The Lonely Js Club: Jason, James, Jackson & Johannah

[MsJamieDornan]

Jana is an adult (sort of ) she can defend herself.

[beckie]

If Anna was staying with Josh, as speculated, maybe Jana was on night time baby duty. Maryella or one of the other little M's could have had a bad night, causing Jana not to get much sleep. I don't know. Just thinking.

What I want to know is why it's considered an offense that got a charge and a court date? I know we don't know the whole story, but it sounds more like something unintentional, than on purpose.

[emmawoodhouse]

I hope Anna reimbursed Jana her bail. It's the least she could do.

[GeeGolly]

19 minutes ago, MsJamieDornan said:

Jana is an adult (sort of ) she can defend herself.

And maybe she is. Just not on SM.

[mynextmistake]

2 hours ago, beckie said:

If Anna was staying with Josh, as speculated, maybe Jana was on night time baby duty. Maryella or one of the other little M's could have had a bad night, causing Jana not to get much sleep. I don't know. Just thinking.

What I want to know is why it's considered an offense that got a charge and a court date? I know we don't know the whole story, but it sounds more like something unintentional, than on purpose.

Unintentional acts can still be crimes. The definition of third-degree child endangerment in AR is reckless conduct putting a child at risk of injury, not intentional conduct. Jana probably didn’t fall asleep on purpose while watching young kids, but if you’re responsible for young children, you need to stay awake. If you’re too tired to do that, you need to make sure you find an appropriate alternate caregiver or, at the very least, that you lock the damn doors so toddlers can’t wander into the road. Failure to do so is reckless.

I have sympathy for Jana because I do think Anna takes advantage and should be watching her own damn kids, but if Jana agreed to watch them she assumed the duty to keep them safe.

[ginger90]

 

Edited December 12, 2021 by ginger90

[YupItsMe]

21 minutes ago, ginger90 said:

 

Oh boy. Is that real?

[ginger90]

25 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

Oh boy. Is that real?

Real as far as what? It is on their actual Instagrams, in their stories, if that’s what you mean.

The picture being used is from a post of Jana’s from August 2020.

Edited December 12, 2021 by ginger90

[GeeGolly]

5 minutes ago, YupItsMe said:

Oh boy. Is that real?

I know, right!? This is was happens when you release immature folks to the world.

Do they really think there is some campaign out there against Jana? Are they so confused they think the wish to see Josh punished for his disgusting behaviors is now transferred to Jana? Jana (allegedly) lost one kid. Considering she's been helping keep an eye on a dozen plus kids for the last 20 years, I'd say its surprising she hasn't lost track of more.

[65mickey]

We have all seen stories on the news about a toddler found outside alone. Usually it's the same story the adult responsible the child says they fell asleep and the kid managed to unlock a door and go outside.  It's usually a child who is and escape artist and knows how to get outside. And if you have a child like this extra care needs to be taken to secure the house.  

If Jana took the fall for Anna or Michelle and lied to the police officer is she willing to go to court and lie under oath about what happened? If so I have not one bit of sympathy for her. She is just a sick as the rest of this crew. 

As for her moving out how is she going to support herself? She has no real education or technical training. At this point she probably could not get a job in a daycare center. I always wondered why the Duggars and the Bates to some extent do not see the need for the females in the family to be able to support themselves if all of a sudden they are on their own. The situation with Anna and her 7 children is a perfect example of why women need an education and the ability to support themselves. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by 65mickey

[LilJen]

On 12/12/2021 at 4:31 AM, mynextmistake said:

Unintentional acts can still be crimes. The definition of third-degree child endangerment in AR is reckless conduct putting a child at risk of injury, not intentional conduct. Jana probably didn’t fall asleep on purpose while watching young kids, but if you’re responsible for young children, you need to stay awake. If you’re too tired to do that, you need to make sure you find an appropriate alternate caregiver or, at the very least, that you lock the damn doors so toddlers can’t wander into the road. Failure to do so is reckless.

I have sympathy for Jana because I do think Anna takes advantage and should be watching her own damn kids, but if Jana agreed to watch them she assumed the duty to keep them safe.

One wonders why M&JB never received charges, probably on a higher level, for documented proof of losing a kid and laughing and filming other times when their kids were in peril.🙄

Edited December 13, 2021 by LilJen

[Ljohnson1987]

I hope Jana is found not guilty. She didn't choose to raise her nieces and nephews. (Or her siblings for that matter). Anna is the children's mother. She should be the one watching them.  But, Anna is so brain washed, that she chooses to be with her evil husband. #FreeJana. 

[Ljohnson1987]

https://www.tvshowsace.com/2021/12/10/jana-duggar-child-endangerment-who-was-involved/

[SMama]

15 hours ago, CalicoKitty said:

Wasn't the clown thing for Amy's birthday one year?  All the Dugs either dressed up as clowns, or had clown figures, or something, and laughed because they knew she was afraid of clowns HA HA HA.  They did it on purpose to torment her.

It was on an episode of 19 Kids. JB hired a clown (on stilts) to terrify Amy on what was supposed to be her birthday party. JB and his kids have a mean streak. Karma is coming for them. 

[Minivanessa]

4 minutes ago, SMama said:

It was on an episode of 19 Kids. JB hired a clown (on stilts) to terrify Amy on what was supposed to be her birthday party. JB and his kids have a mean streak. Karma is coming for them. 

I know, Amy's a mess. She takes cheap shots and then backs off, and all that. But really, after JB and his family did that to her? I'm inclined to give her a pass for pretty much anything she says against them, or does - short of physical harm. 

[SMama]

9 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

IMO, Amy could have all the reasons there are to be pissed at Jana or any other Duggars, but it doesn't make it right or okay to have a 'fight' on IG. And I'll add that I've never seen a Duggar make digs at Amy on SM.

They didn’t need SM to take digs at Amy, they had their show and did so quite frequently. The kids stating ad naseum how Amy was not like them, but “we still accept her.” They acted like they were such good Christians by accepting less than, impure Amy. JB took digs at Deanna having a child out of wedlock for decades. It was always followed by how Deanna’s baggage (Amy) caused her problems during her adult life. Funny how JB could never come up with an example of what those problems were. At least Deanna did not raise a monster, then aided and abetted said monster while he was molesting, and in one case raping his daughters. The tables have turned JB, enjoy your comeuppance.

[lascuba]

8 hours ago, beckie said:

If Anna was staying with Josh, as speculated, maybe Jana was on night time baby duty. Maryella or one of the other little M's could have had a bad night, causing Jana not to get much sleep. I don't know. Just thinking.

What I want to know is why it's considered an offense that got a charge and a court date? I know we don't know the whole story, but it sounds more like something unintentional, than on purpose.

The "reckless" wording means that it was unintentional, but the risk of harm was high enough to warrant a charge. Assuming the story that a kid got out and was found on the road is accurate, the child being found a far enough distance from the house that she would have been gone an alarmingly long time would certainly justify a court date, imo. Jail time might be too much, but if Jana was the one responsible for the kids and she fell asleep, then she needs some version of being "scared straight." Though I'm guessing she, or whoever else was in charge, deputized an older child to watch of the younger, and Duggars being Duggars, they're blaming that child. 

It's also possible this isn't the first incident where Jana or another adult was caught being reckless and the officers involved weren't willing to just give a warning this time. 

3 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I know, right!? This is was happens when you release immature folks to the world.

Do they really think there is some campaign out there against Jana? Are they so confused they think the wish to see Josh punished for his disgusting behaviors is now transferred to Jana? Jana (allegedly) lost one kid. Considering she's been helping keep an eye on a dozen plus kids for the last 20 years, I'd say its surprising she hasn't lost track of more.

Well, they think there's a campaign against all of them, collectively. And to go full conspiracy theory, it's really coincidental that they managed to keep this quiet until right after Josh gets convicted. People are going to be more inclined to sympathize with Jana no matter what she does and they know it. 

2 minutes ago, SMama said:

It was on an episode of 19 Kids. JB hired a clown (on stilts) to terrify Amy on what was supposed to be her birthday party. JB and his kids have a mean streak. Karma is coming for them. 

They really have the meanest sense of humor. When Erin Bates was getting married, the Duggars arrived en masse with a gift basket organized by Jill. She was thrilled to show Erin the fire extinguisher she included, because Eric was known to be a bad cook. 

[Cinnabon]

2 hours ago, LilJen said:

One wonders why M&JB never received charges, probably on a higher level, for documented proof of losing a kid and laughing and filming other time when their kids were in peril.🙄

Because we live in a society where the wealthy and privileged often get away with atrocities without being charged. 😥

[Zella]

4 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I know, right!? This is was happens when you release immature folks to the world.

Do they really think there is some campaign out there against Jana? Are they so confused they think the wish to see Josh punished for his disgusting behaviors is now transferred to Jana? Jana (allegedly) lost one kid. Considering she's been helping keep an eye on a dozen plus kids for the last 20 years, I'd say its surprising she hasn't lost track of more.

I think it's possible they think it is an organized campaign against them--it was interesting to read in one of the recent Reddit AMAs from the fundie tech guy who testified at trial that the Duggars apparently thought the police visits in 2006 were an organized attack since it stemmed from 2 separate calls, instead of reasoning that multiple people were horrified by what had happened.

But I also think it is quite possible this is mainly clapping back at Amy. Vaguebooking, it is the Duggar family way. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Zella

[BitterApple]

One of the M's wandering off makes the most sense. The Duggars in the Josie-Jackson age range are 12-17. I don't think passerby would even take notice if they saw them walking down the road. A kid who's 2 or 4 would be a different story. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by BitterApple

[GeeGolly]

I only vaguely remember the clown on stilts episode. Wasn't Amy laughing? I think if Deanna and Amy felt so demeaned by the Duggars they would have stopped hanging around with them and appearing on the show. I'm also guessing Deanna wouldn't have partnered with Michelle to make a CD with the Lost Girls. And lastly they didn't seem to have any ill will toward the Duggars while they were pushing so hard, using the Duggar name to get Amy her own show.

Edited December 12, 2021 by GeeGolly

[IndianPaintbrush]

This whole situation is infuriating. I get that someone needs to be held legally accountable, but it should be the PARENTS. Do we have confirmation that DHS is investigating?

Those poor kids. A father in prison and a neglectful idiot mother.

[louannems]

1 hour ago, SMama said:

They didn’t need SM to take digs at Amy, they had their show and did so quite frequently. The kids stating ad naseum how Amy was not like them, but “we still accept her.” They acted like they were such good Christians by accepting less than, impure Amy. JB took digs at Deanna having a child out of wedlock for decades. It was always followed by how Deanna’s baggage (Amy) caused her problems during her adult life. Funny how JB could never come up with an example of what those problems were. At least Deanna did not raise a monster, then aided and abetted said monster while he was molesting, and in one case raping his daughters. The tables have turned JB, enjoy your comeuppance.

I always hated the fact that JB railed against Deanna's out of wedlock pregnancy.  Would he rather her have had an abortion?  He should have put her on a pedestal for choosing life like they are always blathering on about.

[zenme]

There have been a couple of times where I’ve fallen asleep on the sofa while my 4 year granddaughter and I were supposed to be watching a movie. It was always very brief and, I believe, not a hard sleep. I feel for Jana because if she’s been shouldering responsibility for Anna’s 6 kids while Anna was out being joyfully available with Jpest, she’s probably exhausted. Could she have assumedMack and Michael were helping as well?

How was the child identified as MaryElla Duggar?

Edited December 12, 2021 by zenme

[thehorseofpower]

6 minutes ago, louannems said:

I always hated the fact that JB railed against Deanna's out of wedlock pregnancy.  Would he rather her have had an abortion?  He should have put her on a pedestal for choosing life like they are always blathering on about.

Exactly! This is what always frosts my cookies about many of the Christian pro-life attitudes I see - being pro-life should mean you continue to be supportive of the mother and baby after the birth, not reverse course the second the child is born to condemn the mother and try your darndest to remove all societal supports to make their lives better. There's no winning with an attitude like JB's - if you have an abortion, you're evil and damned; if you have the child and try to care for it, you're a whore who deserves to be shamed and you should have kept your legs closed...and you certainly don't deserve any welfare or help in trying to provide for the baby. Just disgusting.

[drafan]

4 hours ago, LilJen said:

One wonders why M&JB never received charges, probably on a higher level, for documented proof of losing a kid and laughing and filming other time when their kids were in peril.🙄

They would just claim it was staged for filming purposes.

I don't think Jana does all this kid-raising, home-remodeling, gardening, etc. I think it's just JB's twisted sales-pitch to marry Jana off.

 

1 hour ago, lascuba said:

They really have the meanest sense of humor. When Erin Bates was getting married, the Duggars arrived en masse with a gift basket organized by Jill. She was thrilled to show Erin the fire extinguisher she included, because Eric was known to be a bad cook. 

I've been to showers like this...one was to contribute to a "recipe box", but instead of recipes, it was cards with addresses, phone numbers, and menus of restaurants and take-out places.  Actually, a fire extinguisher is a pretty useful gift. (Yes, I realize JB was probably braying in the background, which does taint the whole thing.)

 

Petty thought: That horizontally-striped dress is not doing Jana any favors, if the original point was to find her a (Fundy) guy.

(((Right now I can't with any of them. If Josh were released on a technicality, they would probably all be down at the county jail with welcome home banners.)))

Edited December 12, 2021 by drafan

[lascuba]

8 minutes ago, drafan said:

 

(((Right now I can't with any of them. If Josh were released on a technicality, they would probably all be down at the county jail with welcome home banners.)))

THIS! With every new statement, my first thought is, "OK but what would you have said and done if he were acquitted on the same evidence you all heard?"

[charmed1]

2 hours ago, lascuba said:

Well, they think there's a campaign against all of them, collectively.

Yes. One thing that stood out to me during the Jessa/Jill interview was when Jessa said, “people hate my family.” That to me sounded like something that had been taught to her by her parents. And I believe in order to keep their children clinging and dependent on their cult, JBob and M probably did convince them all that anyone who questioned their teachings hated them all. 

[Temperance]

9 hours ago, mynextmistake said:

Unintentional acts can still be crimes. The definition of third-degree child endangerment in AR is reckless conduct putting a child at risk of injury, not intentional conduct. Jana probably didn’t fall asleep on purpose while watching young kids, but if you’re responsible for young children, you need to stay awake. If you’re too tired to do that, you need to make sure you find an appropriate alternate caregiver or, at the very least, that you lock the damn doors so toddlers can’t wander into the road. Failure to do so is reckless.

I have sympathy for Jana because I do think Anna takes advantage and should be watching her own damn kids, but if Jana agreed to watch them she assumed the duty to keep them safe.

 

 

Thank You! If she committed a crime, she deserves consequences. People are going easy on her, because she's fan favorite and the child seems to be fine. Imagine if something had happened to that child. 

2 hours ago, IndianPaintbrush said:

This whole situation is infuriating. I get that someone needs to be held legally accountable, but it should be the PARENTS. Do we have confirmation that DHS is investigating?

Those poor kids. A father in prison and a neglectful idiot mother.

If she agreed to babysit, she's responsible. She's 31 and able to look after children. Many, many people in this country have relatives watching their kids. There's nothing criminal about it. We also don't know that it was one of Anna's kid though that seems most likely.

6 hours ago, GeeGolly said:

I know, right!? This is was happens when you release immature folks to the world.

Do they really think there is some campaign out there against Jana? Are they so confused they think the wish to see Josh punished for his disgusting behaviors is now transferred to Jana? Jana (allegedly) lost one kid. Considering she's been helping keep an eye on a dozen plus kids for the last 20 years, I'd say its surprising she hasn't lost track of more.

No! I think the cops found a small child in a dangerous situation. 

[Cinnabon]

1 hour ago, thehorseofpower said:

Exactly! This is what always frosts my cookies about many of the Christian pro-life attitudes I see - being pro-life should mean you continue to be supportive of the mother and baby after the birth, not reverse course the second the child is born to condemn the mother and try your darndest to remove all societal supports to make their lives better. There's no winning with an attitude like JB's - if you have an abortion, you're evil and damned; if you have the child and try to care for it, you're a whore who deserves to be shamed and you should have kept your legs closed...and you certainly don't deserve any welfare or help in trying to provide for the baby. Just disgusting.

Yes, they want it both ways and refuse to see the reality. They are pro forced birth, not pro life.

[SusanM]

4 minutes ago, Temperance said:

Thank You! If she committed a crime, she deserves consequences. People are going easy on her, because she's fan favorite and the child seems to be fine. Imagine if something had happened to that child. 

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not prepared to condemn her based on what we know at this moment.  If things happened as reported so far, frankly, she's not guilty of anything that a lot of other parents/caretakers haven't done.  I don't think anyone is giving her a pass but I also don't think what she apparently did rises to the level of calling it a crime. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by SusannahM

[Cinnabon]

9 minutes ago, charmed1 said:

Yes. One thing that stood out to me during the Jessa/Jill interview was when Jessa said, “people hate my family.” That to me sounded like something that had been taught to her by her parents. And I believe in order to keep their children clinging and dependent on their cult, JBob and M probably did convince them all that anyone who questioned their teachings hated them all. 

They all love claiming they’re persecuted.

2 minutes ago, SusannahM said:

I can't speak for anyone else but I'm not prepared to condemn her based on what we know at this moment.  If things happened as reported so far, frankly, she's not guilty of anything that a lot of other parents/caretakers haven't done.  I don't think anyone is giving her a pass but I also don't think what she apparently did rises to the level of calling it a crime. 

Maybe others have done the same thing,but 2 wrongs don’t make a right. 

[SusanM]

4 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Maybe others have done the same thing,but 2 wrongs don’t make a right. 

IF more information comes to light I might feel differently. I'm very interested to find out the actual details around why she was charged because as it stands right now I know a lot of parents who have had similar things happen to them and aside from feeling very guilty and very relieved there were no other repercussions.

[Cinnabon]

Just now, SusannahM said:

IF more information comes to light I might feel differently. I'm very interested to find out the actual details around why she was charged because as it stands right now I know a lot of parents who have had similar things happen to them and aside from feeling very guilty and very relieved there were no other repercussions.

Imagine if that child had been hit by a car and killed. People would be screaming for consequences. If charging her with endangerment now means everyone in that house will be ultra careful going forward, it’s worth it IMO.

[GeeGolly]

I recall two occasions I panicked when losing sight of one of my kids. One was in a store and after about 60 seconds my sister saw my kid, right next to us, under a clothing rack. The second time was when my husband and I were in the fenced-in backyard with the kids and one went missing. In what was likely 3 minutes, but felt like an eternity, we found our kid on the front porch, happily playing.

As a parent, I know how quick this can happen. Both times I was wide awake and even with another adult. I do have a problem with a babysitter sleeping on the job though, if that's what happened, but I know of parents who napped when their kids did and sometimes their kids would wake up first and get into some harmless trouble.

It'll be interesting to hear what the real scoop is, if the truth is ever told and made public. It'll also be interesting to hear how law enforcement deals with this. From reading about tragedies of kids left in cars, how the facts are seen matters. Some parents end up in jail and others don't.

Whatever the outcome of Jana's case, we do know that no child was injured and that's always a good thing.

[merylinkid]

11 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Imagine if that child had been hit by a car and killed. People would be screaming for consequences. If charging her with endangerment now means everyone in that house will be ultra careful going forward, it’s worth it IMO.

But we don't convict people on what MIGHT have happened.   We go with what DID happen.   The child was in danger, but NOT harmed.   If the child was harmed, then she would not have just been issued a citation.   but the child was NOT harmed sayind she should face the same consequences that if she were hit by a car and killed is not how it works.

The parents this has happened to without consequence were more hype vigilant I am sure.   We don't need to send someone to jail just to make sure they learned their lesson.

Quite frankly, screaming for MORE punishment than the average person would receive just because Jana is a Duggar is just as bad as saying she should not face any consequences because she worships the right Jesus.   Equal before the law means no favoritism OR disfavortism (is that a word?  It is now).   

[Zella]

Just based on the info we have now, I don't think Jana intentionally did anything, but it's super dangerous for a small kid to be running around a road like that. I can understand why she was cited while at the same time acknowledging that there were likely factors at play that could explain why it happened that don't make her a terrible person on its own. I need more info before forming a more conclusive opinion. But I feel pretty comfortable with thinking the citation was earned.

[estellasmum]

6 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

If charging her with endangerment now means everyone in that house will be ultra careful going forward, it’s worth it IMO.

I could not agree more with this sentiment, but I really don't think anyone will change anything about how they approach child care in that family despite anything that happened with Jana or Josh.  They're all too entrenched in their beliefs, and arrogant to realize that any of them could be in the wrong, IMHO.

Edited December 13, 2021 by estellasmum
wanted to expand more on possible neglect and definite ABUSE in this comment

[Zella]

1 minute ago, estellasmum said:

I could not agree more with this sentiment, but I really don't think anyone will change anything about how they approach child care in that family. They're all to entrenched in their beliefs, and arrogant to realize that any of them could be in the wrong, IMHO.

Yeah I think they are just going to double down on the persecution complex after this week. 

[SusanM]

Just now, GeeGolly said:

As a parent, I know how quick this can happen. Both times I was wide awake and even with another adult. I do have a problem with a babysitter sleeping on the job though, if that's what happened, but I know of parents who napped when their kids did and sometimes their kids would wake up first and get into some harmless trouble.

My husband was home with our toddler years ago and fell asleep.  Woke to find her sitting IN the sink in the en suite bathroom trying to open a bottle of childen's tylenol with her teeth.  Like I said earlier I don't think there are many parents who don't have a similar story to tell!  I get that there is a difference when it happens with a babysitter - who presumably is being paid to look after your kids and should not be sleeping on the job! - but we're talking about the Duggars here.  Not that I think for one second that anyone paid Jana one penny for being the babysitter for those kids!

[drafan]

2 hours ago, lascuba said:

THIS! With every new statement, my first thought is, "OK but what would you have said and done if he were acquitted on the same evidence you all heard?"

That God has spoken through that jury! Nothing to see here. Move along. New TLC show : "Soldiering On". Jessa and JB grinning like goons. Joshley and Anna back as their smug selves.

Ugh. I just made myself sick.

 

34 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Imagine if that child had been hit by a car and killed. People would be screaming for consequences. If charging her with endangerment now means everyone in that house will be ultra careful going forward, it’s worth it IMO.

Or worse.....kidna**ed. (Makes me ill to type that.)  Hope they will be more careful, but somehow I doubt it. Their motto seems to be " Just don't get caught."

[Cinnabon]

31 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

But we don't convict people on what MIGHT have happened.   We go with what DID happen.   The child was in danger, but NOT harmed.   If the child was harmed, then she would not have just been issued a citation.   but the child was NOT harmed sayind she should face the same consequences that if she were hit by a car and killed is not how it works.

The parents this has happened to without consequence were more hype vigilant I am sure.   We don't need to send someone to jail just to make sure they learned their lesson.

Quite frankly, screaming for MORE punishment than the average person would receive just because Jana is a Duggar is just as bad as saying she should not face any consequences because she worships the right Jesus.   Equal before the law means no favoritism OR disfavortism (is that a word?  It is now).   

A 2 year old was on a road. Seems like child endangerment to me. Again, 2 wrongs don’t make a right. I don’t think jail time would be appropriate though. Just some kind of fine. 

33 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

But we don't convict people on what MIGHT have happened.   We go with what DID happen.   The child was in danger, but NOT harmed.   If the child was harmed, then she would not have just been issued a citation.   but the child was NOT harmed sayind she should face the same consequences that if she were hit by a car and killed is not how it works.

The parents this has happened to without consequence were more hype vigilant I am sure.   We don't need to send someone to jail just to make sure they learned their lesson.

Quite frankly, screaming for MORE punishment than the average person would receive just because Jana is a Duggar is just as bad as saying she should not face any consequences because she worships the right Jesus.   Equal before the law means no favoritism OR disfavortism (is that a word?  It is now).   

 

31 minutes ago, Zella said:

Yeah I think they are just going to double down on the persecution complex after this week. 

If this hadn’t happened, they would quickly have just found another reason to feel that way. 

[Zella]

8 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

If this hadn’t happened, they would quickly have just found another reason to feel that way

Oh I don't doubt that at all. I think it is their default. But I think it is in overdrive right now. I've seen people speculate that Jim Bob leaked this Jana news himself to detract from Josh. But I don't think he thinks that way. (Also I find it a pretty threadbare theory logicwise.) I imagine they've got a real Hitler in the bunker vibe going on at the TTH, though, and I feel so sorry for the underage kids trapped there. It's got to be even more miserable than normal. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Zella

[mynextmistake]

31 minutes ago, merylinkid said:

But we don't convict people on what MIGHT have happened.   We go with what DID happen.   The child was in danger, but NOT harmed.   If the child was harmed, then she would not have just been issued a citation.   but the child was NOT harmed sayind she should face the same consequences that if she were hit by a car and killed is not how it works.

The parents this has happened to without consequence were more hype vigilant I am sure.   We don't need to send someone to jail just to make sure they learned their lesson.

Quite frankly, screaming for MORE punishment than the average person would receive just because Jana is a Duggar is just as bad as saying she should not face any consequences because she worships the right Jesus.   Equal before the law means no favoritism OR disfavortism (is that a word?  It is now).   

I don’t think anyone is saying that though? She was cited for what did happen, not what could have happened. Some people seem to be arguing she shouldn’t face any consequences because “all parents have moments like this” (not true) and “the child was fine” (great, but irrelevant to the charge). If she fell asleep and a young kid got close to a busy road for long enough for a motorist to call 911 and police to get there, pick the kid up, and take them home, that’s reckless. I don’t see anyone calling for her head on a platter, just saying that it’s reasonable for her to face the charge she is facing if the facts are as reported.

[Cinnabon]

12 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

I don’t think anyone is saying that though? She was cited for what did happen, not what could have happened. Some people seem to be arguing she shouldn’t face any consequences because “all parents have moments like this” (not true) and “the child was fine” (great, but irrelevant to the charge). If she fell asleep and a young kid got close to a busy road for long enough for a motorist to call 911 and police to get there, pick the kid up, and take them home, that’s reckless. I don’t see anyone calling for her head on a platter, just saying that it’s reasonable for her to face the charge she is facing if the facts are as reported.

Well said. I may not have been clear in my post. And I do know other parents who have also been cited for similar offenses (I am a social worker). A parent’s 9 year old child was playing in a park down the street from their home, without his parents (this was the norm back when I was growing up) and a neighbor called the police. Because the kid was “unchaperoned, “ the parents were cited and referred to CPS. Seems crazy but this is now the world we live in.

[GeeGolly]

34 minutes ago, mynextmistake said:

I don’t think anyone is saying that though? She was cited for what did happen, not what could have happened. Some people seem to be arguing she shouldn’t face any consequences because “all parents have moments like this” (not true) and “the child was fine” (great, but irrelevant to the charge). If she fell asleep and a young kid got close to a busy road for long enough for a motorist to call 911 and police to get there, pick the kid up, and take them home, that’s reckless. I don’t see anyone calling for her head on a platter, just saying that it’s reasonable for her to face the charge she is facing if the facts are as reported.

I agree if the facts are true, Jana should face whatever the appropriate consequence is. I was sharing my example, not because she shouldn't face consequences, but to show Jana is not some crazy irresponsible aunt who cares so little about her niece she just let her wander off.

I can't name one parent I know, who doesn't have a story of some shenanigans their kids got into, when their backs were turned for a second or two.

Edited December 12, 2021 by GeeGolly

[Cinnabon]

6 minutes ago, GeeGolly said:

I agree if the facts are true, Jana should face whatever the appropriate consequence is. I was sharing my example, not because she shouldn't face consequences, but to show Jana is not some crazy irresponsible aunt who cares so little about her niece she just let her wander off.

I can't named one parent I know, who doesn't have a story of some shenanigans their kids got into, when their backs were turned for a second or two.

I agree. Most of us have unintentionally done things that could have proven to be dangerous. I was cited one night for a broken taillight that I wasn’t aware of. That prompted me to be more aware in the future. It happens to everyone, sure, but could have been extremely dangerous. I appreciated learning my lesson that way instead of the truly hard way (if someone had gotten hurt). 

Jana could have been a mom who habitually drank during the afternoons (sadly not uncommon) and had kids who were running wild. Better to cite her than to take the chance of it happening again. 

Edited December 12, 2021 by Cinnabon

[3 is enough]

So this happened in September.  I imagine there was a period right after where everyone was terrified that it would be picked up by the press. Nothing happened and as time went on and Josh’s trial approached they probably thought the secret was safe.

I really do wonder who the “source” was and if the timing was intentional.

Not excusing what happened, and Jana definitely has some culpability, unless she really is covering for someone else.  Given her clean record and the fact that no one was hurt I can see a fine, probation, and maybe some community service or mandatory child safety course.  It is a misdemeanor charge not a felony. Hopefully it serves as a wake up call or she starts to refuse childcare duty.

Edited December 12, 2021 by 3 is enough

[Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, 3 is enough said:

So this happened in September.  I imagine there was a period right after where everyone was terrified that it would be picked up by the press. Nothing happened and as time went on and Josh’s trial approached they probably thought the secret was safe.

I really do wonder who the “source” was and if the timing was intentional.

Not excusing what happened, and Jana definitely has some culpability, unless she really is covering for someone else.  Given her clean record and the fact that no one was hurt I can see a fine, probation, and maybe some sort of course or community service or mandatory child safety course.  It is a misdemeanor charge not a felony. Hopefully it serves as a wake up call or she starts to refuse childcare duty.

I feel a fine would be the most appropriate. I don’t think anyone is suggesting any more serious consequences. 

[65mickey]

To say that no one should ever nap while a child naps is ridiculous. Are parents supposed to sit up all night to make sure that a child does not get up and escape to the outside? We don't know who the child is, the age of the child and if there were other adults in the home? With all of the chaos in the Duggar house it is possible that the child simply opened the door and walked out and was not missed. The lesson here for anyone who is watching young children is make sure that the doors are locked securely. 

The Bates' 2 youngest boys set the house on fire playing with lighters. Unless is was hushed up I don't think anyone was charged with a misdemeanor crime.  When people have so many young children in a large home I dont know how it is possible to have eyes on every child at all times.  If Jana was asleep when the child got out and she was the one who was in charge of this child she would be better off owning up to this.