GROUND
ZERO PLUS 1162 DAYS,--New York, NY, Wednesday,
November 17, 2004--A
Bronx couple was handcuffed, jailed and charged with endangering
their son's welfare when they were in a hurry to go to work
and didn't notice the 15-year-old's bashed head and blood caked
on the back of his skull where he had been assaulted the night
before.
Back home
in the Bronx, from left, Christopher Osbourne, Neville,
Nigel and Ricardo Henry and Carlene Francis
Christopher
Osbourne, the teenager lives in the Bronx with his mother and
stepfather, Carlene Francis and Neville Henry. On October 5,
according to the New York Times, Christopher didn't come home
that night. His parents said that the boy often stayed out all
night, staying with relatives who had no phone.
Neighbors
found the boy lying on the tile of the apartment entrance early
in the morning. Christopher awoke and groggily climbed the stairs.
His mother told him not to go to school, and rushed out with
her husband to go to work and drop off the boy's younger brothers,
3 and 7, at school.
Christopher
fell into a coma. His mother called to check on him and when
the boy didn't answer, she called his godmother to come check
on him. He was rushed to the North Central Bronx Hospital where
it was discovered he had a severe head injury.
Police
were called to investigate. The parents were arrested for neglecting
to notice or care for the injuries. Eventually, the charges
were dropped, but not after a period where a restraining order
was placed barring the parents from communicating with Christopher.
Evidence
disclosed that the blood on the back of his head was not readily
visible, allowing the parents to be exonerated from criminal
charges.
However,
the case suggests a deep moral and social question: "How
responsible are parents for the welfare of their children?"
In this
case the parents allowed a teenager to stay out all night, setting
up conditions for the alleged assault upon him by forces he
cannot remember. Secondly, when he did appear there was little
concern about his welfare despite the fact his clothes stank,
were scarred with grass stains and he was groggy, and had wide
blood stains on the T-shirt and undershirt he wore.
To what
extent are parents legally responsible for their children?
To
what extent are Mrs. Francis and Mr. Henry responsible
for "Vigilance Neglect"?
The law
allows considerable latitude in this area, as it did in this
case where prosecutors finally dropped the case.
But to
what extent are Mrs. Francis and Mr. Henry responsible for "Vigilance
Neglect?"
If the
role of a parent is to be a "Parent of Vigilance"
for a child, to protect the child from the "dangers"
of the Beast of Terror--both physical and emotional--where did
these particular parents fail?
First,
the evening and night alone in a city full of terror. The Bronx
is a semi-war zone at night. That is, like any inner city, when
the sun sets the "booby traps" appear. Walking down
dark streets or cross unlighted parks almost invites the Beast
of Terror.
Allowing
a teenager to roam at night unprotected is like putting one's
hand into a garbage disposal in hopes no one will walk by and
throw the switch.
Was this
the first violation of "Vigilance Neglect?"
How about
the other nights the parents say the boy "roamed"
without supervision? Were these accumulative "Vigilance
Neglect" facts?
Why didn't
the parents communicate with the child after noticing the disbelieved
clothing, the stench and the groggy nature? Was this sheer Complacency
on the parents' part, adding to "Vigilance Neglect?"
"Vigilance Neglect"
is breeding if parents are too busy to know the depths
of their children's fears, intimidations and complacencies
How about
back in time? Did the boy feel comfortable telling his parents
about his life, his dreams, his fears, his hopes, his dreams,
his concerns? And if not, was "Vigilance Neglect"
at work gnawing at the foundations of trust between the boy
and parents, creating a wall of silence and an atmosphere of
unconcern?
Parents
don't have to see their child with a bloody skull to be concerned
about "Vigilance Neglect."
If there
seems to be a "wall" between parent and child, where
the child either chooses to or refuses to communicate, "Vigilance
Neglect" exists in some degree.
If parents
are too busy to know the depths of their children's fears, intimidations
and complacencies, "Vigilance Neglect" is breeding.
If parents
can't tell you their children's dreams and hopes, then "Vigilance
Neglect" is percolating.
"Vigilance
Neglect" is all about being "too busy" to communicate
with internal self of the child. It is sheer lack of concern
for the "essence" of a child.
In retaliation,
the child becomes a shell, a turtle, keeping his or her feelings
and thoughts away from parents because the parents either care
little about them or attack them when they are presented.
"Vigilance
Neglect" is brewing if parents can't tell you their
children's dreams and hopes
So, the
child seeks something outside the family- like Christopher sought
by staying out all night. Seemingly the last place he wanted
to be was home.
"Vigilance
Neglect" is a terrible crime.
While the
law may not denote it as violation of parenthood, the moral
law does.
Avoid
being a Parent of "Vigilance Neglect"
When parents
can't see the blood on the soul of a child, they aren't looking.
And parents who don't look for wounds on the inside or outside
of their children, and are willing to administer Vigilance First
Aid to them, are servants of the Beast of Terror.
Their Complacency
becomes "Vigilance Neglect," and is nothing more than
fuel on the fire of Fear, Intimidation and Complacency, the
Triads of Terrorism.
Your contributions
are needed to support the VigilanceVoice. Send $1
or more, either through PayPal below, or in cash or check. You can also
help by investing in a local ad in your community paper promoting the
Principles of Vigilance and how to overcome
Emotional Terrorism.
Go to Donation Page
For More Information
.jpg)
