I just discovered that Banita Jacks’ children were let down by two more people: two of the girls’ fathers. Jacks had filed paternity suits, won & been awarded support. No payments were made.
Here’s another excerpt that takes a critical look at the homeschool scapegoating business:
If complaints are made about a family, it is the responsibility of the local child welfare service to investigate. If no complaints are made, then investigating a family merely for homeschooling is a situation in which you are ‘guilty until enough people are convinced of your innocence.’
Is the Jacks event a tragedy? Oh, yes.
It is a tragedy that Banita Jacks had her first child at 16.
It is a tragedy that she couldn’t get child support from the fathers of two of her children.
It is a tragedy that investigators couldn’t either make contact or complete their investigations.
It is a tragedy that Ms. Jacks’ children were unable to escape from the house as their mother descended further into madness.
It is a tragedy that the parents of the friends of Ms. Jacks’ children weren’t alarmed by the change in their children’s friendships.
And it is horrifying that someone, most likely Banita Jacks, killed Brittany, Tatianna, N’Kiah and Aja, especially in the same general neighborhood as St. Elizabeths Hospital, “the only federal government hospital in the United States for the care and treatment of persons with Mental disorders.”Most of those factors preceded the homeschooling. To lay the responsibility for the murders at the door of homeschooling in the throes of moral panic is to ignore the seventeen years that led up to the final hours of Brittany, Tatianna, N’Kiah and Aja.
More details of the family’s contacts with social aid programs can be found in this timeline (begins on page 3 of the document.) It would appear that the family relied on several programs for assistance, but that their funding was cut by each program over a period of time as conditions for renewal were not met. It would also appear that Ms Jacks was already known to be experiencing mental health issues as early as June 2006 (”behavioral health Medicaid visit”) and had been contacted in December 2006 because she had not come in for a follow-up.
Not surprisingly, social services staff in Washington are less than pleased to find themselves under the microscope in this case:
A spokeswoman the D.C. Child and Family Services agency referred all calls to the mayor’s office. Sabrina Brown, vice president of Local 2401 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which represents city social workers, said they were extremely overworked and urged people to look for solutions, rather than cast blame.
“We just need to talk, not to blame,” she said.
This work was created by Ruby of Freehold 2, and is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.
Excerpts copyright quoted authors. Please visit their sites to read more, and respect the terms of their copyrights. Thanks!
Filed under: Communication, Community, Education, Home & Family, Home Education, Law, Politics & Government, News | Tagged: Banita Jacks, child support, criticism, current events, deadbeat dads, homeschooling, law, regulations
Can you imagine the outrage if the New York Times had called for unannounced home visits for all poor, never-married moms? People would very rightly be upset at the intrusiveness of such a policy and how it treats all those who fall into that group as “guilty until proven innocent”. So why is the NYT and others okay with treating all homeschoolers with suspicion?
Excellent point, Crimson Wife! I have come to believe that the answer to society’s troubles is not more restrictive controls, but rather a more open spirit in which all people are treated with respect and accorded freedom to make choices for themselves.
Sometimes it isn’t easy to both respect parental rights and look after the welfare of children who may be at risk. This is a debate that has yet been resolved in any satisfactory way.
However, we do tend to see far too much presumption of guilt – especially when people fall into a group perceived as different (single parents, homeschoolers, people whose religious or political beliefs differ from those of the majority in their community, etc.) It’s even worse when a population or individual is already labelled “at risk” (poverty, disability, etc.) because then all the so-called experts are far too busy prescribing what someone should do, think & say, to bother paying any attention to the individual’s true needs.
What happened to Banita Jacks’ little girls is a tragedy, but unannounced visits to homeschoolers is likely to do nothing beyond causing more friction and distrust between the homeschooling community and the education and social services systems.
People are missing the point. This woman was not insane, she was a drug-addict.
I see this situation all the time in my neighborhood. Drug-addicts get to live in low rent or free rent apartments, they get SSI, and food stamps. The SSI goes to the crack dealers and the food stamps are sold in the street with the proceedings also going to the crack dealers.
The real tragedy here is that the system makes it easy to have children and not take care of them.
And at least two of the girls were from known fathers. Those men should be brought to justice and charged with murder.
Indeed, the fathers do have a responsibility in this case. I don’t know whether they can actually be charged with murder under the existing laws in Washington. Perhaps.
The key to me, though, is prevention and not blame. We can punish the people involved in this case (Banita Jacks, the deadbeat dads, the social workers who repeatedly closed her dossier, etc.) but will that prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again?
As you point out, the system is designed so it’s easy for this kind of thing to happen. It’s a complex issue, and it isn’t going to have a simple solution….
Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
Ruby