Mother jailed for neglect and assault on her children

El_Duderino 09

LexieOnRale wrote:

So what are you saying?

That some posters have no interest in discussion of this case and are entirely interested in the punishment for the perpetrator.

If you had an interest in the children, or ensuring that we understand what led to her behaviour, you would show more curiosity.

The rest of the conversation, you made up.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't care what led to her behaviour. She's a grown woman, there is no reasonable cause for running a child over with a car, or sticking a child's head under water. I have no interest in what "led her" to mentally and physically torture defenceless children.
My interest lies solely on how those children begin to even try have a normal childhood.

Whispered

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't care what led to her behaviour. She's a grown woman, there is no reasonable cause for running a child over with a car, or sticking a child's head under water. I have no interest in what "led her" to mentally and physically torture defenceless children.
My interest lies solely on how those children begin to even try have a normal childhood.

I feel the same, looking at my little fella, less than 2 years old and I hope that bitch meets a bully in prison who'll let her know what sort of fear she inflicted.

I also feel that this sort of thing needs strong preventative measures in place, to do that effectively we need to understand why it happened. It's not excusing anything.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That some posters have no interest in discussion of this case and are entirely interested in the punishment for the perpetrator.

If you had an interest in the children, or ensuring that we understand what led to her behaviour, you would show more curiosity.

The rest of the conversation, you made up.

That's a very unfair comment tbh. I don't particularly care for what drove the mother in this case to do what she did. I'm just not that curious or anything else about her. That in no way whatsoever is an indication that I have no interest in the future welfare of the children.

El_Duderino 09

LexieOnRale wrote:

I don't care what led to her behaviour. She's a grown woman, there is no reasonable cause for running a child over with a car, or sticking a child's head under water. I have no interest in what "led her" to mentally and physically torture defenceless children. My interest lies solely on how those children begin to even try have a normal childhood.

I know you don't care about those things. That's why it's lucky that there are clever, empathetic and creative people working in hard to understand how these things happen so they can predict future harm and intervene before harm happens. That can't happen if you write it off as evil or bad. That's just intellectual laziness and it won't help anyone.

Continue to not care about those things. Other people are takin care of protecting children while you're shouting and roaring about electric chairs and rotting in prison.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

yeah, you continue on there, I'm done. Not everyone needs a reason to be a horrible person. Social services, and teachers of these kids shoulda been on the ball a lot earlier.

FortySeven

Let's be clear here. Harsh prison sentences will not stop these things from happening.
Intervention of mental health or social work services will not stop these things from happening.

There will not be a pill discovered that stops this from happening.

It will always happen. It has always happened. Life for some will always be sh1tty.

It's just life and it is the luck of the draw, sadly.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

That's a very unfair comment tbh. I don't particularly care for what drove the mother in this case to do what she did. I'm just not that curious or anything else about her. That in no way whatsoever is an indication that I have no interest in the future welfare of the children.

I get it. If you don't care or can't see it from both sides, fair enough. The way to protect future children is to understand the behaviour so you predict it and protect vulnerable children. If you're not interesting all that, fine. But you can't say blatantly that you don't care about it and take umbrage when I repeat it.

whatismyname

FortySeven wrote: »

Let's be clear here. Harsh prison sentences will not stop these things from happening.
Intervention of mental health or social work services will not stop these things from happening.

There will not be a pill discovered that stops this from happening.

It will always happen. It has always happened. Life for some will always be sh1tty.

It's just life and it is the luck of the draw, sadly.

It will always happen, but in many cases, it can be identified and stopped.

I know that for me, as an adult, I got my social work records - and there were case conferences about my family when I was six years old, so many signs there that something needed to be done - yet we were left with no involvement for years where my siblings and I were long-term abused and neglected.

And that was just social services letting us down - then add in the many adults who saw what was happening and did nothing.

No magic pill will ever be invented, but too many people are let down too badly, and it's sh1t. We need to do so, so much better .

El_Duderino 09

LexieOnRale wrote:

yeah, you continue on there, I'm done. Not everyone needs a reason to be a horrible person. Social services, and teachers of these kids shoulda been on the ball a lot earlier.

Social services act based on research. Research was never carried out by lazy people who look at a behaviour and say 'i dont care why this happened, that's just evil'

Standing on the shoulders of giants and taking a dump.

FortySeven

whatismyname wrote: »

It will always happen, but in many cases, it can be identified and stopped.

I know that for me, as an adult, I got my social work records - and there were case conferences about my family when I was six years old, so many signs there that something needed to be done - yet we were left with no involvement for years where my siblings and I were long-term abused and neglected.

And that was just social services letting us down - then add in the many adults who saw what was happening and did nothing.

No magic pill will ever be invented, but too many people are let down too badly, and it's sh1t. We need to do so, so much better .

I was first at a psychologist at 2 and in family court at 3. Left alone until 9 then social services and psychologists were involved again, then left again then care home at 11 and put on the child protection register. This banned ALL family contact.
I believe they performed well in my case but I was not able to tell them what happened until I was safe in the kids home. By the time I was there I had been forced to live in the unconverted attic of the house over winter in the highlands of Scotland.

It's a very complex system and easy to manipulate. I agree more needs to be done but they keep doing more and it keeps happening. I think if we multiplied the service by a thousand we would still see the same amount of cases like the one we are talking about.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I get it. If you don't care or can't see it from both sides, fair enough. The way to protect future children is to understand the behaviour so you predict it and protect vulnerable children. If you're not interesting all that, fine. But you can't say blatantly that you don't care about it and take umbrage when I repeat it.

There isn't a "both sides" to look at. The children aren't responsible for their mothers behaviour. No matter how large your meta-studies are, 50 years later we still hadn't predicted cases like this. The problem isn't with prediction, it's with the fact that people still turn a blind eye to the crap that's going on right under their noses. It's with the fact that the sentences for these crimes are so lenient when they are reported and we have people trying to make out like the perpetrators must be the real victims. That's neither creative nor clever or any of the rest of it. It's just nonsense, and to suggest that because someone doesn't care about the mother means they must not care about the children - it is an unfair comment. That was the most civil way I could think to put it tbh.

El_Duderino 09

FortySeven wrote:

It's a very complex system and easy to manipulate. I agree more needs to be done but they keep doing more and it keeps happening. I think if we multiplied the service by a thousand we would still see the same amount of cases like the one we are talking about.

If they get better at detecting cases, then of course they will continue to find more cases. That's a good thing.

I think you're right that there will never be a way to eliminate this behaviour. It's not a new thing. It appears to fall within natural variation of the human race and it's our responsibility to manage that by incarceration and treatment, and protecting children from harm.

It's not fair to criticise social services for not eliminating the behaviour because that's not what they are supposed to do. They are supposed to detect risky cases and protect children from harm. More power to them.

Thanks for sharing your experience with us btw. Goodnight.

FortySeven

FortySeven wrote: »

I was first at a psychologist at 2 and in family court at 3.

Ah Lord. You were only a baba

I hope life is better for you now.

whatismyname

Jesus, just read the details of another case that's at trial at the moment. Won't post the link as we can't discuss cases currently before the courts, but my god the things people do to children are beyond horrific. Bloody hate this world.

FortySeven

whatismyname wrote: »

Jesus, just read the details of another case that's at trial at the moment. Won't post the link as we can't discuss cases currently before the courts, but my god the things people do to children are beyond horrific. Bloody hate this world.

Don't hate the world. However many stories like this you read there are a million nice stories you didn't. I have met inspirational people and seen random acts of kindness, bravery and compassion in the most unlikely situations.

The world is good. There are just many different types of people and behaviors inhabiting it.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don't particularly care for what drove the mother in this case to do what she did. I'm just not that curious or anything else about it [...].

This is the 'other side', understanding why it happened.. Nothing to do with children being responsible. I've no idea where you got that idea.

One eyed Jack wrote:

There isn't a "both sides" to look at. The children aren't responsible for their mothers behaviour. No matter how large your meta-studies are, 50 years later we still hadn't predicted cases like this. The problem isn't with prediction, it's with the fact that people still turn a blind eye to the crap that's going on right under their noses. It's with the fact that the sentences for these crimes are so lenient when they are reported and we have people trying to make out like the perpetrators must be the real victims. That's neither creative nor clever or any of the rest of it. It's just nonsense, and to suggest that because someone doesn't care about the mother means they must not care about the children - it is an unfair comment. That was the most civil way I could think to put it tbh.

Who.. who... WHO said anything about he perpetrator being the real victim? Please, I need someone to quote 1 single post that even suggests that stipid notion. Show me or tell me you can't show me because it doesn't exist.

I keep having to say that explaining isn't anything to do with excusing. I don't want to hug the mother and tell her she's a victim. If you think that, then you're missing the point.

The point is to understand the behaviour so you can help prevent it happening in future. That's how to protect children.

There very definately are 2 sides. You're happy to only deal with punishment and that's fine. But you can't just pretend that there isn't another side. What would social services do if here weren't clever, creative people who work bloody hard to understand these behaviours? What guidelines would there be? They spot risk factors and make a determination based on evidence. If we just said 'she's evil' then there would be nothing to learn from the case and nothing woud improve in the future.

Asking 'what caused the harm and how do we prevent it happening again?' is always the smart thing to do. Why are some people not able to care about that?

whatismyname

FortySeven wrote: »

Don't hate the world. However many stories like this you read there are a million nice stories you didn't. I have met inspirational people and seen random acts of kindness, bravery and compassion in the most unlikely situations.

The world is good. There are just many different types of people and behaviors inhabiting it.

Please don't tell me whether to hate the world or not.

I have also met many inspirational people and seen random act of kindness, bravery and compassion in the most unlikely situations.

I'm all too aware that there are many different types of people and behaviours inhabiting the world.

I'll still hate the world if I like, thanks very much.

whatismyname

whatismyname wrote: »

Please don't tell me whether to hate the world or not.

I have also met many inspirational people and seen random act of kindness, bravery and compassion in the most unlikely situations.

I'm all too aware that there are many different types of people and behaviours inhabiting the world.

I'll still hate the world if I like, thanks very much.

Oh I think fortyseven meant those words with kindness rather than telling you what you should or shouldn't do.

whatismyname

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I think fortyseven meant those words with kindness rather than telling you what you should or shouldn't do.

Thanks Persepoly, I never doubted that for one second.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is the 'other side', understanding why it happened.. Nothing to do with children being responsible. I've no idea where you got that idea.



Who.. who... WHO said anything about he perpetrator being the real victim? Please, I need someone to quote 1 single post that even suggests that stipid notion. Show me or tell me you can't show me because it doesn't exist.

I keep having to say that explaining isn't anything to do with excusing. I don't want to hug the mother and tell her she's a victim. If you think that, then you're missing the point.

The point is to understand the behaviour so you can help prevent it happening in future. That's how to protect children.

There very definately are 2 sides. You're happy to only deal with punishment and that's fine. But you can't just pretend that there isn't another side. What would social services do if here weren't clever, creative people who work bloody hard to understand these behaviours? What guidelines would there be? They spot risk factors and make a determination based on evidence. If we just said 'she's evil' then there would be nothing to learn from the case and nothing woud improve in the future.

Asking 'what caused the harm and how do we prevent it happening again?' is always the smart thing to do. Why are some people not able to care about that?

Maybe you're missing my point then - collect as much data as you want, predict as many at risk identifiers as you want, but your data is utterly useless unless people actually act upon it, and in this case, repeatedly - they either willingly didn't do so, or simply failed to do so. Researching the reasons why anyone failed to act sooner to prevent any further torture of these children might be a better starting point for their research.

FortySeven

whatismyname wrote: »

Please don't tell me whether to hate the world or not.

I have also met many inspirational people and seen random act of kindness, bravery and compassion in the most unlikely situations.

I'm all too aware that there are many different types of people and behaviours inhabiting the world.

I'll still hate the world if I like, thanks very much.

Understood. Haters gonna hate! ;-)

Didn't mean to sound patronising.

whatismyname

whatismyname wrote: »

Thanks Persepoly, I never doubted that for one second.

Ok

hatrickpatrick

Nothing will change in Ireland until we stop treating criminals as if all they've done is stolen a packet of crisps.

Four f*cking years. People get longer sentences than that for drug dealing and money laundering. And what the f*ck is the point of concurrent sentences? If you are convicted of multiple crimes, you should serve multiple sentences.

There's absolutely no climate of fear around committing crimes here. Everyone knows that nothing meaningful happens to you if you're caught. I'd love to know whether this woman was an antisocial scumbag in her youth?

Finally, I'm willing to bet almost anything that the husband gets off scott free. Aiding and abetting doesn't seem to count where child abuse is concerned - otherwise we'd have literally hundreds of facilitators, from Gardai to government, in jail over the clerical sex abuse. This guy stood by and allowed her to torture her kids, and unless by some miracle I'm very much mistaken, the court will admonish him and let the f*cker go, scott free. :mad:

sonofenoch

Let me guess, mother can't be named for legal reasons?

if it was the father we'd have his name, age address mugshot and what he had for breakfast all across the wires

sonofenoch

sonofenoch wrote: »

Let me guess, mother can't be named for legal reasons?

if it was the father we'd have his name, age address mugshot and what he had for breakfast all across the wires

Neither will be named to protect the children.

KERSPLAT!

sonofenoch wrote: »

Let me guess, mother can't be named for legal reasons?

if it was the father we'd have his name, age address mugshot and what he had for breakfast all across the wires

Don't start this ****e.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote:

Maybe you're missing my point then - collect as much data as you want, predict as many at risk identifiers as you want, but your data is utterly useless unless people actually act upon it, and in this case, repeatedly - they either willingly didn't do so, or simply failed to do so. Researching the reasons why anyone failed to act sooner to prevent any further torture of these children might be a better starting point for their research.

When did we start talking about people not taking action? If that's the point you want to make now, fair enough.

Any action will he based on years of asking why these things happen. There wouldn't be the guidelines for action if we wrote behaviour off as evil. It wyld just be social workers going around taking a 'finger in the air' judgement. Imagine the outrage on AH if social workers could just decide to remove children. Nanny State. It's a bleeding disgrace, Joe!

At the end of the day, people get their kicks from these types of stories. Some people get a kick from the torture and punishment aspect. 'How could she dob these things? She should rot in prison or fry in the electric chair'. Those people aer then happy to wait around for the next torture/punishment story to get their next fix.

Other people aren't that interested in the torture/punishment side of the story and get their kicks from understanding why it happened and finding ways to intervene earlier or evdn prevent this type of thing happening to other children. Depends on your goals.

You can never hope to reduce future harm if you don't/can't care about why it happened.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Are you serious? Since I made those comments about leaving her rot in prison, and a dose of volts from an electric chair, are you suggesting I don't care this is happening to children?

Even in this thread, there are many posters telling us their story of how they came from an abusive home. I'm curious as to how many of the abusers were brought to court, and recieved appropriate sentences, because let's be honest - this woman's sentence is as vile as how she treated her children.

If social workers were more active in cases like this, the chances of children being taken from abusers and placed with the other parent (if safe) or another meme member of family, or in foster care were greater, and child abusers recieving a harsh custodial sentence - that being the norm - I'd be willing to bet that it might make people rethink how they treat their children.

Because how it is now, social services don't get involved until someone else flags the issue (doctor, teacher etc) and even then it can be years, if ever, before anything is done. And as for parents being brought to court, criminal court, that's really rare.

The kids should be the main priority. Their safety, their well being. Not the parents right to be guardian or to have custody of the kids just because they have given birth. There's more to being a parent than that. I'm wondering why it takes years in some cases before a child's removed from an abusive home, and that's if they're lucky. As we see in this thread, not everybody was.
You can't expect a young child to give details of how their being treated at home when they may be ashamed of how their parents treat them, probably because they think they're bad or that they deserve it, fear of getting their parents in trouble - at the end of the day, I'm sure they do love their mother in some way, she's all they know, frightened of the repercussions if they're sent back to that house.

I'm not interested in a grown woman's substance abuse, how she may have had a hard life, how she might be untreated for a mental illness, or how she doesn't know how to be a mom. Don't care. She's a grown woman. If she knew that what she was doing carried a minimum sentence she may not have done it. Who knows?

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

When did we start talking about people not taking action? If that's the point you want to make now, fair enough.

Any action will he based on years of asking why these things happen. There wouldn't be the guidelines for action if we wrote behaviour off as evil. It wyld just be social workers going around taking a 'finger in the air' judgement. Imagine the outrage on AH if social workers could just decide to remove children. Nanny State. It's a bleeding disgrace, Joe!

At the end of the day, people get their kicks from these types of stories. Some people get a kick from the torture and punishment aspect. 'How could she dob these things? She should rot in prison or fry in the electric chair'. Those people aer then happy to wait around for the next torture/punishment story to get their next fix.

Other people aren't that interested in the torture/punishment side of the story and get their kicks from understanding why it happened and finding ways to intervene earlier or evdn prevent this type of thing happening to other children. Depends on your goals.

You can never hope to reduce future harm if you don't/can't care about why it happened.

I understand where you're coming from, but it not only depends on your goals, but how those goals are achieved. I think your comment that if someone doesn't care about the parents means they must not care about the children's welfare was completely wrong. That's all. I think the sentencing in this case, and in many cases involving the abuse and neglect of children, have historically been unduly lenient. The judiciary needs to send a message to everyone in society that this is not ok, this kind of behaviour will be severely punished.

Of course people are angry, and frustrated, that such lenient punishments continue to be handed down to people who commit abuse against children, and they can also care about the future of those children, but they're under no obligation to care about why an adult would ever want to harm a child.

If we're still unable to prevent these things from happening after how many decades now collecting data, then there's either something wrong with how the data is being collected and interpreted, or the most simple answer is that people are simply ignoring the abuse as they don't want to report it, and those that do report it, it takes years for the authorities to act on it, and if there's a prosecution then, the sentences handed down are far too lenient.