<p>The sister is a b-word. Seriously. Have some compassion for these people. JMO.</p>
<p>VaBluebird, what are you talking about? “The sister is a b-word.” What do you mean. Compassion for what people? Everyone has compassion for the Krims. If a family has the sister of alleged killer of the Krim’s children as a nanny, then they should keep that nanny away from wherever the Krims are? Should a family of any criminal have to hide from the victims, move from the community? I don’t think so. It does result in a very difficult situation with compassion needed for all, but slinking around, hiding avoiding isn’t the answer The sister did not do anything wrong. She’s hanging in there by not a whole lot in terms of making ends meet, most likely. Why blame her for what her sister did? </p>
<p>VaBluebird, don’t rashly judge. We don’t know all the particulars about this sad situation. What we do know is that the non-criminal Ortega sister is blameless in the acts committed by her sister. We also know that perpetrator Ortega worked for the Krims for many months, so if the perpetrator Ortega had mental problems or odd behavior, the Krims and others might or might not have seen it earlier. Again, we will find out at trial.</p>
<p>As for a lawsuit against sister Ortega, wouldn’t it have been filed by now if there were sufficient grounds? Ultimately, I don’t agree that the Krims should try to force (legally or through personal intimidation by lieutenants; i.e, the parent /nanny community) sister Ortega out of a job.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well sure, if I were hiring and wanted to discriminate against young women because they might get pregnant, I guess I could not hire young women and get away with it, rather than asking the illegal questions “are you married or living with someone?” “are you planning to get pregnant within the next five years?” “are you sexually active and if so, using birth control?” </p>
<p>Doesn’t make it right or fair, but sure, I imagine there is unfairness in hiring all over the place in instances where people can and do get away with it.</p>
<p>I’m not blaming the sister for what the crazy person did. I’m just saying under the circumstances, I would be more compassionate for the Krims and avoid them as I had agreed to. No more, no less. That’s just the kind of person I am. Heck, I probably couldn’t take it at all and would seek another position far away from them. I’m sure she doesn’t exactly relish a daily reminder of the horrific murders either. Whatever. JMO.</p>
<p>It appears the nanny was avoiding being with the Krims She was all bundlied up and trying to be in disguise which is ridiculous. The problem is that it’s may not always be feasible to change the pick up time, and I doubt it would be enforceable under the law i these circumstances. So that nanny can’t go to the school to watch her charges in production or whatever? I don’t see how that is going to work. As I said earlier, it’s a small world there, and they will be bumping into each other A LOT. Krims are going to have to face that as it’s a fact.</p>
<p>“we should all be a little afraid of the new DSM-IV codes. Everyone has some sort of mental illness pathology based on this new system.”
@SamuraiLandshark; I don’t understand. What new system? Do you mean the new DSM? </p>
<p>“Studies say there is a genetic link, so, actually you are at a higher risk.”</p>
<p>Actually none of the “linkage” studies have panned out, and the current research is looking at “epigenetics”. There are probably genes that can get turned on or turned off in certain circumstances, but it is not as simple as passing on a gene. </p>
<p>How do you know someone is necessarily blood-related to someone else? People can be adopted, you know. Would you require a sibling of the killer to prove that he / she wasn’t blood-related? I grew up with a half-sister - same mother - but I’d be damned if I had to “prove” that to a potential employer, because our birth certificates are not for public consumption. </p>
<p>And how do you know what someone’s blood relatives have or have not done, if they live halfway across the country? I also have two half-siblings (same father) whom I’ve met fewer than 5 times in my life. I don’t look like them, I don’t share a name with them, nothing. They are just people on my facebook feed and that’s about it. Why should I be held responsible in any way, shape or form for what they do?</p>
<p>Why restrict it to siblings? Maybe mothers of children with mental illness should be penalized, too, in the workforce. Or adult children of alcoholics. You never know. @@</p>
<p>This is all very biblical and sins-of-the-father here, and I’m rather appalled that some of you think that way.</p>
<p>Shrinkrap - meant diagnosis codes from new DSM-5. Not every person suffering from depression or anxiety or whatever needs a psychiatric diagnosis. Many need short term help, but with these new diagnostic guidelines, they will now be slapped with a label that will often be treated with medications that may or may not make conditions better.</p>
<p>I am probably explaining this wrong, and since this is your field maybe you can elaborate? I read about this in Dr. Allen Francis book “Saving Normal”. He helped put together the previous DSM diagnostics and feels rise of mental illness diagnosis under new DSM is beyond out of control. You might disagree. </p>
<p>I believe that the stigma of a person seeking help will increase once someone fears for that diagnosis. Especially after reading some comments here, I realize that the fallout can be lifelong. Get a diagnosis for postpartum depression, never work with young kids again. Get a diagnosis for social anxiety, your future employer may decide you aren’t a team player. </p>
<p>Plenty of people do need help. Serious help. And I hope they get it. However, that does not mean every family relation will suffer from any of same problems. </p>
<p>And where do we draw line on who is cured or when? It is not as quantifiable as say, someone who had cancer but now is in remission. What person with a mental illness is dangerous to only self, and which one to others? </p>
<p>"with these new diagnostic guidelines, they will now be slapped with a label that will often be treated with medications that may or may not make conditions better.</p>
<p>I am probably explaining this wrong, and since this is your field maybe you can elaborate?" </p>
<p>This is perhaps getting off topic, but I am not aware of any changes in the diagnostic guidelines for depression, unless you mean removing the grief restriction . It used to be that you would not necessarily use the code for major depression if bereavement better described it. Now it allows that at the providers discretion. Of course it has always been at the providers discretion. The DSM is mostly for billing and maybe research. </p>
<p>Dr. Francis is an interesting read, given his history. But that is for a different thread. I think the internet is as much to blame for the way people through around diagnosis. Everyone is an expert these days! </p>
<p>"VaBluebird, what are you talking about? “The sister is a b-word.” What do you mean. "</p>
<p>You would have a point, VaBluebird, if the sister were making a point to confront or bother the Krims. It was evident from the article she was trying to <em>avoid</em> them. What should she do? Not perform her job? I’m horribly sorry for the Krims’ horrific loss, but that does not obligate the killer’s relatives or the killer’s relatives’ employers to re-arrange their lives around the Krims. </p>
<p>Let’s try a different way. Suppose you worked for a big corporation. A drunk driver killed your relative or child – that’s obviously awful. That drunk driver’s sibling is the receptionist for your corporation; you have to pass her every morning on the way to your desk. Do you have a right to insist that she be moved from that position? </p>
<p>Yes, it would be good for another thread. I believe there are 15 new “mental disorders” listed. If anyone is interested, they can google. </p>
<p>“I believe that the stigma of a person seeking help will increase once someone fears for that diagnosis. Especially after reading some comments here, I realize that the fallout can be lifelong. Get a diagnosis for postpartum depression, never work with young kids again. Get a diagnosis for social anxiety, your future employer may decide you aren’t a team player.”</p>
<p>What’s even worse is that according to some here, get a diagnosis – your RELATIVES should be penalized for it. </p>
<p>Should we do this with physical illnesses too? Perhaps if your sibling drops dead of a stroke, employers shouldn’t employ you because after all, there may be a genetic link and you might cost them more in health care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t seen this written anywhere. I think it is possible, but a bit of a leap. After all, the killer nanny worked for the Krims for 2 years before the murders. If she was mentally ill, one would think they would have noticed.</p>
<p>As far as the sister being a you-know-what and forcing herself on them, from the articles I have gotten the impression that the Krims moved to the nanny’s neighborhood, not vice versa.</p>