I am wondering why the people in fla that were killed were allowed to adopt so many children at their age was it for the money they were to receive every month. Also why were their only cameras out side the home and not inside the home maybe they were drug dealers and killed for the drugs because if they were worried about all the children won't they also have had cameras in side to watch to see if the kids were ok something is wrong with this picture
Traylee
Favorite Answer
As the previous poster said, Melanie was not that old .. only 43. That is not that old, particularly for parents adopting special needs children out of foster care.
The couple was already wealthy. They didn't need the money, and any small amounts they may have gotten as subsidies for special needs adoption would never have compensated them for the time and energy they had to have been putting into parenting children with so many special needs. Why would a wealthy couple take on such a huge job just for such a small amount of money? They already had all the money to do everything they wanted. In addition, most subsidies in special needs adoption don't come in the form of cash. It comes as free medicare for the child, free access to state colleges after high school graduation, state provided therapy, that kind of thing. Adoptive parents of special children are not collecting huge checks from the government every month. You need to check your facts before you start making accusations.
Second, they were allowed to adopt because they were willing to, and they must have convinced the social workers that they would make adequate parents. There are thousands of special needs kids who need homes in this country. It is very hard to find families willing to adopt them and give them a permanent home. Have you adopted any of these kids? Are you doing anything to help any of them?
Finally, how many families do you know that have cameras inside their home to monitor their children? Most people don't. Why would we hold them to such a ridiculously high standard just because they are adoptive parents? Besides many of their children were older...preteen, teen, and adult. Cameras would be considered a violation of older children's privacy.
monkeykitty83
I highly doubt it was for the money. Subsidies are not exactly going to fund a mansion and a pool. Some people do it for the money, and that's exploitative, but when a couple is already independently wealthy, a few extra dollars a day is hardly worth the effort of the massive amounts of care special needs children require.
They only had security cameras outside? Do YOU have security cameras in your home, inside OR out? Since when was that a requirement of good parenting? Most parents don't have security cameras at all, and somehow their children manage to survive to adulthood. The whole point of "security" is because of intruders-- perhaps they weren't afraid of people who lived in their own home? As most of us aren't? Are you seriously suggesting that people who don't have the surveillance equipment you deem appropriate aren't "worried about" their kids?
They must be drug dealers, in it for the money, etc.? It couldn't be just that they LOVED their children, like any other parent? Because they adopted, their deaths can't be a tragedy, but have to be somehow their own fault? That seems... more than a tiny bit prejudiced. People can and do love their adopted special needs children.
If actual evidence comes out, I will believe it. But until then, why speculate that they MUST have somehow been awful people?
crzymmof8
These people were incredibly wonderful giving people. I think it is really sad that you would say this about them without knowing them. They were able to give a home to many children whom other people would not adopt. They were upstanding and wonderful people who worked hard to show others the worth of special needs children. They were killed by greedy people who saw the things they had and wanted them. It is a truly senseless killing. I find it sad that you would slander them like this.
Spread Peace and Love
Firstly they had cameras inside the home they had them every where due to the fact many of the children were very special needs. Two quotes from a news article - “The break-in was captured by an extensive surveillance camera system that the Billingses used to keep tabs on their children.” - “The couple, known for their large family of adopted children, had an extensive surveillance system IN THE HOUSE and Morgan said authorities have reviewed the tapes repeatedly.”
This people were hardly old and from what I have also heard they only had 9 children actually living at home with them. They were clearly able to take care of those kids both financial and emotionally. They adopted children that many other people would not have adopted or been able to cope with adopting. This folks gave those kids a family. The police don’t know what the motive was but said it was mainly about money.
Every single one of those scumbags should be given the death penalty.
Here are some quotes from a few articles that have been written. Notice the words “
“The couple, known for their large family of adopted children, had an extensive surveillance system in the house and Morgan said authorities have reviewed the tapes repeatedly.”
“They owned several local businesses, including a finance company and a used car dealership.”
“In a 2005 story in the Pensacola News Journal, the couple said they wanted to share their wealth with children in need, but didn't imagine their family would grow so large.”
“Why the security system was not disabled. Authorities believe the suspects did not believe they were under surveillance, he said.”
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=141478&provider=rss
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090710/US.Florida.Couple.Slain/
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/florida/news-article.aspx?storyid=141478&provider=rss
LC
Wow, you need to check a few facts!
1) They apparently loved the children and had the means to support them.
2) You don't get money for adopting.
3) How do you know there weren't cameras inside? The police have stated that they suspect the person assigned to disable the cameras outside made a mistake. That seems to imply that there were cameras that WERE disabled.