Boyfriend Charged in Stuck-to-Toilet Case
AP
Posted: 2008-03-20 10:51:38

See pics here: http://news.aol.com/story/_a/boyfriend-charged-in-stuck-to-toilet/20080320074609990001

NESS CITY, Kan. (May 19) - A man whose girlfriend authorities say spent nearly two years in a bathroom in their house, sitting on the toilet so long that the seat adhered her body, has been charged with mistreatment of a dependent adult.

A Kansas man whose girlfriend authorities say spent nearly two years in a bathroom was charged Monday with mistreatment of a dependent adult. "This was a very unusual set of circumstances, and this is the law that most closely applied to the situation," the prosecutor said.

Kory McFarren, 36, was charged Monday in Ness County District Court.

McFarren called the Ness County Sheriff's Office in late February to say something was wrong with his girlfriend. When authorities arrived at the home, they found Pam Babcock, 35, stuck to the toilet, which they think she had sat on for about a month.

McFarren told authorities that Babcock feared leaving the bathroom and may not have left it in two years, although said he was unsure how long she was in there. He said that he took her food and water daily, and that he repeatedly asked her to come out but that she usually replied "maybe tomorrow."

"The only thing I am guilty of is I didn't get her help sooner," McFarren told The Associated Press nearly a week ago.

Ness County Attorney Craig Crosswhite said the mistreatment charge most closely fit the situation.

"I looked at the statutes and spoke to the attorney general's office," he said. "This was a very unusual set of circumstances, and this is the law that most closely applied to the situation."

Authorities said Babcock sat on the toilet so long that open sores developed and caused her to become attached to the seat. Sheriff Bryan Whipple has said that he used a pry bar to remove the seat from the toilet, and that the woman was taken to the hospital with the seat still attached.

"She would have to be sleeping on the toilet," Whipple said.

Doctors at a Wichita hospital where Babcock was taken told McFarren that an infection in her legs had damaged her nerves and could leave her in a wheelchair. She was still at the hospital Wednesday night.

McFarren's first court appearance will be in April, Crosswhite said.

Um, how is it his fault?
This is the funniest case I've ever heard.

Yeah, part of me thinks this whole mess wasn't his fault, but he probably should have gotten the girl some kind of help right when he figured that she wasn't going to come out of there.

Of course, women spend so much time in the bathroom getting ready for a date, it's so hard for us guys to tell!

Am I right ladies?

Thank you! I'm here all week!

;)

Yeah, part of me thinks this whole mess wasn't his fault, but he probably should have gotten the girl some kind of help right when he figured that she wasn't going to come out of there.

Of course, women spend so much time in the bathroom getting ready for a date, it's so hard for us guys to tell!

Am I right ladies?

Thank you! I'm here all week!

;)
:rofl: Yeah, in a way I see your point TJL, however it is men who SIT ALL DAY ON THE TOILET SEAT, women use the shower and the sink. ;)


If I can be serious for a moment, the woman was obviously NOT ALL THERE, therefore, someone should have been responsible for her health and well-being. If a child had been stuck to the toilet and as long as the child wasn't complaining, would that be alright too?

how is it his fault? she's the one who kept saying "not today". Anyways, what's to charge?

This is the charge John:

mistreatment of a dependent adult

Looks to me like she wanted to be there, otherwise she would of got her big butt up. I just can't see them charging him. Did he tie her down or something?
This world gets crazier everyday.

I think they are taking this case a little bit too far
I agree. I don't see how she was a "dependent adult." I think she needs mental help, but she's not dependent.

They can charge him but they can't press charges in the Megan Meier case.


Something is not quite right here...

What the press and media are nto realeasing to people is that the boyfreind was also mentally ill. He had extreme psychosis and can not be held accountable for this. He did call to the 911 several times during this ordeal and they would not respond becasue it was not a life threatening situatyion. It was not until he actually went and forced soemone to come and see for them self that they decided to help these people. This is a travisty of justice. This man was mentally ill just like his girlfriend.


Someone responded to this article with this comment. Don't know if it is true but if it is he should not have any problem getting out of the charge. Even if he is sane I don't think he should be held responsible unless he were her legal guardian. It is different for a child because parents by law are required to care for their children. Bringing a charge against him is almost as weird as charging the neighbors who had a feeling there was a problem but did nothing to help. They say it can take a village to raise a child and sometimes it can take a village to help people with mental illness. It doesn't seem fair to pin all the blame on one person.

sounds like he's going to get canned for not being johnny on the spot with help. Maybe a good lawyer will help flush his legal troubles away. Yuk Yuk Yuk:crazy: :lol:


Seriously though, neither one is all there - this is one weird situation!

They can charge him but they can't press charges in the Megan Meier case.


Something is not quite right here...

Thats what i'm thinking, here we have all these lingering serious cases and they are pressing charges on this guy. What next, will he recieve the death penalty? I dont care if he wasnt mentally ill, he was just following what his girlfriend was telling him and he may have been scared that they may put her away in a mental institution. However, i believe someone who could let this go on for 2 years is probably mentally ill to some extent. Bottom line, i think they need to leave these people alone. Let them live their life.

if she was "dependent", i assume she was either too physically or mentally challenged to get up, but the article really fails to clarify that.

They can charge him but they can't press charges in the Megan Meier case.


Something is not quite right here...
Really does make you wonder.

Yet at the same time, I can't even imagine someone letting this happen to a loved one for a week, much less two years...But it wasn't his fault she did something so insane. I don't think anyone should be charged.

I was reading about this on another web site... so very bizarre... :eek:

I was reading about this on another web site... so very bizarre... :eek:
It really is.

I also fail to see how this is his fault.

This is the first time I've heard of this case. So strange. I don't see how it's the boyfriend's fault, though. I mean, it wasn't like he was using bondage and handcuffs or something extreme like that to keep her there.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/postdebut149/publicity.gif

I saw that on the news. GROSS. puke:

I don't understand how someone, no matter how mentally disturbed she was, could want to spend two years on a toilet seat without ever wanting to get up. It's a really weird case.

Maybe the boyfriend should have gotten help sooner, but that's all he could have done, except maybe forcing her up from the toilet seat.

Maybe the boyfriend should have gotten help sooner, but that's all he could have done, except maybe forcing her up from the toilet seat.
Thank you. ;) That is exactly what he should have done but he didn't. I would think if someone is refusing to get off the toilet after two days, something is wrong with them. Even if she WASN'T mentally unstable, maybe if he called someone for help, the embarrassment of having emergency personnel going out to see you on a toilet would keep her from doing that again. :lol:

I am shock that The Boyfriend would do that to the girlfriend

What do you mean? She chose to sit on the toilet herself.
Aaron means how could he allow her to be there so long without calling for help SOONER.

it was always going to be a lose-lose situation for the boyfriend. If he tried to get physical and force her off the toilet, he could've gotten charged with force/assault, and now he's charged for doing nothing. The woman apparently liked being on the toilet, she wasn't going to get off no matter what

No one said pulling her off the toilet. How abt calling authorities such as the fire dept. or a mental facility and say you have a girlfriend who has been on the toilet for a few days and won't budge. At least this shows he had a concern for her. But he waited after TWO YEARS? What happened after two years that he decided to finally call? Common sense says if a person refuses to get off a toilet after even a couple of days, you need to call authorities for your sake since that means she might not be all there in the head.

An update on these weird people....


updated 4:01 p.m. CT, Thurs., March. 27, 2008

NESS CITY, Kansas - A man whose girlfriend sat on a toilet for so long that the seat adhered to her body has been arrested in a separate case.

Kory McFarren was arrested Sunday for alleged lewd and lascivious behavior, police said. He allegedly exposed himself to a neighbor's teenage daughter and her friends. He spent the night in jail before posting bond.

No charges had been filed by Thursday. The 36-year-old McFarren could not be reached for comment.


He was charged last week with a misdemeanor count of mistreatment of a dependent adult. That was after his girlfriend was found stuck to the toilet in late February.



Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

PERVERT!!!!!!! He has no credibility.

Now, does anyone feel he was in the right with his girlfriend? If he exposes himself to girls, he sounds like someone who doesn't give a rat's ass abt anyone but himself and getting off by lewd behavior. Certainly not someone to be believed and his credibility is shot.

If he indeed exposed himself to those teenage girls (which even has to be a crime, since the girls were minors), no, it sure doesn't look good.

If he indeed exposed himself to those teenage girls (which even has to be a crime, since the girls were minors), no, it sure doesn't look good.
Um, it is a crime for a man to expose his private parts to ANYONE regardless of their age.

Now, does anyone feel he was in the right with his girlfriend? If he exposes himself to girls, he sounds like someone who doesn't give a rat's ass abt anyone but himself and getting off by lewd behavior. Certainly not someone to be believed and his credibility is shot.

I still defend him for what he did with his girlfriend. He did care about her to some degree because he did feed her. I can't defend what he did to the girls but if the first charge goes to court I don't think the second charges can be even mentioned in the trial. Do we even know if the boyfriend is all there?

I still defend him for what he did with his girlfriend. He did care about her to some degree because he did feed her. I can't defend what he did to the girls but if the first charge goes to court I don't think the second charges can be even mentioned in the trial. Do we even know if the boyfriend is all there?
at the same time, while feeding her was a good thing, maybe it was also a bad thing. Maybe if he told her she's going to have to get off the toilet if she expects to eat dinner, maybe she would've gotten off. Because what he did was enable her

at the same time, while feeding her was a good thing, maybe it was also a bad thing. Maybe if he told her she's going to have to get off the toilet if she expects to eat dinner, maybe she would've gotten off. Because what he did was enable her

I agree with your point but if she is really depressed or something then he could be accused of letting her starve if she still never came out of the bathroom. I think there is more to this story than the media is reporting. It doesn't seem to add up to me.

Um, it is a crime for a man to expose his private parts to ANYONE regardless of their age.
Yeah, I guess. But anyway, he should have done something sooner. He should have told her to get off that toilet seat already after a few days, or even helped (or forced) her up from there.

I still defend him for what he did with his girlfriend. He did care about her to some degree because he did feed her. I can't defend what he did to the girls but if the first charge goes to court I don't think the second charges can be even mentioned in the trial. Do we even know if the boyfriend is all there?
If he was mentally off, then he can't be charged with a crime. It would be a case of insanity on some level. For the cops to have charged him with a crime regarding his girlfriend, I am sure they looked into the obvious (mental issues) and felt confident enough the man didn't use common sense and call for help sooner.

And John, you are right abt that comment abt enabling her.

If he was mentally off, then he can't be charged with a crime.

Even if you are mentally off you can still be charged. It does not give anyone the right to break the law. You would probably be put in a hospital or something instead of a jail. If I thought he was all there I can't believe he would do what he did to those girls so shortly after being charged for the thing with his girlfriend.

Even if you are mentally off you can still be charged. It does not give anyone the right to break the law. You would probably be put in a hospital or something instead of a jail. If I thought he was all there I can't believe he would do what he did to those girls so shortly after being charged for the thing with his girlfriend.
If you are put in a mental hospital, you don't go to jail, you don't get charged with a crime. To be charged with a crime means you can be prosecuted and you knew right from wrong and understood you committed a crime. If anyone is mentally unstable (like a person with Down's syndrome) you may not be charged with the crime of leaving a dependent adult on a toilet, a D.A. would look at the fact the person has a mental issue and decide not to press charges. That would be like charging a child with not calling 911 because their mother is unconcisous on the floor. Now, this man is NOT a mental case, so what other reason did he have for NOT getting help sooner?

A pervert is a pervert. He knows damn well what he is doing. The cops and the D.A. did not find this man unstable or mentally ill, which is why they charged him.

I am merely discussing the mental mind of this man, not any other crimes such as murder where a person can be charged with a murder and they plead insanity. Even then, I don't believe they are insane. Merely using a ploy.

I am beginning to wonder now if that guy enjoyed leaving his girlfriend on that toilet seat so he can be free to commit lewd acts upon girls. :rolleyes:

If anyone is mentally unstable (like a person with Down's syndrome) you may not be charged with the crime of leaving a dependent adult on a toilet, a D.A. would look at the fact the person has a mental issue and decide not to press charges. That would be like charging a child with not calling 911 because their mother is unconcisous on the floor. Now, this man is NOT a mental case, so what other reason did he have for NOT getting help sooner?

I am merely discussing the mental mind of this man, not any other crimes such as murder where a person can be charged with a murder and they plead insanity. Even then, I don't believe they are insane. Merely using a ploy.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if you are saying this because this may be a misdemeanor. In my state they charge the person first and then determine later if the person is legally competent. State laws differ and this may be the law in your state.

I do believe people can be insane. I forget the name but I remember the case of the mother who drowned her children in the bathtub. Sad.

I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure if you are saying this because this may be a misdemeanor. In my state they charge the person first and then determine later if the person is legally competent. State laws differ and this may be the law in your state.

I do believe people can be insane. I forget the name but I remember the case of the mother who drowned her children in the bathtub. Sad.
Yes, you are thinking of the Yates beeyotch. :mad: My opinion, she was not insane.

I can only surmise the bastard in this toilet case was NOT mentally unstable in any way. His charge is a misdemeanor. I believe the woman is to some extent. If he had maybe had the mind of a young boy or child, it can be construed that he didn't know better and therefore, left the woman on the toilet. The mere fact he did call authorities -2 years after the fact- speaks volumes that he knew she needed help. It would have been better for her sake as well as his to have called someone or even talked to the police or some social worker and told them what was going on and her refusal to leave the toilet. It sounds funny, but it would have saved her from further harm.

The mere fact he did call authorities -2 years after the fact- speaks volumes that he knew she needed help. It would have been better for her sake as well as his to have called someone or even talked to the police or some social worker and told them what was going on and her refusal to leave the toilet. It sounds funny, but it would have saved her from further harm.

Agreed. I know ethically he should have done something sooner but I still don't like the law that is involved. It seems like they were reaching to find something to charge him with - they may have charged him to send a message to other people not to let things like this drag on. I keep thinking that the saying "I am not my brother's keeper" should apply in this situation assuming he is not legally responsible for her.

Agreed. I know ethically he should have done something sooner but I still don't like the law that is involved. It seems like they were reaching to find something to charge him with - they may have charged him to send a message to other people not to let things like this drag on. I keep thinking that the saying "I am not my brother's keeper" should apply in this situation assuming he is not legally responsible for her.
I hear ya. This is Kansas we are talking abt. I looked up the criminal statute regarding that particular code and it appears it was amended (changed) a few times since it was first made into a law. I think from reading the code, it was made to not only cover elderly people but people of all ages. It is easy to understand when a child or an elderly person needs help, but what abt the folks in between those ages?

They did live together, so I can only guess the police and the D.A. felt he was responsible for her well-being as she would if the tables were turned. I guess we shall see how this whole thing turns out in time.