Remy returning to the booth

[Rovin Romine]

 
I understand the standard.  But judges are also human.  And all things being equal, they're not going to place the child with the parents of the murderer.
 
Here's a better way of putting it - I can't think of an example where one spouse kills another, the grandparents fight for custody and absent extraordinary circumstances, the parents of the murderer win the case. 

 
Sorry I didn't say it overtly, but I think what I wrote implies that you're very likely correct.  
 
The catch is for all things being equal.  If there's some kind of factor working agains the Martels, or in favor of the Remys, it may overwhelm the "murderer's parents" argument.  But if I'm sitting on the case, I'd be concerned about placing the child with the Remys for various reasons.   It's harder when the families are antagonistic, as you're pretty much lopping off one half of the kid's relatives.  I don't know if extended family or grandparents have any kind of access or visitation rights in MA.

 

[steveluck7]

Could the Remy's petition for custody have antything to do with what might happen in the (seemingly unlikely) event of acquittal?  IOW, if the Martel's have custody and Jared is acquitted, could they make things much more difficult for him to assume custody?

 

[Rovin Romine]

Listening to the Remy interview, he sounds like a completely beaten human being.  I wouldn't be shocked if he doesn't get through spring training.  Very sad.
 
Steve Buckley chimes in.
 
http://bostonherald.com/sports/columnists/steve_buckley/2014/01/buckley_jerry_remy_and_the_elephant_in_the_room

 
And what's Buckley's actual point?  That some will be reminded of what happened if they hear Remy's voice?   Perhaps that's a good thing.

 

[Stevie1der]

Could this be the kind of thing that could really hurt ratings? I wonder if it's plausible that Remy goes halfway through the year because ratings show that people and especially women are tuning out of Red Sox telecasts. I can't rule out feeling so uneasy that I stick with WEEI.

 
I'm willing to bet that as long as the Red Sox stay in contention that ratings will be up across the board no matter who the color commentator is for the simple fact that the casual fan has a renewed interest in following the Defending World Series Champion Red Sox.

 

[Rovin Romine]

Could the Remy's petition for custody have antything to do with what might happen in the (seemingly unlikely) event of acquittal?  IOW, if the Martel's have custody and Jared is acquitted, could they make things much more difficult for him to assume custody?

 
I'll lateral that to anyone who does Family Law in MA.  I'd just be guessing.  Usually though courts go with birth parents having custody unless manifestly unfit.  
 
PS - I really don't see how this can be an acquittal under the facts as we know them.  
 
I think we went over this in the Jarrod Remy - Murder thread.  He's got a self defense argument he can make, but it's very very weak.  If I remember correctly, there are multiple eye witnesses, plus a neighbor who tried to intervene during the actual killing.  Jarrod was also caught on the scene covered in Jen's blood.  So much for "beyond a reasonable doubt."
 
Best guess is he might try a kind of "battered spouse/I just snapped and didn't know what I was doing" defense.  And I can't see that working either.  I mean, even if you "gave" me the fact that he was actually battered for the sake of constructing a theoretical defense, having to engage with/go around/threaten an intervening bystander is just a nearly impossible fact to accommodate in any active theory of defense.     

 

[EvilEmpire]

When it comes to 'best interests of the child', how much does money count?  The Remy's seem pretty well off: I don't know if the Martels are. 

 

[Average Reds]

When it comes to 'best interests of the child', how much does money count?  The Remy's seem pretty well off: I don't know if the Martels are. 

 
They will be after the litigation is settled.

 

[Rovin Romine]

When it comes to 'best interests of the child', how much does money count?  The Remy's seem pretty well off: I don't know if the Martels are. 

 
From what I know, MA law allows the judge to consider anything, including the ability to provide for the child, which is something basic to consider.  While richer does not always win, if the child had special needs or a medical condition, it could end up being a very strong factor.  On the other hand, the Martels might be younger, more able to provide supervision and raise a child, have a stronger extended family. . .who knows?  
 
I don't know if the judge can grant some kind of Joint Custody/Visitation Rights in this sort of situation or not.  I suspect they can. 

 

[joe dokes]

 
 
I don't know if the judge can grant some kind of Joint Custody/Visitation Rights in this sort of situation or not.  I suspect they can. 

 
I suspect that one of the Remys' motivations in joining the custody litigation was to ensure that some sort of visitation was memorialized in whatever custody decision a court makes.

 

[fairlee76]

 
See, this is what I mean. They have no control over sending him to prison. And I think getting someone involuntarily committed is probably a lot harder than you're imagining. The restraining order thing is a fair point by you guys, but even that is ultimately not in their control, it's not like they could force a restraining order even if they had wanted her to get one.
 
Really I don't see any option that would actually affect him other than just cutting him off completely. And, ignoring how hard that must be to do as a parent regardless of how shitty your kid is, can you really expect that to actually have a positive result? There's a good chance you would think doing that would be giving your kid his own death sentence.
 
Again, I don't claim to have answers. But this "well they HAVE to have been able to do something!" thing is just an emotional response imo.

Wait, you were the one who was chiding someone for "not knowing how the world works" right?  Just guessing but, typically, well-to-do families are able to work the legal system to their advantage.  Would be willing to bet that at some point during the legal proceedings for Jared's previous 8 domestics, his parents weighed in on his character/ability to change/etc.
 
Jerry has a right to work.  But I don't think calling him out for enabling his son's behavior is a huge stretch here.  Phoebe begging the Martells to not press charges in spite of her son's history is morally reprehensible.
 
P.S. - I see folks are saying that Jerry sounds defeated.  I sure as hell would if I was in his position.  He's supposed to be in his golden years - instead, he's watching his three kids get arrested for crimes ranging from the incomprehensibly terrible to the merely stalker-y.

 

[mauf]

 
They will be after the litigation is settled.

 
Have the Remys been sued, or is there reason to think they will be?
 
As Myt1 noted upthread, it seems like the only possible hook for liability would be the promise to protect the victim, and the only evidence of that promise is probably inadmissible hearsay.

 

[Corsi]

Since Jennifer's death, her parents Patricia and Brian and their son Brian Jr. and wife Andrea have uprooted their lives, jobs, and homes in Virginia to move to Massachusetts to provide support and love for their granddaughter and niece Arianna Remy, who remains in the custody of the Department of Children and Families. While they cannot give specifics about the pending legal case, Patricia and Brian and Brian Jr. and Andrea have filed petitions for guardianship of Arianna in the hope that they will eventually be granted custody of her.
 
Phoebe and Jerry Remy, parents of Jennifer's alleged murderer, Jared Remy, have also filed a petition for guardianship of Arianna.
 
The Martels sole focus is on the custody proceeding and therefore they have no opinion on Mr. Remy's return to work.
 

http://www.providencejournal.com/sports/red-sox/content/20140128-martel-family-says-it-has-no-opinion-on-jerry-remy-s-return-to-work.ece

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

 
I suspect that one of the Remys' motivations in joining the custody litigation was to ensure that some sort of visitation was memorialized in whatever custody decision a court makes.

 
Probably their primary motivation.  I mean, even if they feel the girl is better off being raised by her maternal family, what kind of relationship can they expect to have with her if she grows up with the knowledge that when her custody was in question, they didn't step up?  They have to get it on record that they love her enough to want to care for her and be a part of her life.  The courts may rule against them, but I think it's better for them and the little girl if it's a court decision rather than any scenario which can be twisted into them being portrayed as not wanting anything to do with her.

 

[mabrowndog]

In light of the custody case, I can't help but wonder if the Remys' attorney believes their chances will be aided by Jerry showing a return to gainful employment? Or an ability to once again display an affable side of his personality in order to provide the most supportive family environment for their granddaughter?
 
Obviously I'm just spitballing here, but hopefully someone with family law expertise can provide some background into what judges look for when deciding such cases.

 

[Average Reds]

 
Have the Remys been sued, or is there reason to think they will be?
 
As Myt1 noted upthread, it seems like the only possible hook for liability would be the promise to protect the victim, and the only evidence of that promise is probably inadmissible hearsay.

 
I was mostly being snarky. I have no idea if they will sue the Remys.  I'd guess that they will.
 
You (and Myt1) are probably correct about the legal merits, but unless the case is tossed at the outset, I'm guessing the Remys would settle.  I base this solely on the fact that the Remys probably aren't looking forward to defending the advice given to Jennifer before she was murdered in a public forum.
 
The situation is different, but the example of the falsely accused Olympic bomber Richard Jewell comes to mind.  He really had no case against any of the media outlets he sued with the possible exception of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and yet most of them settled with him out of sheer embarrassment and/or shame.  (The owners of the Journal-Constitution did not settle, but the case was dismissed when Jewell died.)

 

[EvilEmpire]

The girl is in state care and not with any of her kin? I understand needing to go through the courts to fully resolve custody issues, but keeping her in state care as it gets worked out? For a child who lost both parents under terrible circumstances, that just seems like another awful thing piled on top of everything else.

I know we don't know details, but on the face of it, it seems wrong to me.

 

[jose melendez]

 
I'll be shocked if this happens.  Just read the comments on this Boston.com article -- they're overwhelmingly positive in favor of Remy.  And this is coming from a website that harbors some of the most negative commenters on the planet.
 
http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/obnoxiousbostonfan/2014/01/red_sox_fans_will_have_final_say_on_jerry_remy.html?comments=all#comments

 
Yes, they're negative, but they're mostly misogynists, so this is hard for them.

 

[Myt1]

Probably their primary motivation.  I mean, even if they feel the girl is better off being raised by her maternal family, what kind of relationship can they expect to have with her if she grows up with the knowledge that when her custody was in question, they didn't step up?  They have to get it on record that they love her enough to want to care for her and be a part of her life.  The courts may rule against them, but I think it's better for them and the little girl if it's a court decision rather than any scenario which can be twisted into them being portrayed as not wanting anything to do with her.

They could have asked for relief short of guardianship, then. I'd imagine the fact that their son killed her mother is going to be more of a stumbling block than fighting this out and likely forcing the Martels to spend more time and money and anguish in court on the issue.

 

[Myt1]

 
Why should he retire? (I am not trying to be a dick. I'm just trying to break this down into small pieces here. Considering his privacy issues, if I were his friend I might have advised the same thing; but I'm curious why you think so.)

I don't think that somebody who I feel has a degree of moral responsibility for raising a monster and enabling his behavior should be the public voice and face of the Boston Red Sox.  And, retribution aspect of punishment aside, I don't think it will be good for Remy or the Martels.  And I think there's something to be said for feeling a sense of shame for the actions of his offspring.  We don't have enough sense of shame anymore, especially with regard to celebrities, P list though they may be.
 
 

 
Why should they not seek custody?  Its not a "contest" in the sense that anyone here starts off with the presumption. (well, actually, the father probably remains the only one presently with a legal right to custody at the moment).  But as between grandparents, uncles, etc., I dont think the law has any starting hierarchy.
 

 There isn't.  But all three of his kids are entitled assholes with violence issues, especially when directed at members of the opposite sex.  And he should have enough of a remaining sense of shame over that to not fuck over the parents of the girl whom his son killed unless both of them recently got busted for running a child labor sweatshop.

 

[Myt1]

 
Just to bring a little bit of a perspective to the whole restraining order thing.
 
On Aug 13, Jarrod Remy pushed Jen Martel into a mirror.  He was arrested for this.  Martel also got a temporary restraining order at this time.  I'm pretty sure this is just a civil "stay away" order.  
On Aug 14, Jarrod Remy was arraigned.  He pled not guilty.  The DA (who knew his criminal history) said that Jarrod should be allowed out on bail.  The judge issued a "no abuse" order to Jarrod.  (Apparently, Jen didn't request that the temporary restraining order be renewed, per her mother)  http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/08/16/officials-investigate-fatal-stabbing-waltham-one-person-custody/lYU4FlCQ9NWW3286u3UKoL/story.html
On Aug 15, Jarrod killed Jen.  
 
I'm not barred in MA, so I'm guessing as to procedure in what follows:
 
On Aug 24, the judge probably had the option of keeping Jarrod in jail, or setting a high bond, but that would have been (as I understand it) unusual.  
 
If Jarrod was kept in jail or a bail/bond was set, it would have required the DA to seek it, and that could have only occurred if the victim (Jen) would have stated she was in fear for her life, needed time to move, what have you.  As it was, the Globe reported that the DA had been in touch with Jen and the investigating officer.  In any event, the DA didn't seek for Jarrod to be held.    
Without knowing the facts, I'm very skeptical that the continuance of a temporary restraining order would have made any difference in Jarrod's actions.   Jailing him might have, but whether he should have been jailed or not, the failure to do so is not something that should be laid at the feet of the Remy family.   Unless you believe that Jen was in possession of information that: a) could have swayed the judge into holding Jarrod and b) the Remy family knew this and again coerced Jen into not sharing that information with the DA.  (Which is possible, but unlikely.)

I largely agree with this.  The temporary stay away order is usually ex parte and lasts until arraignment or up to 10 days if there is no arrest at which time it is an adversarial, civil proceeding and can be extended up to one year. 
 
A slight clarification; here the amount of bail is typically designed to ensure that a defendant appears at later proceedings; it's largely unrelated to dangerousness.  Given the timeline and the fact that Martel spoke with the prosecutor and did not request an extension of the stay away order, she likely indicated that she did not intend to cooperate with the prosecution.  Which makes a prosecution for DV extremely difficult and would have made a dangerousness hearing for pretrial detention very, very, very difficult to win.  Here's that aspect of our bail statute.  Regardless of whether the bail or bond were high, I have little doubt Remy's parents would have paid.
 
I guess I differ as to the likelihood of your A and B, though.  Given Remy's history and the fact that DV incidents rarely get reported the first time around and the fact that Remy was so violent that he went home and killed her, I think it's likely that Martel could have testified as to a history of violence such that a judge could have found "by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions of release will reasonably assure the safety of any other person [i.e. Martel] or the community," and ordered him held until trial.

 

[LeftyTG]

 
I'll lateral that to anyone who does Family Law in MA.  I'd just be guessing.  Usually though courts go with birth parents having custody unless manifestly unfit.  
 
PS - I really don't see how this can be an acquittal under the facts as we know them.  
 
I think we went over this in the Jarrod Remy - Murder thread.  He's got a self defense argument he can make, but it's very very weak.  If I remember correctly, there are multiple eye witnesses, plus a neighbor who tried to intervene during the actual killing.  Jarrod was also caught on the scene covered in Jen's blood.  So much for "beyond a reasonable doubt."
 
Best guess is he might try a kind of "battered spouse/I just snapped and didn't know what I was doing" defense.  And I can't see that working either.  I mean, even if you "gave" me the fact that he was actually battered for the sake of constructing a theoretical defense, having to engage with/go around/threaten an intervening bystander is just a nearly impossible fact to accommodate in any active theory of defense.     

I don't post very often - I love reading the site and benefit greatly from it, but seldom feel I have much to contribute - but I thought I'd speak up here.  I have a decade of experience prosecuting child abuse and neglect law in family court (think foster care/custody cases and not criminal/jail cases).  The first 6 years of my career was in the meat grinder of Manhattan Family Court juggling 175 cases at a time.  I can't even count the number of times I've stood up and asked a judge for orders of protection on behalf of women and children at the hands of scumbags.
 
My experience doesn't exactly square with what is presented here.  I've never practiced in Massachusetts, and these family law/custody issues are heavily state specific and fact specific.  That being said, I have a few thoughts that might be helpful (or not!).
 
Corsi quoted an article, and EE expressed (completely reasonable) surprise that the little girl is still in state custody.  I don't know this for sure, but my hunch is that the little girl is living with the maternal grandparents while technically in state custody.  This whole process is a bit tricky, but the gist is that Jared Remy has parental rights until they are legally severed.  Obviously, the same facts that have Jared behind bars waiting trial show that he is unfit and unsafe to have the child in his care, which is why the state had to take custody.  However, the legal process of severing parental rights is defined and requires due process.  There are a few avenues to proceed with a TPR (termination of parental rights) - typically (pursuant to ASFA) they are initiated when a child has been in foster care a minimum of 15 of the most recent 22 months.  There are some fast tracks, and murdering a sibling or parent is one of those.  However, Jared isn't convicted yet.  Once he is, the TPR would be a formality (the state could get a motion for summary judgment granted I'd imagine), but for now they are in a holding pattern.  The TPR is important because it frees the child to be legally adopted.  Given her young age, it is highly desirable that she be legally adopted.  If the state just kicks custody to one of the grandparents, it loses its interest in pursuing the TPR.  So, in the big picture, I understand why the state is maintaining custody over the child.
 
The reason I think the child is probably with the maternal grandparents is the article mentions them uprooting from Virginia to live in Massachusetts.  By law, a child in state custody cannot be placed across state lines unless an ICPC (Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children) is approved.  As I know firsthand from tons of experience, an ICPC is a bureaucratic and logistical pain in the ass.  The local child welfare office has to send a request to the state capital, who then forwards it to the state capital in the state the potential placement reource lives, who then forwards it to the local county office, who then assigns a worker to check out the residence and do background checks.  Once a report is generated, it goes back to the state capital, forwarded to the original state capital, and then back to the local office.  It usually takes 6-8 weeks.  Legally, there is no getting around this.  My guess is that in the aftermath of the tragedy, the maternal grandparents probably had this explained to them, and were probably told they could stay in Virginia and get the kid in 6 weeks or they could move up to Massachusetts and get the kid as soon as they find a place to live and have it checked out.  
 
My suspicion is that the state placed the child with the maternal grandparents as a kinship foster care resource.  If that is true, the maternal grandparents would be receiving a small stipend each month for caring for their granddaughter (approximately $450/month).  The state would also have any therapies/counseling lined up and the child would be eligible for Medicaid, by virtue of being in state custody.  I'd pretty much guarantee the court ordered that there was good reason to suspend any father/child visits in jail.  It sounds like both the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandparents filed for guardianship, which is typical, and the case will sit in limbo until Jared is convicted and have his parental rights terminated.  At that point, the court will award custody/guardianship to someone and dispense with the case.  It is possible the judge puts in the final custody/guardianship order some provisions for the paternal grandparents visitation, but in my experience judges hate doing that because it just invites constant litigation in the future.  If the child is with the maternal grandparents right now, then absent substantiated abuse/neglect findings I can't see a judge uprooting the child.  It wouldn't surprise me if at some point the state tried to talk them into formal adoption, for the sake of permanency.  
 
As for the other issues being discussed in the thread, I have a lot of thoughts swirling around but don't have it in me to reduce it to writing right now.  I will say I've greatly appreciated reading the back and forth, even if some of it feels a bit naive to me.  I do think Rovin Romine serves as a good proxy for my general thoughts.

 

[mabrowndog]

 I have a few thoughts that might be helpful (or not!).

 
Scratch the "or not". That was a pretty solid and informative post.
 
In your experience (assuming the maternal grandparents are ultimately granted full custody as you suggest), will they be allowed to bring her back to Virginia? Or would they need to formalize adoption for that to happen?
 
Once guardianship or custody is awarded (again assuming it's the material grandparents), do the paternal grandparents have any legal standing in contesting an adoption and/or an out-of-state move?
 
Also, any idea how likely is it that the Remys are contributing any money toward their granddaughter's care right now?

 

[EvilEmpire]

Lefty - that was a great post.  Very informative.  Corsi's post mentioned that the maternal grandparents moved up to MA with their son and his wife, and states that all have filed petitions for guardianship.  I don't know if that means that they are working together or if those are independent actions, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some intent or willingness on the part of Jennifer's brother and his wife to adopt Arianna.  I hope you're right that the maternal grandparents currently have custody on behalf of the state.  That just seems right.

 

[LeftyTG]

 
Scratch the "or not". That was a pretty solid and informative post.
 
In your experience (assuming the maternal grandparents are ultimately granted full custody as you suggest), will they be allowed to bring her back to Virginia? Or would they need to formalize adoption for that to happen?
 
Once guardianship or custody is awarded (again assuming it's the material grandparents), do the paternal grandparents have any legal standing in contesting an adoption and/or an out-of-state move?
 
Also, any idea how likely is it that the Remys are contributing any money toward their granddaughter's care right now?

once the state relinquishes legal custody (meaning adoption or a final court order granting custody/guardianship), then there is no longer a need for an ICPC and they can move anywhere they like (unless there is a restriction placed by a judge in the final order, which would be doubtful, in my opinion, for this case).  As long as the state is involved, they cannot move the child out of state unless there is a completed ICPC.
 
adoption is final.  Overturned adoptions are exeeeeeeeedingly rare.  If this child is adopted by any member of the maternal family, then any subsequent contact by the Remy's would be on the consent and discretion of the adoptive parents.  Some states allow grandparents to petition the court for ordered visits.  Some quick googling shows that Massachusetts is one of those states, but a quick look at the statute shows that the Remy's would not qualify for mandated visits and it is a high bar for the judge to award discretionary visits.  They could try, but I doubt they'd win (with the usual caveat that I'm not aware of all the facts).  This is, undoubtedly, why the Remy's have also filed for guardianship.  This is their best shot to try to leverage some kind of agreement to see their granddaughter.  Trying to come back for an order years later will pretty much be a nonstarter, legally.  If I were the maternal relatives, I'd be back in Virginia ASAP once I got custody/guardianship.
 
Regarding the Remy's contribution to the granddaughter's care, if they are doing it they are doing it voluntarily.  I'd have no way of knowing whether they are or not.  Legally, they would not be required to contribute anything (though the state can, and sometimes does, go after mothers/fathers whose kids are in foster care for child support).
 

Lefty - that was a great post.  Very informative.  Corsi's post mentioned that the maternal grandparents moved up to MA with their son and his wife, and states that all have filed petitions for guardianship.  I don't know if that means that they are working together or if those are independent actions, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some intent or willingness on the part of Jennifer's brother and his wife to adopt Arianna.  I hope you're right that the maternal grandparents currently have custody on behalf of the state.  That just seems right.

Good catch, and you are right.  I was imprecise and sort of lumped all the maternal relatives together.  It doesn't surprise me the maternal grandparents and their son and his wife have all filed for custody/guardianship.  Of course, it could mean there is friction in the family and they are each trying to elbow their way in.  I wouldn't necessarily conclude that, and I think the more likely explanation is that it is always good to give a judge options.  Two separate families with separate situations (income, space in the home, etc).  I'm sure between them they have a preference (i.e. they agree, for instance, it is best for grandparents, and the son/wife would bow out and would state on the record their preference for the child to go to the grandparents).  The son/wife stay in the case in case the judge has a strong preference for adoption (I've known judges who are loathe to issue custody orders in lieu of potential adoption for young children) and some judges have severe qualms about lettering older people adopt very young children (for obvious reasons).  In that case, the son and his wife would be seen as a preferable option.  So, you can see, presenting multiple options and then hashing it out is a more attractive option than just putting all the eggs in one basket.

 

[doldmoose34]

Someone upstream mentioned the 'restaurant empire' I have heard (3rd hand hearsay) that Jerry gets a low 6 figure sum yearly for liscensing his name to them, his partner in the Remdawg world, John something, is the brains and money behind them.

Another story I heard was that at one of the Grand Openings, Phoebe fell and Jared was yelling telling her to 'Sue the owners'

 

[redsahx]

I don't think that somebody who I feel has a degree of moral responsibility for raising a monster and enabling his behavior should be the public voice and face of the Boston Red Sox.  And, retribution aspect of punishment aside, I don't think it will be good for Remy or the Martels.  And I think there's something to be said for feeling a sense of shame for the actions of his offspring.  We don't have enough sense of shame anymore, especially with regard to celebrities, P list though they may be.
 

The only issue I have with your posts in this thread is that you seem to imply repeatedly that Jared Remy's upbringing somehow not only lead him to repeatedly beat women, but also mercilessly slaughter his girlfriend, and that Jerry Remy should feel like he created this monster. Whatever his parenting skills, there is obviously an underlying mental health issue here that ultimately was the biggest factor.

I understand your disgust as far as the "enabling" goes. I think it is fair to ask whether or not they were taking these DV incidents as seriously as they should have. What exactly were they doing over the years to try and address the pattern of physical violence towards women? Given that their son obviously depended on them as a financial resource, how hard were they putting their foot down for him to get help? I'd be interested to know those answers. That said, I tend to empathize with people who have to worry about a grown loved one out in the world dealing with serious mental issues. The Remy's definitely screwed up at the end, however I don't think it was because they were necessarily bad people with significant moral failings. I'm finding it really hard to articulate this, but basically I feel that if people walked in the Remy's shoes, they might find it easier to understand how those mistakes were made.

 

[Sprowl]

Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. Remy shall be put to death for the sin of boring us to tears for way, way too long.
 
Is it a coincidence that the Red Sox swept through the playoffs while Eck et alia ex Remy held forth? I think not.

 

[Dummy Hoy]

The only issue I have with your posts in this thread is that you seem to imply repeatedly that Jared Remy's upbringing somehow not only lead him to repeatedly beat women, but also mercilessly slaughter his girlfriend, and that Jerry Remy should feel like he created this monster. Whatever his parenting skills, there is obviously an underlying mental health issue here that ultimately was the biggest factor.

I understand your disgust as far as the "enabling" goes. I think it is fair to ask whether or not they were taking these DV incidents as seriously as they should have. What exactly were they doing over the years to try and address the pattern of physical violence towards women? Given that their son obviously depended on them as a financial resource, how hard were they putting their foot down for him to get help? I'd be interested to know those answers. That said, I tend to empathize with people who have to worry about a grown loved one out in the world dealing with serious mental issues. The Remy's definitely screwed up at the end, however I don't think it was because they were necessarily bad people with significant moral failings. I'm finding it really hard to articulate this, but basically I feel that if people walked in the Remy's shoes, they might find it easier to understand how those mistakes were made.

Does the general behavior of the other children factor in to your judging of Rem-Dog's parenting? This isn't like they just have one kid with a serious mental illness- there's a pattern here.

I do agree that there's obviously some mental health issue involved with Jared (and possibly the others?), but there's no way that anyone can say that Jerry (or his wife, or both) raised their children in any sort of exemplary fashion.

 

[TomRicardo]

 
I will anyway.  The judge will consider what is in "the best interest of the child."  It's equity, not law, so the judge will be free to consider nearly any and all factors that have a bearing.  Ultimately, the child will go where the judge thinks the child will do best. 

 
Probably as far away from the Remy's as possible because lets not forget, they don't just have one child that was arrested.  Hell they don't just have two children with a rap sheet, they are a perfect three for three. A rapist, a murder and their daughter who assaulted police officers while trying to climb through a doggy door. Christ they are one child away from spawning a Legion of Doom

 

[YTF]

Between the age of 19 - 26 Jared Remy was arrested and charged with 11 crimes, 8 of which were violent crimes against women.
 
The fact that 8 years later Pheobe and Jerry let it get to 9 is absolutely fucking horrifying. 

 
Jesus Christ, talk about judge "mental". Setting aside whatever anyone's stance might be on their parenting skills...........An ADULT commits the 8 violent crimes against women that you mention and some 8 years later commits the mother of them all and it's because Pheobe and Jerry "let it go to 9"?

 

[joe dokes]

And, retribution aspect of punishment aside, I don't think it will be good for Remy or the Martels. 
 

 
This I mostly agree with. (Not sure about the Martels; in the end, I dont think what Jerry Remy does with his life will matter much to them). But its hard to imagine this being good 'therapy' (for lack of a better word) for him. I dont agree wtih much else in your post, but that's OK; I have a better sense of where you're coming from. 
 
It could be that my unwillingness to go all in on the Remy-responsibility side is just a bit of "there but for the grace of God go I."   I sit here and think, "Here's how I hope I would react in this unfathomable situation," but I can't honestly say that that hope bears any semblance to what I would actually do, given the unfathomability of anything remotely similar.

 

[Myt1]

I'm not saying we should burn the guy at the stake. I'm saying that after getting his kid a cushy job from which he gets fired for selling steroids and having your other son get arrested for indecent assault and battery against a woman who wasnt interested outside the Boston Beer Garden and your daughter arrested for breaking and entering the home of her boyfriend, then it's likely that you're a shitty parent. And when your first son is in court for beating up women . . . again, and your family talks the woman out of cooperating and promises her protection, but your son kills her instead, then maybe you should have a bit of a sense if shame to not want to get beamed into everyone's TV 162 times a year. Apparently that's just beyond the pale.

Sprowl's post was obviously tongue in cheek but someone was a bit more serious up thread so I'll respond. We don't punish the son for the sin of his father because he didn't help mold his father or fail to do so correctly. The inverse isn't remotely comparable.

 

[joe dokes]

then it's likely that you're a shitty parent.
 

 
Putting aside for a moment the difficulty in defining "shitty parent," (except as to behavior that's beyond the margins, like abuse), I don't think its "likely" at all.  I think this part of the issue has come full circle; so I'm done with it.
 
 

 then maybe you should have a bit of a sense if shame to not want to get beamed into everyone's TV 162 times a year.
 

 
I think we can agree that he's pretty shamed/embarrassed/horrified/sorry whatever.  And I'm sure he didn't talk about a lot of other feelings he does have in a press conference. But where does that end? Ok, you dont want him burned at the stake. But what jobs would be an acceptable acknowledgment of his shame? One that doesn't involve leaving his home at all? What would you like him to do? What pound of flesh would satisfy you?

 

[Myt1]

You're right. His three kids probably ended up with a murder, an indecent assault and battery, and assault and battery with a dangerous weapon randomly. The mean streets of Weston and all that.

And how many times do you want me to answer the same question? I have to be his guidance counselor now? "Where does that end?" Jesus Christ, you don't even want it to begin. How about you tell me what you think should happen here. Status quo?

 

[soxfan121]

 
Putting aside for a moment the difficulty in defining "shitty parent," (except as to behavior that's beyond the margins, like abuse), I don't think its "likely" at all.  I think this part of the issue has come full circle; so I'm done with it.

 
Is neglect "beyond the margins"? We are talking about a guy who was on the road for business quite a bit throughout his children's lives. 
 
And FWIW, I think y'all are fixating too much on Jerry (for obvious reasons, he's the guy on the TV) and not enough on Phoebe. If there was someone who KNEW what kind of person Jared was, it was the person who spent the most time with him, raised him and enabled him. And (correct me if I'm wrong) she is the person who told Jen Martel not to renew the TRO. 
 
Looked at this way, Jerry just wants to get back to his real life and away from the person he probably blames (well, other than Jared) for this whole sordid mess. So...I get why Jerry wants to return to work. FTR, I don't think NESN should have brought him back but NESN has made lots of weird or stupid business decisions, especially lately. 

 

[Judge Mental13]

 
Jesus Christ, talk about judge "mental". Setting aside whatever anyone's stance might be on their parenting skills...........An ADULT commits the 8 violent crimes against women that you mention and some 8 years later commits the mother of them all and it's because Pheobe and Jerry "let it go to 9"?

 
How can you possibly set aside the stance on their parenting skills? Do you not understand why Jared was allowed to continue walking the streets a free man after all of those arrests?  Do you not grasp how he was able to be GAINFULLY EMPLOYED for most of this time while almost annually getting arrested and charged with assaulting a woman? Good grief, man.  Just think about this:
 
When Remy threw Martell into the bathroom mirror on August 13th, he had (as far as we know) gone 8 years without an incident of violence against a woman.  Some might say that's remarkable progress, and that whatever the Remy's did between 2005-2013 to help their son really worked.  Some might disagree, since in those years while Jared did not beat the shit out of any women he did steal a bunch of World Series jackets and dealt steroids to people, but hey......progress??
 
So even taking all of that into consideration, 8 years later when there's even the slightest SNIFF of a domestic violence issue, Phoebe Remy's first instinct is to beg the Martell's not to extend a restraining order?  Like......really?? Do you not understand how massively fucked up that is?  
 
Maybe Jerry had a say in that request, maybe he didn't but unless he begged his wife not to ask the Martell's to drop the RO and she did anyway I'm sorry but he gets part of the blame. 

 

[joe dokes]

 
Is neglect "beyond the margins"? We are talking about a guy who was on the road for business quite a bit throughout his children's lives. 
 
And FWIW, I think y'all are fixating too much on Jerry (for obvious reasons, he's the guy on the TV) and not enough on Phoebe. If there was someone who KNEW what kind of person Jared was, it was the person who spent the most time with him, raised him and enabled him. And (correct me if I'm wrong) she is the person who told Jen Martel not to renew the TRO. 
 
Looked at this way, Jerry just wants to get back to his real life and away from the person he probably blames (well, other than Jared) for this whole sordid mess. So...I get why Jerry wants to return to work. FTR, I don't think NESN should have brought him back but NESN has made lots of weird or stupid business decisions, especially lately. 

 
Plenty of people travel on business a lot. OTOH--He was then home for 5 straight months. I also agree about the Phoebe part, but crawling inside their life when all we know is that 3 kids have been in trouble is a fools errand, IMO. (obviously YMMV).
 
I think NESN brought him back/allowed him to come back because its a no-lose for them. If it "works" (that is if Remy can handle it, their aren't torches and pitchforks in protest), then it works. If it doesn't, then Remy thanks NESN for the chance, and slinks off into the sunset. 
 

How about you tell me what you think should happen here. Status quo?
 

 
  I try to think of this in terms of what would I do if  I was in a similar circumstance.  This isn't like finding a wallet with cash in it, where 99% of us would return bring it to the cops or whoever and not fuck with the money.
 Would I go back to work? Would I just kill myself? I dont know. I am crippled by not sharing your sense of moral certitude, I guess.
 
 

 

[reggiecleveland]

Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. Remy shall be put to death for the sin of boring us to tears for way, way too long.
 
Is it a coincidence that the Red Sox swept through the playoffs while Eck et alia ex Remy held forth? I think not.

 

[reggiecleveland]

I see it from a TV perspective. In the glow of a WS title it is bad publicity for the team, and takes the glow off a maybe the most likable, feel good, team of the three recent champs. There is going to be a trial, and with Jerry in the booth it becomes front page Red Sox news. It baffles me that such an image minded group would mess around with this for Jerry. People love the Red Sox, and Jerry has received the reflected glory, but I believe many overstate his popularity. I mean they traded Nomar, let Pedro walk, put Tek, and Wakefield out to pasture when they maybe wanted to come back. The names change but people still root for the team. It would take maybe an inning to forget about the Remdog.

Put another way how good a player would a guy have to be for the team keep him around through this? A starting pitcher sure. A solid vet 4th outfielder, probably, a guy on the Pawtucket shuttle? Probably not because that guy has about 50 qualified guys willing to kill for that job.

I make no moral judgments, but I don't value Jerry the announcer enough to have this distraction.

 

[threecy]

One thing I thought about would be what if this were Eck or Gammons.  I don't think it would impact my viewing experience.  However, with Remy, I have no interest in watching games, because frankly it hasn't been enjoyable in years and I don't think this will improve things.  Why not, regarding Eck?  In part, because Eck hasn't been selling me an image of himself for the last decade - EckDogs, the EckReport, President of EckDawgNation, etc.
 
Remy has sold himself as a brand, and the brand to me has become that of a depressed, ill, old man.  It'd be a downer to have season tickets next to him, nevermind tune in to watch every night.
 

 

[redsahx]

Does the general behavior of the other children factor in to your judging of Rem-Dog's parenting? This isn't like they just have one kid with a serious mental illness- there's a pattern here.

I do agree that there's obviously some mental health issue involved with Jared (and possibly the others?), but there's no way that anyone can say that Jerry (or his wife, or both) raised their children in any sort of exemplary fashion.

 
They probably were lacking in their parenting skills. Not knowing the family personally I obviously can't vouch for them. If it turns out that Jerry or Phoebe were emotionally and/or physically abusive towards their children, that changes things. Otherwise, their parenting style might explain the kids turning out like entitled punks, but not the homicide part. A high school classmate of mine murdered his girlfriend, and in the weeks leading up to that incident, became abusive towards her. I had some bizarre run ins with him that told me he was a bit off, but I never believed him capable of going that far. His problems progressively got worse, and while his parents tried to get him help repeatedly, it didn't end up reversing his course. His illness had progressed to a dangerous point, but those around him, including his girlfriend, continued to believe he was salvageable. His mother was overcome with guilt in the aftermath to the point that she was suicidal and had to check herself in to a psychiatric hospital, but she certainly didn't raise him to be a killer. Different genes exposed to the same upbringing will turn out differently.
 
 

 We don't punish the son for the sin of his father because he didn't help mold his father or fail to do so correctly. The inverse isn't remotely comparable.

 
I didn't use the whole "sins of the son" argument, but I will say that while parents are certainly capable of screwing up their kids, that doesn't completely explain every screwed up person out there. Surely you know of siblings who turned out completely different from each other in regards to the quality of their character. Different minds process similar environments differently. There are aspects of this story that reflect poorly on Remy, and it would be understandable if NESN wanted to move on from him, or indeed if some fans would like to. I just ask that people pump the brakes on trying to conclusively judge Jerry Remy's character based on his sons obvious mental issues. Even the best parents can end up with a Jared Remy on their hands.

 

[joe dokes]

 
How can you possibly set aside the stance on their parenting skills? Do you not understand why Jared was allowed to continue walking the streets a free man after all of those arrests?  Do you not grasp how he was able to be GAINFULLY EMPLOYED for most of this time while almost annually getting arrested and charged with assaulting a woman? Good grief, man.  Just think about this:
 
[snip]
 
Maybe Jerry had a say in that request, maybe he didn't but unless he begged his wife not to ask the Martell's to drop the RO and she did anyway I'm sorry but he gets part of the blame. 

 
Do you think it's splitting hairs to differentiate between "getting blame" and assessing "parenting skills"?
 
 

Surely you know of siblings who turned out completely different from each other in regards to the quality of their character. Different minds process similar environments differently.
 

 
Of recent history, the Lanzas come to mind.

 

[Judge Mental13]

Not really, my problem was how he said that since Jared was an adult that there wasn't much Jerry and Phoebe could do, my point is any other adult without a famous father probably wouldn't have constantly been let off the hook for his repeated crimes, and they damn sure wouldn't have gotten a job with the fucking Red Sox.  

 

[Myt1]

They probably were lacking in their parenting skills. Not knowing the family personally I obviously can't vouch for them. If it turns out that Jerry or Phoebe were emotionally and/or physically abusive towards their children, that changes things. Otherwise, their parenting style might explain the kids turning out like entitled punks, but not the homicide part. A high school classmate of mine murdered his girlfriend, and in the weeks leading up to that incident, became abusive towards her. I had some bizarre run ins with him that told me he was a bit off, but I never believed him capable of going that far. His problems progressively got worse, and while his parents tried to get him help repeatedly, it didn't end up reversing his course. His illness had progressed to a dangerous point, but those around him, including his girlfriend, continued to believe he was salvageable. His mother was overcome with guilt in the aftermath to the point that she was suicidal and had to check herself in to a psychiatric hospital, but she certainly didn't raise him to be a killer. Different genes exposed to the same upbringing will turn out differently.
 
I didn't use the whole "sins of the son" argument, but I will say that while parents are certainly capable of screwing up their kids, that doesn't completely explain every screwed up person out there. Surely you know of siblings who turned out completely different from each other in regards to the quality of their character. Different minds process similar environments differently. There are aspects of this story that reflect poorly on Remy, and it would be understandable if NESN wanted to move on from him, or indeed if some fans would like to. I just ask that people pump the brakes on trying to conclusively judge Jerry Remy's character based on his sons obvious mental issues. Even the best parents can end up with a Jared Remy on their hands.

No one is just basing it on Jared Remy's obvious mental issues. This didn't happen in a vacuum of other information.

 

[CantKeepmedown]

I don't post very often - I love reading the site and benefit greatly from it, but seldom feel I have much to contribute - but I thought I'd speak up here.  I have a decade of experience prosecuting child abuse and neglect law in family court (think foster care/custody cases and not criminal/jail cases).  The first 6 years of my career was in the meat grinder of Manhattan Family Court juggling 175 cases at a time.  I can't even count the number of times I've stood up and asked a judge for orders of protection on behalf of women and children at the hands of scumbags.
 
My experience doesn't exactly square with what is presented here.  I've never practiced in Massachusetts, and these family law/custody issues are heavily state specific and fact specific.  That being said, I have a few thoughts that might be helpful (or not!).
 
Corsi quoted an article, and EE expressed (completely reasonable) surprise that the little girl is still in state custody.  I don't know this for sure, but my hunch is that the little girl is living with the maternal grandparents while technically in state custody.  This whole process is a bit tricky, but the gist is that Jared Remy has parental rights until they are legally severed.  Obviously, the same facts that have Jared behind bars waiting trial show that he is unfit and unsafe to have the child in his care, which is why the state had to take custody.  However, the legal process of severing parental rights is defined and requires due process.  There are a few avenues to proceed with a TPR (termination of parental rights) - typically (pursuant to ASFA) they are initiated when a child has been in foster care a minimum of 15 of the most recent 22 months.  There are some fast tracks, and murdering a sibling or parent is one of those.  However, Jared isn't convicted yet.  Once he is, the TPR would be a formality (the state could get a motion for summary judgment granted I'd imagine), but for now they are in a holding pattern.  The TPR is important because it frees the child to be legally adopted.  Given her young age, it is highly desirable that she be legally adopted.  If the state just kicks custody to one of the grandparents, it loses its interest in pursuing the TPR.  So, in the big picture, I understand why the state is maintaining custody over the child.
 
The reason I think the child is probably with the maternal grandparents is the article mentions them uprooting from Virginia to live in Massachusetts.  By law, a child in state custody cannot be placed across state lines unless an ICPC (Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children) is approved.  As I know firsthand from tons of experience, an ICPC is a bureaucratic and logistical pain in the ass.  The local child welfare office has to send a request to the state capital, who then forwards it to the state capital in the state the potential placement reource lives, who then forwards it to the local county office, who then assigns a worker to check out the residence and do background checks.  Once a report is generated, it goes back to the state capital, forwarded to the original state capital, and then back to the local office.  It usually takes 6-8 weeks.  Legally, there is no getting around this.  My guess is that in the aftermath of the tragedy, the maternal grandparents probably had this explained to them, and were probably told they could stay in Virginia and get the kid in 6 weeks or they could move up to Massachusetts and get the kid as soon as they find a place to live and have it checked out.  
 
My suspicion is that the state placed the child with the maternal grandparents as a kinship foster care resource.  If that is true, the maternal grandparents would be receiving a small stipend each month for caring for their granddaughter (approximately $450/month).  The state would also have any therapies/counseling lined up and the child would be eligible for Medicaid, by virtue of being in state custody.  I'd pretty much guarantee the court ordered that there was good reason to suspend any father/child visits in jail.  It sounds like both the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandparents filed for guardianship, which is typical, and the case will sit in limbo until Jared is convicted and have his parental rights terminated.  At that point, the court will award custody/guardianship to someone and dispense with the case.  It is possible the judge puts in the final custody/guardianship order some provisions for the paternal grandparents visitation, but in my experience judges hate doing that because it just invites constant litigation in the future.  If the child is with the maternal grandparents right now, then absent substantiated abuse/neglect findings I can't see a judge uprooting the child.  It wouldn't surprise me if at some point the state tried to talk them into formal adoption, for the sake of permanency.  
 
As for the other issues being discussed in the thread, I have a lot of thoughts swirling around but don't have it in me to reduce it to writing right now.  I will say I've greatly appreciated reading the back and forth, even if some of it feels a bit naive to me.  I do think Rovin Romine serves as a good proxy for my general thoughts.

 
I do child protective work in Maine, and just wanted to add to this very informative post.  I would assume that the State can file the TPR immediately and hopefully have it heard fairly quickly.  If the child has been in care since August of 2013, and her father's murder trial is not scheduled until October of 2014, which would be 14 months of being in custody. I think the State can make a good case that even if somehow the father is acquitted of the charge, he will not be a placement/custody option.
 
Adoptions can take time as well, and here in Maine, at least, the interested parties would have to become licensed as foster parents in order to adopt.  Of course, the state of MA could choose to dismiss custody of the child to the maternal grandparents, after a homestudy and background check, but there would not be any financial assistance provided.      
 
It's all a long process and my hope would be that there could be agreements by all parties and everyone is looking out for the best interest of the child.  But, that doesn't always happen, unfortunately.   

 

[redsahx]

 
How can you possibly set aside the stance on their parenting skills? Do you not understand why Jared was allowed to continue walking the streets a free man after all of those arrests?  Do you not grasp how he was able to be GAINFULLY EMPLOYED for most of this time while almost annually getting arrested and charged with assaulting a woman?  

 
- Do you object to Remy getting his kid a job? Wouldn't just about any parent with those resources or connections try to set their kid up with work so they can possibly support themselves?
- I'm not sure why you are puzzled by the "free man" thing. Maybe he would have spent an extra few days in jail after those incidents without his name or his father getting him good legal representation, but he still would have spent a good deal of time this past decade a free man. Are you suggesting the Remy's should have just cut him off, and kicked him to the curb to live out on the streets? Would that have qualified as better parenting? Locking him in their basement wasn't really an option. You can't force someone into a treatment facility either unless you go through a rigorous process of getting him declared mentally unfit and then being assigned his power of attorney, which I doubt would have occured in this case. They could kick him out of their house and call police whenver he showed up to get him removed, but the police will just put him back on the street again so the problem isn't solved.
 
Do you seriously believe the Remys could have fixed him somehow by not getting him jobs? How would you handle an adult son behaving that way? What steps do you believe can be taken that would guarantee he never hurts anyone?

 

[redsahx]

No one is just basing it on Jared Remy's obvious mental issues. This didn't happen in a vacuum of other information.

 
The only other information that's been brought up is that they asked Martel not to extend a restraining order, they got him a job with the Red Sox (which I covered in the last post), and that his siblings are punks too. For the latter, we still don't have enough information about their upbringing to say whether or not bad genetics played as much of a role. It's not an information vacuum but more information is still needed to reach such a strong conclusion IMO. My father has two brothers who were abusive at times to their wives or girlfriends, yet he's never displayed the slightest hint of that characteristic. There are a lot of possible factors for how someone turns out.
 
As for the restraining order part, I am not endorsing that recommendation, but I can see why they would be in denial that things would immediately progress from "pushing her into a mirror", to "fighting off neighbors so he could stab her to death". Neither Martel nor the judge seemed to think that was the next logical step either, and it is a common mistake made with such people. Even absent that plea, if Jared had that act in him, I don't think things were ever going to end well.  
 
Edit: Meant to add that had Jerry not been out of town in another country at the time, I would question why he would have let his son immediately out of his sights upon his release without some effort to ensure he had cooled off. However, that doesn't really get to whether or not parenting was a major factor in Jared being in that mental state in the first place.

 

[Reverend]

This may sound a bit counterintuitive, but is it possible that Phoebe (and Jerry?) felt that if Jen filed the restraining order, that would/could be the impetus for Jared to really go off the rails and truly do something horrifying?   

 
Okay, so the quote is from Jennifer's mother.  I'm not doubting its veracity, but I can still envision a scenario where Phoebe doesn't want an order filed because it could make the situation even worse.

 
It's not counter-intuitive and it is a common intuition. It also happens to be wrong and highly harmful conjecture in a general sense.
 
What I mean by this is that this is something people bring up a lot in discussing the issue and whether or not to involve the police and stuff. It just seems like it makes sense. The issue has been studied, though, and involving the authorities in matters of domestic violence has not been shown to increase the likelihood of repeated incidents. Obviously, the threat of police action didn't have a sobering effect on Jared Remy in the case currently being discussed, but I wanted to point out the state of our knowledge about the general issue in case anyone is in a situation where someone advises someone not to involve the police because it "might make him even more angry" or something like that. It happens frequently and it's bad; the data suggests that having the police involved helps more often than it hurts, even if the system clearly failed in this particular case.
 
 

Just to be clear, we're all in agreement that completely independent of the murder stuff, Remy's time has passed and should go in favor of backing the Brinks truck up to Eckersley, no?

 
Eck is a recovering alcoholic and has, I believe, stated that he doesn't want to subject himself to the old routines and temptations of the road. He's been very vocal about his recovery and has turned himself into a public role model for how to deal with the condition, and I think that effort has offered him a strong sense of purpose and meaning for his life. So yeah, I don't think he's going anywhere for any amount of money.
 
 

I'm not saying we should burn the guy at the stake. I'm saying that after getting his kid a cushy job from which he gets fired for selling steroids and having your other son get arrested for indecent assault and battery against a woman who wasnt interested outside the Boston Beer Garden and your daughter arrested for breaking and entering the home of her boyfriend, then it's likely that you're a shitty parent. And when your first son is in court for beating up women . . . again, and your family talks the woman out of cooperating and promises her protection, but your son kills her instead, then maybe you should have a bit of a sense if shame to not want to get beamed into everyone's TV 162 times a year. Apparently that's just beyond the pale.

Sprowl's post was obviously tongue in cheek but someone was a bit more serious up thread so I'll respond. We don't punish the son for the sin of his father because he didn't help mold his father or fail to do so correctly. The inverse isn't remotely comparable.

 
I was going to accuse you of being a low-expectation-having motherfucker until I remembered that NESN doesn't carry play-off games.

 

[mauf]

The only issue I have with your posts in this thread is that you seem to imply repeatedly that Jared Remy's upbringing somehow not only lead him to repeatedly beat women, but also mercilessly slaughter his girlfriend, and that Jerry Remy should feel like he created this monster. Whatever his parenting skills, there is obviously an underlying mental health issue here that ultimately was the biggest factor.
 

 
 

It's fun to see the lengths to which people will go to avoid reckoning with the problem of evil. Maybe Pol Pot just needed a little Prozac.
 
There's even less basis to ascribe Jared Remy's behavior to mental illness than there is to blame Jerry Remy's parenting for Jenn Martel's death. Happily, there's a middle ground. Most matters of moral reckoning are complex, and those of us on the outside of a situation are seldom in a position to pass judgment on those on the inside. This is the wisdom behind the biblical admonition not to visit the sins of the father on the son, or vice versa -- sure, fucked-up parents are more likely to have fucked-up kids, but that loose correlation doesn't tell us nearly enough to make judgments in a specific case.
 
We can reserve judgment in this case while recognizing that Jared Remy's behavior was evil, irrespective of whatever biological or environmental factors might have given him a greater propensity than the average person to do what he did.

 

[Reverend]

 
 
 

It's fun to see the lengths to which people will go to avoid reckoning with the problem of evil. Maybe Pol Pot just needed a little Prozac.
 
There's even less basis to ascribe Jared Remy's behavior to mental illness than there is to blame Jerry Remy's parenting for Jenn Martel's death. Happily, there's a middle ground. Most matters of moral reckoning are complex, and those of us on the outside of a situation are seldom in a position to pass judgment on those on the inside. This is the wisdom behind the biblical admonition not to visit the sins of the father on the son, or vice versa -- sure, fucked-up parents are more likely to have fucked-up kids, but that loose correlation doesn't tell us nearly enough to make judgments in a specific case.
 
We can reserve judgment in this case while recognizing that Jared Remy's behavior was evil, irrespective of whatever biological or environmental factors might have given him a greater propensity than the average person to do what he did.

 

 
This is a good point. Mental health advocates are driven pretty much nuts (no pun intended) by people who want to ascribe all evil to some form of mental illness. In truth, some people just suck and some like to hurt people and some refuse to control themselves, but conflating them with those who are actually mentally ill stigmatizes those with mental illness and interferes with their ability to get care and public support for a greater understanding of the issues of mental illness.
 
I have seen no evidence presented that Jared Remy suffered from mental illness. It's much more probably that he was just an asshole; we shouldn't slop his shit on people suffering from mental illness.