Woman on trial for shoplifting made 10-year-old daughter assist her

Also, placing the child in a different home does NOT mean the child would end up more damaged than if they stayed with their parent. I am a foster parent of a kid and he is better off in my place. 

That's great that you are doing that, helping a child in need. My point is that there are far more children than there are respectable foster homes - so kids end up institutionalized or, worse, with abusive foster parents. Considering the risks, I don't think it's wise to call for kids to be taken away at every transgression of the parents, as often happens.

In this particular case, there is no mention of abuse or endangerment to the child, aside from teaching her to shoplift. It's certainly illegal, irresponsible and terrible parenting... but I would want to see more than is shown here to tear the child from the only family she may know.

If the Mother is in poor health and they are living in reduced circumstances they should be looked after---sending the Mother to jail would be an apalling decision.

Put the kid in a home where she won't be exploited.

Do you have a place in mind? Because such places are not easy to find, and the kids often end up more damaged than they would have been had they just stayed with their parents.

It's easy to say "take away the kids" without considering what that really means.

120 items, that's a lot. If you are uneployed, that doesn't mean you are okay to steal.

This mother had been teaching her daughter how to be a thief. That would be a sign of bad parenting.

she'll get a suspended sentence anyway because there's nobody to take care of the kid, move along nothing to see here

Why? Surely food and shelter come before toys, especially for a 10 year old.

But I haven't seen anything in this story to suggest cruelty towards her daughter.

I haven't seen anything in the article to suggest that she had to make the decision between putting food on the table and toys for her kid.

the article says

felt it was a waste of money to buy things, especially toys, for her child

meaning that she didn't want to spend the money as she thought it was a waste of money. Not because she couldn't afford it

Put the kid in a home where she won't be exploited.

Do you have a place in mind? Because such places are not easy to find, and the kids often end up more damaged than they would have been had they just stayed with their parents.

It's easy to say "take away the kids" without considering what that really means.

Commanteer

I think what Tony G meant was based on the “selfish crime and a bad influence on the child’s upbringing”, the child should be placed in a home where they can learn and adapt in a better environment fro a better upbringing at least until the mother comes to her senses that her way of thinking ( "felt it was a waste of money to buy things, especially toys, for her child." because the mother is teaching her child that she is entitled and shouldn't have to pay for anything) is not fit for her child's future.

Also, placing the child in a different home does NOT mean the child would end up more damaged than if they stayed with their parent. I am a foster parent of a kid and he is better off in my place. He is happy, had his own room, toys for days and his Doraemon shows. It all depends on how the child's situation is handled.

felt it was a waste of money to buy things, especially toys, for her child

piece of work she is.

felt it was a waste of money to buy things, especially toys, for her child

piece of work she is.

Why? Surely food and shelter come before toys, especially for a 10 year old. Toys are way overrated as well, as most kids get more pleasure and creativity making their own toys. I can't think of many toys that are essential to a 10-year-old's development.

I find it odd that I am defending this mother, as she sounds like a mess. But I haven't seen anything in this story to suggest cruelty towards her daughter. So I see reason for hope that they can turn things around.

Surely food and shelter come before toys, especially for a 10 year old.

obviously not since she was not only willing to shoplift but also to make her daughter assist her

I haven't seen anything in the article to suggest that she had to make the decision between putting food on the table and toys for her kid.

She had no job and little money. The choice is obviously implied.

"it was a waste of money to buy things, especially toys, for her child"

meaning that she didn't want to spend the money as she thought it was a waste of money. Not because she couldn't afford it

You are reading your own interpretation into it. If one really can't afford it, it is a waste of money to buy toys for 10 year olds. And the circumstances strongly suggest she couldn't afford it.

And anyway, 10 year olds really do not need toys. They are far from a necessity, and mostly a waste of money even when one can afford it. A 10 year old without toys is not deprived.

She had no job and little money. The choice is obviously implied.

There is nothing to say she didn't have money. Many people here don't work and get gov assistance not to mention help from family. You are reading too much into this.

And anyway, 10 year olds really do not need toys. They are far from a necessity, and mostly a waste of money even when one can afford it.

That's just ridiculous. Of course children need SOME toys

A 10 year old without toys is not deprived.

Without ANY toys? Yeah they would be deprived.

Life imitating art? The recent hit movie "Sleeping Family" (English translation) deals with this exact subject matter.

Lock her up. Put the kid in a home where she won't be exploited.