to think that Hamzah Kahn's father should be sent down alongside his mother?

[Bogeyface]

Hamzah's father, after his ex was found guilty of starving their 4 year old to death, said that he would "have to live with that for the rest of my life".

Live with what? With the fact that he did fuck all? His son lay dead for 2 years and his father had no clue, yet makes out he is a loving dad. If he was so loving he would have seen his child, seen the state of the house and the state the (his? sorry, I dont know if they were all his) other children were in. But he didnt. The 2 years between little Hamzah's death and his discovery should not have gone unchecked by any good dad, but in this case it did. At the very least, he would have gone to court to gain access, involved CAFCASS, social services, etc. But he did nothing.

Amanda Suttons stepfather says that she wasnt helped by the social services, which clearly she wasnt, but he puts the blame firmly at their feet. What was he doing? Was he offering to help look after the kids? Clean the house? Did he report her for help? No. He did nothing.

Seems to me that a lot of people who this little boy and his siblings should have been able to rely on preferred to look away.

AIBU to think that his father is just as culpable in his death as his mother?

AF
second part of my last post
"No-one has said that he was a fantastic father but have argued that he not as equally culpable as the mother."

equally no-one has excused "men's" behaviour. but then that would be because its not a thread about men it is a thread about a (singular) man.

I do think some people might have a point that he wasn't being fed properly before the father left. A charge of cruelty might have been justified in that case but I guess we will never know why the police and CPS didn't go for that. Equally we don't know what his defence would have been so it's wrong to assume that he was party to it on the basis of a few news reports, although yes it does seem like that.

But manslaughter I would say no, particularly given that he was not there at the end and therefore wasn't the one who denied him medical care. Even if the CPS had brought charges they would never have stuck.

And AnyFucker I don't think people are trying to excuse her behaviour. I think minimize would be a better word. And to deflect attention from her culpability. And yes there have been some people who have tried to excuse her on this thread by claiming battered woman's syndrome and PND. If they were to blame she wouldn't have been capable of feeding his twin either.

There's a big difference between being a crap neglectful father and a father who would knowing let his child starve to death and deny him medical help. That crime falls at her door only.

There's a big difference between being a crap neglectful father and a father who would knowing let his child starve to death and deny him medical help. That crime falls at her door only.

Yes, that is the problem. Being a crap, neglectful parent is not a crime in our society especially if you happen to be male.

The prosecutor said whatever was or was not done by those agencies "should not detract from the shocking and disgraceful conduct of Amanda Hutton involving six of her children".

"She killed Hamzah, no-one else," he said.

From the bbc

Legally, she is the only guilty one.

However, I can't understand why there are others (friends and family) who did nothing - this was long drawn out neglect.

Why did the eldest son do nothing?

She is guilty in law, and I totally agree with that. Unfortunately, if that excludes this poor boy's other parent from any culpability at all then all we are left with is a moral judgement. And fuck yeah, I judge.

No one is saying she's not a hideous vile creature. The point people are trying to make is so was he and so for him to get off scot free is just wrong.

That's the thing about abusive people, her and him. They fundamentally care for no one but themselves. He was never going to buck up for those children, because he is a nasty selfish abuser.

"Yes, that is the problem. Being a crap, neglectful parent is not a crime in our society especially if you happen to be male."

And when the parent is female posters regularly pile in with "she must have mental health issues", "abusive relationship", "the Boyfriend/partner/husband made her do it"

I don't do that, BBJ, but you are entitled to your perspective.

anyfucker, I agree that she's guilty in law, but the other parent is not guilty because ah sure he was a man?

BoneyBackJefferson, this guy was abusive to his wife, that's on record.

There was a case about a year ago in the states, a teenaged girl murdered her newborn baby. The father (also a young boy) knew about it. The mother was terrified. Hormonal. she was the one who would have been responsible, judged, pitied, trapped.......... The father didn't receive any sentence, despite being of NO assistance whatsoever to the mother of his baby. There's something not right with the way fathers aren't culpable at all in these tragedies.

AF

I didn't say that you did.

Zoe567
"this guy was abusive to his wife, that's on record."

yes, and if dealt with properly he would be in prison for it, but the child would still have died. (not meant to be as cold as that sounds)

LazyJane are you being deliberately obtuse?

No, I'm being deliberately factual. He neither did it, was accessory to it, nor was around enough beforehand to be party to it.

You on the other hand, along with a small group of others on MN, seem unable to conceive of a situation where the man may not actually be the one in the wrong.

No, I'm being deliberately factual. He neither did it, was accessory to it, nor was around enough beforehand to be party to it.

But you are not being factual.

He was living with Hamzah for 3.5 years before he died. So was around enough to be party to it.
He admitted that he knew that the child was being neglected. So he was accessory to it.
He did not follow up his comment to the police as he was advised. He could have done more than he did, which was nothing.

I am amazed that you think that he did nothing wrong! This has nothing whatsoever to do with gender and everything to do with the fact that if one parent neglects a child to the point of the death then the other parent shoulders part of the blame if they knew and did nothing to prevent it.

If a man had starved to death his child in this way the press and MN would be up in arms demanding to know where the mother was when this was happening, rightly so!

In your effort to not be seen as a viperish man hater you are excusing a man who stood back and watched his own son die.

I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the posters who have said that when it comes to raising children, men are definitely given a let off by society if they simply cant be bothered. The way that some men are described as being a "good dad" just by virtue of the fact that they pay maintenance and see their kids regularly is proof of that. In my book paying for and seeing your children doesnt make you a better parent, it just makes you a parent!

Boneybackjefferson, you say posters "have to blame a man", but what you're doing is defending fathers' rights (to be present, have access etc) but their right to be absolved of all responsibility in tragic cases like this.

Surely all decent men/fathers are also appalled that men can't get away with their child living down the road, abused, neglected, starved...... and get away with that because they're the father not the mother!

It's just not right. Men walk away because they can. So because they can, they do. If society allows fathers to just walk away then the woman left behind carrying all the responsibility is not 100% to blame for the treatment of the children. That is a general across the board belief not specific to this case.

Yes Bogeyface, walk-away-fathers have a get out of jail free card.

What get out of jail card?

All the AH apologists on here constantly and conveniently forget this guy was put in prison and then had a restraint order slapped on him, and that she led everyone up the garden path.

They also seem to have no clue (or are conveniently ignoring) of the games RP play to deny access, nor how the system supports this, or the very low probability of anything this guy said about her being believed.

In your effort to not be seen as a viperish man hater you are excusing a man who stood back and watched his own son die

It's no effort, all you have to do is look at the facts without a pre conceived agenda.

His concerns were afforded no credence because he was an abusive violent partner.

So many people with responsibility here. None have emerged with any credit. Seems the ones who were the most persistent were the neighbour and the PCSO (bless her) who tried to raise the alarm.

The mother DOES hold 100% responsibility for how well SHE meets the needs of her children. Of course she does. But the father ALSO holds 100% responsibility for how well HE meets the needs of his children. You can't have partial responsibility for your own actions.

I think, at least for the purposes of a discussion on mn, the case has been made that Hamzah was underfed while he was living with both parents. BOTH parents have 100% responsibility for failing to ensure the need for adequate nutrition was met. Either of them could have met this need, neither of them did do.

Those arguing that the father isn't responsible for neglect during that time seem to be paying more attention to their own agendas than the facts of the case. I haven't heard one single valid argument supporting the assumption that Hamzah was well nourished until the father left (and shrank afterward), or that men are not responsible for meeting the basic needs of their children to the extent that women are.

The question was whether the father should also be in prison. I think: yes, for child neglect, because at one point he was living with Hamzah and NEGLECTING to feed him adequately. Maybe some people could have argued that child neglect shouldn't = jail time. I would have disagreed, but it would have been more civilised than people sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "He wasn't there; he didn't do it!" over and over.

What about the adult siblings? As I understand it, one has been charged with preventing a burial - did he not see the continued abuse and neglect?

SoupDragon regarding the adult siblings I think you have to remember that they were brought up in this abusive environment too so they probably had very different expectations of parenting to other people.

To them normalness was drunkeness, violence and neglect. Hutton claimed in court that one of the adult children had 'starved himself like Hamzah' so it seems extremely likely that they also went for extended periods without food too. And survived. Nobody ever thought what they went through was bad enough for them to be rescued from so they must have been accepting that this level of parenting was okay and it was completely normalized to them.

I don't think you could prosecute them for anything other than helping to conceal the body. You shouldn't prosecute victims of abuse for failings that directly led from their own abuse in that manner. Unless they are the abusers themselves and take an active role I think you have to give them some understanding.

Oh, I don't think they should be prosecuted but, at 24+, how can they not have noticed their baby brother was being starved?

well one was threatened with the death of his siblings (the only 24 year old) and probably been abused himself very much believed his mother would kill him and his siblings.

we just dont know

a child who has been abused May not react the same way as you would expect a non abused 24 year old to react.

she was an abusive raging manipulative alcoholic