Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be concerned at this judge's comments?

56 replies

WifeofDarth · 09/10/2015 21:01

Just read report of a terrible case of a toddler drowning in pond while mother was in the house checking FB on her phone.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-34491753
Absolutely tragic.
But AIBU to think that the judge was being too harsh in saying that any future children she may have will be removed from her as she is a negligent and appalling parent?
Of course she shouldn't have allowed herself to get sidetracked by FB (especially with a pond in the garden). But isn't it almost impossible to survey all of your children 100% of the time? I think that no matter how hard we try sometimes accidents will happen because we are bound to slip up at one time or another.

Does this create a precedent for any parent who is unfortunate enough to lose a child through a one-off accident to be criminalised? How does that help anyone?
(am assuming btw that this was a first incident, and that the mother hadn't previously had reason to be warned about inattention)

OP posts:
flataboveashop · 09/10/2015 21:04

Gosh, that's very harsh, isn't it? She's been punished enough.

I'm quite sure it's not s mistake she'd repeat in future.

Poor boy, and my heart goes out to her as well, rightly or wrongly.

MsJamieFraser · 09/10/2015 21:06

NO, I am sorry I disagree, however this article isn't detailed enough to give an opinion, its very few and far in relation to case facts,

ilikebaking · 09/10/2015 21:07

Oh my god.

definiteissues · 09/10/2015 21:10

Anyone who says their child is supervised 100% of the time is full of crap. It could have happened to anyone.
I like to think I would never get distracted while my child is near a pond, but nobody is perfect, so it could happen.

I feel for her and the judges comment was outrageous

MsJamieFraser · 09/10/2015 21:10

sorry pressed send before finishing, where was the mother when he drowned, how long for "could have been short as" does not give answers, how was the dog... did she have to run around the garden to get his lead on... How long was she actually on facebook for, why was their not a safety fence around the pond? why was there not a safety gate from the property to the garden... why was she not with her child... etc...

far to many unanswered questions, instead of "bullet" point quotations...

Ihatechoosingnames · 09/10/2015 21:12

There's a lot more to the story regarding previous incidents. There's a little more detail here m.hulldailymail.co.uk/Mum-Claire-Barnett-jailed-death-son-Joshua-2-fell/story-27954035-detail/story.html

Farahilda · 09/10/2015 21:12

Here's the local newspaper reporting which is more detailed than the BBC.

She'd been reported for failing to prevent him playing in the road back in 2013, when Joshua can only have been an infant.

Isn't it possible to ascertain from computer forensics how long someone had consistently active on FB? Would that have featured in a trial?

Her inconsistent accounts probably didn't help her case either.

deriT · 09/10/2015 21:12

I also just started a post on this. It seems she was reported for letting both children play in the road at an extremely young age. But still, the comments are harsh IMO.

cashewnutty · 09/10/2015 21:14

There were 4 charges of neglect which suggests to me there was much more that has not been reported on. And a 5 year sentence is quite severe. I think there must be bits of the story they are restricting.

BlandandInsipid · 09/10/2015 21:17

It does seem really harsh unless there is something else going on. We've all left our children to play while we've answerd the door or cooked dinner or replied to a text message.

SaucyJack · 09/10/2015 21:20

People are not normally jailed for five years over household accidents.

I think it's safe to assume they know something you don't.

And I also think it's entirely possible to adequately supervise your child all the time. Most of us manage to do it every day:

MustBeLoopy390 · 09/10/2015 21:25

IMO the judge is spot on. If she let two young children play on a road unsupervised and allowed a 2 year old to play unsupervised near a pond she poses a risk to children. There are so many women out there who would do anything to be a parent and then you get people like her, who can't be arsed to look after their kids.

AuntieStella · 09/10/2015 21:27

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/mother-jailed-for-five-years-after-two-year-old-drowns-in-pond-1-7507362

Gives more detail about the size of the pond, her inaction on fencing it (despite warnings) and other reports of neglect made to NSPCC.

Damselindestress · 09/10/2015 21:28

I've read about other cases where a toddler has tragically drowned while their parents were distracted and the parents haven't been charged, so there is more to this story, including the history of neglect.

definiteissues · 09/10/2015 21:58

Reading the Yorkshire post article I take back half of my comment, judges comments were desetved.

But I still stand by the part where I said it is possible to supervise but get distracted or for an accident to happen.

My son nearly set our house on fire when he was 3. While I was cooking in the kitchen he was putting a plastic toy fork through a decorative hole thing on the fire in the living room. Later on I popped the fire on, put the fireguard back over and sat down. Within minutes smoke was pouring everywhere and the smell of burning plastic filled the room.

But I suppose I should have emptied the entire room of any toys, not dared to leave him while I cooked and hired a babysitter for whenever I need to pee ;)

goddessofsmallthings · 09/10/2015 22:03

5 years imprisonment on a guilty plea to 4 counts of child neglect suggests that the judge's comments were not out of place and the sentence he handed down was lenient.

barefootzenhippy · 09/10/2015 22:05

That's not the same thing at all definiteissues - you didn't leave him unsupervised while the fire was on did you?! Of course we all get distracted at times and sometimes we need to let our children entertain themselves while we get things done but the difference is that this happens in a safe well childproofed environment not in a road or next to an unfenced pond.

SaucyJack · 09/10/2015 22:07

No definite , I think you're missing the point.

Shit nearly goes wrong all the time- but as a normal, vigilant parent you were there to stop the house burning down.

The woman here was in a league of her own. I'm a skanky, near-neglectful parent sometimes, but I haven't drowned a child yet because when push comes to shove, I'm not actually that off the ball.

SilentlyScreamingAgain · 09/10/2015 23:25

I was pretty shocked at this misadventure verdict but maybe there was more to this story too?

www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/he-wouldnt-settle-so-i-had-to-take-him-in-my-hands-while-driving-inquest-31595840.html

Iliveinalighthousewiththeghost · 09/10/2015 23:58

I tend to agree putting her in prison is more than a bit harsh. Yes she was very foolish. No argument there, but no one, not even the judge could possibly hurt her anymore.

LoseLooseLucy · 10/10/2015 00:17

I agree with the comments. I'd hope she would think long and hard before having another child.

5 years seems reasonable to me.

ohtheholidays · 10/10/2015 00:22

Looking at the report it states that she has already had Social services involved after 2 of her other children were nearly run over whilst playing unsupervised.

I'm with the judge on this one,it doesn't sound like the children she already has are getting the parenting they deserve and that's all ready resulted in the tragic death of a very young child,I just think the judge never wants to have to reside over a case again where one of this womens children have lost they're life.

Spartans · 10/10/2015 07:21

It's quite obvious that this was not momentary lapse. Or a one off. That is the issue here. The sentence and the comments were appropriate. If she leaves prison and has more children, removing them should be considered.

Or should more children be left at risk, because losing a child is awful?

bakingaddict · 10/10/2015 07:46

Do you not think that the judge has more of the relevant facts of the case than you so better placed to comment

Senpai · 10/10/2015 08:34

I like to think I would never get distracted while my child is near a pond, but nobody is perfect, so it could happen.

Bull. The "it could happen to anyone" mentality makes it seem like it's unavoidable when it's not.

Anytime my toddler is near water she has my undivided attention. The phone is put down and I make sure she's properly supervised in case I need to quickly scoop her up out of the kiddie pool. She's never outside without me there. Yes, I've checked my phone while she's in the back yard playing but she's always in my peripheral (and there's not much she can hurt herself on).

Same goes for near the road. My child has darted towards the road and I have been right on her heals. In parking lots it's strict hand holding or I carry her.

This isn't like a party at a friend's house and her kid slipped out the door. This pond was on her own property and she didn't fill it in, build a fence, or keep a sharp eye on him knowing there was a drowning hazard.

This "losing a child is punishment enough" mentality is for people who actually care about their children enough to take reasonable precautions for them. Not idiots who let their toddler run outside with no supervision or hold their baby while driving.