Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We don't know why CPS was investigating in the first place when this was uncovered, and we don't know her motivation for cleaning the garage shirtless.
"I don't want to get my clothes dirty" is ridiculous. It's one thing to say in my home we are fine with partial nudity, but really, "I didn't want to get my clothes dirty" is not a reason to go naked. Next thing she'll be planting roses out front not wanting to get her clothes dirty.
All we have to go on is the article, and a picture of her with a self-satisfied smirk on her face in court.
The police would have had a field day with one housemate of mine years ago. She was a germaphobe and insisted on scrubbing down the house mostly naked. She said it was safer to sterilize her skin than her clothing; claimed the local laundromat machines harbored disease. I remember a few unpleasant arrivals home after a long day at work.
O.K., it was inappropriate. However, having to register as a sex offender, based on the info we have thus far is really stretching it.
The article says that if she's convicted of the charge of lewdness, she could be required to register as a sex offender. Apparently that conviction allows the judge to make that decision.
I think it would be really unlikely for that to occur.
Is there no crime in Salt Lake County? Are there no unsolved cases there?
Because this is a completely and totally insane waste of state resources!
And even if Salt Lake County were magically crime-free, it would still be an absurd thing for the state - prosecutors, law enforcement, the criminal justice system in general - to worry about.
I feel sorry for the kids. There already was a DCF investigation ongoing that didn't involve the father. So that means some other family member, perhaps the biomom, was being investigated? And it was the biomom who reported that stepmom had been topless in the garage, working. Poor kids. Sounds like neither home is a great place to be.
What kind of IDIOT would allow her stepchildren to see her topless? What kind of IDIOT would knowingly subject his children to this kind of behavior? Of course, if they were nudists, the family would see each other naked. And if she were breastfeeding their new youngest sibling, the kids might catch a glimpse of a naked breast, if she weren't very reticent about it.
But no, this is NOT a criminal matter! And she's NOT a sex offender. This is a ridiculous application of the law. If I were her, I'd fight it all the way up to the highest court. Utah should drop this.
I feel sorry for the kids. There already was a DCF investigation ongoing that didn't involve the father. So that means some other family member, perhaps the biomom, was being investigated? And it was the biomom who reported that stepmom had been topless in the garage, working. Poor kids. Sounds like neither home is a great place to be.
What kind of IDIOT would allow her stepchildren to see her topless? What kind of IDIOT would knowingly subject his children to this kind of behavior? Of course, if they were nudists, the family would see each other naked. And if she were breastfeeding their new youngest sibling, the kids might catch a glimpse of a naked breast, if she weren't very reticent about it.
But no, this is NOT a criminal matter! And she's NOT a sex offender. This is a ridiculous application of the law. If I were her, I'd fight it all the way up to the highest court. Utah should drop this.
I think the investigation didn't involve the stepmother, but likely involved the father, although I agree, it's confusing.
This is the wording:
Buchanan was charged with three counts of misdemeanor lewdness involving a child in February. It came after child welfare officials began an investigation involving the kids that wasn’t tied to Buchanan and the children’s mother reported the incident to authorities because she was “alarmed.”
"Buchanan" refers to the stepmother in the first use of the name, and I'd guess "Buchanan" refers to the stepmother in the second use. The open investigation could indeed involve the father.
But I agree with you, this is best resolved in family court.
But, as usual, some people want to use men's problems to curtail the rights of women.
Breasts are for feeding kids. They are not lewd or worthy of criminalizing just bc men find them sexy.
I'm so sick of the everlasting double standards.
Stan, here's the big picture, as I see it. This woman wasn't breastfeeding a baby when the older kids entered the room - if that were the case, there is zero case here. Move on.
Here's what we have. An open CPS case on a family, and a stepmother who is as close to the teenager's age as she is to her husband's age, walking around topless, in front of the teen and preteen.
That's a problem, and it's worth the attention of CPS.
If it was to be learned later that this same stepmother provided them with alcohol, or made sexual overtures and CPS didn't follow up on this information that she was walking around topless with them, they'd be barbecued for being inattentive. This is worth the attention of the CPS caseworker, with an open investigation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
