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

Keano · 10-10-2018 11:56AM #1

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

Link

orourkeda1977 · 10-10-2018 11:58AM

She'd be on the receiving end in jail.

seamus · 10-10-2018 12:01PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:02PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:02PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:03PM

It's a woman's world

LithiumKid1976 · 10-10-2018 12:05PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:07PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:09PM

Imagine the outrage if this was a man.

blackwhite · 10-10-2018 12:10PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:11PM

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! · 10-10-2018 12:13PM

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

seamus · 10-10-2018 12:13PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:15PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:16PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:17PM

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

kylith · 10-10-2018 12:24PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:25PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:25PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:31PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:32PM

“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 · 10-10-2018 12:35PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:36PM

Fúck you Judge Keys, Fúck. You.

razorblunt · 10-10-2018 12:38PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:39PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:41PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:45PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:46PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:47PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:48PM

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 · 10-10-2018 12:50PM

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?

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

Comments