This incident is very sad. This woman obviously needed help and was refused. I'm wondering what other circumstances she was under. For a woman to take her children's life? Was she depressed? Did she have psychological/mental issues? She was wrong, but at the same time, I wonder why the state workers failed to intervene? I worked in the Department of Social Services. I saw families, children and abusers come in daily. We never turned down children, even if we had to send them to WIC for bread, milk and fruit. I hate when the news reports HALF of the story.
To say that this woman had a "drug problem" without fully knowing the story, is pretty cruel. Regardless of her situation, the workers should've taken the proper steps to make sure the children were not in harms way. As a state employee, our job is rather difficult. I am not pointing the finger, I'm just hoping that this incident can be used in training. When working with the public, especially those in need, we must be very knowledgable of our surroundings. This woman probably displayed some kind of behavior that should've been a red flag.
I hope that this never happens again.
That's how the system is sometimes. You know that saying "beggars are not choosers" so because they are giving you the money they think they can assume anything about your life that they want. Then someone who is so undeserving of the help gets through with not a hassle in the world.
I totally understand. I made my staff attend "sensitivity training" after I watched how some of them interacted with the consumers. Just because someone is here asking for food, health insurance and substance abuse help, does not make them any less of a human being! I remember when a former professor at my college came in! I couldn't believe it! He lost his job and his wife (who held graduate degree's as well) couldn't work because she was taking care of him (stroke). This man had worked for YEARS and could not survive after becoming sick.
Government employees have a difficult job. I wish more people realized that. I hope that we can be a positive "first encounter" as many people need help. Far more than usual.
Oh, so you are a government employee in the welfare system or you're just referencing government employees in general. As a side note, if you really need the help I've know people that try to look the part, in other words don't go looking like everything is alright.
Yes, I am a government employee in the Social Services department. We handle food assistance, medicaid/medicare, WIC, mental health and substance abuse, emergency services (utility shut offs, eviction notices...). And I hate when women come into the office with their hair/nails done, name brand purses, but their children have on dirty clothes and are malnourished. Classes should be given when people apply for assistance. If you need food, try cutting off your cable first. Save money however you can and use the government when absolutely necessary! People abuse the system. I've seen people purchasing LOBSTER and STEAK! Really? The system is needed, but should also be mandated by the state.
Oh wow then this is a topic you're definitely experienced with.
That's a great idea, on paper, in reality, I see people seeing that as an invasion of privacy. There would be the question of what a luxury is, and what a necessity is. How would you determine it? I could argue that having cable, or satellite, is a necessity. I can keep up to date on the business world, Wall Street, and to keep a look out for new fields of work, by watching the news, and business, networks. I could say that a cell phone is a necessity using the same point. I could say that I need a cell phone so I can be reached at all times, just in case a potential employer calls me back, and I"m not home to receive the call. My point is that anyone could justify just about any "luxury" item, making it a necessity.
Rev Jackson: 'food stamp President' not a slam
The Reverend Jesse Jackson has come to the defense of President Barack Obama after the commander in chief was charged with being a 'food stamp' President. After racking his brain for hours and hours, day after day, the good Rev finally settled on a defense: Food stamps are good! That's right -- his best argument is that more people on food stamps is a good thing. Ref. Source 2