Mother, daughter arrested after alleged incestuous marriage

[left-of-center2012]

DUNCAN, Okla. – A mother and daughter from Oklahoma are accused of having an incestuous marriage.

Patricia Spann, 43, and Misty Spann, 25, were married in March 2016 in Comanche County, court records show.
Police say Patricia is Misty’s biological mother.

Misty and her two brothers were raised by a grandparent when Patricia lost custody of them, an arrest affidavit states.
The DHS investigator told authorities that Patricia and Misty reunited two years ago.

Patricia told officials she didn’t think she was breaking any laws by marrying Misty because her name is no longer listed on her daughter’s birth certificate.

Since then, Patricia and Misty have both been arrested and booked into the Stephens County Jail for incest, a detective told KFOR.
Bond was set at $10,000 for each of the Spann women. They’re due in court next month.
In Oklahoma, incest is a felony, and if convicted, is punishable up to 10 years in prison.

Court records show this isn’t the first time Patricia has married one of her own children.
She also married one of her sons in 2008.
However, court records show that marriage was annulled in March 2010.

?quality=85&strip=all&strip=all

[47of74]

1. EWWWWWWWWWW

[LisaL]

3. She first married her son, then her daughter.

Yikes.

[Botany]

4. Well she loves her kids

[Brickbat]

2. Here's hoping they get the help they clearly need.

[TygrBright]

5. I'm not understanding the harm, real or potential, in this?

The women are both adults, presumably they both consented to the marriage.

There's no conceivable (hee!) way they could generate offspring together that might reinforce some harmful genetic anomaly in a child.

The younger woman was raised by someone else, so it's not a case of the older woman exploiting an established relationship of parental authority to morally coerce the younger woman's cooperation.

Where is the harm here?

bewilderedly,
Bright

[Igel]

7. Think less atomistically.

It's not "every case has a law" but "the law applies to every case."

If you allow marriage, then you allow marriage. That means men can marry men or women, women can marry men or women. "We" like this because it's as general as possible, and applies the (most) general case to specifics. But we stop and incest.

If you allow parents to marry offspring, then you allow parents to marry offspring. You don't produce a laundry list, "Fathers can marry sons but not daughters, mothers can marry daughters but not sons--although, if it can be proven that the female has passed menopause then such marriages are fine." If you like general application, fine; if you want all kinds of exceptions, then what's the prob with banning same-sex marriages?


Of course, incest is nowhere condemned by Jesus, so there's that. (Neither is bestiality, for that matter, or slavery, or pedophilia, but that didn't stop such bizarre utterances as being part of some sort of ersatz argument with respect to marriage.)

[TygrBright]

13. I'm not getting your point. Still don't see the harm.

The principle is simple: The law protects society and/or acts as society's protector for vulnerable individuals.

There's nothing "atomistic" about it.

A social contract implies consent to the law's power to protect the well-being of the social group, and to the law acting as the arm of the social group to protect the well-being of a vulnerable individual. (The protection of vulnerable individuals being a presumed priority of the group in terms of 'general welfare,' that may be redundant, but I feel it's worth a special mention.)

The only socially valid reason to regulate "incest" is to protect vulnerable individuals from harm or exploitation, and/or to prevent harm to individuals.

It has nothing to do with the names we assign family roles. Why should a biological parent NOT marry a same-sex offspring with whom they've had no actual 'parental' relationship?

Not getting it.

confuzzledly,
Bright

[Orrex]

19. That's discrimination

If you permit marriage based on the impossibility of biological offspring, then you are explicitly discriminating against couples that are able to reproduce biologically.

[Buzz Clik]

10. Just speculating here ... but one of them could be anatomically a femaile...

... and the other maybe anatomically male that identifies as female.

I guess.

[snooper2]

16. I was surprised their are people that support/condone incest on here last month this came up

More than a couple actually...

DU- A broad range of ideas for sure

[Kaleva]

6. Mother hoped she could adopt a child if she was married

This is in another article. I don't know how to provide a link via my tablet.

[PJMcK]

8. Perhaps their "marriage" wasn't about sex

Incest is when family members engage in sex acts. There is nothing specific in the linked article that indicates the mother and daughter were sexually involved with one another.

It's possible that the stories of the mother's marriages were about housing or finances or some other issue. My intuition hints that there may be some desperation in these people's lives.

[tonyt53]

9. She is still dressing her daughter in those cute matching mother/daughter outfits too.

They must have lived near a radioactive waste site.

[FSogol]

15. Krypton was pretty radioactive, IIRC.

[Codeine]

11. Helluva drug, meth. nt

[trotsky]

12. Before marriage equality, sometimes one member of a gay couple would adopt the other.

Had nothing to do with the child-parent relationship, it had to do with assuring next-of-kin and visitation rights. Adoption was an avenue to that when marriage and civil unions weren't possible.

Given that the woman lost custody of her children, this could have been an attempt by her to restore some legal ties to them.

[TygrBright]

14. Yep. Many possibilities.

But the fact that many people seem to find their looks, apparel, etc. as depicted in the photos above unacceptable or worthy of judgmental comment seems to indicate there isn't much room for that kind of thinking here.

sadly,
Bright

[snooper2]

17. Um, she was previously married to her son but they found out that one was annulled

[Egnever]

18. That would seem to indicate

To me that this could be about establishing legal rights as much as anything else.

Maybe she is just crazy.

Marrying both son and daughter seems to point to a different motive than sex to me.

Bizarre to be sure. It seems to me there something more going on here

[DawgHouse]

20. Yeah, I was wondering about insurance benefits or

maybe some other benefit of being married.

[DawgHouse]

21. I'm curious about this

It's interesting that it was annulled because I would think it wasn't legal in the first place.

[trotsky]

22. Well yes, one way to get an automatic annulment is to marry a family member.

So that could just be restating what is already known.

[Egnever]

23. One thing is for sure

10 years for this is ridiculous.

[MFM008]

24. Gross

........