I'm hopelessly out of it, b/c I hadn't realized until today that Remy is away from ST b/c the custody hearing is on: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/case-spurs-fan-debate-over-boston-announcer.html?ref=baseball
InsideTheParker said:I'm hopelessly out of it, b/c I hadn't realized until today that Remy is away from ST b/c the custody hearing is on: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/case-spurs-fan-debate-over-boston-announcer.html?ref=baseball
JGray38 said:I think the point is that that they chose A. Then they chose A again. And again, and again, etc. You're framing it as one decision, when it was the same decision made many times over. Most people get to choose A once, if that. How many times can you choose A before B becomes the option?
redsahx said:
That's fine but we're all given the benefit of hindsight now. I was trying to present the possible perspective of the Remy's before all of this, and how it's not reasonable to state that they should have known they were choosing a more dangerous path for him at that time. If the choices were
A) Get him a job, provide family support for him and hope he grows out of his problems
or
B) Kick him to the curb, let him spend some more time in jail and ignore him when he comes out
I'm not sure why B should have been considered the obvious solution from their viewpoint as far as what was going to spare society and protect others. You may not care about rehab, but their decision process would have been based on their best guess as far as how they might be able to rehabilitate a twenty-something year old son considering he was something they were going to be dealing with the rest of their lives. I'm sure Jerry and Phoebe have been second-guessing themselves pretty harshly, but I don't believe their intentions were poor. I do think Phoebe's reasoning and apparent actions those final two days make no sense, and I'd like to know why Jared's sister was able to detect how dangerous the situation was but not the mother. However, if you are going to criticize their handling of Jared in the prior years up to that point, I don't see how you can say that his hypothetical rehab is pointless, as all decisions are made with a hypothetical outcome in mind.
JGray38 said:I think the point is that that they chose A. Then they chose A again. And again, and again, etc. You're framing it as one decision, when it was the same decision made many times over. Most people get to choose A once, if that. How many times can you choose A before B becomes the option?
Youkilis vs Wild said:
This is where I think the PR issue is really at play. We can butt heads over the enabler talk and the culpability of the Red Sox in growing the monstrosity that is Jared, but it seems like the broader public is willing to say "But Jerry didn't kill anybody!"
But from the people I've spoken with -- I recognize that's hugely anecdotal -- there doesn't seem to be much sympathy to the idea that the girl should be brought up by the parents of the man that killed her daughter. Especially given the outcomes of the three other Remy offspring (one of whom is certainly worse than the others, but it isn't a pretty picture for any of them).
InsideTheParker said:Forgive me if this has already been covered, but is it possible that the Globe article is intended to effect a shift in public opinion against the Remys, so that he can be removed with less of an uproar from the Remy-lovers? (I would love to see him off the broadcasts, but I've wanted him off for years.)
redsahx said:
Just playing devil's advocate here because I don't know the true intentions of the Remy's in this matter and do believe the Martel's are the better option, but Is it possible that what Jerry and Phoebe are doing is simply a means to maintain some sort of meaningful relationship with their granddaughter? It sounds like they were just as close to her if not closer than Martel's parents. Someone with background on family court matters can straighten me out here, but if they make no attempt at custody and allow the Martel's uncontested full custody, is it more likely the Martel's can then cut them off from their granddaughter? Could this simply be a means for them to ensure they get at least some visitation or partial custody rights?
At that point, Guyette, 19, had sole custody of the child after winning a two-year court battle initiated by Jerry and Phoebe Remy in which a guardian appointed by the court to investigate the child’s welfare, Bette Winik, ultimately sided with Guyette. “Bette was the one that really laid out that Jared was not doing what the court asked, that his parents were enabling him, and that Tiffany was the better parent,” said Maxa Berid, a family lawyer who represented Guyette. (Guyette lost custody in 2007, after the Remys prevailed in a second case, brought at a time Guyette was in another abusive relationship.)
Reverend said:
It's possible, but they did this before at a time that sounds nearly indefensible:
I can imagine making a case for when Guyette was in another abusive relationship... sorta. But privileging your own desire to have a relationship with your grandchild over what seems pretty clearly to be the good of the child suggests a kind of selfishness or blindness, perhaps both (selfishness often leads to blindness).
Martel looked more than a little like a young Tiffany Guyette. And, like Guyette, the 22-year-old had also not had the easiest home life.
Growing up in Taunton, Martel had been 17 when her parents decided to follow her brother to Virginia for work, said Alexis Kirker, a younger cousin who grew up partly in the same household. Given a choice between dropping out of school and going with them or staying and fending for herself senior year, Martel stayed — working to pay for a tiny apartment and becoming the first in her family to finish high school, Kirker said.
Yeah, I'm convinced. Moving to find work and giving a 17 year-old the choice of whether to come or work her way through her senior year by herself and raising three criminals and a murderer and telling your son's eventual murder victim that you'll protect her if she refuses to cooperate with the criminal prosecution and then failing to do so are pretty comparable behaviors.redsahx said:So we're talking about a family that doesn't value education and who left their 17-year old daughter behind to fend for herself. The more I read about them, I'm not so sure the Remy's aren't a better landing spot.
Eric Moskowitz @GlobeMoskowitz 8m
Martel family lawyer: Martels will have guardianship of 5 year old Arianna; Remys will have visitation rights.
But how can any parent "not allow" a 30 year old adult to live where he or she wants? Jared Remy was an adult and short of jail time, he was gonna do whatever he wanted to do. Jerry certainly could not physically force him to live at home... I think given all the mistakes Jared made, it was past time for him to be treated like an adult without any financial assistance. If that's "kicked to the curb", so be it. I call it growing up.Reverend said:
This is where the Globe piece utterly fails of course--we don't know what sorts of measures the Remys did or did not take with their son. There is some stuff thrown in near the end about the therapist who had worked with Jared and said he wouldn't take his meds, so we know that some measures were taken. The author is too busy hammering Remy and the legal systems failures to give us the full story though, which is annoying for reasons that other, notably Syd have already fleshed out.
I'm inclined to think that Jerry and Phoebe fucked up a fair amount along the way as three for three with violent offenders isn't that common, unless you believe Phoebe is carrying the Evil Gene or something. This last intervention with Martel also reeks of serious denial about Jared who sounds like he was pretty toxic even when he wasn't committing violent acts, which is kinda special.
There's probably a strong argument to make that they definitely should not have kicked him to the curb; rather, they should not have let him live with anyone else.
redsahx said:I also hesitate to label the Remy's selfish for wanting a relationship with their granddaughter. If for example, the Martel's are planning on taking the child to Virginia, and the Remy's have to settle for an occasional picture in the mail or on facebook (if they even get that courtesy) then I can't blame them for wanting to avoid that fate.
doldmoose34 said:I had a total WTF moment on Sunday, while flicking around all of the sports on TV I hit NESN late in the game durring the 8th inning garbage time when Jerry and DO were yucking it up over Costig's grandchildren in the stands and talking about interns... It was cringe worthy after having read the article
rundugrun said:But how can any parent "not allow" a 30 year old adult to live where he or she wants? Jared Remy was an adult and short of jail time, he was gonna do whatever he wanted to do. Jerry certainly could not physically force him to live at home... I think given all the mistakes Jared made, it was past time for him to be treated like an adult without any financial assistance. If that's "kicked to the curb", so be it. I call it growing up.
That's correct. But if Mom and Pop turn off the money spigot, that gives Jared the means to cry poor mouth and weasel into living with Jen anyways.Reverend said:By not paying the rent?
Have you read the piece? I think you have the financial equation here backwards--the guy didn't have a job but was living away from home and had a gym membership and went tanning. Do the math.
rundugrun said:But how can any parent "not allow" a 30 year old adult to live where he or she wants? Jared Remy was an adult and short of jail time, he was gonna do whatever he wanted to do. Jerry certainly could not physically force him to live at home... I think given all the mistakes Jared made, it was past time for him to be treated like an adult without any financial assistance. If that's "kicked to the curb", so be it. I call it growing up.
JayMags71 said:That's correct. But if Mom and Pop turn off the money spigot, that gives Jared the means to cry poor mouth and weasel into living with Jen anyways.
Reverend said:
Weren't they paying her rent too?
Judge Mental13 said:
Their son murdered the kid's mother. The fact that they're fighting for custody at all is so fucked up.
Myt1 said:Yeah, I'm convinced. Moving to find work and giving a 17 year-old the choice of whether to come or work her way through her senior year by herself and raising three criminals and a murderer and telling your son's eventual murder victim that you'll protect her if she refuses to cooperate with the criminal prosecution and then failing to do so are pretty comparable behaviors.
Judge Mental13 said:
Fuck that.
Their son murdered the kid's mother. The fact that they're fighting for custody at all is so fucked up.
CantKeepmedown said:I have to imagine that the Martel's argued that they can support their granddaughter in a loving, 2 parent home. They raised 2 good kids.
Meanwhile, it's well documented what has gone on with the 3 Remy children. As well as Jerry Remy himself being on the road for 8 months out of the year, leavining the littel girl to be raised primarily by Phoebe Remy. Maybe Jerry staying with NESN bit him in the ass a bit?
The Remy's will get visitation rights, who knows in what manner. I wonder if they asked about visitation rights for their monster son?
On the Martells, I have a few friends whose parents "let them fend for themselves" at some point during their teenage years. In all cases, the kids had the choice to follow the parents to a new town or stay behind with other relatives and/or friends. In the cases of friends closest to me, they decided to stay behind while their parent(s) moved away for a better opportunity or a fresh start. Mind you, their parents were scuttling by, trying to figure themselves out, and in no position economically to provide for their kids. (Whether they should have had kids at all is a discussion for a different day.) These were parents who were doing their best (which, admittedly, was not nearly enough) despite a glaring lack of resources and some childhood issues of their own to address. Their kids grew up to be tough, resourceful, and among the most independent people I know.redsahx said:
So we're talking about a family that doesn't value education and who left their 17-year old daughter behind to fend for herself. The more I read about them, I'm not so sure the Remy's aren't a better landing spot. Jennifer seems like she was a lot more put together than the rest of her family. I also hesitate to label the Remy's selfish for wanting a relationship with their granddaughter. If for example, the Martel's are planning on taking the child to Virginia, and the Remy's have to settle for an occasional picture in the mail or on facebook (if they even get that courtesy) then I can't blame them for wanting to avoid that fate.
"Sever all ties" is pretty far from "serve as guardians for."redsahx said:
So if you had granchildren you were close to, and a son of yours murdered their mother, you would voluntarily sever all ties with them out of principal? Pretend your side of the family no longer exists for them?
redsahx said:So if you had granchildren you were close to, and a son of yours murdered their mother, you would voluntarily sever all ties with them out of principal? Pretend your side of the family no longer exists for them?
fairlee76 said:"Sever all ties" is pretty far from "serve as guardians for."
As for the first part of this, I did consider that angle, and it's a good point to raise. Jennifer Martell is clearly more evidence that things can still turn out well in that situation. She appeared to have her head on straight and was doing well professionally. I raised the question as to whether or not we know for certain the Martell's are now in better shape to raise Arianna than they were their daughter. I hope people didn't take my points to mean I feel qualified to declare who the better fit will be, merely that there are question marks on both sides.fairlee76 said:On the Martells, I have a few friends whose parents "let them fend for themselves" at some point during their teenage years. In all cases, the kids had the choice to follow the parents to a new town or stay behind with other relatives and/or friends. ....
.....I can't get behind the notion that the Remys are more fit to serve as guardians than the Martells. We know how the Remy's kids turned out. They don't deserve another chance, without getting into the macabre discussion of the daughter of a murder victim being raised by the murderer's parents.
We're on the same page then... Jerry and Phoebe should have cut off the funds and let Jared live his own life. I just don't see how they could force a 30 year old man to live with them. Refusing to subsidize Jared does not guarantee that he will live at Mom and Dad's place.Reverend said:
By not paying the rent?
Have you read the piece? I think you have the financial equation here backwards--the guy didn't have a job but was living away from home and had a gym membership and went tanning. Do the math.
rundugrun said:We're on the same page then... Jerry and Phoebe should have cut off the funds and let Jared live his own life. I just don't see how they could force a 30 year old man to live with them. Refusing to subsidize Jared does not guarantee that he will live at Mom and Dad's place.
Yes, I read the entire article.
Edited for typo.
The thing is, it's pretty likely that they're not fighting, but rather had some sort of agreement, or framework thereof, going into the hearing. I find it hard to believe that the Remys were fighting for primary custody, and if they were I'll certainly change my tune. It just drives me nuts that while none of us knows anything about what went on in the courtroom, or leading up to the hearing, conclusions are being drawn. Judge, is it your opinion that the Remys should just go away and not try to work out a solution amenable to both families?Judge Mental13 said:
I would voluntarily leave the decision up to them, rather than FIGHTING THEM IN COURT.
Judge Mental13 said:
I would voluntarily leave the decision up to them, rather than FIGHTING THEM IN COURT.
CR67dream said:The thing is, it's pretty likely that they're not fighting, but rather had some sort of agreement, or framework thereof, going into the hearing. I find it hard to believe that the Remys were fighting for primary custody, and if they were I'll certainly change my tune. It just drives me nuts that while none of us knows anything about what went on in the courtroom, or leading up to the hearing, conclusions are being drawn. Judge, is it your opinion that the Remys should just go away and not try to work out a solution amenable to both families?
No. You've been pointing that out while simultaneously tying yourself in knots to draw every possible conclusion in favor of the Remy's but against the Martels.redsahx said:Nice mischaracterization of the argument. If you are so wise in the ways of parenting and have extensive background in studying behavioral issues in young adults, would you care to spell out which "behaviors" on the part of the Remy's directly led to their son becoming an extremely violent lunatic and how that would manifest itself in the upbringing of this young girl? Neither you or I possess enough meaningful info to project a likely outcome for being raised by them. I'll have to defer to the courts which I'm sure you'll agree will consider more information than that provided in a Boston Globe article. (And from what it seems, a settlement might have been reached)
If I happened to know that for example, Phoebe was an emotionally and physically abusive person and that was the underlying cause of their children's behavior, then of course I wouldn't hesitate to call that out. There hasn't yet been indication that this or anything similar was the case. Did they simply lose some genetic lottery and their worst crime was spoiling their already rotten kids? I don't know. If the Martel's were unlikley to provide support for going to college and even finishing high school, whereas the Remys can provide significant resources for the child if need be including access to specialized care and education, then I'm not sure they should be cut off from the child. For the record I have a daughter the same age as Arianna, so that is who I care about, not the Remy's. I've merely been trying to point out that people are making some awfully big assumptions about the Remys with incomplete evidence.
Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
Yes. And they bought her a brand new car as well. Almost as if by paying for her rent and things they could make the relationship between Jared and her work out.
Not really, as it's not uncommon in custody cases for petitioning for physical custody to be a starting point, and common sense tells me the Remys, and more importantly, their lawyers, had to know that the odds of that ever happening were zilch. In other words, legally speaking, it seems to be a totally strategic move designed to get the sides talking. If my common sense has failed me, and the Remys went into that hearing guns a blazing, trying to pry that little girl away from her mother's family, then fuck them, but it just doesn't seem to me that that's very likely.Reverend said:
It's been widely reported that they were. Whether or not it was strategic with the goal of getting visitation rights is, of course, another matter.
Page views?Redkluzu said:I am certain I am in the minority here but this line in RR's resonated for me: ".I just dislike it when rhetoric gets employed like this to no good end. Does anyone not think Jared is fucked up? Does anyone not think he murdered Martel? So why the article?"
I dared to mention something on twitter that I found the timing of this article, after all had been known for so long, somewhat concerning. Yes, it takes a lot with an investigation and editing and fact-checking and and and but why now, why just at the beginning of baseball season when everyone --as has already been mentioned above -- will look at Jerry and cringe or call for his head? Could this article have been released earlier? Is the point to pull out all the stops and print "The Truth," and if so, in a twist on what RR asked, what does The Globe want to achieve with this?
I am a defender of women, for sure, a non-supporter of those who game the system with money and yet, something doesn't feel right about the article's timing.
CR67dream said:The thing is, it's pretty likely that they're not fighting, but rather had some sort of agreement, or framework thereof, going into the hearing. I find it hard to believe that the Remys were fighting for primary custody, and if they were I'll certainly change my tune. It just drives me nuts that while none of us knows anything about what went on in the courtroom, or leading up to the hearing, conclusions are being drawn. Judge, is it your opinion that the Remys should just go away and not try to work out a solution amenable to both families?
Even if you had a relationship with said grandchildren and that was your only means of maintaining meaningful contact? Not buying it.
Yes. Of all the stories that have come out over the last few weeks, this is the one that pretty much everyone I know is talking about.Foulkey Reese said:Page views?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
And even if they wrote this as a "hit piece" against Jerry Remy, who gives a shit? Look how long he and his scum bag criminal kids got a free ride in the court of public opinion.
If my son had just murdered the child's mother I can assure you that my "relationship" with the grandchild would in NO WAY supercede me making sure that the Martells have whatever custody they want and if they want to allow visitation the courts don't need to be involved.
That appears not to be the case.What I'm saying is that if the Martells have primary custody, and don't want the Remys to have visitation rights, the Remys should shut the fuck up and deal with it.
The parties came to an agreement that they're all satisfied with, and under this agreement, the granddaughter, Adrianna, will spend time with all three famlies. Beyond that, I'm not at liberty to give any specific details," said the attorney, Sandy Durland.
Eric Moskowitz @GlobeMoskowitz Follow
Martel family lawyer: Martels will have guardianship of 5 year old Arianna; Remys will have visitation rights
CR67dream said:Not really, as it's not uncommon in custody cases for petitioning for physical custody to be a starting point, and common sense tells me the Remys, and more importantly, their lawyers, had to know that the odds of that ever happening were zilch. In other words, legally speaking, it seems to be a totally strategic move designed to get the sides talking. If my common sense has failed me, and the Remys went into that hearing guns a blazing, trying to pry that little girl away from her mother's family, then fuck them, but it just doesn't seem to me that that's very likely.
I hear you, Rev, and I could have been clearer by saying that I would find it hard to believe the Remys went into today seeking physical custody, rather than leave the impression that I thought that they never filed papers seeking such. I only responded to Judge because it seemed to me that he was under the impression, based on his post, that he thought today was going to be a battle. I just couldn't see that happening, for reasons stated above, and also the fact that it most certainly would have had severe negative PR consequences, and would have justified taking the beating the Remys are taking to a nuclear level. Even if they were inclined to wage that fight, which is far from established, they had to know that it would be a very, very bad idea.Reverend said:
Yeah, that's what I was saying--all we know is that they were petitioning for custody and we have no information as to what their actual goals were, i.e. we know their actions but their intentions are unclear based on said actions.
I give a shit. Why something appears as news months after the facts came out, i.e. the "when" is an issue for me, which is why I raised it. There are many issues here. Not 1.Foulkey Reese said:Page views?
I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
And even if they wrote this as a "hit piece" against Jerry Remy, who gives a shit? Look how long he and his scum bag criminal kids got a free ride in the court of public opinion.
Redkluzu said:I give a shit. Why something appears as news months after the facts came out, i.e. the "when" is an issue for me, which is why I raised it. There are many issues here. Not 1.