US

Woman Caught Mocking Dying Girl Loses Custody of Her Own Kids

In a continuing shocking story that’s captured national attention, Jennifer Petkov, the Michigan woman who has admitted taunting the family of a 7-year-old girl dying from Huntington’s Disease, had her own parental rights stripped after a Wayne County Probate Court judge ruled on an emergency order. Petkov — who posted disturbing pictures of the dying girl on her Facebook and parked a coffin on the street in front of the girl’s home — is being forced to relinquish custody of her eight-year-old daughter and five-year-old son to their father from a previous relationship until further notice.

According to local news reports, the father of Petkov’s children filed for the emergency hearing shortly after the story broke.

In response, the community has come together to support the family of 7-year-old Kathleen Edward, the target of Petkov’s harassment. The local West Grange Pharmacy in Trenton, Mich., hosted a fundraiser today for Edward’s family, donating 20 percent of all toy and gift purchases at the pharmacy Wednesday.

“People (have) been coming in here today all day long leaving checks, leaving donations and literally crying because they were just so moved by what’s going on,” pharmacy owner Rich Grossman told WJBK, the local Fox affiliate.

“It was actually kind of a surprise for all of us. We … got a phone call a few days ago saying … to come down. They’re going to do a benefit here, and we didn’t know it was going to be this entailed, but it’s great. She’s been smiling all day,” said Robert Edward, Kathleen’s father.

Comments (305)

1 2 3 ... 7
  • Lucy Larue
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:24pm

    Ah yes…..,there IS a God.

    Report Post »  
    • ezeeriter
      Posted on October 26, 2010 at 2:38am

      Amen.

      Report Post » ezeeriter  
    • D.E.Kesler
      Posted on January 13, 2012 at 9:22am

      An irrationally angry woman losing custody of her children is hardly evidence of a divinity. It is evidence of nothing more miraculous than a concerned relative and a sympathetic judicial system.

      Seriously, if we wish to unduly give your god credit for Jennifer Petkov loosing custody of her children, then we must also give your god credit for the death of a seven year old girl from Huntington’s disease.

      Report Post »  
  • Randyrocker
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:24pm

    This mother is getting what she deserves, if she doesn’t want to be a responsible mother, she gets to be no mother at all.

    Report Post »  
  • Devil Dog 7175
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:21pm

    Do you think this just “RUBS HER ASS RAW”? (Where have I heard that befor?) Karmas a bee-och aint it Bee-och!

    Report Post » Devil Dog 7175  
  • dmacfadyn
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:15pm

    I am far from her judge, but her judgment will come eventually. And, I’d hate to have to answer for what she has done.

    Report Post »  
  • LovinUSA
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:13pm

    Geeze, she appears to be still very child like herself, there’s some pretty deep seeded problems with this woman, I’d hate to see how her kids act….

    Report Post » LovinUSA  
  • DevotedDad
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:04pm

    Holy crap! After 10 years of helping parents who have been victimized by Family Court corruption, it seems that they may have actually done the right thing.

    Maybe there is hope for mankind after all…

    Sean Delevan

    Report Post » DevotedDad  
  • 1stzookid
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:51pm

    There is a GREAT community.

    You reap what you sow. to the lady that had her kids taken. Since she treated this little girl this way, she has to be an unfit mother. Go Daddy get your babies

    Report Post » 1stzookid  
  • ensemble
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:49pm

    HIPP- why in the world are you on the side of a bullying horror of a mother. To pretend like it was a Halloween decoration is an outright dishonesty. This disgusting behavior happened weeks ago, Halloween isn’t for another couple of weeks. Why in the world are you making excuses for someone who harrasses a child? What is wrong with you?

    Report Post »  
  • NoProlesHere
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:44pm

    My heart bleeds for that little girl. You know, during my entire life I was tought that it wasn’t polite or even nice to talk about religion or politics. Well, how far has that gotten us?? Look how lost some people in this world have become. Maybe it’s time to stop pretending to be “tolerant” and “politically correct”. Rather than take the easy path of anger, we really need to pray that this woman can see the huge mistakes she is making or pray that she gets the help that she needs.

    Report Post »  
  • W3NS
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:43pm

    God bless you kathleen

    Report Post »  
  • ILFarmer
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:41pm

    Call it Karma or irony, people like that need to realize that they aren’t above morality.

    Report Post »  
  • HippoNips
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:38pm

    There is nothing heartbreaking about this story except the fact that a single news report telling the claims of one side, sparked the majority to be erroneously shocked and disgusted.
    This story is the creation of the little girl’s crazy grandmother who called the news to make claims about the intentions of their neighbors., whose children are playmates of the little girl.
    This story is about Halloween decorations and some whacked out grandma living on crazy lane.

     
    • truthfully
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:13pm

      Are you her — your filled with just as much vile
      PS : the kids are better off (I care about children)

      Report Post » truthfully  
    • PeachyinGA
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:20pm

      “Nothing heartbreaking about this story”? Do you approve of her Facebook postings?

      Report Post » PeachyinGA  
    • dmacfadyn
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:30pm

      Hey, do you also approve of her interview about “rubbing the daughter’s ass raw?” Didn’t think so.

      You must be related to the slut.

      Report Post »  
    • missbosslady
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:51pm

      I think you’re going for the record here, just how many times can one person be wrong on one thread.

      The offender most certainly did have an opportunity to tell her side, I saw it myself, and when confronted she continued to try and defend her actions.

      Hippo, I think there is something seriously wrong with you.

      Report Post »  
    • HippoNips
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:52pm

      As if it matters. The 7 year old never saw the photo and if she did, grandma or daddy showed her
      That’s the point, The chid was not harmed by the neighbors in any way. Yet, whackos here want other children to be ripped from their mother because they assume she was, or some reporters put forth the claims of the grandmother ,who been having a grudge match with the neighbors for years.
      The neighbors initial reaction was from being confronted over something idiotic by the press.
      All of you want her children punished now.

      Report Post »  
    • Reluctor Dominatus
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 7:10pm

      Hipponips The honest truth is that what was said on video is enough for me to say her kids need to be out of there.

      I met an old guy in 1957 when I was 5 years old. He was famous in western Nebraska for his indian artifact collection…he even saw Geo Custer go through Sidney on his way to glory; the guy was OLD! I asked him about cowboys and indians as any 5 year old would and he told me something I will never forget. He said that cowboys, and everybody else, were mannerly for a reason…their life depended on it. Everybody carried guns and the nearest law was hours away. He said that there were a lot of holes with foul mouthed cowboys on the plains that nobody will ever know about.

      You and Richard LH are very lucky you live in a time where ‘unresolved issues’ are allowed.

      Report Post »  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 7:40pm

      Once again, the courts do not hand out protective orders unless there is evidence. Before this story even made it to the Internet, protective orders were in place. Somewhere, somehow a judge hear evidence and signed the orders. So, the reporter really had nothing to do with the creation of this mess. The reporter simply brought the situation forward.

      As for the Facebook page, well – welcome to the new cyber world. Employers and many others are looking at Facebook these days and Ms. Petkov is not the first one to feel the consequences of what she posted on her Facebook page. However, in her case, when she ran her mouth off on the video tape, she won the 1st place prize and is now dealing with CPS. Her actions and her actions alone brought that about.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • MissCherryJones
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 9:14pm

      Are you serious? Petkov freely admitted, in several news interviews why she was doing it. And you are defending her? I’m not even going to comment about her kids being taken away; I don’t know on what grounds the judge determined that. Neither do you. Unless you were in that courtroom-then by all means, share- you have no leg to stand on condemning that judgment. But that woman proudly admitted what she did and why. Why on earth would you think it is defensible to do that to a child? Any child, let alone one that is ill. Life expectancy is irrelevant. It is disgusting. Would you feel the same way if someone did that to one of your relatives? I bet you’d have a different mindset then.
      And Hallowe’en decorations my ass. That coffin/truck was done months ago. It was the only excuse they could think of.

      Report Post »  
    • Hmschlmom
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 2:42am

      Hippo, the woman‘s OWN children were being harassed about their mother’s bad behavior AT SCHOOL. She didn’t care enough about her own children to grow up and knock it off.
      Sounds to me like a candidate for Mother of the year, there…
      (that’s why she lost custody to their Dad)

      Report Post » Hmschlmom  
  • LadyIzShy
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:33pm

    while I am personally THRILLED to learn of this. i do wonder on what grounds they took the kids from her.. I mean was she harming her own kids in some way or is ot her lack of morals?

    Report Post » LadyIzShy  
    • PeachyinGA
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:16pm

      …. yes on both counts because they are one in the same.

      Report Post » PeachyinGA  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 12:28pm

      You shouldn’t be able to take someones kids away because they show a lack of morals. Even if she was actively teaching her kids to grow up to be complete bullies just like her, she still doesnt deserve to have her kids taken away. it’s each parents right to choose how they raise their own children, even if everyone else disagrees with it.

      Report Post »  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 11:20pm

      Just a clarifying point here, the State did not take the children away from Ms. Petkov. Her ex-husband, the children’s father, requested an emergency custody hearing, probably after seeing the video clip where Ms. Petkov was almost ready to deck the reporter, and the judge granted it. Apparently there were people in the neighborhood who knew about the information on the Facebook page because their children were talking about it to Ms. Petkov’s kids in school. So, it sounds like it was fair well known and public knowledge. And, no, I don’t believe that Kathleen Edward had anything to do with that. However, the children’s father was apparently also aware of the situation and felt that this was not good for his daughter and son. I can’t fault him on that. The kids don’t need to be a part of this mess.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • Hmschlmom
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 2:31am

      My understanding is, it is because her children are being harassed and bullied at school themselves, because of their mother’s behavior…and she still won’t stop it! Calls her priorities into question just a bit with her kids…

      Report Post » Hmschlmom  
  • ensemble
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:28pm

    This is such a heartbreaking story. How can a mother be so cruel to the child of another mother? Petkov is nothing short of a bully. Schools are attempting to teach children about the dishonor and brutality of bullying. How a woman, a mother, an American, a human being ..can be so horrible is astounding. Thank God for the amazing people who have come together to support this girl and her family. When something terrible happens, it is joyous that other people will step up and step in ..in order to right a wrong.

    Report Post »  
  • HEARDENOUGHCRAP
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:26pm

    It takes a lot of guts to taunt a 7-year-old. If this woman isn’t on illegal drugs, then she is a psycopath. The father should DEFINATELY get PERMANATE custody, and she should not be allowed to even SEE her own children without a court appointed liason. She deserves jail time for harrasment. There is NO excuse for this kind of behavior. I’m glad, however, that because Pedkov’s actions, attention is being focused on this little girl, and maybe some good will come out of it.

    Report Post »  
  • HippoNips
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:25pm

    Following what the media claims is idiotic, they sensationalize everything.
    The fact is the old truck with the coffin and decorations were a Halloween display. The child is not old enough to have a Facebook account , so the ‘mocking’ of the child is accurate.
    On top of that the child is NOT dying anytime soon, she‘s apt to live until she’s 50 or more.
    The issue was with the crazy grandma and the neighbors.

    Report Post »  
    • HippoNips
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:30pm

      * the mocking of the child is NOT accurate

      Report Post »  
    • Rogue
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:50pm

      Seriously, Hippo?

      What does the child not having a facebook have to do with anything? This woman posted photos of the little girl’s head above crossbones on her OWN page.

      And as for the little girl being “apt to live until she’s 50″, this 7 year old has Huntington’s Disease. The life expectancy is usually 20 years from the first noticable physical symptoms, which this girl alredy shows. She will be extremely lucky to make it to age 30.

      The coffin on the truck is a haloween decoration, I agree. But what else about this story was sensationalized? Tell me exactly why the grandmother and neighbors are at fault for this woman across the street mocking the child and her dead mother on the internet? My understanding is the disagreement started over a child’s birthday party where someone was not invited… please tell me how you justify ANYTHING that would lead from that point to this horrible excuse for a mother openly making fun of a neighbor dying, let alone dragging her sick 7 year old into the mix.

      Report Post » Rogue  
    • WISEPENNY
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:51pm

      HIPPONIPS,
      It sounds like you may be her buddy maybe? Whether the little girl has a facebook account or not is point mute. The REAL point is that any adult that sets out on a personal vendetta with that much vigor over her kids not being invited to the party, is unarguably wrought with psychological issues that need to be addressed. IMO The “juggalette” neighbor has still more karma to pay before it’s over.

      Report Post »  
    • HippoNips
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:06pm

      The photo is not of a little girl with bones added to it.
      It’s a photo of a little girl in last years Halloween costume.
      Huntingtons suffers almost all live past 40, some much longer.
      This little girl is NOT on her death bed, nor near it.
      So the fact are, the little girl is NOT dying, the decorations are for Halloween, the child is a playmate of the accused children and the photo is one from last year posted again for Halloween.
      The grandma is the loony . She called the local news to create controversy and to take a stab at the neighbors that she never got along with.
      NO child was harmed in any of this , yet you have people here wantng other children to be ripped from their mother for “justice” and “karma” skae Those children will be the ones harmed in all this, so don’t pretend to care about children.

      Report Post »  
    • IWILLSTAND
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:27pm

      The fact that you can even TRY to justify the actions of this mother shows that either a) you are nuts yourself b) you are a family friend or c) you have done something just as vile and have to vindicate her to vindicate yourself.

      Regardless of how long this child is expected to live, she has a hideous disease that will eventually degrade her life and ultimately take it from her. To taunt a child for any reason is evil in the purest sense of the word. You need to take a good look in the mirror and find out why your heart can’t see that.

      Report Post »  
    • missbosslady
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:48pm

      Wow! Hippo, you’re a dippo!

      Get a clue.

      Are you actually defending this slimy woman? I find that incredible.

      Report Post »  
    • Serenity4jwr
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:00pm

      A Point-by-Point rebuttal to “Hipponips”
      Jennifer Lynne Petkov AND her husband have been deliberately tormenting and harrassing 4 people;
      Robert and Laura Edward, their 7-year old daughter Kathleen, and the child’s grandmother, Rebecca Rose.
      This harassment has been visual, verbal, electronic, and ongoing for a period of more than 2 years.
      This is in spite of a court-ordered restraining order granted to the child’s father, Robert Edward.
      Jennifer Lynne Petkov freely admits this in several taped public video reports.
      The “Death-decorated truck with the coffin was constructed MONTHS ago. Clearly not an innocent “halloween decoration”. There have been reports of Scott Petkov stopping the truck in front of the Edwards home and gunning the engine, blaring the horn, etc. for attention. Several different neighbors have reported different types of threats and harassment also. Jennifer Lynne Petkov was also recently arrested for trying to run over another neighbor she had threatened last year. As far as the Facebook account, 3 of the 4 people harassed are over 21, so that is a moot point. The Petkov’s children have been confronted within their own school by other children who have seen the Facebook page; obviously
      children within the 7-yr old’s Peer group are aware of this Hate/Mocking campaign also. That would clearly be the basis for a charge of an adult harassing/cyberbullying a minor.
      As for Kathleen Edwards living to be 50 or more? She is in the FINAL stages of Huntington’s disease, under Hospice care for the dying. For that matter, her age or lifespan mean nothing to the charge of harassment or cyberbullying. If someone assaults you, YOUR age doesn’t matter at ALL.
      You claim the issue is with the “CRAZY” grandmother? ANY grandmother would object to someone tormenting a dying little girl-there isn’t ANYTHING crazy about that.
      When Fox Detroit asked Jennifer Lynne Petkov why she was being such a dick, she only had this to say:
      “Personal satisfaction! Because it rubs their ******** raw! Burns their ********! Because it burns Rebecca Rose’s ******* raw to make fun of her dead daughter on that page. Take it or leave it.” She’s not denying her behavior; she shows no remorse; she‘s clearly gloating about the misery she’s caused.
      In the future, why don’t you do a little personal research before you start mouthing off on A SUBJECT YOU CLEARLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.

      Report Post » Serenity4jwr  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:23pm

      Interesting, so are you claiming, Hipponips, that Ms. Petkov did not in fact say on to the reporter that she had added the taunting images to her personal Facebook page to annoy (I believe the expression was “burn her [the grandmother's] a$$?

      Are you also claiming that the obvious aggression that Ms. Petkov showed toward the Edward’s family was either staged or otherwise manipulated?

      You see, if I was the other parent of the two children who reside in the Petkov home, I would also be extremely concerned about the safety of my children after seeing a video clip like that. And apparently that was enough grounds to convince the children’s father that they need to be with him, along with a judge and CPS. All that happened on the Petkov’s side of the street. The Edwards had nothing to do with that.

      How long Kathleen Edwards is going to live is really not part of the issue. That is up to God, quite frankly, but the fact that her mother did die of the same disease at a relatively young age is not what I would call a positive indicator. What Kathleen Edwards’ grandmother did or did not do is not the issue here.

      The issue is that Ms. Petkov posted some questionable things on her Facebook page and it got noticed. She then became aggressive with the reporters. I also seem to recollect that there were protective orders issued to keep the Petkov’s away from the Edwards family. Judges do not hand those out lightly and cause has to be shown.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 8:21am

      Don’t look now, but your own level of anger is showing.

      Okay, – right, wrong or otherwise – the issue was about how she was treating the family across the street – provoked or unprovoked. In the very first video clip, Ms. Petkov became angry enough with the reporter that it looked like she was going to deck the reporter. At that point, it raises a question of if that’s how angry she gets with a kid across the street, what happens when she deals with her own two children? And that‘s the question that the children’s father was apparently asking. He has rights, also. He chose to exercise those rights.

      As for the rest of us on this board, most of us agree with the children’s father. No one is talking about drunken Sunday morning swearing or running people down. Obviously you know more about the situation than the rest of us. However, the simple facts are she was not getting along with her neighbors for whatever reason. She ran her mouth off at a reporter. It was posted on the internet and went worldwide. Welcome to the world wide web. The children’s father either saw it or was told about it and became concerned enough to contact CPS and a judge. Apparently, there’s been a history with this woman. He was awarded custody. Everything else in this case is window-dressing.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • JGP
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 10:06am

      This is off the subject, but HIPPO-NIPS? What’s that mean? Like really big…. you know nips?

      Report Post »  
    • JGP
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 10:34am

      Never mind, I shouldn’t have asked that.

      Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 12:27pm

      My question to you hipponips is this. Why doesen’t the father have any right to intervene in his own childrens raising? He is clearly concerned about them. We can’t assume that just because the mother had the kids at the time he is an unfit parent. Judges often grant custody to mothers just because that is the way it is done. I know alot of great dads who don’t have custody because the judge wanted the kids to be with thier moms.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
  • Sunnyr
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:25pm

    What she was doing to her children‘s psyche’s is very damaging. They were learning how to be little Bullies of the future. This woman needs a good SHRINK. She’s a real nutcase.

    Report Post » Sunnyr  
    • ZaphodsPlanet
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 9:41pm

      No Shrink can ever help that woman. What she needs is a good ass kicking, literally and metaphorically. Bullies don’t stop being bullies until they pick on the wrong person then have their ass handed to them. It‘s like so many of life’s lessons. It‘s also why it’s so important for us to stick up for ourselves and not be the victims the liberals want us all to be.

      Something good has come of this though. Kathleen, the recipient of this wack jobs hatred is being celebrated for the beautiful, kind, wonderful little girl that she is. She may not be with us as long as any of us would like, but she’s being surrounded by love and good will. I hope they are able to help her somehow. But this, if nothing else, shows just how great the people of America are and can be.

      Report Post » ZaphodsPlanet  
  • TallTexasTea
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:23pm

    Karma…

    Report Post »  
  • Greyhound424
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:19pm

    The vile creature that is harassing that little 7 year old girl will burn in hell unless she repents for what she has done!!!

    Report Post »  
  • Jezreel
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:19pm

    She is not a good role model for raising children. She will raise mean cold hearted bullies like herself if she still keeps them. I still hope and pray God uses this to break her soul and spirit and bring her to repentance. The sorrow of the world works death but godly sorrow works to repentance. She has to have the genuine type of sorrow that will give her a life changing experience and all of us need that.

    Report Post »  
  • zagfan
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:18pm

    I feel very sorry for her children on one hand, but perhaps they are better off not being around such a hateful mother. They may stand a chance now!

    She deserves all she gets…!!!

    Report Post » zagfan  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 10:54am

      I don’t feel sorry for the children at all. If this woman acts like this towards a dying little girl how do you think she treats her own kids? I was the recipient of alot of emotional abuse growing up and it took years out of the home as an adult to get my head together. Those kids didn’t go into the system, they went with thier father. Lets all pray he is a better and more caring parent than thier mother who is a monster.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 12:16pm

      C’mon…You seriously believe you have the right to judge how fit she is to be a parent based purely on this story? Thats ridiculous. As long as she is not sexually abusing or neglecting this child she doesn’t deserve to have her children taken away from her. In a free society you have the right to raise you children as you see fit, even if other may disagree with how you raise them.

      Report Post »  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 2:50pm

      Are saying the father has no rights to raise his children? At least until this is sorted out; he is the childrens biological father and has a right to show concern.

      Report Post » Untameable-kate  
    • Eternal Lucy
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 4:46pm

      Yes Richard. I think it’s called “child endangerment.” Her children are in danger of being brought up in a bad environment as evidenced by her heinously abusive actions toward other child(ren). I think her mental state and outlook – as well as the role model of her behavior by ANYONE’s standards – qualifies her as an “unfit” parent.

      BTW, I think she’s got a very “hard” looking face. Not pretty in the slightest.

      Report Post » Eternal Lucy  
    • Hmschlmom
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 2:20am

      According to ANOTHER version of this news story, her children were bullied (fistfights) at school, because of their Mother’s treatment of this 7 year old child. And SHE STILL WOULDN’T STOP!!!

      That makes her an unfit parent, when the biological father steps in and petitions for custody! The court was ABSOLUTELY right. She put her own sick mind games ahead of her children’s well being.

      I wouldn’t have agreed if CYS had taken them…but this is their DAD. Entirely different.

      Report Post » Hmschlmom  
    • richard the lion-hearted
      Posted on October 26, 2010 at 5:27pm

      @Eternal Lucy – You like to give your version of what ‘child endangerment’ is huh? With your definition if a father drinks excessively, even if he doesn’t harm his children, should have his kids taken away too?! You’re trying to be thought police on here like about 80% of the rest. Shame on you for trying to weave your pretentious ways into actual law, you along with all the rest of you who call yourself Americans. You have no idea what freedom our founding fathers fought and died for, most of you keep jumping back to the ‘status quo’ laws that have poisoned our society and your minds as well. You better wake up while there is still a thread of the Constitution to stand on.

      Report Post » richard the lion-hearted  
  • dressseller
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:18pm

    Jennifer Petkov sewed the seeds that are now sprouting and she has to take her consequences. But let’s pray for her and her children and all involved. What she did was hideous. I’m hoping she realizes that and will change her heart. That’s what our prayer for her needs to be.

    And praise be to God for the outpouring for little Kathleen and her family. This is once again proof that what some might mean for evil ..God can turn around and use for good.

    Report Post »  
  • walkwithme1966
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:17pm

    What goes around, comes around — is that right? Karma – the lady deserves to have her kids taken away – this was an appalling story!! http://maboulette.wordpress.com

    walkwithme1966  
  • TruthTalker
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:14pm

    She is getting what she deserves.

    Report Post »  
    • what4
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:49pm

      Shock treatments for years is what she deserves!

      Report Post »  
  • WISEPENNY
    Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:13pm

    I wonder how much personal satisfaction she’s getting now?

    Report Post »  
    • snowleopard3200
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:19pm

      What you sow you shall reap. In this case she had carried things to a level of harassment that I have never seen before; so it is she is getting the dividends of her investment into extreme hate.

      Look at how the community is coming togeather for the girl and her family, that indeed shows in any darkness of events sown by others, God can bring light and life from it.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • untameable-kate
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:24pm

      I am so glad the childrens’ father stepped in when he heard his psycho ex on the news. No one who would do this to a child deserves to keep her kids, who knows what kind of venom she is putting into her own kids’ heads.

      Untameable-kate  
    • Polwatcher
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:30pm

      What goes around comes around.

      Report Post »  
    • Venom
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:34pm

      It isn’t any of my Venom, just sayin….

      Venom  
    • chazman
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 4:49pm

      That dippy chick is carrying a lot of hatred … now she lost her kids. Wouldn’t surprise me, ya know, what she does next.

      Report Post »  
    • CultureWarriors
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:00pm

      This is a dangerous person. Unstable.

      Report Post » CultureWarriors  
    • LovinUSA
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:06pm

      I just can not believe we have someone with such hatefulness in them, makes you wonder what has happened to this person in her past to make her the Devil’s Deciple.

      Report Post » LovinUSA  
    • GBMBulletsSKNRD
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:16pm

      I am so glad that at least one good thing came out of this sick story. A little girls smile!!!!!!

       
    • glassbeadlady
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:32pm

      When did we lose our humanity? Why can’t we treat others as we would have others treat us. God bless this little girl and shame on the woman with no human left in her and now she has lost her own children with no regrets. hummm. God help us all

      glassbeadlady  
    • notsodumblond
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:38pm

      I think the lady needs some mental help…

      Report Post »  
    • richard the lion-hearted
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:44pm

      As dispicable as the young mother’s hate being openly displayed is, all you so-called strict small government people should take a look in the mirror. The government, local, state, federal, has no business taking children from any parent UNLESS there is a crime, ACTUAL harm coming to those kids. That is the end of the arguement to any of you calling yourselves small government people, patriots, christians or whatever. You don’t get to cherry-pick the freedoms of those you don’t agree with you pinheads!! Wait until your children get taken from you because you said something someone else didn’t like, then tell me with all your venomous hatred towards this misguided woman how you just KNOW how she will raise her children, that you know all her thoughts based on a 24 hr. revolving news cycle. Typical emotional response and condemnation of someone from reactionary, emotionally-based mush-heads, punish her even if it means violating her personal liberties. That’s how all these ridiculous emotionally-based laws have gotten passed to create this ‘politically correct’ society. THINK PEOPLE!!

      richard the lion-hearted  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:51pm

      Karma, it’ll catch up to you eventually – usually not this fast or hard though.

      Does anyone know what the original problem was? There was some disagreement that got blown out of all sense of proportion, but I’ve never heard mention of what the original problem was…

      Report Post » beekeeper  
    • jds7171
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 5:59pm

      @ richard
      That is what the government is suppose to do. If your mom is a crazy psycho, they are suppose to protect you from her. Not shake down a 7 year olds lemonade stand.

      Report Post »  
    • beekeeper
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:04pm

      Richard the Lion-Hearted wrote:

      The government, local, state, federal, has no business taking children from any parent UNLESS there is a crime, ACTUAL harm coming to those kids. That is the end of the arguement to any of you calling yourselves small government people, patriots, christians or whatever.

      Wrong – there does not need to be physical abuse or a conviction of a crime to justify removal of the child from the mother., not in this case – you seem to have lost track of the facts:

      This woman was once married to someone else
      They had some children together
      They got divorced
      The divorce court awarded custody to the mother, not the father
      The mother later acted in a manner that cast doubt on her ability to raise her children in a stable environment, at least in the eyes of the children’s father
      The father filed to have her custody rights revoked and granted to the father
      The father (apparently) was able to convince the court that she was not able to maintain and raise THEIR children in a stable environment
      The court assigned custody to the father

      The state initiated no legal proceedings against this woman for her acts, and the revocation of custody was based on whatever doubt and concern the father was able to convince the judge existed in her ability to care for their children. If she had any children by her new boyfriend/partner/husband, they would have remained with the mom.

      beekeeper  
    • Bee Gee
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:07pm

      @Richard the lion hearted – Calm down and read the story again. The gov didn’t yank her kids away from her. The father of the children filed for custody after the mom went off the deep end. The judge just made the decision as to which parent was better suited to care for the kids.

      Report Post »  
    • richard the lion-hearted
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:18pm

      beekeeper – Obvious to me that you are a government-loving person, you are so wrong to site existing laws as if they are constitutional or correct. Being de-programmed is alot harder than most care to think (think being the key word) about. Show me in the Constitution where the government has the right to arbitrarily take children from a home, designate who the children will live with, or how the children shall be raised for the greater good of society? Based on a temper tantrum not even focused on her children?! Wake up or just go back to sleep and ‘shutteth thy mouth’, please with all due respect…

      richard the lion-hearted  
    • richard the lion-hearted
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:27pm

      bee gee – You didn’t know that a judge is a representitive of government did you? You silly, uninformed person you. You don’t think the sensationalism of the news story had anything to do with his decision huh? Sooo many sheep…it doesn‘t matter who we elect if people think this way about government’s role in our lives or the gossip news either. The kids were taken from her because of the gossip news cycle and the judge’s awareness of it, and his lack of doing his job properly. Where is the ‘alleged’ abuse of her kids bee gee, where is the lack of their immediate needs being alleged or cited?! Time to wakey…

      richard the lion-hearted  
    • rebel
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:35pm

      prime example of something good coming from something bad.

      Report Post » quiet little lamb  
    • Helen-of-Joy
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:37pm

      @Richard the Lion Hearted.

      You make some good points. We lose sight of what is important and that is those children. Rarely is it a good idea to remove them from their home due to further trauma. I have to trust that the department in charge of their welfare did their job investigating other mitigating circumstances we are not aware of. Otherwise, I would have to agree with you.

      I don’t see evil here. I see a highly immature woman with serious impulse control. If that were a crime my ex would be sentenced to life in prison without parole. And that is just starting the list of dumb asses I’ve known.

      Report Post » Helen-of-Joy  
    • bookhound63
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:40pm

      @ Richard, does your idea of small govt include a judicial system? It IS, after all, the third branch of govt, and is there, not only to prosecute criminals but to arbitrate when citizens have a legal dispute which they CHOOSE to take before the courts. The Dad saw this woman’s unstable actions. He sued for custody and won. He had every right to bring his case before a judge. This has NOTHING to do with CPS snatching kids and NOTHING to do with the size of govt.

      Report Post » bookhound63  
    • Bee Gee
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 6:45pm

      Richard – Can you not have a conversation without being so condescending? Were you in the courtroom? Do you know the father? Are you of the mindset that a father can’t love his kids just as much as the mother? Or care for them just as well or better in some cases? I don’t know what was said in the courtroom, but apparently the judge sided with the father. And God bless him for stepping up.
      FYI – Smaller government doesn’t mean NO government.

      Report Post »  
    • Huckabee Gingrich 12
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 7:15pm

      @DICK
      Justice was done. Why have you got a problem with that?

      Report Post » Huckabee Gingrich 12  
    • Flashover
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 9:13pm

      This is just another woman who feels entitled. Why was she awarded custody in the first place? I bet she acted this way with her ex before the divorce. There is a very good chance she was abusive to her husband before the divorce and because most of the laws concerning custody are completely bias in the mothers favor he still lost custody. I have been through having a mentally and physically abusive wife. I had video and audio recordings. She was also arrested for domestic abuse and still that didn’t matter. Why? Simple, Lady Justices scales aren’t balanced when it comes to fathers. What did she have on me you might ask? Nothing, I have been a firefighter for 10yrs, don’t drink and could pass a drug test.
      The reason I started videoing and recording these events was to prove that I was not being abusive myself.

      However, in the face of the national media covering this blaring debacle the judge had no choice but to act. This father finally got proof. I hope he raises his children with love and discipline.

      Report Post »  
    • Anarcho Capitalist
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 9:20pm

      RICHARD THE LION-HEARTED
      Your right

      Report Post » Anarcho Capitalist  
    • SummerB
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 10:37pm

      @Richard said, “The government, local, state, federal, has no business taking children from any parent UNLESS there is a crime, ACTUAL harm coming to those kids.”

      You think it’s emotionally healthy for kids to be in an environment with such a hateful mother. Apparently, the kids father didn’t think so.

      And I certainly hope removal of her kids, “rubs HER A*S RAW!” because she definitely deserves it. Karma can be a bi*ch.

      Report Post »  
    • BurntHills
      Posted on October 23, 2010 at 11:51pm

      put a shiny miniskirt on her and stick her under a streetlight in a ghetto somewhere, that‘s the type of face she’s got, it’s that ice-eyed smirk.

      Report Post » BurntHills  
    • nosycophant
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 1:03am

      If only she was buying SNOWLEOPARD mix art she would not be in trouble because pictures of people with dog ears or horns are what keep people good, WTF is with the art?

      Report Post »  
    • jzs
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 1:11am

      The GOVERNMENT took away her child. The GOVERNMENT. What right does the Government have to judge and take a child away from this Christian mother? Are you saying that the GOVERNMENT knows better what is best in this persons private life? That’s Marxism. The mother’s quotes were taken out of context and the facebook photos were faked by the liberal lamestream media and the enemies of freedom. How can you support this GOVERNMENT intrusion on to the most private and treasured part of the human experience, the love of a mother for her child?

      Report Post » jzs  
    • godlovinmom
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 4:24am

      when I first heard this woman on the news I was shocked…could not believe a grown woman could act that way towards a sick child…but you know unfortunately there are some people like her….its good to see people coming out in support of the little girl…

      Report Post » godlovinmom  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 7:46am

      I would like to interject some caution here
      http://cps-victims-unite.com/?page_id=36
      while this case is justified , I can for see this
      turning into a law that chills free speech.
      after all do you want the govt to take your kids because of
      something you post on facebook ? Maybe some old pictures from
      your youth ?

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 8:04am

      Richard the Lion Hearted -

      You are claiming there is government interference. No, it’s parental interference. The CHILDREN’S FATHER, not the woman’s current husband – did not want his kids involved in that mess. There are increased cases of Cyber bullying and the number of deaths related to this type of bullying is climbing. During the video interview at one point, Ms. Petkov looked like she was ready to hit the reporter and was very aggressive. Clearly there are some major anger management issues there. Why was I not surprised to find out in this story that she had a “former” marriage.

      Ms. Petkov can say what she wants and do what she wants. Her problems began when she started attacking a seven year old on the Internet. Her former husband objected to that, and if you read the earlier story carefully, you‘ll see that this wasn’t an isolated incident.

      From your post, you are actually objecting to a divorced parent caring for his/her kids. The children were not removed from the household and placed into foster care by CPS. They were removed from the household because their father petitioned for custody and was awarded custody. He is still their father. He has the right to be concerned and apparently a judge agreed.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • Stuck_in_CA
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 8:20am

      Karma?

      Report Post » Stuck_in_CA  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 9:05am

      @TAQ, I wish you would have read my post.
      I did state that in this case it was JUSTIFIED.
      reason and logic will lead to truth but you have to
      be able to comprehend information. The reason I said this may turn into a law
      IN THE FUTURE not now is I question why it is getting so much news coverage ?
      Right after the gay suicide story, also connected to internet posting
      it’s like Porn you may not like it, but free speech is not about the things
      everyone likes.That’s why we put in the 1st amendment.

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 11:34am

      these skull & bones scare me more and makes better news
      http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_skullbones05.htm

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • richard the lion-hearted
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 11:40am

      Taquoshi – You obviously missed the point, you‘re going to sit there and tell me ’cyber-bulling’ is worse than actual bullying (face to face) that we all went through at some point as kids?! Did we respond emotionally and demand a law be struck to stop even the ‘appearance’ of bullying?! Answer is NO, because we were not a bunch of emotionally driven people (as much) then. We dealt with it on a personal, person to person level, didn’t take inaction as a consolation and made sure OUR children were safe because, guess what? It’s OUR responsibility as parents not the GOVERNMENT! You can spout all you want about the father’s rights but that is not the point, the point is sensationalism driven gossip news influenced the decision and personal liberties were most probably sacrificed as a punishment. Ever wonder why the father didn’t have custody to begin with? I don’t know either way, just asking, off the topic of dangerous precedence being set with knee-jerk emotional responses to GOSSIP news and people emotionally responding, backing action against her when despite the despicable nature of her immature responses, she broke no law. Did you know you have to be in high school to be on facebook? That’s the rules so this young girl if she was on facebook was on illegally, and where was her mother looking out for her? Should she have her kids taken away? Doesn’t she know that predators search out under age children on all social networking sites and messengers?!

      Report Post » richard the lion-hearted  
    • neversaynever
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 11:42am

      What this woman said is reprehensible, but she does not deserve to lose her kids over this. This single incident does not show that she is an un-fit parent, and yet again the nanny state comes in to take away a persons child because they do not agree with the way a person acts/talks. The ONLY reasons a kid should be removed from a parent is because of Sexual abuse, neglect, and repeated physical abuse that crosses the boundary of spanking a child. It is not the governments job to decide how you should raise your child, and though you may find her actions disgusting (as I do) she still has the right to live her life and raise her kids in the manner she chooses. She should and will face charges of harrassment, but should all parents who face harrassment charges lose their right to raise the kids? No. If her children were shown to be underfed or abused then they would have a case. this, however, is not one.

      Report Post »  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 12:13pm

      Wow, Richard, you apparently already know what I think! Amazing, since I just sat down to read the thread.

      Cyber bullying is different from what we experienced at school because of its very nature. It’s all over the world. In case you haven’t noticed, people have actually lost their jobs over stuff (true or otherwise) posted on the Internet. For some reason, you keep mentioning that Kathleen was on Facebook. Do you have proof of that? And if she was, why was she reading Ms. Petkov’s page? I find those two items hard to believe. Ms. Petkov posted the objectional items on her own Facebook page and others in the community saw it. They probably contacted the family. Also Ms. Petkov’s children were being confronted about this at school. I don’t know where the kids were getting their information, but I very much doubt it was from Kathleen. And if you think about it, Kathleen isn’t really a player in this whole farce. She may be the catalyst, but I don‘t think she’s a player. And quite truthfully, neither are Ms. Petkov’s children. The point is that Ms. Petkov did something on the Internet that was perceived as cruel and unusual by the community. It went viral. That’s a chance she took when she put up the pictures on her page. And she is reaping the consequences of her own actions.

      In traditional custody suits, the mother is usually award custody. The mother usually remains in the “home” (apartment – whatever) while the father relocates to a new apartment or house. Unless there is reason to believe that the mother can not or is not fit to care for the children, it works out. This case apparently started that way, with Ms. Petkov having custody. However, the children’s father still has rights. When this whole mess went viral, he requested and was granted an emergency custody hearing. He expressed his concerns about HIS children and the judge agreed. The order was signed and the children were removed from a situation that was becoming increasingly aggressive.

      This is not about the Edward family. This is about Ms. Petkov, her children and her ex-husband. CPS was just the vehicle of transportation for the kids between their mother and their father.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • dr pepper
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 12:18pm

      Richard, your point is well taken and thought out, but failed to recognize the first time the government intervened on behalf of the children. This occurred when the divorce occurred and removed the children from the father. His rights to raise his children were trampled on by the government when it placed his children in the custody of their mom and limiting his visitation rights. What say you on this point. You cannot be against a child being removed from a home this time, but be for it previously or that would be hypocritical.

      Children are to be protected from physical, emotional and psychological abuse of which only one leaves visible trauma. Your ascertain that the government had no right to step in and place the children with their biological father, after he petitioned the court for such, is tantamount to denying the biological father has any rights to the welfare of his children.

      Thus, according to your simplistic view of child custody as it relates to the government, the biological father could have taken his children without any government action, seeing as you believe government should not get involved in child custody suits. This is a flawed view of parental rights and defies cogent thought. Please expound on your argument that the government has no standing in child custody cases.

      Report Post »  
    • claymoremacm
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 12:30pm

      pretty face don’t make no pretty heart,what a sick discusting piece of trash

      Report Post » claymoremacm  
    • Infidel III
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 1:05pm

      Richard the lionhearted is right. Gov’t has no business legislating against idiocy/stupidity and cruelty (without physical violence). What is awesome, and the correct response IMHO, is the community’s response. Gov’t has no place taking children away. I can easily imagine children taken away from parents because the parents attended a TEA Party protest. As you know, all TEA party members are xenophobic, islamophobic, homophobic racists clinging to their guns and Bibles — no place for children ya know.

      Report Post » Infidel III  
    • UPSETVET
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 1:26pm

      Well, what goes down comes around. Huh? Her actions show she’s not playing with a full deck and could be a danger to her own kids.

      Report Post »  
    • DarienCrow
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 3:07pm

      richard the lion-hearted said:
      “Show me in the Constitution where the government has the right to arbitrarily take children from a home, designate who the children will live with, or how the children shall be raised for the greater good of society?”

      This is the meat of Richards argument and I will try to help him understand.

      First you have to understand that the Constitution was not created to “give” government the power to do anything… it was created to “limit” the power of government. You know this because of the way that it is written. The most powerful words in the Constitution are the commonly used words… “Congress shall make no law”. It is designed to tell Congress what they “Cannot” do. Plus their is a huge difference between Federal and State law… they both press the limits but they both must adhere to that same Constitution.

      The next argument you have is “government taking away children”. The “government” didn’t take away her children… a “judge” changed the custody from one parent to another. This was the result of the non-custodial parent filing a greivance with the court that he felt his children were being raised in an unhealthy enviornment… the judge agreed with the father. The “Father” took the children and the “Law” says that he can. So please “shutteth thy mouth”.

      Report Post »  
    • A1955Rosie
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 6:24pm

      To Richard. It was the FATHER who did this and as a parent to a child, rightly so. There are headlines full of “bully” these days. Children committing suicide because of the uglyness. They learn this someplace? As a parent, HE DID THE RIGHT THING. I understand what you’re saying about government however parental rights are just as high. Clearly America could see she was a “criminal type ” role model.

      Report Post » A1955Rosie  
    • crackerone
      Posted on October 24, 2010 at 11:24pm

      A soul mate for that Maddow fellow!!!!!!!

      Report Post »  
    • Equality 7-2521
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 12:29am

      Dariencrow,

      You are mistaken about the Constitution. It is not a charter of negative liberties as so many people like to say. It was written to explicitly define the government’s role and lay out what it can do (provide for national defense, coin money, operate post offices, etc.). It is the Bill of Rights which defines what the government cannot do. Just because a portion of the Constitution limits the government doesn‘t mean other parts don’t empower the government. The government is granted a very narrow scope of authority by the Constitution. Richard is correct… if the power is not explicitly stated in the Constitution then it is retained by the states or the people.

      Report Post » Equality 7-2521  
    • moonpeace
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 6:47am

      …and with the same measure that you cast your bread upon the waters it shall come back to you. God bless this little girl.

      Report Post » moonpeace  
    • Quack Addict
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 8:05am

      “I like turtles!”

      Report Post » Quack Addict  
    • Taquoshi
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 9:09am

      Tower,

      I was responding to Richard’s post, not yours. While I understand and actually agree with you about the chilling of free speech, this situation really boils down to a custody suit. The children’s father was the one that requested the emergency custody hearing, not the reporters or the Edward family.

      Regarding what people post on the Internet and say to reporters, people have become extremely aggressive in this day and age, especially with the Internet. Making provocative remarks has become quite common place and then people run and try to hide under the freedom of speech clause.

      Expressing one’s opinions or thoughts, such as Juan Williams did is one thing – and resulted in his being unjustifibly fired by NPR. What he said had nothing to do with NPR, nothing to do with his job. That, in my estimation, would be a viable Freedom of Speech case in court. Another case of abuse of freedom of speech was the recent episode in Illinois where the League of Women Voters refused to lead the group in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance before a debate. The audience then got to its feet and everyone spontaneously recited the Pledge. The moderator then lectured the audience about their “disrepect” to her. I think that’s another potentially viable Freedom of Speech case.

      In this particular case, Ms. Petkov posted some things on her Facebook page, and the community became involved. Then it moved from community concern to parental concern and her ex-husband, the children’s father, filed for custody and won.

      Report Post » Taquoshi  
    • gobluebuckeye
      Posted on October 25, 2010 at 9:36am

      That lady is scum, I don’t care what the back ground story is, once you mock a dying girl you have become trash, and its sad that there is people like that in this world.

      Report Post » gobluebuckeye  
1 2 3 ... 7

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love