• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Welfare Office Shooting: Mom Denied Food Stamps For Months, Shoots Own Kids

tessaesque said:
Maybe, or maybe it would be as hotly contested as requiring drug tests. And, then again, we have the very real tendancy of those with particular mental illness to deny/refuse help and services designed to manage those illnesses. Bipolar/Schizophrenic individuals will often buck the system and fight against receiving care. They'll refuse or lie about taking medication, they'll run from therapy. I don't think we can blame this situation on a break down or lack of mental health services in Texas. With bipolar individuals especially, it can be very hard to see that mental issues exist based on a paper application and a missed interview. I know of no state that requires a mental competency exam for TANF or WIC benefits, so Texas lacking such a test is not unique.

I think if we're going to blame this on any government entity it should be the one that granted this woman custody when she and her husband split. There is enough interaction during those hearings and appearances for somebody to have been able to determine that the woman likely had issues. There were also easily accessible character witnesses to help reinforce that the woman had issues. If it wasn't caught then it seems ridiculous to me to go after HHS in Texas for not catching it on the basis of an unreturned phone call, missed appointment, and incomplete application...which is all the interaction this lady had with them.
Click to expand...

I would add to this that I fully support mental health testing during divorce preceedings in which custody of minor children will be decided. I know that in my circumstances it would have saved me over 7 years of emotional abuse and inappropriate exposure and might have resulted in my mother resolving her addictions/addressing her mental health issues. But even if it hadn't helped her it certainly would have helped me. Most states tend to favor the mother in custody hearings. I'm sure a lot of this is based on tradition, but I think the more proactive and kid-centric approach would be to gauge which parent is most stable financially, emotionally, and mentally without support.
 
samsmart said:
No, I don't think anything that far should happen. And I don't know if this is done in Texas already, but I think social workers should get training on identifying those who may be mentally ill so something can be done.

I know that in a few places in the U.S. the recession has caused decreased funding to many social programs for the mentally ill. So what a few towns and cities are doing is training their police officers to identify those who may be mentally ill. The reason why is because it's quite easy for the mentally ill to be involved in crimes. And those mentally ill don't deserve to be in a prison. Rather, they need to be in a hospital where they can get treatment for their mental illness.

And, as I said before, I think it would be a good idea to do mental health tests or interviews for those who get welfare since the mentally ill are often homeless and unemployed because they have such a difficult time holding a job because of their mental illness.

So I'm not saying that we have to be oppressive in this. Rather, I'm thinking that maybe we could do more. And if we can do more, what are those things that we can do?
Click to expand...

While I agree that a mentally "challenged" person may more likely to be unemployed or homeless I still don't think that we should subject those on welfare to a mental health test. By doing so you're basically doing the same thing as TSA agents have been doing of late. Targeting the masses in order to "hopefully" capture the minority. While it might be technically legal to do, it is not morally right to do.

Also while training police, welfare workers etc etc to spot signs of "suspect behavior" I don't think it would be very cost effective to do so. Many people with mental health problems can go about thier day perfectly normal until they suddenly "snap". Those with bi-polar disorder are a perfect example of this. One second they're puting along doing what everyone else with no mental health problems do and the next second they can be in a furious rage or extremely depressed. Also they may flag someone that they just met even though that person is currently going to counseling and taking meds which is not only a waste of time and resources to confirm but may excaerbate(sp?) thier problem, particularly those with paranoid schizophrenia.
 
tessaesque said:
I would add to this that I fully support mental health testing during divorce preceedings in which custody of minor children will be decided. I know that in my circumstances it would have saved me over 7 years of emotional abuse and inappropriate exposure and might have resulted in my mother resolving her addictions/addressing her mental health issues. But even if it hadn't helped her it certainly would have helped me. Most states tend to favor the mother in custody hearings. I'm sure a lot of this is based on tradition, but I think the more proactive and kid-centric approach would be to gauge which parent is most stable financially, emotionally, and mentally without support.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be opposed to that.

I also think that mothers should be required to have regular mental health check-ups that start after they have a child and then decrease in regularity after a time.

The reason why I say that is because having a child can lead to a lot of stress and while it may not cause a full on mental illness a therapist may be able to help mothers cope with the stress. Also, it can help early detection of mental illnesses that occur after pregnancy, such as post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis.

Maybe we should have more mental health clinics attached to pediatric clinics so mothers can get some counseling more easily.
 
samsmart said:
I wouldn't be opposed to that.

I also think that mothers should be required to have regular mental health check-ups that start after they have a child and then decrease in regularity after a time.

The reason why I say that is because having a child can lead to a lot of stress and while it may not cause a full on mental illness a therapist may be able to help mothers cope with the stress. Also, it can help early detection of mental illnesses that occur after pregnancy, such as post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis.

Maybe we should have more mental health clinics attached to pediatric clinics so mothers can get some counseling more easily.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be opposed to mental health checks in a divorce proceeding that involves kids. That said...

Bold part: No. No. No. And NO! Voluntary is one thing. But required? Hellz no! I could imagine the glee that the CPS would have at this. "Oh! That mother is mentally unsound due to her post partum depression! Her kids need taken away!"
 
samsmart said:
I wouldn't be opposed to that.

I also think that mothers should be required to have regular mental health check-ups that start after they have a child and then decrease in regularity after a time.

The reason why I say that is because having a child can lead to a lot of stress and while it may not cause a full on mental illness a therapist may be able to help mothers cope with the stress. Also, it can help early detection of mental illnesses that occur after pregnancy, such as post-partum depression or post-partum psychosis.

Maybe we should have more mental health clinics attached to pediatric clinics so mothers can get some counseling more easily.
Click to expand...

The path to hell, is paved with good intentions.

Do you believe in personal freedom and liberty or do you believe that people MUST be controlled, for their own good?
 
Three less people we will have to pay our earned tax money to.
 
What was the reason for the delay in getting the food stamps? Rick Perry?
 
Gladiator said:
What was the reason for the delay in getting the food stamps? Rick Perry?
Click to expand...


No...she never filled the paperwork out correctly, didn't show up for her follow up interview, didn't return calls, and didn't answer her phone. The agency tried to rectify the problem with her paperwork but she never followed up after the initial denial.

If you'd read the articles/done a little googling you wouldn't have made such a hackish remark.
 
rhinefire said:
Three less people we will have to pay our earned tax money to.
Click to expand...

Seriously? A woman kills her children and you're celebrating because three people who were never on food stamps will now never be on food stamps?

Your/our taxes...that isn't even the issue here, dude.
 
Events like this are always tragic. Its obvious mom had some issues. Its also apparent from the article that while she needed service and services were available to her, she didnt follow throguh. Tragic ending. When you are unemployed, finding adequate work and social services should be your full time job. 40 hour weeks should be spent applying for, filling out paper work, requests, etc. She had a cell phone...you can download free apps that will show where to find social services, shelters, etc in every state. I hope the lesson in all of this is not "bad mommy, bad state blame blame blame" but rather, need exists...get engaged...find help.
 
rhinefire said:
Three less people we will have to pay our earned tax money to.
Click to expand...

Your comment's disgusting. You're celebrating about 3 people killed for having your taxes less burdened?
Tough guy stances don't work here, and trying to act like one never works
 
tessaesque said:
No...she never filled the paperwork out correctly, didn't show up for her follow up interview, didn't return calls, and didn't answer her phone. The agency tried to rectify the problem with her paperwork but she never followed up after the initial denial.

If you'd read the articles/done a little googling you wouldn't have made such a hackish remark.
Click to expand...


Thanks for the research. Sounds like excessive red tape to me. Apparently she was qualified to receive food stamps, but the beaurocracy got to her. If you are poor, do you have time to answer a phone? What does a phone have to do with food stamps?

Reminds me of he movie The Intruders.





//
 
Gladiator said:
Thanks for the research. Sounds like excessive red tape to me. Apparently she was qualified to receive food stamps, but the beaurocracy got to her. If you are poor, do you have time to answer a phone? What does a phone have to do with food stamps?
Reminds me of he movie The Intruders.
//
Click to expand...
What do you define as 'excessive? Do you even know what paperwork she did or didnt have or why when she applied in July (initially) she waited til Augst then failed to make her appointment in August? 334,000 people in Texas have figured out the excessive red tape and if she isnt working, then she would have plenty of time to figure out the process. Sometimes its not enough to roll over on your back and kick and scream about how unfair life is. I dont know what she may or may not have done from July to November...do you? Just wondering how you define the process as 'excessive'.
 
Last edited:
Gladiator said:
Thanks for the research. Sounds like excessive red tape to me. Apparently she was qualified to receive food stamps, but the beaurocracy got to her. If you are poor, do you have time to answer a phone? What does a phone have to do with food stamps?

Reminds me of he movie The Intruders.





//
Click to expand...

She didn't provide the required information to determine whether or not she qualified. HHS made several attempts to contact her regarding the issue and she did not reciprocate. It's hardly excessive to be expected to provide general information. If I recall, the application requires the names and social security numbers of all dependents, the applicant's name and social security number, employment information, proof of residency, and references. Hardly "excessive" red-tape.

As far as the phone goes, how else were they supposed to contact her? You think tax dollars are well spent driving around trying to catch her at home over an application SHE failed to complete?
 
Just a cursory examination shows 24 food and social services providers in Laredo Texas alone. That doesnt count the added religion specific resources (Catholic Community Services, LDS Social Services, etc). Additionally there are 1,519 jobs currently listed as available in Laredo ranging from Janitorial work, food service, call centers, convenience stores, etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom