This was on our local news website and I found the repsonses/comments very interesting on it, so thought I'd see what people here thought.


LINCOLN, NE -- A 10-year-old girl died of brain cancer early this morning, shortly after receiving what her family said was her dying wish -- a visit from her incarcerated father.
"She was holding on to see her father," Ed Yaeger said of his niece Jayci Yaeger.
Jayci's father, Jason Charles Yaeger, is serving the final year of a five-year sentence for a drug conviction in a minimum security prison camp in South Dakota, a 3½-hour drive from his daughter who was in hospice care in Lincoln, Neb.

Officials, however, had denied Jason Charles Yaeger's repeated requests for a furlough so he could spend more time with his daughter, who suffered from terminal brain cancer.
Story continues belowAdvertisement
Under the supervision of prison officials, Jason Yaeger visited Jayci Wednesday for about 20 minutes -- just days before she died.

"It's just unfortunate that the visit was cut so short," Ed Yaeger told ABC News.
The Yaegers are upset with prison officials because Jason Yaeger was not able to be with his daughter when she died.

"He was denied the proper good-bye," Lori Yaeger, Jayci's aunt, wrote in an e-mail Thursday.

Jason Charles Yaeger had pleaded repeatedly with prison officials to honor the bureau's apparent policy of allowing furloughs and transfers under "extraordinary" circumstances, but was rebuffed time and again, he told ABC News in a telephone interview from prison last week.
In a letter to Rep. Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska -- dated Feb. 20 and obtained by ABC News -- a regional director from the Department of Justice wrote that "although Mr. Yaeger believes his daughter's severe medical condition constitutes 'extraordinary justification,' a review of his case reveals this specific request was ... reviewed ... and denied ... because his circumstances were not deemed to rise to the level of extraordinary."

The congressman had requested information about the denials of the furlough or transfer.
Last week, after ABCNEWS.com published a story on Jayci, the Bureau of Prisons released a statement saying that officials there "have reviewed inmate Yaeger's request for a compassionate release and have determined his situation does not meet the criteria."
Jayci, named for her father's initials, had been fighting for her life since she was diagnosed with cancer at the age of 3, seven years ago. But in the last six months, she had taken a severe turn downward.

Doctors declared her condition terminal in October. Last month, they found they couldn't transfer her to a children's hospital closer to her Lincoln, Neb., home because they said she wouldn't survive the trip, Lori Yaeger said.
Jason Charles Yaeger had been allowed three brief supervised visits since the terminal diagnosis in the fall and the visits had prompted remarkable, if short-lived revivals in Jayci's condition, she added.

The fourth visit was earlier this week.
"When he came home in February, Jayci was not expected to live through the night," Lori Yaeger said. "She improved throughout that whole week. Jason was allowed to accompany her to get a [CT] scan. He was able to pick her up and put her on the [examining] table,'' she said, growing emotional.

By Dramamamma on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 09:39 am:

I feel that that the family is unjustified in their anger, I can understand it but don't really hava a whole lot of sympathy for him. The person I feel sorry for was the little girl. In reading the article you see that he committed his crime AFTER her diagnosis, she'd already had the cancer for 2 years before he was incarcerated. It's not like he was locked up and THEN she was diagnosed, he knew when he choose to break the law that he had a sick child. Actions have consequences even when you are sick or have a sick famly member.

By Ginny~moderator on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 10:07 am:

Yes, he did the crime, and he should do the time. But, based only on the article you posted, it appears the prison system has a plan for furloughs and compassionate visits in extraordinary circumstances. If a child diagnosed several months earlier as terminal, with a condition so fragile she cannot be transferred to a hospital closer to home, is not extraordinary circumstances, what is?
Yes, Yaeger committed his crime after his daughter was first diagnosed, but everything in the article says it was his daughter who benefited from his visits.
We don't know all the circumstances of his crime. We do know Yaeger was in a minimum security prison, so he must not be deemed dangerous.
All in all, I doubt very much the justice system would have suffered if Yaeger's daughter had been able to have her father with her for the last few weeks of her life.

By Kaye on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 05:14 pm:

Not a lot of sympathy here either. Yes he was denied the proper goodbye, but you know she was denied by having her father in her life because he picked being stupid over her. I don't know his crime, but it says drug related, sounds like a choice he made to me.

Yes she benefited when he came to see her, but she would have benefited more in the past several years by having a father too.

Honestly watching several people die from cancer, she probably did get her goodbye in, and he missed watching her suffer in her last few days, don't seem so bad. BTDT could live without ever watching anyone die from cancer again!

By Vicki on Sunday, March 30, 2008 - 08:30 pm:

He does not get much sympathy from me either. If the crime was done after she was diagnosed, he did the crime knowing he would be in prison if he was caught. He made that choice. It actually sounds to me like they went above and beyond to let him see her at different times.

By Reds9298 on Thursday, April 3, 2008 - 08:28 am:

No sympathy here, except for the little girl not having a father in her life. Ditto Kaye & Vicki.

By Karen~admin on Friday, April 4, 2008 - 08:40 am:

Ditto Ginny all the way.

By Mara on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 10:22 am:

I have'nt been around much lately. I read occationally, but wanted to reply to this topic. The article doesn't really say what his violation was except to say "drug related". That, in my opinion can be many things. Just because it's drug related does'nt mean that he is a "bad" man or that he should'nt be allowed to see his dying daughter. Addiction is a very powerful thing! Until I know the details of why he was convicted I don't have an opinion. I've always wondered this...people sometimes say that "the addict put themselves there, they knew better" but, someone who knowingly smokes sometimes gets cancer, someone knowingly eats poorly and become diabetic, see where I'm going? The addict always get looked down upon, when many times these are people who made poor choices and are now suffering with addiction, addicts can be good people in every way, I cannot judge him just because it says "drug related charge" that can mean MANY things. I don't want to offend anyone here and this post is'nt directed at anyone here. These kinds of topics really hit home with me since I started my journey to become clean. By the way, I've been in treatment 9 months!

By Vicki on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 10:57 am:

I've always wondered this...people sometimes say that "the addict put themselves there, they knew better" but, someone who knowingly smokes sometimes gets cancer, someone knowingly eats poorly and become diabetic, see where I'm going?


I do understand what your saying, but I guess the difference to me is some of that is legal and some of it is illegal. I can knowingly smoke and know that I might get cancer, or I can knowingly eat wrong knowing I might become diabetic. That is all true, but none of it is against the law or will end up with me possibly being in jail.

If you knowingly choose to do illegal drugs, you also do it with the realization that they are highly addictive and could quite possibly end up with you in jail.

To me, it is just known consequences for your actions. Maybe I am not sure what your question is... LOL

By Mara on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 02:37 pm:

What I'm trying to say is that we don't know this man's story. People tend to judge before knowing all the facts. Sometimes they see the word "drug related" and assume that he is this terrible person and that he deserves what he gets. I have no question, I was just saying that people automatically think that "he did this to himself"...okay, what about this senario..what if he was prescribed medication for an illness, became addicted and was unable to free himself from it, and somehow was arrested for having it without a prescription? Who knows? I'm just saying that I cannot judge someone just based on the info given, and for someone to say that they have no sympathy for someone just because he is in jail and not knowing the reason behind the conviction, just that it say drug related, he is automatically labled. If he was serving time for unpaid tickets or something to that effect many would say that the way he was treated was an outrage. All of this is just my opinion, nobody has to agree or disagree

By Vicki on Monday, April 14, 2008 - 03:22 pm:

I don't know, I guess I just look at it as legal actions vs illegal actions. When you do something illegal, reguardless of how severe it is, your stand the chance of getting arrested and put in jail for it. If someone still chooses to do the action, I really don't have sympathy for them being in jail. If someone has an illness and becomes addicted to their medication, they are still choosing to break the law and get them with no prescription. I do have sympathy for those people that become addicted to them, but once they become addicted, the can either choose to go to the doctor or someplace else and tell them they are addicted and get themselves clean, or they can choose to get them illegally.... again, just consequences for actions.