It appears that the mother, at best, took advantage of her son having failed to log out and clear all cookies and personal history from his computer every time he leaves it for half a moment, and at best, straight-up hacked his account — read some things she didn’t like, and responded by posting things all over his page in an attempt to embarrass him and then going to the length of changing his passwords on his Facebook account and his email so that he couldn’t do any damage control after he found out about it.

She thinks that these actions constitute a “conversation” with her son.

The son lives with his grandmother. Someone, somewhere (I can’t find an attribution) claims that he and his mother had a “great relationship,” a claim that sounds suspiciously like the refrain that commonly comes from assaulters and abusers, from cheaters and absent parents and partners. They truly have no idea that something is deeply, thoroughly wrong with the relationship, and the signs of the second person in it — the object — protesting against that wrongness are lost on them.

Like, you know, the fact that her son does not live with her and prefers not to have any contact with her at all.

The mother is living it up in the face of all this attention. She gets to assert her ownership of her near-adult son and know that a great many will rally to her defense in response.

New plans on fighting the charges, as she believes she was fully within her legal rights as a parent to monitor her son’s online behavior.

“Oh yeah, I’m going to fight it. If I have to go even higher up, I’m going to. I’m not gonna let this rest. I think this could be a precedent-setting moment for parents,” she told KATV-TV. [source]

Denise New says she plans to fight the charges saying if the suit is successful it will be “open season” on all vigilant parents who seek to keep their children in line. [source]

“You’re within your legal rights to monitor your child and to have a conversation with your child on Facebook whether it’s his account, or your account or whoever’s account.” [source]

“If I’m found guilty on this it is going to be open season” on parents, New said Wednesday.

“You’re within your legal rights to monitor your child and to have a conversation with your child on Facebook whether it’s his account, or your account or whoever’s account,” she told KATV. [source]

“The things he was posting in Facebook would make any decent parent’s eyes pop out and his jaw drop,” Denise New said. “He had been warned before about things he had been posting.” [source]

Denise New acknowledged changing both passwords to keep her son from getting access to his Facebook page. She denied hacking into the account.

“He left it logged in on my computer,” she said. “It’s not like I stole his laptop.” [source]

Readers will note a common refrain in many of the non-strictly-news sources above (and found here): “What ever happened to de-friending?” As though this is a matter of a son allowing his mother to have viewing access to his page through her own account as a friend. The son may never have allowed his mother to have an inkling that he had a Facebook account: she still forced her way into it. Not in view of it, in control of it. This doesn’t have anyfuckingthing to do with who you friend and who you don’t.

Of course, most sites focus on the potential implications for parents’ rights, and there’s a good reason for that: our society cannot deal with the idea of children as full human beings with ownership of their own selves. It is firmly entrenched in our social consciousness that children are objects, possessions, things lacking full personhood, desire, decisionmaking ability, agency.

Much like women used to be (and are still, to some extent) considered, hm? Objects for the benefit of the full beings who own them. Women would be passed along from fathers to husbands, traded for physical and monetary property, no distinction between the two things in that transaction. Not identically, but similarly, children are considered objects owned by their parents much the same as wives were objects owned by their husbands. (I expect that mothers reading will feel this a little more intuitively than fathers might — knowing that oneself might be on the object end of that transaction can produce a different reaction, sometimes.)

It is interesting that the immediate reaction to this story on the part of adults, especially adults who have children, is to consider the parent’s plight in this story, completely neglecting the concerns of the child. And it reminds me how (feminist) abled women immediately rush to think about the plight of the caretaker in any story of caretaker abuse of PWD, completely neglecting the concerns of the person being given the care, as though they don’t even exist. As though they are objects: things that cannot be affected themselves, that can only affect the full persons in their non-lives.

It is telling, really, who we consider to be persons worthy of consideration, whose problems we consider to be important and worth solving — and who we consider to be persons completely ignorable, whose problems aren’t worth consideration and don’t particularly need any attention, much less any attempt at solving. (In fact, the solution to their problems might interfere with the solutions to the important problems — so they should be crushed if possible.)

This is what we are. People read this story of obvious, clear violation of boundaries, and think immediately on their own right to violate others’ boundaries: or else they resort immediately to blaming the victim for this clear violation of their own boundaries. The reaction more comment from non-parent adults.

How ridiculous, right? That a boy would assert his right to his own fucking life without his abuser’s interference. Especially when this parent doesn’t even have any fucking custodial rights! And we still rush to her defense. How poisoned are we?