Phoenix mom misses deadline for kids' trust fund

[alp227]

Source: AP

PHOENIX (AP) —A Phoenix woman accused of leaving her children in a hot car while she went on a job interview missed Monday's deadline to establish a $60,000 trust fund for her children and now wants to contribute a smaller amount.

Shanesha Taylor was in court to discuss why she hasn't funded the education and child care funds, which was required as part of an agreement to keep her out of jail.

Taylor, 35, told a judge in a settlement conference that she's concerned about putting $60,000 into the trust fund because she still hasn't found a job to support her kids and may need to tap into that money.

Read more: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f946bffa51de499dade6d99834de2b9e/phoenix-mom-misses-deadline-kids-trust-fund

[bigwillq]

1. Some people should never be allowed to have kids (nt)

[savalez]

4. If you can't understand what this lady is going through

then I agree with you, your parents should have never been allowed to have children.

[bigwillq]

5. My parents never left me in a hot car.

We all have choices. She made the wrong one.

[savalez]

7. How do you know they didn't?

[bigwillq]

8. They told me

and I never remember them leaving me in a hot car by myself.

[Horse with no Name]

18. It wasn't a hot car

It was in mild weather. You must be thinking about the white patron in the same town who left HER kid in the hot car and got a slap on the wrist.
This money was given to this woman to help her get her life in order. It is more beneficial to the kids to use it for that at this point in time.
It shouldn't have been anyone else's business what she did with it.

[bigwillq]

26. I am only going on what it said in the story

"A Phoenix woman accused of leaving her children in a hot car"

And I don't have an issue about the money or what she did with it.

Only the kids in hot car part. Any parent that leaves their kids in a hot car should face a stiff penalty.

[Horse with no Name]

28. Not your fault, just more sloppy "journalism"

It was in mid-March in Phoenix and while not cold, definitely not life-endangering HOT. I guess I know this because I followed the case and was pissed at the way two identical cases were handled---one black and one white.
I will try to find the two articles that linked these later.

[bigwillq]

29. Ok.

Thanks for the info.

[LisaL]

41. It was a 100 degrees inside the car.

It's hot for young children with no means to escape.

[LisaL]

36. Is 100 degrees inside the car not hot enough for you?

"Authorities say the children were in the car for 45 minutes and the temperature inside was over 100 degrees."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/woman-who-left-kids-in-car-for-interview-can-visit-them/

[JonLP24]

65. I was going to say it is routinely 100 degrees outside in Phoenix

and inside a lot of places depending on the state of the AC but what makes the story interesting is it took place in March which is the transition from cold February to the warmer months. First, the claim comes from authorities and curious about Snobsdale residents interest but seeing that mug shot isn't someone who I'd consider a felony child abuser.

I was going to mention up-thread about homeless choices but choose to drop it but I didn't realize she was/is homeless. Homeless don't have much of a choice in the summer months especially when establishments won't put up with their presence for long and even though I'd take it over having no place to go at 430 am in January, the heat is brutal just traveling from one AC place to another, nevermind forcing to camp in those conditions.

Here she is penalized for trying to solve her situation and make due w/ limited resources and here she is being treated by CPS like she neglected her kids for the needle. Also part of the larger homeless issue, not only are they homeless but pretty much any where they go they are trespassing somewhere. I don't see how what she did would be a problem if they had the windows down in March and/or instructed them to take a step outside if it feels too hot. It will be interesting to hear more from the case as typically one side presents whatever to the media and defense waits until court.

But this feels like some singled out BS. What if someone can pay their M-Power for a couple of hours and temps climb inside due to outside summer heat and they got kids inside or rent a room at one of the crack motels w/ AC systems that just blow air.

[Horse with no Name]

71. Thanks

I'm from Phoenix too and don't remember March being hot. The windows were also down. There is a lot of parsed words in these reports...I'm pretty sure I know why.

[Calista241]

94. You go sit in a closed car in "mild" weather.

I doubt you'd last more than 10 minutes.

[JonLP24]

64. I grew up in Phoenix

I can't count the number of times I was left in a hot car including the times I left myself in the car. Not by my mom since she never had a license and my dad lived it was much cooler year round. A motel room with a raggity AC can get hot like that easily.

Not to justify the choice but the choice sure comes up a hell of a lot more and not only just cars.

[bigwillq]

66. Were you left alone

at the age of the children in this story in a hot car or a motel with raggity AC?

A poster above said it wasn't that hot the day they were left in the car but, still. She left the children alone in a car. No excuse for that. None.
This woman had other choices than to leave them alone in a car.

[JonLP24]

68. I'm not sure what her choices were as a homeless woman

though I can't see it being a problem if the windows were down or given the option to step outside if things got too hot.

Yeah I probably was (my uncle's old Volkswagon Beetle hot inside all-the-time) but the situation with motels was more recent but could describe situations in often middle to lower class housing state of AC systems in Arizona. I'm fortunate to live in a unit that was constructed in February w/ free utilities and air that kicks. I can refrigerate my home if I wanted to but I'm having a hard time finding a balance, either its hot or cold in here. I'm curious how the heat works.

Point I'm making is I have plenty of memories of hot cars in Phoenix which is why the meme "Proper way to drive in Phoenix" is somewhat popular

[bigwillq]

69. Thanks for getting back.

You made some good points.

Have a good day.

[CreekDog]

62. Poor people?

Whatever.

[bigwillq]

67. No, just folks who leave their kids alone in a car (nt)

[Blue_Tires]

99. To be fair, I've seen much worse parents than this who just keep popping them out...

[former9thward]

2. I really wonder if there is any money left.

The court is enabling her by allowing her to miss deadline after deadline.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Because setting up a trust fund ...

for her children's future is far more important than her ensuring that her children can eat today!

[former9thward]

33. No, it far more important to pay her lawyer.

She agreed to the terms BTW. How about all the people who don't have $114,000 given to them free of charge. Are their kids starving?

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Well ...

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 06:12 PM - Edit history (1)

No, it far more important to pay her lawyer.

Funny ... so she should stiff the lawyer AND not attend to her (and her kids')survival needs of today to establish an account for their future?

How about all the people who don't have $114,000 given to them free of charge. Are their kids starving?

I have no way of knowing; nor, do I see that as relevant, except to find fault in the spending of this woman ... i.e., other people are surviving on far less so she should not attend to her (and her kids') daily needs because the money was donated to her, with no known restrictions placed on her, by the people that actually gave her the money, BTW.

I find it interesting that liberals/progressives would be so quick to condemn, without knowing what she did with, or how she actually spent the money ... especially, after reading how easy it is to spend that money, and again, with no known restrictions placed on her, by the people that actually gave her the money.

I see this place is full of people that would turn a blind eye to a panhandler ... because he/she might not spend the money on food (or shelter); but rather, in a manner that they wouldn't approve of.

[former9thward]

42. She made the agreement with the court.

Not "liberals/progressives". She is now breaking it. She got in trouble in the first place by placing her kids in physical jeopardy. Now she does not want to provide for them. The court agreement was only for $60,000 of the $114,000.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Okay. eom

[closeupready]

45. Liberals who are quick to condemn are mostly white, entitled liberals.

White liberals like me who know what it means to struggle and who know what it means to work for a living are NOT quick to condemn. I completely agree with your counterpoints here.

Peace.

[adirondacker]

57. +1000. Great observation. nt

[hobbit709]

3. Where is that $60,000 coming from when she doesn't have a job?

[Travis_0004]

6. its in the article

She had 114k donated to her in March.

[Nye Bevan]

9. Wow. She's not willing to put $60,000 out of the $114,000 that was donated to her,

into a trust fund for her kids, as she promised?

What a piece of work. Sounds like she went on a spendng spree.

[bigworld]

10. She blew through the money, didn't she?

Wow. Talk about making bad choices in life.

[Nye Bevan]

11. She wouldn't even show the judge the bank statements (nt)

[rocktivity]

13. I think the money's gone, too

Taylor, 35, told a judge in a settlement conference that she's concerned about putting $60,000 into the trust fund because she still hasn't found a job to support her kids and may need to tap into that money....

A Superior Court judge asked Taylor on Monday if she would be willing to show the state her bank records so authorities can determine whether she has made big purchases and if it is necessary to renegotiate the agreement. Taylor told the judge that the money is in her mother's bank account and her mom may not want her to disclose the records.

Oh, please. If that were the case, her mother AND her records would have been in court beside her. Besides, she's thirty-five, not seventeen -- if she's incapable of conducting her financial affairs, the court SHOULD give her some help!


rocktivity

[Javaman]

12. Folks, calm down.

everyone is quick to judge.

until you have walked a mile in poverties shoes, NONE of you have any idea what you are talking about.

this woman lives in poverty.

114k may sound like a lot, but when you don't have a job and you are trying like hell to find one, the money goes pretty damn fast.

so please, this atheist asks, who here is to cast the first stone?

now flame me if you like, because I won't answer

[nomorenomore08]

15. I can't really disagree with you. This may have been her only source of income the past 6 months.

Maybe she could have made better arrangements, but that's hard to do when you're really struggling.

[7962]

17. Man, some of you will excuse ANYTHING. 114K in 6 months?

In Phoenix? Please. That money could support a family for 2-3 YEARS.

[hollysmom]

102. If I recall correctly she got a new boyfriend after the money was donated

and she spent a lot of money on him.
I would be surprised if there was money left.
But here is the thing, she could be a very gullible person,
she could be someone that never had money so she thought it would last a long time and it didn't

here is the thing, when my father worked to place disadvantaged kids in jobs, most kids would lose jobs right away, but his didn't because he bought and taught them how to use an alarm clock, many had never had one. He went over the bus schedules and how much they would need for bus fare every day, he took them through the routes. he taught them how to have a job. I don't think anyone ever taught this woman how to have money. How to divide and allocate it. I realize she had enough money to get a car, probably had a job for a while. but that could have been because she had a parent who helped her, she might not have that anymore. Some times I think it is not the rich who need life coaches, but people who have never been taught how to pay bills, etc. For example, I married a guy who just had money in his pocket and spent it.lived with his mother until we were married, first month we were out of money before the month was over, I had to take over and keep the money in my name only until I could train him, He had to write the checks, but I had to sign them,. he had to work out the budget for the month, but I would approve it, He had to learn how to keep enough money to pay for bus fare through the month and food and what ever. It was not easy, but he was pretty darn lucky I was his first wife.

[Javaman]

108. Um, okay

this story is almost 8 months old, but okay.

[hollysmom]

109. sorry, it was her old boyfriend.

and this woman is not being held responsible for decisions, I am jsut saying that her life experiences could have formed how she made them. She may have had months to prepare things properly, but if she doesn't have the experience to know how to handle money, it will not just magically appear. i.e. if the court wanted her to put the money in, they should have walked her to the bank and had her turn it over, not let her give it to them when ever, she might have not had all the money and thought she could make it up,. but she couldn't or what ever. I don't know her, I am not specifically speaking about her, but about others who schools have failed by not teaching practical math (check books, budgeting, etc.) and court orders that assume everyone knows how to balance a check book and has the life experience to deal with time delyaed generic orders/fines/what ever

[rocktivity]

14. UPDATE: The Deal Is Off, The Trial Is On

Last edited Tue Oct 28, 2014, 01:40 AM - Edit history (1)

Phoenix New Times.com: Jerry Cobb, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery's spokesman, sent us this statement: "Due to the defendant's failure to comply with the terms of the deferred prosecution agreement, the State has moved to reinstate prosecution."

...Taylor got her kids back from the state, bought new furniture and allowed the kids' baby daddy to move in, a guy who Taylor told the New York Times had not contributed regularly over the years to the financial needs of the children...

Taylor was supposed to put $10,000 for each child in an education trust. Prosecutors later negotiated to have Taylor put another $30,000 in a separate trust fund to help with childcare expenses. But on October 13, state prosecutors filed a motion in county Superior Court expressing concern that Taylor no longer had $60,000 of the donated money to fund the trusts...

...(T)hat still leaves the question of what she did with the contributions. While Taylor hasn't landed a job since her arrest and has been living off the donated money, if she indeed no longer has at least $60,000, that means she may have spent more than $54,000 in a little over six months. Maybe she used the money to pay off a reported $30,000 in outstanding student loans...

Why didn't the court have her sign the money over to them when they negotiated the deal? They could easily have helped her with working out a payment plan for the student loans, getting child support from the baby daddy, AND working out a budget she could live on. And I guess her story about the money being in her mother's account turned out not to be true. Unfortunately, making the wrong choice seems to be her specialty.


rocktivity

[savalez]

19. Exactly what business is it of the courts

to decide what she does with the donation money?

[yeoman6987]

20. Then put her in jail

That was what was going to happen, but a deal was made. Lock her up. She only cares about herself obviously. 60K in a trust fund could grow and really benefit her kids future and not have the same life as their mom.

[savalez]

23. 60k in a trust fund is stupid when you're broke now.

People donated to her to care for herself and her kids now. A trust fund means she'll lose the kids for another reason related to being broke. "She only cares about herself obviously." How the fuck is that obvious?

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. Oh Noes ...

...(T)hat still leaves the question of what she did with the contributions. While Taylor hasn't landed a job since her arrest and has been living off the donated money, if she indeed no longer has at least $60,000, that means she may have spent more than $54,000 in a little over six months.

Assuming she did, in fact, blow through $54,000 ... let's just see how absurd and irresponsible that is:

Housing: (6 months for a 3 bedroom apartment/house): $1,363/mth or $8,178
Food: 735/mth, or $4,410
Childcare: $1,677, or $10,062
Transportation: $480/mth, $2,880
Health Care: $1,476, or $8,856
Other Necessities: $537/mth, or $3,222

= $37,608

http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

Now suppose, she bought a later model car (cash), rather than take on the $480/mth transportation cost ... that number gets us pretty close to the $54,000, many seem to think completely unreason/irresponsible.

And that doesn't include paying off/paying down the reported $30,000 in outstanding student loans.

But I guess she could've limited herself to a single meal of Top Ramen noodles and done without cable and her cell phone and skipped buying her kids toys ... because we like our poor folks to act poor!

[LisaL]

32. She agreed to a deal.

So she should have known to not spend it.
Sounds like the deal is now off, since she didn't keep to her end of it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

37. Yes ...

Then life happened.

As I indicated, spending money on hand today, for today's survival; frequently, takes a back seat to agreed upon terms, affecting tomorrow.

[closeupready]

46. While true, the publicity this story generated puts a conviction at risk

if it goes to a jury, considering how obviously sympathetic most people are to her predicament.

A part of me kind of hopes it DOES go to trial, the prosecutors are told by the jury to buzz off, and she gets to keep the donations anyway. Taxpayer money is wasted on a bunch of stupid, racist charges, and haha, she gets her life together, and the kids become success stories - maybe along the lines of Joe Kennedy who never forgave the snobs in Boston who shunned him.

[happyslug]

55. I do NOT think this is a jury issue case, sound more like an equity case.

In a court sitting as a Court in Equity (as opposes to sitting as a Court In law), you have NO right to a Jury. I suspect this is Equity for we are dealing with donations which means Charity, and as a judge an issue in Equity not law.

In Merrie old England, your have several courts, including the ancestor of Law Courts in the US. When the Colonies were settled, the Court of Law cross the Atlantic, but the rest of the courts stayed in England (I should not Pennsylvania did have a Court iN Equity during the Colonial Period by it was abolished prior to the Revolution).

By the term "Court of Law" I mean what are called County Courts. These generally are called Common Pleas Courts, but has different names in different states, Superior Court iN California, Supreme COurt in New York States are two well know examples of other names for the court.

One of those non "Courts of Law" Courts was the Court of Equity. THe Court of Equity evolved from the older Church Courts that dealt with issue of Equity (which was defined as anything that could NOT be reduced to Money). Thus Courts of Equity dealt with issues of Bankruptcy, Court Orders but NOT land title, which was reserved to the Courts of Law (but foreclosure on a mortgage was an action in a Court of Equity).

Now, the residents of the Colonies and later the Citizens of the US had hated the Court of Equity for it is the court that issued COURT ORDERS for people to do something or NOT to do something. Thus the State Government were reluctant to form Courts of Equity. On the other hand some of the powers of the Court of Equity was deemed necessary, so the Court of Law in all states assumed such powers.

One aspect of this assumption of these powers (including Foreclosures and issuing Court Orders) was that when the Court of Law assumed these powers, they also assume the procedures of the Court of Equity, including the rule "To get equity, you must be willing to give Equity" AND that it is a judge only decision i.e. no right to a jury.

Charities are generally under the jurisdiction of Courts sitting in Equity thus no right to a jury trial UNLESS some Stature or other State Law permits or requires such a jury. I do not know what the underlying law is, but I suspect it gives the Court involved the right AND duty to protect all charities thus the court will hear this case and it probably will NOT be in front of a Jury.

[savalez]

35. Well said 1StrongBlackMan

And here I thought self righteousness was just a RW trait.

[tabasco]

53. LOL!

That must be one fancy neighborhood that epi.org is calculating for.

$735 a month for groceries??? Steak every night?

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. It's based on the Phoenix Metro Area ...

and we're talking a family of four ... that's a little less than $200/week.

But I guess you're right ... Ms. Taylor could limit herself and her children to one meal of Top Ramen per day.

[LisaL]

83. Or she could have gotten a job.

But according to reverend Maupen who was trying to help her, she wouldn't even show up for interviews. Yet she claims she spends $4,000 a months. Does she expect people are going to donate to her at that rate for the rest of her life?
http://ktar.com/22/1784105/Embattled-mom-Shanesha-Taylor-spends-4000-a-month

[tabasco]

105. One meal of top ramen a day for four = $30 a month.

Don't try to bullshit the bullshitter.

[Scootaloo]

101. Let me guess.

"The poor should eat lentils and peanut butter! Want meat? SET A MOUSETRAP, PEASANT SCUM!"

[LisaL]

84. If that money is gone then she is broke again.

Is that smart? She claims she has $72,000 still left but...

""You can't have, what she claims to have, $72,000 left of the money, and be declared indigent," he said. "That is just impossible...that money is gone.""

http://ktar.com/22/1784105/Embattled-mom-Shanesha-Taylor-spends-4000-a-month

[savalez]

87. You think she should've buried it in the back yard?

Of course she should spend it. She needs to. That's what it's for, to provide housing, food, transportation, etc. Do you live under a roof? Do you eat? Do you get around? That costs money.

[LisaL]

88. No, I think she should have done as she promised the DA and put part of the money into the trust for

her children.
She needs to spend the money?
In less than a year she needs to spend it? Considering she doesn't have a job. Despite interviews being arranged for her, according to the reverend, that she didn't show up for.
If she spend four thousands a months (while she doesn't have a job), what does she expect to live on after the money run out?
Now the deal she made with prosecution is off and she will go on trial.

[savalez]

90. I find your meddling ridiculous.

I've said from the beginning that the law should not have been allowed to even consider the donated funds. Private citizens donated to her cause and they did not demand a trust fund so neither should the law. Are you as broke as she was before the donations? Is that why you're mad? Is it jealousy?

[LisaL]

91. My situation is none of you business.

We are not talking about me here.

[savalez]

92. And hers is none of yours. n/t

[LisaL]

93. Then WTF are we discussing it for?

And this will be the last thing I ever say to you.

[Dr. Strange]

96. You probably should have directed that at the person who started the thread.

[savalez]

98. I disagree Dr.

The OP states that she missed the deadline and that she is requesting a smaller amount. It does not go into her personal life at all.

[cstanleytech]

21. Setting aside the money in a trust fund for the kids was part of the settlement she agreed to

with the court in order to avoid being prosecuted, thats why its the courts business.

[savalez]

22. No shit but it's still BS that that came into play as

the only option. If she did not get a single dime in donations I'm sure they would have thought of something else.

[cstanleytech]

25. Ya but look she had something 114000 or so all she had to do

was set aside the 60k and thats it.
Plus this wasnt money she had to pay as a fine to the court rather it was going to be a trust fund for her own kids future so in other words she screwed her own children over.

[savalez]

34. Oh I know the terms.

The fact that the court has anything to say at all about how to spend that money is what strikes me as complete BS.

[leftynyc]

27. She made it their business

when she agreed to the deal to keep her out of jail. If she doesn't want to show the bank account, she can face a jury instead.

[closeupready]

59. haha, would I love to see it go to a jury

in a way - homeless woman, looking for work, raising her three children who love her, makes a big mistake, regrets it, goes to jail anyway? No, I don't think so. That poor woman would be not guilty on all charges. Or I'd like to see Obama give her a pardon.

I've personally served on a federal jury more than once, and in one case, I STILL sometimes second-guess if my vote was the correct one, but she has done NOTHING in this case that I have seen that would warrant a guilty vote, and if I did vote guilty without seeing evidence of malice, I would honestly have trouble sleeping at night.

[leftynyc]

63. I hope you're right

but she did agree to a deal that she seems to be backing away from. The consequences of that are to put the case to a jury and I'm not as confident as you are that 12 strangers will do the right thing.

[branford]

97. No so fast, counsel.

If her attorney tries the "pity the poor woman" schtick, the prosecution will be able to discuss, in exquisite, lengthy and unflattering detail, where and how she spent the money and how she failed to provide for her children, as a means of impeachment. I very much doubt that a jury will look kindly on a woman who buys designed jeans and $6000 worth of studio time, instead of providing for her own children, particularly when the charge against her is child endangerment.

Moreover, as this is a state case, Obama has no power to pardon Taylor. The president only has the power to pardon and commute federal sentences. Generally, the power to pardon state offenses rests with the governor and/or state pardon boards. In any event, no president or governor would touch this hot mess.

If I were a betting man, the parties will ultimately agree to another plea bargain, but this time Taylor will spend some time as an involuntary guest of the state and likely lose custody of her children, at least for a period of time.

[mackerel]

16. She might also have some tax troubles as I do believe that money is considered

income as far as the IRS is concerned. If she done as instructed she probably wouldn't have to pay taxes on all of it but if she used the money for something else than it is considered income.

[1StrongBlackMan]

44. Se would likely have tax problems ...

even if she had placed all of the money into trust accounts for the kids ... donations above (I can't remember the exact number) is considered taxable income by the IRS.

[Travis_0004]

80. Gifts are not taxable

Unless they are over a certain amount (around 13k).

I would assume no single person donated 13k. Even if they did the person giving the gift pays the tax, not the person receiving.

[mackerel]

81. Are you sure? I thought only

gifts to a charitable organisation e.g. 501c & the like were not taxable? That private gifts to an individual were taxable?

[Travis_0004]

85. nope.

If I give a gift to you, it will never be taxed on your end.

If I give you more than 14k, or 28k if Im married, then I have to pay taxes on the gift, but you still pay nothing.

The logic is the person giving the gift is likely in a higher tax bracket, and is easier to collect the tax from

[hollysmom]

103. I thought it was 5 K

[Travis_0004]

106. Its 14k in 2015

[NYC_SKP]

24. Left kids in car, got $114,000 in donations, mom has the money meant for the kids?

A Superior Court judge asked Taylor on Monday if she would be willing to show the state her bank records so authorities can determine whether she has made big purchases and if it is necessary to renegotiate the agreement.

Taylor told the judge that the money is in her mother's bank account and her mom may not want her to disclose the records.

She then suggested funding the accounts with $35,000 instead of the $60,000 previously agreed.

I was supportive at first, am disappointed in her now.

[Ash_F]

38. Hmm.. justice in America

[LisaL]

40. Did you not read the article?

Charges against her were dismissed. She agreed to a deal. All she had to do is put money donated to her (60K) into a trust fund for the kids. Apparently even that is too much to ask.

[1StrongBlackMan]

48. Because putting money away for one's child's future ...

Is, so much, more important than providing for their needs today ... deal or not.

And as I wrote earlier:

Assuming she did, in fact, blow through $54,000 ... let's just see how absurd and irresponsible that is:

Housing: (6 months for a 3 bedroom apartment/house): $1,363/mth or $8,178
Food: 735/mth, or $4,410
Childcare: $1,677, or $10,062
Transportation: $480/mth, $2,880
Health Care: $1,476, or $8,856
Other Necessities: $537/mth, or $3,222

= $37,608

http://www.epi.org/resources/budget/

Now suppose, she bought a later model car (cash), rather than take on the $480/mth transportation cost ... that number gets us pretty close to the $54,000, many seem to think completely unreason/irresponsible.

And that doesn't include paying off/paying down the reported $30,000 in outstanding student loans.

But I guess she could've limited herself to a single meal of Top Ramen noodles and done without cable and her cell phone and skipped buying her kids toys ... because we like our poor folks to act poor!

[LisaL]

49. She was asked to provide documentation of how she spend the money.

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. From my experience ...

Poor people, generally, don't maintain such "records"; but experiences may vary. ETA: Our first, speculative, clue should be/should have been that Ms. Taylor, apparently, does not have her own bank account ... no bank account, no checking account. No check account, no cancelled checks (i.e., banking records).

[Nye Bevan]

51. She claimed that the money was in "her mom's bank account".

And that "her mom may not want to disclose the records". Sounds legit. I mean, why would mom want to come to the courthouse with her bank statements to keep her daughter out of prison?

[1StrongBlackMan]

52. Because ...

perhaps, Mom has other things ... unrelated to her daughter ... to hide, like ... maybe ... having a bank balance with no visible means of support.

[closeupready]

60. Do you ever get tired of arguing with unreasonable people here?

If not, more power to you, but for myself, there are other topics on which I just don't even bother wrangling with idiots and 20-something know-it-alls anymore because they ARE. NOT. LISTENING. TO. LOGIC.

Sigh. So it goes here.

[LisaL]

89. Or maybe it never was in mom's bank account.

Ever thought of that?

[happyslug]

58. When I was doing Zebley Cases in the 1990s, homes were purchased for $50,000

Zebley was a Case involving Children SSI. In 1974 Congress passed the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. It was to provide income to those Americans WHO CAN NOT WORK AND whose income was below the Standard of Need (what Congress determined you need to earn to live in today's America). In 2014 that amount is $721 (plus additions from your local State, which varies from state to state).

Now SSI is REDUCED by any other income you get, including any Social Security you may get. SSI is also restricted to those people who Social Security has determined can NOT hold down a full time job of the "type of job that exists in substantial numbers in the National Economy". i.e if you can work, you can NOT get SSI.

As part of the SSI package, SSI was also granted to children. The Social Security Administration (SSA) took the position that only children suffering from certain named disabilities met that test and this was upheld till 1989, when the US Supreme Court ruled that was TO RESTRICTIVE a rule given the language of the SSI law.

AS a result SSA had to review cases it had denied over the previous 10 years and if they were deemed to be disabled under the rules the US Supreme Court Ruled SSA SHOULD HAVE BEEN USING, then give such children all of that money due. At $500 a month SSI came to $6000 a year, $60,000 for ten years (through the actual number ended up around $50,000).

Since this was disability payment it was NON TAXABLE, but being SSI it was "over accessed" unless spent down in six months OR invested into something that was NOT an asset under the SSI Act. One such non asset was a home. I ended up directing several families to buy decent but living homes for about $50,000 (Other used the $50,000 as a down payment, relying on the SSI monthly payment to pay off the mortgage on a higher price home).

Side note:I live in Johnstown PA, homes prices are low in this area. Recently I saw a run down, but livable home on sale for $5000, yes Five Thousand dollars. It needed extensive repairs, but it was habitable. Most low end houses tend to go for about $50,000. In the suburbs you do see homes in the hundred of thousands of dollars but not in Johnstown Itself.

If the Mother had done such a purchase herself, no one would be questioning the purchase, even if the $114,000 was a down payment. There are banks that can take in the money and invest it in US Treasury Bonds (The safest investment you can make, so secure right now that given the inflation rate, people are PAYING the US government to take their money when they buy US Treasury bonds. The reason people are doing this is they do NOT trust any other investment, which is a comment on the other investments you can make).

My point was this Mother had other options to do with the money, but I suspect she has gambled it away. Using the money to buy a home would have been looked upon favorably by the courts, Investing it with a bank would have been looked as doing something good with the money. Buying a new car would have been looked upon with favor. Food would have been a given. The problem is I suspect the court suspect (and I agree with the court) she just gambled the money away. The Court want to put a stop to that use of the money and she is like a lot of gambling addicts, can NOT stop gambling.

[former9thward]

73. Jarrett Maupin was her primary supporter.

He is a Civil Rights activist here in Phoenix and helped broker the deal which kept her out of jail and helped her raise the funds. He was on the radio today (Thursday) saying all the money is gone. He said it was used on designer jeans, $250 shoes for her kids and recording time for her boyfriend (the kids dad) who aspires to be a rapper. He boyfriend had split but now is back in the picture when the money came rolling in.

Maupin said the County Attorney should throw the book at her. Maupin said he had several job offers that he obtained and she has refused them all. She has no interest in working.

But I am sure you will be a supporter to the bitter end.

[1StrongBlackMan]

74. With this information, if true, then ...

I will admit that she used bad judgment ... something quite common among the poor and/or financially illiterate, where "found money" is involved.

Now ... can we talk about your apparent glee in "being right" about this woman's bad judgment?

Personally, as a "liberal"; but more, a human being, I would far rather be a "supporter" of a poor person ... having faith and hoping for the best ... than a critic, based on nothing more than a suspicion that (poor) people act in bad faith.

Just a point to ponder ...

[former9thward]

75. I have no glee about this woman's situation.

I suspect she has been taken advantage of by her on again/off again 'boyfriend'. And poor people, especially women, find themselves in that situation all of time. I don't have a good answer.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. Oh. Okay ...

I must have been thrown by:

She has no interest in working.

But more,

But I am sure you will be a supporter to the bitter end.

Perhaps, it's the bain of the internet ... the inability to hear tone; but I doubt it.

[former9thward]

78. "but I doubt it."

From your posts, not surprising... You look for confrontation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

79. And your ...

But I am sure you will be a supporter to the bitter end.

Was what, if not some kind of "victory dance" taunting?

Come on, mannn ... you must work on that "what me?!?" act.

[catrose]

107. Bingo!

for the term "financially illiterate." My first thought on hearing the deal was "How the hell is she going to know how to set up a trust fund?" I wouldn't myself, except that it would involve paying lawyers and bankers.

I worked with Red Cross after Hurricane Katrina. Everyday there was a new system for putting money in people's hands. At one point, they were opening bank accounts for people at a bank a few blocks from the shelter. And six months later (or sooner) these clients were in courts for bounced checks. They'd never had checking accounts. Or a lump sum. The debit cards didn't work any better. If you're not used to handling money, how can you learn the instant you actually get some? I hadn't realized that New Orleans for many people was a cash economy.

I'm not sure what the answer is, but there sure were a lot of problems.

[closeupready]

47. Well right, but wait! That's entirely different!

Marijuana is healthy. Homeless people just don't want to work. So there.

[happyslug]

56. I suspect gambling, that is how most such large sums of money is lost so quickly.

Drugs would be #2 on the list, but Gambling is #1. I have seen it in Pennsylvania (and it was NOT spent on the State Lottery illegal gambling is everywhere if you willing want to do it).

From what I gather from reading the articles and the underlying Arizona law, I suspect someone in the local Attorney General Office found out about the excessive gambling and step in to preserve SOME of the money. It appears $60,000 was saved, but now it appears the mother has lost even more of the money (again sounds like gambling) and thus she no longer has even $60,000 to put into the trust.

I see payments being ordered till the $60,000 is replenished. If she does not pay the money into the account, then and only then will she go to jail.

[mackerel]

61. Or she gave it to the Father of the children. Either way those who donated

to her may not donate to another in a similar circumstance in the future. That kind of money was most likely very overwhelming for this woman and a lot of people around her probably had their hands out. Nonetheless, she was supposed to comply with the courts. It was part of the deal. I wonder if her attorney made it clear enough to her what her responsibility was. Someone should have helped set-up the accounts first off and taken a lot of the temptation away.

[rocktivity]

70. DING DING DING! Mackerel, you're our grand prize winner!

Last edited Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:35 PM - Edit history (5)

Someone should have helped set-up the accounts first off and taken a lot of the temptation away...
And the court should have assigned that "someone" to supervise the deal, rather than "depend" on her, the lawyer, her mother, or the baby daddy. Why did they give her so much time anyway? The deadline should have been the week after she got the crowdfunding money, if not sooner.

(T)hose who donated to her may not donate to another in a similar circumstance in the future...
Yes -- Taylor's children are the real losers in this, along with the children of those whose parents would do the right thing if they were to get the opportunity to stand in Taylor's shoes.


rocktivity

[rocktivity]

72. I think we've been plagiarized, LOL

AZ Central.com: It was the face that launched...4,053 chumps...

In July, Taylor took the deal, (calling it)..."a beautiful resolution to a very long, very hard journey." On Monday, Taylor failed to meet the deadline for funding the trust...And all those good-hearted people? Well, I imagine a number of them will think long and hard before offering another hand to someone like Shanesha Taylor...and that is the saddest part of this sad story.

There comes a time in everyone's life when they need a second chance, and if they're lucky enough to be offered one, then that's special...I've met plenty of single mothers who make do and get by and put their children first. If they were given $115,000 to secure their kids' futures, they would make the most of it...What a shame that Shanesha Taylor has squandered her...second chance – and maybe even theirs.


rocktivity

[mackerel]

77. Wow, I usually trend with idiom's and slang but to be part of an actual plagiarised article.

Makes my English MA worth it

[NickB79]

86. Rev. Jarret Maupin, a major supporter of hers, is claiming she spent it all

http://ktar.com/22/1782883/Rev-Jarrett-Maupin-Shanesha-Taylor-squandered-opportunities

The Rev. Jarrett Maupin, who has helped Taylor by playing a part in her original deal as well arranging job interviews for her, said Thursday he is tiried of Taylor wasting her chances for redemption.

"I got a lot of calls and made a lot of calls to people that are at the helm of hotels and restaurant chains and other businesses locally here in the Valley ...so she could find full-time employment," he said. "Only to have her not show up for the interviews."

Maupin said her other supporters as well as her attorney also received job offers for Taylor, but she did not follow through with them because she said it wasn't the work she wanted to do. However, he said most of the offers were in her preferred field of hospitality and offered high wages.

There are also claims she spent a substantial sum funding her boyfriend's rap career by paying for studio time: http://abc7.com/family/arizona-mom-uses-donations-for-music-studio/401408/

My sympathy levels are dropping by the minute here.....

[NaturalHigh]

95. According to another article...

she spent at least $6,000 on studio time for her boyfriend's rap recording.

Yeah, hard to be very sympathetic here. I feel really bad for the kids.

[rocktivity]

100. UPDATE: 18 years probation

Last edited Mon Jul 20, 2015, 12:55 PM - Edit history (5)

Huffington Post: Shanesha Taylor...was sentenced Friday to 18 years of supervised probation. The sentencing brought an end to the case that saw (her) draw sympathy around the country and collect more than $114,000 in donations when her teary mug shot was published online.

Her story of trying to get a job without being able to find child care resonated with the public. But the support quickly turned to scorn when she failed to meet a court deadline to place some of the money into a trust for her children as part of a plea agreement. Questions followed about how she was spending the money. Court Commissioner Jeffrey Rueter...(said)...her actions were influenced by her economic situation...but she ultimately demonstrated "criminally poor judgment" and placed her children in danger...

Prosecutors said she had spent about $4,100 a month from the donations she received, including more than $1,000 in non-essential items such as cable TV. Taylor countered that she does not live an extravagant lifestyle...

(T)he long-term probation was intended to monitor Taylor until the youngest of her four children turns 18...She recently had another baby...(She is) require(d)...to attend parenting classes...Taylor will request to carry out her probation in Chicago, where she intends to move to be with family...

Well, I guess she doesn't live an extravagant lifestyle now that the money's gone (or hidden). It doesn't sound like she's learned very much, and I hope the relocation isn't allowed until she gets a job, a home, child support from the baby daddies -- AND a full accounting of how she spent that money!


rocktivity

[Renew Deal]

104. The money is gone

I hope she can prove otherwise.