Mother inflicts serious injuries to baby - judge says jail wouldn't do any good!

Keano

She battered the poor baby over and over and is still allowed supervised visits.
How is that punishment.

Link

orourkeda1977

She'd be on the receiving end in jail.

seamus

Counsel for the woman, Pat Whyms BL said that the State had not proceeded with assault causing harm charge against his client and there was no evidence to support a charge that the mother had deliberately assaulted the baby.

Whyms pointed to a report from the baby’s Guardian ad Litem (GAL) who he said shared the view with the mother’s clinical psychologist “that the harm incurred by the baby was unlikely that the to have been deliberately inflicted”.

As horrific as it is, I'm going to accept the word of the prosecution and the experts when they say that this woman wasn't malicious, merely incredibly stupid and careless.

What purpose would be served by sending her to jail? Punishing her isn't going to "send a message" to anyone else stupid enough to behave like this, and it's certainly not going to make her a better person.

Supervised visits seems fair enough for the foreseeable future. Until the child is 8 or 9, at least.

Calhoun

I would say a degree of sexism from the judge, sure how could he jail a mammy.

Broken legs, arms and a fractured skull, how close to death does the child have to be before someone like this is jailed.

GoneHome

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

She'd be on the receiving end in jail.

And rightly so, she doesn't deserve to be called a mother

Jim Bob Scratcher

It's a woman's world

LithiumKid1976

heard that on the news this morning. couldn't believe it.
poor defenseless baby beaten by the one whos supposed to mind them.

you literally wont do time in this county unless you kill some one.

Keano

seamus wrote: »

As horrific as it is, I'm going to accept the word of the prosecution and the experts when they say that this woman wasn't malicious, merely incredibly stupid and careless.

What purpose would be served by sending her to jail? Punishing her isn't going to "send a message" to anyone else stupid enough to behave like this, and it's certainly not going to make her a better person.

Supervised visits seems fair enough for the foreseeable future. Until the child is 8 or 9, at least.

She should never see that child again. She lost that right the minute she broke it's limbs and tried to ram something down it's throat, to no doubt stop it crying because it was in pain.

RocketRaccoon

Imagine the outrage if this was a man.

blackwhite

seamus wrote: »

As horrific as it is, I'm going to accept the word of the prosecution and the experts when they say that this woman wasn't malicious, merely incredibly stupid and careless.

What purpose would be served by sending her to jail? Punishing her isn't going to "send a message" to anyone else stupid enough to behave like this, and it's certainly not going to make her a better person.

Supervised visits seems fair enough for the foreseeable future. Until the child is 8 or 9, at least.

Change "her" to "him", and "mother" to "father", and there'd be major outrage if a judge allowed the abuser to avoid a custodial sentence.

seamus

Keano wrote: »

She should never see that child again. She lost that right the minute she broke it's limbs and tried to ram something down it's throat, to no doubt stop it crying because it was in pain.

Seems like an unnecessarily definite punishment, no? After all, she wouldn't get 18 years in jail for actually assaulting the child.

Are the child's best interests served by excluding a parent from their life permanently? Surely supervised visits strike the best balance between the right to know one's parents and the safety of the child?

KERSPLAT!

Couldn't even read it all. That poor poor child.

seamus

blackwhite wrote: »

Change "her" to "him", and "mother" to "father", and there'd be major outrage if a judge allowed the abuser to avoid a custodial sentence.

Have you anything to back this up or is it just reactionary hysteria?

Gimme A Pound

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

It's a woman's world

Yes, that's the important element here - not what the **** did to the child. Meh, there are contexts where it's a man's world too.

And it's because of traditional (not feminist) views that the mother gets preference as a parent even when ridiculous.

But anyway, back to the actual topic: ok I don't know the legalities but the standard of care "fell well below of what one would expect from a mother and was totally unacceptable" - the downplaying language used is galling. She could have killed the child.

Have to read it a couple of times because of all The Journal's typos but it says "She persisted with this behaviour knowing it caused harm" and then "it was unlikely deliberate" - which is it?!

A violent neglectful person who knew what she was doing - she is an adult. Plenty of women have pnd and are overwhelmed when they have a baby. The vast majority don't inflict bone breaking injuries.

CrankyHaus

seamus wrote: »

As horrific as it is, I'm going to accept the word of the prosecution and the experts when they say that this woman wasn't malicious, merely incredibly stupid and careless.

What purpose would be served by sending her to jail? Punishing her isn't going to "send a message" to anyone else stupid enough to behave like this, and it's certainly not going to make her a better person.

Supervised visits seems fair enough for the foreseeable future. Until the child is 8 or 9, at least.

In general I disagree. A careless attitude towards the safety of infants (and others) is held by many, who are all vaguely aware that they will not face any real criminal consequences for harm arising from their attitude. From time to time this causes injuries like this, or even death.



Genuine criminal consequences could encourage many to change their attitudes and behaviour. Even a fully suspended sentence could highlight criminal responsibility for unintended injuries and death caused by carelessness. A similar process was employed suceesfully in the past with aspects of road safety such as wearing a seat-belt or drink-driving.

Gimme A Pound

"Waaah, imagine if it was a man!" - bunch of whiny little girls. How about being more concerned about what the baby endured?

kylith

On the one hand I'm trying to wrap my head around a teenage mother with no desire to have a child, no knowledge of how to look after one, no backup, and suffering from PND.

Ont the other hand my fists itch and I want to take a hurley to her.

One eyed Jack

Keano wrote: »

She battered the poor baby over and over and is still allowed supervised visits.
How is that punishment.

Link

It’s not, and there’s a lot more to that case than is written in that shìtty article purposely written as it is to whip up moral outrage. Even the headline that she “walked free” from Court. No she didn’t. The Judge in the case imposed a two year suspended sentence on condition that she continues to comply with the recommendations of a Probation Services report.

As horrific and all as the headlines make it sound, that’s exactly what they’re intended to do. I’m not in any way condoning or justifying or excusing her behaviour, I’m just not particularly surprised by the Judges decision is all in considering all the factors involved in the case and acting first and foremost in the best interests of the child.

seamus

kylith wrote: »

On the one hand I'm trying to wrap my head around a teenage mother with no desire to have a child, no knowledge of how to look after one, no backup, and suffering from PND.

Ont the other hand my fists itch and I want to take a hurley to her.

Contrast it with the young couple on "The Rotunda" last week who became parents with 3 hours notice and seemed to be doing great.

Quite incredible that nobody raised any flags about this woman at the time the child was born, never mind 5 months later.

kylith

seamus wrote: »

Contrast it with the young couple on "The Rotunda" last week who became parents with 3 hours notice and seemed to be doing great.

Quite incredible that nobody raised any flags about this woman at the time the child was born, never mind 5 months later.

It's probable that what she did is not a million miles away to the way she was dragged up, and therefore the only thing she knew to do. An 'if it cries you give it a smack and it learns not to cry' mentality. If that was the case then there was no-one to raise any flags.

GreeBo

“poor judgement, bad decision making and use of force that was unknowingly unnecessary”

Me bollix.

I'm still terrified I'm going to break a finger when putting a top on my little one even though she is apparently made of rubber, I'm pretty sure you don't break bones and fracture a skull unknowingly...certainly not after the first time!

seamus

kylith wrote: »

It's probable that what she did is not a million miles away to the way she was dragged up, and therefore the only thing she knew to do. An 'if it cries you give it a smack and it learns not to cry' mentality. If that was the case then there was no-one to raise any flags.

The state should be raising flags. Call it social profiling, but it's necessary; parents under 18, women with PND, single parents' first child, families long-term on social welfare, etc etc etc.

There are lots of healthcare professionals who see the mother and child in their first month, lots of contact points for a concern to be raised and machinations to kick in and flag someone for additional assistance/observation.

razorblunt

Fúck you Judge Keys, Fúck. You.

razorblunt

Daisy Dirty Jig wrote: »

"Waaah, imagine if it was a man!" - bunch of whiny little girls. How about being more concerned about what the baby endured?

You can do both.

blackwhite

seamus wrote: »

Have you anything to back this up or is it just reactionary hysteria?

Just a wealth of experience of seeing the difference in both media reporting and “reactionary hysteria” from the public when men and women are convicted of similar offences.

We even have a current Senator and prominent social campaigner (and a Professor of Law) who has repeatedly stated her beliefs that custodial sentences should be for men only, and the prison sentences are inappropriate punishments for women.

retro:electro

seamus wrote: »

As horrific as it is, I'm going to accept the word of the prosecution and the experts when they say that this woman wasn't malicious, merely incredibly stupid and careless.

She pleaded guilty to wilful neglect and assault. Carelessness is turning your back for a second and when you look back your child has picked something from the floor and has it in their mouth.
It takes a lot more than “carelessness” for a baby to end up with two broken legs and a fractured skull, among a vast list of injuries. She’s incapable of being around children.

kylith

seamus wrote: »

The state should be raising flags. Call it social profiling, but it's necessary; parents under 18, women with PND, single parents' first child, families long-term on social welfare, etc etc etc.

There are lots of healthcare professionals who see the mother and child in their first month, lots of contact points for a concern to be raised and machinations to kick in and flag someone for additional assistance/observation.

I absolutely agree with you. She should have been caught much earlier, and the whole thing has echoes of the Baby P case in the UK. If I got my hands on her there's no telling what I'd do.

Maybe it's because I'm due to give birth any day and am utterly bricking myself about accidentally killing or maiming the baby, and feeling totally overwhelmed about having total charge of this tiny, delicate person and not knowing how I'll cope. Fear of PND and knowledge of what PN psychosis can do to a person.

The difference being, I suppose, that I'm terrified and she either didn't care or didn't know enough to care.

Gimme A Pound

blackwhite wrote: »

Just a wealth of experience of seeing the difference in both media reporting and “reactionary hysteria” from the public when men and women are convicted of similar offences.

We even have a current Senator and prominent social campaigner (and a Professor of Law) who has repeatedly stated her beliefs that custodial sentences should be for men only, and the prison sentences are inappropriate punishments for women.

She's an idiot and there are countless cases when men are given absolute joke sentences.

It's in poor taste imo just to pipe up with "Men have it worse" stuff in the case of a baby being given such injuries. I mean, the traditional view of mothers deserving more leniency (a view held by men too incidentally) is a valid discussion but overshadowing child abuse, no.

seamus

blackwhite wrote: »

Just a wealth of experience of seeing the difference in both media reporting and “reactionary hysteria” from the public when men and women are convicted of similar offences.

Can you cite any example of a man convicted in Ireland of similar offences where there's a clear disparity in sentencing?

Just to note; I'm actually not disagreeing. It's a well documented fact that in general men receive harsher prison sentences than women do.

However, this is a fairly specific and rare charge to occur in this country. Remember the poor child who died in the hot car last year? Far more serious outcome in that one, death due to carelessness, yet no charges pressed.

So to say that "Oh, a man would definitely be getting a decade in the 'joy for something like this", is not based on any facts; actual or anecdotal.

Instead, all you're doing is turning tragic family circumstances into an axe-grinding session about sexism.

siblers

seamus wrote: »

Seems like an unnecessarily definite punishment, no? After all, she wouldn't get 18 years in jail for actually assaulting the child.

Are the child's best interests served by excluding a parent from their life permanently? Surely supervised visits strike the best balance between the right to know one's parents and the safety of the child?

Not sure I'd really have much interest in getting to know the person who tried to kill me

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

Seems like an unnecessarily definite punishment, no? After all, she wouldn't get 18 years in jail for actually assaulting the child.

Are the child's best interests served by excluding a parent from their life permanently? Surely supervised visits strike the best balance between the right to know one's parents and the safety of the child?

The child was assaulted. Typically the victim expects not to be around those that assaulted them. Why does the assaulter being the victims mother change this?

ChikiChiki

Jeez our judges are a funny sort. Are they actually on commission to keep people out of the jails or something?

This is barbaric stuff.

seamus

Dravokivich wrote: »

The child was assaulted. Typically the victim expects not to be around those that assaulted them. Why does the assaulter being the victims mother change this?

She specifically didn't assault the child. Read the link. The prosecution agreed that the injuries were accidentally inflicted.

Those on this thread who are intent on spinning this into an "evil monster TRIES TO KILL HER OWN BABY" narrative, should probably either read the link or examine what biases of their own are causing them to incorrectly assume motives on the part of someone else.

Samuel T. Cogley

Violence to and infanticide have always been treated more leniently, it's because of the pressure new mothers are under. Now should yer wan be stopped from seeing this kid and ideally from having kids in the future, absolutely, but jail does no good here. The only message sent out would be 'don't go to the doctor'.

retro:electro

seamus wrote: »

She specifically didn't assault the child

She pleaded guilty to wilful assault

Summer wind

This evil disgusting bitch should never be allowed near any child. It would turn your stomach to think of her inflicting the catalog of injuries that poor baby endured. How can that stupid judge even try to play down what she has done. She definitely deserves jail time.

Gimme A Pound

seamus wrote: »

She specifically didn't assault the child. Read the link. The prosecution agreed that the injuries were accidentally inflicted.

Those on this thread who are intent on spinning this into an "evil monster TRIES TO KILL HER OWN BABY" narrative, should probably either read the link or examine what biases of their own are causing them to incorrectly assume motives on the part of someone else.

Why did the judge say she knew what she was doing was harmful so?

Samuel T. Cogley

retro:electro wrote: »

She pleaded guilty to wilful assault

That's a new one, where was that published?

seamus

retro:electro wrote: »

She pleaded guilty to wilful assault

Fair point. I saw "the state declined to charge her with assault", without realising there's another category of assault for neglectful actions.

retro:electro

Also, for those struggling.

“Judge Keys said that the mother was unable to explain why she persisted “with this behaviour towards the baby knowing that it caused her harm”.

KNOWING IT CAUSED HER HARM.

She knew what she was doing.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

She specifically didn't assault the child. Read the link. The prosecution agreed that the injuries were accidentally inflicted.

Those on this thread who are intent on spinning this into an "evil monster TRIES TO KILL HER OWN BABY" narrative, should probably either read the link or examine what biases of their own are causing them to incorrectly assume motives on the part of someone else.

Actions taken by one, causing another to be harmed is not something to be downplayed. The intent can be spun any which way to save the mothers face to some degree, but it's the victim that suffers the trauma regardless of it. This should not be forgotten because this woman is the victims mother.

na1

Keano wrote: »

She battered the poor baby over and over and is still allowed supervised visits.
How is that punishment.

Link

I think the judge is OK if somebody make him:
"a skull fracture, a broken arm and two broken legs"
There is no point of punishing such person

seamus

Daisy Dirty Jig wrote: »

Why did the judge say she knew what she was doing was harmful so?

There's a difference between intentional harm and unintentional harm. For example, getting an injection causes harm, and the person giving the injection knows it causes harm. But causing harm is not the intention of the injection.

In this case, an example would be the torn frenulum; the mother most likely saw blood in the child's mouth after forcing the soother in, but her intention was not to cause that injury. That's basically the difference between malice and neglect/incompetence.

One eyed Jack

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Violence to and infanticide have always been treated more leniently, it's because of the pressure new mothers are under. Now should yer wan be stopped from seeing this kid and ideally from having kids in the future, absolutely, but jail does no good here. The only message sent out would be 'don't go to the doctor'.

I do understand where you’re coming from, and certainly it sounds like the most logical thing to do, but I don’t think that either would be beneficial to the child in the long term or secondary benefit the mother if the idea is that she is to be rehabilitated rather than punished. It would also from my point of view be unnecessarily punishing the child by prohibiting them from having any relationship with their mother. I don’t think it would be possible to stop her from having more children in the future either.

Gimme A Pound

seamus wrote: »

There's a difference between intentional harm and unintentional harm. For example, getting an injection causes harm, and the person giving the injection knows it causes harm. But causing harm is not the intention of the injection.

In this case, an example would be the torn frenulum; the mother most likely saw blood in the child's mouth after forcing the soother in, but her intention was not to cause that injury. That's basically the difference between malice and neglect/incompetence.

And the rest of the severe injuries? The judge conceded she knew what she was doing. This sends out a terrible message. Nobody breaks numerous bones as part of unintentional harm.

tretorn

The mother is only nineteen and maybe special needs.

We have no way of knowing but the best thing for her now is to be permanently sterilised. I would have made that a condition of her not going to jail.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

As horrific as it is, I'm going to accept the word of the prosecution and the experts when they say that this woman wasn't malicious, merely incredibly stupid and careless.

What purpose would be served by sending her to jail? Punishing her isn't going to "send a message" to anyone else stupid enough to behave like this, and it's certainly not going to make her a better person.

Supervised visits seems fair enough for the foreseeable future. Until the child is 8 or 9, at least.

Have you been robbed of all your senses? Of all the posts you have on boards.ie, this has to be the dumbest thing you have ever posted (that I know of).

seamus wrote: »

She specifically didn't assault the child. Read the link. The prosecution agreed that the injuries were accidentally inflicted.

Those on this thread who are intent on spinning this into an "evil monster TRIES TO KILL HER OWN BABY" narrative, should probably either read the link or examine what biases of their own are causing them to incorrectly assume motives on the part of someone else.

In the case, the woman pleaded guilty to wilfully assaulting and neglecting the child in a manner likely to cause unnecessary injury to the child’s health and seriously affect her well being.

Maybe she didn't intend to kill her baby, but that's not important. "Ah, begorrah, she didn't try to kill the child, she only meant to inflict serious damage".


a healing fracture of the left tibia
a healing fracture of the right femur
and an older right sided skull fracture.

Those injuries are not minor. That's serious.

Medics also detected a torn frenulum- the muscle under the tongue – and the child’s mother said that this could have occurred as a result of forcing a baby’s bottle or a soother into the baby’s mouth.

The offence took on dates between the summer of 2014 and February 2015 when the mother was aged 19.

The "mother" is an adult, and should be put away for a very long time for inflicting those horrific injuries to a defenseless child.

How you, Seamus, can defend pond scum like that is beyond me. Is it to increase your post count I wonder???

seamus wrote: »

There's a difference between intentional harm and unintentional harm. For example, getting an injection causes harm, and the person giving the injection knows it causes harm. But causing harm is not the intention of the injection.

In this case, an example would be the torn frenulum; the mother most likely saw blood in the child's mouth after forcing the soother in, but her intention was not to cause that injury. That's basically the difference between malice and neglect/incompetence.

Sorry, I accidentally broke my child's legs, skull, arm and tore her tongue. The injuries were on different occasions. This scumbag lowlife absolutely intended to inflict pain on her child. She even admits guilt to assaulting her child. What planet are you living on?

Not putting this piece of shít in jail sends a message alright, it's ok to abuse your child, you break a 5 month olds skull, legs and arm, and you'll be grand. Just say it was an accident. Anybody defending this cancer should be ashamed of themselves.

andekwarhola

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Imagine the outrage if this was a man.

To be fair, I'm not exactly seeing a storm of approval as is?

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

The state should be raising flags. Call it social profiling, but it's necessary; parents under 18, women with PND, single parents' first child, families long-term on social welfare, etc etc etc.

There are lots of healthcare professionals who see the mother and child in their first month, lots of contact points for a concern to be raised and machinations to kick in and flag someone for additional assistance/observation.

That’s exactly what it is, and it’s inherently discriminatory and prone to subjectivity of those same healthcare professionals who will at best miss all the flags, and at worst - simply ignore all the flags.

The State doesn’t have the kinds of resources that would be required to vet every individual family’s circumstances, and that would only be the cases that come to their attention. There would still be many cases that don’t, precisely due to the prejudices of social profiling and the influence of their own biases and assumptions.

PandaPoo

This is literally the story of my life. I was taken to hospital at 6 months old because I was 'blue and not breathing'. Apparently I died twice in the ambulance.

I had a fractured skull, ribs, hairline fracture in my tibia, lots of older badly gealed fractures, covered in bruises, my fingernails were non existent and my fingertips were black. My mother said I was bathed in the kitchen sink and hit my head off the tap, my leg was broken because my older siblings jumped on the bed and fell on me....etc etc.

I was taken into foster care, my mother had 2 older children and went on to have 3 more kids, one was born only a few months after I was taken away. She was allowed keep all her other children with her. My father was the suspect but I've heard a dozen reasons why no action was taken against him.

I had visits with them regularly growing up. I would meet my mother with my social worker and foster mother and was left with her for a few hours.. I never enjoyed the visits and at the time I didn't know why I was even in foster care. I only found out when I was 12, And the details in full when I was 17.

Sorry this is turning into an essay. There's obviously a huge amount more but what I'm trying to get at is that I lived this almost to a tee. I can only hope this baby gets placed with a foster family as amazing as the one I had. What happened to me was the best thing that ever happened, And i hope to god this baby is never given back and can live a good life without these people involved.

I might delete this because I'm not even sure if it makes sense or if I've got across what I mean to say.

Deebles McBeebles

andekwarhola wrote: »

To be fair, I'm not exactly seeing a storm of approval as is?

True but I think the idea has some validity. Personally I don't care which sex the parent is, its disgusting either way but if it was the father he surely would have been sent straight to prison.