I hate the way this article has been written. Why are disabled children always framed in these types of stories as a burden to their parents and seemingly nothing more than the sum of their challenging behaviour as if it’s a justification for them being hurt or, in this case, murdered?
This is a story is about a psychotic woman who murdered her child. Why is the headline focused on her “agony” of living with him? If this was a story about a psychotic woman murdering her newborn baby, would the article go into such detail describing all the ways the baby was challenging as some sort of justification for what happened? Of course not.
I do feel sorry for her, the family was badly let down. But this article should mostly be about a young boy tragically losing his life at the hands of his severely mentally disturbed mother. The article (and other posters) seem to assume that the mother had a psychotic episode because of the stress of looking after her son, but maybe the boy who is described as “howling like a dog in destress” in the headline was doing so because he was being neglected and possibly emotionally (and ultimately physically) abused by his delusional and psychotic mother? At the end of the day, he was the one who paid the ultimate price in this tragedy and that’s not how it seems to come across.
So yes “poor, poor woman” but more so “poor, poor boy” who had his life snatched away from him at 10 year old.