This is discouraging for me.

First off, where did you read it and is there proof and second even if true, the kids still need child support from the father and that is probably why she asked the question.

I think citizens ALSO owe something to their society or community. In this case the children are the victims. I think most adults take into consideration when deciding how many children to have:
1. Ability to provide individual time to care for each child.
2. Resources to care for the children's physical ( providing shelter, food, etc) psychological needs( investing in the child's development...helping with homework, guidance, etc)
Most people apply these principles EVEN when deciding whether or not to own a pet. Same story with the Octomom . She knew she didn't have the resources or physical capacity to care for all those kids. She also didn't care they wouldn't have a father). For her, it was about her personal and selfish needs....and who can forget Kare+8. Financial resources aside, being a parent is hard work. Children have extensive needs(not referring to finances).

All you have to do is Google Garry Brown Sr. Cocaine conviction Florida. You'll find it in numerous sites....take a pick.

Thanks, I didn't listen to video because most video don't come in closed caption, have a hearing problem. Also, didn't really read her particular case, was mostly arguing in abstract rather than one particular case.

Having done so, it is discouraging, she does seem ungrateful and neglectful and irresponsible. I can see the judge really had no choice but to take her children away from her.

Defiant Single Mom of 15 Jailed: Tells Court, "Give Me What I Need and Leave Me Alone."

However, now the children are still being cared for by the state. But really, what is the alternative?

Another thing, apparently this happened in 2010, why is it talked about now?

Because it's an interesting topic. Many people hadn't heard about it. Other cases of people like the Octomom and Katie+ 8 have aroused curiosity. I think most people are astounded at people making such irresponsible choices. Most women know how much attention and caring one child needs.

When I search Google for "Angel Adams", only one hit it gives me comes from an actual newspaper. The Tampa Bay Times reports that "the father of 10 of [the children], Garry Brown, was sentenced to five years for a cocaine conviction." It does not say if the conviction was for possession or distribution. Judging by further web searches about Florida sentencing guidelines, Mr. Brown's sentence, five years in prison, is compatible with both. For possessing cocaine, a third-degree felony, five years is the maximum sentence. For distributing cocaine, a second-degree felony, it is a middle-of-the-range sentence for small to moderate amounts. With this in mind, I'm not overly sceptical of the claim in various blogs that he was dealing. But it's true that the only sources actually saying this are right-wing pundits, not news reporters.

Was it not an interesting topic in 2010?

Do you think we should limit how many kids people have or you don't get any government assistance? Where is this conversation leading?

Who gets to decide how many children a woman may have? How would the candidate for such a position be chosen? Would it be subject to a means test? If the parents' means were reduced or curtailed, is the state to come and take away a number of children until the family unit is reduced to a size for which the state is prepared to give assistance? Sounds like a conservative nanny state to me.

This is the kind of attitude that leads to shutting off aid to the needy. Most people on welfare go on to work and do for themselves, but people like you paint them all as freeloaders anyway.

Thanks for that. Another story says he's in prison "on drug charges." No mention of whether he was using or dealing.

And searching the Tampa Bay Times website about as much effort as I want to put into this issue. I really don't see why it should be important that Adams's fiance is in jail on drug charges, whatever those charges may be. It seems to me that the main problem most people seem to have with Adams is that she doesn't express sufficient gratitude for all the benefits she has received. That may be so.

Let's all agree, then, that Angel Adams is a jerk. But so what? Is the state entitled to a particular level of gratitude in exchange for benefits conferred? I'm not aware of any such requirement. Cliven Bundy, after all, received about a million dollars worth of free grazing for his cattle, and his response to that governmental largesse was to threaten federal officials with bodily harm. Despite his lack of gratitude, however, Bundy was treated as a hero by some of the same people who, no doubt, think Adams should be dumped into Tampa Bay and devoured by manatees.

As I see it, Angel Adams doesn't have to say "thank you" to anyone. If she is entitled to government benefits, then she should get those benefits. And it's not like those benefits don't come with strings attached. One of the conditions for receiving aid, for instance, was that she had to identify the people who were visiting her children so the state could do background checks on those people. Had she not been receiving aid, the state could never have demanded that kind of scrutiny. It's as if the state is saying: "not only do we get to intrude into the smallest details of your life, but we also want you to thank us for it."

So let's agree that Adams is a jerk. A loving, engaged jerk whose kids are well-mannered and doing "outstanding" in school. It's too bad that she has become the poster child for ungrateful welfare recipients when there are so many in cowboy hats or pinstripe suits who would fit the role much better.

I read the article, according to it, she was neglectful of her children, they missed doctor appointments and school, they got threw out of an apartment because they trashed it, her son got caught with a knife at school. I mean clearly, the situation was chaotic, but I am sure there are poor white families in the same situation, I know some around my county, some of them could be look-a-likes for the movie Deliverance. Its the kids you feel the most sorry for as they seem to just continue the same cycle. I don't know the answer.

All I'm saying is...it's the first time many people have heard of this particular case...even if it is 2014. Of course not... any child deserves government assistance. I find it preposterous that you stated that given what I posted. Perhaps you're trying to label me one thing or another. Well...I'm a humanist. I lean towards what may have a chance of producing the best outcomes. I believe the incapacitated, the low IQ people, people with disabilities ( wether Down-syndrome or little people , or whatever anyone prefers ), deserve a chance to pursuit happiness...and to reproduce if they so choose. I say this ONLY because I see so many people type that IQ is required if you want human rights taken seriously. Seriously? BTW...I can't stand bigotry.

Well..I read that too. Who could possibly have the energy, time, enthusiasm, etc ....to fulfill the needs of all those kids?

Does it matter if he was using or dealing? Often dealers do it to satisfy their dependence. How does this affect the children? They had no choice in the matter.

I am not sure where you got I accused you of anything. I just wondered in general, what is the alternative except to offer government assistance to people in need, in this case, her children. I don't know any other answer.

Nope...it's a personal decision at least in some countries. But do you ever think it is appropriate for the authorities to intervene on the children's behalf at any point? There are children out there who are so exploited, degraded, neglected...

No problem here...I just thought you had formulated an erroneous opinion of my beliefs based on your previous response. I simply thought you weren't paying attention . It's all good.

More often than not, the public can access arrest records but not case disposition. Newspapers are generally interested in headlines. However, wether he was a cocaine addict or a trafficker , he couldn't have been a great influence on his kids.

Research.