Just How Bad is the World's Worst Mom?

A few years back, I had a brief meeting with Lenore Skenazy when she was writing for the latest incarnation of the New York Sun when it was still in its print edition (she still occasionally writes a piece for the now online-only publication).  She had gotten my name from one of her many contacts, and briefly picked my brain for background information on a particular topic; she used it as fodder for one of her articles.

Lenore subsequently gained notoriety as the "World's Worst Mom" when she wrote about how she allowed her 9-year old son Izzy to ride home alone on the New York City subway system.

I received an e-mail from Lenore .  She now is advancing from her Free Range Kids website to a reality show entitled, of course, "World's Worst Mom." Lenore has obviously kept my e-mail address along with all of the others she has accumulated.  She is promoting her new show.

I am not suggesting that there is a "one size fits all" approach to parenting.  I am not denying that too many parents give too many liberties to their children.   What is undeniable, however, is that too many children are being raised without learning how to reason for themselves, without learning how to solve their own problems.  I see a rising generation of children who have an external locus of control.  We are raising a generation of automatons  who are naturals for a despotic takeover.

Whatever might be said about Lenore's method of parenting, it is the antithesis of raising wimps for children.

And so, while I will not necessarily endorse all of Lenore's parenting decisions, I will use this opportunity to plug her "World's Worst Mom" show.  A sample clip is to be found here.  The show premieres tomorrow on Discovery Life at 9 PM Eastern.

Best of luck to you, Lenore!

But as Long as They are Happy!

            To those who have asked, my wife and I are having a wonderful time in Israel; as usual, we are accomplishing things we hadn't planned to accomplish, and missing out on some things we had hoped to accomplish.  We spent a few days with our son, whom we hadn't seen in a little over a year, and we will likely be spending Shabbat with him.

            Oftentimes, when someone's (usually adult) child makes lifestyle decisions which do not fulfill the parents' expectations, the parent or parents resign themselves with an utterance to the effect of "But as long as they are happy, I really cannot complain."  And so, the parent(s) end up doing anything and everything to try to make the child happy, spoiling the child in the process.  Amy Fisher, Patty Hearst, Bill Ayers, the Kramer boys, and others of their ilk are often the result.

            It is good parenting to set expectations for one's child, and to communicate those expectations to the child.  It is also not unusual for one's child to deviate from those expectations to one degree or another.  Nor is it unusual for the child, in deviating from the parental expectations, to really, really get himself or herself stuck in a tough spot as a result of the child's ill-advised decisions.

            I myself made (more than) a few suboptimal decisions during my teenage and early adult years; fortunately, I was able to see the errors of my ways, and, after revising my life plans, was able to become a successful contributing member of society (and maintain a marriage nearing three decades and still going).

            If truth be told, my own son made his share of bad judgment calls.  Nothing that would put him (too much) on the wrong side of the law or anything like that, but ill-advised enough to set him on a path to nowhere.  Like his father, he also had an epiphany or two, went back to the drawing board with his life plans, and, as is now evident during our visit to him, is now on target for success in life (though not necessarily the executive suite of a Fortune 500 company).  A little dose of tough love, requiring him to live with the consequences of his decisions, can go a long way.

            Is his life simple and comfortable?  No way!  Is he happy?  Happier than he ever has been in his life, I daresay.  Are my wife and I happy that he is happy?  We are most ecstatic!

            But what makes us most happy is not that our son is happy, but that our son has shouldered some significant life responsibilities, and is successfully dealing with the challenges of adulthood on his own.

            How much longer he remains abroad has yet to be determined.  But his parents are more confident than ever before that he will make the correct decisions with his life.  And that really, really, makes us happy.

Choosing Brains over Assholes

Piss poor parenting has been around for quite some time, but it seems to be on the upswing of late.  Not that anybody is a perfect parent.  A child does not need a 100% perfect parent, only a suitable parent.  Indeed, individuals with significant character flaws have been found to be quite suitable parents.  The example that comes immediately to mind is Mia Farrow, who, for all of her many flaky quirks, was found, hands down, to be quite suitable as a parent of nine children at the time (she subsequently adopted six more).

Some people are not suitable as parents.  Like Melody M.  Melody's son has various mental health issues, which are not helped by Melody's refusal to participate in his therapy.  Melody "does not participate in the child's counseling because she does not like the therapist or agree with the recommendation that the child needs structure and should follow the same routine in both households." Melody "utilized Facebook to insult and demean the child, who was then 10 years old, by, among other things, calling him an 'asshole.' She testified without remorse that she did so because that is what '[h]e is,' and she thought it was important for her Facebook friends to know this."

Res ipsa loquitur!

On the other hand, the kid's behavior and scholastic performance have improved since Robert, Melody's ex, attained sole custody.

This isn't just another dispute between spiteful exes, but rather, the stacking up of a totally clueless and irresponsible airhead against a rational, stable and competent parent. 

But multiply Melody by the number of totally clueless and irresponsible airhead parents (term used advisedly) in this country, hazard a guess as to the percentage of such cases which never even come before the courts (and therefore never get rectified), project the career paths of the kids whose situations are never judicially scrutinized, and it then becomes somewhat easier to explain why we live in a country where the population elects and re-elects public officials who are so inimical to the public interest.

Inside and Outside

Here is the first paragraph of Judge Joan M. Genchi's decision in A.B. v. C.D., 2011 NY Slip Op 51404(U) (Family Court, Suffolk County):

"In this proceeding brought pursuant to Article 8 of the Family Court Act, the petitioner, A.B., filed a Family Offense Petition on April 7, 2011 which alleges that the respondent, C.D., her husband, committed the following family offenses: Harassment in the first or second degree; Aggravated harassment in the second degree; Menacing in the second or third degree; and Reckless Endangerment approximately between December 2009 and January 2010 and again in October 2010 during conjugal visits at the Elmira Correctional facility where the respondent was incarcerated. The petition alleges numerous attempts by the respondent to communicate with the petitioner, either by mail, telephone, texting, or through third-party contact with the petitioner. The respondent has since been transferred to Southport Correctional Facility where he is serving a sentence of 28 years to life for the murder of his deceased former wife's husband, and for other convictions. The parties had a child on August 31, 2004, and they were married on January 14, 2006 at the Clinton Correctional Facility. On April 4, 2010, the respondent had divorce papers served on the petitioner."

So here we have a woman who marries a man who is doing an indeterminate sentence of 28 years to life on a murder conviction. Don't let the number 28 throw you; it is the theoretical date when the inmate can start with the biennial petitions to the Parole Board. And in New York, it is very rare that those convicted of a violent offense get paroled the first time before the Board.

Then this woman decides to divorce the guy. Not a bad move, given the predicament she got herself into. But then, after filing the divorce papers, she continued with the conjugal visits at the State Penitentiary.

And now, she wants an order of protection from the guy who is incarcerated (and apparently in solitary confinement).

Judge Genchi declined to award an order of protection, inasmuch as the incarcerated husband does not present a danger to the estranged wife (estranged, that is, when she's not up at the State Pen on a conjugal visit).

So what do we now have? (A) A violent felon who is now confined behind bars for the next 20+ (and perhaps 30+) years; (B) A ditzy bimbo who doesn't want said violent felon to bother her, but who is not above going up to the Big House for a conjugal visit with him; and (C) a seven-year-old child who has two piss-poor role models in his/her life, one on the inside and the other on the outside.

Prison for the Clueless

This New York taxpayer will be supporting one more clueless nitwit for at least 19 more years. And that suits me just fine!

Edwin Frazier just got a 19-to-life sentence for his role in a home invasion that turned fatal.

Frazier, Ernest Johnson, Jovan Phillips and mastermind Eric Calace (spoiled rich kid whose father and grandfather are noted real estate developers) went to burglarize the home of Dane Aulak, Calace's cannabis connection. Aulak was home at the time, and accordingly, a struggle ensued with him. Aulak was fatally shot by Johnson and/or Phillips, but, in the struggle, managed to flip a gun away from Johnson or Phillips. Aulak's brother Jesse caught the gun and, in self defense, fatally shot Johnson and Phillips.

Here is the Suffolk County DA's press release, with all its updates at the bottom.

Calace, who was waiting in the car when it all happened, cut a plea deal for 17 years in exchange for his cooperation with the Suffolk County. [Eric the Spoiled Rich Kid Calace actually has something resembling a chance. His sentence ends in 2024, but he might get out in 2021 if he behaves well. If Dear Old Dad's real estate empire survives, then Eric might actually have a job to go to when he gets out. But I suspect that Calace, Sr. did his share to facilitate Junior's descent into hell long before he sprung for Junior's defense attorney.].

Frazier pleaded guilty to Murder II and was formally sentenced to a 19-years-to-life term.

So now, Frazier is whining to the Judge "How come I have to take their fall? … Why couldn't I plead to a burglary charge?"

To which I say, "Boo Freakin' Hoo," to borrow a quote my 2nd favorite Filipina, Michelle Malkin (my No. 1 favorite Filipina, now retired and doting on her grandchildren, is a Jewish girl from Manila who lost a brother during the Japanese occupation).

The exchange at the sentencing hearing between Judge Hudson and Frazier's mother is very telling:

"You didn't fire the weapon, but you held it," Hudson told Frazier. "Ready at your leader's command to kill."

"But he didn't!" the suspect's mother, Pamela Mays-Frazier, 40, shouted at the judge.


The way I read this, Frazier received, during his formative years, precious little guidance on how to be responsible for his own actions. And very few clues in matters of other common everyday wisdom. He certainly didn't get much from Mom.

Even Frazier's lawyer conceded, afterwards, that if Frazier didn't take the plea deal for Murder II, he likely would have gotten slapped with the maximum.

Frazier is lucky. His two accomplices got what amounts to the back door death penalty -- they were "victims" of justifiable homicide. It's the best we can do for capital punishment in New York, now that the sob sisters on the Court of Appeals have taken that prerogative away from the prosecution.

Frazier now has 19 years to get a clue or two before his first parole hearing. But I wouldn't bet that it will happen.

Meanwhile, we taxpayers will be footing the bill for Frazier's room and board. But that's a cheap and economical alternative to having Frazier out walking on the streets.

Threats are No Joke

Okay, so the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has upheld the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, which, in turn, upheld Richard Mabbett, the Superintendent of Schools for the Weedsport Central School District.

Aaron Wisniewski, one of the brats under Mabbett's charge, had sent out an AOL Instant Message to his buddies, said message entailing an icon depicting a pistol firing a bullet at a person's head, with splattered blood, and the legend "Kill Mr. VanderMolen." Aaron's English teacher was Mr. Philip VanderMolen. Aaron was suspended from school for a semester, and the lawsuit captioned Wisniewski v. Board of Education followed.

[As this post is being written, the judicial opinions seem to only be available on proprietary fee-based databases. The LEXIS-NEXIS cite is Wisniewski v. Board of Education, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15924 (2d Cir. 2007), aff'g 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41017 (N.D.N.Y. 2006).].

My commentary on the case:



1. Remember that the incident occurred in April 2001, which was before the Muslim terrorist attack of September 11, 2001. A few weeks prior to the incident, the student body had previously been informed that threats would not be tolerated and would be treated as acts of violence. Seems that Superintendent Mabbett and his subalterns knew, even in those halcyon pre-September 11th days, that terroristic threats are inimical to an environment conducive to effective education.

2. The lawsuit made some ado over the fact that the incident did not occur on school property, and did not use school computers. But Mabbett appreciated that his concern should not end at the boundary line to the school property. And the courts upheld him.

3. At the time of the incident, Aaron Wisniewski was a 15-year-old in the 8th grade. Having been duly apprised of the illegality of his acts, and of the potential consequences thereof, he chose to transgress, and he received the punishment. So far, so good. But then, his parents, Marty and Annette, got upset that their darling son's First Amendment rights to free speech were trampled upon, and brought the lawsuit. Maybe this is Aaron's real problem. Maybe he is the victim of piss-poor parenting. Maybe his parents ought to stop being terrorism facilitators and start being parents.

4. If truth be told, my own conduct in elementary and secondary school was not always that of the model student. I transgressed the rules on more than a few occasions, and the consequences of such transgressions, ranging from being compelled to stand in a corner to a one-day suspension, were imposed upon me. I didn't go home crying to Mommy and/or Daddy because I knew that Mommy and Daddy would invariably back the school principal every time. For that reason, the discipline imposed upon me was a success! I misbehaved, so I was punished! I eventually got tired of being punished, so I started to significantly curtail my misbehaviors. Works like a charm!

5. The plaintiffs in the case are "Martin and Annette Wisniewski, on behalf of their son Aaron Wisniewski." Of all of my youthful misbehaviors, not once did I ever threaten or harm any of my math teachers, and so, they were able to effectively teach me the subject in a nurturing environment. Applying the mathematical skills I learned back in grade school and high school, I figure that Aaron Wisniewski, who was 15 years old in April of 2001, is now 21 years old. And if indeed he is 21 years old, he should dismiss his parents from the case, accept the dismissal of his case, accept the one semester suspension he was given 6 years ago and then straighten out and fly right!