Annie's Mailbox® by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

LW1:
OK, if the kids can't read or count, and live in a car, then obviously that's a problem. And it's possible they're not eating well, but I have HUGE issue with this:
"Suzie insists that the children be fed only vegan and organic products. When the boys stay with us, which is fairly often lately, we feed them healthy balanced meals". Because it's impossible to eat a healthy balanced meal if it's vegan and organic? I am so sick of that attitude - usually used to justify looking the other way about how people's food gets on their plate. I am clearly in better health (and look better...) than my omnivore friends, yet people like my stepsister are always trying to sneak chicken and beef onto my plate because they are SO worried about me. They are certain I'm anemic too! Meanwhile, I'm running rings around them!

If the kids are wolfing down food at the LW's house, that proves absolutely nothing - eg, if their parents don't give them sugar, but you offer them a big slab of chocolate cake, well of course they are going to scarf that down. I know that's an extreme example, but I don't trust the LW to know what a balanced meal is.

And if their parents want the kids to be vegan, and you don't let them know you feed the kids milk and meat, that is NOT cool. (I acknowledge that if you refuse to change how you prepare your meals, then the parents have to deal with that - but you need to let them know, not be underhanded. Your letter implies you don't let on, since you say Suzie "insists" the kids be vegan).

* * * * PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT * * * *

LW3 refers to the first letter on 24 December 2012 (Frustrated Viewer in Red Deer, Alberta, Canada), and was also discussed on 25 February 2013. In December, BTL was visited by an industry insider.

LW 1 I was a vegan for two years...not because I thought it was bad to eat meat, but because I found that I felt "lighter" physically and emotionally. I finally went back to eating fish, cheese and eggs because it is just easier and cheaper than looking for good, organic food. But you really have to work at balancing your food so that you get your protein. Young children especially need protein, so if the parents aren't really doing their research the children could be deprived.
LW3 I agree. I first noticed it on Law & Order. The Lenny Brisco character, played by Jerry Orbach really spoke up! He was a stage actor first and had learned to project his voice. Most of the other actors spoke softly. I guess they are used to be miked so they never learned to project. Add an over-loud sound track and you lose the dialog completely. I wonder if these actors ever turn on the TV and watch themselves and notice how they are being drowned out.

While normally I would agree with Steve about vegans being able to live healthy lives without meat etc., in this case I think W.C. may be right. His sister doesn't sound like the type to have a fully stocked fridge with healthy alternatives and a wide range of meals she cooks at home. She sounds like the type that likes the idea of being vegan, but doesn't really understand nutrition. Just because she is able to survive and feel fine on a minimal diet doesn't mean it is the healthy choice for the children.
The lack of education also concerns me. One of my pet peeves is children who are "home schooled" by lazy parents. They make all home schooler parents look bad. One never sees the super achiever kids highlighted on TV, only the idiot parents that think kids will learn when they feel like it.
I'm sure that she loves her kids, but kids need a healthy stable environment. Call CPS for your own peace of mind.

LW1: Steve, you're right that an organic vegan diet can be perfectly nutritious, but as Sarah and MT pointed out, it can also be expensive and time consuming, definitely not something you can throw together while living in your car. The child says they "usually eat oatmeal with some peanut butter in it," so they're probably not getting enough variety, and they could well be anemic, as the LW states. Given all the other problems in their lives, it's unlikely these kids are getting the nutrition they need. The LW should definitely call CPS, and she should leave her parents out of it.

Re: sarah stravinska #3
I also first noticed the music drowning out the actors on Law & Order - only the worst offender in that series was Law & Order Criminal Intent. I stopped watching it because it was impossible to hear the actors over the music most of the time. They must have had a lot of complaints, because it finally stopped and it was possible to hear the actors again.

LW1 - While I agree that a vegan diet can definitely be well balanced and healthy, eating only oatmeal and peanut butter is not. I don't think the LW should offer foods to the children which aren't vegan without telling her sister though. A main concern here is the children's education, and living in a car is not an option for children. I think if the LW is that concerned that the children aren't getting the proper nutrition and eudcation she should put in an anonymous call to CPS without notifying her parents. She could well be wrong about the way the boys are being raised, and it could be that they simply aren't being raised the way SHE feels they should. That doesn't mean that her sister is either mistreating or neglecting her sons. Let CPS make an investigation and if they determine that everything is OK, then she should let it go, but keep an eye on things. She should NOT undermine her sister's child rearing unless it is truly harming her nephews.

Steve C, one important thing to remember is that a child's nutritional needs are different from an adults; while a vegan diet may be perfectly healthy for an adult, it could actually be unhealthy for a child IF it's not *very* carefully monitored and balanced.

LW1 - I agree that CPS should be called for a number of reasons. 1 - She doesn't take them to the doctor when they're sick. While I have no problems with alternative/herbal remedies, I know that infections need anti-biotics and if they are not treated can develop into something serious. 2 - The 7 year old cannot count or read or even knows his alphabet, which means they are not really being home schooled. 3 - One of them has told you they usually eat oatmeal with peanut butter in it. While I have no problems with people choosing to be vegan, I do have a problem with parents not giving their kids well balanced meals. We're not talking about a kid who's a picky eater...we're talking about parents who are either too lazy or too stupid. Children should not be living on just oatmeal and peanut butter.

If you're scared Suzie will bolt when she hears of your suspicions, then don't tell anyone. You and your husband should call and keep it to yourselves. Do not tell your parents or any other family member.

LW2 - I disagree with the Annies completely. You've put up with that 20 years...you deserve to say, "No, thanks!" Nobody can make you go out with your ILs so when you're wife asks, simply say, "No, thank you. But I hope you have a good time!"

My grandmother is the type to do nothing but comment on others. It's embarrassing! She's stuck in the 50's and still is SHOCKED when she sees tattoos, piercings, different colored hair, etc. I stopped going out in public with her a long time ago because it was embarrassing to have her say (not so quietly) things like, "Oh, my God, that girl has her eyebrow pierced! That's so gross! That kid over there has a mohawk! How could his parents allow that! What horrible parents! Who wants pink hair? Look at that girl with pink hair!" And nothing is worse than the chronic complainer of how nothing is right.

LW1, assuming the LW's list of issues is relatively accurate (and not exaggerated for some reason), then it probably is worth an anonymous call to CPS and ask them to check it out. Abide by their ruling, let it go if they think things are fine. Try not to let your family know you did this.

LW2, a meal is what, an hour, maybe two, with these people? I think you should find a way to just let their verbal negativity wash over you and not let it affect you so much, for your wife's sake. I mean, they aren't talking about you, they aren't interfering in your marriage, they aren't talking about anyone you know, so... find a way to ignore it, make a game of it, or just zone out. Maybe skip one every once in a while, but this seems like one of those things that married couples just learn to put up with for each other. (In other words, keep in mind that there are FAR worse ways in which your in-laws could be affecting your life, and try to regain a sense of proportion about it -- your wife will appreciate it.)

LW3, reading books is always good. Turning on the close captioning helps as well, if it's a show you don't want to give up.

Baldrz and Kitty, although same-sex marriage is becoming legal in more places, LW1 refers to having a wife. Thus I'm guessing he's a man, not a woman.

Re: Steve C

I'm with you. If a family member took it upon herself to feed my children non-vegan food knowing my wishes, that would be the last time they ever saw my children unsupervised again. A vegan diet can be perfectly balanced appropriate for children, and dietary choices are the parent's, not the aunt's.

Re: Kimiko !!
You're absolutely right -- I was in a hurry and missed that. Good catch :)

LW1: I also totally agree that a Vegan diet can be totally balanced. It isn't the diet I personally choose but it can be extremely healthy. I did want to point out that the letter writer didn't say they feed the kids a non Vegan diet. He said "Suzie insists that the children be fed only vegan and organic products. When the boys stay with us, which is fairly often lately, we feed them healthy balanced meals that they wolf down like they're starving. " For all we know he made them vegan lasagna or lentil soup with extra spinach and couscous.

I just wanted to add that I agree that the LW should NOT be giving the kids a non-vegan meal when they are there. Even if they don't agree, the parents' wishes should be abided by, as long as they are not harmful.

LW1: Vegan meals aside, I'd say there's a number of good reasons stated in the letter why CPS or the Department of Human Services should be contacted. Home schooled my ass – they aren't being home schooled if a 7-year-old doesn't know how to read or do even simple math.

There's a lot of things that I'd like to call these people, given some of the details (admittedly, "survivalists" comes to mind) ... but short of that, this may be a case for intervention of some sort. And the kids' diet has nothing to do with that.

Then again, if DHS and CPS finds nothing amiss, then what Mike H said – there may be little that can be done aside from respecting the findings. It's a shame that the kids are being drawn into their parents lifestyle, whatever it is, but there may be little else you can do but try not to focus on this.

LW2: Your sanity is what matters. Insist next time that you control the conversation and focus on other topics. Although it'll probably lead to more of their blather, given how they like to tilt the conversation their way. It's one thing if they engage only occasionally (it's actually appropriate sometimes), but for them to go on like this is going a bit far.

LW1: I definitely think you should call CPS and report all of the concerns you listed here for them to have authority to do a home study. If they determine that she is an unfit parent, they will give the parents a chance in a court order to become "fit." She will be ordered to take parenting classes, possibly nutrition classes, will be required to have a pediatrition for the children, among others-all geared towards making her a better parent. If she wants her children back, she will do these things. If she doesn't, they will still have a stable home with you. Either way, whether they remove them or not, you really have nothing to lose in trying to look out for these children. If you call, it could open her eyes to the possible neglect of her children. If you don't, you could regret it for the rest of your life. I would definitely leave your parents out of it, because as you state, they have a history of looking the other way with your sister.

LW1, Unless there is some developmental issues with the 7 yo he obviously is not being taught what he needs to know. Poor diet could be a contributing factor. Whatever the sister is doing it is not being done correctly. Please do contact CPS and let them do a determination. Whether or not her lifestyle is good for her is irrelevant - it is not good for the children. You really do owe it the those kids to intervene.

Re LW#2-----
I suspect the LW doesn't like his in-laws, never has, and has latched onto what he thinks is a good reason for avoiding them.
.
In a nutshell, they don't carry on a conversation with him at restaurants,but instead discuss other people; and they complain about everything in the restaurants they all go to together (apparently not audibly in the restaurant, nor directly to the staff, but later on, to the LW and his wife). So he has seized that as a reason to never go to restaurants with them again.
.
Now, if the unreasonable complaining was done loudly in the restaurant, or to the waitstaff, MAYBE he might have a point------because that is embarrassing. But he sounds more like he's never liked them, and is using this to refuse to go any more.
.
In a perfect world, everyone we were ever forced to be around for reasons of job or family would be someone we LIKED being around. But it seldom happens, and you don't get to withdraw from everyone who doesn't suit you, if they are family------------they have to have done something unreasonable TO YOU. LW, you just don't like them.
.
Negative people are all over. This is your wife's family, and out of consideration to her, please suck it up and just tune out when they start the complaining. If you can't have a conversation with them at the restaurant because they are busy commenting about others, talk to your wife. Or just eat. So you have to put up with something once in awhile that you don't like? Join the club. (Maybe they don't like you either, who knows? But you're their SIL, and unless you do something horrendous, they are stuck with you too.)
.
I think you're making a big deal about nothing, and throwing up a smoke screen to hide the fact that you don't like them and don't want to be around someone you don't like.

LW1--Your sister 'Suzie' is the poster child for why some people should be required to pass a test and get a license in order to reproduce. While it's one thing to choose a certain lifestyle for oneself it's quite another thing to force one's offspring to live that way. The facts are that your nephews are not receiving proper education, medical care or even basic good nutrition; what else do you need to know? Your sister needs to be reported to CPS pronto. Stop hemming and hawing over it or blabbing your concerns to your parents and just do it.

LW2--They're OLD what do you expect? Suggest dining at Bob Evans or Cracker Barrel in the future; those restaurants seem to please the seniors.

As a semi-vegetarian myself, I do want to make sure people understand that a vegan diet is far more restrictive than a simple vegetarian diet. Vegan and vegetarian are NOT the same thing.

If done right, a vegan lifestyle can absolutely be very healthy for kids. Key takeaway: If. Done. Right.

Careless, inattentive, unbalanced vegan meal planning can be quite UNhealthy for children.

And if the LW is to be believed, do we really get the sense that his sister is carefully monitoring and balancing her children's diets?

LW1 - I feel really conflicted about this letter. None of the issues taken separately warrant a call to CPS. Vegan and organic diets are healthy, and mostly do not - contrary to popular beliefs - require an enormous amount of work. If the lack of variety in foods is a sign of abuse or neglect, a lot of poor families need to be reported to CPS because they can rarely afford variety. And there are a lot of not-so-poor families whose diets are mostly meat-and-potatoes, and nobody bats an eye because this is "standard American fare."
If not going to the doctor when your child has the sniffles is a sign of abuse, then a lot of all kinds of parents are guilty too. Seriously, do/did you take your kids to the doctor for every cold? I don't. And I certainly don't feed them antibiotics like they were candy. Antibiotics don't work on colds anyway because most colds are viral, not bacterial.
If living in your car is a sign of child abuse or neglect, then all homeless families are guilty, but shelters don't seem to report them, but rather try to help them get back on their feet.
Living on the road is not a crime either. Not what I would choose for my family, and not what a lot of people would either, but not a crime.
Homeschooling with poor results can be a problem. In some states, to homeschool your kids, you need to have a Bachelor's degree and to comply with state requirements, allow for regular testing of the kids, etc. But...I am not sure this is abuse or neglect either.
If the LW feels strongly that taken together these issues warrant a CPS call, she should do it, but be prepared to lose contact with her sister, her husband (and who cares if they are legally married or not?), and the kids forever.

Re: Mike H #10
Mike, good point about the closed captioning. I sometimes turn it on and turn the sound really low, and never miss anything because of the loud music. (I wish we could get it across to whoever produces the programs that if we wanted to listen to music, we have music channels, CDs, and all kinds of options available, and that we watch TV to see the video and listen to the audio, which should consist of DIALOGUE between the actors.)

LW3: IMPORTANT: Regarding music being louder than the conversations on TV, do a Google search -- i'ts probably the surround-sound setting on your TV set!! I came across that issue months ago, and when I changed my TV set-up from surround sound to plain stereo, the issue disappeared. You may have to fiddle with the audeo settings on your TV. Check it out!!

Re: Steve C

"I am clearly in better health (and look better...) than my omnivore friends, yet people like my stepsister are always trying to sneak chicken and beef onto my plate because they are SO worried about me."

Seriously? Look, I'm not mad at vegetarians or vegans. What others eat is not my concern and in fact I think being a vegetarian is very healthy. However, let's not stroke the brush so broadly, mkay? Meat has a place in a healthy, balanced diet. Vegetarians simply tend to be more conscientious about what they eat, and so eat healthier than "normies" who just eat whatever. Eating chicken and fish a couple times a week is good for you, not bad for you (or your appearance).

Oatmeal and PB is NOT sufficient for children. Raising kids vegan is REALLY hard because of all the protein they need to grow, especially when you're living out of a car. Can it be done? Yes. But do you really think that Suzie is doing it?

Also, oreos are vegan.

Re: Jodie

"that would be the last time they ever saw my children unsupervised again."

The LW1 and his wife might not complain about that!

Re: Mike H

What is a "semi-vegetarian"?

@ Zoe

"What is a "semi-vegetarian"?"

I call it a 'Flexitarian'. The only meat I eat is fish or poultry and I steer clear of milk and dairy.

I don't think a vegetarian is one of those things that you can "semi" be, frankly.

Re: Chris
"They're OLD what do you expect? "
Now that was a completely ageist, incredibly jerky, offensive and totally uncalled for thing to say. This has to do with personality, not age, and I have seen plenty of "old" people who were not like that at all, and plenty of young(er) people who actually are. You certainly sound like a prime example right now.

LW1: Holy cow. While it's theoretically possible to have well-educated kids who are homeschooled, and while it's theoretically possible to have well-fed kids who are vegans...these kids are eating peanut butter/oatmeal gruel and can't read or count. So they're occasionally homeless, they're not getting food, they're not getting medical care, they're not getting educated...what ARE they getting, in the name of alternative living?? Because all those things together sounds like this lady's a looney tune of the highest order who can't even take care of herself, much less her kids. CPS needs to be called YESTERDAY.

LW1 -- just chiming with everyone else who believes a call to CPS is in order. Also chiming in that while a vegan diet can be perfectly healthy and nutritious, children's dietary needs are different than an adult's, and it takes a fair bit of knowledge and effort (not to mention cost) to get it right. As others have noted, even if the LW is exaggerating just a little bit, it strikes me as HIGHLY unlikely that his sister has the wherewithal to get it right.

@Steve C -- I happen to be blessed to have a vegan restaurant no more than a mile from my house, and another one no more than a few blocks from my office, so I frequently eat vegan meals, even though I am, in fact, an omnivore. And while you would THINK that most vegans and vegetarians would look "healthier" than their omnivore counterparts, I have found that is definitely NOT always the case. One of the waitresses at the vegan restaurant near my office is extremely overweight despite being a strict vegan. When I took a colleague of mine out to lunch there one day, he said to me, "I didn't think there was any such thing as a fat vegan -- how could they possibly get fat?" An acquaintance of mine who is a strict vegan is so thin as to be emaciated, and her skin is always pasty -- she looks completely unhealthy. I have no idea whether this has to do with her diet or something else entirely. I'm just saying that eating vegan is no guarantee of eating healthfully and is no guarantee of looking healthy.

@Zoe (27) -- It does sort of sound like someone saying she is only somewhat pregnant. Take it from me, that's an all or nothing kind of deal! ;) But I will say that I know a number of people who consider themselves "flexitarian" or "semi-vegetarian." The folks I know who describe themselves that way don't eat any red meat and only rarely eat fish or poultry.

One of my cousins is married to a woman who doesn't call herself a vegetarian, but she does have a variety of unique dietary rules, one of which is that she won't eat anything that has a face. Meantime, she has a son who will not drink anything except Coke. No milk. No water. No juice. And no other type of soda, either -- only Coke. Yup, no nutrition issues in that family.

Re: LW1

I can really see this situation two ways. "Suzie" could be raising the boys in an alternative lifestyle but in an adequate manner. Like Steve C. says, one can be quite healthy eating Vegan while still fielding the unfounded aspersions that you are anemic, etc. from well meaning family and friends.

"Suzie" may be Unschooling" which I believe is a method where the child initiates learning. I have read about kids who are "educated" this way and apparently many of them don't even learn to read until age 10 or later but most of them end up with a passion for learning and graduating from college! This is not something I chose for my child but it does have its proponents.

The other scenario is neglect of course. They could well be malnourished and not being educated. It would be very advisable for LW1 to have them assessed by CPS. I hope he is prepared to take the boys necessary - it is not clear from the letter if this is the case. If he and his wife can't take them, they may wind up in a worse situation in foster care so he might just avoid CPS for now and take them to the doctor himself and tell Suzie after the fact. He can also contact the school where they are registered for homeschooling and request more oversight. If they are not registered anywhere that is definitely a red flag and he should try to talk to Suzie and her husband about it.

Re: Lisa

Maybe she just eats oreos. Oreos are vegan so they must be healthy :P

Re semi-vegetarian - I think those all just fall under normal dietary variety among people. If you eat meat but only some of the kinds and not all the time, you are still omnivore. I don't eat camel or rabbit and I am not eating meat right this moment so I am a semiflexitarian I guess.

I am just poking fun though :) People can call themselves what they want! BUT I would say that saying "I'm a semi-vegetarian" probably invites more questions that just saying "I don't eat red meat or dairy".

LW1- Like Ariana, this letter leaves me conflicted. Frankly it's the living in the car and not being able to count to ten that leave me feeling that the letter writer should call cps and let them sort it out. I'm guessing the grandparents don't want CPS called because they'd feel THEY would have to take the kids on and they might not have the finances or agility to take two kids under seven on. I hope the uncle would not leave theses kids in the lurch if their parents are found unfit.

@Zoe -- next thing, we're going to have someone log in and say, "I'm not a vegan, but I play one on TV..."

I was just looking up those court cases about "vegan" babies who died of malnutrition and/or infection. Vitamin deficiency makes children susceptible to infection. Apparently, one has to be very careful and thorough in choice of diet to nutrify babies without giving them animal enzymes -- Mother's milk is an animal product.

I wish we had a nutritionist commenting BTL. I'm going to email a nutritionist I know.

@MT, Baldrz, Kitty, Mike H:
Yes, yes, of course it's very possible these kids are being food poorly. My point was that I'm not sure I trust the LW to know, because he thinks they don't eat healthy BECAUSE they eat vegan and organic (supposedly). In fact, he leads with that, as PROOF that they eat poorly.

@Zoe/Lisa - Well, I didn't say that all vegans are healthier than all omnivores. I am saying that it is more than possible that a vegan will be healthier than the average omnivore. Obviously an omnivore that eats only grilled skinless chicken and fish as their meat will be healthier than average, and obviously a vegan that eats nothing but sugary cookies fried in (vegetable) oil will not be healthy.
But, like I said, I (personally) am in excellent physical condition (confirmed by my doctor), yet a few friends are sure I'm not getting all the nutrients I need.

(full disclosure, btw, I'm not 100% vegan, or even 100% vegetarian, but pretty close; yet a few friends are still worried about my diet).

@Zoe: "Eating chicken and fish a couple times a week is good for you" - in this case, you are the one "stroking the brush broadly". That statement could be true in general, but is not an absolute.

"these kids are being FED poorly". Again, so much for my chances of getting hired as a proofreader...

@Chris & Mike
Frankly, you are either vegetarian or you're not. If you eat any kind of animal flesh, then you're not a vegetarian. What you are is someone who doesn't eat much meat, or eats only white meat, or stays away from beef products, including dairy. But you are not a vegetarian.

@Ariana #22
"Vegan and organic diets are healthy, and mostly do not - contrary to popular beliefs - require an enormous amount of work."
That's not what the two vegetarian people I know tell me. And they're not even vegan, which is worse.

"If the lack of variety in foods is a sign of abuse or neglect, a lot of poor families need to be reported to CPS because they can rarely afford variety. And there are a lot of not-so-poor families whose diets are mostly meat-and-potatoes, and nobody bats an eye because this is "standard American fare."
We're not talking variety here, but about a balanced diet. It could be always the same thing as long as all the essential nutrients are there. And we're also not talking about whoever ELSE has an unbalanced diet in America, but about two young boys who seem to be eating little else besides oatmeal and peanut butter.

Look. Evidently you are a vegan and firmly convinced of the rightness of your decision, but please - get off your wild horse already, nobody is attacking or disputing your choice of diet here. But if you really believe it is not work to devise a healthy, balanced diet that includes no meat, no eggs and no dairy, especially for growing children, then you know a lot less about nutrition (and about children's needs) than you think.

Now, I'm not a vegan, but I do play one on TV.
What really makes me angry is that a 7 year old can't read. As a child, I couldn't wait to be in school so I could read and write. Then I spent hours and hours on the weekends reading books and writing little stories. I couldn't think of a worst thing to do to a child than deprive him or her the independence that comes with reading and writing. Why not just starve the kid to death, get paid by the insurance company, bury him in a cardboard box in the yard, and go about life forgetting you ever had him?
Oh, wait...

LW1 –
There are a number of points here that need to be addressed.

1. “She won't take the kids to the doctor when they get sick. She just gives them some herbal remedy and sends them to bed.”
This does not warrant a call to CPS as it will suffice most of the time. This is one of the cases when nothing can be done unless something a little more serious than this happens.

2. “The boys aren't very clean, often have the sniffles and are almost always in clothing that's the wrong size.”
While this may be indication of some neglect, it is not life-threatening.

3. “Suzie is homeschooling the boys, even though neither she nor her husband graduated high school. My oldest nephew is 7 and cannot read, count to 10 or say his ABCs.”
Woops. Now I don't know about the US, but here in Quebec, most children can do some reading, recite the alphabet and count to a hundred by the time they're out of kindergarden. A seven year-old child who is still completely illiterate and can't even count to 10 is NOT being home-schooled, he is being kept away from an institutional structure so that nobody will notice he is unwashed and wearing ill-fitting clothes. And possibly malnourished.

4. “Suzie insists that the children be fed only vegan and organic products. (…) The oldest boy told me they usually eat oatmeal with some peanut butter in it. I believe both boys are anemic.”
Re-woops. Yes, it is perfectly possible to eat a very healthy and complete diet while being vegan, but it takes knowledge and work. Especially since ‘vegan' means not only no animal flesh at all (not even fish), but also no eggs and no dairy. Oatmeal with peanut butter is NOT a balanced diet. The kids are illiterate, dirty, with ill-fitting clothes… Not only Suzie doesn't sound like she knows enough about anything to be able to devise a balanced diet without meat, but she doesn't look like she bothers with much at all.

I'll tell you what's going on here. First, Suzie doesn't go to the doctor ever, first because most of the time it is not necessary, but also because a doctor will ask questions when he sees the children dirty and with ill-fitting clothes. What about the dentist? One visit a year at least to remove tartar and monitor tooth growth is warranted. Does she do that? Probably not. (What does she do with a loose tooth, pull it out with a string?)

Second, Suzie heard something on telly extolling the virtues of “all-natural”, swallowed it hook, line and sinker, but doesn't have the competence to devise a healthy and balanced diet without meat. So she decided that such stuff doesn't “really matter”, merely removed all meat products, leaving everything else as is, and started buying organic, thinking that this alone is enough to make the diet “healthy”. After all, organic is healthy and natural, right? And believe it or not, I have seen people like that - sheer ignorance and stupidity. People who are young and healthy to start with can get away with that for quite a while (sometimes forever), but growing children are another matter.

Re: Steve C

"in this case, you are the one "stroking the brush broadly""

What? Um, no. What I was making was a general statement that is relevant and does not a need "for most/average people" caveat. What you said was that you are healthier and better looking than everyone you know who eats meat because you don't eat meat. More likely, you simply pay more attention to your health and diet (for whatever reason) which is why you became and remain a vegetarian. An omnivore eating a balanced diet in which some of the protein comes from lean meat/fish is not going to look worse than a vegetarian who eats the same diet but with all protein coming from vegetables products, just because he eats meat. Unless that meat gives him hives. Or the fish gives him diarrhea. Or the chicken makes him cry because he had a pet chicken and then he has puffy eyes and doesn't look as good.

I mean, hell, I would say that walnuts are pretty good for you, don't eat them if you're allergic to nuts or whatever.

If a relative left their 2 young children with me fairly often and expected me to feed them special meals they had better provide the food or some recipes. Kids can be picky eaters and to restrict their diet even more makes it very difficult for the uncle and aunt to take care of them. I have no idea what children could eat for protein for 2 weeks that is vegan, that they will actually eat. Most kids eat pizza, hamburgers, cheese sandwiches, fish sticks.

I don't know what the hell is going on with Creators today. I have had no problem posting comments to other posters, but my main comment about the letters is giving me three tons of trouble. I have tried closing the page and re-opening it, I have tried closing everything and rebooting, nothing works.

Then I told myself perhaps they made some changes and imposed a length limit, and divided my post in two. Part one is up, and now I can't post part two! WTF?

(Watch this go through with no problem)

of course...

Re: Volpe, Well said! A child who is 7 and can not count to 10, say his ABC's or read is definitely neglected. These kids sound like they are not socialized with other children. Obviously the sister has not registered them with any school system as they must take standardized test each year. There are NO exceptions in my state. I'm quite sure most states have some similar requirements. I am very sure these parents have not met the requirement as to what must be taught. The LW's parents need to get their heads out of the sand and try to help with this situation. Sounds like they are neglecting the needs of the grandkids too. I certainly hope the LW steps up to the plate and does right by these kids. They have no one else to advocate for them and they themselves only know what they have been exposed to. Doesn't sound like either parent has a job if they can pick up and move, around living in the car. Can't imagine nobody wanting to help there little guys.

Re: Lise Brouillette, I have been posting for several days and nothing appears. I am just not as tenacious as you. One of my post showed up today so 'who knows'.

@ Ariana #22

I completely agree with you that this potentially could all be bias on the part of LW1.

You also bring up a good point:
"If the LW feels strongly that taken together these issues warrant a CPS call, she should do it, but be prepared to lose contact with her sister, her husband (and who cares if they are legally married or not?), and the kids forever."

I'll bet in most cases where CPS receives an "anonymous" tip, the parents have a pretty good idea exactly where the call came from without being told.

Re: Lise Brouillette #41

Hey Lise.....Amen to all that you brought up.

I have no problem with alternative lifestyles but these kids are in dire trouble. I am amazed at the number of kids AND adults who are illiterate. It is very disturbing.

I feel CPS needs to be called. Too many issues at play here.

PS: Apologizing in advance is this double posts!

@Zoe, about 20 years ago I gave up eating beef, pork, and lamb. It was intended to be the first step to full vegetarianism, but I found that it was hard to give up chicken and fish, mainly because of what I could have at restaurants and other social obligations.

I often will have full vegetarian days, even a week, but still often eat poultry or fish.

I sometimes say "I don't eat red meat", but that can confuse people as well.

Re: Penny
What really pisses me off is the selectiveness of the thing. Anyway, those who are so interested in my great widom can go to Arcamax if they want, where the full post is up.

Re: Anji
There is plenty more as this was part one, but I'm having no ends of trouble with Creators today. The rest is at Arcamax if I can,t manage to post it here.

@Steve C -- I don't think we're actually that far apart on this issue. I absolutely believe that a vegan or vegetarian diet can be perfectly nutritious and healthy, I think it's wrong of your friends to be trying to sneak meat into your food, I think it's wrong to assume assume the children in LW1 aren't being well fed simply because the parents are insisting on a vegan diet. But the LW's "proof" that the kids aren't being properly fed doesn't hinge solely on the vegan issue -- allegedly, the kids are saying that they typically eat oatmeal with peanut butter in it. Now, kids certainly have been known to exaggerate -- and so have LWs, for that matter. So, we can't say with any real certainty that these kids aren't being fed properly. But if the LW is to be believed -- even if he IS exaggerating somewhat -- I think it's a good guess that these kids are NOT being fed properly. But good news! We don't have to make that determination -- that's what calling CPS is for!

There are enough red flags here that I think a call to CPS is warranted. Sure, some of these red flags can easily be waved away. For example: the kids have the sniffles a lot? So do a lot of kids. Except one of the primary reasons most kids have the sniffles a lot is that they're in school or daycare, where they are coming into contact with lots of other kids and passing those bugs around. These kids aren't in school, and unless the mother is doing a good job of seeking out other socialization activities, they're not coming into contact with lots of kids, so that negates one reason they would be getting the sniffles a lot. Another reason kids might get the sniffles a lot -- they're malnourished. So, unfortunately, now we have two red flags that might actually intersect. The boys aren't very clean? Well, playing is "dirty work" -- my son isn't always exactly a treat for the nose, either. But he does get regular baths -- which is a whole lot easier to do when you live somewhere with a bathtub or at least a sink, which apparently is not something this family always has to access to. Most cars don't come equipped with sinks -- or refrigerators (to keep all that healthy, vegan, organic food fresh) or stoves (to cook all that healthy, vegan, organic food). So, now we have another red flag that potentially intersects with the "are they being fed well" red flag.

Some people would consider home schooling, even under the best of circumstances, to be a red flag in and of itself, even if the kids could read, count to 10, etc. I don't. I have a friend who is homeschooling her son who is now 12 years old. He is lightyears ahead of his peers. But my friend's ex-husband provides well for them, which allows her to focus her efforts on their son's education without having to figure out where she's going to get the money to keep them fed, clothed and sheltered. Additionally, it just so happens that my friend has a master's degree -- and her master's thesis was on children's literature and education. She is unusually well-qualified to home school a child. Moreover, she took it upon herself to reach out to other parents who were home schooling their children and has set up a sort of "club" where the kids go on field trips together, etc. Why am I having a hard time believing the sister is doing any of that? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that she has already demonstrated a distinct disbelief in the value and importance of education (seeing as how she dropped out of school herself) and the fact that it sounds like the family does NOT have a stable source of income, which means she likely DOES have to worry about contributing to the household finances, which means she likely does NOT have the time and energy to devote to home schooling.

From your initial post, I think you agree that a call to CPS probably is warranted in this case, you simply wanted to take up a favorite cause of yours -- veganism/vegetarianism. And I would agree with you that I think it's highly likely that the LW is NOT keeping them on a vegan diet when the kids are with him. And I would further agree that if he has never told his sister that and is instead "sneaking" animal products into their diet when she leaves them with him, that is wrong. But I have to say, I'm with locake on this, at least: if I were taking care of someone else's kids (especially for an extended period of time -- days and weeks, as opposed to a couple of hours or overnight), and that someone is vegan and expects me to serve only vegan food to these kids, that someone had better provide me with recipes (at the very least), if not the actual food, as I don't know the first thing about cooking vegan and how to ensure there's enough plant protein to make up for the lack of animal products. Why am I having a hard time imagining the sister has taken the time (or expense) of providing such tools to her brother in order to keep her kids on a vegan diet?

Honestly, I don't blame you for being frustrated with your friends, who are busily trying to slip meat into your food. I don't blame you for being frustrated that some people automatically assume that a vegan diet can't possibly be nutritious. But I think you've perhaps chosen the wrong letter to take up this particular cause. There are just too many other things wrong with this picture. Sure, LW MIGHT have an unfair bias against veganism -- but when you weigh that against everything else that's going on here, that would appear to be the least of the issues to be getting caught up in, IMHO.

@Lise, I'm happy to call it whatever you want, but it's also misleading to some people to say "I only eat red meat" and it's certainly not accurate to say I'm just a regular omnivore, either. (If I *don't* mention it, some people try to force hamburgers or steaks on me). That's why, in fact, that some people have started using phrases like "semi-vegetarian" or "flexitarian". But I'm not married to any of the terms; I just need something to indicate that I choose to restrict my meat intake in specific ways.

I frequently go several days without having any chicken or fish at all, by choice, and if there were sufficient vegetarian options *everywhere* I went, I might indeed be a full vegetarian.

My vegetarianism isn't necessarily philosophical, though -- it's more health and environmental. Trying to make food choices that are less harmful to the environment. And it's imperfect, I'll be the first to admit that, but even small changes can help -- that's why there's the "Meat-free Mondays" campaign.

Re: Lise

This site does tend to throw it's tantrums a lot. This is why I seldom post!! I will check out Arcamax ;)

@Steve, my concern is that, if the LW's general description of the situation is reasonably accurate, then I think we can rationally conclude there is a significant probability that the sister *isn't* particularly careful about making sure a balanced diet is being provided.

It's at least worth a look-see by an appropriate child services agency, especially because nutritional deficiencies in childhood can create long-term developmental problems that can be hard to adjust for later in life.

Mike,

When I was responding to Lise, it showed YOUR name as if I was signed in as you...This site is strange indeed!

Regarding being a vegetarian, I am supposed to follow by a strict diet as I have Celiac disease. When I eat gluten, I feel incredibly sick. Same with red meats because I have Hypothyroidism as well and red meat is typically a No-no. My mom and I were discussing our health issues and both surmised we do better when we are practically starving. I went on a test diet and ate nothing but veggies and fruit and I felt wonderful.

My ultimate problem is being disciplined, though!

@Ariana & Esther Greenwood -- it is clear that LW1 has a pretty heaping dose of contempt for his sister, so yes, I think he's biased and inclined to see the worst when it comes to her and her alternative lifestyle. Certainly the parenthetical statement questioning whether they are actually married or not smacks of that contempt and likely isn't even relevant, except...

I have a cousin who has been with her BF for more than 15 years. They have two children together. I absolutely believe they are entirely committed to each other and to their children. I also happen to know that the reason they have not gotten married is specifically to spite my cousin's mother (which is a long, irrelevant story). But I also happen to know that they have taken great pains to ensure that all the legal niceties that are so quickly and easily tied up by getting married (next of kin for medical, estate and other legal purposes) have been addressed in other ways. It's a lot of hoops to jump through (one of the practical reasons, as I understand it, that gays want to have the right to get married -- but not the driving force behind that fight, of course). What do you suppose are the odds that this couple, with nary a high school diploma or GED between them, have even THOUGHT to take care of those legal issues -- issues that absolutely CAN impact their children? What do you suppose are the odds that this couple, that is occasionally homeless, has the money to hire an attorney to help them address these legal issues even if they HAVE thought of them? Maybe I'm just falling into the LW's biased trap here, but I have to question the likelihood that any of this has been thought of, much less addressed. So, even though the LW's parenthetical mention of it smacks of contempt and initially appears irrelevant, it might not be quite so irrelevant as we think.

Moreover, even accounting for the LW's potential bias (and again, I agree that he almost certainly has more than a dollop of contempt for his sister), I go back to my post to Steve C in which I outline that the sheer number of red flags here, and the degree to which they MIGHT intersect, makes me think a call to CPS is warranted here.

But I couldn't agree more with this statement: LW needs to be prepared to be cut out of his sister's life (and possibly the lives of his nephews) if he does this, because even if he does it anonymously, I would think the sister is going to know he did it or at least suspect that he did it. And given that he has, apparently, talked with his parents about taking this step, that means that when they find out CPS has been called, they are likely to be sure he did it, too.

On the other hand, I wouldn't be so certain that Suzie really would be prepared to cut him off forever. Sounds like she finds him to be a mighty convenient (and free) babysitter -- and there are very few babysitters who will take on children for days and weeks at a time without compensation. My guess: Suzie will cut him off...until she needs his help again.

@Anji (57) -- Your comment made me think of this (even though it's not the same at all). My mother is Catholic and my father is Jewish. Growing up, my brother and I used to joke that if we followed all of the dietary restrictions related to Easter/Lent and Passover, we'd be eating nothing but water and matzoh!

In all seriousness, however, I know hard it can be to stick to a gluten-free diet, so you have my sympathies!

Re: Mike H

Like you, my meat intake is limited. Not for any real reason - I just don't like meat all that much, it's expensive, and a pain to cook. I do eat some red meat, but not pork. It hasn't actually really come up yet that I've had to go into detail or preface an evening with "I am _______." I still really don't think anyone should call themselves a vegetarian of any sort if they eat animals of any sort in any quantity (I mean if you had meat ONCE in six years you could say you are a vegetarian and you slipped up once, I guess). I mean if you put it your way, everyone is a semi-vegetarian unless they eat ALL the meat ALL the time and don't eat a single non-meat item. Otherwise we're just talking in degrees of how much meat people eat.

I can see why it is practical use a term to say "I don't eat just anything", though. But on the other hand, my first thought upon seeing flexitarian or whatever, was "oh great, another label, another "thing" for someone to be." I do not begrudge you the label or anything and can see the practical side of it.

@Lise, and that's exactly why I *didn't* call myself a vegetarian in the first place. You're actually making a *very* good case for why I phrase it the way I do, and reinforcing my point. And now that you know what I meant, you won't be confused the next time I call myself a "semi-vegetarian". Which I will continue to do, because it's the wording that I find has caused the least confusion overall.

@Zoe, I appreciate your understanding of the issue -- and like Steve C, I've encountered family and acquaintances over the years who take offense when I don't eat steak, for example, so I've *had* to do something in order to make it clear that I don't just eat anything.

If another pithy phrase comes into vogue that does the job, I'll happily take it -- but from direct, practical experience, I can firmly state that "semi-vegetarian" actually gets the point across more frequently and more painlessly than any other formulation I've tried.

I've also don't remember encountering anyone -- in 20 years! -- reacting *poorly* to this formulation, and I've even used it BTL before, so today's scrutiny of the term is a bit of a surprise to me. Vegetarians usually appreciate the solidarity even if I'm not 100% vegetarian -- although this is primarily IRL interactions, not online. And I guess we all know how online interactions can create tempests in teapots! ;-)

Anyway, yes, indeed, the "label" is used solely for practical reasons rather than anything else. Most of the time, I prefer to keep my dietary choices quiet and not create a fuss.

@ Lise Brouillette Re: #39

I clearly said I was a "Flexitarian" which, as I thought I made clear, is to imply that my diet is heavily vegetarian with the occasional fish or poultry.

Re: Chris
Then you're not a vegetarian. And I know what you said, but sorry, but you can remake the English language to your taste. I'm happy to know that the term works for you, Mike, but to me it doesn t make a lick of sense. It would be like a girl telling me she is "half-pure" because she is still technically a virgin in spite of doing everything else, including penetration through the back door. Sure, her hymen is intact, but not her innocence.

Lisa wrote:

"it is clear that LW1 has a pretty heaping dose of contempt for his sister, so yes, I think he's biased and inclined to see the worst when it comes to her and her alternative lifestyle. Certainly the parenthetical statement questioning whether they are actually married or not smacks of that contempt and likely isn't even relevant, except..."

I agree with Lisa.

The LW is a male who is criticizing a female. That makes him wrong.

It doesn't matter if said female is raising illiterate children and is too lazy to get a job so they have to live in a car and don't wash regularly. The LW is a MALE who has dared to criticize a FEMALE. He is WRONG!!!!

Remember:

MEN. They're to blame for EVERYTHING.

If Lise Brouillette invested half of the time and energy in getting a job that she does on this forum, she'd be an MD instead of living off the sweat of others.

Shame, shame.

PB -- I guess I should be pleased that you agree with me, but please don't use my arguments -- which had NOTHING to do with which person is which gender -- as fodder for your crusade against gender bias. Had the LW been a female criticizing her sister, I'd have said the exact same thing. Had the LW been a female criticizing her brother, I'd have said the exact same thing. Indeed, one or two posters actually thought the LW WAS female, and that didn't seem to alter their advice in any way. As I have said before, we definitely DO see gender bias here from time to time, but you manage to see it where it doesn't even exist and will twist things around to make your point, which only hurts your credibility. And that's a shame, because I think there is a valuable and legitimate discussion to be had about gender bias at the BTL, but you manage to turn it into a sham. I'm starting to wonder if you actually are trying to discredit the gender bias debate.

Third, she decided to start home-schooling the children when some professional somewhere started asking pointed questions about how the children were being cared for. And, because she doesn't know crap about anything (but arrogantly thinks she does – after all, she's legally adult, right?), she doesn't realise that essential elements are missing from both the diet and the education.

5. “The family has, on occasion, lived in their car. Suzie recently said they are going to "live on the road" for a while and the boys will adjust.”
WOAH. Now that is cause for alarm. Boys that age do NOT adjust to being homeless wanderers. I have seen drawings such children made of their family. They show people with no living accessories, no possessions, no house, no background, not even scenery like trees or even a ground to walk on, as if they were floating in the air. If they're not getting proper nutrition and education right now, they certainly won't be getting it living in a car. Not to mention that you risk losing access to the boys completely and won't even know where they are. And with no way of finding them, since the children are not being abducted and living in a car may be ghastly, but not illegal indeed.

DON'T act horrified. Suzie is not the kind of person who takes well to criticism. Instead, be the generous, serviceable and dependable brother, and kindly offer to take in the kids while they're “on the road”.

Points 3, 4 and 5 would warrant a call to CPS… but please be aware that Suzie will likely know it came from you even if you remain anonymous. After all, who else knows about the boys' circumstances, besides you and your parents, who think it's “funny”? Suzie has managed to conveniently remove the possibility of any exterior party to see anything. You are right to be concerned that she will bolt, and then you'll never see these boys again.

The boys are not being beaten black and blue, nor are they molested. They are not in immediately danger of physical harm right now. Considering the flight risk, I consequently suggest you bide your time and that you:

a) Consult a lawyer RIGHT NOW, to find out how to proceed to gain custody of the boys.
b) Wait until the boys are under you roof. Get them a complete physical, to determine if they suffer from deficiencies. Acting friendly and interested, find out exactly what goes on in that house, what they ate the last week they were there and what kind of school work they did (if any). DON'T criticise the parents in any way – the kids will immediately clam up to protect them. Test their academic knowledge (which will likely be zero). In other words, document their situation in order to have hard facts to back up your claims.
c) THEN you call CPS with a report, or whatever course of action your lawyer suggests.

Don't bother checking with your parents (why would you need their permission anyway?), who seem to be no better than Suzie, and don't make any mention of your intentions to them, as they are quite capable of tipping her off.

And keep in mind that the kids probably think their school-free days are way cool… more time for TV. Not to mention that they're too young to know what they're missing, and to realise what impact a deficient diet and education may have on their future. AND they love their parents… So be careful of what you tell them too (or within their hearing range), as they are also capable of tattling to their mother about your plans.

P.S.: Neither Suzie nor her companion finished high-school… And if the kids are being “home-schooled”, then the mother is at home. How is a man without a GED supporting four people?

finally

@ Lise Brouillette Re #64

I never said I was a vegetarian nor do I ever claim to be. Evidently you're hard of reading today. For the second time, what I said is that I'm a Flexitarian, which by the way is not a word I made up. Go to Google and type in the words "flexitarian definition" for yourself. You'll find that it means, and I quote: "Semi-vegetarianism is a term used to describe diets that are not vegetarian, but include less meat than typical diets." I guess you learn something every day don't you.

@Lisa Re: #58

You bring up some very salient points regarding protections afforded to couples who are legally married. I suppose that as far as those protections enable a more stable parental union they would benefit the children in L1. However, both parents still have the same legal obligations to their children as a married couple, so I'm not sure how much whether a couple has inheritance rights, for example, would effect the children. If the deceased parent did not have a legal spouse (or will for that matter) and the remaining living parent did not inherit the assets of the deceased, the children would still be next of kin and the assets would go directly to them, most likely managed by the surviving parent as the children's guardian. I am also not sure how much legal status making medical decisions for the other parent effects the kids since both parents can make medical decisions for minor children whether married or not.

I agree they don't sound like the kind of people who are organized or even have the funds to take care of legal matters. Way back when, I did cross paths with several groups of folks who chose a a sometimes nomadic alternative lifestyle and were not technically low income. In those cases it was more of a lifestyle choice. Choosing not to work as much as most people, choosing not to always pay rent, etc. Of course to a person, they came from upper-middle income families and could always get cash for the dentist or have a decent place to stay if they chose.

I'm vegetarian while my daughter is vegan. Vegan is hard and does take planning and as someone pointed out, I doubt that Suzie is able to supply her kids a well rounded vegan meal in her situation because they sometimes live in their car. Being Vegan takes planning and it is expensive. That aside, the children are not getting a proper education and are not being taken care of properly.

@LISE- Flexatarian is a very common way of eating and not just in the USA because one of my best friends is from Europe and she will proudly tell you that she is a FLEXATARIAN. She eats chicken & fish but no dairy, eggs, beef or pork.

@Steve- a good portion of my friends are either vegetarian or vegan and more than half of them are overweight.

@JustBecause
Boy are you right about Vegan being both difficult and expensive! I eat a mostly vegetarian diet but my 17 year old daughter is Vegan like your daughter. She gets mad at me for not being Vegan too, but I tell her I just don't have the fortitude to plan ahead that much and am too wimpy to forgo most social (in my crowd anyway) and restaurant meals. Also I just can't imagine life without a variety of cheeses, which are my main dietary downfall....lol. We live on the West Coast so there are more Vegan options here than in many areas, but it still requires a lot of foresight and planning!

Re: Lisa #58
"I agree that he almost certainly has more than a dollop of contempt for his sister"
Yeah, but that doesn't mean the contempt is not justified. Frankly, I think Suzie is behaving like a floozie and treating her children like an experiment.

Her alternative lifestyle is not the bone of contention here: plenty of people succeed in adequately home-schooling their children and in devising a vegan diet that is healthy and balanced. The problem is that she is not one of them, and the children are malnourished and illiterate.

Re: JustBecause
I know the word flexitarian, my problem is when someone uses it as a synonym for "semi-vegetarian", which is a word I hate. I realise Mike says it is the word that has created the least confusion for his entourage, but I still hate it. Like I said, to me it's like claiming you're a semi-virgin.

I know that being vegan is expensive because it is not enough to remove meat, eggs and daily from one's diet - all of a sudden, there are a ton of products you can no longer buy because they contain meat by-products in their ingredients. The replacement products can only be bought in health food stores and, because they're not so mass-produced, they are more expensive of course.

EstherGreenwood- my daughter also gets upset that I won't go vegan but like you, I love my cheese.
LISE- sorry the word semi-vegetarian bothers you but neither Mike nor Chris made it up . It's as common as Flexatarian. I know as I used to get annoyed when someone would say I'm vegetarian but I eat chicken. I would think NO YOU'RE NOT VEGETARIAN, you eat meat but then I realized that a lot of people who only eat fish and chicken feel they are semi vegetarian and in my opinion, if it means less meat will be raised in factory farms that this is actually a good thing. Actually, I do eat fish so I'm really not a vegetarian but a pescatarian (someone who eats fish but no other meat).

Some posters are criticising the letter writer for sneaking meat to the hungry nephews. He never said that he does; in fact he said that his sister insists on organic, vegan food. He probably gives them beans, legumes, vegetables, fruits, soy milk, rice milk, soy meat replacement, whole grains, or any number of things. Just because someone is not vegan doesn't mean they don't know how to prepare a vegan meal. He did say that they eat voraciously, which either means that he is a really good cook, or they are very hungry. Living in marginal housing does not present a fully equipped kitchen, so I doubt that the sister is providing a well balanced diet, even if it is vegan and organic. The brother, who sounds more educated, probably did some research on vegan eating. From what he says, I think his fears are well founded, and I agree that a call to CPS is in order. If the boys are deemed to be healthy, no harm done, but if they are not healthy, his parents will get a wake up call along with some education about being a better parent. Win-win all around, especially for the boys.

Re: Princess Bride #65
"It doesn't matter if said female is raising illiterate children and is too lazy to get a job so they have to live in a car and don't wash regularly."
.
Oh my goodness, are you assigning blame to the FEMALE who is raising the illiterate children, has no job, doesn't bathe her kids, etc., etc., and totally ignoring the fact that there is also a MAN involved here (husband or boyfriend, whichever he is) who presumably has a hand in these decisions? Surely we don't entirely blame the female here, while ignoring the male's involvement, because wouldn't that be sexist? You ignored him in your post as if he didn't exist, but most of us would read this supposed neglect of the kids as a JOINT decision attributable to both the mother AND the father? How about you throw a few words of criticism at him too, just to make things equal here?
.
Because otherwise, it sure sounds like you're saying, to paraphrase------WOMEN. They're to blame for EVERYTHING.

Re: JustBecause
"I'm really not a vegetarian but a pescatarian"
There you go, I just knew there was a word that wasn't semi-vegetarian! ;-D I know the words semi-vegetarian and flexitarian were not invented today, but there are words that push my personal buttons. "Semi-vegetarian" is one of them.

Anyone coming between me and my cheese is doing so at their peril. I'll never be vegan, that's for sure! In fact, I'll never even be vegetarian either, as I suffer from hypoglycemia and it's only under control when I eat animal protein. It doesn't have to be every day, but it has to be regular. I haven't been able to find a replacement that works on a long-term basis.

@Lise, okay, the word doesn't work for you -- but it works for a lot of people, so much so that it is indeed entering the vernacular. English, like many languages, changes and evolves. (And I don't think your virginity/vegetarianism metaphor is all that useful, frankly.)

Pescetarian doesn't work for me because it implies I don't eat poultry, by the way -- so again, MORE confusion, not less. But I certainly have more vegetarian meals than the average American, and there are certain kinds of meat I haven't eaten in two decades.

These words you don't like, Lise, are pretty much here to stay, and I'm certainly not going to stop using them. Because they *are* useful and clarify concepts that other words don't explain as succinctly.

Kimiko, you're absolutely right, and I missed it.

Which brings me to PB: You're FOS. Most posters here are at least somewhat, if not very, critical of Suzie (with little mention of her husband, BTW) and supportive of her brother. Find another dead horse to flog; this one's starting to smell.

Steve, I understand where you're coming from. I know people who feel threatened by those who make more responsible choices than they're capable of or who think it's funny to mock or sabotage the lifestyle choices of others. But LW1 doesn't come across that way. He describes his sister as "a bit of a flower child," he gave her a place to stay, and he looks after her sons, although he has good reason to be frustrated with her behavior. He doesn't criticize the organic vegan diet, and a grown man with even a lick of sense can usually tell whether a child is healthy and well fed. In short, I think he's making a fairly unbiased assessment of their situation. In fact, if he's got a steady income and a home with a kitchen, he's far more capable of providing an organic vegan diet than Suzie is; there's no telling what corners she's cutting to feed them what she thinks is a healthful diet.

Re: Mike H
I'm not saying you should, and I certainly don't expect the word to disappear, although I would love that. I realise that it works for you as it does for many people. What really bothers me most is precisely the *reason* why it works for so many, because it is indicative that an important concept is evidently not understood. There ARE some things that don't go by halves.

We linguists can be maniacal that way. ;-D

(There are a number of words I would love to set on fire and burn - I've finally capitulated about "badly", but "goodness"? Oye, oye, oye)

Ha! Lise, you realize that looking at this from the other side, you're the one evidently not understanding an important concept? That perhaps more things go by halves than you're currently willing to acknowledge? ;-)

Re: Mike H
Ah, but your half is not necessarily my half, you see... ;-D

Can we all stop worrying about what the boys are eating, and focus on HOW MUCH? You can eat totally vegan, as long as you eat enough. The problem is that they are not getting enough food. That is malnourishment. That a 7-year-old can't coun tto 10 is neglect. She is not homeschooling at all. If she were, he'd be able to count and read by now. Homeschooling is when you have a full curriculum, just at home, and with the topics you choose. But reading and math are part of it.

These boys are going to wind up homeless, living on the street, with no education to get them a job after they are 18. Even if CPS takes the away, they will need to work hard in whatever school they go to, or else homelessness is a sure future for them. And then the general public will blame them for being on food stamps, when it is all the parents' fault here.

Writer is correct in wanting to call CPS. It should be done immediately, and quickly. Yes, writer should take the kids, even if it means breaking the bank.

At a meal out one night, during a conversation about neglectful parents, my husband announced, "People should have to pass a test before they can have children", after a moment I then said, "Honey, WE wouldn't have passed that test".

Please do NOT call CPS! We are devastated families here, all victims of a abusive system, primarily because someone thought they knew how to parent children better than we. How many know the reality of how CPS really works here? How many who blindly commented, advising this uncle to contact the government to help raise his own family understand the TRUTH of how these agencies operate? They do NOT "help" families in need, or "help" children at "risk". They do NOT protect, in the majority of cases, as statistics prove that children in foster care are more likely to be physically, sexually and emotionally abused by foster placement, or other foster children. Children in foster care are SIX times more likely to end up MURDERED by foster carers!
If you do not agree with someone's parenting styles, or personal choices they make as parents, fine. But, CPS is NOT in the position or business of helping those parents make more "appropriate" to everyone's opinion choices! They are punitive in nature, filing court proceedings, and criminalizing parents for their alternative choices. They are in the business of ordering parents to undergo mental health evaluations, which for parents like the one written above, would result in a "character assassination" of them, and their lifestyle choices. Or they order parents to participate in "parenting" classes, which consist of government indoctrination. Teaching parents that they are WRONG in their decisions and the only way to survive is to allow the government full control over you and your child. All these "services" are ordered by judges in the pockets of federal funding, or agencies receiving federal funding. These are NOT designed to HELP parents and their children, but to overwhelm them with an UNwinnable situation, many of whom never overcome. The final insult: these victims are stripped of parental rights, families are torn apart and children are SOLD in adoption, while agencies reap federal bonuses for a "job well done".
We are supposedly in a "FREE" country, and should be allowed to make parenting decisions for ourselves! NOT have the government LORD over us their ideals of "proper" parenting. Many of the issues pointed out in this letter are simply ONE adult disagreeing with another ADULT"S decision regarding the rearing of their children. Do we understand that our ideals conflict the MAJORITY of the world's population? CPS is NOT in the BUSINESS to help families understand the "error of” their ways, or effect any real changes in the circumstances these children live in. And they NOT in "business" to HELP children as much as they are trafficking them! Please, if you care about your sister, your nephews and your family future, DO NOT throw them to the lions that are CPS! THIS matter is NOT one that CPS becoming involved in will FIX it!
Child "PROTECTIVE" services should be contacted ONLY by authorities in severe cases where a child's LIFE or physical health is in SERIOUS jeopardy. OR, if you witness a parent committing the CRIME of child abuse or sexual abuse, and in this case, please call your local LAW enforcement to handle this in a LAWFUL manner. CPS operates under "color of law" with NO regard for the constitutional protections every citizen should be afforded. They operate LEGAL kidnapping rings throughout the world, confiscating children, like commodities to sell on a wide market! They are in the business to profit, along with all their service providers! Please stand up to this WRONG, do not give them more fuel.
Uncle WC: do you care about your nephews, as you claim to? Have a sit down, one on one conversation with your sister and tell her your valid concerns. With RESPECT, listen to her and open a line of communication that includes your genuine care and concern for the welfare of your family. This and working together to create positive change and help to her may be the way to see something good come to your nephews. Calling CPS will NOT fix this problem, but YOUR love and caring might! Please people, stop relinquishing our HUMANITY and care for one another and community to the government. The state of our "village" children is EVERYONE'S responsibility, NOT CPS or any other government entity!

Re: Victims of Social Services Unite!
So you agree with parents who malnourish their kids and fix it so they can't read an write, all in the name of "alternative living" an the almighty "right to choose"?

Sorry, but I don't buy it. They have all the right to choose in the world for their own selves, but children 7 years old and younger have needs. They are not "commodities" indeed.

And to wait only until the utmost extreme emergency before CPS is called? I'm sorry, but that will mean some children will suffer needlessly and likely die, because some witness underevaluated the situation in his eagerness to give the parent the benefit of the doubt. I say, give the CHILD the benefit of the doubt. The rights of the children trump the constitutional rights of the adults, because they're defenseless.

I'm sorry for you, because you sure sound like you went through a bad experience, and I agree with you that foster care can leave a lot to be desired (to say the least), but that's not what we're talking about here. I personally advocate that they seek custody of the children. And then, there are times when you have to choose the lesser of two evils.