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?

Wow Lazy so now anyone who wants to see Hamzah's father punished for his lack of care is now an AH apologist?! And you say you dont have an agenda, not fucking much you dont!

I have never read such crap in my life.

As Random very eloquently explained, he is 100% responsible for his actions and his actions (or lack thereof) contributed to the death of his son. He did not take over the caring role when it became clear his wife couldnt or wouldnt. He stood back and allowed abuse and neglect to continue for years before he left, he did not take his children with him in order to protect them. No, he beat his wife and then fucked off.

She killed her son and for that I hope she rots in hell. But he didnt stop it and so imo he deserves to rot too.

he did do something about it,he approached social services and the police and was ignored.

he did do something about it,he approached social services and the police and was ignored.
No he didnt!!!

[head, desk]

He told the police she was abusive when he was arrested for assault against her. He was told to contact SS which he didnt do, he didnt do anything apart from that one time.

My only "agenda" is to point out the blindingly obvious facts in this case because you seem unable or unwilling to grasp them.

Your agenda OP seems to be to minimise AHs role and maximise her husband's, in the face of all the facts, and to rant at anyone who dares disagree with you.

I don't think it is minimising AH's role in the manslaughter of her child to have the opinion that the child's father had his part to play

it isn't either/or

Lazyjane what was Hamza's father's role then? In his life, and his death?

You know what, I think you really are chosing to misunderstand me.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT AH DID!

Got that?!

It is about the fact that, regardless of what AH did, HE DID NOTHING TO PREVENT HAMZAH'S DEATH AND AS A FATHER HE SHOULD HAVE DONE ALL HE COULD TO SAVE HIS CHILDREN FROM ABUSE.

Wanting him to be punished for what he did (or didnt) do does in no way lessen her actions, why cant you see that?!

Like I said upthread, some people really will do everything they can to excuse men their bad behaviour.

Sorry having a little LOL at lazyjaney

Maybe if I try...

The father lived for 3.5 years in the house with the boy that was starved such that he NEVER AT ANY POINT grew bigger than a 9 month old.

Does the father therefore bear responsibility for his son not being fed?

If two parents fail to feed a child appropriately for the first 3.5 years of his life why oh why oh why is only one of them guilty of neglect?

Bogeyface He gave a very small amount of testimony which related only to Amanda Hutton's guilt. Outside of that the only other thing we know is what came out in the defences cross examination which was expressley designed to discredit him.

If he had been charged with something he would be given the opportunity to give a full defence which may have absolved him. There are massive reporting restrictions involved in this case because of the surviving minors. We don't know any details about custody or access arrangements or lack of them as they would be banned from reporting to protect them.

Given that the Police and CPS would have access to the full information and would have a fairly good idea what his defence would be they have decided not to go ahead with any charges. Probably because people in full possession of the facts who know the entire story know there is little chance of making them stick.

Which makes me give him the benefit of the doubt. Because to be quite honest I'd rather trust the opinion of the fully informed authorities involved rather than a few armchair experts on Mumsnet who've read the reports in the Daily Mail and think that gives them the right to be Judge Judy and executioner.

Judge Judy and executioner

Please tell me thats a joke

I have read that he did contact social services.

He says he did but there is no record of his call. No evidence to prove he did.

sally you may have a point...except we know how biased the police/cps can be about gender roles. There are so many instances of domestic violence by women against men being essentially ignored or worse the man getting the blame...all because the police find it hard to accept that women can be violent.

There is certainly just as much bias around childcare responsibilities....and access agreements.

So I am afraid that I can't be very convinced that just because the police/cps haven't decided that a father has responsibility to feed his son if noone else is, that he doesn't in fact have that responsibility.

I think the facts are inescapable. Hamzah had a father living in the house with him for the majority of his life and was malnourished for all of his life. The father bears some responsibility for that.

IceBeing we don't know why the father doesn't bear any blame for that and probably never will. But the police and CPS will know.

It could be, for example, that the father fed him when he was home but had to go out to work and the mother didn't feed him during the day and hid that for as long as she could. She claimed that he wouldn't eat, maybe this is what she claimed to his father.

Maybe she claimed his size was due to illness and poor appetite.

I don't know, it could be any number of things.

But the fact remains that the people who do know decided that there were mitigating circumstances which precluded a charge against him.

And armchair experts can sit on here for as long as they want pontificating but they're simply not party to the evidence.

No desire to excuse what this mother did, but I'm starting to wonder if more & more of these long-term abuse cases are arising now because extended families & communities are breaking down.

Most people would assume I have a lot of extended family support, for example, but in reality my parents & siblings have basically told dh & I to fuck off.

Nobody has been an apologist for AH in this thread...please read properly if you think that.

The point that has been made about his father is entirely valid and reasoned, bogeyface has said it all very well. He is to blame as much as AH, he lived there and saw what went on and actively did nothing....why didn't he bathe and feed the child?

Pathetic excuse for a man and parent IMHO.

Why did the eldest son do nothing? head over to relationships and the 'stately homes thread'.

I had medical treatment withheld, I eventually spent a week in hospital, I didn't report it (the withholding of medical treatment) I didn't ask for SS involvement.

I was 17.

My brother was 19, he didn't report it.

Unless you have been brought up in an abusive household you probably can't understand it. In the same way as you wouldn't leave your child begging for medical treatment.

OK not making excuses / or saying this happened, just bringing to the attention of some people that in some families of Pakistani descent, the parents do not normally share a room.

I don't know if this was the case, it has not been mentioned and as Hutton had moved it obviously would not be the case when Hamzah died.

Why wasn't the 13 year old prosecuted? No one is asking that. I think there is probably a lot about this case that we will either never find out or will be under lock and key for a long time.

If it is locked away to protect the remaining children, but is available to professionals to improve procedures then I can live with that.

I agree with you SallyKitten.

We don't know many details of this case. From the outside its so easy to slate the Father and say he's just as much to blame. But as Sally says, the mother could have covered up all sorts of things, and told the father lie after lie. (About HV advice, Dr visits etc) we don't know and we probably never will.

I don't think she should have been sent down, let alone anyone else. 15 years is harsh. Of course the death of the child is horrific, but patently obviously she was in desperate need of help and was let down by various institutions.

The point that has been made about his father is entirely valid and reasoned, bogeyface has said it all very well. He is to blame as much as AH, he lived there and saw what went on and actively did nothing....why didn't he bathe and feed the child

I disagree the OP is "entirely valid and reasoned" as to why he is as much to blame, given we know that:

• he didn't kill the child
• he wasn't there when the child was killed
• he had a restraining order so wasn't in contact for a year before the child was killed.
• his warnings were ignored
• AH led everybody a deliberate dance of misinformation before and after the death.

And that is just what we do know, as others have pointed out above.

IMO though you need to have a very strong agenda to twist these facts into him being as guilty as her and then furthermore conclude he must "rot in hell".

"Zoe567"

"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."

If that is your perception then so be it.

But I am hoping that TheHeadlessLadyofCannock's post is supposed to be some sort of ironic statement.

Er, no, I'm not being ironic.

I'm not the only poster here voicing the opinion that Hutton was incompetent/ill/non-functional.

She wasn't judged unfit to stand trial though.

I'm sorry? The continued and sustained abuse of several children leading to the death of one of them doesn't deserve a custodian sentence? Is that a joke?
I agree that she clearly has many, severe issues and perhaps should be being detained under the mental health act in some way but really? Harsh?
That little boy has died in misery and there are several other children who's lives are damaged beyond belief because of her actions.

And yes, I also think the father should be held accountable. It is simply impossible to believe that he had no idea the risk those children were at. 'Not knowing' and ' not being there' and 'no one was listening' is just not good enough. If the world and his wife -schools, social workers, Doctors, police etc.etc. are going to be deemed culpable for this then why the hell should the boys own father be let off?