An incredibly DISGUSTING article about wasting an undeserved second chance

[ILoveMyBlondeStache]

http://fox6now.com/2014/11/18/the-money-is-gone-teary-mugshot-drew-114k-in-donations-but-prosecutors-have-taken-back-their-deal/

Triple facepunch for her.

[Kyle Schuant]

This is not unusual. Most people who win the lottery blow through the money very quickly.

If you didn't have the skills to build the wealth, you're unlikely to have the skills to hold onto it.

If she gets a triple facepunch, what should the father of her children get? If the father were around, do you think she would have had to leave her children in the car on a hot day while she did a job interview? She left her children for 45 minutes and is facing prison time ("you abandoned your children for 45 minutes, it's wrong for children to be away from their mother, so we're going to put you in prison away from your children," this is logical?), he left his children for YEARS and nobody says a word to him?

A single mother of two. This is a lonely woman who doesn't know how to handle her life, this is why she got into trouble in the first place. From the article,

"Maupin says they have reports that Taylor spent $6,000 on studio time for the father of her children. He believes that the once-estranged father came back only after Taylor had the donated money."

So she'd obviously hoped that the money could bring her children's father back into her life, and that by spending it on studio time for him, he could build a career to support them. She wanted a traditional family: husband, wife, parents together, one or both parents doing paid work to support the family. Wow, what a bitch!

Obviously this was poor judgment on her part, nobody builds a media career overnight, if you're really good you don't have to buy your own studio time, some signs you up and gives it to you. However, our modern society has a lottery mentality, we're told stories of people who by luck suddenly built their lives up into luxury. See the dance and singing talent shows and game shows for examples. And by donating to her over a hundred thousand dollars, people had told her, "Yes dear, the dream of instant effortless wealth is real!"

Society told her a story, and she believed it. Now society says, "how dare you believe what we told you?! Bad woman!"

Why does the article not have bad things to say about the father? Why don't you? Why is abandoning your children for years okay, but for 45 minutes is wrong? Triple facepunch? Really? Facepalm, yes. Facepunch? Again, if she gets a punch, what should the father get? Or do only women have responsibilities towards children?

[gimp]

Leaving your children in a hot car is a crime, yes. Blowing all of your donated money when ordered not to is a crime, yes. Shirking responsibility to your children may be morally wrong but it's not a crime.

[Kyle Schuant]

I didn't ask what was a crime, that's why I didn't ask why the father wasn't up in court, too. I don't care about the law, I care about what is right.

We're not prosecuting anyone, we're discussing them. So again: why is the article and the original poster of this thread babbling about how awful the woman is, and saying nothing about the man?

*cue indignant backpedalling*

[trailrated]

If you didn't have the skills to build the wealth, you're unlikely to have the skills to hold onto it.

This is so true and could not be stated more clearly than you just did. Because of this, the knowledge of how to manage money is worth so much more than money itself.

Sometimes I think it would be like giving a farm to a starving person. They would eat great for a short time, but not knowing how to tend to the crops it would be short lived while the crops wither and die.

[slugline]

We're not prosecuting anyone, we're discussing them. So again: why is the article and the original poster of this thread babbling about how awful the woman is, and saying nothing about the man?

Probably because this is the MMM-associated forum, and it's financially-focused.

[rocksinmyhead]

If you didn't have the skills to build the wealth, you're unlikely to have the skills to hold onto it.

This is so true and could not be stated more clearly than you just did. Because of this, the knowledge of how to manage money is worth so much more than money itself.

Sometimes I think it would be like giving a farm to a starving person. They would eat great for a short time, but not knowing how to tend to the crops it would be short lived while the crops wither and die.

great analogy.

and great points, Kyle.

the whole story is just... sad.

[Bigote]

Ugh.

[Kyle Schuant]

Probably because this is the MMM-associated forum, and it's financially-focused.

Any intelligent discussion of finances must discuss ALL relevant factors.

If someone is a single parent, the absence of useful help from the other parent is a relevant factor.

If there'd been a father present, would she have had to leave her children in the car while she did a job interview? Would she then have ended up in court? Would she have blown money trying to get him back? Was it only the $6,000 she gave to him out of the more than $100,000? Was he around to look after the children during those job interviews the prosecutor arranged but she didn't go to, could that be why she didn't go?

These things are relevant.

[gimp]

I didn't ask what was a crime, that's why I didn't ask why the father wasn't up in court, too. I don't care about the law, I care about what is right.

We're not prosecuting anyone, we're discussing them. So again: why is the article and the original poster of this thread babbling about how awful the woman is, and saying nothing about the man?

*cue indignant backpedalling*

You're backpedalling? Or do you expect me to? Regardless, I enjoy your belligerence. Have fun with that. And for making excuses for someone who leaves their kids in a hot car, begs and pleads for donations, and then spends them on herself. And then begs and pleads for more donations to defend herself against the original crime and against breaking the deal she agreed to in order to avoid jail.

Stupid is as stupid does and while I suggest that fraternizing with her 'baby daddy' is part of that idiocy, he has nothing to do with her choices past being a money sink ("aspiring rap artist" or whatever) and a useless father. Plenty of people have useless and absent parents of their kids, and they don't leave them in hot cars, beg and waste donations, ...

[LalsConstant]

This is just sad.  But not entirely.   The prosecutors were compassionate and reasonable.  There were resources to hop this woman get back on her feet, though it sure would have been hard, it was doable.

Sad to see she made poor choices but good to see those in a position to do so resorted to support before punishment.

[slugline]

If someone is a single parent, the absence of useful help from the other parent is a relevant factor.

Figurative MMM-financial face-punch to Shanesha Taylor for blowing $114K, a stay-out-of-jail card, and the sympathetic support of the community. Literal face-punch to her "baby daddy" for being an absent, non-supportive parent. Better?

There are quite possibly many other relevant factors that aren't being discussed because they weren't part of the news coverage. But there's enough there to see the great opportunity wasted. I don't think the prosecutors will look very favorably on someone that made them look foolish.

[galliver]

Read an article last night that was interesting...Basically asked, what right did the government (prosecutor) have to tell her what to do with her money? Money that was gifted to her with no restrictions on its use?

It also specified that the weather was 71F and cloudy. So there's that.

It also estimated that it would cost $900k to put her in prison (including raising her children). Wouldn't it be more cost-effective...to help provide childcare? (Apparently Arizona is one of the worst states at having resources for single mothers.)

The rest of the article railed on the prosecutor, so I took it with a grain of salt, but these points seemed valid.

[MandalayVA]

You're backpedalling? Or do you expect me to? Regardless, I enjoy your belligerence. Have fun with that. And for making excuses for someone who leaves their kids in a hot car, begs and pleads for donations, and then spends them on herself. And then begs and pleads for more donations to defend herself against the original crime and against breaking the deal she agreed to in order to avoid jail.

To be fair, she didn't ask for the donations.  People were dumb enough to do that on their own because OMG SHE WAS JUST LOOKING FOR A JOB SHE DIDN'T MEEEEAN TO LEAVE THE KIDS IN THE CAR.

BOTH parents need to be repeatedly punched in the face. 

[Cpa Cat]

Quote from the article:

Meanwhile, some of her supporters say they want their money back...

But I thought if I gave cash to someone with a history of poor decision making, it would change their life!

You know the saying, "Give a man a fish and you'll feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and ....  BORED NOW."

[EricL]

There's nothing to be said about this case that can't be considered overkill.

[MoneyCat]

This is just a demonstration that some people have very low intelligence and that's why they are in bad situations.  Not everyone is like that, which is why people try to help other people, but there are a fair number of people out there who live up to poverty stereotypes.

[astvilla]

A lot of people fault her and on news site and I understand and agree, we all have personal responsibility but I'll try to see it from another angle.

This woman was poor, no savings, never saw much money in life nor got to enjoy it. Most people in MMM community hail from diverse economic backgrounds but judging by the typing, language, diction w/e, people here are pretty educated and raised by parents who taught good values on saving (which is why many of us are here). And by education I don't necessarily mean classroom but by parents teaching values of hard work, discipline, personal finance, etc. TBH, i had no personal finance education till recently though i am naturally a very thrifty person and despise spending money, even if i have to. This woman had very little guidance or understanding of the ramifications of her actions, like some people don't know how much they are hurting others sometimes or ruining opportunities. To me this woman isn't pure evil but didn't know what to do w/vast amounts of sudden money. She's more stupid than a bad person and her stupidity is a result of our socioeconomic system that is failing a lot of people, especially blacks. Blacks who don't grow in good environments, don't know about saving, don't see education as something important or put as much effort into, she probably grew up poor and when she got the money wanted to do things with it she couldn't dream of. some of us have spent money like her and realized later you know...i don't NEED this designer bag and stopped our habits after being introduced to here, etc. In fact, some MMM members talk how their partner is kinda like this woman and ask what do they do? Hard to ask to put this woman on our level of discipline and prudence. Habits and seeing long-term is hard to instill in someone.

The lawyer should've signed her up for personal finance classes and taught to save. That way she wont have to endanger her kids and those values would've carrier more than just getting her a minimum wage job.

[slugline]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/scottsdale/2014/11/19/records-shanesha-taylor-spent-about-4k-a-month/19269669/

So the money isn't all gone -- yet. I'm still questioning why she thinks it's better to risk going to trial on her original charges versus fulfilling the previous deal struck with the prosecutors.

[dragoncar]

I blame michael kors

[MrBuckBeard]

One of the shocking things to me is that she ONLY needed to set aside $40k to avoid being prosecuted.  And the money is a gift, so in my limited understanding she'd not even need to pay taxes on any of this new-found wealth.

[FIPurpose]

A lot of people fault her and on news site and I understand and agree, we all have personal responsibility but I'll try to see it from another angle.

This woman was poor, no savings, never saw much money in life nor got to enjoy it. Most people in MMM community hail from diverse economic backgrounds but judging by the typing, language, diction w/e, people here are pretty educated and raised by parents who taught good values on saving (which is why many of us are here). And by education I don't necessarily mean classroom but by parents teaching values of hard work, discipline, personal finance, etc. TBH, i had no personal finance education till recently though i am naturally a very thrifty person and despise spending money, even if i have to. This woman had very little guidance or understanding of the ramifications of her actions, like some people don't know how much they are hurting others sometimes or ruining opportunities. To me this woman isn't pure evil but didn't know what to do w/vast amounts of sudden money. She's more stupid than a bad person and her stupidity is a result of our socioeconomic system that is failing a lot of people, especially blacks. Blacks who don't grow in good environments, don't know about saving, don't see education as something important or put as much effort into, she probably grew up poor and when she got the money wanted to do things with it she couldn't dream of. some of us have spent money like her and realized later you know...i don't NEED this designer bag and stopped our habits after being introduced to here, etc. In fact, some MMM members talk how their partner is kinda like this woman and ask what do they do? Hard to ask to put this woman on our level of discipline and prudence. Habits and seeing long-term is hard to instill in someone.

The lawyer should've signed her up for personal finance classes and taught to save. That way she wont have to endanger her kids and those values would've carrier more than just getting her a minimum wage job.

Let's be honest, if she wasn't showing up to free job interviews, why would she show up for financial classes?

[SisterX]

I can see both sides of the argument here but I try to err on the side of compassion.  It's tough being a parent, and I can't even imagine being a single parent.  We know why she felt the need to leave the kids in the car on the day of her interview, but we don't have her side of the story for why she didn't go to any of the others.  I'd like to know.  Is it just because she's suddenly relatively flush in the pocket and doesn't see the need to go to them, or were there other structural issues (such as a lack of childcare) which held her back?
I really think this is a mix of facepunch needing and also a highlight of why the U.S. needs to do better when it comes to supporting parents, particularly low-income parents.  Yes, she needs to take personal responsibility.  But we, as a society, have a responsibility to one another as well.

Kyle, I applaud your statements.  They were incredibly well put.  Why are we only holding the mother accountable, and not the father who was even more absent?  Why does he get a pass for throwing his genetic material around and then copping out of the responsibility?

[MrsPete]

One of the shocking things to me is that she ONLY needed to set aside $40k to avoid being prosecuted.  And the money is a gift, so in my limited understanding she'd not even need to pay taxes on any of this new-found wealth.

I read two things in articles about her:

- She first said she didn't want to put the money into accounts for the children because those accounts would've specified that the money was set aside for post-secondary education.  College.  She was concerned that 1) The children are young, and she'd need the money between now and age 18.  2) She was concerned about what would happen with the money if the children didn't go to college.  That's all quasi-reasonable, and I don't know enough about trust accounts to know whether her reasoning is sound or not.

- In the same article I read that she LATER told the judge that she COULDN"T meet the deadline for setting up the trust funds because her accounts only allow her to pull out 20,000 per month . . . so she couldn't pull out enough money to meet the deadline.  I know that ATMs have limits, but I've never heard of such a rule connected to an account.  Regardless, that excuse doesn't hold water:  If she can only pull out 20,000 a month, she should START pulling out and setting up the accounts now. 

[MrsPete]

Kyle, I applaud your statements.  They were incredibly well put.  Why are we only holding the mother accountable, and not the father who was even more absent?  Why does he get a pass for throwing his genetic material around and then copping out of the responsibility?

I don't disagree with you, but I'll throw out a couple thoughts:

- Biology made mothers "more responsible" for children.  That can't be changed. 

- In the past society has pushed fathers to assume responsibility:  It was considered shameful for a man to leave his children, families insisted upon marriage when a baby was on the way.  For better or worse, today society has decided that it's okay to have children out of wedlock, and that has largely given men permission to walk away, if they want. 

- Individual moms have allowed Dad to walk away too many times.  I remember a student of mine who was crying because she'd just found out she was pregnant, and her child's father "wouldn't help her".  Putting aside the idea of WHY a woman would sleep with a guy who'd refuse to help her, I told her that the law was on her side, and she could FORCE him to help -- that she'd have to prove it was his child, but she could have his wages garnished.  She was flabberghasted.  She genuinely didn't know. 

- The mom didn't have to assume responsibility for the children.  She had the options of abortion or adoption -- but once she decided to raise the children, she's stuck.  You could argue that Dad probably promised her he'd help, then he walked out . . . but this mom has three children.  She should've known better the second and third time.