Archive

ShareThis Page
Three ‘filthy’ children removed from Uniontown home | TribLIVE.com
News

Three ‘filthy’ children removed from Uniontown home

Tribune-Review
| Friday, January 14, 2011 12:00 a.m

Three young children in Uniontown were placed into protective custody after police found the youngsters wearing only soiled diapers and living in a feces-filled home.

Uniontown police said they found the children after responding 12:05 p.m. Tuesday to Johnson Avenue for a report of a domestic dispute, according to a police report.

When officers arrived, Christine Freed, 28, told them a man at the residence, Kenneth Baker, 47, had argued with her before punching and breaking a mirror.

Police said the three children were “filthy.” Their bedrooms contained broken toys with sharp edges, the floors were littered with clothing and garbage, and the bathtub was filled with animal and urine feces, according to the report.

Fayette County Children and Youth Services removed the children from the home. A custody hearing is to be held today, police said.

The Fayette Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals removed four cats and two dogs from the premises.

A city code enforcement officer who inspected the house at the request of police gave Freed 10 days to correct unspecified deficiencies.

Police Chief Jason Cox said a 16-year-old girl police found at the residence was charged as a juvenile with drug possession and possession of drug paraphernalia after officers found 16 empty stamp heroin bags in her purse.

Categories: News
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.