Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3

News

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

57 replies

Twiglett · 23/09/2008 13:39

she said because he hurt the baby

kids taken into foster care

so?

OP posts:

Report

wannaBe · 23/09/2008 13:46

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

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

Also, why can she not be named?

Report

SugaryBits · 23/09/2008 13:46

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?

Report

pofaced · 23/09/2008 13:47

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.

Report

LadyGlencoraPalliser · 23/09/2008 13:49

There has got to be more to this.

Report

ImnotMamaGbutsheLovesMe · 23/09/2008 13:50

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

Report

cupsoftea · 23/09/2008 13:51

agree - has to be more to this?

Report

ChukkyPig · 23/09/2008 13:52

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.

Report

mabanana · 23/09/2008 13:54

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

Report

herbietea · 23/09/2008 13:54

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

PuzzleRocks · 23/09/2008 13:56

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

Report

seeker · 23/09/2008 13:57

There will be more to this.

Report

Psychobabble · 23/09/2008 14:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

cestlavie · 23/09/2008 14:00

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.

Report

wannaBe · 23/09/2008 14:02

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.

Report

nicky111 · 23/09/2008 14:12

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.

Report

CrushWithEyeliner · 23/09/2008 14:16

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

Report

mayorquimby · 23/09/2008 15:18

"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.

Report

mayorquimby · 23/09/2008 15:20

"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.

Report

Upwind · 23/09/2008 15:24

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.

Report

belgo · 23/09/2008 15:25

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.

Report

OneLieIn · 23/09/2008 15:28

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.

Report

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 23/09/2008 15:29

Is it because its gone to a crown court . 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?

Report

jimjamshaslefttheyurt · 23/09/2008 15:31

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.

Report

Upwind · 23/09/2008 15:35

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.

Report

Pawslikepaddington · 23/09/2008 15:35

Must be more to it-why would teachers be worried about a one off bite mark on the child's arm? Although it may be an obvious adult's bite mark. They don't get worried about one off bumps and scrapes do they? Most kiddies I know are covered in bumps and bruises, and if they followed every one up there would be no time to teach!