Woman who strangled her newborn daughter to death... spared jail.

donkeykong5 · 05-02-2017 8:24pm

Deleted User wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Someone who kills someone else is a murderer. ( note no capitals this time in case it offends you )

That's so simplistic as to be patent nonsense.

Because someone who kills someone else but has a defence, provocation, self defence, inability to form intent, may be a killer but may obviously not be a murderer.

The 3 cases been quoted in the post I responded to. The little girl in Cork. The cavan family and the new born baby. We're all killed by a murderer. Would you prefer me to say a loving father in Cork and cavan. And a loving mother in uk. ? Nonsense.

Galwayguy35 · 05-02-2017 8:26pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Did he "choose" to go through hours of severe physical pain, nearly bleeding to death and even then still have to be forced to seek medical help?

Maybe that makes a difference in how people estimate the state of someone's mental health?

Personally I'd be more concerned with the pain an innocent baby had to go through and who had no chance of life at all.

That's who my sympathy is with.

05-02-2017 8:29pm

donkeykong5 wrote: »

The 3 cases been quoted in the post I responded to. The little girl in Cork. The cavan family and the new born baby. We're all killed by a murderer. Would you prefer me to say a loving father in Cork and cavan. And a loving mother in uk. ? Nonsense.

What a complete non sequitor.

You said someone who kills another is a murderer. That's simply incorrect as a matter of law. Referring to individual cases that may have involved murder does not mean every case must be murder. And the idea that such people are either murderers or they must be loving parents is silly.

I find it hard to believe that I am explaining this. You surely know this and are being obtuse.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 8:30pm

mdwexford wrote: »

Maybe she was worried her partner would get wind of the abortion but it's a fair point.

You're not seriously suggesting that her partner would be more likely to learn somehow about a confidential and free medical procedure that can be done as an outpatient than to 1) simply notice her pregnancy at some point during the months remaining or 2) notice her giving birth/miscarrying in their home?

donkeykong5 · 05-02-2017 8:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

The 3 cases been quoted in the post I responded to. The little girl in Cork. The cavan family and the new born baby. We're all killed by a murderer. Would you prefer me to say a loving father in Cork and cavan. And a loving mother in uk. ? Nonsense.

What a complete non sequitor.

You said someone who kills another is a murderer. That's simply incorrect as a matter of law. Referring to individual cases that may have involved murder does not mean every case must be murder. And the idea that such people are either murderers or they must be loving parents is silly.

I find it hard to believe that I am explaining this. You surely know this and are being obtuse.

Hardly. I just hate "so called parents " who kill their children.

neonsofa · 05-02-2017 8:33pm

mdwexford wrote: »

Maybe she was worried her partner would get wind of the abortion but it's a fair point.

I've never looked into PND in any great detail.

As far as I know it can happen when feeling overwhelmed with the new baby or if things are becoming hard to cope worth.

Even a mother with 24/7 help and a baby that sleeps like an angel can have PND, it's a physical medical condition that is down to the hormonal/chemical changes in the body after childbirth, it happens regardless of how difficult things are for the new mother.

Obviously it can be heightened if the mother is overwhelmed or if there are difficulties with the labour etc. But it can happen to anybody and it's actually really important that people realise that, because plenty of mothers feel they cannot have PND because everything is fine in their home life and the baby is an easy baby so they feel that asking for help or feeling the way they do is selfish/wrong when in actual fact it is an illness and not just a feeling of being overwhelmed etc.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 8:33pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Personally I'd be more concerned with the pain an innocent baby had to go through and who had no chance of life at all.

That's who my sympathy is with.

Moving the goalposts a bit though, aren't you!
That's not what your original point was at all - you brought in another killing and asked which of the two killers people would have more sympathy with. Now you're avoiding answering my request for information about the second case, which I know nothing about. Why did you bring it in if you can't make the comparison stand up?

Widdershins · 05-02-2017 8:36pm

There was an Irish Times piece by a woman with PND. It was quite scary. She sounded ready to snap at the sound of her toddler chewing his food.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 8:38pm

volchitsa wrote: »

You're not seriously suggesting that her partner would be more likely to learn somehow about a confidential and free medical procedure that can be done as an outpatient than to 1) simply notice her pregnancy at some point during the months remaining or 2) notice her giving birth/miscarrying in their home?

I'm not suggesting anything.

I've no idea what goes through the head of an individual that decides to kill their newborn baby within minutes of it being born.

Maybe it was all premeditated and she was planning to dispose of the body only she lost so much blood she wasn't able to do it. Then nobody would have ever found out about the horrific end this baby endured.

Mrs Woman · 05-02-2017 8:39pm

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Personally I'd be more concerned with the pain an innocent baby had to go through and who had no chance of life at all.

That's who my sympathy is with.

I find having sympathy for more than one side is possible. The woman was found to have been ill and this case will not have been taken lightly with all who were working on it. God love both of them. Things are not always black and white and thankfully we've made some progress in our understanding of people and the way the mind works as there really are people who deserve compassion and help, not a jail sentence.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 8:41pm

neonsofa wrote: »

Even a mother with 24/7 help and a baby that sleeps like an angel can have PND, it's a physical medical condition that is down to the hormonal/chemical changes in the body after childbirth, it happens regardless of how difficult things are for the new mother.

Obviously it can be heightened if the mother is overwhelmed or if there are difficulties with the labour etc. But it can happen to anybody and it's actually really important that people realise that, because plenty of mothers feel they cannot have PND because everything is fine in their home life and the baby is an easy baby so they feel that asking for help or feeling the way they do is selfish/wrong when in actual fact it is an illness and not just a feeling of being overwhelmed etc.

The things I mentioned can trigger it. I would think it's possibly more common after a tough birth, if the baby is very hard work or the mother has no support?

SEPT 23 1989 · 05-02-2017 8:44pm

Leave the innocent baby on the street at a church or police station give it a chance

Any parent who takes a childs life because of their problems is a selfish coward

Mental illness is not instant you have time to get the innocent child away from you

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 8:47pm

Mrs Woman wrote: »

I find having sympathy for more than one side is possible. The woman was found to have been ill and this case will not have been taken lightly with all who were working on it. God love both of them. Things are not always black and white and thankfully we've made some progress in our understanding of people and the way the mind works as there really are people who deserve compassion and help, not a jail sentence.

She was found to have no underlying psychiatric illness and apparently has such a low chance of re-offending or causing harm that 60 days rehabilitation is enough.

Would you want this woman around your children or family?

Mrs Woman · 05-02-2017 8:48pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Mental illness is not instant you have time to get the innocent child away from you

For your information this is the definition of mental illness from the Ocford Dictionary. I don't think I need explain why someone might do something terrible when suffering from a mental illness. This does not make it ok to kill someone by the way. It just explains why it might have happened.

mental illness
noun
a condition which causes serious disorder in a person's behaviour or thinking.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 8:49pm

mdwexford wrote: »

I'm not suggesting anything.

I've no idea what goes through the head of an individual that decides to kill their newborn baby within minutes of it being born.

Maybe it was all premeditated and she was planning to dispose of the body only she lost so much blood she wasn't able to do it. Then nobody would have ever found out about the horrific end this baby endured.

If your hypothesis is that she was insane, possibly only temporarily, then that makes sense.

But in the context of a country where abortion is free and legal, for a sane woman to choose to put herself through what she did, literally risking her life, when she could have got rid of the pregnancy at any stage up to 25 weeks just makes no sense at all.

So why do you hang onto this idea that she might have planned this "all along" despite not being able to make it make any sense at all?

Colser · 05-02-2017 8:50pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Leave the innocent baby on the street at a church or police station give it a chance

Any parent who takes a childs life because of their problems is a selfish coward

Mental illness is not instant you have time to get the innocent child away from you

This would be my opinion on it also.

What would have happened if she didn't need medical help..would she have hidden the body and carried on with her life?Also why didn't her partner call emergency services as soon as he realised what had happened..even if she wasn't bleeding there was still a baby that was dying//dead in the house?

neonsofa · 05-02-2017 8:51pm

mdwexford wrote: »

The things I mentioned can trigger it. I would think it's possibly more common after a tough birth, if the baby is very hard work or the mother has no support?

Like with all depression, there can be circumstantial causes and triggers, but PND can happen to any mother as a result of the drop in hormones after birth and that has nothing to do with those triggers, they can compound how she is feeling for sure, and they can also be the root cause for some women. But PND in general terms is not just a mother feeling overwhelmed or a mother in need of a pair of hands around the house (these certainly help though!)

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 8:54pm

volchitsa wrote: »

If your hypothesis is that she was insane, possibly only temporarily, then that makes sense.

But in the context of a country where abortion is free and legal, for a sane woman to choose to put herself through what she did, literally risking her life, when she could have got rid of the pregnancy at any stage up to 25 weeks just makes no sense at all.

So why do you hang onto this idea that she might have planned this "all along" despite not being able to make it make any sense at all?

As I said I don't know what she was thinking, nobody does.

So what do you think was her thought process.
She wanted the baby until she saw it, then went temporarily psychotic and killed the baby but now is fine again and is going to be an upstanding member of the community after the 60 days rehab?

Mrs Woman · 05-02-2017 8:56pm

mdwexford wrote: »

She was found to have no underlying psychiatric illness and apparently has such a low chance of re-offending or causing harm that 60 days rehabilitation is enough.

Would you want this woman around your children or family?

You don't have to have an underlying psychiatric illness to crack up under extreme pressure. We are all vulnerable to that and even though we think we might never do something, it really is true that we can never say for sure. Do you think anyone says "if I have a baby sometime in the future I'll strangle it". No they don't and would be horrified at the very thought. The mind is a baffling thing though.

And of course at this point in time I'd be wary leaving my children to be looked after by a vulnerable person such as this. It doesn't mean my point and view is moot by any means.

gctest50 · 05-02-2017 8:58pm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

..................

Mental illness is not instant you have time to get the innocent child away from you

postpartum psychosis can affect any woman fairly suddenly

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 9:04pm

mdwexford wrote: »

As I said I don't know what she was thinking, nobody does.

So what do you think was her thought process.
She wanted the baby until she saw it, then went temporarily psychotic and killed the baby but now is fine again and is going to be an upstanding member of the community after the 60 days rehab?

No, we know she was in denial about her pregnancy, and some of how that happens was explained by Julius Caesar who is apparently a mental health professional. I'm not, but I do know two people who exhibited some of these signs of denial in pregnancy and what JC said fitted exactly with what I know of those two cases.

We've also been told about post natal psychosis, where women can lose contact with reality and have delusions about the baby being possessed by the devil of whatever.

So there you have two forms of severe mental illness, either or both of which could explain what happened. But you think that for some completely inexplicable reason she planned all along to suffer horrendously and to risk her life but that this was somehow all part of a plan.

Can you acknowledge that it doesn't sound like a plan that any sane person would come up with?

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:09pm

Mrs Woman wrote: »

You don't have to have an underlying psychiatric illness to crack up under extreme pressure. We are all vulnerable to that and even though we think we might never do something, it really is true that we can never say for sure. Do you think anyone says "if I have a baby sometime in the future I'll strangle it". No they don't and would be horrified at the very thought. The mind is a baffling thing though.

And of course at this point in time I'd be wary leaving my children to be looked after by a vulnerable person such as this. It doesn't mean my point and view is moot by any means.

I find it hard to understand how a person who cracks to this degree can be called a low risk of re-offending or causing harm.

Surely she needs a long time in a mental institution to assess her mental state and possible danger to the public.

Mrs Woman · 05-02-2017 9:13pm

mdwexford wrote: »

I find it hard to understand how a person who cracks to this degree can be called a low risk of re-offending or causing harm.

Surely she needs a long time in a mental institution to assess her mental state and possible danger to the public.

I actually agree that perhaps she needs more psychiatric care however I don't know how you measure 'a long time'. Perhaps she is getting lots of after care, I'd imagine that is the case.

She's not being punished and you can't lock someone up in a mental institution as punishment masquerading as care. It's just not right to punish someone who was ill or cracked under pressure. It has never improved anything nor served society.

I think she would also be monitored very closely if she were to have another child.

Jawgap · 05-02-2017 9:14pm

mdwexford wrote: »

I find it hard to understand how a person who cracks to this degree can be called a low risk of re-offending or causing harm.

Surely she needs a long time in a mental institution to assess her mental state and possible danger to the public.

Criminologist? psychologist? Psychiatrist? Murder Squad detective? Officer the court?

Just trying to establish the basis of your beliefs.

Commotion Ocean · 05-02-2017 9:15pm

I suppose female Nazis standing at the Nuremburg trials could have just claim PND then. This woman is no better than Hitler or Kim Jong Un.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 9:16pm

mdwexford wrote: »

I find it hard to understand how a person who cracks to this degree can be called a low risk of re-offending or causing harm.

Surely she needs a long time in a mental institution to assess her mental state and possible danger to the public.

Presumably that is because her condition is known to be closely associated with pregnancy and childbirth, so if she isn't pregnant she isn't at risk?

Jawgap · 05-02-2017 9:17pm

dfeo wrote: »

I suppose female Nazis standing at the Nuremburg trials could have just claim PND then.

That's some leap.....even for this thread.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:17pm

volchitsa wrote: »

No, we know she was in denial about her pregnancy, and some of how that happens was explained by Julius Caesar who is apparently a mental health professional. I'm not, but I do know two people who exhibited some of these signs of denial in pregnancy and what JC said fitted exactly with what I know of those two cases.

We've also been told about post natal psychosis, where women can lose contact with reality and have delusions about the baby being possessed by the devil of whatever.

So there you have two forms of severe mental illness, either or both of which could explain what happened. But you think that for some completely inexplicable reason she planned all along to suffer horrendously and to risk her life but that this was somehow all part of a plan.

Can you acknowledge that it doesn't sound like a plan that any sane person would come up with?

Women with no history of mental illness apparently have a lower risk of post natal psychosis and less chance again on subsequent pregnancies after the first.

Again I don't think anything. Knowing what she planned during the pregnancy and after the birth is impossible.

I can acknowledge that doesn't sound like a plan a sane person would come up with.

If she did suffer something like thinking her baby was the devil and she had to kill them then I cannot understand how she is not ruled a danger.

infogiver · 05-02-2017 9:17pm

donkeykong5 wrote: »

The man who killed his family in cavan and the man who killed his little girl in Cork and this "mother" who killed her new born baby are all exactly the same. They are ..........MURDERERS.

Just not true. Your absolutely wrong.

Mrs Woman · 05-02-2017 9:18pm

mdwexford wrote: »

If she did suffer something like thinking her baby was the devil and she had to kill them then I cannot understand how she is not ruled a danger.

She didn't think her baby was the devil. You are speculating quite a bit but I understand you are upset and shocked by the case. Its a very tough one!

infogiver · 05-02-2017 9:19pm

dfeo wrote: »

I suppose female Nazis standing at the Nuremburg trials could have just claim PND then. This woman is no better than Hitler or Kim Jong Un.

Ok. Give us your comparisons between this woman and Hitler. Please.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:20pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Criminologist? psychologist? Psychiatrist? Murder Squad detective? Officer the court?

Just trying to establish the basis of your beliefs.

A person scared of having psychotic people who murder babies running around the place.

Your posts have been condescending in this thread all day so i will be ignoring you from now on.

Commotion Ocean · 05-02-2017 9:21pm

infogiver wrote: »

Ok. Give us your comparisons between this woman and Hitler. Please.

Kills innocent and defenseless people.

Does it for her own good and gratitude.

Need I continue?

Jawgap · 05-02-2017 9:24pm

mdwexford wrote: »

A person scared of having psychotic people who murder babies running around the place.

Your posts have been condescending in this thread all day so i will be ignoring you from now on.

So? Lock up everyone displaying signs of psychosis?

EDIT: at least you seem to concede she may have suffered some form Of severe defect leading to a severe impairment and a detachment from reality (the definition of psychosis)

infogiver · 05-02-2017 9:24pm

Jawgap wrote: »

Criminologist? psychologist? Psychiatrist? Murder Squad detective? Officer the court?

Just trying to establish the basis of your beliefs.

No basis whatsoever. Just a prejudice against people with mental health issues which she has clearly demonstrated today that she just doesn't believe exists, and a predilection for judging everyone without hearing any inconvenient bothersome evidence first.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 9:25pm

mdwexford wrote: »

Women with no history of mental illness apparently have a lower risk of post natal psychosis and less chance again on subsequent pregnancies after the first.

Again I don't think anything. Knowing what she planned during the pregnancy and after the birth is impossible.

I can acknowledge that doesn't sound like a plan a sane person would come up with.

If she did suffer something like thinking her baby was the devil and she had to kill them then I cannot understand how she is not ruled a danger.

But you're constantly making suggestions about what you think, while denying doing so. You suggested she might have had that plan "all along", which implies being capable of having a plan, i.e., not being insane.

Now you seem to think you know something about what form this insanity might take. Do you have any actual basis for any of these opinions, (or whatever you care to call them)?

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:26pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Presumably that is because her condition is known to be closely associated with pregnancy and childbirth, so if she isn't pregnant she isn't at risk?

If a person has previously had a psychotic murder episode I find it hard to believe they aren't any possible danger to themselves or others in the future.

Have enough people done things like this and then monitored and then studies been done to show the chance of re-offending is close to zero?

Mrs Woman wrote: »

She didn't think her baby was the devil. You are speculating quite a bit but I understand you are upset and shocked by the case. Its a very tough one!

I just was replying to the other poster who mentioned that being a thing in cases like this.

It certainly is a sick case.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 9:26pm

Jawgap wrote: »

So? Lock up everyone displaying signs of psychosis?

Better yet, lock up all pregnant women. Better safe than sorry, eh? :rolleyes:

infogiver · 05-02-2017 9:28pm

dfeo wrote: »

Kills innocent and defenseless people.

Does it for her own good and gratitude.

Need I continue?

where is your evidence that she killed her own child for her own "good" (whatever that means) ? And what do you mean by "gratitude"? Gratitude for what?!? Gratitude towards whom?!
Also Hitler was a mass murdering despot dictator from Austria who declared war on the World and tried to eradicate a race. This woman suffered a psychotic episode following a traumatic pregnancy and committed an act of Infanticide.
I'm struggling to find comparisons but I'm looking forward to reading them when you point them out to us.

Commotion Ocean · 05-02-2017 9:32pm

infogiver wrote: »

where is your evidence that she killed her own child for her own "good" (whatever that means) ? And what do you mean by "gratitude"? Gratitude for what?!? Gratitude towards whom?!

If a clinically depressed or mentally ill man did that to his own child, would you be so quick to forgive him? I await your response.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:32pm

Jawgap wrote: »

So? Lock up everyone displaying signs of psychosis?

EDIT: at least you seem to concede she may have suffered some form Of severe defect leading to a severe impairment and a detachment from reality (the definition of psychosis)

Certainly lock people up who have committed psychotic murders until they are established beyond doubt of being no risk to the public.

Find it hard to take anyone serious who has 4.5k post on a cycling forum anyway.

volchitsa wrote: »

But you're constantly making suggestions about what you think, while denying doing so. You suggested she might have had that plan "all along", which implies being capable of having a plan, i.e., not being insane.

Now you seem to think you know something about what form this insanity might take. Do you have any actual basis for any of these opinions, (or whatever you care to call them)?

So you think she was insane from the day she found out she was pregnant?

Your reading comprehension seems to be of a very low standard. I'm trying understand what some of you seem to think was her issue here, how long it affected her and how it will affect her in the future.

You know just as little as me about whether she had a plan or not or what form of insanity she had.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:33pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Better yet, lock up all pregnant women. Better safe than sorry, eh? :rolleyes:

Embarrassing, letting yourself down now.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 9:33pm

mdwexford wrote: »

If a person has previously had a psychotic murder episode I find it hard to believe they aren't any possible danger to themselves or others in the future.

Have enough people done things like this and then monitored and then studies been done to show the chance of re-offending is close to zero?

I just was replying to the other poster who mentioned that being a thing in cases like this.

It certainly is a sick case.

I mentioned that because there was a case of psychosis recently where someone thought a baby was the devil. Not sure it was the mother, mind - it may even have been someone entirely unrelated to the child. But if it was psychosis related to pregnancy and childbirth, presumably it's unlikely to be permanent.

I'm not sure where you get information about how long these episodes last though - especially as you've since said that women are less likely to have future episodes (I don't actually understand those figures BTW, perhaps you could clarify? With a source would be good too, thanks.)

But in any case we aren't being asked to decide how long she needs to be interned for, we can leave that to psychiatrists, luckily, so what you or I think about that doesn't really count does it? Unless you're have some reason to think they've got it wrong? I personally don't.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 9:39pm

mdwexford wrote: »

Certainly lock people up who have committed psychotic murders until they are established beyond doubt of being no risk to the public.

Find it hard to take anyone serious who has 4.5k post on a cycling forum anyway.

Nice.

mdwexford wrote: »

So you think she was insane from the day she found out she was pregnant?

No.

mdwexford wrote: »

Your reading comprehension seems to be of a very low standard.

And again. Nice. Thanks. :rolleyes:

mdwexford wrote: »

I'm trying understand what some of you seem to think was her issue here, how long it affected her and how it will affect her in the future.

You know just as little as me about whether she had a plan or not or what form of insanity she had.

As I've been pointing out to you, and you keep ignoring, the only mental health professional (afaik) who took part here seemed to agree with the jury's decision that she had a genuine but temporary mental impairment and would not have been responsible for her acts at that time. That's good enough for me.

I'm not sure what your point is here, it seems to change constantly. And of course you claiming that you don't think anything doesn't help.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:39pm

volchitsa wrote: »

I mentioned that because there was a case of psychosis recently where someone thought a baby was the devil. Not sure it was the mother, mind - it may even have been someone entirely unrelated to the child. But if it was psychosis related to pregnancy and childbirth, presumably it's unlikely to be permanent.

I'm not sure where you get information about how long these episodes last though - especially as you've since said that women are less likely to have future episodes (I don't actually understand those figures BTW, perhaps you could clarify? With a source would be good too, thanks.)

But in any case we aren't being asked to decide how long she needs to be interned for, we can leave that to psychiatrists, luckily, so what you or I think about that doesn't really count does it? Unless you're have some reason to think they've got it wrong? I personally don't.

Don't think I said that women are less likely to have future episodes did I?

We aren't being asked to decide but we can have an opinion on it. As I said above so you would be totally fine if this woman moved in next door to your family safe in the knowledge the psychiatrists have checked her out and deemed her no risk to anybody.

Fair play to you if so, braver person than I am.

AryaStark · 05-02-2017 9:40pm

skankkuvhima wrote: »

The excuses only work for one gender. If it was the other gender there would be no excuses or understanding I can assure you.

Maybe because only the one gender carriers the baby and can have post natal depression... the woman. It is a hormone imbalance and is a recognised condition. Your argument is silly and redundant.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:41pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Nice.

No.

And again. Nice. Thanks. :rolleyes:

As I've been pointing out to you, and you keep ignoring, the only mental health professional (afaik) who took part here seemed to agree with the jury's decision that she had a genuine but temporary mental impairment and would not have been responsible for her acts at that time. That's good enough for me.

I'm not sure what your point is here, it seems to change constantly. And of course you claiming that you don't think anything doesn't help.

You two talk are posting rudely and condescending to me so I think my posts are fair.

Put in another roll eyes smiley.
They make you looks super cool.

volchitsa · 05-02-2017 9:46pm

mdwexford wrote: »

Don't think I said that women are less likely to have future episodes did I?

We aren't being asked to decide but we can have an opinion on it. As I said above so you would be totally fine if this woman moved in next door to your family safe in the knowledge the psychiatrists have checked her out and deemed her no risk to anybody.

Fair play to you if so, braver person than I am.

If you think the mentally ill are all locked up in mental hospitals you are very wrong. A friend of mine's child minder had a psychotic episode and took my friend and her baby hostage in the child minder's house they had to be rescued by police and emergency services. Well she'd have let my friend go but she wouldn't let her have the baby, so my friend was too terrified for her baby, as you can imagine.

Turned out she was schizophrenic and had stopped her medication. Medical confidentiality meant parents thinking of leaving their children with her weren't informed of her (supposedly under control) mental health issues.

So yes, if I had to choose I'd much rather live next door to someone who had a pregnancy-related psychotic episode which only put her own child in danger.
But the truth is that nobody will ask you your opinion who you want next door. So better just get used to that.

mdwexford · 05-02-2017 9:54pm

volchitsa wrote: »

If you think the mentally ill are all locked up in mental hospitals you are very wrong. A friend of mine's child minder had a psychotic episode and took my friend and her baby hostage in the child minder's house they had to be rescued by police and emergency services. Well she'd have let my friend go but she wouldn't let her have the baby, so my friend was too terrified for her baby, as you can imagine.

Turned out she was schizophrenic and had stopped her medication. Medical confidentiality meant parents thinking of leaving their children with her weren't informed of her (supposedly under control) mental health issues.

So yes, if I had to choose I'd much rather live next door to someone who had a pregnancy-related psychotic episode which only put her own child in danger.
But the truth is that nobody will ask you your opinion who you want next door. So better just get used to that.

God that must have been traumatic. Bizarre things like that aren't disclosed to potential employers for a position like that. Surely she wouldn't have passed Garda vetting with a history of mental issues.

But if you had the choice you wouldn't live next door to anyone with psychotic issues.

That's true, I'll have to get a big detached house in the middle of nowhere.

Robineen · 05-02-2017 9:59pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

You could say that about any crime

Judging by the outcome, it wasn't considered a crime.

Woman who strangled her newborn daughter to death... spared jail.

Comments