Message Boards

Topic : 03/31 Young Wives at a Turning Point, Part 4

Number of Replies: 26
New Messages This Week: 0
Last Reply On:
Created on : Thursday, March 26, 2009, 04:03:12 pm
Author : DrPhilBoard1
Three young couples who struggle to deal with issues such as domestic violence, infidelity and addiction check into The Dr. Phil House to overhaul their relationships. As the last day approaches, a couple’s conversation becomes an angry confrontation. One wife realizes the need for fun in a relationship, and how it can strengthen their union. Can she overcome her fear of leaving their kids with a babysitter? The men learn that the time to grow up and be responsible fathers is now. Will they embrace the role of the man in the family? And, an emergency visit from a police officer gives all the couples a reality check. Could you be at risk of losing your children and not even know it? Don’t miss the poignant moment with Dr. Phil that leaves all three couples tearfully vowing to change. Get inspired to fix your own problem relationship before it’s too late!

Find out what happened on the show.

As of January, 2009, this message board will become "Read Only" and will be closed to further posting. Please join the NEW Dr. Phil Community to continue your discussions, personalize your message board experience, start a blog and meet new friends.

March 31, 2009, 6:32 pm CDT

think hard

Quote From: electraglide

I WON'T be watching tonight....being that my partner in the heat of an aurgument said " you are just like that bi*&H on doctor Phil. (the one that interupts) and then two nights later, he threw me acoss the room by my hair. Whatever!
There is help out there what he did to you is abuse.  You don't have to put up with it. Your safety should always come first. Get hep if you need it.
 
March 31, 2009, 10:19 pm CDT

Young Wives Part 4

Quote From: blahbob

After viewing today's episode I felt compelled to write a note to let people know that the information was less than accurate.  I understand the thought behind having a detective confront the couples based on their behavior, however I think it was completely inappropriate to threaten them with child protective services and tell them that their children WILL be removed from their home and it is difficult to have the children returned to them.  I have been a child protection worker for over 6 years and am disappointed in the over generalization and threatening manor that child protective services were discussed today.  It is completely inaccurate to state that children will be removed from their home based on the situaitons that were described today, of course it is a possibility but should not be threatened.  Children are removed from their home based on the immediate safety of the children., which is clearly defined  by statues.  It is our goal to ALWAYS try to reunify the children with their parents and it is not our goal to keep children away from their families.  If Dr. Phil was trying to scare the couples, that is one thing, but it is not helping anyone to threaten couples with child protective services, especially when the information is not truthful.  Child protection workers work very hard at keeping families together and this type of generalizations is extremely harmful to the nature of our work.

In the state I live in, from my understanding it can be an ordeal to get your children back if taken

by DHS ~ although, I agree, that DHS is "suppose" to be working to keeping the family

together.  So,  do you think that screaming and yelling and throwing and breaking things infront of

the children isn't abuse? and do you mean that DHS will only get involved based only on immediate physical safety of the children?

I know a couple that have similarties to these couples, although it hasn't gotten physical to

my knowledge, their children hear it all ~  but, I guess I don't need to worry about the

children because it's only emotional?

I believe the police officer was correct in telling all of them that their children will grow up

just like them ~

 
April 1, 2009, 4:14 am CDT

More than likely 2 of these couples won't make it

I've been talking to some older guy's like in their 50's and some have been married 3 even 4 times.  The problem with marriage is the other person always wants to be right. In my marriage I ignore my wife when she wants to argue. If I engage in an argument she goes crying to friends and family saying how horrible I am. She has alienated a lot of people from us because they think we are crazy especially me. Sometimes I get so fed up I beg her for a divorce but then she goes on a rant about how she will kill herself if I leave and give her another chance. I've always kept a good job and have been good with money and my wife is the opposite. She was deep in debt when I met her and I pulled her out. I found out with the good credit I got her she got credit cards and ran up debt in total to about 10,000 dollars in two years. I was devastated and felt betrayed. She begged me to pay them off and I refused so she will do it herself. Meanwhile I will buy what I want and pay my bills and use credit wisely. Some may think it's cruel but she has to learn even though I make more money I won't bail you out every time. Most of the charges were for clothes and eating out and even helping out her broke girlfriends.  Those same girlfriends she will cry to and they will say I am mean. The only person who I can't see changing is the one married to the guy Cadum. For some reason she reminds me of my wife thinking everyone agrees with her. I get that the guy isn't working and if he won't grow up then you need to leave him. She just needs to know the next guy she gets with may not be so much of a pushover and she may wake up one day 40 years old bitter and alone and on yahoo personals saying she loves to cook and begging for any man.
 
April 1, 2009, 4:00 pm CDT

child protection truth

Quote From: dlw1949

In the state I live in, from my understanding it can be an ordeal to get your children back if taken

by DHS although, I agree, that DHS is "suppose" to be working to keeping the family

together.  So,  do you think that screaming and yelling and throwing and breaking things infront of

the children isn't abuse? and do you mean that DHS will only get involved based only on immediate physical safety of the children?

I know a couple that have similarties to these couples, although it hasn't gotten physical to

my knowledge, their children hear it all   but, I guess I don't need to worry about the

children because it's only emotional?

I believe the police officer was correct in telling all of them that their children will grow up

just like them

In the state that you live in, perhaps it is difficult for children to be returned to their home - specifically I would want to look at why the children were taken out of the home and what the parents are doing or aren't doing to address the initial concerns that caused the children to be removed.  First of all, let me address a common misconception of child protection - we do NOT only remove children from the home, in fact this is only used if the immediate safety of the children are in jeopardy.  Most of our job is working with the families to address child protection concerns.  I do not appreciate the comment "I guess I don't need to worry about the children because it is only emotional".  No one said that emotional abuse is not horrible, however if you and any other viewers are upset with the statutes that guide child protective services, then perhaps you should be talking with your state legislatures to make the laws include such a concern.  It is very difficult to prove emotional abuse, although everyone would agree that growin up in a home where emotional abuse is harmful, currently we need to prove that and if mental health practitioners are not willing to clearly state that, the children remain in the home.  That is not to say that child protection workers would not remain involved with the family and implement services in attempt to better the situation, because hopefully that would happen.  However, it is important to remember that state statutes guide what child protection workers are able to do or are not able to do - even if some of us believe that certain things are 'abuse' (and many people would agree that it is) if it is not an immediate safety concern (which is also defined by the law) then children would not be removed from the home.  It is often difficult for the public to understand the laws that we must follow - the laws are becoming more and more stringent and prevent intervention.  Currently the court system believes that the parents basically have a right to parent their children and often ignore or place the child's right to live in a safe environment second.  I hope that helps you understand a little of the child protection system.  I believe that many of us would love to be able to rescue children from homes we believe are not suitable (but this is often based on our personal definitions and ideas of how children should be raised, etc) however at this time we do not have the ability to act on our 'gut feelings' which I agree in the end only extends the cycle of abuse.  There are lots of heart breaking stories, but please remember that it is not the child protection workers who make those calls - it is our government!!  One more thought - if you look at the federal budget . . . one of the first areas to be cut include child protective services.  So, in the greater community of our country, where are our priorities?  I hope that sharing this information will cause some people to look at the issue and begin to contact policy makers to start demanding justice for children . . . it is often the people in my profession who end up being the only voice children have and I take that very seriously.  I ache for the children who do live in abusive situations, simply stated though the state and federal guidelines severely limit the responses we are able to have.  My intention of commenting initially was just to explain to people that the information shared on the show were unfortunately less than accurate.
 
April 1, 2009, 4:04 pm CDT

Anyone else find it odd that...

Dr phil thinks arguing in front of children warrants police and social services involement but expnsing the octuplets to possible tuberculosis doesn't?
 
April 1, 2009, 6:53 pm CDT

03/31 Young Wives at a Turning Point, Part 4

Quote From: ramar52

Dr phil thinks arguing in front of children warrants police and social services involement but expnsing the octuplets to possible tuberculosis doesn't?

I must agree with you.  If we want to discuss 'abuse' of children, I strongly believe tha putting the mother of the octuplets in the public eye and allowing her to try to raise her children, when we all know that it simply is not humanly possible, to me is just if not more abusive than children having parens that yell at each other.  I'm not saying that either situation is ideal, but lets "get real" now.  Perhaps the reason I often do not watch the Dr. Phil show is because I feel the show often sells out the truth for ratings.  I hope that the children of the octuplets and their siblings is closely watched - there is no way that with her obvious mental health concerns she is able to supervise all of her children the way that they deserve and need.  Sometimes I wondor why people give parents the 'chance' to succeed while in the process we deny our children the 'chance' to develop and live healthy lives.  Is it worth it - to sell our children short just b/c we as a nation have forgotten what it is like to hold adults responsible and hold them accountable.

 
April 1, 2009, 9:48 pm CDT

Young Wives At A Turning Point Part 4

Quote From: blahbob

In the state that you live in, perhaps it is difficult for children to be returned to their home - specifically I would want to look at why the children were taken out of the home and what the parents are doing or aren't doing to address the initial concerns that caused the children to be removed.  First of all, let me address a common misconception of child protection - we do NOT only remove children from the home, in fact this is only used if the immediate safety of the children are in jeopardy.  Most of our job is working with the families to address child protection concerns.  I do not appreciate the comment "I guess I don't need to worry about the children because it is only emotional".  No one said that emotional abuse is not horrible, however if you and any other viewers are upset with the statutes that guide child protective services, then perhaps you should be talking with your state legislatures to make the laws include such a concern.  It is very difficult to prove emotional abuse, although everyone would agree that growin up in a home where emotional abuse is harmful, currently we need to prove that and if mental health practitioners are not willing to clearly state that, the children remain in the home.  That is not to say that child protection workers would not remain involved with the family and implement services in attempt to better the situation, because hopefully that would happen.  However, it is important to remember that state statutes guide what child protection workers are able to do or are not able to do - even if some of us believe that certain things are 'abuse' (and many people would agree that it is) if it is not an immediate safety concern (which is also defined by the law) then children would not be removed from the home.  It is often difficult for the public to understand the laws that we must follow - the laws are becoming more and more stringent and prevent intervention.  Currently the court system believes that the parents basically have a right to parent their children and often ignore or place the child's right to live in a safe environment second.  I hope that helps you understand a little of the child protection system.  I believe that many of us would love to be able to rescue children from homes we believe are not suitable (but this is often based on our personal definitions and ideas of how children should be raised, etc) however at this time we do not have the ability to act on our 'gut feelings' which I agree in the end only extends the cycle of abuse.  There are lots of heart breaking stories, but please remember that it is not the child protection workers who make those calls - it is our government!!  One more thought - if you look at the federal budget . . . one of the first areas to be cut include child protective services.  So, in the greater community of our country, where are our priorities?  I hope that sharing this information will cause some people to look at the issue and begin to contact policy makers to start demanding justice for children . . . it is often the people in my profession who end up being the only voice children have and I take that very seriously.  I ache for the children who do live in abusive situations, simply stated though the state and federal guidelines severely limit the responses we are able to have.  My intention of commenting initially was just to explain to people that the information shared on the show were unfortunately less than accurate.

 I did not mean to offend you ~ I certainly wouldn't want the children taken out of the home ~ but, rather the parents need to learn coping skills ~ I believe that taking children out of a home should be a last resort ~ I believe that not all foster homes have turned out to be in the best interest of the child either.  Yes, I now have a better understanding of how DHS works, and you are right, in this economical  climate the funding

is limited.  If~ as tax payers, we weren't bailing out the banks, the money could go towards funding

programs, such as DHS. 

I don't know if the officer was just trying to scare them or not, but even at that wouldn't a good scare be better than a visit from a social worker? I'm just thinking out loud ~

 

Thank you for sharing ~

 
April 2, 2009, 3:22 pm CDT

03/31 Young Wives at a Turning Point, Part 4

Dr. Phil, I have listened to you for quite some time now and I appreciate the way you spoke to the three couples in guiding their thoughts to what is important in life. Tough love is tough to hear but more times than not it needs to be listened and adhered to.  Your heart spills forth all the time to those you speak to and as you speak to your quest, you also speak to those of us who are watching on our televisions. Even at my age of 56, I will keep listening. God Bless you and Robin.  Your love for her shows in her face.
 
April 2, 2009, 11:04 pm CDT

Lasting effects of smoking

Quote From: scott101

is it just me or does almost everyone in the Dr.Phil house smoke? i wish form once he would at least mention this to them and talk to them about it. you have young women and men who have small children and are smoking. did they smoke during there pregnancies? do they smoke in front of there kids? my mom smoked through having me and i have no end in medical problems. this is a horrible example to be showing on national tv Dr. Phil. as i think it, its been a running theme on the Dr.Phil house from the beginning and shows no signs of being dealt with.

You raised an interesting topic.  I guess I never really noticed everyone smoking in the house.  I consider smoking to be a very selfish habit because it not only affects the one smoking, but everyone around them, as well.  I wonder if smokers ever stop to think about that?  Or do they even care?  I did a search on "second-hand smoke" and here's a little tid -bit of information I found.

 

"You don't have to be a smoker for smoking to harm you. You can also have health problems from breathing in other people's smoke.  Second-hand smoke contains more than 50 substances that can cause cancer. Health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke include lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, respiratory tract infections and heart disease."

 

If it can do that to someone second-hand imagine what it does the the smoker.  While I don't think  occasionally passing by a smoker on the sidewalk will cause these symptoms.  I do, however, think this is what happens to the innocent children who's parents won't take into consideration the fact that they are slowly killing their kids.  Those poor kids have to grin and bear it, wondering why.  If people won't value their own health by not smoking, the least they could do is value their children's health by not smoking around them.  Everyone deserves to breathe fresh air but children deserve it most of all.  I  don't get smoking PERIOD, but I seriously don't get smoking on a defenseless child.  Something else I don't get.  People can barely make ends meet just to keep food on the table, but by golly they're not gonna do without cigarettes and beer.

 

 

 
April 3, 2009, 12:50 pm CDT

03/31 Young Wives at a Turning Point, Part 4

Quote From: shelly_80

You raised an interesting topic.  I guess I never really noticed everyone smoking in the house.  I consider smoking to be a very selfish habit because it not only affects the one smoking, but everyone around them, as well.  I wonder if smokers ever stop to think about that?  Or do they even care?  I did a search on "second-hand smoke" and here's a little tid -bit of information I found.

 

"You don't have to be a smoker for smoking to harm you. You can also have health problems from breathing in other people's smoke.  Second-hand smoke contains more than 50 substances that can cause cancer. Health effects of exposure to second-hand smoke include lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, respiratory tract infections and heart disease."

 

If it can do that to someone second-hand imagine what it does the the smoker.  While I don't think  occasionally passing by a smoker on the sidewalk will cause these symptoms.  I do, however, think this is what happens to the innocent children who's parents won't take into consideration the fact that they are slowly killing their kids.  Those poor kids have to grin and bear it, wondering why.  If people won't value their own health by not smoking, the least they could do is value their children's health by not smoking around them.  Everyone deserves to breathe fresh air but children deserve it most of all.  I  don't get smoking PERIOD, but I seriously don't get smoking on a defenseless child.  Something else I don't get.  People can barely make ends meet just to keep food on the table, but by golly they're not gonna do without cigarettes and beer.

 

 

I've noticed most of the Dr Phil House-guests smoking from the beginning. Apparently, it isn't allowed inside the house, but almost everyone smokes like freight trains on the patio. And, I doubt they refrain around their children. It really pisses me off seeing people smoking right in their children's faces. I consider smoking a form of child endangerment. It is now the known cause of most "crib" deaths. And, it isn't just the "second-hand smoke" that harms infants. It's the smoke residue left in the smokers' clothes and hair after smoking. I can only imagine what it does to an infant's throat. It makes mine burn whenever someone who's been smoking walks past me.

 
First | Prev | 2 | Next | Last