Star Hobson verdict in

[Lougle]

Savannah Brockhill Guilty of murder. Frankie Smith Guilty of causing or allowing death.

My oldest daughter has a social worker because she’s disabled and I was talking to her about these cases the other day when she was driving us to visit my daughter.

She was previously a child protection SW and she told me that the reason there is such a push to keep children with their biological parents is because research shows that they otherwise develop an identity crisis.

A now of 70 IS borderline learning disability.

I don't know anyone with an IQ of 70 so I am probably not well placed to comment. But I really struggle to see how she could not have understood that harming her child/allowing her child to be harmed was not wrong. I can imagine she would not have stood up to SB, but she could have asked for help, she had supportive family and friends it seems.

When tested the mother was found to have an IQ of 70, in the bottom 2% of the country. This would indicate she lacked the capacity to understand her actions.

If that really is the legal position, then such people can't be allowed to have children in their care, they should be taken away at birth. We cannot have a situation where a mother's rights are prioritised over a child's if legally there is an objective test which apparently means they are not capable of safe parenting.

@Itsnotover

I hope Brockhill gets sent down for life. She’s evil and is a danger to society.

I don’t believe Frankie Smith is evil and I hope she gets a second chance at life. She has an IQ of 70 and I don’t think a lot of people understand what that actually means. I have a daughter with a similar IQ who is also 20 and she’s never lived independently and never will. She’s been in residential since the age of 14.

Murder carries a mandatory life sentence. It is up to the judge at sentencing whether to impose a tariff on the number of years she has to serve.

I think frankie comes under category C reading the criteria. Taking the time off she has already served, I think she’ll be out in the next year or so.

I hope she can rebuild her life and learn to make the right choices, she’s going to need a lot of support.

🤮

The "right choice" for her is booming herself in for voluntary sterilisation the moment she is released.

@Malibuismysecrethome

I have never been an advocate if the death penalty but for Tustin and Hughes and FS and SB I would make an exception

Can I ask why? What makes these killers deserving of the death penalty, but not the nutters who killed Holly and Jessica, or Baby P, or Victoria Climbe, or April Jones? What about Asiah Kudi, whose 'mother' left her to die and went on a 6-day bender, how come she's let off?

@Drinkingallthewine

No, but during the course of the trial, she admitted multiple counts of child cruelty, and so, yes of course she is, also charged with and found guilty of this.

That's not how it works

They were on trial for two counts - murder & causing or allowing the death or the alternative charge of manslaughter.

There was no charge brought against either of them for child cruelty during this trial.

Brockhill was found guilty of murder, Smith not guilty.
Smith was found guilty of Causing or allowing the death of a child.

It is reported in the live court updates that she has admitted multiple counts of child cruelty.

@WeAreTheHeroes I’m sure the judge will make the right choice - she was very clear in her instructions to the jury. I should clarify that I don’t think that FS should walk free at all. But I do think that she has the possibility to be rehabilitated whereas SB arguably doesn’t.

I thought part of the reason they try to keep children with their parents is because of such poor outcomes from the care system being so dire.

Are there countries where the system operates with better outcomes or is it normal that some children will always slip through the net?

I've often read that Norway has a high rate of removing children, to much criticism, but is this actually better for the children overall?

What is interesting and scary is how similar the two cases are - Arthur snd Star. In both cases there were new partners and family members tried to get help. Also, it sounded like Arthur’s father also had a low IQ/learning difficulties. This fact was referred to in the trial - apparently he really struggled at school and could not do a skilled job.

While those things are not an excuse, I think they need to become an official “red flag” that is noted by social services.

@RubyFakeLips

I thought part of the reason they try to keep children with their parents is because of such poor outcomes from the care system being so dire.

Are there countries where the system operates with better outcomes or is it normal that some children will always slip through the net?

I've often read that Norway has a high rate of removing children, to much criticism, but is this actually better for the children overall?

Denmark too. Children in care have the same outcomes/ better on average as those in families.

It doesn't have to be this way in the UK, it is a choice not to fund child services and remove children who are at risk.

There's a saying: "How do you boil a frog?" "Slowly".

If you boil a frog very slowly, they won't even notice they're boiling. They acclimatise to the new 'normal' temperature each time it's raised. I think that happened to FS. She acclimated to what was 'normal' each time SB increased the level of punishment/discipline. She was so far from what was normal but she didn't have the insight to see it. That doesn't excuse it but it could explain it.

Pickes89 because babies and children are defenceless and can’t advocate for themselves, although poor Arthur tried to get help and spoke to adults of his fear. So yes I would see them get the death penalty. That includes in the other cases you mention.

I think frankie comes under category C reading the criteria. Taking the time off she has already served, I think she’ll be out in the next year or so

I think the sentencing guidelines suggest she will get between 9 and 14 years. The offence is at the top end of the scale as it ended in death and involved repeated incidentsof abuse over a long period of time.

Not sure to what extent FS‘ learning difficulties will act as a mitigating factor.

I agree with other posters here that we need a conversation about the extent to which a parent with such a low IQ can be entrusted with the upbringing of a child. Also is there a way to dissuade the FS‘ of this world from having babies in the first place?

@Itsnotover

My oldest daughter has a social worker because she’s disabled and I was talking to her about these cases the other day when she was driving us to visit my daughter.

She was previously a child protection SW and she told me that the reason there is such a push to keep children with their biological parents is because research shows that they otherwise develop an identity crisis.

Better to have an identity crisis and a supportive family who will provide help and therapy to work through that than to be abused or end up dead. It's a pathetic excuse for abandoning these vulnerable children to abuse.

@Malibuismysecrethome

because babies and children are defenceless and can’t advocate for themselves

What about a young woman raped and murdered in a park, or an elderly one in her own home, or a disabled man in an institution? They're pretty defenceless and not able to advocate for themselves. Are their murderers deserving of the death penalty too?

@Notcontent

What is interesting and scary is how similar the two cases are - Arthur snd Star. In both cases there were new partners and family members tried to get help. Also, it sounded like Arthur’s father also had a low IQ/learning difficulties. This fact was referred to in the trial - apparently he really struggled at school and could not do a skilled job.

While those things are not an excuse, I think they need to become an official “red flag” that is noted by social services.

Arthur’s father was a lot older though and he also clearly encouraged Tustin to harm and kill Arthur. There is no evidence that FS ever encouraged SB to physically harm Star. She was sobbing when the video was played of SB punching Star. She saw the horrific bruises, and she chose to believe that SB didn’t do them.

I agree with other posters here that we need a conversation about the extent to which a parent with such a low IQ can be entrusted with the upbringing of a child. Also is there a way to dissuade the FS‘ of this world from having babies in the first place?

I agree with you. But the problem is that many people with quite severe special needs fall through the net and never even get assessed because the government doesn’t want to identify these people. It suits the government not to identify them because they don’t want to pay money for the extra provision these people need.

Anyone else who has children with SEN will know what I mean.

Arthur’s father was a lot older though and he also clearly encouraged Tustin to harm and kill Arthur. There is no evidence that FS ever encouraged SB to physically harm Star. She was sobbing when the video was played of SB punching Star. She saw the horrific bruises, and she chose to believe that SB didn’t do them.

The reports from court don't support that. They both had videos of abuse of Star on their phones that they had sent to each other and to friends because they thought it was amusing.

FS is on CCTV dragging Star along the pavement by her reins when she had a broken leg and was in too much pain to walk, two days before her death.

The sympathy for FS here is sickening.

The reports from court do support that. Which is why I changed my mind about FS. Stop being so rude. I’m not going to bother arguing with you. I read the whole trial.

Tough one. She could have another child once out.

Really terrible situation all round.

Not sure why one of my post was deleted. @MNHQ care to explain what is wrong with asking what somebody who could abuse their baby and stand by while she is murdered could be expected to usefully contribute to society?