The Rise and Fall of Ruby Franke | Truth and Distortion | 8
58:36 Share

This is a Law and Crime Network presentation. This podcast explores themes of child abuse and trauma. Please listen with care. A note from our executive producer. The following was intended to be our final episode of The Rise and Fall of Ruby Frankie. However, in the early morning hours of Friday, March 22nd, 2024, as we were putting the final touches on this episode, the Washington County Attorney's Office in Utah released police

police reports, body cam footage, investigative photos, and interviews, as well as portions of Ruby Frankie and Jodi Hildebrandt's recorded phone calls made from the Washington County Correctional Facility. The Law and Crime team is carefully reviewing all the materials and will be back with a deep dive bonus episode on April 8th. We thank you for your patience. Now, here's Episode 7. ♪

She's going to say and do whatever she can to try to make it better for her. Her acting remorseful doesn't help anybody but her. Period. I was in a deep undercurrent that led us to danger. I would never have led you to darkness knowingly. I was so disoriented that I believed dark was light and light was wrong.

In this case, you terrorized children and the results have been tragic. What happened to these children and your philosophy in dealing with them frankly seems detached from reality or any objective standard of decency or even common sense. And the court finds that it is appropriate that you serve a prison sentence.

We live in a society where people talk about abuse more, but they don't really understand it. If our society really understood abuse after she started sharing these videos, somebody would have gone to her home and said, you must stop. And there would have been intervention. It would never have gotten to this point. I'm Paula Barros, and this is The Rise and Fall of Ruby Frankie, presented by Law & Crime.

It's a rainy February morning in the town of St. George, Utah. Outside the 5th District Judicial Courthouse, a large brick building with four white tall columns at the entryway, reporters from media outlets both local and national are eagerly waiting to roll on the immediate moments following Ruby and Jodi's sentencing hearing. And inside the courthouse, the pinnacle moment in the twisted path of a mommy vlogger and a life coach turned convicted child abusers was finally unfurling.

It was agreed Ruby would give her statement first, then Jodi. But just before Ruby could get a word in, Washington County Attorney Eric Clark, representing the state of Utah, stood before the court in a black suit peppered with raindrops to read the state's sentencing recommendations. The state respectfully requested the court sentence Ms. Franke to consecutive prison terms for each of the four counts of aggravated child abuse. This sentence was agreed to by Ms. Franke in her plea agreement and is also recommended by adult probation and parole.

She committed horrible acts of child abuse. From May to August in 2023, Ms. Franke and her business partner held her two children, ages 9 and 11, turning 12, in a concentration camp-like setting. Eric Clark then details the egregious acts of abuse both Russell and Eve suffered. And his closing remark on the violence is chilling. Had the older of the children not had the courage to run away and ask a neighbor to call the police, heaven only knows how much longer he could have survived in that situation.

After Eric read the recommendations, it was Ruby's turn to speak. When the clock struck 10 a.m. Mountain Time, Ruby Franke promptly approached Judge John Walton to give her statement, standing beside her attorney, Lamar Winward. I would like to make a statement without any intent to change my stipulated sentence.

For the past four years, I've chosen to follow counsel and guidance that has led me into a dark delusion. My distorted version of reality went largely unchecked as I would isolate from anyone who challenged me. Then, she invokes Jodi. I was led to believe that this world was an evil place, filled with cops who control, hospitals that injure, government agencies that brainwash.

Church leaders who lie and lust, husbands who refuse to protect, and children who need abuse. My choice to believe and behave this paranoia culminated into criminal activity for which I stand before you today ready to take accountability.

Jody Hildebrandt was never my business partner, nor was I ever employed by her. I have never received wages from her or connections. Jody was employed as my son's counselor in 2019, and in 2020, I paid her to be my mentor. It is important to me to demonstrate my remorse and regret without blame. I take full accountability for my choices, and it is my preference that I serve a prison sentence.

KUTV's Brian Schnee was in the courtroom. He describes what came next in Ruby's statement. She goes through and names all these people by name who she thanks for saving her children, in essence. She names members of the Santa Clara Ivins Public Safety Department. She names the prosecution. She names the judge.

And Brian remembers who else she stood before, beyond the judge and legal teams, as she read. Kevin Franke, who was seated in the front row, opposite side of the courtroom, listening to this. Next to Kevin was his son, Chad, his daughter, Sherry. Next to Sherry was Ruby Franke's brother, Beau Griffiths, who was also in attendance that day. Not in attendance were her parents, who submitted a letter to the court, as did Beau, pointing the finger, in essence, at Jodi Hildebrandt.

The letter submitted that morning by Ruby's parents, Chad and Jennifer Griffiths, asked Judge Walton to show Ruby mercy, claiming she'd been brainwashed by Jodi's teachings. While her parents were not in attendance, Ruby's statement directly addresses them too. My mother and father...

I have been utterly wretched to you. You have offered me unconditional love, and for that, I have offered you unconditional contempt. Then she addressed Kevin, her soon-to-be ex-husband, who she had once excommunicated. Kevin, my husband of more than 23 years, you are the love of my life. So sorry to leave to you to finish what we both started together. The ending of our marriage is a tragedy.

And finally, she addresses the people she hurt the most, her six children. I can see now that over the past four years, I was in a deep undercurrent that led us to danger. I would never have...

I took from you all that was soft and safe and good. I took from you your mother. How terrifying this must have been for you.

I will never stop crying for her and her tender souls. You are so precious to me. I'm sorry. Regardless of your opinion about Ruby, it's an emotional moment as she brings her statement to a close. My choice to live in fear of the world has created a great vulnerability and a blind spot for me where I have broken hearts and I've caused people to suffer and I have betrayed sacred trust.

Watching my community respond to my purchase with justice and mercy and grace and love is all the more evidence to me of how wrong I've been. This world is full of really good people. And finally, I'm sorry for twisting God's word and distorting his doctrines. My greatest desire is to stand in his court someday spotless and confident. Judge Walton, I know

that standing before you today is a necessary step towards that end. Thank you to you and your staff for facilitating my opportunity to take accountability and to answer for my charges. I am humbled and willing to serve a prison sentence as long as it takes to continue unraveling all of this information I have believed and bought, swallowed and acted out, and for my family to heal and for the community to heal.

And I understand this is going to take time. I'm committed to continuing my learning until all of my toxic layers are shed and I am ready to reenter as a contributing member of our beautiful society. In total, Ruby addressed the court, her family, and her community for about eight minutes before Judge Walton got down to brass tacks. The sentence will be...

that Ms. Franke serve four counts for one to 15 year sentences based on her convictions for four counts of aggravated child abuse. Again, they will be served consecutively pursuant to the party's agreement and the applicable statute. Under the applicable statute, the court finds that consecutive sentences are appropriate.

Moments after Ruby's sentencing was set in stone, attention shifted to Jodi. She enters the courtroom in the same gray and white inmates' clothes she was charged in, a far cry from her professional, polished, online persona. After some back and forth between Judge Walton and Jodi's attorney, Douglas Terry, the court finally hears from Jodi. I sincerely love these children. I desire for them to heal physically and emotionally. One of the reasons I did not go to trial...

So I did not want them to emotionally relive the experience which would have been detrimental to them. My hope and prayer is that they will heal and move forward to have beautiful lives. I am willing to submit to what the state feels would be an appropriate amount of time served to make restribution as an outcome. The brevity of her statement is a stark contrast to Ruby's elongated reflection. Ryan recalls the experience of watching Jodi's appearance before the court.

Jodi Hildebrandt comes into the courtroom, a very stoic Jodi, almost looked kind of lost, not really understanding what was really happening in that moment in terms of what have I done, but maybe I have done nothing wrong almost by the look at her face compared to Ruby, who had sincere remorse, I believe, and I think many people believe, and it's hard to say that given what had happened, right? But at least from the appearance, she's

There was a little showing of remorse. Jodi Hildebrand's statement was about 30 seconds. I sincerely love these children, she said. And I don't think anyone really bought that. When the judge starts to speak to Jodi afterwards, keep in mind the judge said nothing to Ruby Franke or her attorney other than the formalities. But when Jodi comes in, the judge goes on for about 45 seconds to a minute of, I think a lot of this is admittedly your wrongdoing.

Here's what Judge Walton had to say in direct response to Jody that morning after her attorney attempted to bolster her statement. Your Honor, I knew that whatever she might say to the author of the pre-sentence report would probably sound hollow and self-serving, and perhaps it does today. But I know that my client in the statement that she makes to the court today, that statement is absolutely sincere.

Does Ms. Hildebrandt recognize that it's her behavior that caused the harm to the children that she's referred to in her statement? Your Honor, she recognizes that she was, along with Ms. Franke, that she made decisions with respect to the discipline of those children that were wrong, that caused harm to those children. She fully recognizes that and accepts responsibility for that.

All right. Anything else? No, Your Honor. Okay. Ms. Hildebrandt, this circumstance is tragic. It's largely, of course, of your making by any measure. Your conduct in this case was disastrous for these children. Adults are supposed to protect children. Adults with specialized training in particular are supposed to protect children.

You didn't do that in this case. In this case, you terrorized children and the results have been tragic. What happened to these children and your philosophy in dealing with them frankly seems detached from reality or any objective standard of decency or even common sense. And the court finds that it is appropriate that you serve a prison sentence

The court finds under the statute, Utah Code 76-3-401, that given the gravity and circumstances of the offenses, the number of victims, and the history and character and needs of the defendant, that consecutive sentences are appropriate. The court imposes four 1-15 year sentences to be, again, served consecutively for each of the four counts of aggravated child abuse.

Brian remembers the palpable tension felt in the courtroom. In the courtroom, you can see Kevin nodding in agreement with what the judge had to say about Jody Hildebrand. We had heard about Jody's teachings in terms of the therapy, her license being suspended for, you know, unacceptable behavior in the past with Adam Steed, you name it.

Now, it all comes to fruition in sentencing where I think everybody is kind of seemingly on the same page, except for maybe her attorney that said, I have seen another side of Jody Hildebrand, and I don't really know if anyone bought that, including the judge who said, I genuinely agree that there are two sides to every case, but in a way he didn't seem so sure about Jody Hildebrand's side of this.

Hey, Prime members. Have you heard? You can listen to your favorite podcasts ad-free. Good news. With Amazon Music, you have access to the largest catalog of ad-free top podcasts included with your Prime membership. To start listening, download the Amazon Music app for free or go to amazon.com slash ad-free podcast. That's amazon.com slash ad-free podcast to catch up on the latest episodes without the ads.

By 11 a.m. February 20th, 2024, both Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt had both finally been formally sentenced.

The judge took the previous recommendations of one to 15 years per charge to be served consecutively with a max of 30 years per statute here in the state of Utah. It doesn't add up to the 15 times four for 60. That was some initial lack of clarification or understanding on really everybody's part. But the max in Utah for what this could be is 30 years counting, of course, time served and all that other stuff.

If after hearing the sentencing terms, you're thinking, one to 15 years sounds like a pretty broad time range. How much time will Ruby and Jodi really serve? This subject has been at the forefront of the conversations and the answers aren't so cut and dry. First, it's important to note

the two women may not serve the same amount of time. Attorneys in the state that we've talked to, members even of the prosecution, we feel have said the same thing, that they undoubtedly believe that there will be at least a difference in the time served. And they look into a lot of things. Is there remorse in all of this? Have people actually taken steps to come to grips with what have happened and move on and try to admit that guilt in different ways? And I think one person has and another person hasn't in this case.

At present, the general consensus across experts and onlookers alike is that one will serve more time than the other. I imagine that forgiveness for mom will come a little bit quicker than it will for Jodi. But I mean, if we're talking about overall expectation, I don't know how much time they'll do, but I do anticipate Jodi will do more time than Ruby. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that Jodi and Ruby may only serve 40 months total due to their lack of prior criminal history.

But Jennifer Yim, administrative director of the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole, says we won't know more until the two appear before the department later this summer. They are scheduled right now for an original hearing, a tentative date in September of 2024.

That would be the first time that the board would hear their case. Doesn't mean that they'll be released at that time, but they would consider, okay, they might order certain types of treatment and programming. They could order a parole date, but they could also, and often do, order a rehearing date.

Although Ruby and Jodi's case feels larger than life, in the eyes of the law, they are to be approached in the same regard as cases that don't make the spotlight. The public is very interested in this case because it feels egregious and because it's gotten a lot of press attention.

And that's important. But what's important to people who run agencies like me is that we treat these cases just like we treat all of the other cases that don't get the kind of notoriety and fame and media attention so that we can create as fair a system as possible.

So this policy process for the state of Utah creates an important safety net for us insofar as it creates these guidelines in terms of numbers of months. And so that board members are making conscious decisions when they're exercising their discretion to decide actually how long someone will stay.

Because the terms of their prison time left onlookers unsurprised, immediate reaction to the hearing focused on the glaring differences between the two women's statements. Here's Utah-based assistant attorney Jeremy Diaz's takeaway from Ruby's statement.

I think Ruby, really at the end of the day, it was as much remorse as I've ever seen from anybody who's ever pled guilty to something and stood at sentencing. Ruby strikes me as someone who legitimately realizes the places where she went wrong and that she does have some thinking issues that she has to go through.

and is doing everything that she can right now to try to show her kids that she does recognize that, that she is taking it seriously and she does want to be a part of their lives going forward. So, I mean, it was a good amount of...

And his reflection on Jodi's in comparison.

As far as Jodi goes, I think she has a bit of a hill to climb, right? Because I think her thing is going to be, look, yes, I may have given certain kinds of advice, but at the end of the day, Ruby can do with her kids what she wants to do with the kids. She's her own woman, and she may have taken some of what I said out of context or to the extreme. I don't think she can really make that here, especially with the fact that she was living with Ruby and the two kids while all of this stuff was happening, right? Right.

I don't understand why she doesn't just say, "Gal, you know what? I played a part in this and I'm so sorry. I was wrong." And just going forward with that. While the two clearly displayed polarizing degrees of remorse at the hearing, not everyone was buying Ruby's apologies.

Like popular YouTube therapist Katie Morton, whose videos responding to the case have garnered hundreds of thousands of views. I don't believe her. And I know that people can be like, oh, you're so hardened. I mean, actually, I don't think anybody thinks that. I don't trust her. Like we said, we have to go back to the person that we've known, right? What's happened now is she's pushed into a corner. Her acting remorseful doesn't help anybody but her, period, right?

And I mean, yes, maybe the children would want to hear that. I know I have a lot of, you know, patients over the years who really just want a parent to apologize. But that wasn't really, it wasn't a true apology. You know, apologies happen to the person in private, like very specific to the issue. This was like blanket, I've, I feel bad. And you're like, no, you feel bad because you were caught. And so the whole thing just felt very icky to me.

Reactions like Katie's flooded media coverage and the internet. Everyone wanted to get their word in on the case. But beyond the public, there were still some important outlying voices using this moment to make their statements too. Namely, Kevin Franke, who had been keeping a low profile throughout the investigation and court proceedings. Remember, Kevin's involvement had already been probed.

Here's Brian again with what investigators determined. From what we understand today and after sentencing is that either A, he had no idea, or B, he had no idea and has no involvement. I mean, it's hard to even say getting into his brain because we've never been able to really get that answer is did he have a clue about any of this?

Truthfully, Kevin and Ruby were separated for about a year. He didn't live in that house. It's hard to believe that he wouldn't have done something as a father, myself as a father. How would you not step in? But I've tried to look at it from this lens because it's almost like we were trying to find Kevin guilty immediately, we meaning a society here, when in reality the DA says we have nothing on Kevin.

And I take that as their word, because clearly they've talked to him. They've looked into him. And if they have done their due diligence, as they've done with Ruby and Jody, I mean, we asked them, point blank, is Kevin involved? Does he face anything? The answer was no. A week after the sentencing hearing, the Senate Business and Labor Committee in Utah met to propose a bill aiming to regulate life coaching requirements statewide.

This was an opportunity for Kevin Franke to share his story of how a life coach allegedly ripped his family apart. On February 27th, 2024, State Senator David Hinkins, the sponsor of the bill, SB 251,

Write a letter from Kevin Franke before the committee. My name is Kevin Franke, former husband of convicted child abuser Ruby Franke. I apologize that I could not be present to address you in person because I am instead supporting one of my children who is recovering from being brutalized at the hands of my former wife, Ruby, and the professional licensed therapist, Jodi Hildebrand. What I am going to share with you today, I have learned from hard and painful experience. Please listen carefully and consider what I have to say.

my family destroyed and my children tortured because of a dangerous mental health professional who believed that she could act outside the ethical bounds of her profession by labeling herself as a life coach. Numerous life coaches today are free to offer the same services provided by licensed mental health professionals who carry none of the responsibilities or liabilities associated with that profession, nor do they suffer any consequences for effectively impersonating a licensed health professional.

It is sobering for me to think that Jodi Hildebrand weren't a licensed mental health professional. And if she had not physically tortured my children, I would have had little or no legal recourse today to seek justice against her for the emotional havoc that has wrecked our family. My former wife, Ruby, was among a group of individuals who paid Jodi Hildebrand $10,000 to be trained as a certified mental health fitness trainer, a title that carries no weight or meaning in the profession mental health community.

Fabricating meaningless certifications to impress the uninformed and convey some false levels of authority, expertise, or qualifications is unethical and should be illegal. It's safe to presume that Kevin's plea to the Senate could sway their decision to create more strict and regulated guidelines for life coaches. But the committee has postponed further action on the bill. They will not be making any changes until at least summer of 2025.

But there's an even more pressing issue at the top of Kevin's mind, and that's reuniting with his minor children who are still in state custody, a battle he's chosen to remain publicly quiet about and is taking place behind the scenes, according to his attorney, Randy Kester. We're trying. We're trying. I just don't think this is a time to declare war. And he and I have counseled, and we believe that this is a time for healing. A lot of bad things have happened to this family. And

He values his family and he values his children above all. And he's committed to doing whatever it takes, even if it's him remaining silent. He's committed to doing that in order to make the future better for his children. And Randy emphasizes that the timing of Kevin's long-anticipated public statement requires a degree of finesse.

When the dust has kind of settled, he just doesn't want to jeopardize. He doesn't want to say something because we've committed to the court. We're not going to disparage any of the family. And Kevin's gone above and beyond that. He's not only not disparaged anyone, he's reaching out to try to bring this family closer together and to kind of heal wounds. And so in terms of him speaking out, I think he wants to accomplish the objective that he, you know, he wants to get his family back together.

Audible's best of 2024 picks are here. Discover the year's top audiobooks, podcasts, and originals in all your favorite genres. From memoirs and sci-fi to mysteries and thrillers, Audible's best of 2024 picks are here.

Audible's curated list in every category is the best way to hear 2024's best in audio entertainment. Like a stunning new full-cast production of George Orwell's 1984. Heartfelt memoirs like Supreme Court Justice Katonji Brown Jackson's lovely one. The year's best fiction like The Women by Kristen Hanna and Percival Everett's brilliantly subversive James. Audible. There's more to imagine when you listen.

Go to audible.com slash imagine and discover all the year's best waiting for you. Beyond the people directly involved in the care or lack thereof of the Frankie children, questions have also surfaced about the lengths Child Protective Services went to protect them.

Sherry Botwin, licensed clinical social worker, trauma expert and author of Thriving After Trauma, Stories of Living and Healing, identifies an issue she's observed in both her work and in the case of the Frankies. I think honestly, the problem is they don't spend enough time in the home to really see themselves.

These type of situations are so sick and so pervasive that they're really good. And the Frankie family might have been really good at this too, at covering up any type of evidence or suspicion of violence.

abuse. One of the worst things about coming from an abusive family is the amount of secrets that are kept and all the masking and the covering up. I don't look at it as it's a CPS issue. I look at it as if you really want to know what's going on in someone's home, you would have to be there for more than an hour or two hours. And you would need to really know how to talk to

Anybody in the family involved, whether it's the perpetrators, the victims in that situation. So I think CPS is inundated with calls. And I think that when you're in a system where the pathology is so rampant, they're going to be able to hide it. And I think that's probably what happened here.

here. And the other thing that you have to remember is that kids never want to tell. They never want to get their parents in trouble. So no matter how horrible, it is so hard for kids to run away or try to escape because they know on some level that if somebody finds out,

Their parents are in this situation. His mom is going to get in a lot of trouble. So I've talked to adults who have memories of being talked to by the police, by the Division of Youth and Family Services, and they've said to me, I didn't tell them the truth.

I didn't want to get my parents in trouble. So I think it's not just like, well, CPS missed something. I think they would need to be there. They would need to probably be there for days. You could have somebody come into the Frankie family for 24 hours and it could look like a happy family because I feel like she knew how to keep things under wraps.

There's another part of the Jodi Hildebrandt and Ruby Frankie story that has raised questions since the two first crossed paths, but became even more relevant once Ruby stated herself that she had been systematically influenced by the woman she initially hired as a counselor. How was it that a woman like Ruby, whose public persona touted a resistance to advice and opinion, got so caught up under Jodi's spell?

We asked mental health providers what they believe may have contributed to Jodi's ability to influence Ruby. Here's Dr. Kirk Honda, host of the Psychology in Seattle YouTube channel. It's just hypotheses at this point, of course. But the first is that when you are a parent in the United States, you will probably go online and look for tips, especially if you're running into a problem.

at the very least, you're going to hear other parents talking about parenting techniques or frustrations, like you're in the kindergarten hangout area of the parents and you just pick up on things. And there has been a movement which has been very positive overall in terms of rejecting old traditional ways of parenting, like spare the rod, spoil the child kind of stuff. We've

Moved on from that point of view and looked at the research and understand that to raise a happy child, to even have a compliant child, is to give love, to be patient, to reflect emotion. It doesn't mean that you just let a kid do whatever the hell they want. That's absurd. But you have ways of parenting that actually shape behavior and create happiness, right?

However, Dr. Honda explains not everyone is on board with more contemporary approaches to parenting.

Many still maintain what some may understand as outdated or strict is the right and effective way to raise children. What you have is a lot of people that we might call them conservative or traditional, and they don't resonate with the cultural associations of liberal, progressive America. And they're suspicious of them in general, just politically.

politically, but of course you have politicians and the priests or the ministers, the leaders religiously that will just constantly talk about the evil of the other side of the aisle. Not all of them, of course, but you know,

When you hear the spokesperson of God telling you that liberals are influencing you towards the devil, then, and you believe that person, you know, maybe left to your own devices, you would be a fine parent. Maybe you'd be a little bit more stern than the typical parent, but things probably would have been fine in the 70s, you know?

But you're going online and all you're seeing is foreign points of view and people shaming you for even considering any kind of discipline, even if it was not physical. And you're suspicious and upset. And then...

If you're a clinician like Jodi Hildebrandt in this community and you have enough business acumen and intelligence, you maybe start out in your career talking with parents about, yeah, don't listen to those people. I have another way. And you have parents that are just very thirsty for this. And for these individuals, they're eating it up.

Looking through the lens of Dr. Honda's hypothesis, Ruby may have found herself in the camp of rejecting a new culture of gentle parenting and looking towards a leader to legitimize her child-rearing philosophy.

And she found that in Jodi. So when you're a Jodi Hildebrandt and you stick your neck out, then you're going to be a lightning rod for a whole group of people that are legitimately feeling alienated, I would say. And then you start falling in love with your own BS, right? You start thinking, my God, look

Look how I'm a genius. People are calling me a genius. They're just crying as they enter my office appreciative of how helpful I am. Isaiah, a licensed professional counselor whose YouTube channel Therapy Talk features videos unpacking the Frankie Hildebrandt case, shared his theory as to how a parent could be coerced by an outsider to inflict abuse on their children. Thinking through how a parent might be induced to so harm her children,

And one of the experiments that a psychologist conducted years and years ago, the Milgram experiments came to mind, where this was an experiment testing what people would do under conditions where they were ordered to by an authority figure. And this was to experiment with what was going on in Nazi Germany. How could so many people follow really inhumane orders to do experiments?

atrocious things. And so there have been follow-up questions about kind of the validity of this experiment, just because of the nature of the experiment. It's not very replicable, just because of the ethical concerns. But they did find that most of the participants did follow orders to administer an electric shock to a third party when ordered to do so by the

Now, there wasn't an actual shock given, but they thought there was. And so that was one thing that I thought about as I was thinking about why would Ruby Frankie do these things?

And so one of the things that I've touched on a lot and emphasized in my videos reacting to this case is that we as therapists actually hold a lot more authority than we like to think that we do. And sometimes we take it for granted, but we have been licensed by the state that we work in. We have been given a lot of trust by families and individuals that are coming to us for help. And so oftentimes the advice that we give can be taken as gospel, even if it sounds counterintuitive, even if it sounds different from what

assumptions we come in with. And obviously, Jodi Hildebrandt did not. She recognized the authority that she had and abused it and used it as a tool for her to gain influence, money, power, all of these things. And so that's where my mind goes when it comes to Ruby Frankie and Jodi Hildebrandt.

Isaiah went on to emphasize that the client-provider relationship in the therapy field has an innate and implicit power dynamic that can be easily wielded in nefarious ways when a provider may have ulterior motives.

Unfortunately, it's very easy with that combination of vulnerability and the authority in that therapist position for someone to take advantage of it if they want to. The confidentiality built into it, the authority built into it makes it ripe for somebody to want to take advantage of that.

Therapist Katie Morton's theory echoes similar sentiments. Now, Jodi, I believe Ruby thought was in a power position. And for many reasons, a lot of us view people with licenses, medical or mental health professionals, as people of power. And so because Jodi showed interest in Ruby and asked her to join in as part of her connections, that power,

I don't know, business, I guess, or therapeutic thing that she put together. She wanted her to be a part of it. And I think Ruby felt like, oh, that's really good because I see her as like having it together. And she's this licensed professional. And oh, she saw how good I am.

And it made her feel good. It's almost like Ruby got like love bomb and taken into this experience. And so I think that's really why that happened. I know a lot of people were like, but she didn't seem to take advice from anybody. But then she was like, I don't feel really secure in who I am, but I'm going to put up this tough front. But oh my God, this person that I think is in a position of power chose me. And then it's easy to manipulate.

But Katie believes there's something more complex behind the impulse to point the finger at Jodi for everything. I definitely think that

The children, even the husband we've seen has put a lot of the blame and the emphasis on Jodi and the fact that she came in and like changed things. And I think that, you know, that a lot of people will want to place all of the blame on Jodi because that's easier. It's easier to do. I think in general, when we have someone who's abusive, I mean, I hear from my community all the time about the fact that it's really hard to admit that

my parents abused me or I was traumatized. Those words can feel really heavy and really big. And when the whole world is telling you, yeah, your mom was abusive. She was actually in jail for it. It's going to be much easier to say, Oh, that was only because of, you know, her friend that did this. She, my mom was fine until she joined our family or whatever. Right. I think there's going to be some of that because she,

It's hard to admit that our parents aren't amazing and maybe the death of the dream. A lot of my patients over the years have said, I just wish I had a normal mom or dad, or I just wish they'd shown up for me the way that I needed. And we still hold out hope in a very strange way. Even if the relationship is null and void or the parents passed away, there's still this dream of what a parent could be. And so it's going to be way easier to look at Jodi Hildebrand to be like, she's the problem because she's not my mom.

Katie urges viewers to take a more critical look at Ruby's part, too. We can't discredit Ruby. I mean, think of, she was in a position of power all on her own, right? Like, making a lot of money. Like, there's so much money to be made for vloggers, which is why family vloggers exist. She, you know, was probably the, like, quarterback

quote unquote leader of her household and felt like she was in this position of power. And I think connections, even if we say like, Oh, Jody was super manipulative and got her to do these psychologically manipulative things. Cause she's the licensed counselor. There's evidence online of Ruby doing stuff like that before Jody was around. It just went farther. Yeah.

Just the fact that like Ruby wouldn't bring her child lunch when they forgot and she'd be like, you have to go hungry or she'd take away their bedrooms or take away things, necessities for a child. That's enough. That's bad enough. And that's abusive. And that's also unacceptable. Sherry Botwin shares that in her experience as a licensed clinical social worker, people with traits like Ruby's often had something unbearable.

occur early in life that makes them more prone to impression from outside sources. I've worked with a lot of parents who are very influenced by what their parents think or what other people think. So what I see with people is if they have insecurities, like if they're lacking a sense of self and they feel like they have to worry about what others are going to think, those

Those are the types of people I see maybe adapting other forms of parenting more out of concern about others and how they'll think about them or how they'll view them. And again, I think that goes back to a core lack of self and self-worth and confidence. People who know who they are and know the way they want to parent would never be influenced by another person in such a way.

It just wouldn't happen. So I feel like some of what must have been happening with this woman, with Ruby, is something happened to her at some point in her life.

I think earlier on where she had these beliefs that were distorted already. So she's more prone or vulnerable to getting into a situation like the one that she was in. Obviously, this is a very extreme situation, but I think it can happen for people when they don't know who they are and they worry about what others are going to think of them. But what about the victims at the heart of this story?

What are the possible outcomes for the Frankie children? And how can they heal from these unthinkable traumas? It's going to be a journey for all six of them, but I think each of them are going to have their own response and it's going to be unique partly to developmentally how old they are, but also to the people around them and their relationship. So if they have...

A family member that they feel some sense of connection to that will help in their healing process because that person can then say to them things like there was nothing that you could have done to stop this.

This was not your fault. None of what happened should have happened. And what happened to you is because of the pathology that was going on in your mom's head or in this other woman's head. But she emphasized it's not just the younger children who will require this type of reinforcement. Shari probably needs somebody to tell her every day. It was never your job to be the...

protector or the caretaker of your siblings. You're a child. Even at 20, she's not a child anymore, but she's still a child in that family. And it's not her responsibility to stop something from happening if it shouldn't be happening. Sherry also gave an idea of what resources are immediately available to children in the aftermath of being extracted from an abusive home environment.

And how important it is for children to be provided mental health care as soon as possible. It depends on the state, but in the state where I live, there is a lot of intervention. There's a caseworker. There's what we call debriefing, which is done with a therapist, which is very important. That's when you give children the opportunity to begin talking about what happened. The sooner somebody talks...

the less likely they're going to have post-traumatic stress disorder when they're my age. So there's a lot of intervention. There's educational intervention there. I mean, the way I would look at it is that if the state is doing what they need to do for the child, there are resources that are given to children so that they have multiple forms of therapy provided.

She also says considerations for treatment should be tailored to each child's demographic and unique needs. And depending on the age of the child, you know, what Sherry's doing is going to be very different than what Russell's doing because there's like a seven-year age difference.

There's different types of therapy that they can offer if a child can't speak or doesn't have the words. So it's really about the offering of resources and support. If there are supportive family members, they would also be involved. There would be some psychoeducation and therapy offered to them so that they know what to say, what not to say.

One of the things that happens when you extract somebody from this situation is you want to watch out for different types of behaviors that can begin after the trauma ends, you know, depression, panic attacks, anxiety.

Eating disorders, anxiety, some of those issues can set in more once the trauma ends. So there also needs to be a level of awareness about the possibilities of what could happen now.

And in a family of six, their experiences are sure to vary. Each of them will have their own reaction and response to what has happened. So really being able to dress them as individuals. I know that the two of the youngest ones are in foster care right now. One of the questions that I want to ask is what kind of support are they getting and how much

Are they being watched? Because I can imagine those kids living with foster parents, how are they supposed to trust them? But Sherry believes hope is not lost. With the proper care and support, the Frankie children can both heal and thrive.

I would say, even though this is a really awful, awful story, I think there's a lot of hope that will come out of this. Like, I'm thinking if Shari, for instance, is able to listen to some of the reactions of the public and the amount of concern and caring that people feel for her, that in and of itself is healing, that there's a tension and that there's an acknowledgement of what happened and how wrong it was. I think that...

When children are rescued or extracted from this situation, there's years and years of recovery. But I think that it's not the same as an adult who blocked out the abuse and then at 50 years old tells me they're just starting to remember what happened to them when they were 13.

My hope is if the community is really just sort of providing a safe environment where they feel held, if they have a tribe behind them, a tribe can consist of anybody,

If they have people through the community, through their schools, through the people that they know from before all this happened, and there's a level of caring and support, that will make the biggest difference for them.

Beyond community, Katie Morton says the siblings can find support in one another too. The fact that most of these children are pretty young leads me to believe that their bond will be tighter than maybe other children. I find that usually with siblings in particular,

there's this sense of you've been through it too, because no matter how many friends or other people we meet who have similar experiences, the chances of it being our experience is slim to none, but a sibling's the closest we're going to get. And so when it comes to those traumatic experiences, we usually connect even more intensely. I find, especially because they're younger,

If they can be placed together, hopefully they are, then the bonds will grow tighter and they can feel like they have kind of their own support group to talk about it. And the more they talk and the more they can process, the better and the sooner the better. One thing about the Frankie children that stands out from other child abuse cases is that nearly seven years of their lives were shared on the Internet for the entire world to see.

We asked Cherry and Katie to weigh in on this detail too. It's so exposing for these children. And like my first thought is a big thumbs down. It's something that should not be allowed. I think about what are parents thinking when

when they put these type of posts out there for the world to see, my first thought is they're not really thinking. And they're certainly not thinking about the children. But I think that it leads those children to feel like they have no sense of privacy. There's no safety. There's no boundaries. The world can judge them. The world can judge their parents. So I just feel like

To me, it's a form of child abuse. When you go and you put things out there in a way that children don't understand, they don't have a say in it. That to me is a form of child abuse because the ramifications, the emotional damage and harm, the bullying that could come out a result of that.

I don't like family vlogging because children don't get the freedom to go through experiences in life without having everybody see it and weigh in on it. And then they don't get the opportunity to decide who hears and sees that. So they don't get to say like, oh, this relationship isn't at that depth where I feel safe enough to let them in on that stuff. That's abusive in and of itself. And that's really so detrimental. The two raise valid concerns, ones that demand attention.

Former 8 Passengers follower Alice Dawes has noticed that lawmakers and citizens alike are catching on. I know in several jurisdictions in the United States at the moment there's legislation coming through to protect children who have their image and likeness online, whose families profit off their image. And a lot of people have very strong feelings about whether children should be subject or should have their image online and what the rights of a child are when it comes to privacy.

She's not wrong. In fact, in the very month Ruby pleaded guilty, the Federal Trade Commission proposed changes to the 1998 Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. But at present, the proposed changes solely relate to protecting children's data and limiting the extent of what apps can track. When it comes to legislation pertaining to parents profiting and exploiting their children's likeness, it's still the Wild West.

YouTuber McKay Forsyth speaks to the helplessness felt in this regard. It's like the insurmountable task. Like, where do you even begin? Because anybody can upload videos to the internet and you don't have to upload any sort of records or anything like that. So that's why I feel like this kind of exploitation of people's children and their stories and their privacy has gone on to the point where it's just like uncontrollable. We don't know what to do, where to start because...

And I don't necessarily fault the tech industry laid the groundwork, but it is the people who go and upload videos and take advantage of that situation. And given the seemingly uncontrollable nature of the internet, what could feasibly be done? Katie shared her suggestions.

There needs to be more protection for children. I feel like the ways that we can go about this would be to not have content with children in it be monetizable unless you meet XYZ criteria and you have to prove it somehow. Just like SAG and other entities within Hollywood, there need to be protections in place so that they get to have a childhood and they get to have privacy just like we all would want. But we as consumers have a responsibility too.

Sherry Botwin had a particularly chilling observation specific to the Ruby Frankie saga.

I think her 2.5 million audience and their reactions propelled more abuse, but I don't think that's the 2.5 million people's fault. They're not the cause of that. They're raising red flags and saying, I don't know, this doesn't seem right. Why was she still allowed to post these videos? And how did she get away with this? I can't even imagine if any of her kids someday see some of the reactions

reaction of the public and how nothing was done, how devastating that would be for these children that they in some ways could have been saved by like

somebody out in that audience, right? And in the long run, it caused more harm. And again, the audience didn't do anything wrong, but it just goes to show you how, you know, we live in a society where people talk about abuse more, but they don't really understand it. If our society really understood abuse after she started sharing these videos, somebody would have gone to her home and said, you must stop.

And there would have been intervention. It would never have gotten to this point. YouTuber Jordan Forsyth spoke to a similar point and how the case of eight passengers has her consuming content like family vlogs more critically. I think it's all at the forefront of our minds right now, especially like as we watch these family bloggers, like these other family bloggers on the internet. I think all of us kind of have in the back of our mind now that there's this

at least for me, it makes me view things with a little bit of different eyes. Like I'm more skeptical than I was before about these family blockers and what they do behind the scenes just because of, you know, the nature of how they operate and how they treat their children because it's just that. Like what they put on...

it's no different than anybody who runs a social media account except for they have a massive audience and platform and the pressures that come with that to like with ideas of perfectionism you have to show up a certain way you have to parent your kids in a certain way you have to do things in a certain way and so i hope it makes people more skeptical of family vloggers and supporting them because the only reason that ruby and jody got to where they are is because they had people who watched them and they had and that contributed to their ad revenue

Like we, the people who watch them, I'm not saying are directly responsible, but it kept them on YouTube. Like it kept them making money. But I think often we don't recognize like the impact that we have on these situations where you have family bloggers that are desperate to do blogging because it's how they're making their money. And that's a scary place to be in. Like that's a scary place when you rely on blogging as a source of income.

Without proper laws in place protecting the rights of children online, what can we do from the other side of the screen to minimize their exploitation?

Don't click it. Don't give them any kind of feedback or monetary or hearts, nothing to encourage the behavior because in that way, at least at this point, that's the only way I can protect the children is to not view it and to not support it. And I think brands can do that. I think social media platforms can do that by removing the fiscal gain.

And if you insist on watching, find a workaround. If you're going to watch this, do it in a way where they don't get a click or they don't, especially they don't get any sort of revenue, which could, in most cases, you can watch a re-upload. Somebody does it, somebody doing commentary on it that kind of minimizes that impact and things like that. So I think a lot of people will kind of see that

You know, what was essentially made by social media and the masses and think if we can minimize it, we're noticing these kinds of behaviors in someone who is doing harmful things. How can we minimize the influence and the resources that they have to do something awful? Ruby Frankie and Jodi Hildebrandt may be the focus of our collective ire right now.

But as we look at the current landscape where institution after institution is coming under fire for their abuse and exploitation of children, vigilance is paramount. Ruby Frankie and Jodi Hildebrandt are just the ones that got caught. This is happening all the time. We are not done. We can't look at this story and go, all right, well, justice done. No, this is the tip of the tip of the iceberg. This is happening all over the place. We'll be back on April 8th with a special bonus episode.

where we'll dive deep into the records release from the Utah versus Frankie Hildebrandt case. This has been a Law & Crime production. I'm your host, Paula Barrows. Our executive producer is Jessica Lowther. Our producer and writer is Cooper Maul. Our editor is Brad Mabee. Our bookers are Alyssa Fisher and Diane Kay. And special thanks to Sean Panzera for designing our key art. ♪