Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

The Lonely Js Club: James, Jackson & Johannah

SpaghettiTuesdays

By SpaghettiTuesdays
in Counting On

Scarlett45
Message added by Scarlett45,

Discussing the charges against Jana is fine, but do not post any information that reveals her address/contact information- even if said documents are public (i.e. a part of court proceedings.)

Discussing charges against Jana is NOT a jumping off point to speculate on other instances abuse/neglect etc towards the M-children or to elaborate on Josh's conviction and potential victims.  

 

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 21.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Ijustwantsomechips
Ijustwantsomechips

Maybe Jana needs her own thread as a token of the respect she’ll never garner as a single woman in Gothardland.  

andromeda331
andromeda331

How about both hop in the plane close the door really quickly and fly off.  Abbie: "Where are we going?" JD: Cayman Islands. We're elope. And we're not coming back! Abbie: Wait we need

BitterApple
BitterApple

Wow, so this is what, the fourth guy to publicly release a statement denying involvement with Jana? That must be doing wonders for her self-esteem.  These guys are starting to piss me off, though

Posted Images

SusanM

SusanM

1 hour 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.

This is it exactly!  The Sun is a very tiny cut above the National Enquirer.  

  • Love 8
Tuxcat

Tuxcat

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

Evidently the district attorney or prosecutor in the area felt there was reason to file charges and that is what Jana is likely going to address in court next month.   

Correct me as I don't know. The officer charged Jana. As with a speeding ticket if you want the charge dropped or reduced, you plead not guilty and go to court. At court, the prosecutor/DA can actually meet with the defendants lawyers and dismiss or file for deferral before it even gets to a judge. My case was like that. I went to court but my lawyer did a little whispering to the DA who did a little whispering back and my case was dismissed. The judge never even heard the case - but I was in court that day. Or of course the judge could dismiss, defer or affirm the charge if it gets that far.

1 hour 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.

Google Jana Duggar. Her headline has been on US Weekly, People but also Fox, NBC and many affiliates. 

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.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 4
Minivanessa

Minivanessa

2 hours ago, merylinkid said:

Let me break down the legal process as I think it relates to Jana:

1.  Kid slips out (cops are told if you HEAR of anything about this family and kids, let us know ASAP by CPS).  

2.   Jana is cited.   It's like a traffic ticket (and yes some speeding tickets you still have to go to court).   She has X number of days to either plead guilty or request a trial date.

3.  She enters a not guilty plea and gets a trial date.   AS SHE SHOULD.   You never plead guilty without 1) a lawyer standing RIGHT THERE WITH YOU and a SIGNED plea deal.   Which doesn't usually happen by the first date.

4.   Court sets a trial date on the initial plea.

5.   IN THE MEANTIME, Jana gets with her lawyer.   Lawyer then gets with the DA who discuss a plea agreement.   I'm thinking probation, some classes and then after a time of no more trouble the slate is wiped clean.   

6.   Plea agreement signed.   

7.   trial date in January remains because you still have to have a hearing on the plea.   it has to be on the record that the defendant understands the terms of the agreement and what can happen if they do not follow the terms.

So there is still a trial date, even though it looks like she took a plea.  

Thanks so much for this. I believe this is a good description of how the case started and how it will proceed.  She wasn't arrested; she was given a citation (ticket) by a cop. No prosecutor decided if the ticket should be issued; an officer did it. Now the case is making its way through the court. I saw documents online that indicate that Travis Story or one of his associates has entered an appearance as Jana's lawyer, and there's a court date (trial) set for I think next month.

It's quite likely that a plea deal will be, or has been, worked out that will be put on the record in court on the date now set for trial. Given her clean record she'll probably be given some deal that will, if she complies with the conditions and stays out of legal trouble, result in the case being dismissed with no conviction on her record at all after X months. The local DA's office may require some special sorts of conditions when it's a child endangerment case but still I don't think she'll come out of this with a conviction when it's all said and done.

  • Useful 4
  • Love 1
Boston

Boston

5 hours ago, madpsych78 said:

Perhaps for some. But in my case, I wouldn't be as surprised if the police nabbed Jessa or Michelle for the same crime, and they are also affluent white women. Sometimes other factors besides demographics come into play.

America looks no longer what it did; however, i'm gonna say demograpichs  may be in play OR NOT.  jmo

Cinnabon

Cinnabon

15 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

I guess I don’t understand what you don’t get? A police officer felt like Jana’s conduct fell within the conduct prohibited by a criminal statute so she was charged with violating that statute. The fact that someone from Teen Mom might not have been charged for similar conduct is irrelevant. A lot of people who break the law never get charged, but that doesn’t mean we can’t charge anyone.

I was pulled over on my way to work one very early morning when it was still dark. The cop said he thought I was driving a bit erratically (it was dark and rainy) and spoke to me through my window. I gave him my drivers license and registration, and he asked what was in the driver door pocket. I said I didn’t know, as it was my dad’s car (true). I think it was candy, lol. Anyway, the cop was very sweet to me and let me go with no warning, no ticket, no consequences whatsoever.  When I got to work, a couple guys said they saw me pulled over and wondered what had happened. When I told them, they were pissed because they had also been pulled over in the area , but treated quite differently, spoken to with hostility, and ticketed. I am a middle aged white woman, so I have a feeling that explains the difference . Anyway, just because one person gets away with something doesn’t mean another will. Unfair? Yes, but this is the world we live in. It all depends on the cop - they all make their own judgments about situations they encounter. Another cop may have let Jana go with only a warning. This one didn’t.

6 hours ago, Portia said:

I think people are surprised/outraged that the police chose to enforce the law against an affluent white woman. 

For sure! Imagine if the cop had brought the child home, and he found a poor, somewhat grungy young man in charge who said he had fallen asleep. Odds are that he would be charged for putting that child at risk. 

  • Love 9
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

4 hours ago, Zella said:

"I know my last name means that everything we do is open to public criticism and interest." Bitch, please. The media wouldn't give two fucks about your last name if your parents hadn't muscled their way into a reality TV show despite having a whole skull orchard as skeletons in their closet. 

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. 

  • Love 23
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

4 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. 

I don’t know if anyone else remembers the reality show about the Osbourne family (Ozzy!), but their oldest daughter completely noped out of it, so the show featured the 2 younger kids only. Jana could have done the same after she hit adulthood, but as you said, she hasn’t done so in 13 years, and has in fact become MORE public in recent years than she was as a minor.

  • Love 19
emmawoodhouse

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.

  • Love 12
Cinnabon

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.

  • Love 16
Tikichick

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.

  • Useful 2
  • Love 10
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

(edited)

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 by Cinnabon
  • Love 16
ginger90

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.
 

  • Useful 4
  • Love 5
Cinnabon

Cinnabon

(edited)

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 by Cinnabon
  • Love 11
Absolom

Absolom

(edited)

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 by Absolom
  • Love 14
Cinnabon

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?

  • Love 11
Madtown

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!!!!

  • Useful 1
  • LOL 2
  • Love 6
crazy8s

crazy8s

(edited)
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 by crazy8s
  • Useful 2
  • LOL 1
  • Love 2
cmr2014

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.

cmr2014

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.

  • Love 21
Tuxcat

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. 

 

Screen Shot 2021-12-14 at 7.44.44 PM.png

  • Useful 6
  • Love 4
Fostersmom

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. 

  • Useful 2
  • Love 2
LilJen

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.

  • Love 10
thehorseofpower

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.

  • Love 18
Cinnabon

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

 

  • Useful 3
  • Love 2
Cinnabon

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

  • Useful 5
Cinnabon

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. 

  • Love 5
SunnyBeBe

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.  

 

 

  • Useful 17
  • Love 5
Churchhoney

Churchhoney

(edited)
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 by Churchhoney
  • Useful 5
  • Love 3
Tikichick

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.     

  • Love 8
laurakaye

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.

  • Love 9
lascuba

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. 

  • Love 6
emmawoodhouse

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.

  • Useful 5
  • Love 1
Scarlett45
Message added by Scarlett45,

Discussing the charges against Jana is fine, but do not post any information that reveals her address/contact information- even if said documents are public (i.e. a part of court proceedings.)

Discussing charges against Jana is NOT a jumping off point to speculate on other instances abuse/neglect etc towards the M-children or to elaborate on Josh's conviction and potential victims.  

 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...