Star Hobson’s mother

[HermioneWeasley]

I read as an incidental comment that she had an IQ of 70. This doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by social services in terms of her needing more support or being vulnerable. Does anyone know what would normally happen? It seems like a very significant factor which should have had social services on alert.

Smith also said she was taking star to the hospital because she was doing that thing with her leg again. Savannah said not to and she is just tantruming.

what Smith done is awful and she will have to live with it for the rest of her life but I do believe savannah preyed on a woman who by all accounts was too young, too immature and too naive to have been a mother and her poor daughter subsequently paid the price.

@80sMum

I do think that the mother's very low IQ, immaturity and the fact that she was "unusually compliant" to the requests/demands of perceived authority figures definitely has some bearing on the case and is no doubt largely the reason why she was sentenced to 8 years and not the maximum 16 years.

It actually isn’t.. she was convicted under category A so high culpability for her actions, not C which suggests she was suggestible etc.

The judge said that part of the reason for the lenient sentencing was that she would have to live with the loss of her daughter and that was a punishment in herself. Her own babysitter said she didn’t seem to care much about Star anymore once she had met SB so I wonder how much it will affect her.

If the sentence can be lengthened by appeal I’m sure it will be and rightly so.

Also her grandparents knew that the abuse would eventually kill Star as evidenced in a comment by the great grandfathers wife, how could FS not realise that seeing the bruises and fractures on the child for months on end. Months on end. How can a mother not realise how much her child has changed and had become a depressed and anxious baby as the result of the abuse.

Sorry but the apologists really anger me, the jury themselves didn’t take this bs low IQ argument into account. So let’s IQ test everyone in jail and lower their sentence as they could have been subject to undue influence

"The judge said that part of the reason for the lenient sentencing was that she would have to live with the loss of her daughter and that was a punishment in itself"

but that thinking is just a hair's breath away from "she is still young, she will want more children when she gets out" etc
I do think the above justification for the short sentence is wrong

Absolutely @mowglika *
Sorry but the apologists really anger me, the jury themselves didn’t take this bs low IQ argument into account. So let’s IQ test everyone in jail and lower their sentence as they could have been subject to undue influence*

It's not my fault, they made me/let me...

I don't think anyone is being am apologist at all, I just don't think it's hard to see how this sad sorry scenario came about and was able to thrive.

unintelligent, young, naive, irresponsible mother meets violent manipulative controlling partner. poor innocent child ends up being in the crossfire. Smith isn't totally blameless and let her child down in the most tragic way but Savannah in my mind I'd the true perpetrator in this.

She was just as complicit.

Quote from BBC and comments from their babysitter:

Ms Jones, who was present on the day social workers attended the couple's former address in Baildon, West Yorkshire, said the council "rang an hour beforehand just to tell them they were coming".
She said Smith spent the hour "cleaning Star, covering up bruises and things like that".
"Frankie made me hold Star so that the social worker couldn't really see much of what she was like," she said.

Her IQ clearly wasn’t low enough to prevent her manipulating SS and if she was under SBs control to prevent her daughter getting the help she needed. Just can’t believe this conversation is still being had when the court have given no weight to it.

I think an IQ of 70 is just in the parameters of a mild learning disability.

But a mild learning disability doesn’t excuse her behaviour and it is insulting to other people with learning disabilities to suggest that it does.

I’ve worked with people who have mild, moderate, and severe learning disabilities. Some were parents themselves. They might need extra support in some areas, but that doesn’t make them callous and cruel.

Parents like Frankie can be decptive and manipulate situations when. Social services or anybody in "Authority" come to see children they will lie just to protect themselves,. Social workers must know this I don't understand how they let Star live with them 5 sepetate people reported them !

all I'm saying is anyone looking in on that situation could surely see the dynamics. its appalling she was left with her mother who obviously had no interest in looking after her.

@mowglika

She was just as complicit.

Quote from BBC and comments from their babysitter:

Ms Jones, who was present on the day social workers attended the couple's former address in Baildon, West Yorkshire, said the council "rang an hour beforehand just to tell them they were coming".
She said Smith spent the hour "cleaning Star, covering up bruises and things like that".
"Frankie made me hold Star so that the social worker couldn't really see much of what she was like," she said.

Her IQ clearly wasn’t low enough to prevent her manipulating SS and if she was under SBs control to prevent her daughter getting the help she needed. Just can’t believe this conversation is still being had when the court have given no weight to it.

This quote is strange because this babysitter grave evidence in court and did not say anything about covering bruises. It also doesn’t specify if she was covering her own bruises (that she was covered in from Brockhill’s violent outbursts) as that report was made about the living conditions in FS mothers house (chaotic) and their relationship rather than Star in particular. The prosecution never mentioned anything about FS concealing evidence of injury.

Are you sure about this. I read this comment before the sentencing about FS asking the babysitter to sit Star in such a way that her injuries or bruises wouldn’t be evident.

I’m sure, I watched a video interview of David Fawcett yesterday after the sentencing and he said the initial report by Hollie was regarding the chaotic living conditions at her mothers house and the impact of the relationship. I followed the trial and she definitely did not mention any concealing of injuries in the time she gave evidence.

Didn't stop her manipulating Social Services and lying to her family though did it? So many apologists for her.

Her own family have referred the case to the AG as even they think her sentence is far too lenient. Smith's own father committed suicide so he could go and "look after the baby". Heart breaking

I think social services (and mental health services) in this country need to be held to far greater account and have done for years. It took incredible courage for the family members and friends in that community to make those five referrals to social services and yet little Star was still left in that situation. I think Social Services are partly to blame for Star's death.

However, I am pleased Frankie Smith got 8 years, as I thought she was going to get far less, the day or two before sentencing.. It doesn't matter how vulnerable or coerced she was. She still allowed a new partner to traumatise, injure and ultimately murder her beautiful baby and she needs to be punished for that.

@Justcallmebebes

Didn't stop her manipulating Social Services and lying to her family though did it? So many apologists for her.

Her own family have referred the case to the AG as even they think her sentence is far too lenient. Smith's own father committed suicide so he could go and "look after the baby". Heart breaking

But she was also manipulated and lied to by Brockhill, who she was absolutely terrified of and her family did give evidence of that. She was constantly covered in bruises and it was a very abusive relationship between an older, violent thug and a vulnerable, younger woman.

I’m not an apologist - the family member that thinks her sentence should be increased is the father of her father who killed himself, he’s obviously very angry but from what I’ve made out he didn’t have a huge role in their lives. I think a lot of guilt was also at play regarding her father - some of the the cruel acts she did to Star (waking up and laughing) were done to her by him when she was a child and that’s why she didn’t realise it was cruel at the time.

Her immediate family, the ones who cared for and loved Star, feel FS received the right sentence and are relived it wasn’t longer.

I worked on an LD team and an IQ of 70 would have meant she was eligible to receive support IF she was referred and identified, and had support needs. There are absolutely loads of adults who aren't referred or identified. People living with parents or independently, perfectly well. And there are loads who SS know about who don't need support and they aren't monitored or surveilled.

SS are on their knees with people who are at incredible risk. They can't monitor everyone who might qualify.

And IQ =/= capacity. Someone can have capacity to make decisions and choices and have a lower IQ. For example, have sex and therefore possibly get pregnant. Or enter a relationship. It's very very difficult because they also can have capacity to make really stupid or ugly choices if they understand them (like be in a really unhealthy relationship). Many people prey on adults with LDs. Very easy to abuse and manipulate

@Just10moreminutesplease

I think an IQ of 70 is just in the parameters of a mild learning disability.

But a mild learning disability doesn’t excuse her behaviour and it is insulting to other people with learning disabilities to suggest that it does.

I’ve worked with people who have mild, moderate, and severe learning disabilities. Some were parents themselves. They might need extra support in some areas, but that doesn’t make them callous and cruel.

An IQ of 70 is moderate learning disability, in lowest 2 percent. 2 standard deviations from "average" and right on the borderline of specialist schooling. Someone with that level of conceptual understanding, coupled with being so young and immature, would be manipulable. I have worked with lots of people with similar needs who are used to store stolen goods, drugs etc by career criminals.

It doesn't excuse this horrific crime. But it is significant information.

Below 80 is sub normal IQ. You need to be on fire to attract socail care attention from my personal experience.

I'm sure there some great SW out there but in some counties with such funding cuts, massive case loads you have no chance they are equipped to cope. My disability childrens SW team lead has a toxic outlook that having them is a massive honour and you need to accept very poor service.

I presume they think others will pick problems up without grasping the schools are under similar pressures. Plus they dont talk to school. Even when they are required too.

We need to be looking higher up in the SC management system. I think my head of childrens services actually hates children. Lead by example.

I have worked with lots of people with similar needs who are used to store stolen goods, drugs etc by career criminals.

Sorry I see this as while awful, aeons apart from taking part and allowing abuse and violence towards someone, and even more horrifically your own tiny vulnerable child.

@MichelleScarn

I have worked with lots of people with similar needs who are used to store stolen goods, drugs etc by career criminals.

Sorry I see this as while awful, aeons apart from taking part and allowing abuse and violence towards someone, and even more horrifically your own tiny vulnerable child.

It is different. I am making the point that a) these are significant learning difficulties and b) people who have such levels of learning can indeed sometimes be manipulated by others to their own ends.

"However, I am pleased Frankie Smith got 8 years, as I thought she was going to get far less, "

but it is quite likely that after she has done 4 years she will be considered for parole. And could be out of prison sometime after she is 25 years old, giving her lots of opportunity to have lots more kids...

I don't think discussing FS's vulnerability is being an "apologist".

Which is more helpful in helping future children at risk - calling for FS to burn in hell or to look at how and why this happened? Generally speaking (apart from a few cases), people like this are made and not born.

Vulnerable families need proper support from the get go. For this to happen social services needs to be properly funded and there needs to be education on healthy relationships and parenting at school.

Possibly, Bubbles, but I doubt the Parole Board would let her go early. I person think the 8 year sentence is about right.

Never ceases to amaze me. Not bright enough/cabable to know the difference between wrong or right but still bright enough/capable to bring a child into this world.

Every time this happens it enrages me that there are so many dysfunctional/incapable people in this world (who get away with mistreating animals and children).