Dad was an Accomplice to Murder: Jordan Anthony Brown

When an 11-year old boy, kills his father’s girlfriend that is indeed a cause for concern.  However, the case of Jordan Anthony Brown raises concerns from a number of different fronts.  There is the obvious issue of children being so exposed to violence that they become numb to the very violence that they themselves commit.  This is not the issue that interests me, although there is much to be said about the matter.  In fact, what I want to say is relevant to children becoming numb, but my point comes at the matter from a rather different angle.  The remarks in this blog entry are, with gratitude and appreciation, inspired by Michael T. McFall’s recent book Licensing Parents (Lexington Press, 2008).

In a striking way, we live in a society in which children have become “disposable”.  Of course, no one exactly says such a thing.  Indeed, there would be a rush to deny it.  I suggest, though, that the facts speak for themselves.

The world has never been perfect.  Still, it was not too long ago when the prevailing sentiment was that children came first.  In fact, there was a time when many a wife and husband stayed married—and in an amiable enough way—for no other reason than the sake of children.  The very idea was that children need an intact home in order to flourish and that nothing could possibly replace that arrangement.

In a word, the fragility of children was put before the needs of parents.

The odds are that the children came to understand that the relationship between their parents was less than perfect.  Still, there was no gainsaying the truth that they had their parents to together; and that simple fact counted for an awful lot.

Given all the talk about protecting children that goes on nowadays, it is striking and roundly incongruous that what we now in effect say that the interests of parents outweigh the interests of their children.  So if a deserted spouse feels lonely, then those feelings trump whatever needs that the children may have.

Or, in any case, it is maintained that the children will not mind.  After all, they are malleable creatures and will surely adjust.  And the very attitude that we now have towards daycare is in keeping with this view of children.

To hear the way people talk these days, it is just plain silly to think that parental care is preferable to daycare.  Only a fool would think that.  After all, children are malleable creatures and will surely adjust.

Given the way people talk nowadays, just about anything and everything will damage a child except parents putting their own interests above the interests of their child.  Many schools no longer use red ink to mark mistakes on a student’s work precisely because this is said to damage the child’s self-esteem.  How, one might ask, is a child’s self-esteem so fragile in the classroom but so robust in the home?  Needless to say, this duality is impossible.

This all brings me to Jordan Anthony Brown’s act of killing Kenzie Marie Houk.  What no one is willing to acknowledge is the reality that the boy’s father, Christopher Brown, was masterfully getting on with his life in a way that increasingly alienated Jordan from his father.  Kenzie Houk and Christopher Brown were having a baby together.  This arrangement clearly set up a bond between Kenzie Houk and Christopher Brown that left Jordan, the son, on the outside looking in.  More precisely, this arrangement can be readily seen by Jordan as giving his father a loyalty to Kenzie that surpasses the father’s loyalty to him, the son.

The point of the preceding paragraph is manifestly obvious.  How is that we have become so blind to the obvious?  The answer is that we have told a story according to which parents are justified in putting their interests above the interests of their children; and daycare is the very embodiment of that point of view.

We are told that 11-year old Jordan and his father, Christopher, “used to practice shooting behind their farmhouse, and the two enjoyed hunting together”.  Notice that language is in the past tense.  They use to practice shooting and hunt together.

Let me guess.  The father had to put those things aside in order to be there for Kenzie.  Surely, any 11-year boy can be expected to see and to understand and to accept this reality.  A correction in red ink from his teacher might emotionally scar him for life.  But his father affording him less attention so that he could be with his woman and their child-to-be is something with which the boy should be able to cope.

For any child, there is nothing worse than parental rejection; and there is no greater sign of parental rejection than a shift in parental loyalties.  And it is just so much nonsense to suppose that children are not, or should not, be sensitive to this sort of thing.  If there is one thing in the world that no child ever wants to have to compete for, it is the love of her or his parents.  And it is precisely the situation of having to complete for his father’s love that Jordan Anthony Brown found himself in.

Of course, none of this justifies the behavior of 11-year old Jordan.  Just so, let me ask the following question: What can possibly justify the behavior of the father, Christopher Brown?  For it is Christopher Brown who had all the power; and it is he who exercised that power by making choices that put Jordan in the position of having to compete for his father’s love.  Christopher Brown did not just forge a bond with Kenzie who already had a little daughter, he went on to make a baby with Kenzie.

In effect, then, Christopher Brown is none other than a moral accomplice to the crime that his son, Jordan, committed.  Are we who are adults too busy privileging our self-interests over those of children to see this moral reality?  Unfortunately, and most regrettably, that was a rhetorical question; for the answer is very clear: We are, indeed, too busy privileging our own self-interests over those of children.