Oprah-geddon: Winfrey To Quit Show In 2011
Daley Blames - Who Else? - The Media For Oprah-geddon
Chicago Gets Googled
Friday Flashback - Old School Oprah
Today's Transgender Day of Remembrance Honors the Dead
Charlene D. Cheatem, the mother of three children who died in a fire earlier this week has been charged with three counts of felony child endangerment resulting in death. Cheatem admitted she left the children alone in the house without adult supervision while she took another child to school and visited a sick relative. The three children who died were: Sharell Gates, 3, Tyrel Gates, 2, and Jimmy Gates, 7 months old. A fourth sibling was rescued from the fire and reported in fair condition at the University of Chicago Comer Children's Hospital. Investigators are still trying to determine the cause of the fire but initial reports show it could be a space heater as the gas to the building had been cut off.
Mother Charged In Fire Deaths Of Children
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (15) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Heyyyyyy Gilbert, Happy NY buckaroo!
So tell me, did ya have a slight current of thrill coursing through your veins when you decided to post that pic?
Any way when ever I think of children being killed in fires because they are part of the at least 60,000 Illinois familes with no heat or lights, I use to think of former head of "People's" Energy Desiree Rogers now comfortably ensconced in the warm white house as the new Glamour Party Chief. Hopefully if Pat Quinn because Gov. People's Energy will have to live up to its name
If her story is true, I feel even worse and a bit of sympathy for her. Some mom with five kids in a house with no heat, trying to take one to school and even trying to check on a sick relative. There may be a million reasons for people to condemn her as a bad mom ("shouldn't have had so many kids", "shouldn't have left kid home alone who where that young" - although we don't know how old the injured kid was) and now having her mug slapped in papers across the city, etc. I dunno...I'm not ready to tsk tsk and wag my finger at her just yet.
But if we find out her story is a crock, then all bets are off.
I have developed more of a hard heart over cases like this.
Having 5 kids by the age of 24 when you can't afford them is ridiculous just for starters.
There are some pretty effective ways to prevent pregnancy on the market.
To be honest, I think that having 5 kids in this day and age no matter how much money you have is ridiculous. The world doesn't need the drain on its resources.
I get irked when I see yuppie families with 3, 4 and 5 kids.
This isn't the 50's and if you're Catholic you're allowed to take birth control now.
If you want a large family, adopt. Two kids for any family should be the limit.
And if you can't properly take care of them, don't have them.
And I don't care about any sick relatives. You just don't, don't, don't leave babies home alone.
Having 5 kids by the age of 24 when you can't afford them is ridiculous just for starters.
There are some pretty effective ways to prevent pregnancy on the market.
I smelled this coming a mile away. Like I said, I feel a "bit" of sympathy for her. I've probably seen more of these stories than most, upclose, during the time I worked the city desk at a local paper. And as many henious things as I've see, I'm not completely coldhearted.
There but for the grace, and all that...
I know what you're saying.
I used to get angry and people for making the same kind of comments . I used to think that I cannot use my own standards to judge people like this.
I've just grown harder lately. I do feel for any child that's in a situation like this, I feel for the school age kids who grow up in situations like this, with skewed value systems.
And it's obvious that she does have skewed values. But are we doing her a favor by lowering expectations and standards? I don't think so.
She needs to get her tubes tied or no more government support. No more government support means she can't afford the kids, then they go to foster care.
There is no good way to deal with this. Either way the kids are going to suffer, right?
There is just more more excuse for her to keep reproducing like a rabbit.
Time to pick yourself up by the bootstraps.
I read that the older (injured) child was still quite young... I think 5 or 7? So, even if the children had not died in a fire, the mother could still be charged with child endangerment or, at the very lease, neglect.
Ingrid, how do you know she's getting government support? Also, wouldn't she be MORE likely to neglect her kids if she got her benefits cut off (statistically, the answer is YES). I'm playing devil's advocate here, but also trying to point out that you you're making an assumption about a situation where you haven't been given all the details.
And... two kids per family? I'm sorry, I'm calling bullshit on that statement. It's not your job, or the government's job to decide that. This is not China.
I think we all have a moral obligation to not have large families. I never said it should be a government mandate. If you are so hellbent on large families, if you have so much love to give, then adopt. There is a surplus of unwanted children in this world.
And from what I've seen personally, it's a pretty sure bet that she's receiving some type of government assistance. Foodstamps at the very least.
I don't think that anyone can defend someone in her position that keeps having babies.
It's not a sin to be poor, but it's not right to do what she did.
...and you know she receives government assistance, HOW? Based on the fact that she looks like a damn Night Elf in that picture? The location where she lives?
On another note, there's quite a few slumlords that get behind in paying the heating bills and as a result the heat gets turned off. People's Gas is now legally obligated to post a letter to building tenants letting them know that the gas is in danger of being shut off and that they could pay the past due to keep it on, but if it's a multi-unit building (not a 3-flat) the bill could be much more than what the tenants could afford to pay. If this is one of those cases, that would NOT be her fault.
There are way too many unknowns for me to even attempt to be judgmental about this. For all we know, the "sick relative" could be the person who babysits for her children. She could be going through a divorce, caught on hard times, whatever. At the very least it's apparent that she cares enough about her children's education to make sure they get to school on time. The only thing I find fault with is the fact that she left children under the age of 5 at home alone. And I'm sure the fact that 3 of her children died is hellacious punishment in itself for this woman.
I think we all have a moral obligation to not have large families. I never said it should be a government mandate. If you are so hellbent on large families, if you have so much love to give, then adopt. There is a surplus of unwanted children in this world.
I think we have a moral obligation to keep people out of poverty and to give them access to quality education. It's a fact that as people are raised up out of poverty and become more educated that they have less children.
I guess I'm tempering what she did with a story that we just heard a few days ago of kids found living with feces and squalor and no adults. That wasn't just neglect, that was almost malicious neglect. No, I don't know what the living arrangements were here, but from the details we have, there was SOME attempt at providing for the kids (providing heat, taking them to school). Should she have had five kids without the means to take care of them financially, etc.? Of course not. Should she have left the kids alone? Hell no. But c'mon, we've heard of kids treated much worse than this.
And it's obvious that she does have skewed values.
What "skewed values", trying to take her kids to school and provide heat for the ones who couldn't go? Leaving the young ones home alone may be the extent of it from what we know so far.
I agree, it' not right to leave three babies at home alone... it turned out to be a tragic mistake.
I'm not "hellbent" on large families (again with the assumptions...) I just don't agree that we have a "moral obligation" to stop having kids after two. What if someone has one child, then has twins after that? If you can't take care of the kids you have, by all means you shouldn't have more. But if you have the means to care for them, there is nothing wrong with having three or four kids. In fact, triplets and quadruplets can occur naturally.
And believe me, I am aware of the surplus of unwanted children.
I wasn't assuming anything, sherlaura, the 'you' was meant in the general sense.
And for christ's sake, having multiple births has nothing to do with this argument.
And from what I've seen personally, it's a pretty sure bet that she's receiving some type of government assistance.
What have you seen "personally" about this? What evidence do you have that "it's a pretty sure bet" she's receiving governmennt assistance? The heat being turned off? The story says the heat is off ín the BUILDING, which could mean she lives in a multi-unit apartment building and the lack of heat could be the landlord's fault and not because she couldn't pay the bill. Having a bunch of kids? That's no automatic indication that she lives on government assistance and in fact, the three kids named have the same last name (not hers) would could indicate that the father is actively involved in their lives, maybe even financially. So what have you "personally" seen that makes it a "pretty sure bet" to you that THIS person was on government assistance?
Here's what we know: She left her children alone to take another child to school and one of the kids and there was a fire, which could have been caused by a space heater or a kid playing with matches. If you want to chastize her for leaving her kids alone, fine. It doesn't matter if it was four kids at home or one. But all of this "pretty sure bet" about her being on government assistance is unfounded speculation bordering on... well, it's bordering on something.
"if you have the means to care for them, there is nothing wrong with having three or four kids"
Sure sherlaura nothing wrong at all, if you're a big fat greeeeedy American. American kids have an environmental impact of 18 kids, yea who cares about over population or all the kids already on this planet who need homes. But don't worry, go get yer self a big mac with extra white sauce matter of fact go head and supersize it
I don't have kids and I don't eat big macs, so.... yeah... But you got one thing right, which is that I didn't consider environmental impact, I was looking at it from a child development perspective.
The point of my statement was that number of children is a personal choice for parents. As is the choice to eat meat and drive cars, both of which have a significant impact on the environment.
And Ingrid, I mentioned multiple births because a couple may TRY to only have one of two kids but end up with 3, 4, or more.