Karen has used at least three different ages when her adult "foster son"
was supposedly kicked out of his home: 11, 12, 13. She has no room to
criticize this guy's parents: after all, she abandoned her own son at an
even younger age. She didn't even meet the "foster son" until he was 19,
so she really only has his word for it. By her own accounts, there would
be little reason to take his word for it: he sadly had many problems
ranging from drug abuse to homosexuality to prostituting himself.

I thought I remembered something else about the prostitution involved
and it shows yet another inconsistency in her story.

My child was already away at school by the time I got to know
any "out" pedophiles. My "foster son" ( who was already 19 when
I first met him)had been an underage prostitute before I met
him, and was quite clear that he enjoyed the sex itself, and
much preferred that as a way of supporting himself to flipping
burgers at McOffal's.
http://snipurl.com/4nay

That contradicts what she told someone else:
My foster son was an abuser of crystal meth. He ruined his life
in many ways. Why did he take it? Because he had problems that
only chemical oblivion could eae. he had been tossed out when
he was eleven years old because he was ***. He had lived and
worked as a prostitute because that's the ONLY work a child can
GET legally!
http://snipurl.com/4nac

Three different ages given and two different reasons for prostituting
himself. I said it was fishy, and I was right.

I don't know what the whole story is with that guy. It's sad regardless
of how he ended up on the streets, and it's sad that his last days were
filled with child-hating monsters like Karen and Sylvia rather than his
own family. In reality, Karen probably befriended a couple of young
punks and did nothing to discourage their openly risky behavior (see
below: I wouldn't doubt if she ENCOURAGED risky behavior). What she did
isn't foster parenting (fits in with her usual game of semantics; she
doesn't understand the word "protestant," either).

We can also conclude that her counselling of the young street urchin was
a matter of the blind leading the blind since she isn't playing with a
full deck, either. Consider the rest of the first snippet above:

I would have had no hesitation in letting my son associate
with the responsible pedophiles I met. Just as associating
with a *** person will not "turn" a straight kid ***,
associating with a _responsible_ pedophile ( meaning one
who respects his partners and does not rape or coerce
them against their will) will not make a child who is
not at all interested in sexual activity of some kind with
an older person into a "victim." In our society, I would
be much more concerned about a furtive encounter with
a secretive, predatory rapist than a friendship between
members of my family and someone who is willing to come out
as a responsible pedophile. I would tend to trust such a
person, if I knew him well enough for him to trust me with
the information and he had proved himself honorable and
trustworthy.
http://snipurl.com/4nay

She was no more a "foster mother" than she was a real one. Real parents
take care of their children rather than abandoning them; they discourage
behavior that will cause their children problems in life; they protect
them from bad influences rather than introduce them to pedophiles.