Woman gets suspended sentence for assaulting child

worded · 02-05-2015 10:50pm

There should be a licence for having children.

There would be a 10 year ban imposed on hers for what she did, dirty tramp.

One eyed Jack · 02-05-2015 10:58pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Could you point to one thing I have made up or asserted that happened in this case?

Maybe link the post. Thanks.

You posited scenarios that never happened, I never said you made up or asserted that anything actually happened in this case. You're doing quite the opposite in fact to try and hold the father in some way responsible.

Carry on being a pedant though. You've yet to actually give any substantive or valid reason for why you think the father is responsible for this woman beating a child.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes.

Which is precisely why I didn't. I simply pointed out the flaw in asserting that he is blameless. As I will say for the 3rd or 4th time, we don't know enough either way, we can say he did not commit any crime. He may well be completely blameless, she may for example have bought the drink after he left for work.

You think the medical staff, the Gardaí, social workers, and anyone involved in this case, didn't already explore all the possibilities? You're damn right they did, and that's why the child was returned to his father, because they found the child's father completely blameless for his child being put in danger.

One eyed Jack · 02-05-2015 11:02pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

The father thought it was spider bites after the child told him that this woman had hit him.

That is WHY he took him to the hospital, because the rash and the bruising. Pure fluke.

Had he not gone to the hospital, none of this would have been discovered.

There are a couple of ways to think about responsibility, no he is not criminal responsible, but he is responsible parentally, psychologically, for choosing not to believe his son, even after presented with evidence from the doctors and the police.

There are indeed a couple of ways to think about responsibility, but none of those are ways are relevant in determining that the father was in any way responsible for this woman's actions. She took full responsibility for her own actions herself.

02-05-2015 11:05pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said you made up or asserted that anything actually happened in this case...

Actually, you did...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're just making stuff up...

But I am happy that you corrected yourself and conceded that I posited scenarios. The difference between asserting a fact and presenting a hypothesis.

One eyed Jack · 02-05-2015 11:18pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Actually, you did...

But I am happy that you corrected yourself and conceded that I posited scenarios. The difference between asserting a fact and presenting a hypothesis.

I said you were making stuff up, and now you're just talking nonsense.

02-05-2015 11:24pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I said you were making stuff up, and now you're just talking nonsense.

The difference between asserting a fact, which I did not do despite your initial claim, and positing a hypothesis is very real and not a "nonsense".

One eyed Jack · 02-05-2015 11:41pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The difference between asserting a fact, which I did not do despite your initial claim, and positing a hypothesis is very real and not a "nonsense".

I did not say you were asserting a fact. I specifically stated that you were making stuff up, and you were, here -

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Say if he knew she was blind drunk and she did something else, lit a cigarette with the gas on, fallen asleep with the door open, do you think he would bear no responsibility even though he left his child with a person in that state?

I appreciate he may not have known she would do that specific act.

None of that actually happened so there is no way anyone could make any possible determination, unless they had psychic powers, so your making stuff up had nothing to do with the case, which is why I never accused you of making up anything to do with the case.

You posited scenarios that never happened, instead of addressing the facts of what actually happened, and in regarding the facts of what actually happened, the father was found in no way responsible for the actions of this woman when she chose to viciously beat the child.

TallGlass · 03-05-2015 1:04am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I read a thread where a woman didn't get €38k for falling when drunk and a woman didn't get €60k for falling on an escalator. So thought your post interesting.

Fair play to you. Glad you found it interesting.

03-05-2015 4:29am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did not say you were asserting a fact. I specifically stated that you were making stuff up, and you were...

You know very well that I was referring to hypothetical scenarios and not asserting that either happened.

Because you know what the word "if" means. Plus you also know that there was no gas explosion or child running on to the street.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...the father was found in no way responsible for the actions of this woman when she chose to viciously beat the child.

Again, I never asserted this at all.

For perhaps the 5th time, I will say that we cannot evaluate his role at all, we can only say that he bore no responsibility at criminal law for her actions. But to say he was not responsible for her beating the child is, obviously, not to assert the opposite, that he did nothing wrong at all as a parent. If he knew she was drunk, or even just drinking, many parents would find leaving a child with her an unacceptable call, even if he had no idea that she would do what she did.

03-05-2015 4:30am

TallGlass wrote: »

Fair play to you. Glad you found it interesting.

Interesting in the sense of how wrong a post could be.

You said some woman got €38k from a fall when drunk. She didn't. You said another got 60k from a fall on an escalator. She didn't, she received 40k as there was contributory negligence.

One eyed Jack · 03-05-2015 8:29am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You know very well that I was referring to hypothetical scenarios and not asserting that either happened.

Because you know what the word "if" means. Plus you also know that there was no gas explosion or child running on to the street.

Yes? I said you were just making stuff up. You were.

Again, I never asserted this at all.

For perhaps the 5th time, I will say that we cannot evaluate his role at all, we can only say that he bore no responsibility at criminal law for her actions. But to say he was not responsible for her beating the child is, obviously, not to assert the opposite, that he did nothing wrong at all as a parent. If he knew she was drunk, or even just drinking, many parents would find leaving a child with her an unacceptable call, even if he had no idea that she would do what she did.

You can say it 500 times if you like, and it still won't be any more relevant.

liquoriceall · 03-05-2015 8:38am

He may have no legal responsibilty but morally he has. He left his child who already had unheaval in his short life with some woman he barely knew. He moved some woman he barely knew in with him and his child. Those are not the actions of a responsible parent.

03-05-2015 8:45am

Mod

First off, stop the bickering.

Secondly, the father did not get convicted of any crime. He was not responsible for his child being beaten and we won't allow further posts that imply he was.

Riverireland · 03-05-2015 8:54am

obriendj wrote: »

He said "on balance" a suspended sentence was appropriate

Another brilliant decision by an incompetent judge. (obviously without knowing all the facts but doing in to a kids room with intention of smacking him around seems quite stonewall.)

if it was a man who did this i wonder would a suspended sentence be sufficient?

This judge has form with worse than this. Google him. If it were a man who did it he probably would have left him off too. This woman should be locked up for at least a year or two.

mushu · 03-05-2015 9:03am

I am a second mother to my nephew. I helped my sister when he was a baby while I was sleep deprived and recovering from depression.
I babysat on a very regular basis while she was in work and he was going through the terrible twos & threes.
I was kicked and hit by him when he was adjusting to his epilepsy medication which had severe bad behaviour as a side effect.
I have had 3 miscarriages, 2 before my first child was born.
I went through period of thinking I could never have kids of my own while my nephew (who was not planned by my then 19 year old sister) was being an absolute nightmare. I never once lifted a finger against that child. The pain of miscarriage is no excuse for hurting a child.
A suspended sentence is a disgrace.

Micky Dolenz · 03-05-2015 3:24pm

This case has really stuck in my head the last few days and my dismay hasn't subsided.

I will contact the minister for justice, the reply will be that they don't comment on individual cases. I will contact my local TD to see if they will raise the matter in the Dail.

I've a friend in the department of justice, hopefully thy can direct me to the right line of inquiry.

It probably won't come to anything, but it's important to air my disappointment in our ability to punish those who abuse out children with appropriate sentences.

zeffabelli · 03-05-2015 3:26pm

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

This case has really stuck in my head the last few days and my dismay hasn't subsided.

I will contact the minister for justice, the reply will be that they don't comment on individual cases. I will contact my local TD to see if they will raise the matter in the Dail.

I've a friend in the department of justice, hopefully thy can direct me to the right line of inquiry.

It probably won't come to anything, but it's important to air my disappointment in our ability to punish those who abuse out children with appropriate sentences.

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

Micky Dolenz · 03-05-2015 3:30pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

Yeep and judges are judges cos they can look at cases without emotion. Still though, it will cost me nothing as an Irish citizen to voice my opinion. As seen in the recent past, judges get things wrong.

JupiterKid · 03-05-2015 4:11pm

Disgusting - and I don't know which is more disgusting - the battering of that innocent small child by that evil woman or the incredibly lenient sentence handed down to her.

The woman should have got a minimum of 2 years in prison for what she did. Having a miscarriage and consuming three bottles of wine are no excuse.

tritium · 03-05-2015 4:21pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

Unfortunately thus seems to weigh a little too heavily in a judges mind regardless of the crime. Anthony Lyons seems to have had a similar list of mitigation - upstanding member of the community, no history of offending etc., with I think, the same judge.

Thankfully in that case the judges view was overruled and hopefully the same will happen here.

03-05-2015 4:36pm

I'd suspect they'd only be some pressure to appeal if the father of the child expressed outrage at the verdict and called for it.

zeffabelli · 03-05-2015 4:38pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd suspect they'd only be some pressure to appeal if the father of the child expressed outrage at the verdict and called for it.

And ultimately, how is a prison sentence going to help?

There is something going on underneath.....

Yeah I know...I sound like a liberal wish wash...which I am not by any stretch...but the punitive system doesn't work and yes Id say that about a man too before anyone asks.

03-05-2015 4:45pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

After she initially denied it and allowed the father to believe the child was lying.

Into The Blue · 03-05-2015 4:51pm

Sustained assault on a six year old.. That's a new low even for this country.

Wonder if I'd get a suspended sentence if i punched a garda/judge, threw him against a wall, hitting his head off the wall, then taking the time to drag him too another area so i could use a mop to further beat him.

It would be a first offence, and i would plead guilty of course.

Letree · 03-05-2015 4:52pm

The fathers attitude is very worrying.

zeffabelli · 03-05-2015 4:59pm

Deleted User wrote: »

After she initially denied it and allowed the father to believe the child was lying.

THis is a part I am very confused about.

Did she genuinely not remember due to the alcohol consumption and then later the memory was recovered? If she genuinly blacked out or dissociated then how could she have done otherwise.

tritium · 03-05-2015 5:08pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

THis is a part I am very confused about.

Did she genuinely not remember due to the alcohol consumption and then later the memory was recovered? If she genuinly blacked out or dissociated then how could she have done otherwise.

Given it doesn't appear to have been offered in mitigation (and everything bar the kitchen sink seems to have been offered) I wouldn't be assuming that to be the case.

At any rate, remorse etc aren't in themselves sufficient to avoid a custodial sentence if the crime is severe enough, which I'd suggest is the case here.

Bubolor · 03-05-2015 5:20pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

She should be in prison, simple as that.

hatrickpatrick · 03-05-2015 5:22pm

zeffabelli wrote: »

Thing is as abhorrent as it is, if you look at it in a legal context it's not a surprise.

If you look at other suspended sentences, this is no different to the other ones.

First offence by other wise upstanding member of the community.

Young- she is 25 with no history of abuse.

Remorseful.

Pled guilty and took full responsibility.

But because this is the precedent, it essentially means it can never change. Unless some brave judge calls it out for the bullsh!t that it is and sets a new precedent - or unless the government change the law and introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for certain crimes.

osarusan · 03-05-2015 5:25pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But because this is the precedent, it essentially means it can never change. Unless some brave judge calls it out for the bullsh!t that it is and sets a new precedent - or unless the government change the law and introduce mandatory minimum sentencing for certain crimes.

Is it a precedent? Has there never been a similar case before?

Woman gets suspended sentence for assaulting child

Comments