oversight of a 12 year old and wandering 10-12 feet to the road strikes me as very believable.

[Tuxcat]

12 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

I looked at the aerial view of the house again. The TTH is quite a way from the road, and it is fenced at the entrance. The warehouse areas, however, are all quite close to the road.

I'll go back to my earlier post that I don't think Jana was watching this child at all. The officer brought the child to the door and asked Jana if she was watching him, and she said "no" because she wasn't. She then backtracked because she didn't want to say that Anna had left the kids alone in a warehouse that may or may not be zoned for habitation.

In their world, a twelve year old girl is more than old enough to care for five younger siblings (Back in the olden days, I watched my siblings at 12, too). A toddler getting away from the oversight of a 12 year old and wandering 10-12 feet to the road strikes me as very believable.

Agree. 

 

[Fostersmom]

5 hours ago, cmr2014 said:

Conflating the "media" with a snark board is a problem of Jana's limited education and exposure to the world. The New York Times isn't interested in this story, The Sun is. These are not equivalent news outlets.

I use Yahoo as my browser of choice and their front page had not one, but 2 Jana Duggar was charged stories on Sunday night. One was basically the People story and the other was how Cousin Amy was defending her (no mention of the original Cousin Amy nasty dig that had already been removed from her Instagram stories though). Sure, I had to scroll down and probably only there because I read the original reporting on TMZ and here, but the reporting certainly had made it to main stream sources and not just message boards. 

[LilJen]

7 hours ago, ElsieEm said:

I dunno, all this "kid slipped outside unnoticed, could happen to anyone" narrative is still suspect to me. As many have said, yeah kids sometimes DO pull a runner in a few seconds, and it's scary but not uncommon. 

Yeah, I call BS "for just a second." If it was just a second, how did the kid get about half a mile away? And why would she be cited if it was "just a second"?

5 hours ago, Churchhoney said:

I think all of these equivocations and misapprehensions by the Duggarlings are just part of the dense fog of denial and delusion they all walk around in. And have been walking around in their whole lives. 

As @Tuxcat mentioned, they desperately need to pivot out of that fog. But right now they may have a world record for size of denial fog, length of fog's persistence and number of people who seem to have no motivation to see an inch beyond it.

Yep. Fog, fog, fog, fog, and foggity fog. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, and delusion ain't just a magic trick.

[thehorseofpower]

I don't buy that Jana is just "covering" for Anna or a younger child left in charge and is selflessly taking the blame for this situation. Why would she accept legal consequences and all of this public embarrassment if she had nothing to do with what happened? The Duggars sure as heck aren't known for their selflessness and empathy, so her falling on the proverbial sword for Anna seems completely out of character for a Duggar. Also, if an 11-year-old was in charge while Jana slept and the younger child escaped under that arrangement, I would still fault Jana. The 11-year-old is a minor child herself and is ultimately not the responsible party for multiple other tiny children when there is also a 30+ year old adult in the house.

[JoanArc]

"It was just some light touching, over by the road. I was asleep the whole time!" -Jana

F her BS story.

[SMama]

4 minutes ago, JoanArc said:

"It was just some light touching, over by the road. I was asleep the whole time!" -Jana

F her BS story.

I’m confused, Jana was not a victim.

[SusanM]

I am hoping Jana isn't reading Canadian news right now as this story* might make her think about moving up north. 

*5 yr old caught having driven the family car - parents are facing no charges.

[Cinnabon]

For those who think others haven’t been charged for unsupervised children, here are some examples:

A mother allowed her six-year-old to play outside unsupervised. As a result, she was investigated by Child Protective Services. Her husband and three children were all questioned several times by authorities.

An 11-year-old Florida boy came home to find his parents were not there yet. He played in his backyard alone for an hour-and-a-half until his parents' return. The parents were arrested and charged with felony neglect.

Police found a Maryland couple's six- and ten-year-year-old kids playing unattended in a park two blocks from their home. As a result, the couple had to sign a "safety plan" that prohibited them from leaving their children unsupervised again.

https://spokester.com/blogs/news/you-should-let-your-kids-play-outside-alone

 

[Cinnabon]

More on this:

Unfortunately, there has been a spate of incidents in which parents faced charges for letting their children walk or play unsupervised. In August 2018 in Wilmette, IL, Corey Widen had the authorities called on her when someone saw her 8-year old daughter walking the dog outside their house. While the local authorities didn’t press charges, the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services opened up a case to see if the incident constituted neglect. Other parents have faced even harsher circumstances for letting their kids play unsupervised in a variety of situations.

https://lawyers.usnews.com/legal-advice/is-it-legal-to-let-kids-play-unsupervised/230

[GeeGolly]

From my perspective those are some crazy examples @Cinnabon. I had such a hard time balancing my own fears of worst case scenarios with allowing my kids autonomy when they were growing up. I tell ya, raising kids is not for sissies.

[Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, GeeGolly said:

From my perspective those are some crazy examples @Cinnabon. I had such a hard time balancing my own fears of worst case scenarios with allowing my kids autonomy when they were growing up. I tell ya, raising kids is not for sissies.

They are pretty crazy. I don’t necessarily agree with what happened to those parents, but I just wanted to point out that Jana isn’t the only one  that has been charged with this. 

[SunnyBeBe]

This article includes the Instagram post by Jana.

https://people.com/tv/jana-duggar-breaks-silence-on-child-endangerment-citation/

As an attorney, I couldn’t help but cringe when I read the story.  I bet her attorney cringed, as well.  Some of the worst things a defendant can do is admit facts of the case that tends to prove guilt and downplay the seriousness of the offense.  I’ve posted recently about my curiosity of whetherJana would do a deferral program, where the charges are voluntarily dismissed.  Thing is,  those programs are at the discretion of the prosecutor.  One reason you might qualify is that you have remorse for your actions and have learned a lesson.  Hmmmm…Jana isn’t and hasn’t.  The prosecutor may refuse to offer it to her now.  
 

It’s all a big mistake/accident is rarely a valid defense.  It’s what guilty people say a lot to deflect their culpability. Sorry, Jana, I’ve always liked you, but you must have totally ignored your attorneys advice.   It’s not what harm that occurred, but what could have occurred.  Jana’s perception of the matter sounds very immature.  

 Then, there’s the thing of the state proving the allegations.  Why hand the state their case by  admitting to anything?  Witnesses move away, forget, get confused, etc.  you never know if the state can prove guilt.  So, keep silent.  I’ve posted before that people have the right to remain silent, but rarely, the ability.  Lol  She may feel totally in the right, but that doesn’t mean she will win her case.  I hope she didn’t turn down a deferral program.  After reading her public statements, the prosecutor may just decide a trial is the best she gets.  

 

 

[Churchhoney]

16 hours ago, Tuxcat said:

 

How far is this "parallel road" from the Duggar house and/or the warehouse? How close is the warehouse from the main house? We don't know the age of the child but I do still wonder if Anna is involved somehow. Perhaps she told Jana "hey M down for her nap"  - go check in an hour? Which would be irresponsible of course but a plausible theory. Maybe the child ran down the road looking for mama.

I think the road the kid was allegedly on is a road that perpendicularly intersects the road the Duggar compound fronts on. It's about a thousand feet from both the TTH and the warehouse......

The warehouse is about four hundred feet from the TTH. The TTH is that far back from the road their property fronts on, and the warehouse is essentially right on that front road. 

I wonder how the kid got on the perpendicular road. You'd either have to cross through other people's yards -- some of them with wooded areas -- or go to the road in front of the Duggar property and walk down it to the intersecting road. No sidewalks, of course. This is rural. That suggests to me that it was more likely one of the slightly older kids who was out wandering, not a child under age two, although it's obviously not impossible for an under-two-year-old.

Thinking about the question of risk and endangerment....Not only are there several ponds within the same walking distance from the Duggars' TTH-and-warehouse, but if a child headed the other direction, they could just as easily get to the massive dump/landfill that's on the other side of the road the Duggars front on. It's about the same distance from the Duggar house as the road the kid was allegedly found on, just in a different direction........ I don't know how well fenced the dump is, but it's certainly within easy walking distance of their house. 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Churchhoney

[Scarlett45]

It is against forum policy to post the residential address of reality show participants. 

In the spirt of that policy, an aerial map with their home circled and road names clearly marked is not allowed. 

Further violations will result in warnings. 

[Tikichick]

13 hours ago, thehorseofpower said:

I don't buy that Jana is just "covering" for Anna or a younger child left in charge and is selflessly taking the blame for this situation. Why would she accept legal consequences and all of this public embarrassment if she had nothing to do with what happened? The Duggars sure as heck aren't known for their selflessness and empathy, so her falling on the proverbial sword for Anna seems completely out of character for a Duggar. Also, if an 11-year-old was in charge while Jana slept and the younger child escaped under that arrangement, I would still fault Jana. The 11-year-old is a minor child herself and is ultimately not the responsible party for multiple other tiny children when there is also a 30+ year old adult in the house.

IMO the fact she denied involvement and then admitted involvement, the fact none of her minor Duggar siblings were at home at the time, along with the fact the warehouse property where Anna resides with her brood being closer to adjacent roads makes me think it is highly likely Jana is covering for Anna.   It wouldn't be about covering for a younger child left in charge, because in that case it definitely would roll uphill to the parent, Anna, under failure to provide proper care and supervision provisions.   I don't think there's any doubt CPS would have substantiated charges against Anna given the totality of the circumstances at that time.  That is more than adequate reason for Jana to fall on her sword.   She has no children herself, so it wouldn't allow them to make a move to remove them from her custody.   It certainly couldn't have been one of the adult brothers considering the toxic Josh cloud that hangs over them.   Jana was the last one standing and the last line of defense, plain and simple.   

Jana being an adult relative with a long history of caring for children with no record of serious harm doesn't leave an opportunity for authorities to cite Anna for leaving children improperly supervised.   Jana having a clean record means it's unlikely she faces any serious repercussions.    I think the sting might have come in the tail when the local district attorney elected to charge her under their discretionary powers.     

[laurakaye]

My thinking is that the entire extended family believes that if Jana's eyes are open and she's standing upright, she's fair game for babysitting no matter how many young children are under her watch, or how many other random howlers or lost girls are hanging around who could be helping.  I just sense that Jana is the de facto child minder no matter how many she's supposed to be watching at one time and she herself has come to accept it as fact.  If it's even partially true it's a crappy life to live, it's a wonder this kind of thing hasn't happened before to her, and it's Michelle's fault for placing that burden on her daughter's shoulders.  It's also Jana's fault for allowing it to happen in the first place, and for this long.  Jana is to blame for letting one child out of her sight, but if she's watching 8 or 9 at once, she's in an impossible situation.

[lascuba]

Do we know that Jana initially denied involvement or was that one of the speculations KJ made? 

I imagine that if Jana or any other solitary adult is in charge of several children at a time, it's a lot more casual than a true babysitting set-up, it that makes sense. Especially when there's a lot of age variation in the children involved. She's there and ultimately responsible, but the kids are off playing and doing their thing and unless there are any infants present she's not particularly hands on unless she has to be. I don't think any adult there is particularly vigilant regarding anything but dress codes. 

[charmed1]

What do these people do all day where they would even have a need for a sitter? 

[Liddy52]

3 minutes ago, charmed1 said:

What do these people do all day where they would even have a need for a sitter? 

Amen and amen!!!!!

[woodscommaelle]

2 hours ago, lascuba said:

Do we know that Jana initially denied involvement or was that one of the speculations KJ made?

Who is KJ?

[emmawoodhouse]

2 hours ago, lascuba said:

Do we know that Jana initially denied involvement or was that one of the speculations KJ made? 

I imagine that if Jana or any other solitary adult is in charge of several children at a time, it's a lot more casual than a true babysitting set-up, it that makes sense. Especially when there's a lot of age variation in the children involved. She's there and ultimately responsible, but the kids are off playing and doing their thing and unless there are any infants present she's not particularly hands on unless she has to be. I don't think any adult there is particularly vigilant regarding anything but dress codes. 

Jana has apparently changed her plea. An additional $450 in fines was paid. 

6 minutes ago, woodscommaelle said:

Who is KJ?

Katie Joy, Without a Crystal Ball.

[iwantcookies]

2 hours ago, charmed1 said:

What do these people do all day where they would even have a need for a sitter? 

Being joyfully available and making a sandwich for their headship?

[SMama]

3 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Jana has apparently changed her plea. An additional $450 in fines was paid. 

Katie Joy, Without a Crystal Ball.

She pled guilty?!

[emmawoodhouse]

3 minutes ago, SMama said:

She pled guilty?!

It appears so. I guess the $450 was the fine which will make it all go away.

[Nysha]

Nothing wrong with pleading guilty. It saves the county money & deprives the snarkers, haters, and leghumpers a trial to pick apart.

[MsJamieDornan]

On 12/14/2021 at 11:36 AM, deaja said:

She can spare me the victim act.

You want a private life? Move out, get a private job, instead of living with your parents who never met a camera they didn't like. You didn't have a choice when you were a minor but you have had a choice now for THIRTEEN YEARS. 

Darn right !!

[SunnyBeBe]

7 hours ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Jana has apparently changed her plea. An additional $450 in fines was paid. 

Katie Joy, Without a Crystal Ball.

Is there a link on this?  

[ChiCricket]

56 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Is there a link on this?  

Here you go :

Ps. I think she's full of 💩 a lot of the time.

Pps. oops, you probably wanted a link to the $450 fine thing..not KJ 😂 

Edited December 16, 2021 by ChiCricket

[emmawoodhouse]

The fine box now reads $880. It was $430 the other day. Even I can do that math. 😁

[js9548]

Why has the fine gone up to  $880?

[cmr2014]

14 hours ago, ChiCricket said:

Here you go :

Ps. I think she's full of 💩 a lot of the time.

Pps. oops, you probably wanted a link to the $450 fine thing..not KJ 😂 

I don't know how accurate this is. I assume she got her information from Amy, who got hers from Jill, who got the story from James, etc. I suppose that we'll never know the truth since Jana has plead guilty and a minor was involved.

The interesting thing to me out of the story as reported here is that the first words out of Jana's mouth were a lie. Her first impulse was to immediately lie.

WOCB say that Jana plead guilty because she had already had already posted a "confession" and couldn't plead not guilty after doing that. I don't know if that's the case, but I do think she'd be in a difficult position and had to go in front of a judge and explain why the first words out of her mouth were a lie.

[lampshades]

3 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

WOCB say that Jana plead guilty because she had already had already posted a "confession" and couldn't plead not guilty after doing that. I don't know if that's the case, but I do think she'd be in a difficult position and had to go in front of a judge and explain why the first words out of her mouth were a lie.

I don’t think this part is accurate. The Dailymail had her already accepting a plea deal the day after the news broke. They claimed they spoke to a court clerk so I would think they were accurate. Jana posted her “confession” much later.

[Cinnabon]

11 minutes ago, cmr2014 said:

I don't know how accurate this is. I assume she got her information from Amy, who got hers from Jill, who got the story from James, etc. I suppose that we'll never know the truth since Jana has plead guilty and a minor was involved.

The interesting thing to me out of the story as reported here is that the first words out of Jana's mouth were a lie. Her first impulse was to immediately lie.

WOCB say that Jana plead guilty because she had already had already posted a "confession" and couldn't plead not guilty after doing that. I don't know if that's the case, but I do think she'd be in a difficult position and had to go in front of a judge and explain why the first words out of her mouth were a lie.

Why? Because the Duggars lie. Apparently that’s not a “sin” in their world.

[emmawoodhouse]

12 hours ago, js9548 said:

Why has the fine gone up to  $880?

Because she paid an additional $450 after the initial plea in September. The amount just changed this week.

[Cinnabon]

5 minutes ago, emmawoodhouse said:

Because she paid an additional $450 after the initial plea in September. The amount just changed this week.

JB paid - FIFY