Larry: Concerning the theft charge against Toogood in Texas, you are correct that she has not been proven guilty in a court of law and is therefore legally innocent; however, the fact of the matter is that she and her accomplice were seen leaving the store with stolen goods and were caught with the goods just outside the Kohl's store, according to the report I'd read. If she'd stayed in town and faced the charges, how would she have been found "not guilty" except on a technicality?

As to the four licenses, I have seen it reported as the finding of Mr. Joe Livingston, a senior agent with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division, who is researching the Toogood case. Doesn't an investigative discovery carry stronger weight than an allegation?

And as to Madelyne Toogood's abuse of her daughter Martha, I have to say that I am very tired of seeing you downplay it as nothing more than "a mother slapping a child and leaving no bruise" when Toogood herself has made statements to the effect that she not only slapped the child but shook her, pulled her hair, knocked her on the forehead and – according to the CNN interview that I linked above – struck her in her back. There's no medical examination that I know of that was done within one or two days of the incident caught on videotape, but I have read more than one statement from officials to the effect that it's possible that bruising could have healed by the time Martha was examined. But some of the abuse inflicted that day, such as the hair-pulling and the shaking, would not leave bruising in any case yet is nevertheless child abuse! Now, you or Bennett Zurofsky would have to tell me whether hair-pulling and shaking falls under the legal definition of battery, but aren't the various methods she used to strike her child considered battery (repeated slapping, knocking the forehead, striking the back)?

I don't know about anyone else on this thread, but I don't necessarily "want to lock up every parent that slaps their child", including Toogood. I read today on the SouthBendTribune.com site that Toogood is taking parenting and anger-management classes, so it seems she is cooperating with authorities in that respect. I made a statement back in Part 2 of this discussion to the effect that I didn't feel she should get any of her kids back until she learned to manage her anger; if she can put into practice the things she's learning in her classes, then I feel she should have her daughter returned to her eventually, with close supervision early on and with regular visits from child-protective services to be sure that she's not backsliding into old habits of anger non-management. As to long-term custody arrangements in the meantime, I read that authorities are considering the option of releasing Martha into the custody of Toogood's mother.

Frankly, though, I think that the fact that you know Madelyne Toogood's family and community, and have worked for a dozen years on cases of out-adoption of Travelers, is coloring your perception of this particular case. It just seems that you're trying so hard to tie this case in with your experience that you don't want to see it from anyone else's perspective. Just because you know the Toogood family doesn't mean that any morally or legally wrong thing that a family member does should be glossed over. Just because your parent struck you with a belt when you were a kid doesn't make that action okay; sorry, but I don't think your parent should have struck you any more than I think Toogood should have struck Martha. As the child-advocacy slogan goes, it shouldn't hurt to be a kid.