Sorry but no, when a child has been cruelly abused to this extent, there can be no option but to have a sentence. The amount of conjecture to fill the gap on journalists breaking info, the full information that the court and judge has had to hand on this thread is bonkers:
Examples being:
presumption that the
"partner" is the father
Dissociation due to various assumed factors - all of which could be very serious and would have played part in her defence but didn't as far as we know due to the fact that even given her admission of guilt she has been handed the (almost) most aggressive sentence according to the guidance
A "visitor" was not the partner or could be
Social service were "first on scene"
"Cultural identity"
PP not understanding this was a hidden birth no scans, no midwives, no registration.
Mention of a "toddler", no toddler here just an abused aged 3 child who looked more like a 7 or 8 month old (depending on what article you read).
It absolutely defies human understanding what this woman did to her child, in the same way that most of us can't understand cruelty in this way because it is so beyond our recognition.
But she did do it, whilst she worked and also had other children being part of society with apparently no other concerned parties involved, however again the only fact we have on this is that they were living with her till this discovery.