joshua parker
Questions

Eugene, OR

#1562 Mar 7, 2014
GigiCarol wrote:
Questions, I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have much of a Clue about the Background here. Do you troll many Topix groups or just this one?
@momtomyboys, They were not innately hash, Just wired that he/ she (claims to be a he) shows up once in a long while, first chastising Kate, then patronizing the board.. but with a ounce of wisdom about leaving it all to the judicial system,(something we have not taken to), and now randomly asking for contact

granted it was not till he posted again that it was there birthday (which gives some credence to the situation) So not so random knowing that

@GigiCarol (I'm assuming that's Great grandma carol - congrats) No I do not troll any boards, Trolling is a simple act of attacking everyone and thing, without any merit or point, but to be mean. And though this board does seem to be full of trolls, and witch hunters, I am not one of them, I tend to agree with many well thought out points on this board, and state my points in a objective and well thought out mannerism. Trying to be as neutral as possible, at least till all the facts are in and the Judge makes his decision. Disagreeing is not trolling, even on a bigoted board (where they might see it as such) it still is not a decided act of attacking others (Trolling)

And to all of you I'm not planning on going anywhere, so If you find me to grating and clueless, nuts or the like ... Then go find somewhere else to hide/troll/ or whatever you do.

As for those of you who are on here because you wish to better understand all the goings on I would recommend you wait till the Judge gives a verdict... Which is Sure to show up here on this board when all is said and done.... We just don't know when that will be yet .. hopefully not too too far off .. perhaps in the next 6 months.... But we don;t know much here so Stay tuned :)
Madi

Cape Coral, FL

#1563 Mar 7, 2014
Perhaps I'm just too trusting or gullible --- something I know to be a fact; I tend to default to belief/trust --- but I believe Curt.

His sentiments seem very genuine to me. He seems like a person who is genuinely hurting about this situation.
I also can't imagine why anyone would want to pretend to be Curt; you wouldn't really get anything out of that.
If it were just to stir up drama, I'd expect a fake Curt would post more often and to post more provocatively.
His location is correct too.
And the birthday mention reminded me of Kate mentioning how there were multiple birthdays at the beginning of March (Joshua's is 3-2).

Plus, he's posted things that nobody outside the family would really know about (e.g. the mother's passing. Kate never mentioned that publicly. And considering her alienated status, it doesn't strike me as something she'd be super apt to mention to friends - I could certainly be wrong on that, though.)
I too was skeptical at first, but I checked it out and found the obit.

The DHS bit seems believable to me. Kate was clearly a person who held grudges and would have been apt to change her number without telling family members whom she was angry with.

If Curt isn't who he says he is, he would very likely be someone close to the family which still gives him credibility. To be honest, I can't think of anything he could say to "prove" his identity.
So perhaps I'm just too trusting, but I believe Curt.
And even if Curt is someone else, it's evident that it's someone close to Kate, so perhaps it doesn't matter.

@Questions --- I can tell from reading your reply above that you didn't necessarily intend your comment to come off as harsh, but that's how I perceived it too.

I think it may also be that Curt comes off as a sympathetic figure; someone who does genuinely seem to be hurting over this (thereby making us more apt to view dissenting comments as harsh).

Unfortunately, sometimes our comments do come off differently from how we intended them. I think it's largely due to the absence of other indicators like body language and tone of voice.:-)
Madi

Cape Coral, FL

#1564 Mar 7, 2014
Robin who was scammed wrote:
.... I am also upset that her family didn’t fight to see those kids. Sorry I am a family gal and I don’t care what my kids or siblings would have said but I am just that way.....
Hi Robin.:-)
I just wanted to note that in cases where a parent doesn't want her family to see her kids, there's really nothing you can do to "fight" to see them.
We have a similar situation in our family. My cousin is in a years-long feud with her siblings and parents. I happen to be on good terms with her and I've spent hours trying to convince her to let them see the kids, but no dice.
In our family, my cousin's parents and siblings even went as far as to consult an attorney, but there's nothing that can be done. Grandparents and aunts/uncles don't have any claim to their grandkids/neices/nephews, esp. when the mother and father are fit parents.(True in our case, but not necessarily true in Kate's case. And it's something we've mentioned here, that Curt may now be able to see the kids since they're no longer in Kate's custody.)

I do recall hearing that there was a group fighting for "grandparents' rights" in at least one state -- don't recall which one(s)-- so perhaps that will change in the future.(Or maybe it already has changed. It's been a year or two since I researched it.)
But as far as I know, there's really nothing you can do to legally "fight" to see the kids if the parents don't want to permit it.
lurker

Idaho Falls, ID

#1565 Mar 7, 2014
I'm wondering if anyone has definitive evidence that Kate knew Joshua and Bethany were not actually going to die. Is it possible that she really did believe they were dying and that she wasn't lying? Is it possible that she believed that "more is better" with narcotics, especially if less didn't seem to be doing the job? Could she have misplaced a decimal point in describing the amounts Joshua was getting? It's got to be a typo or something.
Madi

Cape Coral, FL

#1566 Mar 7, 2014
lurker wrote:
I'm wondering if anyone has definitive evidence that Kate knew Joshua and Bethany were not actually going to die. Is it possible that she really did believe they were dying and that she wasn't lying? Is it possible that she believed that "more is better" with narcotics, especially if less didn't seem to be doing the job? Could she have misplaced a decimal point in describing the amounts Joshua was getting? It's got to be a typo or something.
Well, that's the question isn't it: did she know they weren't going to die?
She certainly kept up appearances. For instance, they both used wheelchairs, both didn't really eat much, primarily using gtubes, etc. Both are now reportedly eating, walking, etc. so clearly, they didn't need those.
I imagine that's what a defense attorney could claim - that she thought they were dying.
I suppose the answer to whether she really thought they were dying could be easily answered by the physicians and the medical records.

My personal suspicions are that the physicians did not believe they were dying. There are many things that point to this. The fact she couldn't get onto hospice. The fact that the docs withdrew the narcotics. There is more, but it's not coming to mind at the moment. But none of that would be proof; just speculation, an educated guess.

As for the bit on the narcotics amounts, I don't think that was a typo or a misplaced decimal because many amounts wouldn't make sense as a decimal and she (e.g. 60 mg of methadone would be 6.0 -- a really odd amount. And a tiny amount - not a huge dose as she described.) Plus, she typed them multiple times (for instance, in one post, she referenced 60/60/70 as his doses throughout the day.)

It could certainly be an exaggeration/outright lie, of course.

As for "Is it possible that she believed that "more is better" with narcotics, especially if less didn't seem to be doing the job?"

Well, isn't this what may have occurred?
We don't know precisely what went down in the hospital, but it's my personal suspicion that perhaps she was dosing him as she saw fit.(No evidence to support that; just speculation. I'd love to know for certain!)

I mean, if she's disregarding doctor's orders and administers life-threatening doses of a narcotic to her child, then that's certainly a crime. And it would certainly make her a danger to her child.
Heck, even accidental administration of a life-threatening dose would likely be enough to get you in trouble for negligence!
Nobody

Boise, ID

#1567 Mar 7, 2014
Kate prided herself on her medical knowledge. She thoroughly researched everything. She knew what she was doing.

Since: Oct 13

Location hidden

#1568 Mar 7, 2014
Exactly! In my opinion I don't see any way that Kate could play stupid now. There is years and years of posts from Kate on her understanding of medicine.
Nobody wrote:
Kate prided herself on her medical knowledge. She thoroughly researched everything. She knew what she was doing.
Madi

Cape Coral, FL

#1569 Mar 8, 2014
allison04 wrote:
Exactly! In my opinion I don't see any way that Kate could play stupid now. There is years and years of posts from Kate on her understanding of medicine.
<quoted text>
Agreed. She clearly had a very good knowledge of medicine.
And she has years and tens of thousands of words of journal entries detailing her kids medical "issues."

But she wouldn't necessarily need to play stupid.

If all she wrote was all a lie, she could just keep repeating that story, claiming she really believed the kids were dying.

I think it will come down to what the docs say and wrote in the medical records. And how that compares to what she wrote in CB.
If there's obvious disagreement, there's nothing Kate can say.
If the docs say the kids were never dying, then it will be obvious she intentionally deceived people on CB. Docs have no motivation to lie; no dogs in this fight. Kate *does*.

I guess we'll just need to see how it all unfolds. It shall be interesting indeed. I hope we get some answers, someday.
Following this story

Kennewick, WA

#1570 Mar 8, 2014
Madi wrote:
I think it will come down to what the docs say and wrote in the medical records. And how that compares to what she wrote in CB.
Did anyone ever see the Seinfeld episode where Elaine goes from doctor to doctor, and each one has communicated with the other, each having negative things to say and writing all those things in Elaine's file? We can only hope that the Parker doctors - and nurses!- were as, ahem, verbose in their charting. Truly, what's in the medical files could convict or exonerate. I would imagine the detectives have seen medical records by now, and would have returned the children to the Parker home if nothing was amiss. But I don't need to tell you that that's 100% blind speculation on my part.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#1571 Mar 8, 2014
I don't believe anything Kate ever said/wrote about the kids. I honestly believe she would have been overjoyed if one of them had died simply because of all the attention, sympathy, and more than likely...money, she would have gotten. My question is this, if the doctors were suspicious and did not really think that the children were dying, why in the world would they prescribe such high doses of heavy narcotics (if in reality they really did). Also, why did it take so long for them to finally step in and get the ball rolling to get these kids away from that woman? IMHO, Kate is certifiably crazy and I pray she NEVER gets those kids back.
Questions

Eugene, OR

#1572 Mar 8, 2014
Madi wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that's the question isn't it: did she know they weren't going to die?
She certainly kept up appearances. For instance, they both used wheelchairs, both didn't really eat much, primarily using gtubes, etc. Both are now reportedly eating, walking, etc. so clearly, they didn't need those.
I imagine that's what a defense attorney could claim - that she thought they were dying.
I suppose the answer to whether she really thought they were dying could be easily answered by the physicians and the medical records.
My personal suspicions are that the physicians did not believe they were dying. There are many things that point to this. The fact she couldn't get onto hospice. The fact that the docs withdrew the narcotics. There is more, but it's not coming to mind at the moment. But none of that would be proof; just speculation, an educated guess.
As for the bit on the narcotics amounts, I don't think that was a typo or a misplaced decimal because many amounts wouldn't make sense as a decimal and she (e.g. 60 mg of methadone would be 6.0 -- a really odd amount. And a tiny amount - not a huge dose as she described.) Plus, she typed them multiple times (for instance, in one post, she referenced 60/60/70 as his doses throughout the day.)
It could certainly be an exaggeration/outright lie, of course.
As for "Is it possible that she believed that "more is better" with narcotics, especially if less didn't seem to be doing the job?"
Well, isn't this what may have occurred?
We don't know precisely what went down in the hospital, but it's my personal suspicion that perhaps she was dosing him as she saw fit.(No evidence to support that; just speculation. I'd love to know for certain!)
I mean, if she's disregarding doctor's orders and administers life-threatening doses of a narcotic to her child, then that's certainly a crime. And it would certainly make her a danger to her child.
Heck, even accidental administration of a life-threatening dose would likely be enough to get you in trouble for negligence!
I do not have the CaringBridge post to back this (as it's shut down), but I distinctly remember that Hospice was involved at least once if not twice; but that they were doing a unsatisfactory job, and as a result of Hospice's protocols, Joshua ended up in the hospital. And thus hospice was dropped.
In fact one of the last posts on CB was related to the fact that Hospice required a set of protocols to be set out for this complex case, before they would take him on again; due to the previous interactions of hospice and the Family.
I do Believe that was the reason stated on CB for why they were taking Joshua north to Portland, even in his fragile state. Once again the CB site has been down for months , but your comment triggered a memory recall...

In short they did get on Hospice, I'm sure of it , at least once.

And yes the Medical records (of which we do not have access, but the Judge will) will define this case, and from that we will have to accept the results.(As HIPPA protects us from seeing them ourselves). So we should be careful how we speculate.

Since: Nov 13

Location hidden

#1573 Mar 8, 2014
Well...she *said* hospice was brought in a couple of times...but that doesn't necessarily mean it was true. We will never know the whole truth, I'm sure of it.
SLF

Eugene, OR

#1574 Mar 8, 2014
From my own personal speculation, I do not believe that hospice was EVER brought into their home. Kate even stated reasons why they wouldn't take the case. Whether they are true or not is another story. Our family has had to have hospice services more than once in my lifetime and some of the things she said were very far-fetched regarding hospice. I really believe Kate thought in her mind that her kids were dying, but in her conscious mind when it was there, she knew they weren't.

I have read another online psycho story like this one and the two stories are almost parallel with one another.

I have no problem stating Kate is a liar and justice needs to be served for what she did to her kids.
Madi

Cape Coral, FL

#1575 Mar 8, 2014
Questions wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not have the CaringBridge post to back this (as it's shut down), but I distinctly remember that Hospice was involved at least once if not twice; but that they were doing a unsatisfactory job, and as a result of Hospice's protocols, Joshua ended up in the hospital. And thus hospice was dropped.
In fact one of the last posts on CB was related to the fact that Hospice required a set of protocols to be set out for this complex case, before they would take him on again; due to the previous interactions of hospice and the Family.
I do Believe that was the reason stated on CB for why they were taking Joshua north to Portland, even in his fragile state. Once again the CB site has been down for months , but your comment triggered a memory recall...
In short they did get on Hospice, I'm sure of it , at least once.
And yes the Medical records (of which we do not have access, but the Judge will) will define this case, and from that we will have to accept the results.(As HIPPA protects us from seeing them ourselves). So we should be careful how we speculate.
You're right, Questions.
I remember the same -- that he was supposedly on home hospice and they couldn't get him fluids, so they took him to hospital.

But they also refused to admit him to hospice on at least one occasion.(Two, if I recall properly, but I only have proof for one.)
Kate Estes updated for Kate Parker and said, "The hospice director from the hospice that was supposed to admit Joshua today has said that he is “too complicated” for hospice and they won’t admit him. Seriously."
You can read it in its entirety here:
http://thetruthaboutkpmomof789.wordpress.com/...

That "too complicated" bit sounds like a huge load of rubbish to me; a Kate-ism.
Medicine is complicated.
DYING is complicated, for chrissake! But hospice still admits people because it's palliative care and that's what they do. What's the worst that will happen? They'll die?!
(Sorry, I'm being a bit snide. Kate gets me nuts! LOL)

As some of the others have said, I highly doubt hospice was involved now considering this in retrospect. Rethinking it, it just seems a bit "off". And others pointed out inconsistencies too. She said there was only one hospice in the area and they didn't do kids. Yet someone waaay back in this thread provided a link to a hospice in her area with a kids' program. Just little things like that, compounded with her propensity to lie, plus the use of common sense = very unlikely hospice was ever involved.
Madi

Cape Coral, FL

#1576 Mar 8, 2014
SLF wrote:
....I really believe Kate thought in her mind that her kids were dying, but in her conscious mind when it was there, she knew they weren't.....
Agreed, agreed.
I've heard that pathological liars can begin to believe their own lies. And while they know the truth deep down, there's some sort of psychological block that forms and they start to regard their own lies as truth.
Not sure if that's the case here, but it's and interesting phenomenon, indeed.

There was another woman who had a baby that was supposed to die, but there was never any baby. It was all to get money. She got caught when she posted a photo of one of those creepy reborn baby dolls and said it was her baby.
I *believe* it was that woman who, after she was found out, came out and admitted that she had lied. I don't recall the specifics; I'd only read about it in an article. And I don't know whether the woman came out herself or through a friend who spoke on her behalf.(And I could be wrong -- it may have been another one of those sick kid mom scammers --- that's what the article was about).
But in any event, there was a case where the Kate-like mom got caught and she came out publicly and copped to her wrong doings.
She admitted all the lies and told the truth.
She owned it.

I wish Kate would do this. Just admit her wrong doings. Be contrite. Apologize. Tell us what's *real*.
I doubt it will occur, esp since she's lost her kids and the law is now involved.
But it would be nice. To finally know what's real.
Cassie-Confused

Taylorville, IL

#1577 Mar 8, 2014
I believe kate's stories about Hospice were a lie. I believe the amounts of narcotics she said he was being given was a lie. I believe it was discovered she was doing things to keep the children from getting better.
Plus IF hospice was there for real, weren't they supposedly there right before the last hospital visit? Maybe something they saw in the home or something Kate said set off their suspicions and made them contact the dr. Once again if hospice was ever actually involved. There are just so many different scenarios.
Questions

Eugene, OR

#1578 Mar 8, 2014
@Madi
"I wish Kate would do this. Just admit her wrong doings. Be contrite. Apologize. Tell us what's *real*.
I doubt it will occur, esp since she's lost her kids and the law is now involved.
But it would be nice. To finally know what's real."

What If she has done no wrong...
(I know hard to believe for some.. but bear with me)
Then she's been contrite this whole time... and she is real.

As such....
Will we here openly on this board and to all our friends that we have gossiped/ discussed this with,

Admit we were wrong?

Be contrite, and Apologize Publicly to Kate and the Family?

Will we do what we Expect of Kate?
Or will we just slink away to go torch someone else?

Just something to think about.. I mean really what are the chances of that , Right?
Danielle

American Fork, UT

#1579 Mar 8, 2014
I have in more than one case admitted when I was wrong.
I would be happy to do so in this case.
IF there was PROOF that Kate never deceived anyone.
I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
Madi

Cape Coral, FL

#1580 Mar 9, 2014
Danielle wrote:
I have in more than one case admitted when I was wrong.
I would be happy to do so in this case.
IF there was PROOF that Kate never deceived anyone.
I'm not holding my breath for that to happen.
Exactly.
I too would *love* to be wrong about all this, as it would mean that nobody was scammed, nobody was deceived, and most importantly, nobody ever harmed the kids.

Absolutely - I would happily admit that I was wrong and I'd apologize for believing things that were not true. In a heartbeat. I'd have no problem with that.

But based on what we do know to be fact, I'm quite confident that at least some wrong-doing has been committed. Per Kate's own words, in fact (e.g. the horrific treatment of Hannah and Bethany).

Since: Mar 14

Location hidden

#1581 Mar 9, 2014
With regards to hospice, I think it's important to remember (as others have stated) that we cannot be sure of anything Kate said on this topic. Was a request for hospice ever initiated? Did he qualify? Was he refused? Did they appeal? Was he ever accepted?

Truly, who knows if he even met the criteria. The primary doctor would have had to be involved in the application process & there would have to be a belief that Joshua would not survive more than 6 months. Patients may live longer and hospice can be renewed or discontinued, but if we are to believe Kate, Joshua should have qualified for hospice.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Medford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Woman files sexual harassment lawsuit against A... (May '16) Feb 8 Elks member 29
News Transgender man claims he's pregnant (Mar '08) Feb 6 TheJerseyDevil 62
News Oregon woman plans to parade topless (Jun '08) Feb 6 Parade Phart 1,346
moving to oregon (Sep '06) Feb 1 Amandat 181
Lacey elaine oliver Jan 28 Lilysdaddy 1
How to lose tourist dollars 101 Jan 24 CaptainOfIndustry 1
News Medford businessman Kelly Rasmussen accused of ... (Oct '08) Jan '17 Cjben79 12

Medford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Medford Mortgages