Be careful homesick yank. I commented on this story yesterday and was hammered by other posters because I thought something was wrong with the mother's story and the whole situation.

The mother said there was no contact with the father for 3 years, yet claims he showed up out of the blue while they were gone, the kids packed their belonfings, and left with him. I speculated that the father and kids planned it, and other posters attacked me. Now, the FBI has left the children with the father who took them. Do you think those other posters will come back and apologize? Neither do I.

You have a point there however, you would think the father should be charged with unlawful entry.

It's not his house he went into and taking the kids belongings is technically, "burglary". He should have also left a note. This would have avoided the cops waisting their time even simply looking into it and would have saved a lot of short lived grief.

Of course it's all speculation but, this is the way I see it.

spellcheck,

I was also hammered being called ignorant and a racist for mentioning that the kids are Asian even though it said it right in the article.

The vine is here for everyone to post their thoughts. Can't please them all nor can we agree with them all. It "is," what it "is".

Have a good weekend...

Let's face it, the situation has to be horrible before a gov't agency will actually allow a father to have custody of his children. But I can't imagine what kind of hell those children would have had to be in for this task force to leave the children with the non-custodial parent after said parent had taken the children away from the other parent.

On the one hand you have a father who has not been around his children for three years; on the other you have a mother who leaves her seven children home alone....

On another site, I read that all 7 kids shared a bedroom, the mother and step father left the children alone on that Saturday for seven hours, and there was no custody agreement. The step father made a statement something like the father 'was waiting and watching to see when we would leave'. Ask just about any man who has been through divorce and custody battles and you will see that many times father's don't have a choice in how often they see their kids, if they get to see their kids at all.

Blonde, didn't you ever babysit your younger brothers or sisters when you were 11 or 12? I certainly did.

I don't know all the family history, but leaving the younger ones under the care of a 12yr old is not unusual. I see nothing wrong with what the mother did.

I'm just glad they were all found safe and sound. Thank God.

Kind of sucks when only a partial story is printed. News media can only print the information they are given so that does not help either. Whether it is NBC, CBS or ABC it does not matter how a story is written without missing pieces to the puzzle, everyone is going to criticize the story from all angles. Let's be grateful it is not Fox News because they like to put in their missing pieces to a puzzle, usually something pretty outlandish to say the least. Because of the age of the children and the fact that their pictures were plastered all over the internet, we may never know the real story simply to protect them especially if it involved abuse of any kind. I doubt we will be seeing any kind of follow-up with the missing pieces everyone is speculating. Time to move on to the next article.

"ages 12, 11, 10, 8, 7, 6 and 5."

Looks like there's one still missing.

Janine, I am with you. When my twin sister and I were 11 & 12 years old we used to babysit our younger cousins together. And like you, we always got stuck watching our younger siblings while my parents went out...usually Friday night bowling. I don't recall many nights where my parents went out for dinner or partying. Friday night bowling from September to May was their fun night. And maybe a holiday party or two but that was it.

JK,

Which one? The story says 7 children and I count 7 ages in your post.

Good Morning Creek Dog!

You counted correctly. ;-)

Julieann

Kind of sucks when only a partial story is printed.

Agreed:

The Fresno police spokesman said he did not information about the parents' custodial rights ....

Apparently John Newland did not a proof reader.

I counted 7?

JK was being funny...

look at the ages: 12,11,10,8,7,6 and 5 years old.

So where is the 9 year old? It took me a second but I got the joke. Love it.

I think it's pretty clear we don't have all the information on this case. Key point is that fact that the kids are still in the father's custody and not returned to their mother....and 7 eight 9....(blank stare)

I think he meant that there wasn't a nine year old in the pecking order.

I was one of seven in a three bedroom house. My twelve year old sister would look after the four of us younger than her ( 8,5,4 and 2) whenever my mom ran errands. We survived just fine.

There does seem to be more to this story we don't know. I have a young friend who couldn't see his son for a year because the mother would never have him home when Joe tried to see him. Then she told everyone that he never saw the kid. I would really like to hear the fathers side of this story.

They have to verify, her story, her guardianship of the children as well as his. Police don't just take what you say and believe it's the truth. Of course they left the children with the father until they checked things out. It doesn't mean the mother is unfit though. That's the problem I have even with "Average Joes" sitting on juries. They don't understand that their mind, jumping to conclusions, isn't proof of anything.

Homesick, I agree. About 4 years ago my ex-husband refused to return my youngest kids to me after a visitation. He accused me off all kinds of crazy stuff. The police got involved and returned my children to me that night. He then tried to sue me for full custody. $2500 later in attorney fees; the results of the investigation stated that the children should stay with me, his accusations were unfounded, and it was recommended that HE get a full psychological evaluation. I had school officials, teachers, pediatrician, etc providing me with notarized statements supporting me. His motive was to no longer pay child support and his crazy girlfriend (ex) told him this was the best way to do it. The kids were afraid to go with him for months because they thought he would "keep" them. Their relationship has mended over the last couple of years. He didn't realize what trauma he caused them.

The police must have felt the father's concerns were justified or they would have returned the children to their legal guardian/mother.

AHHH! Got me.

JK, you funny man.... :-)

Glad you were found safe Yang gang :)

GM CD, DB and JK

one is still missing

Dad fails, if his occupation is "Rocket Scientist"

four boys and three girls, ages 12, 11, 10, 8, 7, 6 and 5.

His "countdown on the kids ages missed 9 and if they still had been married, I doubt he would get "lift off" LOL!

Does anyone else thinks it's crazy to marry a woman with 7 kids? A few sure but 7?!

The Fresno police spokesman said he did not information about the parents' custodial rights or why the children were left with their father instead of being returned to their mother.

now that's an education money cant buy....

MSN you trying to save money by not hiring good writers or what?

...I mean c'mon they don't even proof read what they write (or should I say wright haha), it just fly's off their fingers and poof its a story on national/global news..how embarrassing.

Good morning homesick yank. Just because the police left the kids in custody of the father doesn't mean that something is wrong with the mother's welfare for the kids. What that simply means is the law enforcemtnt cannot make one parent reliquish child(ren) to another parent if they parent was not granted sole custody of the kid(s) by the courts. This is where a lot of parents are misinformed. You cannot kidnap your own child if a custody order has not been sworn out. So parents at any given time if the other parent does not live with you and kid(s) please seek legal conselling to understand your rights.

but its important to note that to have a 12,11,10,8,7,6,5 or what ever the ages are, you actually had to be there to have those kids...meaning for at lease 9 years he was there.....why would a woman have so many kids with him and then suddenly he is a "monster" and shouldn't have them?....now i know that people can change, but to have them in the first place should hold some weight here...

I know in AZ if you do not have food in your fridge, your kids are taken into custody...and you are charged with something like child endangerment. perhaps something like this was the case here..idk...but if those lil cuties were happy and healthy with daddy, then maybe there needs to be an investigation on why he couldn't have them...was mom keeping them from him? was s/he abusive...etc etc.

JK - my thoughts exactly, Hey, they missed a year.

My parents had 5 kids in 6yrs. Back to back to back to back kids is just not a good idea.

Americans are a group of people who spend their time reacting to salacious tidbits of dribble put forth by the media. This is yet another poorly written article. Shame on you. You should demand better.

BJ - My ex-husband was given partial custody of our three kids. He was to have them every other weekend and holidays and for a full month in the summer. This was four years ago. He has seen them 5 times since then and doesn't even call them on their birthdays. While I'm sure some Dad's have a hard time getting custody, I wanted my children to have a relationship with their Dad. He walked away from them and hasn't really looked back. And I can guarantee you if he ever showed up and took my kids and their belongings while they were home (obviously not alone because they are too young, but occasionally are left in the care of their stepbrothers for an hour or two) I would hunt him down and press charges to the fullest extent.

There is obviously more to this story than meets the eye... but I don't think it's fair to rationalize that he didn't get custody because he's the Dad. If he wanted custody, he should fight. Not take.

MT, you may not be aware however, in a fight for custody the only winners are the lawyers. In a protracted fight they will rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars. If the average middle-class father were to engage in such a folly, in the unlikely event he won the fight, he would be unable to feed his children.

BJ - I'm watching my brother/sister-in-law go through divorce right now because he cheated on his wife and left her...and he's doing a piss poor job of proving he loves those kids and wants them in his life, more than he wants his new girlfriend in his life. He's not shown up to court hearings, he's almost been held in contemt and arrested, he's refused to continue to pay his portion of the bills (its not his ex's fault he walked out on her and left her with all the responsibility).

He's made it abundantly clear that he wishes he never married her, and the translation is - he never would have had kids. He's said this to the kids directly, and this will stick with them for the rest of their lives. All of his actions to this point have proven he doesnt love his daughter and isn't even going to try to have a relationship with her - thank goodness she's almost 17 and smart, and understands what a douche her father is.

It doesnt take much to be biological father, but it takes a lot more to be an actual dad...and spending all your money on jewelry for a woman who hasnt even left her own husband yet (yes, she's playing him and he doesnt realize it)...and nothing on your children and their needs, says volumes.

he's behaving like a 16 year old who doesnt understand he's got responsibilities.

and if the court does not award him any custody, he'll deserve it.

im sorry BJ, but the majority of men behave like my brother-in-law...and if you want to get mad at anyone for leaving this sour taste in eveyones mouth about a dad's willingness to TRULY RAISE THEIR CHILDREN...look no further than dead beats like my brother-in-law.

it may not be fair to have a skeptical eye on dad's because of how most handle divorce and custody, but thats life...and if you want things to change, you better start taking the deadbeats to task...

not the moms who are raising the kids, on their own.

JK..........too early for mind games...............At least let me get ma coffee first. Besides, gutshots are harder to get than open/ended straights.

Can't please them all nor can we agree with them all. It "is," what it "is".

That's right Creek Dog, if everyone agreed on here it would be a pretty dull blog wouldn't it? It's like our representatives in Congress after a hard day "legislating". Dem turns to Rep (or vice versa, see how tactful I can be) and says: "Got 'em fightin' again!", and then orders another round.

Buddemon - then I would suggest men take a lot more care and concern about who they sleep with, and get married to.

and when they do get married and have children, they take that oath very very seriously...and they do all they can to make that marriage work.

if you married a crazy woman, look in the damn mirror...you're judgement must really suck.

Jessica-1170252

Well, I can attest, the bear goggles got me a couple of times. Thank goodness for aspirin. But doesn't it take two to tangle? I think buddemon is stating that the courts don't see it that way.

Wow Jessica, let's make some adjustments so your rant will fill all cases.

...then I would suggest wo/men take a lot more care and concern about who they sleep with, and get married to.

and when they do get married and have children, they take that oath very very seriously...and they do all they can to make that marriage work.

if you married a crazy wo/man, look in the damn mirror...you're judgement must really suck.

@ Jessica..I get you are angry & that the kids have a creep for a father but to lump all men in the same is wrong. There are women out there that do the same thing...I am a mother who has her kids & has "deadbeat dad" for an ex...my current husband would never do what my ex has...Generalizing is wrong..we don't have the whole story, yet something had to be off with the mom & step-dad ( 3yrs nothing-mom, he just waited & watched for us to leave-step-dad)...Glad the children are safe.

And this is headline news because...?

...dad was an absentee dad for three years?

...the kids were okay?

...the cops left them with the dead-beat dad?

...the cops didn't know what to do?

...THE MEDIA SENSATIONALIZED A NON-STORY!

On the one hand you have a father who has not been around his children for three years;

This is hearsay from the mother. No one know if this is true. Even if it's true, it may be because the mother and stepfather effectively kept the children away from the father.

I'm betting that the reason the Sacramento PD left the kids with the dad is because the mom/stepdad did violate his custody rights. I bet the children told that to the Police and stuck up for their father. If any of these kids told the cops that their father took them against their will, this story would have a different ending.

There's no doubt the cops spoke to each child without the father present.

Whats wrong with this country? We have how many children go missing EVERY day here, and yet we don't focus on that. Instead, we focus on JUST a FEW in a school shooting! Lets get after the MUCH LARGER problem here, MISSING CHILDREN!!! Where is the news media in finding/preventing missing children here?

If you look really hard and find another new source, I found it somewhere, all 7 children were sharing a bedroom with the mother and there was no custody agreement.

Jessica and MT, I'm talking about fathers who actually want their children. I know that there are men who don't want their children, my ex is kinda sorta one of them, but men who want joint, meaning equal time, custody or main custody or full custody of their children have to fight like hell to get it. I have a brother in law who has joint custody of his children, equal time in both homes, and still has to pay his ex child support that he really can't afford to pay.

For every story that you have about 'deadbeat dads' others can come up with a story about a mother who keeps the kids from their fathers. But in our court systems kids are most often given to the mother without a look at which home they would be better off in. There are men who agree to every other weekend simply because they are afraid that the mother would not let them see the children at all if they pushed for more.

MT- be at peace with the fact that he's not around. It's his choice, not yours. Do your best not to ever put him down to the kids no matter how annoyed you are and they will grow up just fine, realizing it was his choice, not because you kept them from him. My ex never has had a relationship with our son. I've tried to encourage it for years. I did my best to always tell my son the good things about his personality that he got from his dad and I encouraged his dad to call or send emails, etc. He hasn't seen our son since he was almost 4. It bothers me much more than it does our son at this point. He is 19 and perfectly well adjusted.

Roadlesstraveled--I am glad I am not the only one bothered by the lack of proofreading in these articles. They also rely on innuendo and half a$$ed research in an effort to get this posted right away.

Sacramento and Fresno are not all that close to each other. They're hours apart. I think it's very plausible the children called their father and asked him to pick them up. I don't know. It just seems a mighty coincidence that the father shows up while the mother and step father are gone.

@Punisher

Well, I can attest, the bear goggles got me a couple of times. Thank goodness for aspirin. But doesn't it take two to tangle? I think buddemon is stating that the courts don't see it that way.

Dude, stay away from the bears. Those relationships never end well!! ;)

The mother and step father left them alone while they went shopping? The oldest was 12 yrs old. Good reason to leave them with the father. Did it say in the story that the dad was a dead beat? I cant remember that, I know he hasn't seen them for three years. I didn't see my daughter for 2 years once but momma got the check every month. We lived on different sides of the country, but I did talk to her every week.

How about you simply make courts unbiased about parental custody and let the children go with whichever parent would provide them with the most stable home, regardless of their gender, and to do so in the mental, emotional, financial, and spiritual ways instead of listening to the idiots on the left, right, middle, and fringe? Furthermore, I have a better idea, why not learn to become selfless beings instead of selfish beings and learn to treat your children and yourselves with honor, dignity, and respect in the first place and learn to also suck it up and go through the hard times in your lives? Our ancestors did so and you can do it, too. The rewards are worth the risk. This is a message from a person who never had their biological father in their lives and who has relatives who have went through divorces and sometimes do not communicate with their children, so I know plenty of things like this first hand.

They drew for an inside straight, but lost. :)

I am glad all of the children are safe and sound.

The Fresno police spokesman said he did not information about

Hey NBC,

Ancient printers trick; read the story backwards for simple proof reading.

I make mistakes too. I just don't print national stories.

They haven't verified that it is a fact that he hasn't seen his children in three years...What she says isn't law. Every bit of information has to be verified from outside sources.

A poorly written work is a testament of one's ignorance that stands for all time.

Buddemon, for someone who thinks Americans are stupid for responding to such tripe - you sure are responding, to this tripe. ;)

Naughty - I hear what you are saying, but there's a flipside to that coin too.

As i mentioned above, i'm watching my bro/sis-in-law go through a divorce, that has been at times nasty. It's hard to hold fault with my sister-in-law, it's not her fault that he cheated on her for almost a year and then walked out on her, and has left all of the responsibilities with her - from paying all the bills (that they could barely pay together) to taking care of the kids needs, to making sure the kids get to school events and extra curriculars.

He has exercised his rights to see his kids, and you mentioned the "reasonable amount of time for the request"...and he just doesnt understand what that means. He seems to think he can ask to see them the day that he wants to see them...and thats not a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, he requests to see them when he knows the kids are not available - and so he can then claim that she's keeping the kids from him.

I agree with you, if you are serious about wanting custody of your kids - get a fixed schedule put into the paperwork, so that no one can say "sorry, not enough notice".

But, he doesnt want that...because then he'll be exposed for not actually wanting to have his kids.

Prior to the finalization of the divorce, the court did set a fixed schedule...and as you can guess the kids just sat in his living room watching tv, while he sat in his basement on the phone with the girlfriend he left his wife for.

Thats not visitation...thats not taking care of your kids.

It's embarrassing that adults behave so ignorantly, selfishly, and with such indifference to their children when these divorces turn ugly.

But there it is...and the kids are the ones who'll know at the end of the day who's being the douche, you can trust that. So if you worry that your kids are being "fed lies" from your ex, then you better make sure you spend enough time with your kids to disprove those lies...otherwise, you're just reinforcing them.

They are your kids, if you really love them and this isnt about hurting your ex - do whatever it takes to be in their lives. Afterall, that should be your only priority in life at this point.

the fact he hadn't seen his kids in 3 years

It's not a fact, it's hearsay from the mother. We haven't heard the father's side of the story yet.

Monique Staloch > Buddemon. Seriously, girl, if you were not going to put up the intellectual smackdown that you gave to that boy, then I would have done the deed personally.

Don't make assumptions about either parent. My ex-husband was allowed by the court to take out a restraining order against me and gain full custody based solely on his claims that I was "unfit." I went to court the next day (with no lawyer while he had one) and the judge gave them hell for taking out a frivolous restraining order. I got some visitation but still do not have even shared custody, all based on my ex's claims that I am an "unfit mother," and he will not even tell anyone in what way I am "unfit." They just went ahead and believed him. Not to worry. I am suing his ass.

What is wrong with all you people? Didn't any of you ever babysit when you were 11 or 12? I certainly did. There was no neglect involved on the part of the mother.

I could see if the parents went away for the weekend, but they were only out for a few hours of shopping. No big deal.

As far as housing conditions went, I have read nothing negative about the housing situation.

Janine is right. I babysat my siblings starting at 11 and I was responsible and took good care of them. Part of the problem with kids today is that they aren't allowed any responsibility without the slack-jawed public pointing fingers and screaming neglect to take the attention from their own wrongdoings.

@ Janine -

While I can understand in part where you're coming from (my older sister would watch me and my younger sister over the summer...don't remember our ages specifically, but she was 5 years older than me), there is a BIG difference between watching, say, 2 or 3 siblings and 6. That's a difficult chore for even an adult.

Perhaps you babysat 6 children at a time, I don't know...but I don't think you can be so dismissive of those of us who find this situation irresponsible.

I can be dismissive of those who don't see the situation.

There were two kids 11 & 12. Between the two of them I'm sure they could handle the other 5 for a few hours.

Often times when I babysat at 11 or 12yrs old, the older of the kids would only be a couple of years younger than I was.

I would not leave a 12 year old with 6 kids. IMO that is not adequate supervision. A 12 year old with one or 2 kids sure, but 6? No way! I feel sorry for them but especially the older ones. Also they were along 7 hours, that's one long shopping trip!

@ Janine -

And what situation is that? The situation that seven children 12 y.o. and under were potentially left alone for some period of time?

We all see the situation just fine (at least what's been presented to us at this time). We just have differing opinions on what is responsible and irresponsible . . . which is totally fair and understandable.

Exactly Janine... I think a 12, 11 AND 10 year old could all together handle 4 other children quite fine.

Its one thing to "babysit" a couple of your brothers or sisters. It's quite another to have a 12 year old babysit 6 other children! In fact, there are laws in some states that prohibit such arrangements. No 12 year old is capable of attending to 6 other children in the event of an emergency. I suspect that is at least part of the reason for leaving the children with the father. At least they had an adult with them until the legal matters could be sorted out. No 12 year old should have so much responsibility put on his/her shoulders at that age.

What are you talking about? I was babysitting when I was 11 years old-a small baby and 2 others. You are dead wrong- young people need more responsibility not less. To expect so little of our children is stealing from them their future and the ability to learn and make decisions. A child in a family of 7 already has (most likely) been taught and has shouldered responsibility. This is a child who will, most likely, not still be living at home at 31.

Janine--I left MY 12 year old in charge of her 2 younger brothers (who were age 8 and 6). For AN HOUR.

With my parents living only 6 blocks and a phone call away.

I did so because it was so much easier to shop without 3 kids to supervise. I did NOT do so while I and my new man (non-existant, BTW--I didn't DATE much when I had a 12 year old daughter in the house) went out for SEVEN hours. And before the ex and I divorced, we PAID a baby sitter (16 years old) to watch our kids, occasionally, if WE wanted to be gone for a date.

I agree with those who think there is more to the story than we have thus far read.

I agree that there is more to this story than what we have been told, but I don't believe that the mother was neglectful in leaving her older children in charge of the younger while she and their step father went out for a while.

Love it or leave it, 20kids were murdered a few months ago while there must have been a dozen or more ADULTS in charge. Did the fact that there adults there change anything for those 20kids?

Emergencies happen. I'm not blaming the teachers in Newtown any more than I'm blaming the mother in this story.

You just can't always be prepared for all that can happen.

The mother and step father went 'grocery shopping' for 7 hours and didn't report the children missing until much later because ' they thought the kids had just went playing in the neighborhood'. All 7 children shared a room in an apartment.

Let's list the things that are wrong, in case you can't see why others would have a problem with this.

1. They thought nothing of the 7 children being gone for hours without a note or phone call or anything. Which means this happens regularly. You don't find something wrong with not knowing where you children ages 12 to 5 are for hours without any adult supervision whatsoever?

2. They obviously routinely left the kids by themselves. Because again they thought nothing of them being gone when they got home.
3. What kind of grocery shopping takes 7 hours?
4. Money and space was so limited that 7 children between the ages of 12 and 5 both male and female were sharing a room.
5. Even though the children 'hadn't seen their father for three years', they willingly packed up their belongings, didn't leave a note, and did not struggle when their father came to get them. The 5 year old wouldn't even remember him.

Do you not see a problem with any of that? 1,2,3,and 4 all show one thing: Neglect!

Good question. And who is the floozy he was seeing ten years ago?

You should be smart enough to know it should have been "treated well." Then again you aren't smart enough to not jump to conclusions and base your entire post on a short article about strangers.

FWalsh I believe you are the one jumping to conclusions. Just because this article says nothing about the living conditions in the apartment (an apartment with 7 kids & two adults. REALLY?) doesn't mean there wasn't any problems there. I think we can all agree that police of all types, as well as the courts, tend to be biased towards the mother. They still, for the most part, feel she's naturally inclined to be the better parent. I'm not saying it's right but that IS the way it is. I'm just saying that for the police to leave the children with their father should tell you something. Maybe they felt that the living conditions are better for the children. i.e. they don't all have to share a single bedroom, the house is cleaner, the schools are better etc.

And for those that may think that the children wouldn't voice their problems (potential) with their step-father, at 10, 11, or 12 they are FULLY capable of understanding that they are in a potentially dangerous situation. And they are FULLY capable of knowing that if they aren't removed somehow, by an adult like a judge or police, they will find another way. That way, in this situation, is their bilogical father.

Hey F Walshy, smarts has nothin to do with english. But then again you aren't smart enough not to combine a double negative into one sentence.

KYATTY--I agree that we don't know even CLOSE to all the 'facts'. I also love it when poster in post #1.7 (Julianne) slams Fox News for "putting in ....something outlandish".

Which Network DELIBERATELY edited George Zimmerman's 9-11 call to make him appear racist? That would be NBC. Which Network used police garage video footage to "prove" Zimmerman showed no signs of injury when arrivign at the police garage the night of Trayvon Martin's death, when simply blowing the footage up CLEARLY showed he WAS? That would be ABC. And which Network STILL (in its bi-weekly stirring up the folks articles on the shooting) refers to George Zimmerman as half WHITE (originally calling him just WHITE) when he in actuality is 100% HISPANIC, with a white STEP-father?

That would be MSN(BC).

I don't care for Fox's talking heads (O'Reilly, Hannity) but find their NEWS coverage to be no more or less biased/wrong than ANY of the other News channels.

I have to wonder if the step father called the actual father? Remember, it was only alleged by the mother the real father had not seen his seven children in three years.

Maggie - While I agree that there is something intrinsically wrong with the mother's story; the article does not mention shopping in the middle of the night... it was Saturday evening; a lot of people go shopping in the evening. Here in NH the stores are open evenings for those who can't make it during the day or just choose to avoid the hoards that go during the day. Although I was babysitting by 11 or 12 it was only for a couple of kids at a time. I didn't take on more than that until I was 14. I am so grateful that this has a happy ending.

Navy mom--I BELIEVE the story says the mom and step dad were gone for SEVEN hours, arriving home in the wee hours of the morning.

The mother's story does not add up. Let's look at all the surveillance cameras in all the casinos near Fresno.

MOmaid - This article mentions nothing about seven hours... that was another poster who said that and they didn't say where they read it for verification. I agree seven hours is excessive. I also said that I think the mother's story just doesn't seem quite right... something is definitely missing from what has been reported here.

There are 2 grocery stores within 3 miles of my house that are open 24 hours. I grocery shop in the middle of the night all the time to avoid the crowds. I don't have children, but if I did, and if they were the ages of these children and the oldest was mature enough, I might leave them sleeping in their beds while I shopped at 2:00am. This story doesn't say she was shopping in the middle of the night, but even if she were, I don't think that is necessarily so bad depending on the maturity level of the children in question.

I agree, however, that something is missing from this story. Why would the police leave the children with the father who hasn't seem them in 3 years and who took them without the mother's knowledge? Something strange there.

This article has more information.

Well crap, why can't I get the dang link to work.

abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=9011529

Yes, taking your own children is a crime when it is outside of your custody/visitation time and it is done without the knowledge of the other parent. It is even more of a crime if she had full legal custody, as well as physical custody, but the article doesn't state whether she did.

redondo98, How do you conclude that the father is a problem? The police didn't feel that way...

Hell, the FBI task force especially for children are the ones that left the kids with the father. So obviously the father was not a problem at all or they would have taken the kids away from both parents.

If it is true that he hadn't seen them in 3 years, then unless she stole and hid them from him or a court ordered him not to see them (which wouldn't be done without good reason), then he didn't have his family taken from him. He gave them away by his inaction in fighting to see them.

I began baby sitting when I was 12 and had a regular gig babysitting for 3 families who liked to go out in the evenings together. They had 8 kids between them ranging in age from 6 months to 8 years old. I would play with the kids for an hour or so and then put them all to bed and wait for the parents to come home. I was very mature and the kids were in good hands with both my parents and the kid's parents just a phone call and few minutes drive away. I loved it because the families paid me separately, which means I got a whopping $1.50 per hour instead of my normal 50 cents. Whether the mother was wrong in leaving these kids for a few hours depends on the behavior and maturity level of the kids involved.

This article doesn't give enough facts to judge either the mother or the father, but there definitely does seem to be something fishy going on here for the police to have left them with the noncustodial father. Could be as simple as she never went through the proper legal channels to get custody, so the father had as much right to them as the mother and the police didn't want to get involved. Or it could be something much more complicated and sinister.

Janine: Yeah, I have babysat for siblings and others' children when I was that age; but leave a 12-year-old alone with SIX other children for seven hours? What was the mother shopping for?? A mansion worth of furniture?? That's a lot of responsibility for a 12-year-old. And, if it was a boy--they are much more immature than a 12-year-old girl at that stage in life.

Aren't you guys listening? There were 3 (count them) three older children to take care of the other 4. What's so terrible about that? I was left once in awhile with 4 brothers & sisters to watch. I babysat from the time I was 11 or 12 and sometimes had 4-5 children to watch - in the middle of the night. I survived and learned how to deal with other children, my own sibs and that all helped to be a good parent. (And the 10 y/o would be fully capable of taking care of a 4 or 5 y/o, especially a sib.)

In fact, at age 10, I was left with 2 brothers to watch during the day for several weeks, as my mother had died and Dad hadn't been able to get someone to stay with us. Big Deal.

I don't know how long ago it was that you were left with younger siblings but times are differant. People used to watch out for their neighbors and know their neighbors. It used to be that you could leave children unattended, because they were sort of attended by watchful neighbors, but not anymore. It wasn't the case a few years back that everyone felt the need to have a concealed weapon permit just to be out of their home. Times change Georgia.

This wasn't the first time the kids were left home alone. Its probably a common occurrence. Sure older kids can watch their siblings occasionally but these kids were most likely being left alone often for long periods of time which is not responsibility any kid of any age should have to bear. Remember, this mother wasn't gone to the store for a quick trip for some milk. She was gone long enough for 7 kids to pack their bags and leave. The kids and father knew that she would not be back anytime soon and the kids were happy to leave and then stay with dad. Bravo to this dad.