Talk

Advanced search

Anybody discussing the single mum who was jailed for 5 months for biting her 5 year old?

(58 Posts)
Twiglett Tue 23-Sep-08 13:39:59

she said because he hurt the baby

kids taken into foster care

so?

wannaBe Tue 23-Sep-08 13:46:27

I imagine there's a lot more to this tbh.

Biting is not a knee-jerk reaction. Hitting is, laching out, but biting? hmm

Also, why can she not be named?

SugaryBits Tue 23-Sep-08 13:46:36

I think that 5 months seems a very long sentence in relation to other more serious cases. I'm not sure that a prison sentence was the right course of action at all.. my mum bit me when I was 4, after I bit my baby sister and it hasn't caused any lasting damage. But, she must have bitten him pretty hard for the mark to be visible at school. Surely there must be more to this?

pofaced Tue 23-Sep-08 13:47:32

I don't condone the biting of the child's arm but I think it extraordinary that anyone thinks it's a good idea to send a "struggling single mum" to jail.

Surely parenting course + support would be better? I'm not even sure I approve of them being in foster care but as I don't know the full facts, I'll reserve judgement on that.

LadyGlencoraPalliser Tue 23-Sep-08 13:49:25

There has got to be more to this.

ImnotMamaGbutsheLovesMe Tue 23-Sep-08 13:50:49

She probably can't be named to protect the children.

cupsoftea Tue 23-Sep-08 13:51:52

agree - has to be more to this?

ChukkyPig Tue 23-Sep-08 13:52:00

I'm glad someone has posted this - i was very shocked when I read this just now.

The mum is in jail for 5 months and the kids in foster care. It seems utterly disproportionate.

mabanana Tue 23-Sep-08 13:54:05

Suspect the biting was tip of the iceberg, but if not, then yes, it does seem quite extreme.

herbietea Tue 23-Sep-08 13:54:48

Message withdrawn

PuzzleRocks Tue 23-Sep-08 13:56:02

That's a similar sentence to the one given to Craig Meehan. WTF?

seeker Tue 23-Sep-08 13:57:19

There will be more to this.

Psychobabble Tue 23-Sep-08 14:00:02

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cestlavie Tue 23-Sep-08 14:00:16

Suffice to say that it would seem surprising if this hadn't happened with the support of the police and social services which suggests that there is more than a one-off incident.

Apart from anything else, her comments that she didn't know why she'd done it and that "...he hurt his sister so he's got to be hurt..." sounded pretty bloody scary to me and not the words of someone in full control of their faculties. As others have said, worth reserving judgement on this.

wannaBe Tue 23-Sep-08 14:02:50

people have been convicted of crimes against children before and they are generally always named.

The fact she has not been named makes me think that there is something more to this that is not being reported.

And I sincerely doubt she was jailed for the biting incident alone.

nicky111 Tue 23-Sep-08 14:12:36

She is not being named to protect the children from being identified by the press. This is always the case for minors - it is to protect them. It has no bearing on the severity of her case.

The local authority may well have asked for a court order banning the press from identifying her in order to protect the children. It's fairly routine - it's the same for adult victims of rape etc.

You will see paedophiles named in the press though although the victims are not identified at all.

CrushWithEyeliner Tue 23-Sep-08 14:16:04

there was a thread not so long ago on here - someone was asking about the implications of her friend who was biting her son and leaving marks on him...hope she sees thins

mayorquimby Tue 23-Sep-08 15:18:05

"I think it extraordinary that anyone thinks it's a good idea to send a "struggling single mum" to jail."

why should the fact that she's a "struggling single mum" have anything to do with her sentencing?
i think it's a good idea to send anyone who is guilty of violent crime to jail if that is what the crime warrants.
do you think sentencing should be different for "strugglin single mums" as oppossed to lets say "well off childless men"?

as has been said by others though the details of this case are far to vague for me to give an informed opinion on it.

mayorquimby Tue 23-Sep-08 15:20:59

"She is not being named to protect the children from being identified by the press. This is always the case for minors - it is to protect them. It has no bearing on the severity of her case.

The local authority may well have asked for a court order banning the press from identifying her in order to protect the children. It's fairly routine - it's the same for adult victims of rape etc.

You will see paedophiles named in the press though although the victims are not identified at all."

exactly.i would not let the anonymity lead you to assume that it is anything worse.
you will often see paedophiles granted anonymity as well if they are related to the person they abused but this is not for their benefit but the benefit of the victim.i.e. if someone is convicted of abusg their child and is named it will be a fairly obvious connection to identify who the victim of the abuse was.

Upwind Tue 23-Sep-08 15:24:35

at face value, if there was nothing more to it, it seems an extraordinarily severe punishment

unfortunately, the message this will send out is that if the SS come knocking, you should deny all knowledge of how any marks came to be on your child - she would be unlikely to have been convicted if she'd not admitted the offence.

Not that there is any excuse for biting a child.

belgo Tue 23-Sep-08 15:25:30

I don't know what to think about this case. I agree with others, I think there must be more to it because five months does seem a disproportionate sentance, in relation to other cases.

OneLieIn Tue 23-Sep-08 15:28:42

There are a lot of mums who have said that if DS bit DD, they would bite DS to show him how much it hurt. Whilst I think this is cobblers, do you think that could happen.

Upwind, don't think it was severe punishment really.

jimjamshaslefttheyurt Tue 23-Sep-08 15:29:21

Is it because its gone to a crown court <confused emoticon>. Aren't most cases where children are removed heard by family courts?
If it's just the bite then it seems disproportionate (not that someone should bite their child, but compared to what people get in general).

However, courts do tend to treat women more harshly don;t they?

jimjamshaslefttheyurt Tue 23-Sep-08 15:31:17

Do you think its gone through SS though upwind? It sounds as if the teachers have gone to the police.
I think child protection cases are treated differently i.e. not in the crown court.

<completely confused emoticon, trying to cobble together from the bits and pieces I know>

Upwind Tue 23-Sep-08 15:35:16

I googled for more info on this and found the following:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1060305/Jailed-The-mother-bit-year-old-son-revenge-attack-hurting-b aby-sister.html

I am guessing that the previous, unrelated, convictions were taken into account.

It still seems a very harsh sentence, given that the skin was not broken.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now